Homer wrote:Doug wrote:
Interesting, but goes far beyond the prevalent ideas about John. But then the preterist must believe certain things, such as the pre-70Ad writing of Revelations, otherwise their system completely falls apart, whereas advocates of other systems don't much care so you would think they are unbiased.
What I do not understand is the idea that 70AD was the "2nd coming". Certainly we could agree that in a sense Jesus "came" in judgment in the form of the Roman army, just as God took credit for what the Babylonians did to Israel. But the preterist is choosy about what he takes literally, as we all are.
Acts 1:9-11 (NASB)
9. And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10. And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. 11. They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”
How does this possibly fit the AD70 scenario? Jesus had a physical body after his resurrection that could be touched and felt, that consumed food, and was seen ascending?
It seems to me that you have two questions in particular in this post. The first one is how the Second Coming can be exhausted by the events of the Roman war, and the second one is about Acts 1:11
To answer the first question, I think it's instructive to look at the terms actually used to describe what is impending. The phrase "Second Coming" is, like I said, made up generations later. But the phrase "Day of the Lord" (I'm assuming this is parallel to the concept of "the Day of Christ", etc.) is actually used in scripture, and as far as I know everyone agrees that it is parallel to the concept of the Second Coming. So, we'll start there. The first step is to find out what that phrase meant to the Apostles. We do this by looking at all of the uses in the Old Testament. I won't list them all here, but if you use eSword or something similar you can search on them quite easily. I suggest including a chapter before and after each reference in order to get the context. You'll find that every use of that phrase in the Old Testament, so the unambiguous precedent set for the Apostles, was that the Day of the Lord is a military invasion to punish a nation. That military is used as a tool of God to do his bidding. There are no scriptural grounds to take that term any other way. There is no reason to think that the Apostles did so. The fact that the Romans served an identical type of function to the exact audience that Christ was threatening is very powerful in my opinion. It's also important to realize that the concept of "coming in clouds" is directly associated with a Day of the Lord invasion of a military meant to be used as a tool of God in punishment. Jeremiah serves as the Old Testament precedent for this phrase,
Jeremiah 4:11-14 (NKJV)
11 At that time it will be said To this people and to Jerusalem, "A dry wind of the desolate heights blows in the wilderness Toward the daughter of My people-- Not to fan or to cleanse--
12 A wind too strong for these will come for Me; Now I will also speak judgment against them."
13
"Behold, he shall come up like clouds, And his chariots like a whirlwind. His horses are swifter than eagles. Woe to us, for we are plundered!"
14 O Jerusalem, wash your heart from wickedness, That you may be saved. How long shall your evil thoughts lodge within you?
This can be seen as the military itself being the clouds, or that there is a cloud of dust raised by the chariots. Either way, coming and clouds is associated with a military onslaught, regardless of what our fantasy definitions has set as a baseline. So, my question back is what portion of Second Coming predictions, exactly, wasn't fulfilled by the Roman invasion?
A connected topic is your second question about Acts 1:11. To start with, I'll try to break down for you how I see the elements of the verse,
Acts 1:11 (NKJV)
11 who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven."
"He will come in like manner"
What does that mean? The short answer is I'm not sure. The position you are taking (and many others such as John MacArthur do as well) is that it's an obvious reference to the ontology of Christ's individuality. In other words, like manner is in a like body. But, the verse doesn't actually say that. The manner he left in wasn't his body, it was going up in a cloud. If he returned in a cloud then we'd be right back to Jeremiah as a precedent from the point of view of the Apostles. But, maybe we are talking more about the situation. Does that mean that he'll come back to a crowd that is waiting for him? Or that he'll come back to that mountain, specifically? Or does he walk in from some other location?
Isaiah 63:1-3 (NKJV)
1 Who is this who comes from Edom, With dyed garments from Bozrah, This One who is glorious in His apparel, Traveling in the greatness of His strength?-- "I who speak in righteousness, mighty to save."
2 Why is Your apparel red, And Your garments like one who treads in the winepress?
3 "I have trodden the winepress alone, And from the peoples no one was with Me. For I have trodden them in My anger, And trampled them in My fury; Their blood is sprinkled upon My garments, And I have stained all My robes.
Why is Acts 1:11 more authoritative than Isaiah 63:1?
My first conclusion about Acts 1:11 is that it's a somewhat mysterious passage, as are all of the passages that talk about the imagery of the Second Coming (almost all of which are told from the context of a dream or a vision, which should make everyone pause about their assumptions of the meaning of the imagery). I would therefore subordinate them to the clearer passages where Christ and the Apostles make concrete time predictions.
But, there is one other factor to consider about Acts 1:11. "Come" in that passage is simply erchomai, which can be mean either "come" or "arrive". There is no linguistic hint in Acts 1:11 as to the destination, however. All it has to say is that he will arrive the same way he left. Where do we think Christ went when he ascended? I think we'll all say heaven. What did he do when he got there? I think we'd all say that he sat down at the right hand of the father to reign until his enemies are made his footstool. Is that event described anywhere in scripture? I'd argue yes,
Daniel 7:13-14 (NKJV)
13 "I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him.
14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed.
How did Christ arrive in heaven? On a cloud. Does Acts 1:11 have to claim anything more that this? No. If the angels had been more verbose and said, "I don't know what you're looking at, he's going to arrive on the same cloud he left on", that would not only be within the bounds of the verse itself, but would fit tightly with what the Apostles knew was a promised destiny for the Messiah. I think it's important evidence of this understanding on their part that Peter, immediately after this event, emphasizes that Christ did in fact arrive in heaven and was in fact seated at the right hand of the Father.
You may not accept that interpretation of Acts 1:11. Maybe I'm wrong and it is talking about coming in the clouds (then defined by Jeremiah) or some other element of verse 11 that we're not considering. There is nothing in the text to indicate that the angels are talking about his body. They are talking specifically about the mechanism of his moving around. So, maybe we should leave the answer of Acts 1:11 as a bit of mystery and focus on the unambiguous passages instead.
Doug