DEBATE III / TOPIC IV
/ REBUTTAL (b.)
The Personal, Bodily, Second
Coming Christ
Rebuttal
Samuel
Frost
Copyright © The Last
Trumpet —
It’s hard to know where to begin. The first article of this “round” left me
laughing, and at the same time greatly insulted. Let me pick on the part that left me
laughing, first.
Tim concludes his article by quoting Ignatius (30-107
A.D.). He states that he was a “disciple
of John.” Notice that he gives no quote
for that assertion. If the reader did
not know the controversy surrounding what we know of Ignatius, then Tim’s
desired result would be to con the reader into thinking that Ignatius offers a
clear link from John to Ignatius. Roman
Catholics are fond of this “find the spade” parlor trick. A. Cleveland Coxe, who edited and wrote the
Preface to the Igantian Letters for the standard reference volumes Ante-Nicene Fathers wrote, “The epistles
ascribed to Ignatius have given rise to more controversy than any other
document connected with the primitive Church” (p.46). To those seminary trained, such as myself,
this is a fact picked up in any work dealing with the serious study of these
“fathers.” The problem is that Ignatius
is said to have 15 letters, 8 of which are now universally agreed to be
forgeries. 7 are found to be authentic,
but the problem here is that we have a Syriac, Longer Greek, and a Shorter
Greek version of several of the 7 letters.
Most scholars opt for the Shorter Greek version.
Aside from all of this, let’s grant Tim his rather
un-provable wishes. The wish is granted
that Ignatius knew John, the author of Revelation and the Gospel, and was a
“disciple” of John as well. That is,
that he had intimate communications with John (two of the now spurious “letters
of Ignatius” were written to John the Apostle.
Another was written to Mary herself.
This was based on the tradition that Ignatius was one of the children
placed on Jesus’ lap, maybe Tim believes that one, too). Tim quotes Ignatius’ views of the resurrection of the “flesh” and wants the
reader to conclude that since he was a disciple of John, then John must have taught resurrection of the
flesh. Also, that Jesus still has
roughly a 5 foot 7 inch frame, and weighs approximately 157 pounds (these
figures are approximate, we do not know Jesus’ actual weight and height, but he
had to have height and weight, and if in the “same body”, then this weight and
height must be in heaven right now as we speak, floating above us, and
occupying space. These are problems Tim
might not be aware of in this discussion, but among theologians, they are brought
up).
However, more often than any other subject is Ignatius’
view of the Church. The Church was to be
ruled by One Bishop, several Presbyters, and Deacons. The Bishop (which he was, in Antioch) oversaw
several churches in the area (a bishopric).
The Bishop was appointed by God himself, according to Ignatius. Here is just one quote to save time in
regards to Ignatius’ view of the Bishop: “He who honors the bishop has been
honored by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does,
in reality, serve the devil” (Smyn. 9
– Greek Shorter Version). Since Ignatius
taught this, and since Ignatius was taught of John, then it follows that
Baptist and Presbyterians and Methodists are of the “devil”. Roman Catholics and the Nineteenth century
Tractarians for the Church of England have argued along these same lines. Maybe Tim is a Episcopalian and we did not
know it.
Secondly, Ignatius was
not a Pre-Millennialist (chiliast).
Charles Hill, and eminent expert in the study of Patristic theology
wrote in his celebrated and thoroughly documented book, Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity
(Eerdmans) that Ignatius did not entertain an “intermediate state” as did
Justin and Irenaeus. In all of his
letters, no Millennial references are made. In fact, Ignatius believed that the
Old Testament saints were “raised from the dead” (Letter to the Magnesians, 9).
Ireneaus flatly denies this.
Trouble in Apostolic Fathers Land!
I thought John was around to clear all this up. I could pick at this type of bogus reasoning
on Tim’s part all day long, but I won’t bore the reader. His quote of Ignatius proves what Ignatius
believed, and how Ignatius interpreted the New Testament. It does NOT prove what the New Testament
meant. If it does, then Tim better start
looking for a Bishop to honor.
Well, one last thing.
Ignatius believed he was living in the “last days.” He wrote, “These are the last times….either
let us fear the wrath of God which is
about to come, or the grace that is present” (Let. Eph. 11). Does Tim
believe that the “last days” were around 107 A.D.? Was the wrath of God “about to come”
then? John taught Ignatius that it
was. Or did he?
Enough about Ignatius.
Let’s deal with Acts 1. First off, in the passage Tim selected,
notice that the word “body” (soma) is not mentioned. Neither the adverb “bodily.” Tim, who has set himself up as a scholar,
ought to know the Nicene Creed, which reflect the orthodox position of the
Trinity (and the Chalcedonian Creed of 451).
