[Response To Gentry's Analysis of the Full Preterist View...]

[GENTRY] Ninth, Acts 1 clearly defines Christ's Second Advent in terms of His ascension, which was physical and visible. For example, in Acts 1:8-11 Luke is careful to say the disciples were "beholding" Him as He ascended; He was received "from the eyes of them" ( v. 9b); they were "gazing" as He was "going" (v. 10); they were "looking" (v. 11); they "beheld" (v. 11). Clearly His ascension was a visible and glorious phenomenon involving His tangible resurrected body. And there was an actual visible cloud associated with it (v. 10). The angelic messengers resolutely declare "this same Jesus" (i.e., the Jesus they knew for over three years, who is now in a tangible resurrected body) will "so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven" (v. 11). The Greek “on tropon” literally means "what manner." The Greek phrase "never indicates mere certainty or vague resemblance; but wherever it occurs in the New Testament, denotes identity of mode or manner" (A. Alexander, Acts, ad loc). Consequently, we have express biblical warrant to expect a visible, bodily, glorious return of Christ paralleling in kind the ascension. The hyper-preterist position goes contrary to this clear teaching of Scripture.

Ninth – Gentry’s statements here are almost a verbatim quote from his book (HSHD, pp. 275-277). I say “almost,” because there is one significant omission. He does not include his admission (p. 276) regarding Acts 1:11 that, “This cloud ‘is probably to be interpreted as the cloud of the Shekhinah,’ the same cloud witnessed at the transfiguration.” I wonder why he left that out? Is it possible Gentry felt that saying too much about the Glory Cloud might alert his readers to the possibility that the real connection (“in the same manner”) between Christ’s ascension and His return was the Glory Cloud? In his comments on Rev. 1:7 (BJF, pp. 121-132), Gentry writes a paragraph suggesting that the coming of Christ mentioned there was a “Cloud-Coming of Christ”. He understands the “clouds as indicators of divine judgment,” and that “the New Testament speaks of Christ’s coming in clouds of judgment in history...” (BJF, p. 123). He says the “cloud-coming” mentioned in Rev. 1:7 occurred in AD 70 and is to be connected with the cloud-comings mentioned in Matt. 24:30 and Matt. 26:64. I have reprinted all four of these “cloud-coming” passages below so we can see their linkage with Acts 1:9-11 –

“...and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” (Matt. 24:30)

Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Matt. 26:64)

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 heaven while He was departing, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them; and they also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? 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)

Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. Even so. Amen. (Rev. 1:7)

Notice the similarities I have boldfaced above. This is not just similar language. It is almost identical language about the same event. You can easily see why Gentry was forced to identify the “cloud-coming” in Rev. 1:7 as the same coming in Matt. 24:30. But you can also see why he would want to obscure the similarities between Rev. 1:7 and Acts 1:9-11. The “cloud-coming” motif is an obvious point of similarity. Does this connection with the Shekhinah glory cloud lend credence to the AD 70 application of this second coming text? Absolutely! Even premillennial dispensational futurists see this connection.

Michael Grasso (a full preterist) shared the following quote with me from Dr. Robert L. Thomas’ article entitled, “Theonomy and the Dating of Revelation” (The Master’s Seminary Journal, Fall 1994, pp. 185-202). Dr. Thomas is a premillennial dispensationalist and an instructor at The Master’s Seminary. His article is a critique of Gentry’s book, BJF. Notice what Thomas says about Gentry’s cloud-coming statements in BJF:

How is it that the cloud-coming of A.D. 70 involves no personal coming of Christ (Matt. 24:30; 26:64; Rev. 1:7; 2:5,16,25; 3:3,11,20; 16:15; 22:7,12,20), but the cloud-coming at the end of history does (Acts. 1:11; 1 Thess. 4:13ff)? In the first place, where did Christ distinguish between two comings, and in the second place, where did He say that He would personally appear at one and not the other? The answer to both questions is “nowhere.” Such a distinguishing between two future comings is the product of a dominion-theological distortion of NT teaching, not of sound exegetical practice.”

Keep in mind that Dr. Thomas’ argument is coming from a premillennial dispensational viewpoint. He is an extreme futurist, yet even he sees Gentry’s inconsistency here. This clearly illustrates how Gentry and all other partial preterists are “fighting a two-front war.” Gentry doesn’t hesitate to differ with traditional conclusions when his system demands it. He does the same things he accuses us of doing.

