Very astute, Michael – in-as-much as you’ve done it to one of the least of these . . . well done, and also well written. (And I don’t lie about that sort of thing (well-written) – I just try to find something else good to say.) 
And Tim and RHM, You two definitely have a needed message to the body. We are Christ to this world (scarily). Lucky for us He is the one who will produce this unlikely likeness in us. And so I say, “Maranantha” to both forms of His return.
Blessings, Cindy
excellent points redhot. Keeping in mind that the bible says “first the natural (physical) and then the spiritual;” whereas the dispensational, or even the double fulfillment view sees it as “first the natural, then the spiritual, then the natural again.”
Unlike most full preterists, I do believe that there is an ongoing, or progressive fulfillment (guess that might make me a partial, or a Pret-Idealist). Just as religion was the enemy in Christ’s day (he called them “vipers,” i.e., sons of the devil/serpent), we have enemies of the spiritual today. The fundamentalist view is very physically oriented; disdaining the “spiritualizing” of scripture. But scripture itself spiritualizes scripture; e.g., Paul writing in 1 Cor 10 that “Christ was the rock from whom they all drank, and he was the bread of heaven which they all ate…” The story of the Exodus where the Rock is struck twice was a prophecy (spiritualizing) of the Judaizers who would hold onto the Law/Torah rather than embrace Christ. Hebrews tells us that those who have tasted the heavenly gift (water and bread from heaven, i.e., Christ) and “turned back” (fall from grace to law) could not be restored because they had “crucified their Lord a second time,” i.e., struck the Rock a second time, like Moses did - rather than “speak” to it…
We could go on and on about spiritualizing, allegoric interpretations, metaphor, etc., etc. Nobody believes that in Revelation’s end time scenario there’ll be a woman whose butt is so big it covers 7 hills…yet, we continue the debate…
btw, this post is no reflection on Cindy’s post…I believe that she is a serious seeker of truth. She is studying to show herself approved and being a Berean - testing everything that’s written by any of us. I respect her for that. My points here concern the general misunderstanding that many folks have about what constitutes literal vs. figurative…after all, things can be literally spiritualized…the example above of the Rock in Exodus is one such example. Jesus is not literally a Rock, but he literally provided spiritual water for those who thirst for righteousness…
Thank you Cindy. Extract from further thoughts in 2010 some 20 odd years after writing the reply to Amis:
As songs of praise are sung, prayers said, Christ is there, invisible, He is there at the altar facing those that worship, He is there at the back arms wide open embracing all, and He is everywhere sharing in the joys and in the suffering, with the sick, with those that heal, with those that love, and those that are unloved, with the poor, the despised and abused, the hungry, He is with the world to forgive as He would wish the world to forgive , to love as He would have the world to love. His hand is upon the shoulder of every man and woman, in the heart of every child, and we are all the children of His Father who is in Heaven. Be still, pray awhile, listen…
I have to say that the Reply to Amis and the above are the result of personal reflections, and have no Biblical origin. I am a very late regular reader of the Bible which I only truly discovered at the young age of 75, last year, thanks to a biography of Dietrich Bonhoefer. At one stage there is a moving passage, quoted from one of his books (or letters?), where he discovers the Bible, quite late in his short life. And at the same time I joined Revdrew’s weekly Bible studies and shortly after joined the Forum where it did not take me long to discover that I have lot to catch up on!! It is proving a truly joyful and exciting re-birth!
Thanks again Cindy. God bless all.
Michael in Barcelona
Cindy, I believe absolutely everything you have said and I only wish I could say things as clearly and eloquently as you.
I have no doubt that the present nation of Israel is the physical fulfillment of the biblical prophecy.
I have grave concerns over the “Kingdom Now” philosophy. I believe that Christ’s Kingdom will only truly be accomplished when He returns to set up His Kingdom. Theocratic states have been tried and have produced untold suffering and evil.
In addition I also believe that Replacement Theology is a dangerous error.
God bless us all as we strive to be guided by the Holy Spirit and seek only the Father’s will.
I understand your reticence, pilgrim, and it may very well be that we see some form of physical (visible) return of the head as well as the body. I’m not certain that the more “spiritualised” view we have presented here amounts to replacement theology, however.
I am not against ‘literal’ fulfillment, I just don’t necessarily think that it will take the form we have traditionally thought it will.
Cheers, all.
