The Evangelical Universalist Forum

How does Jesus's resurrection make people righteous?


Davo, that’s wonderfully provocative! So I’ll be too. Since the Gospels record Jesus as asserting that he did not know the timing of his return, on what basis are we sure that lacking such omniscience and truly becoming human still means that he can’t be incorrect about various information? So e.g., when Jesus stated that the mustard seed is the smallest seed there is, was that too necessarily correct?

A similar issue may arise from Paul’s statements in his earlier epistles that he expects not to see death because Jesus will bring the consummation and resurrection first. But in his later letters, he says he doesn’t know, and may well experience death before God intervenes. Could it be that such writers faithfully record their vantage point at the time, but they do not have infallible knowledge of all such things?

Facts to be Considered by All Full Preterists

Well Jesus spoke of what he DID know (IF you can believe him—I do) and as such was emphatic some standing with him would indeed witness such things. As to any lack of precise “day nor hour” knowledge does not negate the reality of the “times and seasons” he as Israel’s prophet saw and declared.

Not only that… how far are you willing to push “…that he can’t be incorrect about various information?” You are welcome to move that slippery dial to wherever you want across the gospels or the rest of the NT for that matter, so as to remove any troublesome texts — you wouldn’t be the first here to do it to protect certain sacred cows.

So to reiterate Bob… are you saying you believe Jesus was actually WRONG in his claim?



The hour may not have been known by any man during Jesus’s ministry, but it did become known after; John wrote that he was living during the final hour.


Fair question. But I’d first reject that those who see the Bible differently than you necessarily do that “to protect sacred cows” (what cow do you assume I’m invested in?). Indeed, I’d observe that those who see every text as inerrant and consistent do not agree on many sacred cows. As you know, many on this forum perceive that the eschatological cow that you seek to defend contradicts the text. At least, preferred cows can be preserved in many ways, and I think it’s fair to say that most serious NT scholars find your own eschatological conclusions contrary to their consensus about the Biblical writers’ outlook. And it may be that some have a less perfect impression of the Bible than you because that’s their honest perception.

More directly, I don’t know if Jesus was correct about views of his return, most of all because there is huge debate about what his eschatological discourses refer to, and it’s obvious to me that this is because they are not terribly clear to an objective reader. What does seem clear to me is that if the historic consensus of what Jesus meant by the consummation and his return is correct, and if as you nicely argue, folk like Paidion are incorrect about the key words here, and thus Jesus is saying all this will be finished in the first generation, then this has not happened.

So yes, unlike you, I am obviously open to data that he (like I argued Paul was) was truly human, and thus not necessarily infallible here. Several of my papers posted on the site about Scripture and Jesus’ approach to it, argue that it is manifestly not a work that is all on the same page, or equally correct. God’s role in incarnating his Word through such authors apparently did not keep them from expressing their own vantage point, which sometimes proves to have been mistaken. I realize it is even more troubling to imagine that Jesus was so truly human, that God’s work in him, similarly doesn’t insure a correct timetable here. But I admit, the text makes that possibility cross my mind.


FWIW, I really like that answer.

I do appreciate davo’s view, as I’ve said - I think it can be consistent and justifiable.
However, I can’t go ‘all in’ for many of the reasons that Bob has given.
I think it comes down to presuppositions about the kind of Book we are reading and trying to interpret.


Well… I’m a futurist, and I believe Jesus was correct in affirming that some standing there would see Him coming in His kingdom.

Surely we are familiar with Jesus’ response to the Pharisees question:

A kingdom consists of a king and his subjects. There, right in the midst of the Pharisees stood King Jesus and His subjects—His disciples. That was the Kingdom of God in its infancy. However, in His parables of the Kingdom, Jesus taught not only about the infant stage, but also the growth of the Kingdom, as well as the full maturity of the Kingdom. None of this refers to the second coming of Jesus, though it is likely that He will come again during the time the Kingdom is in its final stage of growth.


It doesn’t make much sense to me on its own; I would never reach the conclusion through metaphysical contemplation that if God exists, for people to be righteous, God must be given a perfect sacrifice. Rather, it’s in light of scripture that penal substitution seems plausible, via the process of elimination. We know that a perfect Person was murdered and that it somehow made at least some people righteous. But unfortunately there’s no discourse in the Bible explaining how. So people have looked at the evidence and come up with possible explanations – theories. Given how weak I find other atonement models, I conclude that penal substitution is somewhat likely.


