Many folks have used Revelation 1:7 to say that Jesus’ Second Coming has not yet occurred. After all, if every eye would see the Lord, coming on a lily white, cumulus cloud when he returns, and, given the fact that no one has reported seeing such a news worthy event up to this present day, then surely we must still look for Jesus’ Second Coming in the future. Personally, I think it is high time we stop shooting from the hip with the word of God and take the time to investigate what the text really says. Do you really believe you are able to interpret Jesus’ coming by understanding Biblical language in a 21st century context? We need to consider the fact that the whole Bible, that is, the first and second covenants, were written by Jews and for Jews, using a Jewish manner of speaking. In other words, we need to acquaint ourselves with the Jewish culture of the day, and take advantage of the Greek lexicons and other scholarly writings about the Bible available to us today.
First of all, we need to realize that where we place the date of the writing of the Apocalypse in the first century has an intense eschatological consequence, as far as our ability to understand the truth contained in this book is concerned. For example, if we have the wrong date of the writing, how could we know who Babylon or the Harlot are? Who is the Beast and the False Prophet, if we place the date of the writing of the Apocalypse **after** their judgment? A false dating of this book dooms the Bible student to accept a false interpretation of the things he reads in this marvelous prophecy.
As I mentioned above, John tells us that Jesus is coming and “every eye will see him” (Revelation 1:7). Context is very, very important at this point. Is John speaking of every eye in a global sense, or is he speaking of every eye in a local sense? Well, verse-7 tells us that “those who pierced Him; (would see him) and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him” (NASB). In other words, the Jews of the first century AD are the **they** who would see him! Obviously, this has to do with the judgment of those who were responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion. The Apocalypse is all about the judgment of those responsible for Jesus’ death and that of his disciples and Apostles, and their “eyes would see Him; and all the tribes of the earth (meaning the land of the Jews or Israel) will mourn over Him” (because he is the coming Judge). Obviously, the parenthesis are mine in that excerpt.
Notice what we are told in one of the Gospel narratives:
When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this Man’s blood; see to that yourselves.” And all the people said, “His blood shall be on us and on our children!” (Matthew 27:24-25 NASB)
“All the people” in the text refers to the Jewish authorities, but do you see what they are saying? They are admitting to the blood guilt of Jesus. These are those whose eyes would see Him (Revelation 1:7). There’s really no room for debate here. Three times Pilate tried to release Jesus, but he was prevented by the Jewish authorities and a threat of a riot by close to a million or more Jews, if we can believe Josephus’ account of how many Jews were celebrating the Passover in 66 AD, and how much difference would there be thirty some years earlier?
Finally and concerning “every eye shall see Him,” Jesus claimed in Matthew 16:27-28 that he would come to vindicate the deaths of his disciples and their reward would be with him. This is not only speaking of the judgment, but also the resurrection of the saints, because one cannot separate those events from the coming of the Lord. Moreover, Jesus said all this would occur in the expected lifetimes of his disciples (Matthew 16:28; 23:34-36; compare Matthew 26:64; Mark 14:62). Did they see him (Revelation 1:7), certainly not physically, but they saw his judgment coming in the war with Rome cir. 66-70 AD, just as Pharaoh, hundreds of years earlier, saw his judgment coming from the Lord in the person of the Assyrian king (Isaiah 19:1).
Smoodock's Blog 
30 responses to “Every Eye Will See Him”
Greetings Gary, I must say that I have to admire your stamina. I was certain you wouldn’t reply to my last response to you. May the Lord bless you and help you in your quest to understand his word.
In Matthew 16:27-28 Jesus claimed he would come in the glory of his Father, with his angels and reward everyman according to his works. Then in verse-28 he says: “Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” The question is Gary, did he do it? Did he return in **the first century AD** before his generation died off? Clearly, he claimed he would. Lots of scoffers today, such as Jews, Moslems and atheists are quick to say that Jesus simply couldn’t be the Son of God, and the New Testament Scriptures couldn’t be inerrant, because Jesus couldn’t do what he claimed he would do? The surprise is that so man of Jesus’ disciples agree with the scoffers, at least to say Jesus didn’t return in the first century as he clearly promised to do.
Concerning Jesus’ promise to return in Matthew 24, you said:
The question remains: who is **twisting** the Scriptures, Preterists or Futurists? You demand a physical return of Jesus—one in which everyone would see him with their physical eyes, and he would return to a physical Jerusalem to reign on a physical throne over a physical nation and would thereby bring all nations to submit to him. Yet, Matthew 16:27 clearly claims that Jesus would return in the glory of his Father. How did the Father come in the Old Testament?
Did the Egyptians see the LORD with their physical eyes? Did he arrive in Egypt on a physical cloud? Did the hearts of the Egyptians physicallymelt? You see, Gary, coming in the glory of the Father doesn’t require a physical event. It was a event that had physical consequences. So, too, Jesus promise to come in the glory of the Father (Matthew 16:27; cp. 26:64-65) was a spiritual event that had physical consequences—the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple.
