Is the second coming prophesied in the NT?

[Guest]

So, where do amillennialists see the second coming prophesied/revealed in the NT? Steve's mentioned Acts 1:11. Whese else would you guys see the second coming. For example, have a look at the following:

Matthew 24:29-31/Mark 13:24-27
Luke 17:22-36
Luke 21:25-28
1 Corinthians 15:51-56
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
2 Thessalonians 1:6-10
2 Thessalonians 2:1-2 and 8
Revelation 11:15-19
Revelation 19:11-21

In an amillennialist/partial preterist framework, would these passages be generally understood to be referring to the second coming? if not, maybe you could say what they are referring to? Again, I'm not seeking to debate, I just want to get my bearings concerning this eschatological system.

Thanks
Ely

[Guest]

Ely, here is something posted somewhere on the forum:
***********************************************************
As for concrete indicators of the near coming of Christ, the Bible doesn't give many. Most of the signs that are popularly applied to that topic (e.g., earthquakes, famines, pestilence, false christs, wars and rumors of wars) are not really applicable, and are found in passages related to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21).

The one thing the Bible does indicate is that Christ will come after certain developments have occurred within His body, the church.

One of these is the evangelization of the nations. Though Matthew 24:14 may or may not be talking about conditions that were met prior to 70 AD (cf. Col.1:6, 23), it reveals the same concern of God that is found in the Great Commission, namely, that all nations be evangelized and discipled (Matt.28:19-20/ Mark 16:15). God has waited 2000 years, so far, for us to get as far as we have gotten on this assignment, and since it is still moving forward, I doubt that He will abort the project before it is completed.

The other development that God seems to be waiting for is the maturity and the unity ofthe saints (Eph.4:13-16/Mark 4:29).

The first coming of Christ is likened, in scripture, to a sunrise (Isa.60:1-3/ Mal.4:2/ Luke 1:78 ), and so is the second coming (2 Pet.1:19/ Matt.24:27 [see the Greek for "lightning": "Astrape" means "bright shining," as in Luke 11:36 ]). Before the morning sun appears, the light in the eastern sky becomes gradually brighter. "The path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, that grows brighter and brighter until full day" (Prov.4:18 ).

The glory of the Lord will be revealed in us (Rom.8:18 ) as Christ is progressively formed in us (Gal.4:19). This process will be measured on the scale of our love for and unity with each other (Eph.4:13/1 Cor.1-3/ John 17:21-23). It seems that it will resemble the dawning of a new day, "the Day of the Lord," with His people more and more resembling Him, both corporately and individually, and the light of His countenance upon us becoming brighter (Psalm 4:6), until the Son Himself appears over the horizon to judge the world and to reward those who love His appearing.

Just so I am not misunderstood, I believe in an actual future day of the second coming of Christ, to raise and glorify the saints (John 5:28-29/ Phil.3:20-21) and to bring in the new heavens and the new earth (2 Pet.3:10-13). I do not necessarily anticipate the world getting better and better, as some do, though this may in fact happen. It is the change in God's own people that I think is predicted, and this change may occur in a hostile environment, and may even be augmented by persecution (2 Cor.4:16-18 ). So, even if the world gets worse and worse, and we are persecuted as never before, our light will shine in the faces of our persecutors, brighter and brighter until the Son Himself arises for all to see and his enemies wither like the grass on the rooftops in the blazing sun (James 1:11/Isa.37:27).

[Guest]

Thanks Allyn, though that's left me a bit confused. the two clear second coming references they mention are John 5:28-29 and Phil.3:20-21. Clear enough.

But Iwasn't clear as to wether Matthew 24 is considerd a second coming prophecy in amillennialism or not. Whoever, wrote the post seemed to be contradicting him/her self.

Also, the person mentioned two other passages:

2 Peter 2:19
"19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts" The second coming is here?

James 1:11
9 Let the lowly brother glory in his exaltation, 10 but the rich in his humiliation, because as a flower of the field he will pass away. 11 For no sooner has the sun risen with a burning heat than it withers the grass; its flower falls, and its beautiful appearance perishes. So the rich man also will fade away in his pursuits.

Are these supposed to be about the second coming? If so, how?

And what about the other passages I posted? Would they be typically considered second coming prophecies by amillennialists?

[Guest]

One of these is the evangelization of the nations. Though Matthew 24:14 may or may not be talking about conditions that were met prior to 70 AD (cf. Col.1:6, 23), it reveals the same concern of God that is found in the Great Commission, namely, that all nations be evangelized and discipled (Matt.28:19-20/ Mark 16:15). God has waited 2000 years, so far, for us to get as far as we have gotten on this assignment, and since it is still moving forward, I doubt that He will abort the project before it is completed.

Ely, wouldn't you say, after a second look, that this paragraph speaks for itself?