Dr. Randall Otto (Coming In The Clouds, pp. 252-258, 265) deals with the Shekhinah glory cloud and shows that it is closely associated with the redemptive comings of God (Theophanies). And, Otto claims that this text (Acts 1:11) is strong support for the invisibility of Christ at His return:

While this verse is generally cited to prove that the glorified Jesus will Himself be personally visible at His second coming, it is in fact the case that the glorified Jesus cannot be seen by any man because His glorified person is veiled, hidden, and enveloped within the cloud of God’s presence. They had seen Him go in cloud and glory; in cloud and glory He would return. Just as the disciples had not seen Christ going up to heaven, but rather the cloud which veiled Him and His Divine Glory, so in the same manner, i.e., hidden within the cloud, He would return. It cannot be stated too strongly: the glorified Jesus Himself will not be visible in His second coming, for He was not visible in his ascension, but rather hidden. Assertions regarding the personal and visible second coming of Christ are not based on solid biblical theology or exegesis. Just as Jesus’ glorious exaltation was manifested by His being carried aloft while hidden in the cloud, in the same manner the invisible and glorified Jesus will manifest His exalted glory in the veil of the visible cloud at His second coming. (italics his, boldface added)

I’m not so sure it is necessary for full preterists to agree with Otto’s position on this “invisibility” idea, but it is one possible way of interpreting the nature of Christ’s return at AD 70. It is also interesting that Josephus, Tacitus, Eusebius and the Talmud all record that angelic armies were seen in the clouds just before the destruction of Jerusalem. That was “visible” evidence that Christ (the commander of the heavenly hosts) was present. His sign appeared in the sky (Matt. 24:30). Gentry connects this passage (Matt. 24:29-31) and Rev. 1:7 with the AD 70 “cloud-coming” of Christ. Both passages use the same language and are in an imminent context. The language of Rev. 1:7 is so similar to Acts 1:11 that most exegetes declare unequivocally they are speaking of the same event (except for inconsistent partial preterist exegetes like Gentry). It is amazing to read the powerful statements in Gentry’s BJF (pp. 121-132) about the AD 70 “Cloud-Coming” of Rev. 1:7, and then read what he says here about the cloud return mentioned in Acts 1:11. Gentry distinguishes Acts 1:11 from the AD 70 “cloud-coming” of Rev. 1:7. How can anyone fail to see the “cloud” connection between the ascension and the second coming? Only the presuppositional demands of Gentry’s partial preterist system “clouds” it from his vision! He doesn’t seem to see any other possible way to conceive of Christ’s final coming than the physical, visible reappearance of the physical body of Christ. But if his presuppositions about the nature of fulfillment are incorrect, then his timing of the parousia could be mistaken as well. This “nature of fulfillment” issue needs a lot more examination than Gentry has given it.

Based on his discussion of Rev. 1:7 in BJF (p. 123), it seems his main rationale for a future application of Acts 1:11 is because it doesn’t have any “time cues” that would clearly and necessarily connect it with AD 70. Is that really sufficient grounds for disconnecting it from AD 70 (especially in view of the time cues in Acts 2 and 3)? Where is Gentry’s Biblical evidence to show that the apostles, looking on at the ascension and hearing the two angels speak of Christ’s return, understood that this return of Christ was a totally different return than the one Christ had just recently taught them about in the Olivet Discourse? And where is the evidence that Luke, who wrote both Luke and Acts, understood two different returns of Christ separated by thousands of years? Where is there any evidence in the Acts 1:11 context that there was any distinction being made between the two different comings, or that the apostles understood that it was a different coming than what they had recently heard about in Jesus parables and discourses? The church has “always and everywhere” affirmed both these passages (Acts 1:11 and Rev. 1:7) as speaking of the same second coming of Christ. Gentry wants to un-connect them while pretending like he is defending the “always and everywhere” tradition of the church! Full preterists are the ones consistent with tradition on this by saying they are the same coming. Gentry is inconsistent, by applying one (Rev. 1:7) to AD 70 and the other (Acts 1:11) to a yet future return.

