Stephen Whitsett MDiv ThM., PhD (abd)
Sadly, from the beginning Bell informs us of his unproven presupposition in the opening statement, “several passages have been more difficult to interpret within the A.D. 70 framework of time than others.” Which is an acknowledgment that scriptures are not taken at face value but are forced into an interpretation where it’s molded into AD 70 perception. IF in their presupposition that all prophecy was fulfilled by AD 70 every prophetic verse must be forced to fit the AD 70 paradigm even if the language demands the opposite. This paper examines the arguments made by Bell and exposes the false narrative of interpretation.
Bell’s whole approach is one that is based on presuppositions that are never explained but just assumed is accepted by the reader. In no way is the reader supposed to accept his paper as authoritative or scholarly in nature as Bell uses cherrypicked verses to bolster his argument without examining the realobjections made to his position. His paper demonstrates a real lack of scriptural or theological knowledge which will be exposed in the course of this rebuttal.
Bell’s first grievous assumption is to turn the phrase, “a cloud received him out of their sight” into a “coming of God” from the old testament examples of God on clouds(Isa 19:1.) John 1:14 states, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” Unlike his father Jesus came into this world and became a human and took upon himself a flesh body. So, Christ in his first appearing was a coming in the flesh. Unlike the father and the OT use of metaphorical language Jesus actually came visibly and bodily. Bell’s use of OT passages simply falls short and reveals an underline problem. He fails to harmonize NT scriptures concerning Christ, and his second coming language used by Paul and the others.
In Christ ascension he is seen literally disappearing into a real cloud. Nothing like what the father did in the OT.
In his second objection Bell claims that Christ coming in AD 70 “is neither upon a physical cloud nor in a physical body.” The first thing should be agreed upon is that if Christ was not seen or that he came from out of the clouds, then AD 70 was not the second coming. Bell has not established that AD 70 was even the second coming.
Paul when describing the nature of the second coming uses the word ἐπιφάνεια, the noun form of appearance (2 Thess 2:8, I Tim 6:14, 2 Tim 1:10, 2 im 4:1, 8, Titus 2:13) which builds on the verb form φαίνω which means to cause to appear. In 2 Thess 2:8 Paul uses the word in conjunction with the noun παρουσίας, It would seem completely false to claim he came when the very words Paul used to describe the second coming as an appearance is demanded by FP as an “invisible appearing.”
Don Preston stated,
“Here is what Arndt and Gingrich says:
“A visible manifestation of a hidden divinity, either in the form of a personal appearance, or, by some deed of power by which its presence is made known.” (Second Edition, 1979, 304).
A personal appearance is the arrival of a real person who comes after being absent. Parousia is used by Paul as the coming of Titus or Stephanos and in both cases the person arrived visibly, bodily, and in person. Paul simply cannot be using parousia differently in reference to Christ.
Παρουσίας is the visible manifestation of Christ into this world in which “every eye will see him (φαίνω), a physical visible appearing. John specifically stated that at his coming “we will see him as he is (I John 3:2).” Based on Thayer’s Greek Lexicon παρουσίαis a compound word. παρά is a Greek preposition that simply means alongside of, beside (Mat 13:1,) or from (Mat 6:1.) “ουσία” is a verbal term of being, nature, or essence. It is from the verb εἰμί, to be, or I exist. The verb pareimi[1] is cognate of the noun παρουσία.[2] παρουσία then means the arrival of a person or thing, being present bodily as an event of the coming of this person. The definition makes the point that it is a technical term, a visible manifestation of a hidden divinity.
Concerning his bodily nature this is supported by Col 2:9 that states, “In Christ dwells the divine nature, bodily.” In Luke 24 Christ ascended in bodily form and we have no scriptures stating his body “died again” as death is defined by James as the “the body apart from the spirit” makes the body dead. According to Rom 6:9 Christ cannot die a second time once he had been raised. He was made immortal and imperishable. There is no verse that states he shed his body or that he became a spirit being again,[3] Christ remains fully man, spirit, soul, and body in heaven.
