Scripture interprets Scripture, right brothers and sisters?
a) "Now will I stick to that?"
b) "Or will I chuck that rule aside, if it interferes
with something I choose to believe?"
That is the question that you must ask yourself.
I hope your answer is...
a) Yes.
b) No.
If not, then I would suggest that you are on shakey ground.
So please, read this carefully. Do not skim through it,
because you wish to quickly see if it supports what you
already believe and if it doesn't look like it does, then
just skip past it.
Rather, see if it is Scriptural. And if so, then change your
belief system; your doctrine.
Remember... Scripture interprets Scripture.
a) "Now will I stick to that?"
b) "Or will I chuck that rule aside, if it interferes
with something I choose to believe?"
That is the question that you must ask yourself.
I hope your answer is...
a) Yes.
b) No.
Or have we become so stuck on a particular doctrine,
that the word of God is no longer welcome as a corrective
device given to us by God?
So let us welcome the word of God and see what it
has to say on this issue, please. Amen brothers and
sisters? Amen and amen! :)
The following is a letter from one believer to another
and has been pasted into this message, for your
consideration. And hopefully, you will read it,
because your search for truth gets the better of you
over your desire to be right:
ACTS 1:9-11: Does It Affirm A Bodily Coming?
To: Larry Hall, Sword of the Spirit Apologetics
Re: Does Acts 1:11 Affirm a Bodily Coming?
Dear Larry:
I think dealing with Acts 1:11 is needful at this time.
You cite this verse (Acts 1:11) in support of your comment:
“Orthodoxy teaches that, with certainty, the Second Advent
will be future, literal, and personal. Christ will appear
in the same physical, bodily way that He departed from
the mount called Olivet!” (Emphasis yours).
Actually, a host of futurists quote this verse to support
their contention that Christ’s coming will be visible and
bodily. I will not dispute that this passage teaches a
future coming of Christ; but, then, I see this as happening
from the standpoint of the apostles forty days after Christ’s
resurrection. The destruction of the temple in A.D. 70
was still in their future.
Let me also say that preterists will not argue that the coming
of Christ was literal. In every episode in the Old Testament
where God “came” in judgment, it was a literal appearing
to pour out His wrath. When God came upon Jerusalem
in 586 B.C., it was a literal destruction of that city. So we
believe about Christ’s coming in judgement upon Jerusalem
in A.D. 70 – it was a literal coming literally destroying the
literal temple and the literal city.
Here is the passage in its context:
“And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while
they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their
sight. And as they were gazing intently into the sky while
He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood
beside them. They also said, ‘Men of Galilee, why do you
stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken
up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way
as you have watched Him go into heaven.’” - Acts 1:9-11
I would like to offer a some commentary on this passage
in order to assert that this verse cannot be used to verify
a *bodily*, visible coming of Christ.
First, I would like to look at the passage in its context.
Note that there is not one word in this passage describing
the body of Christ, physical or otherwise. That this passage
teaches Christ’s second coming as “bodily” is drawn only
from inference and reading into the text.
However, if we wish to find a clue as to what the men
in white meant by “in just the same way,” shouldn’t we
look at the context of the passage? After all, isn’t it just
good hermeneutics to gain your interpretation of a passage
by looking at the context?
This passage plainly tells us — without having to read
anything into the text — two specific things about Jesus’
ascension. The first is that “a cloud received Him” and
the second is that it was “out of their sight”.
“And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while
they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their
sight. And as they were gazing intently into the sky while
He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood
beside them. They also said, ‘Men of Galilee, why do you
stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken
up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way
as you have watched Him go into heaven.’” - Acts 1:9-11
Let’s deal with the first – that a cloud received Him and that
He was to return in the same way. It is clear that the New
Testament teaches that Jesus’ coming was to involve clouds
(Matthew 24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26; 14:62; Luke 21:27).
Wanting to interpret Scriptures by the Scriptures (as you
rightly insist “that Scripture MUST interpret Scripture”),
let us look at some Old Testament passages that would
help us to understand the New Testament passages.
[Surely if we see how a phrase is used throughout the
Old Testament, we cannot be honest and at the same
time, say that this doesn't matter and that it is physically
and bodily literal in the New Testament, just because
we want it to be, amen?! Scripture interprets Scripture.