Steve… does this verse crackle Jesus’ “credibility” or cause any degree of cognitive dissonance for you? …
Mt 16:28 “Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

Davo to me this is Dan 7.13 meaning the ascension and the language used in Dan 7.13 and we see the initial part of the ascension in Acts 1. Another explanation may be “coming in his kingdom” could mean the destruction of Jerusalem without it meaning Christ’s second coming.


The following long article states re Mt.16:28:

"At least six plausible possibilities have been advanced.

  1. Jesus looked to His resurrection.37
  2. Jesus meant His ascension.38
  3. Jesus looked ahead to the Holy Spirit coming at Pentecost.39
  4. Jesus pointed to a coming in A.D. 70—the preterist view.40
  5. Jesus referred to the advance of His kingdom through the church.41
  6. Jesus had the transfiguration in mind.42"

All of those would harmonize with a futurist perspective of the Scriptures. He concludes “based on a review of these four time-text indicators, that Jesus was a futurist in His teachings, and certainly not a preterist.”

A seventh view of Mt.16:28 that has been held by some partial-futurists (i.e. futurists) is that it was conditional:

"The subjunctive mood calls attention to the contingent (i.e., dependent) nature of what is being affirmed. It speaks of the connection which obtains between what is affirmed and that upon which the affirmation depends for its fulfillment…if that upon which a declaration expressed in the subjunctive mood depends, is not unrevisably certain, the declaration itself is revisable and is not certain to occur… if the will of God, then revealed, was not peremptory, then these prophecies were not certain to occur in that generation…It should be noted that the prophecies of the establishment of the kingdom within that present generation of Israelites to whom Christ came, were necessarily provisional. They were contingent upon Israel’s national repentance and acceptance of Jesus as the Messiah and Saviour. … eneration/

“This indeterminacy may be a bigger issue than it might appear at first. There are several schools of thought that see a “parenthesis” in this period, corresponding to the age of the Church–cf. Rom 11.25, and some that see the entire event-stream as being conditional like the prophecy of Jonah 3.4. There were Jewish groups that also held this conditional nature of the timing of the 2nd Advent. So Keener (BBC:115) summarizes:”

“Jewish teachers struggled with a tension between two positions: (1) one could predict when the Messiah would come, in a time ordained only by God; and (2) one could not predict his coming, but he would come whenever Israel repented and wholly followed God. This is a distinct possibility.”


YES… it is a fair question, so thanks for affirming.

How can you claim as “obvious” and thereby supposedly “has not happened” when your own presupposition as to what these things are MEANT to be drives your so-called objectivity? The likes of Schweitzer and Lewis also concluded “then this has not happened” BECAUSE they looked with the fleshly (not carnal) eye of wooden literalism… saying Jesus was a failed prophet — or as Lewis confessed on the Matthew 24:34 prophecy… “It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.” Like Schweitzer, Lewis’ presuppositions on the matter drove this conclusion — both men missing the woods for the trees because they had the cart before the horse.

I don’t think infallibility or inerrancy has anything at all to do with this… Jesus “the man” (1Tim 2:5) being “truly human” was Israel’s promised prophet and as such KNEW what was coming on their historic/eschatological horizon given he, Jesus, only spoke what he heard the Father say. Granted, Jesus being human could have heard the Father wrong and or misconstrued what he heard, BUT I think that’s an awfully long bow to draw and raises more difficulties than it solves, IMO. So yes, I’m of the opinion Jesus got right everything he heard and saw from the Father, as per… Jn 5:19; 8:26-28.

In this light, consider further Jesus’ words here…

I would contend there was no doubt with Jesus being confident in all that he spoke… but that’s just me, so I’ll own that.


Surely we are familiar with Jesus’ response in Mt16:28… that is, it was to his disciples, i.e., there were NO Pharisees present. Another problem with your scenario is again simply this… IF you are claiming Jesus’ promised coming (vs. 27) was in fact in-kind with your take on Lk 17:20-21 THEN THAT’S the interpretation you MUST likewise force on Jesus’ coming of Mt 24:30 — what does that do to your pre-millennial eschatology; where’s the consistency?