The Greek word σωματικῶς, is the adverb form. It is used this one time in the NT and is translated as “bodily” – that which is of the flesh. Christ being fully God and fully human, the divine attributes and nature of God dwelt within his body of flesh. The adverb σωματικῶς, modifies the verb κατοικεῖ which is a present indicative active, meaning that currently as Paul wrote, “in Christ bodily form dwells the divine nature” giving credence to the testimony of Luke that Christ ascended in bodily form and so remains eternal in the heavens in bodily form as the man, Christ Jesus. When Christ will appear he remains the man Christ Jesus in whom every eye will see.
Bell goes on to make several logical fallacies including assuming that all bible students, “agree that Christ’s coming in this text was literal, (actual) but not physical, and that it occurred before that first century generation passed.” Which is simply not true as bible students are all taught a future second appearing of Christ. There is no seminary that teaches FP as a viable option. Based on these false assumption he claims then that Christ can come invisibly and (spiritually) and not on a real cloud. Bell tries to argue that this appearing without evidence from any type of Greek exegesis, the appearing is simply for people to be “spiritually discerning” that he came. Yet the word phainó is built on the idea a person sees then understands what he sees. Bell claims the opposite of what the Greek word means (offered up no exegesis of the word.)
In his third objection Bell states, “does one have to retain the same bodily form to be the same person?” which is a twisting of the real thought and idea of “manner.” The question that needs to be asked, “Does Christ exist in bodily form?” and as we answered this above as foundational to the argument, yes Christ exist in heaven in bodily form. Because this is what scriptures state, Christ remains the same person bodily as being the same person who rose again and ascended into heaven.
Bell goes on to make the greatest of mistakes in logic.
If then, upon his ascension, he changed from the incarnate fleshly form back to his former spiritual state as the Word, (Revelation 19:13), he would also yet be the same Jesus.
To begin with in Rev 19:13 Jesus is called the “word” as a tittle or a name, it is not a spiritual state of being. Christ, Jesus, is a person with identity as the second person in the godhead. A distinct individual of identity. Secondly there is no verse that says Christ flesh body he was raised in died a second time or was burnt up or any other nonsense. The man Christ Jesus must retain his physical glorified body to be the “man” as man is body soul, and spirit. Because scriptures state that Jesus dwells in a bodily form to question his physical state is equal to that of satan’s lies in the Garden.
Now Bell brings up 2 Cor 5:16 and suggest this verse states that Christ is no longer in bodily form, but Paul used the word “flesh” not as a physical thing but as the “carnal nature” of man. Meaning Christ walked this earth as a lowly man, his body of a carnal type that was mortal and perishable like any other man’s body but after his resurrection his body was made glorious and is was no longer fashioned after the mundane nature of a flesh body. The disciples will no longer know him as the “lowly” carpenter’s son but as the King of Kings and Lord or Lords.
In his fourth objection we simply have to laugh at his contradiction. “in like manner” is simply a comparison. The word “like’ is used as a comparison as to how he went up literally into a cloud, means that at his coming he literal come back in the same way, “like” as they saw him go. He will come from out of a very real literal cloud. Bell admits, “apostles saw the bodily appearance of Christ when he ascended back to heaven.” To suggest his coming back is not bodily and not seen is eisegesis inserted into the text.
Now Bell goes into the lame explanation of I John 3:2 and suggest, “how could he a few verses later say that it had not yet been revealed.” Which assumes this has to do with the physical appearance of Jesus, which is a total destruction of the grammar. John was simply saying Christ has not been revealed from heaven in his second coming. What they were to be, had not happened either. I Cor 15 states clearly that at his coming, “we shall be changed, .. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.” – “we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body… (Phil 3:20, 21.) Logic dictates if we are to be changed and made glorious immortal, and imperishable, then its is to be changed in the same way as Christ was changed in his resurrection. From a lowly carnal body to a glorious powerful body.
