The second coming of Jesus and the resurrection of the dead

[Dave_Regenerated]

When you get elected sheriff of the forum then you can tell others how to post.

All who do so achieve consensus - not just with each other but with God's word.

Psalm 133:1
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is For brothers to live together in unity!


And that is important because you and I might agree on something but if our agreement does not reconcile with scripture our agreement is worthless.

No, because "the end times scenarios" are not the specified subject of this op. All here know I am always reluctant to digress and on occasions where that occurs my involvement is short-lived, for I will endeavor to explain how real or perceived digressions are op-relevant and no longer enjoin when they get far afield of an op and willful refusal to rejoin an op is demonstrated.

What I have done and will continue to do is post to the specifics of this op.

Already done.

And you're being a jerk. You can either respond to what I posted or not, but nonsense like "Fat chance of that happening" has no place in the thread. If you do not believe I (or anyone else) can explain the op-relevant end times scenarios perfectly then why post the op?

I,
Dave_Regenerated,
am going to post a statement
about the rapture,
the second coming of Jesus,
and the resurrection of the dead
and then ask a question about that statement,
that I believe only those who share my view can answer.​

Is that what you intended? If so, then please be forthcoming and confess that so we know your intent. If that was your intent, then I will gladly post an alternative view and move on without taking up the matter with you at all. If, however, that question in the op is asked sincerely of all with a genuine interest in the more historical and orthodox views held in in Christendom then prove it.

No, it is not correct.

The correct answer begins with an understanding there isn't an actual phrase "the second coming" found anywhere in the Bible, and it continues through a variety of concepts proving the summary statement in the op incorrect. For example, the only place any eschatology holds a physical reign of Jesus here on earth occurs is in the Premillennial view of Revelation 20 and the gathering and judgment occur after the tribulation (Mt. 24:31), after the millennium (Rev. 20:7-15). Note that in Mark's report those gathered are also gather from the ends of heaven, not just the earth (Mk. 13:27). These are what the verses cited actually, literally, explicitly state without one bit of interpretation added. Just look them up, believe them and accept them exactly as written. The correct understanding of the second coming understands there is a difference between the last days and the last day.

You called me a jerk. Is it one rule for you and not for others?

Nobody is bound to reply to others in such a way that it is not possible to mention anything that isn't strictly in line with the OP. That's just an imaginary rule you made up. I think so long as a subject is not altogether different from an OP it isn't a problem.

As for your insistence that the phrase "the second coming" isn't in the Bible, I dealt with that already. You should accept it and move on but don't keep on about it.

Your writing in bold, which is a caricature of me, is false.

Now please give your interpretation.

 

[Josheb]

I am not "spiritualizing" the salvation in Hebrews 9:27-28.

Yes, you are. Heb. 9:28 was made to be about the resurrection. Not only is that directly and overtly about the spirit (1 Cor. 15:44), it is also directly and overtly a salvation having to do with sin because there is not resurrection in Christ apart from his having saved the resurrected from sin. Your own words,

"in reference to glorification in the final step of the saints' salvation inheritance"​

contradict themselves. It is impossible to say the resurrection is the Heb. 9:28 salvation apart from sin, while also arguing it is the inheritance of salvation from sin!

You are spiritualizing the text.




Jesus comes a second time. He comes a second time for a salvation apart from sin. He'd already come once to save sinners from sin, to undo the works of the devil, provide a perfect sacrifice, defeat death, provide a means of having our consciences cleansed from dead works, establish a new covenant, and a host of other objectives stated in scripture.

Hebrews 9:26
....now once, at the consummation of the age, he has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

The end of the age had come. Jesus had come once to atone for sin and he was going to come again for a salvation that had nothing to do with sin. The New Testament writers expected that coming to occur in their lifetime. They were not wrong.

Hebrews 9:28
...so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

The New Testament author of Hebrews and his readers were the ones eagerly awaiting Jesus. The end of the age had come and they eagerly awaited his coming for a salvation apart from sin. Everyone dies.

Hebrews 9:27
And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,

No one has to wait for that. Its coming is inevitable. Before they died, they were looking forward to and awaiting a salvation apart from sin. When you make that about the resurrection from the grave in which a person is raised incorruptible in a spiritual body that is intrinsically and inextricably a spiritualized rendering of the text that explicitly states the salvation has nothing to do with sin.




