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”
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE:
Concerning: Matthew 24:32-34 and “literally taking away from the very essence of Christianity…” What exactly is “literally taking away from the very essence of Christianity” according to you? Is it 1Thessalonians 4:13-17? Well, what does that mean? It seems to me that you want to force your interpretation of 1Thessalonians 4:13-17 upon Matthew 24:32-34. Yet, Jesus claimed Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35), meaning: it cannot be read in such a manner that one passage is forced to contradict another passage. You claim:
In other words, since your interpretation of 1Thessalonians 4:13-17 **must** be correct, then Jesus **could not have meant** what Matthew 16:27-28, Matthew 23:29-36 and Matthew 24:32-34 clearly claim concerning Jesus’ return in that generation.
The question arises then, how does your conclusion about **Jesus’ words** fit with what the writers of the New Covenant Scriptures claim about what Jesus said? Peter claimed that the prophets of old prophesied not for their time, but for the time of those to whom Peter wrote in the first century AD. Here, Peter tells his readers to wait for the grace that was to come to them at the revelation of Jesus (1Peter 1:10-13). Furthermore, Peter claimed the **end of all things** was near (1Peter 4:7), that is, the end was near in the first century AD, at least this is what Peter told his immediate readers, and don’t forget, Peter actually heard what Jesus claimed in Matthew 16, 23 & 24. His statements in his epistles are **Peter’s** interpretation of what he heard Jesus say.
John the Baptist claimed, “the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand!” (Matthew 3:2). James, who lived in the same home as Jesus, also claimed, when he wrote to the Diaspora, that Jesus’ return was near even at the door (James 5:8-9). Paul also claimed the coming of the Lord was “near” (Philippians 4:5), in a very little while (Hebrews 10:37). This doesn’t sound like 2000 years and counting. Rather, it shows that all the New Covenant writers believed Jesus meant what he said, namely, that he predicted he would return within that generation that condemned him to die on the cross.
You said:
I am astonished that you would say this. Exactly how does “every eye” see the Lord (Revelation 1:7), as you claim they would, if it wasn’t a “physical” event? Again, did Pharaoh see the Lord coming on the clouds in Isaiah 19:1? Clearly, he didn’t, so the Lord came spiritually and worked through the king of Assyria to judge Egypt. In other words, the Lord came “spiritually” (not physically) to Egypt and judged that nation. This would suggest that a “spiritual” coming of Jesus would occur in the first century AD through Titus and his armies, when Jesus came to destroy Jerusalem and the Temple (cp. Matthew 26:64).
If Jesus comes to a physical Jerusalem and sits on a physical throne, and is physically seen by every eye of every man woman and child on earth, then Jesus comes physically. If Jesus comes through a physical general (or king) and destroys or judges Jerusalem, while Jesus reigns in the heavens, then Jesus’ coming is spiritual. It has **physical** results, but no one “sees” him with their physical eyes, he doesn’t physically come to Jerusalem, and he doesn’t physically sit upon a physical throne in the Middle East.
Concerning Acts 1:11 and Jesus’ coming in like manner that he left from Mount Olivet, I speak at length about this very matter in a previous study entitled: “In Like Manner.” Please see it as my reply to this point.
Concerning “he will transform our physical bodies into spiritual ones,” the Bible never says that. What we are told in 1Corinthians 15:52 is that the dead in Christ will be raise imperishable, but we who are alive will be changed. That is, those who were dead would be raised to life and given an imperishable, spiritual body (1Corinthians 15:44, 52), but those who are alive would be changed. Yet, nothing is said of the living, physical believers given spiritual bodies. All the Scripture claims about the living is that they would be changed. The word in the Greek is “allasso” (G236). The same word is used in Acts 6:14 for “changing” the customs of Moses, and in Hebrews 1:12 for changing the face of nature as it gets older. Allasso (G236) doesn’t mean we are given a spiritual body. It simply means something occurs to us that “changes” us into something we weren’t before. It has to do with Jesus making his abode with us forever (Revelation 21). It has to do with restoring man’s relationship with God to what it was before Adam rebelled. When we die, and it is appointed that all men will die once (Hebrews 9:27), then we’ll be given spiritual bodies, but not before.
Concerning your saying: “In the meantime, we are commanded to watch and to wait, to hold strong until the very end,” Proverbs tells us that
Gary, do you really believe the Lord would tell us for 2000 years (and counting) that he is coming soon (Revelation 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10, 12, 20) but keep deferring that hope to another generation into the future? He tells us that such a thing makes one’s heart sick. Is that what the Lord has been doing with his people for 2000 years, making us sick? I’m telling you that he has kept his promise in the very generation that he predicted he would come to reward his saints, and his doing so is a tree of life for the soul.