You quoted Matthew 24:32-34:
Gary, what is so**ambiguous** about this Scripture? Is “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” ambiguous? If not, how is “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened” ambiguous? Jesus reiterated that he would return in **that** generation—his generation. In fact, he just finished telling the Jews all these things would come upon “this generation” (Matthew 23:36). What things? Well, Jesus just finished calling the scribes and Pharisees into account, and he said that he would send them prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of whom they would kill and crucify; and others they would scourge in the synagogues, and persecute from city to city. This they would do in order that upon **them**– that nation, the Jews – would come the guilt of all the righteous blood that was shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel (in Genesis – the first book of the Law) to the blood of Zacharias, the son of Barachias (2Chronicles – the last book of the Old Covenant in the Tanach – See Matthew 23:34-34). In other words, that generation, i.e. Jesus’ generation was the final generation of the Old Covenant. It was **their** end of the age, **their** end time, **their** last days. The age of the Gospel never ends according to Daniel 2:44. And, Gary, the image of Daniel 2 concerned Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. In the days of those kingdoms the Kingdom would be set up that would never end—and that is the Kingdom we preach.
Who is twisting the Scriptures, Gary, those who accept Jesus at his word and take his word to be fulfilled spiritually, or those who demand a physical fulfillment of all these things? Personally I think the answer is obvious.
May the Lord bless you as you consider these things.
Hi Gary,
My position sits somewhere between yours and Eddie’s, in that I see scripture laying out a pattern for a THIRD coming of Christ, with another THIRD physical resurrection and rewards for all the New Covenant saints in our future, as well as two past fulfilled physical resurrections for the Old Covenant saints back in AD 70. Identifying each of these three resurrections is the only way to reconcile the scriptures that seem to conflict with each other. The veiled language is there in scripture to indicate this pattern of three comings of Christ and three resurrections.
Gary, I’m sure you already agree that Christ’s “First Resurrection” took place in the past, when Christ the First-fruits arose from the dead along with the group of saints in Matthew 27:52-53. This “First Resurrection” is the one which Hymenaeus and Philetus built their false doctrine around, which included the 144,000 First-fruits (from Rev. 14:1-5) who came out of the grave with “Christ the First-fruits” (as I Cor. 15:23 calls Him) back in AD 33. Seeing and/or hearing about that group of saints resurrected from graves around Jerusalem was so astoundingly memorable that Hymenaeus and Philetus thought it was the one and only resurrection that would ever take place. It wasn’t, of course, and Paul corrected their error in I Thess. 4, as you have noted.
Gary, part of your expectation for a “rapture” is different from what Paul predicted. There is NO prediction of a TRANSLATION of the living saints who had not yet died mentioned anywhere in I Thess. 4 or in I Cor. 15:51-53 either. Only a change of the DEAD body forms of saints turning into incorruptible ones is ever described. Nobody but resurrected saints were going to participate in the I Thess. 4 rapture.
The I Thess. 4 saints who had already been made “alive” by resurrection, and who had “remained” on the earth were those like the Matthew 27:52-53 saints raised with Jesus, but who would “remain” on the earth until the AD 70 physical resurrection of the rest of the saints up to that point in time. Together, along with the newly-resurrected saints, they met the Lord in the air when Jesus “received them unto Himself” and returned to heaven with them.
The “apantesis” term Eddie has emphasized doesn’t eliminate a physical return to heaven, because Christ was taking His Old Covenant “bride” back to His own home in heaven with Him, for the marriage of the Lamb. The bride never meets the groom to take him back to her old home. And a marriage is usually consummated in a physical sense, so the analogy of a physical gathering of the resurrected saints to meet the physically-returning Christ who takes them all back to heaven with Him is perfectly suitable.
God intended to have three physical resurrection events for harvesting the bodies of His saints out of the dust, to match with the picture type of the three required harvest feast celebrations of Passover, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles. All three resurrections would be spaced out over time, each of them staged to occur at those precise festival times of the year. Those three harvest feast celebrations were designed around the distinctive rainy seasons of Israel’s climate – the “latter rain”, which preceded both the spring barley harvest at Passover (for the First Resurrection), and also the wheat harvest before Pentecost, 50 days later (for the AD 70 second resurrection). That leaves the last, third resurrection to take place in the future during the seventh month when the Feast of Tabernacles would have been celebrated, before the “early rain” of the winter season.
The connection between the three “harvests” of the saints’ bodies and these rainy seasons is found in James 5:7 (ESV). “Be patient therefore brothers, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient about it, until it receives the EARLY and LATE RAINS. You also, be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand.” (Out of three total comings, the second coming in AD 70 was at hand for James’ readers on that year’s Pentecost day, following the latter rain season.)
