The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum BestEvidence

What passages make up the best evidence that Christ will return bodily?

Acts 1:11 instantly comes to mind (referring to verse 9 and 22), and Matthew 16:27f.

Acts 1;11 is strong but the Matthew passage neither mentions nor requires bodily return and if the Second Advent is the focus v 28 is a problem.

Hitch,

1) Here are a few more passages which I think give more than ample evidence that Christ will return bodily. Matt 24:30, 25:31; Mk 13:26; Lk 21:27; 1Thess 1:10, 4:16; 2Thess 1:7-10; Rev 1:7

2) I'm curious to know the reason for the question to begin with??

Its one of our most important doctrines and it deserves to be supported with the Scriptures. Here at the Highway I recon we agree that the notion of Christ returning to 'set up His kingdom' is dismissed out of hand.

The standard citations are often weak, right now I need to get to work so I'll put up a question for one of your examples.



If v 7 refers to the Second Advent how do you account for v 1 and 3?


A more general question but one that is directly related; Why would Jesus have much to say about an event thousands of years future to the men who were yet witness the cross and resurrection ?

Your examples from the Gospels are weak wrt the Second Advent as ,unless Im mistaken Jesus quotes from the same passage here;
Luke 21:27

King James Version (KJV)

Lk 21 27And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

None of these people saw the Second Advent, some of them saw the judgment against Jerusalem. The 'coming' here is Christ coming in judgment in the first century and not the Second Advent.


Acts 1;11 though lacks any indication that the men witnessing the event will live to see the promised return, in contrast to the quote from Matt. I cant see any time factor at all, or even any specific setting, in the Acts quote and that strengthens the case that a distant event these men will have no direct connection with is in view, the bodily return of Christ.

.

Would I be correct that you are asking about the "time" phrases, e.g., 'shortly', 'quickly', etc.?

These are typically questions asked by hyper-Preterists in regard to the 'time' phrases to support their contention that Christ returned in the first century. This is why I asked you the 'why' the question. So, more specifically, I will ask, 'Are you considering the hyper-Preterist view?'

In biblical prophetic literature these time phrases typically encompass long intervals of time. For example, in the book of Revelation, 'shortly' or 'quickly' cannot be used to sustain the view that practially the entire contents of the Book must be considered as being filled with the destruction of the Roman Empire. For the idea that all things that must become history before the final coming again of the Lord Christ will be realized shortly is not at all foreign to the NT. "The night is far spent; the day is at hand," wrote the apostle Paul to the church in Rome (Rom 13:12). And the apostle Peter exhorts us, "But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer," (1Pet 4:7). To the church of Philadelphia, the Lord Christ Himself declares, "Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no one take thy crown," (Rev 3:11). And again, in Revelation 22:7 we read, "Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book." And in v. 12 of the same chapter, "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." In the last three passagaes the word translated "quickly" is the same as that which is rendered "shortly" in 1:1. And this is, indeed, the meaning. The Lord comes quickly. He does not tarry. He is not slack concerning the promise. And this implies that the things which must come to pass before that final coming and in the process of that coming must also come to pass shortly, or quickly.

This may not apear so to us, for centuries have elapsed since these words were written, and still they have not been fulfilled. Twenty centuries to us seems a long time, hardly to be denoted by the term "shortly." But we must remember not only that God's measure of time differs from ours, but also that trememdous things must come to pass before the end will happen. The entire Church must be gathered; the fulness of the Gentiles and of the Jews. The measure of iniquity must be filled. Antichrist must reach his culmination and have his day. God and Magog must play their own part in the things that must come to pass. If we consider the nature of the things that must come to pass, we begin to see that they do, indeed, occur with astounding rapidity, especially in our own day. However this may be, the Scriptures teach that all things come to pass quickly. There is no delay. All things hasten unto the end!

Thus, it is unwarranted to impose our modern understanding of 'quickly', 'shortly' upon biblical these and similar texts.


A more general question but one that is directly related; Why would Jesus have much to say about an event thousands of years future to the men who were yet witness the cross and resurrection ?
[/quote]

No. But I have heard that some people who like broccoli ask these questions too . If it makes you feel any better my questions are based on and reflect the positions of that wild and crazy 'hyper-preterist', Loraine Boettner, The Millennium chapter IX specifically . If I recall correctly Owen places the firey end Peter wrote about in the first century as well. In this view just as in common DF outlooks the time references are rendered irrelevant, explained away because they dont fit with added requirements. Since the Apocalypse is concerned with the Destruction , rather than the Second Advent there is no need to disregard the time references . Wow straight from the DF handbook , God is perfectly able to express time to us in Scripture and the opening of the Revelation the timing is plainly stated and repeated. Actually the writer of Hebrews says the end came in the first century, That sounds more like J Vernon McGee that what I expected from you. For the most part Pilgrim I have a lot of respect for what you have to say but you are not free to alter the Scripture to fit your needs any more than McGee or Walvoord. These terms were written to real live believers and they had the audacity to believe what the Apostle wrote, but according to Pilgrim and McGee they were completely wrong. Not slightly mistaken or misunderstood but off by thousands of years, that is rejected out of hand. [/quote]

1. Your 'tone' appears to be rather combative at this point. Why?

2. Your response above also appears to be rather cryptic, i.e., I am still unsure if you are considering or perhaps have already embraced hyper-Preterism???

3. Lorraine Boettner was hardly a hyper-Preterist. He was a solid Postmillennialist.

1. I am not familiar with the reference to "DF"???

2. I'm definitely not nor even trying, as you accuse me, of rendering away the time references. I simply explained how I and the majority of others are to be understood.


J. Vernon McGee was a classic Dispensationalist. There is nothing in common between his eschatological views and my own, which are historic Amillennialism.

