Re: Second Coming of Jesus.
Someone asked me in E-mail what I thought of the idea that the Second Coming of Jesus might have conincided with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. This is my reply:
As you of course know, this is a large subject.
I am one of those who believe that all of the Gospels (except perhaps Mark) were written after 70 AD. If the destruction of Jerusalem were indeed the second coming, then I think the Gospels would have said so.
On the other hand, I think that it no accident that the proclamation of the “second coming” in Matthew 16:27 “For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what he has done” is followed immediately with the story of the transfiguration (Ch 17). I think that at least Matthew means the reader to see the possiblity that the transfiguration fulfilled the prophecy.
In any case, from St. Paul, to Martin Luther, to the writers on the Internet today, many have predicted the eminent second coming of Jesus. They have all been wrong. It seems to me that there is some basic misunderstanding among all of these people as to what the second coming is, or how one can see it coming.
For my personal faith, I consider the second coming of Jesus to be his presence with believers which began after his resurrection and continues to this day. When Jesus was in the flesh, he was limited in time and place. Now he is universal–this is what I think is the best understanding of his coming with power and glory.
On the other hand, the world might end tomorrow. Thy will be done.