"Ye Shall Not See It"

[Athanasius]

Luke 17:22-25
22 And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.
23 And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.
24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day.
25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.

In the above passage, please especially note verse 22:

Luke 17:22
And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.

What did Jesus mean by these words? That the time would come when the disciples would long for the "good old days" when Jesus walked among them, but they would not see them again? That's what I used to think, until I noticed that just four verses down in this passage, Jesus uses the term "days of the son of man" to refer to the time when He will come to rescue the righteous (typified by Noah and Lot) and to execute judgement on the World:

Luke 17:26-30
26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

Jesus could not be referring to 70 AD when he uses the term "days of the son of man" here, because he tells his disciples that they "shall not see it," and not all of them died prior to 70 AD. Instead, Jesus is forewarning His disciples that the days will come when injustice, evil, and persecution will weigh so heavily on them that they will long for Him to be revealed so that He will execute deliverence and justice, but they "shall not see it."

Both orthodox preterists and futurists should be delighted to realize that here is an unmistakable promise of a future revealing of Christ that will occur after the last apostle has died.

The obvious implications of this passage are particularly damaging to heretical preterism (also known as neo-hymenaeism or full preterism), which posits that the final advent of Christ occured in 70 AD. That false doctrine simply contradicts the plain meaning of this passage!

[Etcetera]

Athanasius:

A good idea, but that phrase "you shall not see it" is not absolute; it is qualified:

Luke 17:22: The days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the son of man and you will not see it.

The days will come when you will wish for vindication, and you will not find it in those days. The kai very naturally connects the two thoughts in this manner. The days that are coming are characterized by two things: A desire to see the days of the son of man, and a deferred fulfillment of that desire. But the passage does not say when those troublesome days would end. There is therefore no hint that none of the disciples would see this event, whatever it is, at all. We have to decide on other grounds whether those days came to an end before or after 70.

Ciao.

Etcetera.

[Athanasius]

Etcetera,

On the contrary, Jesus added no qualifications. A kai connects the two phrases, but to suggest that this kai means "during those days" is interpretive speculation. Nowhere does Jesus say, "you shall not see it during those days," or "you shall not see it until I come." There are no qualifications given at all.

In the absense of such, the interpretation you are expressing is tautological. "During those days of what?" Of desiring to see one of the days of the Son of Man! Just how long do you suppose those days of desiring to see the revealing of Christ lasted? Surely, after Christ's ascension, the disciples longed to see Christ again for the rest of their lives! We see evidence of this throughout the book of Acts and the epistles. The disciples were constantly longing for the return of Christ, and encouraging believers to be ready for it. Although Jesus had prepared the twelve by saying, "ye shall not see it," the twelve (if the significance of Christ's words had sunk in) still would have encouraged Christians to be ready for His coming, since for all they knew, He might return shortly after their deaths. And living in constant threat of death as they did, they knew that they could depart this earth at any time. In fact, the apostle John, writing after 70 AD and not too long from the time of his death, regarded the many antichrists of that time as signaling the "last hour," probably of the Apostolic Age, I John 2:18.

Jesus could have easily added a qualification here, that the disciples might have more hope to get them through tough times. But He did not. Their hope had to come from other things, not from an expectation of "the days of the Son of Man" occuring within their lifetimes.

[Etcetera]

Athanasius:

You are reading the text like this:

(A). The days are coming when you will long to see one of the days of the son of man...

...and...

(B). ...you shall not see it.

I am reading it like this:

The days are coming when...

(A). ...you will long to see one of the days of the son of man...

...and...

(B). ...you will not see it.

In your interpretation the phrase "you shall not see it" is grammatically, but not thematically, parallel to "the days are coming." In my interpretation the phrase "you shall not see it" is both grammatically and thematically parallel to "you shall long to see...." (The thematic link is antithetical in this case, one of the basic options for parallel clauses.)

The rest of your post is an attempt to find the "other grounds" that I mentioned. I applaud you for it, but am not going to enter a debate at this time on when the days of the son of man were supposed to happen. I am merely pointing out that the verse that you brought up as proof of indefinite delay does not in fact prove it.

"The days are coming when" governs both clauses: "...you will long...," and "you will not see." This is the most natural reading; otherwise we have parallel clauses that are not really parallel.

Cheers.

Etcetera.

[Etcetera]

Athanasius:

Think of it like this:

Imagine a general addressing his troops the week before shipping out to some foreign war. He encourages them to enjoy the rest of the week and to spend time with their families, adding: "The days are coming when you will desire to be with your wife and children but will not be able to do so."

The general would in no wise be implying that his troops would never again see their families. He is describing the nature of the days to come.

So Jesus, in our passage, is simply describing the nature of the days to come:

Luke 17:22: The days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the son of man and you will not see it.

He does not in this verse tell when those days would end.