And that is the only place in scripture where the words "second," and "come" co-occur. This is important because some eschatological views read books like Zechariah, Matthew and Revelation to say Jesus is physically coming to earth for one thing or another and again and again when the text of scripture itself never actually, explicitly directly states any such thing. The book of Revelation has Jesus coming to earth once, and that coming is at the very end of the book, long after the 1000 years of chapter 20. There are, therefore, only two options, 1) either Revelation 20 and 21 are the describing the exact same co-occurring event or 2) Revelation 20 and 21 are sequential and ALL premillennialisms are wrong.

 

[Josheb]

I never claimed they were identical! In fact I have stated that no two coming of the Lord passages are identical. I said they harmonize which is far different than being identical. If you disagree show which two are .

Now explain how Jesus's feet can stand on the Mount Olives and He is not physically on earth?

That is completely disingenuous. This all started because I have pointed out a very important and objectively verifiable fact of Revelation: there isn't a single place in chapter 19 or 20 where Jesus is ever explicitly stated to physically come to earth. The larger fact of Revelation is that the only place it does explicitly report Jesus coming to earth is in chapter 21. Your response to that was an appeal to Zechariah 14.

So for you to now claim you were not arguing Zechariah 14:4 and Revelation 19:14 are not identical events is demonstrably refutable. Post 74 states,

The above passage mentions Jesus physically on earth, also referred to in passages below:

Jude 14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

Revelation 19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

And now it is claimed,

I never claimed they were identical!

If they are not identical then we are back to the original premise and its inquiry:

Can we agree there is no specific, explicit mention of Jesus physically on the earth in Revelation 19 or 20?

And the answer should be, "Yes!" "Yes, we can agree Revelation 19 and 20 do not explicitly report Jesus physically on the earth." And you've wasted four days and six pages of posts when an immediate, unequivocal affirmation of the facts of Revelation would have moved the conversation forward collaboratively. So I am going to put the question to you again and give you the opportunity to find agreement with scripture, post it, and build consensus.


Can we agree there is no specific, explicit mention of Jesus physically on the earth in Revelation 19 or 20?


.

 

[Josheb]

Let's try this again.....


Can we all agree with scripture, build some consensus, and away clear some of the eschatological doctrinal biases out of the way by acknowledging the following?

• Can we first establish the fact there is no specific mention of "The Second Coming" in the Bible?
• Can we then agree the idea of "The Second Coming" is a phrase used for what most people consider another coming that is of profound significance but not limited to binding Jesus to never ever "coming" again?
• Can we agree that the closest verse to stating anything remotely close to "The Second Coming" is Hebrews 9:28?
• Can we agree the "second coming" of Christ in Hebrews 9:28 explicitly states it is for a salvation apart from sin?
• Can we agree the next closest place any specific reference to anything remotely called "The Second Coming" is Acts 1:11?
• Can we agree many eschatological views of the second coming are overtly couched in the existence of sin and a need for salvation from that sin so that either Hebrews 9:28 is being misused or their view of The Second Coming is in error (because it is inherently and inextricably tied to a salvation from sin)?
• Can we agree that verse does not state "second coming"? Can we also agree there is no mention of a specified "second coming" anywhere else in the chapter?
• Can we agree there is no explicit mention of Jesus physically on the earth in any of the "rapture" verses commonly used in pre-tribulational rapture views?
• Can we agree there is no specific, explicit mention of Jesus physically on the earth in Revelation 19 or 20?

Thank you for your patience and your timely, direct, and succinct answers .

 

[Eleanor]

That "end of the ages" already came and went, back in the first century. As in Hebrews 9:26. "But NOW once in the end of the ages hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Christ was crucified back then, "in the end of the ages".

The end of the ages is the last age, which is the church age, which is not ended.

Also in 1 Corinthians 10:11. "Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come." That was a first century audience upon whom the ends of the ages had already arrived.

So, the "completion of the age" in Matthew 24:3 took place back then in the first-century. Other ages were coming (as Paul also testified) after that first-century coming of Christ at the end of that age.

None of this is proving that there was only one resurrection and coming return of Christ.

