Originally posted by cougan
I will agree that Heb 10:37 is speaking about 70AD. However, I disagree that Heb. 9:28 refers to 70AD. First off notice it say that Jesus will appear. We learn from this verse that it will be his second appearance and that this appearance will be just like the first one except this time it will be apart from sin. So it is easy to see that his second coming will be a literal coming.
Hi Cougan
In order to understand Heb. 9:28 you must grasp it from a Jewish Concepts. The Jewish rabbis have taunted Christians throughout church history saying Jesus can't be their Messiah, since the Messiah would accomplish redemption, and judgement, in one generation with no gaps, delays, parentheses of postponements. The full establishment of the Kingdom could not be delayed. (The Real Messiah. Reprinted from Jewish Youth, June 1973. page 15).
Before anyone in our day and time can assign verses in the New Testament about the Lord's return to our future, they must first prove that the (Old Testament Prophets ) clearly distinguished between two different coming of Christ.
Where does the OT prophets distinguish between "a coming in redemption" versus "a coming in judgment?" This king of language is not used by the Jewish prophets. (see Isa. 35:4-6, 40:10-11, 61:1-2, 62:11, 63:1-6, 66:6-16; Zech. 14; and Mal.4:1-6) A vital point, totally ignored, is that the Jewish prophecy never implied two comings divided by centuries.
The above language closely connects the coming of the Lord with both salvation and vengeance (judgment). Nowhere does the OT teach a "second coming" to fulfill the rest of the things he was unable to fulfill the first time. And Jesus ever distinguish between his first coming? (Matthew 26:62-64)
If Jesus failed to fulfill his word the first time he could not be the Messiah. Notice how the Jews were to judge a false prophet by his own words. Deuteronomy 18:18-22 NKJV I will raise up from them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him. But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.
And if you say in your heart, (How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?)-When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, (if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken) the prophet has spoken it presumptuously you shall not be afraid of him.
Reader this is not (our - the preterist opinion). This is inspired writ, i.e., God's opinion. If the thing the prophet speaks in God's name does NOT come to pass or happen (within the stated time frame) he was a false prophet and has not spoken for God. (Deut. 18:22)
Well Jesus said he only said what the Father told him to say (John 37:49) And notice Paul said Jesus was the Prophet who God said He would send and if the people did not hear Him they would be (utterly destroyed from among the people) Acts 3:22-23. According to Paul (those were the days) the prophets spoke about vs 24. What happened in AD 70? The people who would not hear the words of God's Prophet-Jesus were utterly destroyed from among the people at His return. These is no such distinction in Scripture between a (first coming of Christ and a second coming of Christ).
If Jesus failed to fulfill all His predictions the first time (the same generation) he could not be the Messiah. Notice how various will know Jewish writer express this. (Emphasis mine manif) The Jew refused to accept the excuse that the major prophecies concerning the Messiah will only be fulfilled in a "second coming." ( He expects the Messiah to complete his mission in his first attempt.) [The Real Messiah Reprinted from Jewish Youth, June 1973 page 15.]
Since Jesus did not fulfill the most important Messianic prophecies, they expected him to return to complete this task in a "second coming." At first, Christians expected that this (second coming) would come very shortly...in their lifetime. When their prayer was not an answered they began to hope that it would come a thousand years after Jesus' death. This was the millennium or thousand years kingdom. Finally after a thousand years passed and Jesus still had not returned, (they postponed his second coming to an indefinite time). We therefore see that the (early Christians were forced to radically alter the Jewish concept of the Messiah in order to explain Jesus failure). This compounded with the pagan influence in the (early church, gave birth to a Messianic concept totally alien to Judaism. [Pinchas Stolper, ed. pages 32, 33}
You will discover that when ever any really strong question [such as why Jesus hasn't fulfilled all Messianic prophecies]..is asked [of the Christians], the (standard answer is that it refers to the second coming). It therefore becomes extremely important to ascertain the validity of this claim. The success of the Christian claim or its failure ( rest to a very large extent on the theory of the second coming).It is clearly an answer born of desperation. [Samuel Levin. You Take Jesus, I will Take God. Los Angeles 1980. Page 15
Reader these Jews had the same concept as the Old Testament Jewish writers. (see Isa. 35:4-6, 40:10-11, 61:1-2, 62:11, 63:1-6, 66:6-16; Zech. 14; and Mal.4:1-6) The language used closely connects the coming of the Lord with both salvation and vengeance (judgment). Nowhere does the OT teach a "second coming" to fulfill the rest of the things he was unable to fulfill the first time.
In fact the only place in the NT which even comes close to teaching a (second advent) is Heb. 9:28 where it says Christ will (appear a second time). This was using the symbolism of the High Priest at Yom Kippur when he took the blood into the holy place and then reappeared back outside the Temple to announce that atonement had been accomplished (see Leviticus 9) Every early church understood this to be simply a reappearance during the same age..(see Hebrews 9:24-28)
The Jews never had the concept of a second coming, and since it was the Jews who first taught the notion of a Messiah via the Jewish prophets it seems quite reasonable to respect their inspired writting more then our traditions or anyone else's uninspired opinion today.
Was the (second advent) idea the original understand of the apostolic church, or was it just an invention of the mid-second century fathers? Notice what this writers says about this subject. (The thought of a postponement of the Parousia appears all through 2 Clement but here it is expressly mentioned for the first time. Thus about the middle of the second century a decisive turning point occurs one which can be compared in significance to all other great turning points, including the Reformation). Obviously we cannot fix this turning point precisely at the year 150 for it took a while until the thought caught hold every where.
(But a development does begin with the Shepherd of Hermas which could not be stopped a development at the end of which we stand today). As soon as the thought of a postponement of the Parousia was uttered once and indeed not only incidentally but thoroughly presented in an entire writing it developed its own life and power. At first people looked at it as only a brief postponement, as the Shepherd of Hermas clearly expressed. But soon as the end of the world did not occur it was conceived of as a longer and longer period until finally this is today's situation nothing but the thought of a postponement exists in people's consciousness. [Kurt Aland. A History of Christianity. (2 vols) Vol 1 page 87-102].
To anyone sensitive to the issue of inspiration of Scripture these words should drop like bombshells. How can we justify the second century brethren tampering with the clear words of Scripture like this? It would have been batter for them to change their physical-literal interpretative method then to put the NT writers (and Jesus) in the position of false prediction.
This is were the mistake was first made and it has affected Christianity ever since (as Kurt Aland has points out). His statement is just one of many which goes back in Christian history. Unfortunately it accursed before the creeds were developed, so this misunderstanding was incorporated into them.
When the remaining fulfillments associated with Christ's parousia did not occur in the physical literal way they had expected they assumed that Christ had not returned at all. So they began adjusting their concept of the TIME of fulfillment instead of considering the possibility that their concepts of the NATURE of fulfillment were the only things needing adjustment.
We must immerse ourselves in the understanding culture history religion and Jewish language of the Jews of Jesus day if we hope to go any further and deeper in our understanding of the Bible. Salvation is of the Jews. Christianity is not some totally new religion. It is the fulfillment of the promises made to the Jews (on behalf of the Gentiles as well. (Romans 15:8-9) It was directed (to the Jews first).
It is no longer dangerous to claim affinity with the OT Prophets and immerse ourselves in their Jewish understanding culture history religion so we could surgically remove the pagan influences and replace them with a much more Jewish (OT tyological) understanding which recognizes that Jesus is the very same God of the OT whom David said delivered him from his enemies while descending on clouds (Psa. 18:3-15). What a difference in our understanding this would make!