Lord bless you Gary while you consider these things.
Hello again Eddie,
That last batch of responses was quite a bit to absorb, I’m really going to have to select the most important parts for this reply. I have started a fresh section for this one – the reply levels run out at two or three levels anyways. I’ll start with your question:
Concerning: Matthew 24:32-34 and “literally taking away from the very essence of Christianity…” What exactly is “literally taking away from the very essence of Christianity” according to you?
To say that the second coming of Jesus has already occurred, is to say that we don’t need to follow the command of Jesus to “watch and wait” for his return. It also voids the many promises regarding his return, that we’ll be rewarded with new bodies, that we’ll see Jesus as he really is, no less than face to face, etc. Did any of this already happen? Jesus warned us to not be fooled – we won’t miss it. Certainly, two thousand years worth of Christians will not miss it, they’re all going to be there, as the bible clearly states.
These are the promises that every Christian holds dear, we must be able to trust the words of Jesus, and the scriptures that we accept as divinely inspired.To claim that Jesus quietly returned without “every eye” seeing him, as promised, is tantamount to invalidating the blessed hope that truly does define Christianity.
About the spiritual vs. physical question, isn’t it true that a spiritual body can choose to be seen by the physical eye? And, if we are to receive spiritual bodies, won’t we still have eyes to see? This whole debate is simply another attempt to prove that Jesus returned without “every eye” seeing him, as promised. However, the reverse point is the main point, Jesus meant what he said about every one seeing his return. In fact every Christian, alive or dead, upon his return, will meet him the air, as promised. Call that spiritual or physical, does it really matter? It only seems important for the Full Preterist narrative. Jesus will not sneak back, he will return in glory and every eye will see him, that’s a promise.
And, of course, the main point here really is all about Matthew 24:33-34:
Even so, when you see ALL THESE THINGS, you know THAT IT IS NEAR, right at the door. Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until ALL THESE THINGS have happened.
Parsing through these words presents a real struggle for every serious Christian, just google them and you’ll quickly find a whole range of interpretations, including that Jesus failed to fulfill his promise, thereby invalidating the entire gospel. And, this would be a serious problem, IF Jesus failed to fulfill any one of his promises. I’m pretty sure you would agree, the bible is either all true, or it is useless.
So, Eddie, you have claimed that these words predict a specific time frame for the second coming of Christ, and I’ve interpreted them to mean something other that. Clearly, I’ve also struggled with these verses and am not totally confident that I know exactly what they mean. However I am quite confident that it is incorrect to interpret them as a promise by Jesus to return within his own generation.
As I’ve already stated, my best guess is that Jesus is referring to the generation that “sees all these things” as the generation that will not pass away. This is a common interpretation held by many Christians. But, it’s also important to note that these words DO NOT predict that Jesus would return within whichever generation is referred to. It predicts that “this generation” will not pass away until “all these things” have happened. And, what are “all these things”? The things that will let you know that the time near. It does not say that Jesus will return within that generation, only that all the things you need to know that it is near will have happened, within that generation.
Perhaps a technicality, but these words reduce down to the return if Jesus is “at hand”, is “near”, is “right at the door”, and in this sense is consistent with many other verses in the bible that tell us that we are to be constantly prepared for the Lord’s return, to patiently watch and wait, because the Lord will return like a thief in the night – when least expected. And like all the other verses, it does not promise any specific time frame. We may be able to watch and see signs that show it’s getting closer, but the bible makes it clear that even Jesus did not know when he would return.
If Jesus had promised to return within his own generation, wouldn’t you expect that idea to be referenced elsewhere in scripture? And, yet, it never is. Do any of the new testament authors refer to the second coming of Christ in these terms? No, they never do, and there are plenty of opportunities for them to use this interpretation to explain what Jesus meant by all these “at hand” and “near” and “quickly” references.
Did Paul tell the Thessalonians, “hey don’t worry, the time is almost up since we only have our own generation to wait”? No, he explained to them exactly what would happen at Christ’s return, and told them not to worry about their loved ones that had already passed away – no one was going to miss out. Wouldn’t it make sense for Paul to discuss the specific timing, if only he knew what it was?
When John wrote his gospel, did he use any specific knowledge to clarify the rumors about the timing of Jesus’ return?
