The Second Coming?

  • Thread starter Thread starter K_C
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

K_C

Guest
These words ended today’s gospel reading for the Mass:

Saint Matthew 10:16-23.

…Amen, I say to you, you will not finish the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Can anyone explain what Jesus meant by this? It sounds as if He thought that He would be returning to the earth as soon as the apostles had visited (almost) all the towns in Israel. How does the Church interpret this statement considering all the circumstances surrounding that point in time?
 
I read somewhere once that Matthew 10 moves on two levels, that of the time of Jesus and that of the time of the Church. Does that help you?
 
allhers said:
I read somewhere once that Matthew 10 moves on two levels, that of the time of Jesus and that of the time of the Church. Does that help you?
Click to expand...
Well, sort of. But it’s a bit vague. I am still confused by it. Furthermore, considering all I have read/heard about Catholic prophecy over the centuries (by saints) and from Revelation/Apocalypse, I am still also confused about which is to occur first:
the reign of AntiChrist or the Second Coming of Christ. It seems that many people switch the order of expectation of these two events. So any further illumination on this along with the source/s being cited would also be appreciated.
 
Theophylact gave a simple but precise explanation,
“Till the Son of Man be come” — do not understand by this the second coming, but rather, His drawing together with them and the comfort that He would give them yet before the Cross. For when they had been sent out and had preached, they again returned to Christ and were together with Him.
Click to expand...
It is so simple that it is easy to read too much into it!
 
In Latin, it literally translates to:
You will not consummate the state of Israel until the time of grace of the Son of Man.
Click to expand...
“Time of grace” means a year, so the verse is saying the disciples won’t preach the gospel to all of Israel until the year of the Lord, i.e., the day of the Lord, which can have multiple meanings: Easter Sunday (Day of the Lord), the destruction of Jerusalem (God’s judgment on Israel), the Age of the Church (symbolically referred to as the thousand year reign of Christ in the Book of Revelation), or the Second Coming (Day of Judgment).
 
Some of the fundamental Protestant churches make it a feature of their faith to argue what bit comes first in regard to the Second Coming but whatever Scriptures you select to ‘prove’ your case, the fundamental message (for me anyway) is that:
  • He will come again in Glory (so not in secret for example, or allegorically).
  • And of the time and place that he returns knows no man.
  • He will come like a thief in the night (the Bible is telling you that you can not predict the time even by juggling Bible verses around).
I think the Catholic church has had a very sensible approach to the Second Coming not trying to predict it, find a date or year, or find a formular or sequnce of events that would allow us to predict the Second Coming. We don’t know but we should be prepared to expect it at any time.

I don’t really understand that verse in Matthew either. I read it again the other day. That may have been Christ’s understanding at the time when he was on earth before he ascended to Glory and the plan changed due to prayer or God the Father - just me speculating. But this verse and others like it were included as part of God’s revelation anyway and the early Church Fathers were aware of them.

Rove
 
Eucharisted said:
In Latin, it literally translates to:

“Time of grace” means a year, so the verse is saying the disciples won’t preach the gospel to all of Israel until the year of the Lord, i.e., the day of the Lord, which can have multiple meanings: Easter Sunday (Day of the Lord), the destruction of Jerusalem (God’s judgment on Israel), the Age of the Church (symbolically referred to as the thousand year reign of Christ in the Book of Revelation), or the Second Coming (Day of Judgment).
Click to expand...
Sure is confusing, huh?
 
COPLAND_3 said:
Theophylact gave a simple but precise explanation, It is so simple that it is easy to read too much into it!
Click to expand...
That makes sense. In fact, I had wondered if it meant something like that. Thanks for sharing (but who is Theophylact anyway?)
 
roveau said:
Some of the fundamental Protestant churches make it a feature of their faith to argue what bit comes first in regard to the Second Coming but whatever Scriptures you select to ‘prove’ your case, the fundamental message (for me anyway) is that:
  • He will come again in Glory (so not in secret for example, or allegorically).
  • And of the time and place that he returns knows no man.
  • He will come like a thief in the night (the Bible is telling you that you can not predict the time even by juggling Bible verses around).
I think the Catholic church has had a very sensible approach to the Second Coming not trying to predict it, find a date or year, or find a formular or sequnce of events that would allow us to predict the Second Coming. We don’t know but we should be prepared to expect it at any time.

I don’t really understand that verse in Matthew either. I read it again the other day. That may have been Christ’s understanding at the time when he was on earth before he ascended to Glory and the plan changed due to prayer or God the Father - just me speculating. But this verse and others like it were included as part of God’s revelation anyway and the early Church Fathers were aware of them.

Rove
Click to expand...
Yes, I share your convictions about the Second Coming. However, I do sometimes get confused about what the Protestants are saying. Not only they, but there are also some Catholic books on the subject and they don’t always agree, so I really don’t think it is clear at all. I’ll have to reread the Apocalypse to see if it makes the consecutive order any clearer.

As for my earlier quotation, if Christ ascended to the Father and then changed “the plan”, then we could not be sure about anything He had to say about the future. I don’t think God wanted to impress us with that kind of doubt, so I think that there was a definite meaning to it. I now think (“feel”) that He may have been talking about personally meeting with His apostles as they were traveling and preaching the gospel. However, many of the things that the Lord said seem to be shrouded in mystery…I often wonder why, when Peter asked Him if He was speaking only to them (the apostles) or to all men, Christ did not even answer Him. Sometimes I wish He weren’t so much of a mystery.
 