I accept both of these Creeds because they are Scriptural. But, maybe Tim does not. Jesus took upon himself “human nature” (natura).
He was not a human person. Chalcedon explicitly denies this. The Logos is the Person, the Second Person,
of the Trinity. The Second Person has Two
Natures, Human and Divine. But, there is
only one Divine Person, the Logos.
Clearly, the Logos has not “arms and hands.” He is equal (“of the same essence of”) with
the Father. That is, Jesus is Fully
God. God has no arms. He does not have a big nose, either. Jesus, in his incarnation, had human
arms. But, this is to do with his human nature.
It is not at all clear that Jesus, upon his Ascension and exaltation,
retained his actual hairy arms. The point of theology has always been that
Jesus retains for eternity his human
nature. Tim has made the blunder to include
“hairy arms” in the definition of human
nature. It is clear that man was
made in God’s “image” and that God has no “form” but is spirit. The “image” then cannot be “form” but must be
man’s rationality. This is standard
theology 101. Human nature, which Our
Lord took upon himself, also involved taking on “flesh.” But, according to Paul, “we no longer regard
Messiah according to the flesh.” So, Tim
wants me to answer “what happened to Jesus’ body after the ascension?” Well, Tim, what happened to Elijah’s body in
his ascension? What happened to
Enoch’s? It was often Jesus’ strategy to
answer a question with another question.
And that’s where I will leave this question. You tell me what happened to Elijah’s
body. To it de-materilize? Does he have it now? He can’t have it now, since the resurrection
has not happened, yet. So, where is
it? Did it float back down to
earth? Is Elijah alive? Is not God the God of the LIVING? The human nature (and all that involves) is
alive. Elijah is a living human being, but, clearly, he has not
yet received his physical body in the
resurrection of the dead in your view.
Therefore, one need not retain a physical body in order to retain a human
nature, or to be fully and entirely human.
One need only one thing to be human: the image of God.
Back to Acts 1.
“This same Jesus” it says. I
agree wholeheartedly. This same Jesus,
the Logos, the Human and Divine Natures, appeared again “a second time” in A.D.
70. You mean, “the same hairs and arms
that he had.” I don’t see that spelled
out in the text, Tim. How you can get
that from the word “same” is beyond me.
“In the same manner” (hon
tropon – Greek) is found in the context of passive verbs. Passive verbs in Greek, as in English, means
the subject of the verb is being acted upon and not producing the action. Jesus was “taken up” and a “cloud” received
him. These are passives. What took Jesus up? In what
manner was Jesus taken? Obviously,
He ascended by the power of God. So, in
like manner he shall return by the power of God. That’s all these verses assert. This is not a prooftext to demonstrate the
“visible, bodily” second coming of Christ.
It is not plain at all that
everyone could “see” Jesus. I have read
it several times that if a non-disciple was looking at the disciples on the
mount, they would have seen a bunch of men looking at nothing. The Greek interchange of the verb for “see”
here can most certainly imply that they were seeing an appearance of the
Resurrected Christ, as they had before.
This does not, in any way, shape, or form, deny that Jesus had arisen as a human being. Secondly, it does not logically negate that
he arose in the same body he died with. Most think that Jesus’ body was “glorified”
at that point. But, he does not receive
“glorification” until his ascends to the Father. The Bible is clear here. The glorification is not a glorification of
“hairs and arms” but a glorification of humanity
in Christ. Man was exalted in
Christ, because Christ was Man and because he was also Fully God. Tim wants to make all of this about hairs and
arms, and “what happened to Jesus’ toenails.”
I don’t know, Tim. It’s a silly
question. Read a book on Systematic
Theology from someone other than Chafer.
In accordance with the Creeds of the Church: Preterism affirms the Human
NATURE of Christ and the eternality of that nature. We affirm the resurrection of Christ’s
body. When you start asking what
happened to the tongue of Jesus, whether in whole or in part, you ask a silly
question that deserves a silly response.
By the way, where is Elijah’s tongue?
The imagery here, as many scholars are suggesting, is Luke
pointing to Daniel 7. There, “the son of man” comes “with the
clouds of heaven” to the Ancient of Days and receives all dominion, power and
glory. It has long been asserted in the
church that Daniel is seeing the Ascension of Christ. The “coming on the clouds” is not from the Father to the earth, but from the
earth to the Father (the Ancient of
Days). Thus, Luke’s “clouds” are the
heavenly “clouds” of Daniel, receiving from the “world below” and ushering him
in to the “world above” from where is he from (John 17). It is there, according to Hebrews that Christ finishes
his work of atonement by cleansing the heavenlies with his blood, preparing a
place for his beloved Bride so that God would dwell in His People. The death, burial, resurrection, ascension,
exaltation, preparation, and purifying the heavenly Tabernacle are all
connected to “salvation” which he would “bring with him” (Heb 9.27) a “second time.”