1. Again, I have nothing in common with McGee nor Walvoord nor any other Dispensationalist.

2. Yes, the prophecies were written to 'real live believers' no less than the OT prophecies were written to 'real live believers'. Are you going to suggest that all the prophecies of the OT were fulfilled in the lifetime of those to whom the prophecies came?

See above re: OT prophecy.

And just in case you are or have embraced the hyper-Preterism of Ward Fenley, Tommy Ice, et al, here's what Kenneth Gentry, a solid Postmillennialist has to say about it: A Brief Theological Analysis of Hyper-Preterism. Jim West also wrote a succinct refutation of hyper-Preterism, who btw is no Dispensationalist either, here: The Allurement of Hymenaen Preterism: The Rise of ‘Dispensable Eschatology’

Well Pilgrim 'No'' is hardly cryptic. That was my point. I was kidding when I said Boettner was hyper -preterist, I wansnt kidding when I said my view is based directly on his work and I gave you the relevant chapter. DF I thought I'd used that here before , anyway, Dispensational Futurist . Im 'suggesting' they were fulfilled within the time frames given, is such instances where that occurred. Im 'suggesting' that when John says 'A' is about to happen ,he was right ' I believe Gentry dedicated one of his books to Boettner and since you brought him up I'll offer you a challenge that is directly related to the discussion. My view ,as previously stated,is taken directly from Boettner and matches very closely if not exactly regrading the passages under discussion, and by extension Gentry's as well. The challege is that you will not find anything I've written or any position I've held that is not supported by Boettner/Gentry.


Tommy Ice; Ice is DF hyper-pre-trib-rapturist if anything ,I dont know Fenley

For those interested I strongly suggest two titles.

The above mentioned The Millennium , by Loraine Boettner

and The Destruction of Jerusalem ,by Goeorge Holford

Okay, let's play this out and apply your hermeneutic to some other passages. They were obviously written as all of Scripture during a specific time in history with a contemporary audience/readership of the author. Sooooo, taking the passages below, would you not have to hold that Christ has already returned?

Rev 3:11 I come quickly: hold fast that which thou hast, that no one take thy crown.
Rev 22:7 And behold, I come quickly. Blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book.
Rev 22:12 Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to each man according as his work is.
Rev 22:20 He who testifieth these things saith, Yea: I come quickly. Amen: come, Lord Jesus.

That a big blanket . Some prophecies were written with a great deal of time in mind some were not. Jesus opened His ministry with the declaration 'the time is fulfilled', confirming that at he least some prophecies have specific time frames . The passages you chose all carry an implication of nearness * I dont believe its possible to 'keep the prophecy of this book' while dismissing the plain and obvious meaning of the opening three verses. Nope.
Not one of those passages says anything about returning in contrast to Acts 1;11 . Neither do any require His bodily presence. However each one carries and repeats the expectation that this 'coming' is expected soon as it pertains to the original audience.
'Returning' implies a bodily presence a return to things as they were previously. Christ left the earth in the same body that came from the tomb, 'coming' on the other hand may or may not be a return. Christ can certainly 'come' in the sense of orchestrating the destruction of Egypt or Jerusalem. Im sure we agree the First Advent was not the fist time Christ had 'come ' to earth , but that it was different in nature than previous comings. Is there any reason to believe He would not continue be active in history , without coming in a visible way? I dont think there is, just as I dont think any invisible coming negates His eventual bodily return.

*
62And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?

63But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

64Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

For anyone who believes and coming in the clouds of heaven in this passage refers to the second Advent, the bodily visible return, Id like to know how you literalize that portion but deliteralize this part ye see the Son. How is this accomplished without splitting that sentence in half? No I dont think its proper here to generalize the you (ye), its no accident that Christ is directly set as opposite the High Priest.
I reckon its far more likely Jesus is speaking about the judgment coming in a few decades , not an event at least 2,000 years future, and that the High Priest or at least some of his contemporaries will witness the destruction. Doesnt Jesus quote 'this generation shall not pass' apply here?

1Thess 1:10

And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

Is the 'wrath to come' the Destruction? I would think that refers to an historical event or set of events rather than eternal judgment. It could be the wrath described here;

Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

Im pretty sure we agree the Destruction is in view in this passage.

On the other hand Paul takes care to mention the resurerection and places Jesus in heaven , at the Right Hand of Power and the believers 'waiting'. I dont see that this requires his bodily return but neither does it rule it out.





15For 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.

16For 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:

17Then 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.

To make this an entirely spiritual event of the first century puts far too much stress on the passage. It certainly looks to me like physical resurrection of the church and the bodily appearance of the Lord. The 'trump' must be the last trump , setting a time frame that need not have any nearness to the original audience. The last enemy is put away forever marked by the bodily presence of the risen Lord to inaugurate the eternal state is what I think Paul has in view here.

I disagree that 1:10 is referring to a contemporary destruction which would take place during the time of Paul's writing, but rather it is referring to the eschaton, the second and final physical return of Christ when the entire world, including every human being, will receive the just judgment of God. Isn't this what Paul writes about to the same Thessalonian believers and all the elect (1Thess 1:1-4; 2Thess 1:1) here:

2 Thessalonians 1:5-12 (ASV) "[which is] a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God; to the end that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer: if so be that it is righteous thing with God to recompense affliction to them that afflict you, and to you that are afflicted rest with us, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of his power in flaming fire, rendering vengeance to them that know not God, and to them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus: who shall suffer punishment, [even] eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be marvelled at in all them that believed (because our testimony unto you was believed) in that day. To which end we also pray always for you, that our God may count you worthy of your calling, and fulfil every desire of goodness and [every] work of faith, with power; that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ."