Where did he promise that, and what was the context? Recall that Christ speaks of a "first" resurrection, but only for select individuals:
"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." (Rev 20:4-6 KJV)
Who were those people? It was certainly a special kind of resurrection. We know that at least some of them were the disciples, since Jesus promised them thrones and seats of judgement over Israel (Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30.) Others were "beheaded" for their witness, but that could mean they were simply killed for their witness and/or their refusal to worship the beast. Note that those will not be hurt of the second death that occurs in the future.
So, there was a "first" resurrection, so we can assume there will be a "second." There is also a "second" death, so we can assume there was also a "first" death. Putting it all together, each resurrection occurred/will occur exactly as prophesied in the old testament (Daniel) and the new (the Gospels) where both the just and unjust are resurrected in each case, some to eternal life and some to damnation.
>>>Why didn’t He bring peace on earth, and goodwill toward man?<<<
Jesus never made such as promise. To the contrary, he said he came to send a sword:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Mt 10:34-36 KJV)
Even after Satan was bound (at the first resurrection) he retained most of his powers. He is still able to cause murders, thefts, immorality, and all sorts of evils, which we have seen over the centuries. The only power he lost was the ability to deceive the nations. Therefore, until he was released, we were able to recognize his evil ways. But once he was released, he was able to deceive many into believing evil was actually good. I believe that is where we are now.
>>>Why didn’t he mete out vengeance to God’s enemies and tread the winepress of His wrath?<<<
He did, to Jerusalem and outlying cities. And he will, again, to Satan and his minions.
>>>It also brings up the problem that, if these prophecies were fulfilled by 70 AD, why did none of the Christians alive at that time seem to notice?<<<
Maybe the only ones that were on hand to witness the resurrection were either killed or resurrected. There were millions killed, and the entire countryside was made desolate.
Of course, even if witnesses were present, what would they see, if anything? We have only the interpretations of men to go by. The scripture provides few details of how a resurrection actually takes place.
>>>Why were they still speaking of these series of events culminating in Christ’s return being something in the future to look out for in the Didache, written not long after that period? <<<
Why not? From what I understand there were no eyewitness documents, except for Josephus, and maybe Tacitus; nor was anything written about the event for many decades afterward, from about AD70 to 150: better known as "The Silent Era." There are a few early documents available (mostly Apocrypha, and of uncertain dating;) but they are not much help in determining if a resurrection happened or not. They are:
Epistle of Mathetes
1st Clement (of Rome)
Barnabas
Apocalypse Of Baruch
Shepherd of Hermas
Esdras 2 (4 Ezra)
Gospel of Peter
Odes of Solomon
Ignatius
The first writing about the event by a Church Father was, I believe, by Justin Martyr about AD 150, or about 80 years after the destruction of Jerusalem. Polycarp, who was born about AD 70, claims he knew John the apostle. But I seriously doubt that person was actually John. John, of all people, would have written of the fulfillment, or at least mentioned it, if he was still around.
There were, however, many strange events recorded by Josephus and Tacitus, both of which wrote about a mysterious "army" in the clouds. This is what Josephus wrote, as translated by William Whiston, 1737:
"Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities." [Wars of the Jews, VI.5.3]
This is from a two volume set on Josephus by a different translator, Robert Traill, 1851:
“What I am about to relate would, I conceive, be deemed a mere fable, had it not been related by eye-witnesses, and attended by calamities commensurate with such portents. Before sunset were seen around the whole country chariots poised in the air, and armed battalions speeding through the clouds and investing the cities.” (Wars of the Jews, Volume II, Chapter VI, p.197.)
This is Tacitus, a Roman Historian, on the same event (among others):
"There had happened omens and prodigies, things which that nation so addicted to superstition, but so averse to the Gods, hold it unlawful to expiate either by vows or victims. Hosts were seen to encounter in the air, refulgent arms appeared; and, by a blaze of lightning shooting suddenly from the clouds, all the Temple was illuminated. The great gates of the Temple were of themselves in an instant thrown open, and a voice more than human heard to declare, that “the Gods were going to depart.” [The Works of Tacitus, Vol 4, Book V, The Summary]
That gives a whole new meaning to the prophecies, "behold, he cometh with clouds," and "he shall send his angels, and shall gather together his elect."
>>>I guess some of them could have been spiritually blind, but the entirety of the church? If that were true, what would that say of the utility of the prophecies, if nobody even recognized them after they were fulfilled in front of their eyes?<<<
Maybe most of the new Testament prophecies were only for the early church. Jesus said he was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel; so the early Christian Gentiles may have not been privy to the prophecies. They could have been strictly on a need-to-know basis; that is, only those who were to be resurrected were privy, and those who were not were only warned to get out of Jerusalem.
