Irenaeus summarizes the Church’s belief in “the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father” at which coming He will “raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race” and “execute just judgment towards all.”1 And in the Nicene Creed, which you may remember from our Presbyterian days, and which dates from the First Council of Nicea (325 AD) and the First Council of Constantinople (381 AD), the Church again declares its belief in “one Lord, Jesus Christ” (not some person who is separate from Jesus), who “ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father” and who “will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.” 

The Ascension and Second Coming are intimately linked in Scripture. At the moment of the Ascension, while the apostles were still gazing up into the sky, two men in white suddenly appeared to announce that this same Jesus would return as they had seen Him go up into heaven:

And when He had said this, as they were looking on, He was lifted up, and a cloud took Him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as He went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand there looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw Him go into heaven” (Acts 1:9-11).

When I pointed this passage out to you in a previous letter as proof that the Second Coming would be the coming of Jesus, and not of some other person, not another “manifestation,” you replied that the Bible does not actually say that the two men in white were angels. “They could have been passing strangers,” you wrote. Wouldn’t it be easier to reject the Scriptures altogether than to have to come up with such ridiculous explanations for every passage you do not agree with? Don’t the two men in white remind you of the two angels in white sitting in the empty tomb when Mary Magdalene came looking for Jesus on Easter Sunday? 

But let’s allow for a moment that the two men in white who suddenly appeared at the Ascension were passing strangers. Whoever you say they were, their announcement about the Second Coming was important enough that the apostles took care to preserve their words and St. Luke to record them in his history. How would two strangers, if they happened upon some men gazing into the sky, know that the man who had just disappeared into the clouds was named Jesus? More to the point, why would they say that this Jesus would come again in the same way He had gone up? If they were not angels, where did they get the knowledge of the Second Coming? And on whose authority did they say this? Whoever they were, the apostles understood their words as a revelation about the Second Coming. And the revelation concerns “this Jesus” and not some other “manifestation” of God. 

It really is funny how you think Christians are so rigidly bound to the literal meaning of Scripture that we cannot see the higher, spiritual meaning. And yet you are the one who cannot accept the supernatural events declared in Scripture: the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Ascension. Here we have angels announcing the Second Coming, yet you accept neither their message nor their identity as messengers. The Christian proclamation is a supernatural message, but you miss it because you are so busy looking for “spiritual” meanings to replace the literal meanings! 

Jesus also speaks of His own Second Coming, much the same as it is described by the two angels, in clouds of heaven with power and great glory (Matt. 24:30 and Luke 21:27). I’m sure you will dispute that Jesus is referring to Himself in these passages. The fact that He speaks of “the Son of man” leaves room for you to say he is referring to someone else’s coming. But there are other passages in scripture where that person is clearly named and identified as Jesus. If you do not believe the two men in white, how can you dispute what Paul says to Timothy? “I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and his kingdom. . . .” (2 Tim. 4:1). It is Christ Jesus who is to appear again as judge. If Paul had just said “Christ” then someone could come along and say he did not mean the historical Jesus. But Paul said “Christ Jesus” will judge the living and the dead. 

In Peter’s first teaching to the Gentiles, he tells them that Jesus of Nazareth is “the one ordained by God to be judge of the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42). Thus the article of the creed that Jesus Christ, the historical man, will come again to judge the living and the dead goes back to the teaching of Peter and the apostles. But it goes back even further. Peter says it was Jesus who commanded them to preach this doctrine. Jesus Himself was the one who first revealed this truth. 

The first advent of Jesus Christ was hidden and lowly, and most people did not recognize it, but the Second Coming will be in glory and He will be recognized by all the nations (Matthew 25:32). Tertullian explains that it has not yet happened because, while some of the prophecies have come to pass, these only warn us that “our redemption is nigh” (Luke 21:26-28). Other things are prophesied that have not yet come to pass.2 God has not yet poured out a spirit of compassion and supplication on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, “so that, when they look on Him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over Him, as one weeps over a firstborn” (Zech. 12:10). This prophecy of universal mourning in the land, tribe by tribe (Zech. 12:12-14), has not yet been fulfilled.

In prophesies of the Last Day there are many examples of multiple fulfillment. Some of the events prophesied in Matthew 24 were fulfilled with the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, but the complete fulfillment will be at the Second Coming. Jesus says that when all these things are fulfilled, “then will appear the sign of the Son of man 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; and He will send out His angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other” (Matt. 24:30-31). 