Not "Scripture interprets Scripture, unless I don't like
what that means to my personal doctrine.", amen?]
Exodus 16:10 – It came about as Aaron spoke to the whole
congregation of the sons of Israel, that they looked toward
the wilderness, and behold, the glory of the LORD appeared
in the cloud.
Exodus 19:9 – The LORD said to Moses, "Behold, I will come
to you in a thick cloud, so that the people may hear when
I speak with you and may also believe in you forever".
Then Moses told the words of the people to the LORD.
Exodus 34:5 – The LORD descended in the cloud and stood
there with him as he called upon the name of the LORD.
Leviticus 16:2 – The LORD said to Moses: "Tell your brother
Aaron that he shall not enter at any time into the holy place
inside the veil, before the mercy seat which is on the ark,
or he will die; for I will appear in the cloud over the mercy
seat.”
Numbers 11:25 – Then the LORD came down in the cloud
and spoke to him....
Note that in several of these passages, Yahweh is said to
have “come”. He “descended”, “came down” and “appeared”.
This is language similar to that which Jesus used in reference
to His own second coming. Question: was the “body” of
Yahweh seen at these times or was it just that the cloud
signified the presence of Yahweh? Were these manifestations
of Yahweh “bodily and physical”? The answer is obvious. :)
Psalm 18:9-12 – He bowed the heavens also, and came down
with thick darkness under His feet. He rode upon a cherub
and flew; and He sped upon the wings of the wind. He made
darkness His hiding place, His canopy around Him, darkness
of waters, thick clouds of the skies. From the brightness
before Him passed His thick clouds, hailstones and coals
of fire.
Psalm 97:2-3 – Clouds and thick darkness surround Him;
righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne.
Fire goes before Him and burns up His adversaries round
about.
Psalm 104:3 – He lays the beams of His upper chambers
in the waters; He makes the clouds His chariot; He walks
upon the wings of the wind...
Isaiah 19:1 – The oracle concerning Egypt. Behold, the LORD
is riding on a swift cloud and is about to come to Egypt;
the idols of Egypt will tremble at His presence, and the heart
of the Egyptians will melt within them.
Daniel 7:13 – I kept looking in the night visions, and behold,
with the clouds of heaven one like a Son of Man was coming,
and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented
before Him.
Note that in the New Testament references to Jesus’ coming
with clouds, the majority of scholars agree that Jesus is
pointing back to this passage, referring to Himself as the
“Son of Man” in Daniel. Was the main point of Jesus in
doing so to assert a “physical, bodily” coming, or was it
more to identify Himself with that Son of Man who was
to receive glory and a kingdom that would not end, nor
pass away (see Daniel 7:14)? Preterists believe the latter.
Joel 2:1-2– Blow a trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm
on My holy mountain! Let all the inhabitants of the land
tremble, for the day of the LORD is coming; surely it is near,
a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick
darkness. As the dawn is spread over the mountains,
so there is a great and mighty people; there has never
been anything like it, nor will there be again after it to
the years of many generations.
[Note that Peter tied Joel 2 to HIS TIME and HIS GENERATION,
in Acts 2 (start with v16)!]
Nahum 1:3 – The LORD is slow to anger and great in power,
and the LORD will by no means leave the guilty unpunished.
In whirlwind and storm is His way, and clouds are the dust
beneath His feet.
Zephaniah 1:14-5 – Near is the great day of the LORD,
near and coming very quickly; listen, the day of the LORD!
In it the warrior cries out bitterly. A day of wrath is that
day, a day of trouble and distress, a day of destruction
and desolation, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of
clouds and thick darkness...
Note also that many of the references to Yahweh coming in
or with the clouds has to do with His bringing judgment upon
His enemies and those who rebelled against His covenant.
Again, there was no physical, bodily coming of Yahweh
at these times.
The contention of the preterist is that Jesus taught that
He was going to come “in the glory of His Father”
(Matthew 16:27), meaning that His coming was to be in the
exact same manner as His Father's was in the Old Testament.
This is language that the people of His generation would
understand [based on the Scriptures and the OT Scriptures
is all that they had, when Jesus preached and when the
Apostles preached also (again, see Acts 2)]. It is the
language that the high priest understood when he charged
Jesus with blasphemy (Matthew 26:64-65) [Did he charge
Jesus with blasphemy based on the NT?]. They understood
that Jesus was identifying Himself with Yahweh Himself and
claiming all the glory of deity!