In the holy name.

Etcetera.

[Athanasius]

Etcetera:

He does not in this verse tell when those days would end.

I see your point, and I do appreciate your effort to make it clearer, but would a general even need to tell his troops something so obvious? Unlike your analogy, there is repetition of the word "see" in the biblical text, and that presents your interpretation with some difficulties. When applied to the biblical text, as I mentioned above, the result is tautological: "The days will come when you will long to see just one day of it, but you shall not see it, until you see it."

The disciples [i]know that they will not see it until it happens. There is not much use in saying that!

"See" expresses the realized fulfillment of a longing that all generations prior to the revealing of Christ will not experience within their lifetimes. The disciples know that already, so what is the use of expressing it? Look at how it is used in Luke 2:30:

Luke 2:29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:
30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;
32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

A further difficulty with the interpretation you are expressing is that Jesus told His disciples that they would long to see just "one" of the days of the Son of Man, but would not see it. He not only said that they would not see the days of the Son of Man, but that they would not see even one of them!

Jesus does not tell them at all that they will see it. (In fact, he does just the opposite.) Why? If it was to happen within their generation, would not mentioning that some of them might eventually see it give them hope to help them endure the days that were coming?

Lastly, Jesus spoke these words to help prepare the disciples for the suffering and persecution that they would endure, and the martydom that all but one of them was about to experience. My interpretation would go much further in preparing them to endure this unrealized longing.

Blessings In Christ,

Athanasius

[Etcetera]

Athanasius:

I see your point, and I do appreciate your effort to make it clearer, but would a general even need to tell his troops something so obvious?

Sure. Why not? I am not quite certain what your objection is here. Such a statement could lead right into a description of war, just like Jesus' statement leads into a description of the tribulations.

Unlike your analogy, there is repetition of the word "see" in the biblical text, and that presents your interpretation with some difficulties.

If that is what is tripping you up, allow me to make a slight adjustment in the wording:

The days are coming when you will desire to see your wife and children, but you will not see them.

When applied to the biblical text, as I mentioned above, the result is tautological: "The days will come when you will long to see just one day of it, but you shall not see it, until [implied] you see it."

You are trying to read into this text a prediction that is not there. Jesus does not imply that "it" is within the lifetime of the disciples, nor does he imply that "it" is not within their lifetime. Any statement as to how long the trials are going to last is completely foreign to this sentence, just as it is foreign to the general's statement. When or how it will all end is simply not the topic... until later in the passage.

The disciples know that they will not see it until it happens.

Again, there is no until in our text, nor any need for one. The whole point of this verse is to describe the nature of the troubled times. They will be so tough as to make a person long for the days of the son of man in a way in which he is not currently longing for them.

A further difficulty with the interpretation you are expressing is that Jesus told His disciples that they would long to see just "one" of the days of the Son of Man, but would not see it. He not only said that they would not see the days of the Son of Man, but that they would not see even one of them!


Allow me to make another slight adjustment:

The days are coming when you will long to see your wife and children, but you will not see even one of them.

Make it even more pointed:

The days are coming when you would kill to hold one of your children on your lap, but you will be unable to do so.

? If it was to happen within their generation, would not mentioning that some of them might eventually see it give them hope to help them endure the days that were coming?


It is not up to this one sentence to carry the full burden of Jesus' entire eschatology! Jesus did instruct his disciples as to the timing of his coming. Just not in this sentence. This sentence had a different purpose: To demonstrate the character of the intervening days. No need for him to have indicated the timing of the end in every verse.

Lastly, Jesus spoke these words to help prepare the disciples for the suffering and persecution that they would endure, and the martydom that all but one of them was about to experience. My interpretation would go much further in preparing them to endure this unrealized longing.

Why? Jesus' words, read my way, do a fine job of preparing one for persecution. They neither affirm nor deny anything but the times of persecution.

In him.

Etcetera.

[Athanasius]

You have made your point well; I must concede that viewed from a grammatical perspective, the disciples could have seen your interpretation as one of the possible meanings of Jesus’words. But for the reasons that I will elaborate on below, I believe that Jesus intended the more dire meaning, and the Apostles saw this as the likelier of the two meanings.

If that is what is tripping you up, allow me to make a slight adjustment in the wording: “The days are coming when you will desire to see your wife and children, but you will not see them.”

That is a very good analogy; however, the men could take these words as possibly meaning that they will not see their families again. An even closer parallel would be that of a General warning men about to go on a mission so dangerous that most, or all of them will not survive: “The days will come when you will long to see just one of the days of coming peace, and you will not see it.” Jesus is speaking of more than seeing Him again; he is also speaking of seeing the eschatological age that His Presence will usher in, and the justice and peace that will come with it. He certainly is not instilling hope that they will live to see this age. He is preparing His disciples for death and martyrdom. His words have such a foreboding tone, that the disciples probably caught this as the more likely of the two possible meanings.