Bell asks the question, “if Jesus’ bodily form at the ascension was physically visible was not John and all the apostles already like him?” The simple answer is no. They had not experienced the resurrection from the dead. Yes, “Jesus would already have to be in that glorified, immortal spiritual body at the ascension” and the disciples saw this glorified body, but what has not been reveled is not the way Jesus looked but the second appearing. It had nothing to do with him being seen but seeing the second appearing, he was being revealed from heaven as the one who comes from out of heaven. Bell switches what was being “revealed” from him coming out of heaven to be “revealed” before all men as the king of kings and Lord of Lords to him being seen which goes against the grammar and meaning of “revealed”.
Also, in his seventh point he goes to a completely difference context of Exo 7:11, 12. In that verse it states the magicians, “did the same” or “in like manner” in the same way Moses had performed the signs and so tries to argue that in I Tim 3:8 like manner supports, the same type of coming as it was a going. “This phrase is used to express something in identical form, action or results.” Well hallelujah Bell is admitting that Christ second coming will be “in identical form” as to how he left. And yet goes into his eighth and states, “It neither demands a physical cloud or body of Jesus.” Let me point out the obvious. “in identical form” means identical as to how he left. He left visibly, bodily, into a literal cloud. He will return in “identical form” from out of heaven through a cloud back to earth, visibly and in bodily form (since he exist presently in that same bodily form.)
In like manner has to do with his actions, not who was present. Bell tries to argue, “the ascension was private, to a group of eleven men, locally confined to Mount Olivet near the city of Jerusalem, (Acts 1:12. To literally be “in like manner” would demand a private, locally confined return of Christ to the same eleven men.” “in like manner” has to do with how he comes an action, not about who was standing there watching. This is a simple fallacy based on assumption. Rev 1:7 tells us “every eye will see him” then this appearing is a worldwide phenomenon. (Sturt Russell’s views and book was quickly dismissed by scholars of his day.)
Bell then dives off the deep end into desperation. He claims that “Daniel 7:13 where One like the Son of Man, comes on the clouds of heaven. This text forms the backdrop of both Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7 both of which mention Christ’s return in the clouds.”
This is easily demonstrated as a farce,
I saw in the night visions,
and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
This passage is not about a second coming where Christ is coming down out of heaven, but ascension. The son of man comes to the Ancient of days and presented before him So where is the ancient of Days?
Thrones were placed,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat;
his clothing was white as snow, the court sat in judgment,
and the books were opened.
Where was the ancient of days? In heaven. This passage is cited in Rev 20:12, “I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened.” The bema seat of Christ is in heaven and the son of man comes into his presence. So the only thing true is that Christ ascended in AD 33 and because he ascended, was given all authority, and sat down at the right hand of God, he sent judgment upon Israel that came in AD 70. (The coming with the clouds of Rev 1:7 is that of Acts 1:7, Christ is coming with the clouds.)
This was not Jesus coming down out of heaven but a Roman army coming on His orders which has nothing to do with Rev 19 coming. When Christ comes he comes to make war on the beast and to defeat him as when He goes out on a day of battle, “The inhabitants of Jerusalem have strength through the LORD of hosts, their God. … On that day the LORD will protect the inhabitants of Jerusalem… On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives that lies before Jerusalem on the east … the LORD my God will come, and all the holy ones with him … Then everyone who survives of all the nations that have come against Jerusalem shall go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Booths.
Nothing Bell argued followed consistency, coherence, or logical. He can claim Acts 1:11 is governed by time text but it seems completely anti biblical to claim an invisible coming when Paul declared it would be a visible coming of Christ himself who comes down from out of heaven in the same way as in how he left. Bell’s arguments fall on deaf ears.
[1] Thayer, Greek Lexicon, 3918.
[2] Thayer, Greek Lexicon, 3952.
[3] Full preterist argue that Christ shed or that his body was burnt up after his ascension to heaven. Bondar stated in his introduction, “This is a book about the body of Christ. More specifically, it is a book about the physical, fleshly body of Christ. Even more specifically, it is a book demonstrating that Christ no longer has, nor ever will again have, His physical body that He had between His birth and His ascension.” See Alan Bondar, The Journey Between the Veils: Unveiling the Glory of Christ, JaDon Management, (Ardmore, OK. 2017) 83.
Leave a Reply