Nope. . .the end of the ages is the last age, which is the church age, and it is not complete.

 

[Josheb]

The end of the ages is the last age,

Got scripture for that?

which is the church age,

Got scripture for that?

which is not ended.

Got scripture for that?

Nope. . .the end of the ages is the last age,

Got scripture for that?

which is the church age, and it is not complete.

Got scripture for that?


I cannot find the phrase "church age" in my Bible at all. What I can find is scripture explicitly stating the completion and ends of the ages had fallen upon the first century saints.

 

[Eleanor]

Got scripture for that?

Got scripture for that?

Got scripture for that?

Got scripture for that?

Got scripture for that?

Definition of "end."

I cannot find the phrase "church age" in my Bible at all. What I can find is scripture explicitly stating the completion and ends of the ages had fallen upon the first century saints.

I can't find the word "Trinity" or the word "sovereign" in my Bible.

Doesn't mean they aren't there.

 

[Josheb]

Definition of "end."

I can't find the word "Trinity" or the word "sovereign" in my Bible.

False equivalence red herring. You were asked if you have scripture for what was posted and have completely ignored the questions, their answers, and the scriptures in favor of this non sequitur and moving the conversation forward.

Bad form.

Doesn't mean they aren't there.

Great. Got scripture? Have you got scripture for any of the statements made in the prior post? If so, then please post them. If not, them simply say, "No."

 

[Josheb]

You called me a jerk. Is it one rule for you and not for others?

On any occasion when you find my posts doing what you di then you may call me a jerk and I will completely understand, not dispute the matter, and change my posts accordingly - exactly as you should not be doing because tu quoque is a fallacious response.

Nobody is bound to reply to others....

Silence would have been better than what was posted.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The end of the ages is the last age, which is the church age, which is not ended.

Remember, I said above in comment #98 that Paul wrote about plural ages that were to come after the age in which Paul was sitting. As in Ephesians 2:7 which speaks of the saints then sitting in heavenly places in Christ, "That in the ages (plural) to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus." This is plural ages in which the church would experience the riches of God's grace - not just one "church age".

Again, in Ephesians 3:21, Paul wrote concerning multiple ages that the church would occupy. "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout ALL ages, world without end. Amen." This is at least three ages which Paul refers to. If it was only two, Paul would have written "Both ages". But the words "ALL ages" speak of at least three ages in which the church would be actively involved in giving God glory through Christ Jesus. And all of these multiple ages would follow the "ends of the ages" in which Paul was then sitting.

 

[Josheb]

As for your insistence that the phrase "the second coming" isn't in the Bible, I dealt with that already.

I disagree. Nothing was "dealt with."

• If you agree with scripture and say, "The phrase does not exist in scripture," then you also agree with me, and we can discuss how it is this op asserts the view it does.
• If you agree with scripture and say, "The closest explicit scripture anyone can find for a second coming" any Christian can find is Hebrews 9:28" then you also agree with me, and we can discuss how it is this op asserts a view different than Hebrews 9:28.
• If you agree with scripture and say, "Acts 1:11 is another place where Jesus is reported to come back," then you agree with me and we can discuss how it is the op posts the view it does.
• If you agree with scripture and say, "Yes, Revelation 19 and 20 do not explicitly state Jesus is physically on earth anywhere then you agree with me and we can discuss how it is the op asserts the view posted therein.
• The above holds true for all the other points I made in Post 7.
• If you agree with the facts of Christian history and say, "The view posted in the opening post is much different than the views held by all others," then you agree with me, and we can discuss how it is the op posts that outlying point of view.

So, no, the fact the phrase "The Second Coming" was not "dealt with"...... but it has been four days and 6 pages of posts so the opportunity to do so has availed itself. A contentious acknowledgment of the phrase's absence is not "dealt with."

You should accept it and move on

No, I do not accept things with which I do not agree.

but don't keep on about it.

ROTFLOMBO!

Says the guy who could have provided immediate, direct, forthcoming answers to the questions of Post 7 but freely chose to do otherwise and now......

I don't have the patience to go through all that and respond point by point. It would be pointless anyway because I don't think Biblical eschatology makes much sense in any literal way.

and now, multiple pages later, hasn't moved the discussion forward one bit.