I wrote, “When applied to the biblical text, as I mentioned above, the result is tautological: ‘The days will come when you will long to see just one day of it, but you shall not see it, until you see it.’”

To this you responded, “You are trying to read into this text a prediction that is not there. Jesus does not imply that ‘it’ is within the lifetime of the disciples, nor does he imply that "it" is not within their lifetime.”

As you surely realize, I do not believe that the disciples lived to see the revealing of the Son of Man; the “until” was an (apparently mistaken) attempt to summarize your perspective. Nevertheless, if we substitute the “until” with “unless,” which is what a correct understanding of your interpretation would imply, the tautological repetition is still there, and reinforced again by the implication:

“ The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it [unless you live to see it].”

To slightly rephrase what I said in an earlier post, The disciples know that they will not see it unless it happens in their lifetimes. "See" expresses the realized fulfillment of a longing that all generations prior to the revealing of Christ will not experience within their lifetimes. The disciples know that already, so what is the use of expressing it, unless Jesus has in mind that this hope will go unrealized? Perhaps He was only thinking that [i]most of them would not see it within their lifetimes. He could have engendered more hope by stating that. Of course, I agree with you that

It is not up to this one sentence to carry the full burden of Jesus' entire eschatology! Jesus did instruct his disciples as to the timing of his coming. Just not in this sentence. This sentence had a different purpose: To demonstrate the character of the intervening days. No need for him to have indicated the timing of the end in every verse.

But that is a mischaracterization of a point in favor of my interpretation, which is that Jesus could have made his words less dire, but chose not to. Two or three simple words of hope would have made these words much less foreboding. His purpose was not just to demonstrate the character of the intervening days, but to prepare them for those days as well. A few words of hope that at least some of them might live to see His Revealing would have helped them to endure, if there was any hope to give.

Contextually, the references to direct acts of judgment by God such as the Flood and the destruction of Sodom, rather than indirect acts through human intermediaries, point to the final coming of Christ. If by “coming” in the quote above you mean the Revealing spoken of in this passage, then Orthodox Preterists and Futurists would object that there are no timing statements pinpointing the timing of the Final Parousia, which count down from a starting point within the generation of the apostles.

There is, however, hope for us that it will occur within our lifetimes!

[Etcetera]

Athanasius:

Scanning your post, I believe that all cards are on the table. You have added very little that is new, and I in my turn would have very little to add that is new. The perceptive reader will easily sort out whatever misunderstandings we may have had of each other's position (but let me insert here that I would imply neither an until nor an unless in this passage), and can draw his own conclusions.

Once again the interchange has been a pleasure.

In him.

Etcetera.

[Athanasius]

(but let me insert here that I would imply neither an until nor an unless in this passage)

I see, if we read the passage as you are suggesting, a day of longing would not be one of the days Jesus was speaking of, if on that day, the disciples saw what they were longing for. That would be a day when they longed to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and did! On the other hand, if we read it as I am suggesting, then Jesus is speaking of all of the coming days of longing for the Final Advent that the apostles will experience; in your view, he is speaking only of those days in which they do not see it.

I agree that we seem to have laid all of our cards out on the table; we must leave it to the reader to determine the best hand. If any readers have any additional insights to add that we have overlooked, I welcome this.

Once again the interchange has been a pleasure.

Likewise!

In Christ,

Athanasius

[Athanasius]

Have Etcetera and I gleaned all of the plums from this tree? If anyone else out there has some additional insights regarding this passage, I would love to read them!

[Justme]

hi Athanasius and Etcetera,

How about this explanation. No living person would see the coming of the son of man. The second coming is involved only in the spiritual world.

Matt.16

28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

The hint here being that some standing there that day would live to see the son of man come, but most would not live to see it. Meaning others would see it after they physically died. Those that day lived to see the transfiguration which was somehow the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom.

Because the phrase 'coming of the son of man' and 'kingdom of God' appear to be interchangeable Luke 17 would fit nice.

The New Living shows my idea very clearly:

"The Kingdom of God isn't ushered in with visible signs.[2] 21You won't be able to say, `Here it is!' or `It's over there!' For the Kingdom of God is among you.

As I said the coming of the son of man (kingdom of God) takes place in the spiritual realm. No living person sees it, yet every person who dies sees it as per:

Hebrews 9

Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

So if this salvation is indeed the eternal life, where does eternity take place? Naturally ,where Christ is, but things eternal are not seen.
2 Cor 4
So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

There are just a few verses that lead me to think that the coming of the son of man is not a visible event to those living at that time. For that matter the second coming would always occur in the spiritual realm.

I doubt this theory jumps up very often on forums such as these, but I threw it out as food for thought.

Justme