In Tim’s view, this has taken 2,000 years and counting!
We are to regard Jesus from the “world above”
perspective. That this is what Luke
wants to gain from the text is, in my opinion, quite correct. Jesus is the “son of man” taken by the power
of God with heavenly clouds to receive glory and begin his Davidic reign on the
throne (Acts 2.30). The Davidic throne is heavenly, not earthly is
Peter’s point. Salvation could not
accomplished through earthly, fleshly
means. Salvation must be
accomplished solely “from above.” Jesus
is from heaven, he came to earth, he ascended back to heaven, and accomplishes
salvation. From “beginning to end”
salvation was removed from the sphere of Fallen Man and accomplished through
the “heavenly man” as Paul called him.
Jesus is the “firstborn out of the dead.” Which “birth”? Mary? Or Resurrection? Clearly, as Man, Jesus was “born” out of the
dead (the realm held in power by Satan and the Death – Hebrews 2.9). Are believers
not also “made alive” and “born” from the “power of the Death” like Jesus? Paul emphatically states this in Romans 6. We have died in the likeness of His Death, and
also shall be made alive in the likeness
of his resurrection. Now, did the
Roman Christian really die when they accepted Christ? In what sense did they die in the likeness of
Christ’s death? Physically? So also, in what sense were they being made
alive by the Spirit in the likeness of Christ’s resurrection? Physically?
The parallel does not work in the traditional view because they view
Jesus’ resurrection merely in terms of “flesh” and from a “this world”
perspective. In short, the birth Jesus
bore “out of the dead”, of which he was the “first”, is also the same birth he
gives to those ‘dead in sins’. We are
the “Church of the firstborn.” Tim requires physical death, then some
intermediate time before resurrection, then physical re-birth, again. Therefore, we are “born again” spiritually,
die physically, born again-again physically!
How can this nonsense be? (I already know Tim’s desperate answer, but
I’ll let him attempt it).
It is refreshing in the Preterist view to realize that I
don’t have to physically die in order to enjoy the presence of God dwelling in
the “one body” (the “body of Christ”). I
don’t have to wait anymore in order to have full communion with God as directed
by the Scriptures. I don’t have to wait
anymore to have full access to the Holy of Holies. The Holy of Holies, Jesus Christ, has
descended to the world through the Spirit and “dwells” in the Church: he is our
God, and we are his people, and he shall dwell with us forever and ever. Tim calls this “heresy.” He calls me a “heretic” and one who is “outside
Christianity.” I don’t know how telling
folks about the Eternal Son of God who became Man and took upon Himself Human
Nature in order to die as our substitution and be raised on the Third Day
according to the Scriptures so that all those who drink freely of the living
waters located in the New Jerusalem Community of God’s Holy People, having been
made acceptable to God through Christ, by the Spirit, blessed Trinity, is
heresy, but Tim says it is. It’s
amazing.
One last point, is the issue of “timing.” I skipped the lexical entrance of
“parousia”. I’ll save that for my last
post. Tim does not cite any lexicon. His examples of “parousia” hardly prove his
case. Parousia does not entail “bodily”
in its definition, nor “visible” either.
The word means “presence.” This
“presence” can be “bodily”, sure, as in the case of Paul. But, its usage in Greek (not just the NT)
does not always imply this. My last
point, however, stems from the last debate.
Timing has everything to do with the nature of the event.
Now, I want to steer the readers attention to something I
got Tim to finally admit on paper. I
have written about our agreement before, but he never responded. I knew he agreed with me on this point in a
post he sent to our old website. But, here,
he admits it in print: “I do agree that the outward
form continued from the time of Christ until the temple was destroyed in
A.D. 70.” He then cites Hebrews 8.13: “In that he says, “new
covenant”, he has made the first obsolete.
Now, what is becoming obsolete and growing old is soon to vanish
away.” Before showing how Tim gives away
the whole shooting match here, Tim thinks that the perfect tense in “has made”
means that the old covenant (which is the object of the verb) means
completion. Well, the author further
clarifies: “what IS BEING MADE OLD” (present).