With anyone!!!

!

Now please give your interpretation.

Already have.

Everyone here is having a better discussion of the op than you - and it's your op! Read what was posted, accept it, address it, and further the op-relevant discussion.

I'm waiting on you. We all are.

 

[Mr GLee]

That "end of the ages" already came and went, back in the first century. As in Hebrews 9:26. "But NOW once in the end of the ages hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Christ was crucified back then, "in the end of the ages"

The end of the ages is the end of the world. The world is made up of ages.

Age. . ."having to do with, having the nature of, being, made of, caused by,

First century the beginning of the last days leading to the end of the world . . . .the last day

 

[Josheb]

Now please give your interpretation.

The phrase "The Second Coming" is nowhere found in scripture. Is Jesus coming again? Yes. He has come many times in many ways for many purposes, some of which are recorded in the New Testament after his ascension (as I described in previous posts). The specific phrase "The Second Coming" is an extra-scriptural phrase coined to qualify extra-biblical views of the end times. It is not a phrase the Bible uses and every Christian should agree with the sentences just posted.

Those who do not agree make themselves suspect.

The oldest end-times view formalized in Christian history is that of Historic Premillennialism. I use the word "formalized" because the views of Historicism, Amillennialism, and Postmillennialism can all be traced through various writings of the ECFs to scripture. This is different with Dispensationalism, and the viewpoint posted in the OP is representative of Dispensational Premillennialism, not Historic Premillennialism. Dispensational Premillennialism is less than 200 years old. It is, comparatively, a relative newcomer to the field of eschatological points of view. It is also the doctrine found to disagree most with the plain reading of scripture AND the older, more orthodox, historic, and mainstream views. These are the facts of history and, again, every Christian should agree with the sentences posted in this paragraph.

Those who do not agree make themselves suspect.

Does something being new automatically or inherently mean it is incorrect? NO! But its newness should be openly acknowledged by its adherents.

All the other eschatologies hold the rapture and the second coming co-occur at a time when God concludes the current human history and transforms all creation. The except being Historic Premillennialism's belief in a literal 1000-year reign. The Historicists completely disagree with the Dispensationalists regarding the placement of the rapture. The Historicists completely agree with everyone else. The viewpoint posted in the op is both the normative, doctrinal, and statistical outlier.

Jesus' second coming is supposed to occur at a rapture of dead people coming out of graves along with alive people who both fly into the sky to meet Jesus on a cloud, which then turns into a commencement of 1000 years of Jesus being a king in the temple in Jerusalem.

If that is not a correct interpretation or it isn't true then what is it?

No, it is not the correct interpretation.

As was posted in Post 93: The correct answer begins with an understanding there isn't an actual phrase "the second coming" found anywhere in the Bible, and it continues through a variety of concepts proving the summary statement in the op incorrect. For example, the only place any eschatology holds a physical reign of Jesus here on earth occurs is in the Premillennial view of Revelation 20 and the gathering and judgment occur after the tribulation (Mt. 24:31), after the millennium (Rev. 20:7-15). Note that in Mark's report those gathered are also gather from the ends of heaven, not just the earth (Mk. 13:27). These are what the verses cited actually, literally, explicitly state without one bit of interpretation added. Just look them up, believe them and accept them exactly as written. The correct understanding of the second coming understands there is a difference between the last days and the last day.

And here I will add: The correct interpretation begins with an agreement with every single one of the bullet points in Post 7. The correct interpretation does not (re-)interpret the plain literal statements in New Testament prophecy, and it does not prioritize the OT prophecies over the NT prophecies. The correct understanding begins with acknowledging the fact the book of Revelation does not explicitly state Jesus comes to earth until chapter 21 - nowhere is he stated to physically come to earth in the entire book of Revelation until that chapter. That leaves only two options: 1) either chapters 20 and 21 are describing one event or 2) the two chapters are sequentially chronological and both Premillennial views are wrong.

Most of that was posted posts ago.

Now please give your interpretation.

Already done. Waiting on you.

 

[Eleanor]

False equivalence

Only by assuming what is to be proven: that the church age is not in the Bible.

I cannot find the phrase "church age" in my Bible

sounds a whole lot like

I cannot find the word "Trinity" or the word "sovereign" in my Bible.