I know that the body of Christ whom we are, is called “Christ” in the New Testament. But I fear that it is a serious error to equate this with the Christ who says He will personally return. Let me explain why I see this error as a serious one.
In describing Christ’s return, Paul differentiated between “we who are alive and remain” and the Christ who will return:
For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.* For the Lord himself** will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. I Thess 4:15-18 ESV)*
I must admit Melchizedek’s suggestion in the initial quote above frightened me a bit. What if a large body of believers claimed to be the returned Christ, or part of the returned Christ? What if they then insisted on heading a kingdom to which they referred as belonging to the “Kingdom Age”, to be set up as in the predicted millennium of Revelation? I am concerned that the Antichrist might be able to use this, or that this might be the Antichrist himself.
Then I thought of the warning of Jesus:
For false christs and false prophets will arise and show great miracles and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand. So, if tell you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as the lighting emerges out of the east and shines right to the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. (Matthew 24:24-27)
If “the church” announces itself as the returned Christ, it will be questioned by many people. But Christ states that his coming will be as obvious as the light (“lighting” not “lightning”) of the sun which emerges from the east and shines all day right into the west. When the sun shines everyone knows it. But while individuals and groups who claim to be Christ having returned may produce a few “miracles” to support their claim, it will not be obvious that any of them are actually Christ.
John said that even in his day there were “many antichrists”. This word means “instead of Christ” — a substitute, an impostor. So if we do not accept the personal return of Christ, then I fear we will open to accepting a personal antichrist, or possibly a corporate antichrist.
Sounds like a good description of the body rejoining the head! The body is not complete without the head, nor the head without the body.
Again; I’m not saying it won’t happen, it just may look different than we expect. However it happens, it will be obvious to everyone.
I can appreciate the danger, but I also appreciate that Jesus’ warning can cut both ways.
First thank you dear Pilgrim.
Almost a year now since I joined the Forum, both a humbling and exciting experience! The depth of scholarly exchange, and cheerful, friendly debate, an amazing and baffling encounter for me.
But I must now try to feel my way with so much that is totally new to me.
So for a starter, the terms quoted above from your post! I looked them all up in Wikipedia! Ok “a little knowledge…”, but the definitions were clear enough for me to at once share your concerns, and see your point about the dangers.
Michael in Barcelona
Interesting discussion. I appreciate the effort being undertaken to understand scripture.
It is indeed a lovely figure of speech to equate the risen body of Christ with the church. But, while I understand that the risen of body of Christ is incorruptible, I must confess I don’t see the church as incorruptible. Paul is very concerned with the Corinthian church where incest is being tolerated *. In Revelation [Rev ch 2 & 3] Christ holds “this” against the churches including those who commit adultery with Jezebel, those who follow Bala’am, those who go the way of Nicolaitans and those who have lost their first love, to mention a few. Historically, the whole point of the reformation was about the corruptibility of the church. This doesn’t sound of incorruptible to me.
By the same token, I’m not sure how the world sees Israel in this day and age. Its technological superiority of the Arabs and Iran certainly make it a powerful nation. But a sign of the hand of God building a messianic state? Like the church being the incorruptible body of Christ, that’s a little tougher take in.
But, then again, perhaps I’m missing something.
RVallimont*
When you see the church as an organized religion, as a business, as an enterprise created and controlled by men, then yes, I would agree with you 100%. We have a big problem with communication in this world, though, and as such, sometimes it’s imperative to define terms with great precision.
Most people, when they say “church,” mean by it (or at least think they mean) people who follow Jesus. While it’s true that people also often mean “church building” or “church hierarchy” or “church denomination” or “church meeting” or “church as religion”, if you ask them, they know enough to say that they mean the people who make up the church.
But I think that what you mean by the word “church” is the false religion that (alas) much of Christendom is; the great whore. (Hopefully I’m interpreting you correctly.) I just don’t want people to misunderstand, especially some of our brothers (and maybe sisters) here who are in professional ministry or are attached to their particular body of believers. For most people I’ve met, “church” means all those things and more, and if you attack anything by using that word, you’re attacking not only Christendom, but Christianity (meaning the life of actually following Jesus together).