And then there was that time when Jesus said, “There are some standing here who
will not taste death until the Son of Man comes in His glory.” Both statements prove
that Jesus was telling the truth when He said neither He nor the angels knew the day
or the hour. He was just like us, knowing the time is soon, and that’s all… But I
guess He knows now…
 
K_C said:
That makes sense. In fact, I had wondered if it meant something like that. Thanks for sharing (but who is Theophylact anyway?)
Click to expand...
Theophlact is an Early Church Father, an awesome one at that!
 
Eucharisted said:
In Latin, it literally translates to:

“Time of grace” means a year, so the verse is saying the disciples won’t preach the gospel to all of Israel until the year of the Lord, i.e., the day of the Lord, which can have multiple meanings: Easter Sunday (Day of the Lord), the destruction of Jerusalem (God’s judgment on Israel), the Age of the Church (symbolically referred to as the thousand year reign of Christ in the Book of Revelation), or the Second Coming (Day of Judgment).
Click to expand...
Since Matthew 10 moves on two levels, that of the time of Jesus and that of the time of the Church. (I found where it says that, its in the beginning of Matthews Gospel (before the first Chapter starts, where they explain what the Book of Matthew is about).

So therefore, it must mean the Age of the Church (symbolically referred to as the thousand year reign of Christ in the Book of Revelation.)
 
cheeto1 said:
And then there was that time when Jesus said, “There are some standing here who
will not taste death until the Son of Man comes in His glory.” Both statements prove
that Jesus was telling the truth when He said neither He nor the angels knew the day
or the hour. He was just like us, knowing the time is soon, and that’s all… But I
guess He knows now…
Click to expand...
I don’t think so, Jesus, as God - (Divine) / Man (in the flesh), knew.

I believe that His point was that WE as mere mortal men (and women), were not to concern ourselves with that but that we ought to concern ourselves with being ready for that time.
 
cheeto1 said:
And then there was that time when Jesus said, “There are some standing here who
will not taste death until the Son of Man comes in His glory.” Both statements prove
that Jesus was telling the truth when He said neither He nor the angels knew the day
or the hour. He was just like us, knowing the time is soon, and that’s all… But I
guess He knows now…
Click to expand...
That sounds reasonable. However, if He did not really know, then why did He make a statement like this which seems so definite? Besides, as God He must have known. I think what He actually said was that “only the Father knows…” just as He sometimes would say “the Father is greater than I”. Of course, as the Second Person of the Trinity, He is equal to the Father. But I think that this was Jesus’ way of submitting Himself to the Father - out of humility - as an example to us. So perhaps He was also deferring to the Father in this other matter in a similar spirit.
 
allhers said:
Since Matthew 10 moves on two levels, that of the time of Jesus and that of the time of the Church. (I found where it says that, its in the beginning of Matthews Gospel (before the first Chapter starts, where they explain what the Book of Matthew is about).

So therefore, it must mean the Age of the Church (symbolically referred to as the thousand year reign of Christ in the Book of Revelation.)
Click to expand...
That also sounds reasonable. However, what then did Jesus mean by “you will not finish the towns of Israel before…”? Certainly the gospel HAS been broadcast in all parts of “the towns of Israel” by now…probably by the apostles. So it SOUNDS like Jesus expected to return “BEFORE” the apostles had reached/preached in all the parts of Israel. All I can guess is that He meant that He would personally contact each of the apostles during their travels - just as He appeared to Saul and to the two disciples on their way to Emmaus. However, since this particular gospel has a “dual meaning”, it remains a mystery, I suppose.
 
K_C said:
That also sounds reasonable. However, what then did Jesus mean by “you will not finish the towns of Israel before…”? Certainly the gospel HAS been broadcast in all parts of “the towns of Israel” by now…probably by the apostles. So it SOUNDS like Jesus expected to return “BEFORE” the apostles had reached/preached in all the parts of Israel. All I can guess is that He meant that He would personally contact each of the apostles during their travels - just as He appeared to Saul and to the two disciples on their way to Emmaus. However, since this particular gospel has a “dual meaning”, it remains a mystery, I suppose.
Click to expand...
But what about…“until the end of the age”, doesn’t that mean until the end of the world (as we know it?)
 
I think he certainly knew what he was saying (hence the, “I tell you the truth…”), but I’m not sure what to make of it either. Is it possible he meant Pentecost? I don’t think so, because all of the terrible things he described hadn’t happened yet. Could he have meant the terrible events during the reign of Nero culminating in the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD? That could be construed as a “coming of the Son of Man” in terms of God’s judgment, right? We also know that he appeared to John on Patmos, but I would say that all of Israel would have been reached by then and I am not aware that any of the other Apostles were still alive then.

Not knowing, I’m of the opinion that he was referring to the destruction of the Jewish Temple.
 
allhers said:
But what about…“until the end of the age”, doesn’t that mean until the end of the world (as we know it?)
Click to expand...
I don’t understand the source of your quote. My original quotation ended with “before the Son of Man comes.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top