No false equivalence.

STRIKE ONE!

You were asked if you have scripture for what was posted

And also told that you could not find the phrase "church age" in the Bible.

and have completely ignored the questions, their answers, and the scriptures in favor of this non sequitur and moving the conversation forward.

Bad form.

Bad form is assuming that what it is not explicitly stated in the Bible, as in "Trinity" and "sovereignty," are not in the Bible.

STRIKE TWO!

Great. Got scripture? Have you got scripture for any of the statements made in the prior post? If so, then please post them. If not, them simply say, "No."

The church age is from the beginning of the NT to the end of time.

Jesus locates the resurrection in the last day (Jn 6:39),
Paul locates the resurrection with the rapture (1 Th 4:16).
Jesus locates the rapture with the second coming (Mt 24:39-41).
Jesus locates the second coming with the judgment of the sheep and goats at the end of time (Mt 25:31-33).

NT apostolic teaching presents only one resurrection of mankind, one rapture, one second coming and one judgment of the sheep and goats (noting that more than one "second coming" is not a second coming, but third, fourth, fifth, etc. comings).

STRIKE THREE!

 

[Eleanor]

Remember, I said above in comment #98 that Paul wrote about plural ages that were to come after the age in which Paul was sitting. As in Ephesians 2:7 which speaks of the saints then sitting in heavenly places in Christ, "That in the ages (plural) to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus." This is plural ages in which the church would experience the riches of God's grace - not just one "church age".A

The "end of the ages" in Heb 9:26 refers to time, where the church age is the last age.
The "ages to come" in Eph 2:7, spoken by Paul at the beginning of the church age, refers to the entire church age ahead in time, as well as to the eternal age after the resurrection.

Again, in Ephesians 3:21, Paul wrote concerning multiple ages that the church would occupy. "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout ALL ages, world without end. Amen."

Eph 3:21 uses the word geneas (generations), not aions (ages).
There are many generations in the church age.

This is at least three ages which Paul refers to.

Heb 9:26 refers to the church age.
Eph 2:7 includes the eternal age after the resurrection.
Eph 3:21 refers to the church age again.

Actually, that is only two ages, the church age and the eternal age after the resurrection.

If it was only two, Paul would have written "Both ages".

And you know the mind of Paul on this, how?

But the words "ALL ages" speak of at least three ages in which the church would be actively involved in giving God glory through Christ Jesus. And all of these multiple ages would follow the "ends of the ages" in which Paul was then sitting.

Actually, they do not in the examples you have presented, as I have demonstrated.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Eleanor, you are failing to deal with the other comment I gave where the "ends of the ages" had already come upon those in the first century. Did you consider these at all? If the "end of the ages" and the "ends of the ages" referred to first-century times, then these cannot be speaking of the culmination point of fallen mankind's history in our future.

These verses were Hebrews 9:26 and 1 Corinthians 10:11, as mentioned in comment # 98.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Yes, you are. Heb. 9:28 was made to be about the resurrection. Not only is that directly and overtly about the spirit (1 Cor. 15:44), it is also directly and overtly a salvation having to do with sin because there is not resurrection in Christ apart from his having saved the resurrected from sin. Your own words,

"in reference to glorification in the final step of the saints' salvation inheritance"
contradict themselves. It is impossible to say the resurrection is the Heb. 9:28 salvation apart from sin, while also arguing it is the inheritance of salvation from sin!

I agree this Hebrews 9:28 verse is about the resurrection. But it is specifically the resurrection of the physical body at Christ's appearing. That is called "glorification" in scripture. And it does take the power of the Spirit to accomplish that bodily resurrection (Romans 8:11), just as it takes the power of the Spirit to accomplish the resurrection of the soul in the new birth.

At that new birth, we are given the indwelling Holy Spirit in this life as a pledge or "earnest of the Spirit" (2 Cor. 1:22 and Eph, 1:14) until the "redemption of the purchased possession" of our physical bodies is accomplished in a resurrection process. This is called our "inheritance" which is sealed to each one of us until we are completely redeemed - spirit, soul and body. Salvation is more than just salvation from sin. It is also salvation from the effects of death on the physical body as well. Soul and body of all the elect were both bought by Christ, and He will redeem His purchased possession. He has already accomplished this twice before in two separate bodily resurrection events, and He will do it again for us in the future at His final return.

