From an advance copy of Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's Forgotten Prophet as sent to my by the author. His blog is TruthHistory.blogspot.com:
Their failure led to a reexamination of the scriptures on the manner of Christ’s return. This was not a new subject either but had been debated among pre-millennialists in the United States and Britain since the late 18th Century. Most of Christendom believed in a sudden, visible, manifestation of Christ in the heavens, or did not believe he would come in that sense at all. Some believed in a two-stage return wherein Christ would at first be invisible, then manifesting himself to the world.
Some point to various 19th century groups, sometimes spiritualist in nature, as the source of the last view. They are wrong. The idea predates the 19th Century.32 Isaac Newton wrote: “We are not to conceive that Christ and the children of the resurrection shall reign over the nations after ye manner of mortal kings or converse wth mortals as mortals do wth one another; but rather as Christ after his resurrection continued some time on earth invisible to mortals unless upon certain occasions when he saw fit to appear to his disciples; so it is to be conceived at the second coming he and the children of the resurrection shall reign invisibly unless they think fit on any extraordinary occasions to appear.”33
Barbour and his associates were well aware of others who taught a two-stage, partially invisible presence. The principal, most widely read authors espousing it were Joseph A. Seiss, a Lutheran clergyman, and Richard Cunningham Shimeall, a Presbyterian minister. Their books were standards among pre-millennialists, Adventists in particular. They read them; they quoted from them. Both Seiss’ Prophetic Times and Baxter’s The Prophetic News and Israel’s Watchman supported the idea and published articles on the subject.34 Barbour was also familiar with similar Plymouth Brethren teaching.
Benjamin W. Keith of Dansville, New York, undertook the study, apparently on his own initiative. All we can assign to Barbour was a feeling that his computations were flawless, even if they didn’t work. He held a “the operation was a success but the patient died” view and had been cast adrift spiritually. He was ready to quit.
Keith seems not to have left a detailed account of his research or the details of his reading. It is, however, highly probable that he was led into a reconsideration of the manner of Christ’s return by the publication in 1873 of Richard Shimeall’s The Second Coming of Christ. Shimeall believed in an initially invisible return and restated his ideas in Second Coming: “The great event that is to immediately accompany the second personal coming of Christ, is, the resurrection of those who sleep in Him ... which is called ‘the first resurrection’ ... This coming of Christ in the first instance will be, not openly or visibly to all the world, but as it were secretly, like ‘a thief in the night,’ to steal away His waiting and watching saints.”36
Keith turned to Matthew chapter twenty-four and subjected it to a careful analysis using The Emphatic Diaglott, a popular Greek-English interlinear, and a lexicon and commentaries.37 An account of his research published in Zion’s Watch Tower, says “he came to the 37th and 39th verses he was much surprised to find that it read as follows, viz: ‘For as the days of Noah, thus will be the presence of the Son of Man. For as in those days, those before the deluge they were eating and drinking, marrying and pledging in marriage till the day that Noah entered the Ark, and understood not till the Deluge came and swept them all away; thus will be the presence of the Son of Man.’ His surprise was, at finding that the Greek word parousia which signifies presence, had in our common version been improperly rendered coming, but the new rendering showed, that it was not the act of coming that resembled the days of Noah, but that as in Noah's days the masses of the people ‘knew not’ so it would be in the time of Jesus' presence at the Second Advent. Humanity will go on eating, drinking, marrying, etc., as usual and ‘know not’ that he is present.”38
An examination of B. W. Keith’s personal copy of Emphatic Diaglott doesn’t reveal more about his train of thought. There are some scattered pencil markings without any real notations. Whatever his exact course of study was, he wrote to Barbour and others, “and with the remembrance that the time arguments ... had been found faultless and unalterable and proved that Jesus was due here in the fall of 1874, came the thought -- can it be possible that Jesus does not come in a fleshly body at His second advent? Can it be possible that His presence began at the time indicated in those prophecies and yet we went on eating and drinking, etc., and ‘knew not’ of His presence?”