Hosea 6:3 (KJV) is the companion verse to James 5:7. “Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the Lord: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come to us as the rain, as the LATTER and FORMER RAIN unto the earth.” (Just as the predictable rainy seasons resulted in the three harvest times in Israel, the Lord would time His coming returns and the resurrections to take place at the same time the harvest feast celebrations took place, based on those rainy seasons.)
Jesus also spoke of two future comings which the saints were to look for and to remain ready. The context of Luke 12:35-40 (Interlinear) was Christ’s warning to the disciples and to the people to be prepared with their lamps burning, as if they were men waiting for their lord to return from the wedding feasts (plural). Luke 12:38 then says, “And if he come in the second watch AND in the third watch he come, and find them thus, blessed are those bondmen.” (If the Lord returned both of those times and found His bondmen prepared and ready at both of those returns, the bondmen would be blessed.) Peter then wanted to know if Christ was giving this warning to the disciples, or if it was “to ALL”. Jesus answered by applying this warning generically – to whoever was a faithful and wise steward. That applied to the first-century generation of saints who expected – and experienced – a Pentecost day bodily resurrection at the Lord’s physical return. It also applies to us saints today, who are to expect – and will someday experience – a bodily resurrection at the next return of the Lord in the same month that the Feast of Tabernacles would have been celebrated back under the Old Covenant. This is why we have that one particular feast mentioned for remembrance in Zechariah 14:16-19.
It’s significant Gary, that Jacob was a type of Christ in the OT, and Jacob took two wives, Rachel and Leah, who “built the house of Israel” (Ruth 4:11). These two sisters provided a symbolic example that used the beloved Rachel to represent the originally-chosen children of Abraham under the Old Covenant. Leah, the one not favored by Jacob’s choice to begin with, corresponds to the Gentile nations who were on the outside of God’s promises to begin with, who eventually as believers under the New Covenant started producing far more “children” for Christ than the Jews did. That’s because the Jewish nation under the Old Covenant, like Rachel, died in the vicinity of Jerusalem in the AD 70 era.
Why shouldn’t there be a corresponding resurrection and judgment devoted to each of these Ages – the New Covenant Age and the Old Covenant Age? There is NO scripture that limits the resurrection to a single event, and one event only. This is merely a presumed tradition supposing that there is only one.
Oops, sorry Gary – I posted a mistake in the first paragraph that I didn’t catch last night. I meant to say that there have been two past fulfilled physical resurrections: one for Christ and the Matthew 27:52-53 saints back in AD 33, and another resurrection in AD 70. Just to clarify, because that sounded confusing.
Twisting scripture is starting with a narrative and then twisting the rest of the bible to fit that scheme – interpreting some words of Jesus in a certain way, and then dismissing the rest of Jesus words since they don’t agree with the first premise.
Full Preterism isn’t the only doctrine to make this error, many Futurists have taken a certain interpretation of Daniel 9 and “twisted” the rest of the bible into a complete end times narrative. Problem is that Daniel is quite ambiguous, and it’s just too easy to start with a false premise and build an entire story to fit the rest of the bible into that mold.
The Rapturists do the same thing to 1 Thessalonians 4, starting with the notion of a “secret” rapture and then forcing the rest of the bible to match that idea. I’ve always preferred to read the bible in plains terms and try to find the ideas the best bring things into harmony. It seems clear that Paul is describing the second coming of Christ, the resurrection which will start at his arrival, and what will happen to those Christians still alive at that point in time. No need to make up something else…
Jesus plainly teaches that every eye will see his return, we are not to be fooled by anyone into thinking that we’ve missed the event – we’ll all be fully aware. Upon his return, both alive and dead in Christ will meet him in the air, and our old perishable bodies will be transformed into new immortal ones. We will see Jesus face to face and know him as he is, and we will live with him forever.
So, the Full Preterist, having accepted a specific interpretation of Matthew 24:32-34, is left with the hefty task of explaining away these promises – literally taking away from the very essence of Christianity. Paul clearly explains to the Thessalonians that, when Jesus returns, they will be with him. And that same promise applies to us, to all Christians that have lived through the ages, and to those that are still alive today. When Christ returns, he will deliver on his promises, and no one will miss out, alive or dead, every knee will bow.
Since that event has not yet occurred, as described throughout the bible, then we’re left with the conclusion that Jesus did not promise to return in his own generation, there are simply far too many “words of Jesus” that prove this interpretation false. When Jesus does return, we won’t be having any debates about it, this is what Jesus promised, this is the right answer to any and all scoffers.