Hebrews 9:28 is an echo of Isaiah 25:8-9, which spoke of this last aspect of the salvation process when "death is swallowed up in victory". "And it shall be said in that day, Lo this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the Lord; we have waited for Him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation." This is already the spiritually-redeemed elect who are waiting in the grave for the redemption of their physical bodies in the final step of their salvation inheritance. It has already been fulfilled twice before, and will be again. Hebrews 9:28 was speaking of that second time of Christ appearing to resurrect His saints who were eagerly anticipating that final step of their salvation inheritance.

The "spiritual body" is not composed of nothing but a spirit, any more than a gasoline engine is made of nothing but gasoline. A "spiritual body" is a tangible body form animated by the Holy Spirit and rendered incorruptible and immortal.

I believe we are probably both on the same page about a lot of this, but are maybe misinterpreting each other's language.

 

[Josheb]

I agree this Hebrews 9:28 verse is about the resurrection.

I do not.

Hebrews 9:28 is an echo of Isaiah 25:8-9

No, it is not.

Hebrews 9:26-28
Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

Isaiah 25:8-9
He will swallow up death for all time, And the Lord GOD will wipe tears away from all faces, And He will remove the reproach of His people from all the earth; For the LORD has spoken. And it will be said in that day, "Behold, this is our God for whom we have waited that He might save us. This is the LORD for whom we have waited; Let us rejoice and be glad in His salvation."

There are about a dozen verses in scripture where the words waiting and saved/salvation are used and they all, one way or another, reference salvation from sin (all but two in the OT), so it is, therefore, understandable we'd think Hebrews 9:28 is taken from Isaiah or some other text but for the fact the Hebrews 9 text explicitly states the pending salvation is a salvation apart from sin. The resurrection is a salvation directly related to sin.

Do a search of "raise," "raised" "resurrection" in the NT. I'd do that here but there are about 140 such verses. Every single one of them talk about the resurrection of the dead, and death came by sin (Romans 5:12ff). Nowhere in Hebrews 9 are the words "resurrection" or "glorification" anywhere to be found. The only mention of glory in that entire chapter is that of the cherubim overshadowing the mercy seat. Resurrection is spoken of only twice in the book of Hebrews (6:2 and 11:19,35), and those are both specifically about resurrection from the dead caused by sin. Similarly, there are about ten verses in Hebrews that speak of salvation and all but two of them are specifically about salvation from sin and/or death except two: Heb. 9:28 and Heb. 11:7. The Hebrews 9 mention explicitly states it is a salvation apart from sin and the Hebrews 11 text is about Noah being saved from the flood, a temporal condition that did not provide him salvation from sin.

Anyone surviving the coming judgment and destruction in the first century still needed salvation from sin and death. Those in Christ already possessed that salvation. What they did not yet possess was the salvation from radicalized and extremist zealots and the very efficient Roman legions, but God had promised salvation from that.

which spoke of this last aspect of the salvation process when "death is swallowed up in victory".

That is 1 Corinthians 15, not Hebrews 9:28.

The "spiritual body" is not composed of nothing but a spirit...

I never said it was. I simply pointed out scripture, not my personal opinion, explicitly states the resurrection is one of transformation into a spiritual body and that makes your interpretation of Hebrews 9:28 spiritualized. Stop spiritualizing the verse! Just read it as written and understand there are two forms of salvation found throughout scripture: salvation from temporal events (like the flood) and salvation from sin and death. The former foreshadows and symbolizes the second but the former s often not soteriological (or eschatological). Noah and his family still needed salvation in Christ. Any Jewish remnant surviving enslavement in Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, or any temporal battle still needed salvation from sin. They were often promised salvation from those travails, but it had nothing directly to do with their salvation from sin.

I believe we are probably both on the same page about a lot of this, but are maybe misinterpreting each other's language.

If my posts are read to say Hebrews 9:28 is a reference to the resurrection from the grave than we're not in agreement. I believe Hebrews 9:28 is a reference to the Christians surviving the destruction of Jerusalem.

Matthew 24:22
Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.