C. T. Russell’s account, just quoted, says: “A careful examination of the word was begun by all deeply interested, to see whether it, as a whole, would be in harmony with this new thought. It was found to be in perfect harmony and ... made clear many scriptures hitherto dark: For instance the differences between natural, earthly bodies and spiritual, heavenly bodies; how that the things which are seen are temporal, natural, but the things that are not seen are eternal, spiritual; that spiritual beings could not be seen by mortals, (without a miracle) and that the object and scope of the Gospel age was, the taking out of the world of mankind a ‘little flock’ to be associated with Jesus in the work of ... destroying evil and blessing all the families of the earth; that God's plan was not, to destroy all mankind after the gathering of the Gospel church but to ‘restore all things’ and destroy only the evil which now rules in the world; that the fire supposed to be literal, was really symbolic and signified a great time of trouble which would be the close of the Gospel age and dawn of the Millennial in which all evil principles of governments and society would be manifested and destroyed, as a necessary preparation for the coming blessing.”39
No matter what Keith personally believed, they did not then advocate an entirely invisible presence. They adopted views most recently presented by Shimeall, but well known among Adventists through Seiss, Louis Alfred Du Pouget and others.40 Christ’s initial activity was invisible, but he would manifest himself for specific acts as needed.
Even though there are statements that characterize this as a surprise, sudden discovery, Keith seems to have held invisible presence views for a long time. This was a “new thought” only in that it allowed them to hold to their chronology and in that parousia could be made to support an invisible presence. Keith’s research was designed to convince Barbour and others that the “flawless” Jubilee arguments, time arguments based on the Jewish jubilee system, were sustained by accepting that Christ had returned invisibly. Barbour adopted something less than what Keith advocated. Keith did not see a scriptural place for an invisible Christ walking the earth. Yet, Barbour and the others adopted that stance. What Keith taught is revealed in an article appearing in Zion’s Watch Tower. Keith wrote:
“Whatever others have thought, or may now think, the writer has never believed nor taught, that Christ was walking the earth during the period of his presence; it is called presence, because he has assumed a new character, to do a new work, superintending the harvest.”41
This suggests that his views were of long standing and exactly what C. T. Russell came to believe in 1881. While Russell could truthfully write in 1879 that his belief in a two-stage advent came from Seiss, it was Keith’s examination of parousia that led him into belief in a fully invisible presence.
Accepting a belief in a two-stage advent led them into other significant changes. Someone contributed the discussion on the nature of spirit beings.42 This was a significant piece of research, solidifying their new views. They were also led fully into “Age-to-Come” views. This wasn’t a big step for Barbour. He already espoused them in some form.
Advent Christians and Evangelical Adventists expected to live on earth, changed into the semblance of Christ’s perfect but human body. But if Christ was really in a spiritual body, then any change to be like him would put them in spirit bodies too. They saw the Saints as assuming the likeness of Christ’s spiritual body to rule over a restored earthly paradise. These were huge changes, and put them in opposition to the main body of Advent Christians and Evangelical Adventists.
Barbour, never an elegant writer, presented their views on the nature of spiritual bodies in these terms:
Very little is known of the nature of a spiritual body, ‘It doth not yet appear what we shall be.’ But we know many things they have done, and which, by comparing spiritual things with spiritual, we know the saints will do. Spiritual beings can appear as a flame of fire ... (Ps, 104:4; Heb. 1:7 ... Exo. 3:2). Christ also is to be revealed to the world, in flaming fire. ...
They can be as the lightning ... (Matt. 28:3) ... Christ is to be “as the lightning,” in his day, or days; yet it is to be ‘as it was in the days of Noe,’ when they planted, and builded, and knew not. The appearing as fire, lightning, &c. seems to be their own peculiar glory, as they actually are; and as we shall see them when we are made like them; but as the world will never see them. A full description of this glorified, or spiritual body, is given in Dan. 10:5, 6; ... A similar description is given of Christ's glorious body, in Rev. 1: and when this corruption shall put on incorruption, we shall see him as he is, ‘for we shall be like him.’ But the spiritual body, though shining ‘above the brightness of the firmament,’ cannot be seen by mortals without a special revelation; as is proven by numerous instances where they have been present. ... (2 Kings 6:17).
... Also in the case of Daniel, the men that were with him ‘saw not the vision.’ And although Jesus appeared in his present glorious body to Saul, it hurt the eyes of no one else; for ‘the men that journeyed with me saw no man.’ And Christ is to be, not as he was in the flesh, but ‘as the lightning that shineth, &c. so shall the Son of man be in his day, or days,’ (Luke 17:24). And men are to continue to eat, drink, and marry, and know not, even as they did in the days of Noah, and Lot. ...
