fromdownunder

Since many thousands of children are born every day, many in countries that do not embrace the Christian concept, and many who have grown up never even hearing of the Christian Religion, it seems to me that this idea espoused by the author of 2 Peter will never hear the word.

This, by the very words you quoted, will put off the second coming forever.

Norm

rhutchin

I think you are reading the cited verse out of context with the rest of the chapter (and the book of 2 Peter). It is a problem of selectively citing a verse where people are not familiar with the Bible. The issue here is the antecedent for the word "all" as used in the verse. Peter has addressed his letter to believers (the elect of God) which would include, by extension, all the elect that will live up to the time where Christ returns so the verse should be understood in that context. Thus, it would read, in context, --

2 Peter 3
9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us (the elect of God), not willing that any (of the elect of God) should perish but that all (of the elect of God) should come to repentance.

The delay, then, is the result of God's plan to save His elect (many of whom had yet to be born) and Christ is not to return until all the elect are saved.

dongiovanni1976x

Yet the verse just prior to this has Jesus talking to the same crowd and tells them, "Those who are ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." Thus Jesus is telling the crowd "Look all of you, anyone who doesn't like what I say will displease God when he comes in power...yada yada yada....and the very next thing he says is, "Truly I tell you, there are some standing HERE who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power."

This is a rather big stretch to say that this event is just describing the coming of the Holy Spirit. It is very clear that the author of Mark is writing to an audience who knows that the last of the generation who were witnesses to Christ are about to die, but Mark is telling them that the KINGDOM is coming with POWER so soon (just like Paul though two decades earlier) that some standing here will actually see it happen in their own lifetime.

People have been waiting for things to be "made right" for those in power to be humbled or for thier sickness or injustices to be cured and this priomise has held sway over many generations, not just the one to whom Jesus addressed. Julian of Norwich's interpretation of the Christian message sums up why it is so powerful emotionally to the believer, "All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well." Who would want to disagree....

dongiovanni1976x

What leads you to believe that Dr. Fredriksen took these verses out of context or that you understand Paul's argument better than she does? What specifically did she get wrong and why and how did you come to that conclusion...?

rhutchin

Start with the 2 Corinth citation—

2 Corinth 4
8 We are hard pressed on every side, yet not crushed; we are perplexed, but not in despair;
9 persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed…

2 Corinth 5
1 For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven,…
8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.
9 Therefore we make it our aim, whether present or absent, to be well pleasing to Him.

Dr. Fredriksen says, “Paul expects to live to see the Last Days. He speaks of his hope for the transformation of his present body before death (2 Cor 5:1-5).” Paul seems to be talking about the persecution that people were encountering. I do not see Paul arguing that people should endure because Christ will return soon but because heaven is their final destination. I see no link between this passage and any expectation by Paul to live to see the Last Days. What do you think Dr. Fredriksen sees in this passage that led to a “last days” conclusion?

Next, 1 Corinth 7. Here, Paul addresses the issue of marriage. Dr. Fredriksen says, “…in light of his conviction, he even feels it reasonable to urge his congregants to forswear sexual activity, “[for] the appointed time has grown very short” (I Cor 7:26, 29).

1 Corinth 7
25 Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy.
26 I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress--that it is good for a man to remain as he is:
27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife.
28 But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you.
29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none,…

The key to this passage is what Paul means by this “present distress” and whether he means that the distress will end with the coming of Christ when he says, “…the time is short.” Given the opportunity to expand on this later (particularly in chap 15), Paul does not. Maybe he didn’t think he had to do this. However, this does give the impression that Paul believed that Christ could return soon.

The 1 Thess passage supports the conclusion that Paul believed that Christ could return soon.

I don’t see that 1 Corinth 11 has anything to do with the coming of Christ. Dr. Fredriksen says, “So anomalous is a Christian’s dying before Christ returns that Paul suggests such deaths may be punitive: because the Corinthians have celebrated the Eucharist unworthily, he argues, many “are weak and ill, and some have died” (I Cor 11:30).” I think it might be better to say, “So anomalous are the deaths of the Corinthians when claiming that they have been saved and enjoy the favor of God that Paul suggests such deaths may be punitive: because the Corinthians have celebrated the Eucharist unworthily, he argues, many “are weak and ill, and some have died” (I Cor 11:30). The Corinthians were claiming to submit to Christ while continuing in the evil activities of their former life without Christ.