I know that you have a symbolic interpretation of these lines. I know that the clouds of heaven for you represent the “clouds of human obscurity” or something to that effect. You take the clouds to symbolize, among other and contradictory things, the things that hinder the souls of men from recognizing the “manifestations.” There will not be a single Second Coming at the end of time, you say, but there already have been many different comings throughout history of different “manifestations,” who all reflect God perfectly like a mirror. Buddha and Zoroaster were two such “manifestations.” Since Jesus there have been three other “manifestations” so far: Muhammed, the Bab (1819-1853) and Bahaullah (1817-1892). Each time Christians have failed to perceive the return of Christ, being asleep like the apostles in the Garden of Gethsemane, you said. In support of your view that the Return (as you called it) has already happened, you cited Jesus’ parable of the master coming like a thief in the night:

Watch therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. But know this, that if the householder had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have watched and would not have let his house be broken into. Therefore you also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an hour you do not expect (Matt. 24:42-44)

But the plain sense of the whole discourse here is that while no one knows when the Second Coming will be, it will be seen by all the world at once. Jesus uses several images and parables to underscore the surprise element of the timing, but He also uses powerful images to illustrate the universality of the event. The hiddenness of the time of the Second Coming is described in the parable of the thief in the night, which you referred to, and in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins, as well as in the plain statement that no one knows the hour or the day. 

But when it does happen, the Second Coming will be visible to all mankind at once. The universal nature of the event is clear from the cosmic signs that will accompany it:

Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken; then will appear the sign of the Son of man 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; and He will send out His angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other (Matt. 24:29-31).

All the tribes of the earth will mourn when they see the sign of the Son of man. That can only describe an event that is witnessed by the whole world simultaneously. Notice how this passage parallels, but makes even more universal, the prophecy in Zechariah that all the tribes of Judah will mourn. We do not know what the sign of the Son of man will be, although tradition holds that it is the Cross. That is the sign of Christ, and that fits in with the Zechariah prophecy that all the tribes will look on “him whom they have pierced.” We do not know how this sign will appear or when, so there is still a great mystery. But we do know that when it appears it will be seen by all the nations at once.

If you make this all out to be symbolic and individual, you are going against the plain sense of the passage, which is that the Second Coming will be a swift judgment on all mankind. Compare the prophecy recorded in Malachi: “Then I will draw near to you for judgment; I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow and the orphan, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 3:5). 

Even if you want to make the cosmic portents into symbols, what could better symbolize a universally visible event that the sun and the moon and the stars, which can be seen from all parts of the earth? Likewise the trumpet call of the angels summons all of humanity. The very purpose of a trumpet call is to declare a momentous event publicly. Call these images symbols, if you want, but they are clearly symbols of a universal event.

Jesus then compares the Second Coming to the flood in Noah’s day. Everyone (except those on the ark, a symbol of the Church, since you love symbols) is taken completely by surprise. There are no individual awakenings here. It is a swift and global cataclysm. They were not prepared for it, just as the householders in the parable were not prepared for the thief, and the servants were not prepared for master, and the foolish virgins were not prepared for the bridegroom. All of humanity was taken by surprise. They went on with their ordinary business until the very day Noah went into the ark, and then the whole world was swept away by the flood:

As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they did not know until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of man (Matt. 24:37-39).

Look at the symbolism here. Symbolism has to refer to something; it has to have a meaning. Remember Tertullian’s image of the mirror with no face in it? This mirror has a face in it, that is, it tells us something about the thing it is a symbol of. The details Jesus brings out in His retelling of the Flood narrative signify the suddenness and universality of His Second Coming. And it will be a judgment, just as the flood was a judgment. At the conclusion of the same discourse, Jesus describes how the Son of Man, after He has come in glory, will gather all the nations before Him and judge them (Matthew 25:31-46). 

In fact, it is the individualistic (vs. universal) understanding of Christ’s Second Coming that is condemned in Scripture as false. Jesus prophesies that there will be false Christs claiming to be the return of Christ. These antichrists will appear in one place or another, at one time or another, and be seen by certain individuals who will try to convince others, but the true Christ will appear in the heavens, visible to all the tribes of the earth at once. No one will need to be told. 

Then if anyone says to you, “Lo, here is the Christ!” or “There he is!” do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. Lo, I have told you beforehand. So, if they say to you, “Lo, he is in the wilderness,” do not go out; if they say, “Lo, he is in the inner rooms,” do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of man (Matt. 24:23-27).

In other words, if Christ’s Second Coming has to be discovered or pointed out individually, it is a false Christ. The Second Coming will be visible to all mankind, and as evident to all as lightning in the sky, and will require no explanations. Then there will be no more hiddenness. There will be something about the sign of the Son of Man and about the Second Coming that will clearly identify Christ to all peoples.