Spiritual beings can appear as common men with fleshly bodies, as did Christ, after his resurrection; and as angels have always done when, instead of appearing in their actual glory, they have appeared as common men. Compare Dan. 9:21, and 10:6.
They will, when appearing under a vail [sic] of flesh, eat and drink the food of men:-”and while they yet believed not for joy, and wonder. He said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of broiled fish, and of a honeycomb. And He took it, and did eat before them,” (Luke 24; 42). And so it was with the Lord, and the two angels:-And Sarah hasted and set before them butter, and milk, and the dressed calf, and the cakes; and they did eat and talked with Abraham, (Gen. 19:3).
They will be able to transport themselves from place to place independent of physical laws:-A The same day, at evening, when the doors were shut, where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in their midst” (John 20:19). “and after eight days, again his disciples were within, then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in their midst, and said, Peace be unto you” (verse 26). “and their eyes were opened, and they knew him, and he vanished out of their sight” (Luke 24:31). Such language was never applied to the movements of Jesus before his crucifixion, and is used only in speaking of spiritual beings. When the Lord and the angels appeared to Abraham: He lifted up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him.” He did not see them coming, but, apparently, it was just there, at his side, they took on a visible form.
We also learn in other places, that shut doors, or prison walls, are no barrier to spiritual beings. When the angel appeared to Peter, nothing is said of the prison being opened; but as Peter came out, ‘The iron gate that leadeth unto the city opened to them of its own accord’ (Acts 12:10). Hence, even if doors had to be opened for them, and can be made to open and shut of their own accord, they could not obstruct their movements.”43
Many of these observations on the nature of Spirit Bodies had been made by others. Discussions on the nature of angels span the ages from the ancient church fathers to Barbour’s day. Everyone from orthodox to spiritualist looked at what little evidence is in the Bible or simply made up their views out of a blend of imagination and speculation. The year before Barbour’s The Three Worlds was published (1877) an article by Johann Heinrich Kurtz appeared in Dickenson’s Theological Quarterly, a British journal with an international readership. Kurtz, a Lutheran, said many of the same things about the nature of spirit bodies, though he did not apply the idea to Christ’s nature at the parousia.44
The immediate source for their “sprit bodies” doctrine was Daniel D. Whedon’s A Popular Commentary on the New Testament. Keith gives us the clue when he cites Whedon’s definition of parousia. While commenting on Luke 24:39, Whedon wrote:
Perhaps all will grant that our Lord’s ordinary stay or abode between his resurrection and ascension was in the invisible; his visible appearances during the forty days being only occasional. His body possessed then normally, and perhaps we may say naturally, in its risen nature, the power of invisibility, at will. It possessed, also, superiority to the control of gravitation, to the need of food, clothing, and other bodily necessities, and, probably superiority to disease and a second mortality. But these are all new powers; possible by miracle, but not belonging to man or to Jesus corporeally as a man. …
This … assumes, that although our Lord’s risen body had its own proper form and substance, and its own proper outline and limitation, yet that he was able, more or less, to modify it at will, so as to retain or resume traces, constituent parts, or substantive properties of his former self, such as wounds, limbs, flesh, and bones. However modified, temporarily or permanently, by will or by nature, it would be the same body; able to prove itself such to human eyes by resuming its old familiar peculiarities. So he could identify himself to Thomas ….He could be grasped by the women … could (like the angels in Genesis xviii, 8; xix 3) invest himself with apparent garments, and eat and drink before his disciples. …
By his self-modifying power he could not only enter the invisible spontaneously, (Luke xxiv, 31) but could appear under another form, (Mark xvi, 12); could pass through any material impediments, doubtless by those interstices between particles which science has so amply revealed as belonging to solid bodies. ….
If Christ’s presence were invisible and the Harvest extended, then other prophetic periods not previously considered by Barbour were significant. They examined the Times of the Gentiles, a period which most expositors thought marked a time of forbearance for the Gentiles at the end of which the Jews would be restored to divine favor. This view extends at least back to Chrysostrom.45 Many, especially after the 1820s, saw the Seven Times of the tree vision (Daniel chapter four) as indicating their length.
--end of quotation--
As far as I can see, this represents the best discussion of this anywhere. I'm buying this book when it is finally published!