Notice what Rev. 1:7 actually says: “Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. Even so. Amen.” (Rev. 1:7) I recommend reading Gentry’s justification for applying this text to Christ’s coming in AD 70 (in BJF)? It is excellent. But see if you can find where he says anything about the phrase, “every eye shall see Him.” Maybe I missed it, but I couldn’t find it in the section where I would have expected him to deal with it (BJF, pp. 113-132). Why not? Is this another one of those embarrassing phrases for him (like “heaven and earth” in Matt. 24:35)? Looks like full preterists are not the only ones who have difficulty applying certain texts to AD 70. All postmil readers need to ask Gentry how he can apply Rev. 1:7 to AD 70 and not Acts 1:11. Acts 1:11 doesn’t promise that “every eye” will see Christ’s coming. It could be more easily interpreted as a limited coming in judgment at AD 70, than could Rev. 1:7 where “every eye” was promised to see the coming. Yet, Gentry takes the “every eye” passage as AD 70 and the possibly limited coming in Acts 1:11 as still future. I ask again, where is Gentry’s evidence that the apostles and first century brethren would have understood Acts 1:11 and Rev. 1:7 to be speaking of two different comings separated by thousands of years? The church has “always and everywhere” connected the two comings as being the same. If Gentry has freedom to un-connect them, why don’t full preterists have the right to connect them and use the same type of argumentation for an AD 70 fulfillment for both of them that Gentry uses for Rev. 1:7. Is he the only one who has the right to differ with traditional exegesis? We would remind our readers that the creeds do not teach two different returns of Christ separated by thousands of years. Neither do the creeds mention a “coming of Christ in judgment upon Jerusalem at AD 70.” Gentry is on just as shaky creedal turf as full preterists are on this. What is also peculiar is that Gentry usually connects the idea of a “visible” return with Christ’s final coming. In fact, that is one of his main arguments under point nine. Which of the two passages (Acts 1:11 or Rev. 1:7) speak of the most “visible” return of Christ? Obviously Rev. 1:7, the passage which says “every eye shall see” this coming, which Gentry applies to AD 70. Unwittingly he has supported the full preterist view by showing that the AD 70 coming (mentioned in Rev. 1:7) was a “visible” coming. “Every eye shall see Him.” So, the coming of Christ at AD 70 (by Gentry’s own interpretation and application) was a “visible” return of Christ. Does Gentry agree with himself on this? It is just as legitimate for us to apply Acts 1:11 to AD 70 as it is for him to apply Rev. 1:7 to AD 70, since Rev. 1:7 uses at least as much (if not more) “visible” language about its coming than does Acts 1:11.

There is more than just a cloud connection between the comings mentioned in Rev. 1:7 and Acts 1:11. An oft-overlooked motif in Acts 1 is the High Priestly language. The words “ascend” and “descend” were commonly used in connection with the priests’ ascent into the Temple to perform the sacrifices, especially in relation to the Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) solemnities. It would not have been difficult for the first century Jewish saints to understand that Jesus, our High Priest, was “ascending” into the Heavenly Temple to perform His Yom Kippur service and then “descend” afterwards to announce that atonement had been completed. The Yom Kippur typology had to be fulfilled in the heavenly temple, since the earthly temple was only a replica and type of the heavenly one (cf. Heb. 9,10 esp. 9:23ff). The book of Hebrews goes into significant detail describing Jesus’ High Priesthood, and it is in this context that we have the only NT mention of a “second appearance” of Christ (Heb. 9:28). When did Jesus “ascend” into the heavenly Holy of Holies to perform His Yom Kippur work? Would Gentry deny that Acts 1:9-11 was that “ascent” of the High Priest? When was He to “descend” out of that Holy of Holies? Would Gentry deny that Heb. 9:28’s description of the High Priest’s second appearance from the heavenly temple was the “descent” of Christ at AD 70? Based on his statements in BJF (pp. 135n, 142n, 235n) and HSHD (pp. 326, 279), it seems that he does in fact apply Heb. 9:28 to AD 70, especially since he admits there are time indicators in the context (Heb. 10:25, 37). If Gentry believes the descent (Heb. 9:28) of the High Priest out of the Heavenly Temple was in AD 70, when was the ascent into it? Since Acts 1:9-11 contains this high priestly “ascension” concept, it forces Acts 1:11 into association with the AD 70 coming. It points directly to Jesus’ disappearance into the heavenly cloud-filled temple to perform the rest of His High Priestly work.

