In my
last post (on Malachi 1:11), I used the term “final/second” coming; some (well,
if I had any readers that is . . . ) may ask why I did not use just “second
coming.” The truth is that, post-ascension, in some limited ways, Christ has “come”
again to the earth, so I tend to qualify the term. Personally, I prefer the
term Parousia.
This leads into a criticism that I have come across a few times. It goes as follows:
The above syllogism would be true if both first two premises are correct. There is no question that the second premise is correct, as the Book of Mormon explicitly states Christ descended from heaven to come to the New World (3 Nephi 11:8). However, there are exegetical problems with the first claim, viz. that, according to Acts 3:19-21, Christ would never leave heaven until the Parousia.
Before addressing Acts 3:19-21, there are other instances in the Acts of the Apostles itself that shows that Christ descended from heaven to earth post-ascension. One example would be Acts 23:11 where Christ descended from heaven to stand next to Paul and to comfort him:
As to Acts 3:19-21, this was discussed by LDS apologist, D. Charles Pyle (comment in square bracket my own):
This leads into a criticism that I have come across a few times. It goes as follows:
- According to Acts 3:19-21, Christ would not leave heaven until the Second Coming.
- According to the Book of Mormon, Jesus appeared to his people in Mesoamerica/New world after His ascension (cf. Acts 1:11)
- Ergo, the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible.
The above syllogism would be true if both first two premises are correct. There is no question that the second premise is correct, as the Book of Mormon explicitly states Christ descended from heaven to come to the New World (3 Nephi 11:8). However, there are exegetical problems with the first claim, viz. that, according to Acts 3:19-21, Christ would never leave heaven until the Parousia.
Before addressing Acts 3:19-21, there are other instances in the Acts of the Apostles itself that shows that Christ descended from heaven to earth post-ascension. One example would be Acts 23:11 where Christ descended from heaven to stand next to Paul and to comfort him:
And the night following the Lord stood by him, and
said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so
must thou bear witness also at Rome.
As to Acts 3:19-21, this was discussed by LDS apologist, D. Charles Pyle (comment in square bracket my own):
As
to the Greek of the passage, there is a particle [μεν] in the Greek text that is not
translated in verse 21 of chapter 3 of the Book of Acts in most versions. This Greek particle has
its own meaning of indeed or of some other affirmative sense of meaning. When
found with the article in the same sentence and part of speech as it is here in
this passage, it attributes to the sentence a sense of something not
necessarily all inclusive, especially if other sentences in the same connected
unit of thought or the context are of a contrary nature