John 21:22-23 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”
No mention of a promise to return in any specific time frame. Already well into at least the middle of their own generation, if John believed that Jesus had promised to return within his own generation, doesn’t it make sense that he would make that clear right here, that “Jesus predicted his return in his generation, not necessarily just in John’s own lifetime”. No, he missed a real opportunity to make this crucial point. He simply reiterates the fact that the rumors were mistaken about what Jesus said, and tells them clearly what Jesus did not say.
And, of course, when confronted by the scoffers of his time, and projecting into our times, did Peter explain that they all had just a little more time to wait, since Jesus had promised to return within his own generation, “just hang in there, not too much longer”?
2 Peter 8-10 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.
No, if Peter believed that Jesus had promised to return within his own generation, he had a really strange way of expressing it. Instead he gives the perspective that Jesus actually gave, and what Jesus actually meant. While it was clear that Jesus promised to return, in glory, the grand circus one could say, and that he had stated over and over again that his return was at hand, near, right at the door, the specific timing remained a complete mystery.
Honestly, Eddie, wouldn’t Peter have put the mystery to rest, if he had any specific knowledge of the timing? He could have noted that he was, at this point, getting on in age. He could have stated the fact that he was there when Jesus promised to return within their generation – it’s got to be just a little while longer… No, he says none of that. Instead he explains that the Lord keeps a different clock than we do and the timing is up to him. Furthermore, his timing is still accurate and his reasons for waiting are for the benefit of those that might perish.
The bible makes it clear, that while we are commanded to watch and wait, that the second coming is quite near, it also makes it clear that it will come at an unexpected time, at a time that is not predicted anywhere in the bible. The specific timing belongs to God alone, and he is not slow in keeping his promise, no matter what anyone thinks. This is what the bible teaches.
I’m not claiming that Matthew 24:33-24 contradicts other parts of the bible, I’m saying that since it must be in alignment with the rest of the bible, the interpretation that Jesus promised to return within his own generation is in contradiction with the rest of bible. It’s this interpretation that is in error, and starting with a contradiction can lead to all kinds of wrong assumptions, even to twisting the word to fit a false narrative. Obviously, the idea that the Lord has already returned in 70 AD, without fulfilling every one of his promises, is also in direct contradiction with the bible.
So, while I can appreciate many parts of the Preterism doctrine (especially as it relates to understanding Daniel 9), it also seems clear that Full Preterism, specifically the idea that the second coming has already occurred in 70 AD, is not supported by scriptures.
God Bless,
-Gary
Greetings Gary, and thank you for your comment. For the record you addressed only two of my points / questions in my previous reply. I understand it was quite long, but you spent three and a half pages in my Word document to tell me the Lord couldn’t have really meant what he clearly stated, namely, that he would return in the first century AD before the generation that crucified him and killed all his Apostles died out. Moreover, you tried to do so without quoting Scripture to support your arguments. You merely argued that Jesus couldn’t have meant what he clearly said he would do.
What do I see as the main problem for your argument? It is this: you have an idea about what the return of the Lord would look like, what the resurrection and judgment would look like and what the rewards of the believers would look like, and you interpret all of Scripture to meet that criteria. Even Jesus, himself, **must** meet your criteria (cp. Isaiah 55:8), for you to believe what he says. Jesus was rejected as the Messiah in the first century AD simply because he didn’t meet the criteria of first century Jewish understanding of the Scriptures (John 12:34).
I used to be a futurists, much like yourself. However, once I realized that I must yield my thoughts to Jesus and let him mold my opinions according to his word—i.e. the words the New Covenant Scriptures attribute to him—then I found I could no longer believe as I had believed up to that point in time. That was an epiphany for me. You need an epiphany, Gary. Until you have one, you won’t be able to see beyond your opinion and all of Scripture will have to be force fitted to your understanding. Have a great day, my friend. May the Lord bless you with great understanding of his word.
Eddie,
Jesus clearly said that he would return to reward those that believe in him, and he was very specific about what our rewards would be. He made it clear that every eye would see him and that every knee would bow. I’m choosing to believe Jesus because that’s what it means to be a Christian.
He was not so clear about exactly when this would happen, in fact he claimed to not even know himself. And it was also clear that his disciples did not know when he would return and did not preach about any specific time frame. However, Jesus was very very clear that we should be faithful until the end, and those that do remain faithful, watching and waiting, preparing to meet him, will receive his full reward – alive or already dead in Christ, they will all meet Jesus and see him face to face.