Then And Now
In Part One, the notion of a spiritual resurrection as a transforming faith experience was shown to be an impossibility. In Part Two, I showed you how the Church Fathers defended the resurrection of the flesh in order to refute the Gnostic idea that Jesus’ Resurrection was accomplished in some kind of incorporeal body. Have you noticed there is a slightly different spin put on the idea of the spiritual resurrection in the ancient and modern periods? Why do the earliest proponents of this theory say that Christ only seemed to have a body, while the modern proponents say the resurrection means some idea or experience? 

The earliest heretics put forth their views while the apostles and other eyewitnesses (1 Cor. 15:6) were still alive, “while Christ’s blood was still fresh in Judea,” as Jerome remarks.3 The first heretics could not deny what the central proclamation of Christianity was—the birth, death and Resurrection of Christ. Instead they denied that these events could have happened in the flesh. They could hardly deny that the apostles were claiming what they said they were claiming, and it is clear why. The apostles and their immediate disciples would be right there to prove you wrong if you said they were only speaking of a spiritual awakening or something in that vein. St. John was still around to respond to the heretics’ distortions in his epistle. So the heretics could only claim that the apostles had been mistaken in their perceptions. Their senses had been tricked. While the Jews tried to promote naturalistic explanations for the Resurrection, such as the allegation that the disciples had stolen the body while the guards slept (Matt. 28:11-15), the Docetists did not attempt to deny the supernatural evidence. Rather, they questioned that these events, so obviously of a supernatural origin, could have been accomplished by someone in a truly human body. Being close enough in time to the events themselves to know what stupendous things had transpired, the Docetists would not dare claim the Christians were speaking in symbols. The only wiggle room they had if they wanted to reject the Christian proclamation was to say it was some other body on the Cross. Or that it was some phantom body or astral body that had been resurrected. Christ must have indeed come to earth, and risen and ascended to heaven again, but His body must have been an illusion. 
As the original apostles and eyewitnesses and contemporaries began to disappear from the scene, the written accounts could be seized upon and reinterpreted according to beliefs that were totally divorced from the apostolic teaching. The Church Fathers are witnesses to how the earliest Christians understood the proclamation of the apostles. They are the next link in the unbroken chain. They tell us how the disciples and authorized successors of the apostles saw this event. They emphasize that Jesus died in the flesh, was resurrected in the flesh, ascended in the flesh, and will come again in the flesh to judge the living and the dead. It is small wonder that the Modernists want to dismiss the Fathers as ignorant of history and criticism.4 But unless what the apostles really meant was handed down in a parallel but secret succession to someone other than the bishops, then the Gospels are claiming exactly what the plain sense of the text says they are claiming.

So in refuting the Gnostics, the Fathers also refute the Modernists and the Bahais and anyone else out there in the pews of a Christian church who thinks that maybe only our soul will go to heaven, or that maybe the Gospels are just trying to make a theological point with the symbolism of resurrection. The promise of salvation is for the whole man, body and soul, and Jesus’ resurrection in the flesh is the source and pattern of our own resurrection.

In the end, you can either accept or reject the Church’s proclamation, but you cannot interpret it for yourself. If you reject it, do not pretend you have any claim to interpret the scripture of the same Church. Suppose I read what Bahaullah taught about himself as being a manifestation of the Divinity. If I had some question about what he meant, where would be the logical place to go for clarification? His disciples and authorized interpreters. It would be pointless to try to understand the Bahai teachings by concocting my own interpretations of them. In that case, what would stop me from saying that he did not really mean what he said about being a manifestation of God? What would stop me from saying that he really meant the opposite, namely, that he was an antichrist? Why couldn’t I claim that? Because that’s not what he taught? But how do I know the correct interpretation of what he taught? By making it up myself? By imputing an entirely different meaning to his words in order to conform them to my own belief system? No, I’ll acknowledge that he meant what his authorized witnesses and interpreters say he meant. And then I will accept or reject his claims on those grounds, not on the basis of what I think he meant. 

And so it must be for the Christian proclamation. Christ made certain claims about Himself. The apostles were His authorized witnesses, and their testimony has been preserved in the Church through apostolic succession down to the present day. Although you claim to accept the apostles’ teaching about the Resurrection, you are actually accepting only a fantasy of your own making. 

Resurrexit sicut dixit. 

Constance Woods is a wife and mother, holds a Ph.D. in Russian Literature, and a Masters from the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College.

End Notes

1 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.10.1 in Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:330.
2 Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh 22, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 3:561.
3 David Christie-Murray, A History of Heresy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976, 25.
4 Pius X, St., Encyclical Letter Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 8 September 1907, 42.