I’m not sure how to solve this problem. Isn’t there something in Isaiah about pure speech being restored? We certainly need it. I see so many times when people are in agreement, but they don’t know it because they are literally speaking different languages, using the same words. At least if I’m speaking English and you’re speaking Farsi, we know not to expect to understand one another that way. But when you both THINK you’re speaking English, but the words mean one thing to this one and another thing to that one, it becomes a BIG problem. I’ve been in that situation myself, knowing that if only I could communicate effectively, the argument could be settled amicably – but I just CAN’T seem to present my thoughts in such a way that the other person can understand what I’m trying to express.
Anyway, I’m getting off on a tangent here. Just feeling concerned that some of our members will feel attacked when that isn’t actually the case. I suspect that we can all agree that it is the ekklesia of God that is the body of Christ, and not some human hierarchical system. What’s more, we may find the ekklesia surviving within a hierarchical system (personally I think that’s VERY bad for the body, but that’s another thread) and we may NOT happen to find the ekklesia in a group calling itself “simple” or “organic” or “house church” or “church of two (CO2),” or anything else. In the end, it’s all down to the Spirit of Christ living within and amongst us as we become one with one another.
And yes, I do believe that Jesus will and is returning in His body, and that it will be spectacular. But to fulfill scripture, it does not seem possible to me that He will NOT return visibly and apocalyptically. The church has failed as badly as Israel has failed as badly as Adam and Eve have failed. We cannot truly say that everyday and in every way we are getting better and better. We aren’t, and that’s a plain fact. Oh yes, individually and as small bodies of believers, some of us are growing in grace – but as a whole? We’re no better than our forebears and probably not nearly as pure as at least some of them.
We need Jesus to come back just as the disciples saw Him go, and then yes, He will govern through His ekklesia (that is to say, NOT through Christendom). HE will be the visible King of kings. We will be His servants and serve Him by serving the nations. At least, that’s the way I see it.
Love you all,
Cindy
Well said Cyndy. You clarified my farsi very well. 
I agree with what you said except the separate return of Jesus but we’ve already established that
You mentioned apocylyptic. You know that is the word unveiling same as in the unveiling of the sons of God?
RHM,
I’m not sure what you’re saying here? ‘unveiling same’? It sounds interesting, but I guess I need you to clarify . . .
Do you mean that the word apocalyptic means “unveiling the sons of God”? I thought it meant relating to an apocalypse such as the Revelation, and I was using it in a rather 
imprecise way. I guess what I meant was that there will be an end to this age and a beginning of the next, marked by certain symptoms such as the dead in Christ rising bodily (otherwise I will seriously be bummed!) from their graves. And of course, that contended bodily return of Jesus. And if the dead do not rise, I guess I’m still in my sins. I really hope Paul was being literal here, because I’ve been looking forward to having coffee with him one of these days.
Sorry Cyndy. Im typing on my phone. Apocalypse is the word unveiling. Most of us see that word and think end of world. Just like we see aionos and read eternal. The unveiling is the same thing in romans of the sons and in revelation of the pattern son. In the same way the transfiguration happens by the renewing of our minds, and we all with unveiled faces are transfigured into the image of Him reflecting the glory of Him.
I believe this all begins now as christ increases and we decrease but the fullness will be us shining like the noon day sun.
Clear as mud?
If I remember correctly, all apocalyptic language is more or less figurative. We see similar language usage and patterns in Revelation as we do in some of the OT prophets. We can identify that some of the OT prophetic events occurred historically, though “stars” never literally fell from the sky, etc. I don’t think I have a reason to expect that the language of Revelation is any more “literal”. The bottom line I guess is that I don’t doubt that Jesus will return, and that it will be obvious; I just don’t necessarily think we’ll see him floating down on a literal cloud like Mary Poppins.
What’s the problem with Jesus coming in literal clouds? Is it just that it’s outside all human experience? Well, so is resurrection from the dead. Yet we believe He was raised from death, don’t we?
It seems pretty clear to me that He WILL come, both in the clouds of His people His ekklesia; and in the clouds of the literal heavens – as in the blue sky we see above. If He is truly risen in His own physical body (though changed), then I think we must logically expect Him to truly come in His own physical body in His own physical heavens amongst either physical clouds, or the clouds of His people previously called to Him, or both.
I don’t mean at all to be rude to or to discount the sincerity of our brothers and sisters who see exclusively a spiritual fulfillment of this prophecy. The spiritual is after all more real than the physical. But if the physical is destined to disappear, then it must disappear for all of us. (Which I don’t see as being according to scripture.) Even then I think we may yet expect Jesus to return in some tangible fashion, as a discrete person, recognizable to all as Jesus, the son of David, the son of Jessie, the son of Adam, the Son of God.