The thing that “was made old” is ALSO “being made old.” The object does not change in the verbs. But, Tim’s artificial exegesis changes
mid-stream, which ought to alarm any exegete:
Tim said, “the Old Covenant was therefore “obsolete” from the moment of
Christ’s crucifixion.” Then he states
that it was the “outward remnants of the old covenant” and the “observable
remnants of the old covenant” is what “vanishes away.” Thus, the SUBJECT MATTER has changed for
Tim. The OLD COVENANT is the subject of
“has made old” (perfect), but the OUTWARD REMNANTS is the subject of the “being
made old”! Clearly, these are two different
things. But, the Greek here makes no
such distinction. THE OBJECT of the
first verb IS THE SAME SUBJECT as the following verbs! Thus, I can freely translate this verse,
following standard principles with: ‘When he says, “new”, He has made old the
first covenant, but the old covenant which is being made old and growing aged
is near vanishing.” That’s a strict
translation. Tim’s translation is: ‘…he
has made old the old covenant, but the outward
remant of the old covenant is being made old and the outward remnant of the old, not the old covenant itself, is growing
aged and is near vanishing.” These are
two different things, Tim. You have NO
RIGHT nor any EXEGETICAL basis for switching definitions. The object of the verb (“the first one”) is
the same subject of the verb “being made old” and “vanishing.”
Therefore, the author uses the perfect tense to denote an
action that has occurred to the old covenant and is unalterably worked out in
the present day of the writer to the point where the action that began is now
brought to completion. It was the old covenant that was “vanishing” not just the “outward
forms.” Amazingly, Tim wrote that the
vanishing of the outward forms had “nothing to do with the end of the Old
Covenant itself”! This statement
confirms my objection to Tim’s fanciful exegesis: he switches definitions MID
STREAM of a single verse!
Now, on to the other matter of this verse. How does Tim know that the “soon to vanish”
applies to A.D. 70, which he plainly admits?
Could it be that the word “soon” there means “soon”? The word is common enough: “enngus.” It means something “near at hand.” Well, Tim, if “soon” means “soon” here, then
what does “in a VERY, VERY, LITTLE WHILE” mean in just the next chapter already
cited? Does “soon” here mean “soon” in
terms of what was getting ready to happen (Jerusalem’s demise), but in “a very,
very, little while” mean something indefinitely in the long, long future? The acrobats of exegesis to pull this
distinction off will be fun to watch.
The reason why I show this point is because I cannot get
Premillennialists to admit that “soon” means “soon.” And here, Tim admits it! The old covenant would SOON disappear! And Jesus’ “coming, without delay” would ALSO
come “in a very, very, little while.” In
Luke 21.20-28 I have already shown that the destruction of Jerusalem is
connected with the “redemption.” “When
you see these things, then lift up your heads, for your REDEMPTION has DRAWN
NIGH” (enggizomai – the verb form of
“soon” – enggus, above). The redemption surrounding the demise of the
OLD would bring into PERFECTION those enduring “to the END.” The OT saints would arise “from the dust” of
the cords of DEATH and come into their BLESSED INHERITANCE, the ETERNAL CITY OF
JERUSALEM. Also, those “alive” would be
completely “changed” from sinners to sons.
They “were being” changed already, and they “were changed” because what
Christ set into motion was DEFINITELY going to happen. Also, “they SHALL BE changed.” It was the “already/not yet” that was at
work, and when the “not yet” came to completion, the “already” was
perfected. This happened when Jesus
“appeared a second time to bring SALVATION to those who eagerly waited for him”
(9.28). If they already had PERFECTED
SALVATION, then what was Jesus bringing?
More salvation? That’s
absurd. When would this salvation
happen? “The deliverer shall come FROM
Zion (not “to”) and shall turn godlessness from Jacob, for this is my COVENANT
(new covenant) with them, WHEN I SHALL TAKE AWAY THEIR SINS” (Ro 11.26,27). When did the new covenant come into
FULLNESS? When the OLD vanished! When did Jesus PERFECT the saints that died
under the old covenant? When he made old
the first, completely. When was “salvation”
brought? When he appeared a second
time. And when was all of this supposed
to have happened: “soon” and “in a very, very, little while.” Unless, of course, “very, very, little
while” entertains the possibility of “long, long, time from now.”
Thus, since the Parousia was “in a very, very little
while” and concerned the “Fall of Jerusalem” and the “vanishing of the old
covenant”, then it is also clear that the New Jerusalem would be “restored” to
the people of God “in the heavenlies” which is entertained by the question of
the disciples in Acts 1: “are at this time you going to RESTORE the KINGDOM to
ISRAEL?” Jesus’ answer is to be found in
his ASCENSION concerning the SPIRITUAL nature of the restoration of the kingdom
to God’s people, Israel (“one body”).
Samuel Frost, Ph.D. (in progress)
Elder, Christ Covenant Church
St. Petersburg, Florida
Epiphany, 2004