And Hebrews is not the only place in the NT where this High Priestly language and temple typology is used. The book of Revelation is full of it, a book which Gentry labors to connect closely with AD 70, especially in those typological sections which have so much “covenantal language” in them. This ascent/descent idea more than suggests that the coming back mentioned in Acts 1:9-11 is the same “second appearance” as the one spoken of in Heb. 9:28 and 10:37. There is not only a “cloud-coming” connection in Acts 1, but a High Priestly “ascent-descent” connection as well. Both of these connections demand an AD 70 application. The very use of the cloud motif teaches that the ascent and descent would be Theophanies inseparably related to the plan of redemption. If AD 70 had a “cloud-coming” (which Gentry has affirmed in his books), then it must have been a very significant Theophany closely related to the plan of redemption.

In further development of the cloud-connection in Acts 1:9-11, it is interesting to read Alfred Edersheim’s account of the High Priest’s ministry on the Day of Atonement (The Temple, Its Ministry and Services, pp. 302-329). The Most Holy Place was filled with incense smoke before he ascended into it to perform the Yom Kippur atonement services. He disappeared into that cloud of incense smoke (which symbolized the presence of God), and reappeared from the cloud of incense smoke after the Yom Kippur services were finished. All of his work had to be done while the smoke still filled the Temple. Both his ascent and descent were into and out of a cloud of incense smoke. This typology puts even more focus on the tight connection between Christ’s ascension and His High Priestly return mentioned in Heb. 9:28. Since Gentry seems to connect Heb. 9:28 with AD 70, it seems necessary for him to also connect the return mentioned in Acts 1:11 with AD 70. So Acts 1:11 is not talking about a return of Christ still in our future. It is talking about our High Priest’s descent back out of the heavenly sanctuary after fulfilling His once-for-all atonement work.

And this cloud-coming similarity affects more than just Rev. 1:7 and Acts 1:11. The cloud of incense that filled the temple during the Yom Kippur services symbolized the presence of God. The High Priest ascended into the temple filled with God’s Glory-Cloud presence to perform the final atonement services. And the typology in the books of Hebrews and Revelation show the High Priest appearing a second time back out of the Holy of Holies to announce to the anxious waiting masses that they were not only cleansed of their sin which He accomplished on the cross, but were welcome into the presence of God again now that He had presented His own blood in heaven for us. Christ our High Priest has opened a new and living way back into God’s presence for us. The typology suggests that the waiting masses could now (for the first time since Adam) ascend into the heavenly Holy of Holies to be in the presence of God again. So, in 1 Thess. 4:17 when it says the living and remaining ones would be “seized together in clouds into the Lord’s meeting in the air,” it could very well be referring to this typology of God’s presence being restored to God’s people. For the first time since Adam lost access to God’s presence, redeemed man is now allowed back into the Glory-Cloud of His presence (in the heavenly temple). That very text (1 Thess. 4:17) concludes by saying, “and thus we shall always be with the Lord,” and “...we may live together with Him.” (1 Thess. 5:10) The famous rapture passage is not talking about the living being lifted off the planet, but rather spiritually gathered into the Glory-Cloud presence of God where we will always “live together with Him.” The similar passage (Matt. 24:29-31) speaks of this event as the “gathering together of the elect.” And 2 Thess. 2:1 speaks of it as “our gathering together to Him.” Heb. 10:25 speaks of a “day drawing near” for which they were “assembling together.” And Heb. 12:18-29 shows what that assembly at the foot of Mt. Zion was all about: the reception of the unshakable kingdom and the arrival of the heavenly Jerusalem in which they would dwell with God forever. The book of Revelation (ch. 21) speaks of this event in bridal terms. Rev. 21:3 is most significant where it says “the tabernacle of God is among men, and He shall dwell among them, and they shall be His peoples, and God Himself shall be among them.” The net effect of the “rapture” event was to be gathered into the presence of God. This was something which living Christians (“...we who are alive and remain” 1 Thess. 4:17) could do as well as the dead. There is no proof that the living and remaining ones ceased to exist in the physical realm at that point. But it is still possible. J. S. Russell suggests this literal rapture idea. But, I tend to favor the idea that this was an event which occurred in the heavenly places in Christ, not something which was visible to the physical eye and tangible to the physical touch. According to Christ (Lk. 17:20-21) this event would not be seen by the world at large, but perceived by the eye of faith. But there were visible and tangible signs of it on earth. The massive destruction of the Jews at AD 70 is a tremendously significant “sign” that God was doing something special. He never allowed anyone to touch His people without personally being present to oversee it.