This whole spiritual vs. physical return of Jesus is really just another non-issue, I mean, really does it matter at all to make this distinction? I’m certainly not using this as an argument and don’t really see the point. The closest the bible comes to saying that his return will be physical is:
Acts 1-“Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”
But, of course there’s enough ambiguity, even in this plain statement, to still call his return more spiritual in nature. It’s clear that our perishable bodies are quite physical in nature, and that our new bodies will be spiritual:
1 Corinthians 43-44 Our bodies are buried in brokenness, but they will be raised in glory. They are buried in weakness, but they will be raised in strength. They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies.
Is this really an important distinction? Not in my opinion. The promises of Christ are far more important. When Jesus returns, he will transform our physical bodies into spiritual ones – this is what’s important, every one of us will be changed in an instant. He promises that every eye will see this, that alive or dead in Christ, we will all be present with Jesus – when he does return.
In the meantime, we are commanded to watch and to wait, to hold strong until the very end, -this is the simple message of the bible. Jesus promised to return in glory, to bring an end to this evil and sinful world, to usher in a new age, literally a new heavens and a new earth. And he promised to bring his rewards to those that believed in him. First believe these words of Jesus, these many commands and beautiful promises, then read the rest of the bible in that context.
This is rightly dividing the word of truth, in my humble opinion…
God Bless,
-Gary
Greetings Gary and thank you for your comment and determination in this little discussion.
If you wish to have your comments appear at the top of the page, simply go to the bottom of the page and **reply** in the “comment box” there without actually replying to a specific comment of mine. That way your most recent comments won’t appear in the midst of previous comments. If you don’t want to do that, then just disregard this hint. I’m simply trying to be helpful, in case you would rather not search for your comments and mine in the midst of previous ones.
Concerning “twisting Scripture,” if you define **twisting** Scripture by saying an interpretation of Matthew 24:32-34 doesn’t agree with what Paul said in 1Thessalonians 4:13-17, why wouldn’t that work the other way around? That is, wouldn’t **your interpretation** of Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians be contrary to what Jesus clearly claimed in Matthew? In other words forcing Thessalonians to agree with Matthew is just as bad as forcing Matthew to agree with Thessalonians. Therefore, your demand for a literal, physical return of Jesus doesn’t make such a return necessary. It is rather for us to honor Jesus’ words and submit our thoughts, i.e. our understanding of the text to the clear reading of the Scriptures themselves, not the other way around.
Concerning Daniel 9, chapter 9 begins with Daniel’s prayer to the Lord to permit the Jews to return to their homeland, because the 70 years prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled. The Lord’s response was that 70 weeks of years or 490 years were determined upon the Jews. There is nothing ambiguous about that. Count 490 years and you come to Jesus, his ministry and the beginning of his apostles’ ministry, and the count ends with the death of Stephen. At that point, cir. 40 years are added to parallel the Jews’ 40 years in the wilderness before entry into the Promised Land was possible, which in the context of the first century AD would bring us to cir. 70 AD, give or take. Therefore, one simply cannot cause or force Daniel’s 490 years to go beyond the first century AD.
Concerning your words: “No need to make up something else…”, what am I making up? I’ve used Scripture to support every claim I’ve made. What can be clearer than Matthew 16:27-28 or Matthew 23:29-36? To whom was Jesus speaking, when he claimed “all these things will come upon **this** generation?” Notice he didn’t say **that** generation, as though it was a generation far removed from him, but he said **this** generation, which was in close proximity to him. I’m merely trying to honor Jesus’ words. What is so ambiguous about his words?
Concerning Revelation 1:7, let me quote the verse:
First of all, do you really expect Jesus to come out of heaven on a bright cumulus cloud? I hope we can agree he won’t. After all, did Pharaoh really see the Lord coming on a cloud to judge Egypt in Isaiah 19:1? If we can agree to this, then it seems obvious that John is writing in hyperbole / apocalyptic (exaggerated) language, similar to how Mark writes about John the Baptist:
Certainly, every last man, woman and child of Judea and Jerusalem neither went out to see John the Baptist, nor were all of them baptized by him. Therefore, when John says “…every eye will see him”, he isn’t speaking literally. We can understand this type of language in the manner in which we use it ourselves, when we describe an important event. We often say: “Everyone was there!” Yet, the person or persons we’re speaking with don’t take us literally. Rather, they automatically know that not everyone in the world attended the event. The phrase is simply understood without explanation. What I find odd is that I must explain Revelation 1:7 to you. Really! **every eye** will see him? It seems to me that you are forcing this interpretation upon the text and, furthermore, requiring much clearer texts, such as Matthew 16:27-38 and Matthew 23:29-36 and Matthew 24:32-34 (all of which agree with one another) to agree with your interpretation of Revelation 1:7 which is clearly taken out of context.
Long comments, such as yours, sometimes demand longer comments from me, so I’ll divide this reply to you into two replies of about equal length. This way, folks who wish to read what we say here are more apt to read the whole discussion, if it is divided into several equal portions. So this comment will be:
CONTINUED BELOW…