The Parousia and Acts 1:11
By William H. Bell Jr.
It is quite astounding that some
will retreat to the haven of every passage they can find that does not
explicitly mention or include a time reference in order to escape the
preponderance of evidence of an imminent return in "coming again"
passages which show the Parousia as being at hand (engus), and coming in the
lifetime of the first-century generation. (Matthew 10: 23; 16:27,28;
24:3,14,34; 26:64; Romans 13: 11-12; 16:20; 1 Corinthians 1: 7-8; 10:11; Philippians
4: 5; Hebrews 10: 37; James.5: 7-8; 1 John 2:17-18; Revelation 1: 1-3,
22:6,10,12). Many who do this seem totally unaware that such is a desperate
effort to avoid, evade, and escape the issue. They apparently reason that using
a scripture that does not have an explicit time reference cancels out the
passages that include it. This is the same error the "Jehovah's
Witnesses" make on their interpretation of Adam's death, Genesis 2: 16,17;
3:6; 5:5); that the Jews made on the raising of the temple of Christ's body
(Matthew 27: 40; John 2:19-21); and that the Premillennialists make on the
establishment of the kingdom (Mark 1: 14-15; Luke 21: 32). In every case noted
above, the failure to honor God's time statements forces an erroneous
interpretation and application.
One can make a time-prophecy
teach anything and anytime of fulfillment by such tactics. For example, if one
were to fail to consider the time statements and facts found in other passages,
the kingdom could be taught as yet future. Jesus taught the disciples to pray,
"Thy kingdom come" (Matthew 6: 10). At the time those words were
spoken, the kingdom was clearly future and therefore the propriety of praying
for its arrival. Now would it not be very inexcusable exegesis to camp out on
this text and make the assertion that the kingdom is yet future? Sure, this
seems quite elementary, but it is exactly the reasoning and methods resorted to
on "coming again" passages. Remember, one and one is two; belief and
baptism equal salvation; and in time prophesies, the time and manner equals
fulfillment. In the words of the Psalmist, "The sum of Thy word is
truth..." (Psalm 119: 160, ASV). The late and eminent Foy E. Wallace, Jr.
stated this principle in the following words. "The fulfillment of prophecy
cannot be separated from TIME AND CIRCUMSTANCES (emp. mine, WHB) stated by the
prophet." God's Prophetic Word, p.165.
One text where this obvious
fallacy of reasoning is evident is in the misuse and abuse of Acts 1:11 as an
"answer"? or objection to coming again passages which show an
imminent return of Christ. The attempt to array Acts 1:11 over against Hebrews
10: 37, "FOR YET IN A VERY LITTLE WHILE, HE WHO IS COMING WILL COME, AND
WILL NOT DELAY," and Jas.5: 8, "You too be patient; strengthen your
hearts, for the coming (Parousia) of the Lord is at hand," staggers the
imagination. The aim of this writing is to demonstrate that Acts 1:11 is in
harmony with all the other time passages and that the interpretations argued
for "in like manner," to circumvent such teachings raise
insurmountable difficulties.
First, it is agreed by all that Acts 1:11, "...this same
Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as
ye have seen him go into heaven," refers to the Parousia. Jesus used the term
"Parousia," (presence) four times in Matthew 24, speaking of his
return. Two of those references, verses 3 and 27, are before verse 34 (that
mysteriously invisible and so-called "continental dividing line").
"Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass till all these
things be fulfilled." Most agree that all coming before verse 34 is the
destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.. Therefore, they are led to the inescapable
conclusion that the "Parousia" of verses 3 and 27 occurred in 70
A.D., within that first-century generation.
In addition, Jesus used the term
"Parousia" in two verses following verse 34, in 37 and 39. Are there
two "Parousia"? Is there no significance in the use of that definite
article "the" in the Greek? Which "the" Parousia is "THE"
Parousia? Which "the" Parousia is the fall of Jerusalem, and which
"the" Parousia is the "second coming"? Inspiration
anticipated this erroneous reasoning by placing the events before verse 34,
which undeniably describe the fall of Jerusalem (Matthew 24: 15-17), in the
same time as the day when the Son of Man is revealed (Luke 17:26-32), which is
undeniably Christ's "Parousia." It follows therefore, that Matthew 24
is one harmonious delineation of the fall of Jerusalem and Parousia of Christ
in 70 A.D..
Harmony Of The Parousia In The Epistles
Second, there is no distinction of "comings" in the epistles that
justify two "Parousia" taught in Matthew 24. (1 Corinthians 15: 23; 1
Thessalonians 2: 19; 3:13; 4:15; 2 Thessalonians 2: 1,8; James 5: 7,8; 2 Peter
1: 16; 3:4,12; 1 John 2: 18). Again, God in His infinite wisdom anticipated the
errors of those who would teach, "The Lord delayeth his Parousia" or
did not keep his promise (2 Peter 3: 4), by placing a time reference in the
epistles in connection with the Parousia just as He did in Matthew 24.
Observe:
All these things shall come upon this [1st century]
generation."
The "Parousia" is included in these things, vv.3-34 (vv.3, 27).
Therefore, the "Parousia" occurred in that [1st century] generation.
Parousia "At Hand"
The Parousia was said to be at hand (engus) or near in respect to time, when
James wrote in or about A.D.60, just 10 years before the demise of Jerusalem
and the Jewish state. "Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming
(Parousia) of the Lord. Behold the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of
the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter
rain. Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming (Parousia) of
the Lord draweth nigh," (is at hand, engus). Berry's interlinear literally
translates, "...has drawn near" (James 5: 7,8).
Acts 1:11
Now, if one considers the fact that Acts 1:11 is speaking of the Parousia
(though the word "Parousia" is not used in the text), then we have:
(1) Jesus saying that Acts 1:11 would occur, be fulfilled, in "this (first
century) generation," and (2) James saying that Acts 1:11 is at hand in
respect to time about A.D.60. What further proof is needed to show that the
Parousia (Acts 1:11) was at hand than a direct scriptural reference that uses
both terms, "Parousia" and "engus" in the same text? Any
interpretation of Acts 1:11 that fails to honor the time limitations for the
Parousia is not "exegesis" but "eisegesis"! The only escape
is to deny that Acts 1:11 is speaking of the Parousia. Are we ready for that?
In conclusion, it has been noted that the basic error of using passages which do not expressly mention time statements to refute those, which do, is a scriptural miscalculation and misuse of sound Biblical principles. Foy E. Wallace, Jr., in the reference noted, demolished the claims of Premillenialism on the "postponement" and not-yet-come kingdom theories by using the principle of "time and circumstances" to arrive at the truth on time prophecies. This principle is catastrophic to the not-yet-come Parousia theories traditionally embedded into the hearts of many today. The subject of the "Parousia" in Matthew 24 is one and the same, agreeing time-wise with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.. That was the only Parousia or return of Christ in the New Testament and which James said was "at hand" (James 5: 7,8). Acts 1:11 must mark "time" with it or find itself court-martialed out of the ranks of the "Parousia" or "coming again" passages.
387 Jeanne Drive
Memphis, TN 38109