And again the most glaring problem to this proposition is the context itself. NO-ONE at this time, let alone any Pharisees, experienced… glory, angels or rewards — which I might add the same likewise cancels out the next possible thing on the list of evasions, being the transfiguration. No, this prophesied coming was Christ’s AD70 parousia.


The Acts 1 passage can indeed be linked with Dan 7:13 but NOT with Mt 16:27-28 which as I pointed out to Paidion contains “rewards” — something very much associated with the Parousia NOT the Ascension.


Origen just posted some of the many familiar interpretations scholars offer in the standard commentaries. Are you asserting that I am biased to observe that this reference is much debated by serious students? That would put our presuppositions awfully far from sharing much common ground.


Of course not.


I fear I don’t grasp your meaning and syntax. Why do you say that observing that it seems obvious that scholars embrace quite different interpretations means that the event indicated “thereby supposedly “has not happened””? I’d instead draw the conclusion that it just makes it harder to be dogmatic either way about that.

What do you mean by: “your own presupposition as to what these things are MEANT to be drives your so-called objectivity?” What are you assuming that I claimed “these things” to refer to? I thought my point was only that I don’t feel sure of what it refers to. I obviously expressed sympathy with your own clearly stated reading that it refers to events that should now already be fulfilled (to the point of confessing heresy :wink: and if the vs. at hand was the only eschatological text we had, I’d side with you on that aspect hands down). But I also respect the caliber of people who are convinced otherwise (and their wider textual arguments that we are short of the promised consummation). That’s precisely why I argued that “objectively” I sense that I should acknowledge that there are deeply argued differing views, and that it may be because Jesus’ eschatological texts are not easy to clearly interpret. I really am invested in no agenda here, and sense that you are more invested in a particular interpretation than am I?


The Acts 1 passage can indeed be linked with Dan 7:13 but NOT with Mt 16:27-28 which as I pointed out to Paidion contains “rewards” — something very much associated with the Parousia NOT the Ascension.

Well I don’t see any rewards given out in 70AD, just death and destruction and slavery, nor does it involve “every man.” I do see the Matt 16.28 portion of the “Son of man coming in his kingdom” similar to Dan 7.13-14 " I saw in the night visions and behold with the clouds of heaven there came one like the Son of Man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom that all peoples, nations and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed."

First Jesus had to be given dominion (which he was here in Dan 7.13) and then he is qualified to judge and give out rewards.


Steve said:

Well, I would say that the coming of man was never meant to include rewards, but it was about setting things right. The prophesy was fulfilled, and history was established. Your idea of ‘any rewards given out in 70AD’ is simply evangelical bias. :slight_smile:


What is the date of fulfillment of the following, which speaks of “rewards”, if you don’t think it was 70 A.D.:

Mt.16:27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

Aren’t you a 70 A.D. guy, i.e. a Pantelist?

“If pantelism is true, then our understanding of the final state of existence has been wrong; our understanding of the events leading up to it has been wrong; our understanding of our bodily resurrection has been wrong; our understanding of our eternal state has been wrong; the great ecumenical creeds (historic summaries of essential Christian belief) were wrong, including the Apostles’ and the Nicene Creeds.”

“The unorthodox aspect of this view is that the reconciliation accomplished in 70 A.D was such that there no longer remains a lost condition in humanity and therefore no present need for conversion – which reduces to a form of universalism where all are saved and one must simply realize what has been done for all humanity.”

“Save the fairytales for the appropriate venue” (TomL): … rism/page6


But this raises a question for me. I have given my rationale, for the tribulation and the Zombie Apocalypse…in another thread here at Zombie Apocalypse[ rational. So if DIFFERENT people are seeing this happen…with the “alleged” gift of prophecy…are they seeing into the future…or looking back at 70 A.D. :question:


Bob you initially said…

So I may be misunderstanding you here (that’s possible) BUT it seems your… “this has not happened” is your position based on or following so-called ‘historic consensus’ — or do I have this wrong?

What if the consensus has had it wrong? That’s what I’m questioning and simply considering an alternative view that actually accepts at face value Jesus’ words that… “there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” There just isn’t any need from my position to seek to explain away Jesus’ straightforward saying… like what Jesus said to his audience would have been objectively understood to be as plain as the words indicate. Future “theological” positions, however, have muddied the waters BECAUSE what Jesus said doesn’t fit certain rationales (presuppositions) brought TO the text etc.