Just as it was in the days of Noah when the flood took away the many and destroyed all flesh on the earth except for eight people, so too the pending destruction Jesus was predicting would have killed everyone had God not cut it short for the sake of the elect. If we read that to say the elect get killed but they get resurrected all kinds of problems ensue. Christians would go through the great tribulation, survive, and continue to live in a covenant relationship with God. Whether surviving or not they are already saved from sin and death and all of them will be resurrected to eternal life.

Revelation 7:13-17
Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?" I said to him, "My lord, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. For this reason, they are before the throne of God; and they serve Him day and night in His temple; and He who sits on the throne will spread His tabernacle over them. They will hunger no longer, nor thirst anymore; nor will the sun beat down on them, nor any heat; for the Lamb in the center of the throne will be their shepherd and will guide them to springs of the water of life; and God will wipe every tear from their eyes."

They come out of the great tribulation.




Hebrews 9:28 and Isaiah 25:8-9 do not say the same thing. Jesus was going to come a second time for a salvation that had nothing to do with sin. The pending destruction of Jerusalem was done in obedience to the Law requiring an infested house to be destroyed (Leviticus 14; Matthew 21-23), but those saved from that destruction had already been saved from sin and death. Theirs was a salvation apart from sin.

Hebrews 11:7
By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

 

[Josheb]

Only by assuming what is to be proven: that the church age is not in the Bible.

Incorrect. I did not make such an assumption, and you are digressing further and not answering the question asked. Have you got scripture for the claimsmade?

And also told that you could not find the phrase "church age" in the Bible.

Great.

Two more questions:

1. How then did you arrive at that premise? (the premise of something called a "church age")
2. What do you make of basing your beliefs about the second coming on an extra-biblical doctrine that causes you to become defensive when asked to evidence it?

.

The church age is from the beginning of the NT to the end of time.

Prove it.

Jesus locates the resurrection in the last day (Jn 6:39),

He did.

Paul locates the resurrection with the rapture (1 Th 4:16).

No, some people read Paul to locate the two at the same time, but many do not and that is why this op was written. You and I may agree, but the op does not.

Jesus locates the rapture with the second coming (Mt 24:39-41).
Jesus locates the second coming with the judgment of the sheep and goats at the end of time (Mt 25:31-33).

NT apostolic teaching presents only one resurrection of mankind, one rapture, one second coming and one judgment of the sheep and goats (noting that more than one "second coming" is not a second coming, but third, fourth, fifth, etc. comings).

What does that have to do with the "church age"? None of that proves the church age is the last age or that the ends of the ages is the last age.

Luke 18:29-30
And He said to them, "Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive many times as much at this time and in the age to come, eternal life."

Ephesians 2:4-7
But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

There is/was at least one more age to come, and if the church age existed in the NT era or a lengthier post-Calvary/post-NT era then the church age is not the last age. Paul, the exact same guy who stated the ends of the ages had come also explicitly stated there were plural ages to come.







The three strikes are all on you, petty attempts at shifting the burden, and the thread is left with you posting to me twice now but still not providing any scripture for the premise of a church age. You have commendably acknowledged the phrase is nowhere to be found but you still have not justified its validity, especially not for this op.

Just answer the questions asked.


Before you try one more time to provide scripture for the claims made in Post 106, consider this: the "assembly" (Hebrew: qahal) is Old Testament equivalent to the New Testament "church" (Greek: ecclesia). Not only are these two groups both a group of people called out of the world in service to God, but when the Jews translated Tanakh into Greek they used the word ecclesia to replace qahal. That is the term the NT writers used. The NT writers were all converted Jews and it was a term the Jews had been using for centuries.

 

[Eleanor]

Eleanor, you are failing to deal with the other comment I gave where the "ends of the ages" had already come upon those in the first century. Did you consider these at all? If the "end of the ages" and the "ends of the ages" referred to first-century times, then these cannot be speaking of the culmination point of fallen mankind's history in our future.

These verses were Hebrews 9:26 and 1 Corinthians 10:11, as mentioned in comment # 98.

Heb 9:26 - (see post #196), the "end (last) of the ages" came in the first century in the church age, which continues to the end of time.

1 Co 10:11 - "the ends of the ages" is the church age, the last of all the ages of time (earth).