[Guest]

Allyn, forgive me if I'm being dense, but just before that passage the person (was it you?) wrote this:

As for concrete indicators of the near coming of Christ, the Bible doesn't give many. Most of the signs that are popularly applied to that topic (e.g., earthquakes, famines, pestilence, false christs, wars and rumors of wars) are not really applicable, and are found in passages related to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21).

Anyway, here's how an amill brother responded on another site:

Matthew 24:29-31/Mark 13:24-27---Fulfilled 70 AD/Destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple

Luke 17:22-36---Second coming compare with the passage I used Matt 24:36-51

Luke 21:25-28----Fulfilled 70 AD/Destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (redemption there is not the redemption of our souls or the body but from the persecution of the Jews and their system which was ceased to be.)

1 Corinthians 15:51-56---Second coming

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18---Second Coming

2 Thessalonians 1:6-10---Second coming

Revelation 11:15-19----Second Coming

Revelation 19:11-21---First and second coming

Could this be considered a typical amillennialist understanding?

[Guest]

I acquired and have been reading a small book by Edward E Stevens entitled "Expectations Demand A First Century Rapture". Mr. Stevens is a full preterist, claiming the 3 major events - the Parousia, the Resurrection, and the Judgement have already taken place at the time of AD70. Likewise, being a full preterist, he claims the rapture of the church has also ocurred. In reading this book I found it very troubling, at least I find his reasoning very troubling. Mr. Stevens basis his whole book on the idea that since there is only "silence in the period immediately after AD70 when we would have expected the early church to have been proclaiming the Parousia in a big way." Therefore because of lack of documentation, the only reasonable approach would have to be that the rapture had taken place and thus removed all the saints leaving no one to make much of the event.

I find this to be nonsense and found, as well, that Mr. Stevens' book was more a book of questions and not answers.

After reading this book, I was compelled to respond to his comments on Mat. 24:29-31, which to him is the most convincing evidence that all has taken place according to his understanding. I used the evidence Steve has given explaining the actual meaning of these three verses.

I need to add that I had previously been in contact with Mr. Stevens before reading his book, asking him specific question concerning his belief on the rapture. His reply to me was that he had a book out and suggested I first read his book and if the answers to my questions were not in the book then he would respond. I have yet to hear from him.

My question to you all is this; Are there early writings from the church just after the AD70 event which would prove that the Church has not been raptured by the fact that Christians were the ones doing the writings? Are there overlapping writings from individuals who were believers before the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and certainly were still around well after the event?

Mr. Stevens wrote in the conclusion of his book the following:

"Documentation was lacking because there was no one left behind who saw it or experienced it. This is the most historically reasonable explanation I have seen to account for the silence, ignorance, confusion and doctrinal deviancy of the post-AD70 Church. If there was not a rapture, there should have said something about it and provided clearer directions for the future." (Expectations Demand A First Century Rapture; page 149, paragraph 3)

[Guest]

Allyn,

I would think that if the second coming, rapture and judgment had occured things would be much diffrent. From what I see scripture says ALL will know when the Lord returns and if all those things have come and gone already someone outside of the church would of written of the events. Something that dramatic would of not gone unnoticed by those outside of the church.

Jim

[Guest]

yes, Jim this is exactly the reasoning the full preterist has and so they say that since there is a lack of documentation showing that Christians were around after the destruction of Jerusalem, (more specifically they say after 66AD) then it is well to assume, in their mind that along with this supposed fact, and by how they have interpreted the Bible has given evidence, then the rapture has happened.

My question is who do we have from those days who can contradict the rapture by the fact they were still around after 66AD?

I do not believe the Church was removed by a rapture. I believe they were warned to flee but that is all. But yet full preterists still come to a different conclusion.

[Guest]

Allyn,

I have also read some full pret. articles and such, and I came to the same conclusion you did: it raised more doubts and questions than it provided answers. But that in itself is not a big deal for me, as many biblical topics have done that until I've dug deeper.

One thing that does bother me about the questions full preterism raise is how to react to it. The more you read their stuff, the more you find that the implications of their teaching go far beyond just the resurrection of believers and the return of Christ. Without going into detail, they ultimately end up redefining other basic tenants such as justification, sanctificatioin, and others.

All that being said, I'm loathe to avoid fellowship with those that I disagree with, even if there is are strong tensions over doctrinal differences. And I've heard Steve say (hopefully I don't misreperesent him) that ultimately all that matters is how you view Christ. Yet I know of several churches who have started asking full preterists to leave their churches because of how far they depart from Orthodox doctrine and the divisions that have resulted. In fact, Pastor Gene Cook has stated that we may be witnessesing a birth of another denomination or even "cult," if full prets are turned away from the churches.

Sorry for the rant, but I'm wondering how you guys think we (as the Body) should respond?