If we don’t believe this, then everything (for me) starts to unravel. If Jesus will not return physically, then the next question is whether He was in fact raised physically – or was He rather raised only spiritually, in the hearts of His ekklesia? And if His return from the dead is not as a physical and discrete person, can we expect that our own return from the dead will be as physical and discrete persons? Perhaps we will live on in the ekklesia also, as He is said to do, and not as discrete and conscious persons. If so, our hope of seeing our deceased loved ones is vain, and neither will anyone else see us, except in the eyes of our loved ones. And if that is the case, and there is no resurrection of the dead, no separation of the ages from one another, is there truly any change at all? Or do we expect the world to “go on” getting “better and better” as the church expands and drives away the darkness, filling it with the light of God?
And in that case, do we honestly think there IS a God, or is it really only our collective consciousness as we grow and mature until we find one day that it was always only us, and we, having become mature and perfected as a body, are the presence of God. I’m sure there is not a little fault with my train of logic, and I welcome anyone who can persuasively instruct me otherwise. Probably I have misunderstood something crucial somewhere, but I do want to know what the something is, if that’s the case. I would welcome correction.
The correction I desire is in my perceptions of others’ thoughts on this, as I don’t want to misunderstand and misrepresent anyone. As for my trust in Jesus, as Jesus, while I am always open to the instruction of the Holy Spirit, I don’t see myself changing on that.
I do believe He raised physically from among the dead ones, destroyed Hades, destroyed death, and that He will physically return as a discrete person; also that we will be raised as discrete and recognizable persons, that this present evil age will come to a discrete end, and the next, Messianic age have a discrete beginning. I do believe that His kingdom is now, but also that it is not yet. I don’t believe that the church or the ekklesia can bring in the Messianic age, even though we ARE the presence of the Messiah on this earth. We are awaiting a birth, and a birth is a crisis event. It is not a gradual change.
Love in Jesus,
Cindy
Cindy,
“If there is no hell then why did Christ have to die?”, have you heard that one before? That sounds to me kind of like what you’re saying about everything else unraveling. Yes it changes some preconceived notions but theres no need for your entire faith to fall apart because He comes back in His ecclesia.
I have a couple questions about how you see a few things.
What does the revelation of the mystery mean to you? Christ in you the hope of glory, the two shall become one.
If all creation is waiting eagerly for the revealing of the Sons of God, what does that look like to you?
Also I’d like to reiterate, that in my view Christ returning in his body is not just the church getting better and better. When it happens, it won’t be unnociteable. In fact when Christ came and rose people still were able to deny it and possibly some who did witness it fell away. I believe when the fullness comes on the first fruits company the signs and wonders will literally change the entire order of all creation.
Hi, RHM
I love that passage – I can get enthusiastic about it. But it really says, “Christ amongst you, the hope of glory,” which makes it even better. Glory, if you look for it (I think maybe I found it in Thayer, but it may have been elsewhere) means at its foundation, to tell the true story about someone – good or bad – but of course, when it is the story of Jesus, it will be good. So when people look at US, they should be seeing the truth, the true story, of Jesus. That’s our glory – Him.
And “the whole creation eagerly waits with anticipation for the Sons of God to be revealed” is similar. It’s cool you should pick on two chapters I’ve spent a lot of time with. But in Romans 8, again we are awaiting a birth – a crisis event. This is a changing of the guard that happens at a discrete period of time. It isn’t diffuse; it doesn’t happen over a period of years in which we are changed from one degree of glory to another (as should be happening now), but is a sudden occurrence.
So . . . please explain to me what the resurrection of the dead looks like in your eschatology? And if it doesn’t occur at a physical second coming of Jesus, when does it happen? And if Jesus doesn’t return as a discrete person, but rather as a diffuse presence in His ekklesia, how is it that everyone will know He’s “back” any more than that He’s here now in His ekklesia? Do we just suddenly all become perfect and mature and doing the things we always were supposed to be doing? Does this mortality put on immortality? When? What does that look like? Will there then be mortals and immortals walking the earth? Will everyone know the difference? Will mortals find this irritating? It all seems very complicated to me. I want to understand your eschatology because I really can’t see how it works from here, and I’m sure it makes more sense than I’m seeing.
Love you, Bro,
Cindy