Gentry believes in a “judgment-coming” with clouds at AD 70. Where does the NT indicate that there would be two different “comings of the Son of Man with the clouds” separated by thousands of years? Where did the creeds or the early church fathers ever teach there would be two different parousia’s (returns, comings) of Christ with the clouds, one at AD 70, another off in the future? The creeds don’t even hint at the idea of a “judgment coming at AD 70” like Gentry teaches in regard to Matt. 24:30; 26:64; and Rev. 1:7. If he is going to use the creeds and patristic opinions as evidence against the full preterist view, his own idea of two different judgment-cloud-comings separated by thousands of years would be on very shaky ground. Is it valid for Gentry to teach this idea and still claim to be in full conformity with the creeds? Where do Jesus and Paul give any hint of two different “major” comings of the Son of Man with clouds separated by thousands of years? Saying that the presence or absence of the “time cues” is the way to differentiate between them is purely arbitrary. It forces a “multiple parousia” idea into NT texts which use exactly the same “coming of the Son of Man” language. The idea of two different parousia’s separated by an indefinite period of delay was not dreamed up by churchmen until late in the second century after the parousia seemed not to have occurred in the physical-literal fashion and within the imminent time frame they had expected. The NT writers and pre-70 church certainly did not believe nor teach two different parousia’s. J. N. D. Kelly, Jaroslav Pelikan, Kurt Aland, T. F. Torrance and many other careful students of patristic beliefs have pointed out how the pre-70 church was pervaded with the sense of imminency about a single parousia. Albert Schweitzer has convincingly shown how the imminence of a single parousia was the very fabric of which the NT was woven. All these “cloud-coming” texts are inseparably attached to the NT atmosphere of imminency, even the Acts 1:11 text (see the contextual imminency implied in Acts 2:17,20,40; 3:18-26). Would Gentry say that the return of Christ mentioned in Acts 1:11 is a different return than the ones mentioned in both Luke 21:27 and Acts 3:20? Was Dr. Luke confused? Better check out the time indicators in Luke 21:32, Acts 2:17-20 and 3:18ff before answering that question! The pre-70 church knew nothing of two different returns of Christ separated by thousands of years, and they expected His return imminently within that generation (again see Acts 2:17,20,40; 3:18-26). Gentry is the one who is “contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture” on this point. His views are the ones inconsistent and out of sync with the cloud language and sacrificial typology.

Dr. Randall Otto’s discussion of the meaning of Paul’s usage of “clouds” in 1 Thess. 4 had this to say about its similarity and connection with Acts 1:11 –

[Acts 1:11] ...in no way supports the idea that Christ will be visible to anyone in his second coming. Its emphasis is on the manner of Christ’s coming, i.e., in the clouds, and cannot teach an earthly descent of Christ, which would fly in the face of texts such as the subsequent verses in 1 Thessalonians 4, where Paul tells us, ‘we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air’ (1 Thess. 4:17). As Meyer observes on verse 17, “From the words it follows that the apostle did not think of Christ descending completely down to earth.” [Coming In The Clouds, p. 265]