Note that there are no Gentile servants mentioned in the Revelation. In fact, the only mention of a Gentile anywhere in the book are those who tread the holy city under foot for forty and two months (3.5 years) in Revelation 11:2.
Philip
“Where did he promise that, and what was the context? Recall that Christ speaks of a “first” resurrection, but only for select individuals:”
Sorry, you’re out of luck there. The very same event was described in more detail in 1 Corinthians 15:
“50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.”
So we (the church) shall all be changed at the last trump, which corresponds only with the first resurrection. This is further confirmed in 1 Thessalonians 4:
“13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”
Again, the dead in Christ (dead Christians), and the living Christians will all be transformed at the coming of Christ, which corresponds to the first resurrection described in Revelation. That covers all the bases, there are no Christians left.
“Putting it all together, each resurrection occurred/will occur exactly as prophesied in the old testament (Daniel) and the new (the Gospels) where both the just and unjust are resurrected in each case, some to eternal life and some to damnation.”
You are incorrect on this point as well. Every description of the first resurrection is limited only to the righteous (which means only those saved by Christ, since we have no righteousness to claim from ourselves). The nature of the two resurrections is clearly confirmed in Luke 14:14:
“14 And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.”
Here we see first resurrection clearly specified as only a resurrection of the just, and also in John 5:28-29:
“28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.”
Christ describes two separate events, a resurrection of life (the first resurrection) and a resurrection of judgement (the second resurrection). Also, we have a similar statement in Acts 24:14 :
“15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.”
This can only refer to two separate events, as we know there are two separate resurrections, as Christ already described, and would later be described in Revelation. We also have it even more clearly explained by Paul in
“Jesus never made such as promise. To the contrary, he said he came to send a sword:”
That was what he came to bring in his first advent, not the second. Here is what He is promised to bring when He returns, from Isaiah 2:4 :
“And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”
So, the existence of war demonstrates that Christ has not yet returned, despite your assertions to the contrary.
“Even after Satan was bound (at the first resurrection) he retained most of his powers.”
Satan was not bound, because the first resurrection hasn’t happened yet, so the rest of your argument here is meaningless.
“He did, to Jerusalem and outlying cities. And he will, again, to Satan and his minions.”
Slow down there. The judgement of the nations is intricately linked to Christ’s return. You cannot claim his return and the first resurrection happened without it, or satisfy this prophecy by substituting the judgement of Jerusalem. The nations haven’t been judged, Christ’s enemies are not in the lake of fire, so Christ hasn’t returned, it is plain as day.
“Maybe the only ones that were on hand to witness the resurrection were either killed or resurrected.”
The prophecies state all eyes will see, and if all were killed or resurrected, the earth would be empty. Clearly your interpretation is wrong.
“Of course, even if witnesses were present, what would they see, if anything?”
Christ coming in his glory, with his heavenly army, as the Bible tell us.
“Why not? From what I understand there were no eyewitness documents, except for Josephus, and maybe Tacitus; nor was anything written about the event for many decades afterward, from about AD70 to 150: better known as “The Silent Era.””
So, what is this, an argument from absence? There is no record among any Christians of that era that these events happened. The logical conclusion is that the event you are proposing didn’t happen, not that they just didn’t know about it, or bother to write about it. If you want to prove it happened, the onus is on you to show the documentation, otherwise there is no evidence for your assertion.
“There were, however, many strange events recorded by Josephus and Tacitus, both of which wrote about a mysterious “army” in the clouds.”
It’s inconceivable that a Jew who rejected Christ would be only witness provided to us of Christ’s return. Besides, the event he describe does not correspond to Christ’s return, because, first of all, Christ is absent, and also, the heavenly trumpet is absent, the resurrection of the dead is absent, and the judgement against the nations is absent. One of out five is bad when picking lotto numbers, but even worse when claiming a fulfillment of prophecy.
“Maybe most of the new Testament prophecies were only for the early church. Jesus said he was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel; so the early Christian Gentiles may have not been privy to the prophecies.”
This might make sense if Jewish Christians just all died out, but they never did, so there still would have been witnesses, even if Christ only made a special appearance for Israel, as preposterous as that idea is. I could go into why it’s so preposterous, but I really see no point in bothering.
“Note that there are no Gentile servants mentioned in the Revelation.”
Hmm, maybe because when we take on Christ, we are grafted in as heirs to the promise, and regarded by God as Israelites? Might that not be more likely than that none of the promises given to the entire church throughout the New Testament apply to gentile believers?