Regarding 1 Thess 4:15, I would not be surprised if Paul looked forward to seeing Christ return in his lifetime.

In the end, the conclusion that Paul looked forward to seeing Christ return in his lifetime seems to be a valid conclusion.

rhutchin

The passage is confusing. Here is what I think was going on—

Mark 8
30 Then He strictly warned them that they should tell no one about Him.
31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

32-38 [An aside to deal with Peter. “And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him.”]

Having dealt with Peter, Jesus then returns to His upcoming death and resurrection. Turning His attention from Peter to those with whom he had been speaking, Christ reinforces that which He had said earlier, “Assuredly, I say to you…”

1 And He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.”

Some of those to whom Christ was speaking would see the “kingdom of God present with power” beginning the resurrection, later expressed in the coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2, and finally evidenced by many people being saved.

dongiovanni1976x

I Think her first sentence was meant to be the theme of the paragraph and what followed were individual ideas that support her theme. E.g. When Dr. Fredriksen says, “Paul expects to live to see the last days” she offers several reasons to support her conclusion…the first being, that Paul speaks of his hope to see his present body transformed before he dies. (We see this clearer if we replace tent/building etc with body and house with spiritual body in 1 Cor 5:1,2) “For we know that if our EARTHLY BODIES were dissolved, we have a SPIRITUAL BODY, a BODY not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this EARTHLY BODY we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our SPIRITUAL BODY which is from heaven.” So when you ask, “What do you think Dr. Fredriksen sees in this passage that led to a “last days” conclusion?” I would respond that it seems very clear that Paul thought the cosmos was passing away, he groaned along with his brethren to be clothed in his spiritual body in his lifetime, he suggested foregoing sex because the, “appointed time has grown very short”, and he felt compelled to console his fellow believers not to lose heart because some of them were dying and Christ still hadn’t come back yet.
Actually I disagree. I think the key to understanding this passage is the last verse you cited: “But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none,…” This is Paul suggesting that his brethren forego sexual intercourse. And it seems rather clear that the reason he is making the suggestion is that he believes that sex often leads to impulses that are rather unholy even in the confines of a traditional marriage. I think the phrase, “present distress” is Paul’s way of expressing how much trouble he is having maintaining a semblance of authority of the fledgling believers as more and more time passes by and there is still no Jesus coming back.

We are in complete agreement here. Although I would stress that the word “could” could be removed.

Dr. Fredriksen’s suggestion seems to fit her theme that Paul believed the end was “at hand”…right now, any moment, in his lifetime etc…Anybody that ran around claiming that for any length of time would find his/her credibility slipping as more time passes and nothing happened. Therefore it seems much more reasonable to assume that the deaths are punitive in light of the fact that Paul believes that God is waiting around for the Church to shape up and because some of the Corinthians have not heeded God’s prophet (Paul). As Grand Moff Tarkin would say, “Fear will keep the local systems in line, fear of this battle station.” By claiming that the deaths are punitive he is dispelling fears and doubts while simultaneously strengthening his position in the Christian community. I am not suggesting that Paul was power hungry or doing this simply for himself but I think he truly believed in his message and was trying very hard to keep the fledgling little Christian community together and on the right track because God’s kingdom was just around the corner.

dongiovanni1976x

side note: you are a very polite and reasonable Christian. Just thought I'd say so. I do not sense any arrogance or self righteous condescension in your words.
Thx
:notworthy:

Clivedurdle

I still have no evidence that Paul thought Jesus was coming BACK!

You are all assuming the theological stance of the church follows what Paul thought!

The gospels are iffy - because they assume Jesus they assume a SECOND coming. I really cannot see this in accepted Paul - 2 Peter is not!

rhutchin

I am confused. What do you mean by, "They assume Jesus..."? Are you taking the position that there was no Jesus?