This is my criteria for believing Jesus, that he must fulfill his promises, and this is the exact criteria that the bible teaches. My idea about the return of Christ, is simply what Jesus said about it, no more and no less. Any teaching, even an epiphany, that subtracts from that, must be rejected – the bible is full of warnings about these false doctrines, and how we are to guard against them.
Of course, I am in need of some kind of my own epiphany, there is no doubt about that. My primary concern is that the same words of God, enhanced by the same Holy Spirit, can lead to such confusion across the church. This is what does not make sense to me, many of these divisions are fundamental and in direct contradiction, many of them must be false since they cannot all be true. Is there any hope of reconciliation, short of the final return of Jesus?
And, it’s not just about Full Preterism, which represents only a tiny fragment of proponents. I can tell you that it’s quite frustrating to sit in a main stream church that teaches a secret rapture, and to just have to sort of bite my tongue about it. For many this is their epiphany, no less than the holy grail – it’s just no fun suggesting that it’s not going to happen that way.
Clearly, the pastor has a deep passion for Jesus and has studied the matter in far more detail than I. Suffice it say that he has my total respect, and yet is also totally wrong about a very important doctrine. Awkward moment? Why can’t I find this rapture thing, reading the exact same scriptures, praying for guidance from the same Holy Spirit? It’s not that I haven’t looked, it’s just that it’s not in there. It this really how Christianity is supposed to work?
Our modern day church can’t even agree on which day is the appropriate day for corporate worship, and the endless arguments have fragmented the denominations into so many little pieces, it’s hard to recognize it as the church of Christ. We sit in our church on Sunday morning, while the church down the street was just yesterday teaching that as a grave sin. Is this really how Jesus wanted the church to be? Hard to believe that he’s happy about it…
May God bless us with a better understanding,
-Gary
Greetings Gary, and thank you for your heartfelt reply. You said:
I can relate. I am often troubled by how many in my fellowship take the teaching of a ‘famous’ preacher and believe he is the man of God for our era. He is wrong in prophecy, and the dates fail, but he isn’t a false prophet. It simply boggles the mind what some of my brethren are willing to overlook in order to believe their favorite teacher.
I understand perfectly. I disagree with some important teachings that my pastor preaches, but I have tremendous respect for him. He loves the Lord and that’s what counts. Doctrines are fine; if they are true, they set us free from many things that bind us. However, what doctrine cannot do is **save** anyone. Lots of people are wrong in their understanding, but they love the Lord, and he looks upon the heart. They’re all saved, every one of them. Some folks don’t see it this way, and they try to tell us you must believe **this** or **that** teaching to be saved. Not true. All one needs is Jesus.
I wouldn’t be overly concerned about this, Gary. Look at it this way. There is not a doubt in my mind that you love the Lord and are saved. I believe you feel the same about me. Yet, we differ on a very important matter. From my perspective I am free and no longer troubled about when the Lord will return. Again, from my perspective, I see you troubled about what the Lord will find at his return. Your perspective would be different, but I said that to say this. At any given moment, the Lord could, if he really wanted to, expose the error of what you or I believe, and he could do it in a very convincing manner (viz. Paul’s Damascus experience). No doctrine, no error – nothing – is too great for him to handle. The fact that he has not exposed your error (or mine, if you are correct) tells me that he doesn’t mind all that much. There are more important things at work here. We can discuss our differences in a friendly manner. Sometimes I push the envelope a bit, but by and large our discussion, though heated at times, is a friendly one. We treat one another like brethren. That is more important than right doctrine.
In view of this fact, I’m ending our discussion on this topic. You know what I believe and I know what you believe. We need not rehash it all in every reply. I was a Sunday school teacher for over 25 years in my church fellowship. Recently, I told my pastor I wanted to quit. The leadership knew I had changed my eschatological outlook. I told them, but said I wouldn’t push it upon my brethren. They were comfortable with that. Nevertheless, the more I studied and tried to relate what I found to my class (studying the book of Hebrews) the more I simply couldn’t keep from speaking about it. The message is everywhere. I remembered 1Corinthians 11 and eating before my brethren. I took that as spiritual food; my class and my church took it as physical food. Yet, the Gospels tell us to share our riches with those who lack, so why “eat my steak” at home? Why not share it. Therefore, I concluded it was spiritual food that Paul had in mind. I shouldn’t keep telling my brethren what the Lord gave me to “eat” (spiritually). Therefore, I told my pastor that in good conscience I thought I should quit immediately. No problem.
I told you this, because this is how I see the way our discussion has turned. It can do no good to continue. I hope you understand. Nevertheless, don’t be afraid to stop by and reply to a different study. I will enjoy hearing from you. Lord bless.