Gentry’s assertion that the similarity between Christ’s ascension and return has to be identical in every detail, is obviously off-base. There definitely were to be some differences. We might point out that Jesus left in the presence of only a small group of His disciples on the Mount of Olives. Yet many today claim He will somehow be seen simultaneously by every person alive at the time of His return. If He is supposed to return in an “identical mode or manner,” He will have to return to a small group of His disciples (perhaps even the original group resurrected for the occasion?) gathered on the Mount of Olives, and be seen only by them as He touches back down to earth. Is that what Gentry believes is being taught here? The premillennialists he is constantly debating would love to hear him say that Jesus will actually touch back down to earth. If we are going to press every detail of the ascension for Christ’s return, that is exactly what would be demanded. But since I know Gentry does not believe Christ will touch back down, it should be obvious to everyone that he is not pressing every detail of this passage literally either. So why is he trying to make us do it? This should be enough to get the point across that the words used in Acts 1:11 do not demand that every detail be exactly duplicated in reverse order at His return. It may only be pointing to one similarity in those two events. The question is, which similarity? In view of the common element of the cloud motif in all the Theophanies of God (“cloud-comings” to use Gentry’s term) in both testaments, and in view of Jesus’ constantly repeated promise to return in the glory clouds, it seems overwhelmingly appropriate to say that “the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds” is the point of similarity between the ascension and the parousia to which Acts 1:11 is referring.

Full preterists would not deny the apostles saw Jesus depart from them, but it was the cloud that carried Him which they saw depart. Notice how the text describes that departure: “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.” (Acts 1:9) It doesn’t say they were able to watch Him ascend farther and farther up into the sky until He got so far away that He was no longer able to be seen. The text says that as soon as He was lifted up off the earth the cloud enveloped Him and He disappeared from their sight. They saw the cloud ascend (with Him in it), but they did not see Him as He ascended in the cloud. Randall Otto’s discussion of this in his book is interesting (referenced above). And Alfred Edersheim’s description of the High Priest ascending into the Holy of Holies to perform the Yom Kippur services is good to read in connection with it. See the references above.

Gentry’s claims here about the NT usage of the Greek phrase “hon tropon” (“in the same manner”) are a wee bit exaggerated, as even an English-only reader of the New Testament can recognize by reading all seven NT passages (reprinted below) where the exact same Greek phrase is used:

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.” (Matt. 23:37)

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not have it!” (Luke 13:34)

and 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 1:11)

“You do not mean to kill me as you killed the Egyptian yesterday, do you?” (Acts 7:28)

“But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.” (Acts 15:11)

“Therefore, keep up your courage, men, for I believe God, that it will turn out exactly as I have been told.” (Acts 27:25)

And just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected as regards the faith. (2 Tim. 3:8) (emphasis added)

These verses show that the phrase “hon tropon” might possibly “denote identity of mode or manner” in some sense in some texts, but does not mean exactly the same in every detail. For instance, in Luke 13:34 above, are we to understand that Jesus “often” literally became a “hen” and that the Jews were “chicks”? It usually means the two things being compared are similar in some way (maybe only in one way), but not exact in all or even most details. These passages speak eloquently against Gentry’s claim of strict and exclusive “identity.”

Joseph Lewis, pastor of the Fulfilled Bible Church in New Jersey, in his separate response to Gentry, offered a very appropriate reaction to Gentry’s claim that “...we have express biblical warrant to expect a visible, bodily, glorious return of Christ paralleling in kind the ascension.”

If we follow this reasoning, then it could be also argued that the Jews had a biblical warrant to expect ANOTHER Christ other than Jesus, because He did not meet their ERRONEOUS expectations. Were they correct though? [emphasis his]

Another matter needs to be cleared up here while we are dealing with the nature of Christ’s body as seen in His post-resurrection appearances and the ascension. Gentry repeatedly emphasizes the idea that Christ ascended in a “physical and visible” way, and that at the ascension His body was still nothing more than a “tangible resurrected body.” Scripture states emphatically that mortal “flesh and blood” bodies cannot dwell in the presence of God or even exist in the heavenly realm. We need immortal bodies that are suited to that mode of existence. Perhaps Gentry just wasn’t thinking clearly when he made these statements. I would hate to think that he is so extremely materialistic in his thinking that he will not allow Christ to have been raised with an immortal body with which to ascend into Heaven. His resurrection and ascension body was not merely a physical, mortal body. It was much more than that. To be the “firstfruit” of the resurrection, He would have had to be raised with that new kind of body, not receive it just as He ascended. It is the kind of resurrection body with which He was raised that makes Him the “firstfruit” of the resurrection and “firstborn of the dead.” He didn’t get it at the ascension. He was raised with it. It was already the kind of body that He could live with in the Heavenly realm. He didn’t ascend with a mere “physical” or “tangible” body as Gentry implied in point nine.