Add new comment


I’m curious, why don’t you like the term “second coming”? I find it to be a legitimate term to use.

Hebrews 9:28 (ESV) — 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

While the writer of Hebrews didn’t use those exact words he was very close and the two phrases mean the exact same thing.

Clearly his first appearance was his birth into the world to bear the sins of Israel.  It’s also clear from the wording the writer stated this between the first and “second time”, which means it was written prior to AD 70 - as is the entire NT, but that is off topic — that is if you also hold to the “second time” reference to mean his coming in AD 70.  Is that the case?  Do you see this ”second time” reference as his coming in AD 70?


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.