Larry, the contention of the preterist is that Christ’s coming
with or on the clouds was not to be seen as “bodily and
physical”, but as Jesus’ claims identifying Himself with
Yahweh of the Old Testament. It confirmed His claims
of being the divine Messiah. In my opinion, this is actually
the capstone of the preterist view, that the language
of Jesus in describing His second coming was a bold,
undeniable claim to deity. Does this put us outside
of orthodoxy?
Second, let me just briefly note that the context of
Acts 1:9-11 has Jesus being taken up “out of their sight”
(literally in the Greek, “away from their eyes”). What
more can I say on this? If you apply a literal interpretation
of the Scriptures (which you insist upon), then it means,
according to the men in white, that Jesus will return
invisibly, “out of their sight”.
Perhaps you could explain why these two plainly and
contextually stated things — “a cloud received Him”
and “out of their sight” — could not be the grammatical
antecedents explaining the phrase “in just the same way
as you have watched Him go into heaven” [surely they
are relevant, since you insist that these very words are
the proof of your belief and surely you won't run from
them, now that you have seen what they really mean]?
Now I would like to make some broader observations
about this text and compare it to other passages on
the coming of Christ, especially those that futurists
use for Christ’s future coming. We must note the
history of the event as described in Acts 1:9-11.
Notice the witnesses to Christ’s ascension from the Mount
of Olives — they were the apostles. You futurists insist
that the coming of Christ must be “in just the same way”
as the apostles witnessed Him leave in this passage. You
press so hard on the bodily/physical aspects (which aren’t
there), that you leave open a whole truckload of questions.
For instance, you insist that at His second coming “every eye
shall see Him”. But in Acts 1:9-11, every eye did not see
Him, only the eyes of the apostles saw Him! How then can
you say that the second coming of Christ must be “in just
the same way” as His ascension from the Mount of Olives?
[You also fail to recognize, while quoting that passage
(Revelation 1:7), that it also says, "even they who
pierced Him". Now when did "they who pierced Him live?
And it cannot be said that they see are resurrected and
that's how they see Him coming, since Jesus is seen coming
AND THEN the resurrection takes place, which even your
own futurist doctrine states! So the truth is, that they
*must* be *alive* when He comes and that places it
without a doubt, within that same generation that
Jesus lived in! Furthermore, the same Greek word
that is translated as "see" (as in the physical seeing)
is translated as "understand(ing)" in the New testament!]
Further, most futurists believe that the second coming
of Christ is described in Revelation 19:11-16. With that
in mind, here are a few other questions:
Jesus did not *ascend* on a white horse from the Mount
of Olives in Acts 1:9-11. How can His second coming
be on a white horse if it is suppose to be “in just the
same way”?
Did Jesus *ascend* with “His eyes a flame of fire, and
on His head many diadems”? If not, how can you say
He will return “in just the same way”?
Jesus did not *ascend* with the armies of heaven following
Him on white horses. How can you say that His second
coming will be “in just the same way”?
Did Jesus *ascend* with a sharp sword in His mouth
and the name “King of kings and Lord of lords” written
on His robe? If not, how can you say He will return,
“in just the same way”?
In conclusion, Acts 1:11 cannot be used to dogmatically
justify the belief that Jesus’ return will be “bodily and
physical”. In fact, it is better used to build the case that
His coming will be “in the clouds” (in association with the
“Son of Man” in Daniel 7:13) and “out of sight” (invisible)
which the preterists believe.
In all, Larry, I am insisting that you cannot use this
passage as the whip to drive the preterists into the
desert of apostasy. You come across as one more
interested in assaulting honest seekers of God’s word
with traditional doctrines than in bringing light to
legitimate discussion.
Note: And so what do you, dear reader, seek? The truth?
Or to drive people into the desert of apostasy,
because they will not bow to the futurist's
interpretation, when it is clear that they have good
reason not to? This is your choice, of course.
But if you decide to "bob and weave" around
the Scriptures that have been presented, because
they no longer represent the "absolute proof" that
you thought they did, then who is dodging God's
word here? No insult intended. But please, just
think about it, at least.
--
Pastor Dave
People are so afraid to reject doctrine, that they just
don't give a damn what the Bible actually says! Sad!
.
|
