OUR FEATURED MEMBER ARTICLE: Commentary on Matthew 24:30 by Faramir

[Editor]

Commentary on Matthew 24:30

By Faramir

(All scripture quotes are taken from the ESV, unless otherwise indicated)

Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, 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.

First we need to establish the timing of the verse.

Mt. 24:34 states that all these things will take place within the generation then living. This limits not only when v. 30 takes place, but also what it can be talking about.

Understanding that limitation, now we can look at the text.

At that time the sign of the Son of man will appear in the sky. (emphasis mine)

Note here, that there is no mention of Jesus physically appearing, but a sign of the Son of Man. Where else in scripture do we see this language?

I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. 14"And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.

The first part of Daniel 7 mentions four beasts, parallel to the four beasts in Daniel 2. Most, even non-preterists, interpret these beasts as representing four kingdoms, with the last Kingdom being the Roman Empire. So, whenever this “Coming of the Son of Man” took place, it seems likely to have taken place during the Roman Empire. This fits very nicely with the preterist interpretation of Mt. 24:34.

Notice also that the “Son of Man” came UP to the ancient of days (God), not DOWN to earth. When did the Son of Man (Jesus) come to UP to God?

And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.

See also:

Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him. But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56And he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."

So the “Coming of the Son of Man” was not a coming down to earth, but a ‘coming’ up to God. (The ancient of Days).

Also note that the Greek word “sky”, is the same Greek word translated Heaven. A better translation of that verse would be: “Then shall appear the sign, of the Son of Man in Heaven…" (In fact, this is the order of the words in the Greek text.) In other words, the sign that the Son of Man is in heaven, which is exactly what Daniel 7 describes.

So what we have in the first part of Mt. 24:30 is a “sign” that Jesus is in fact the Messiah, and is in fact with God, in heaven, as declared in Daniel 7.

So what is that sign?

This question takes us back to the beginning of Matthew 24:

Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."

Here we have Jesus describing the destruction of the temple (Not some future temple, but rather the temple standing at that time. The temple that Jesus and the disciples had just left). This description prompts the following questions from the disciples:

As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"

It is clear that the disciples equated the sign of Jesus “coming”, with the destruction of the temple.

Why is this?

In John, we see Jesus saying, “destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days.” John tells us that Jesus was talking about His body. I think we all agree on this so far, right? In fact if we look at the trial narratives we see that this is one of the primary charges against Him.

Jesus claim to Messiahship and the destruction of the Temple are inter-related. When Jesus proclaimed that the temple was being restored, He was reiterating that He was now the temple, and that the temple in Jerusalem would no longer be a place of worship (Jn. 4:21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.)

If the temple had remained, it would have invalidated Jesus’ claims.

So the “sign” of Jesus being in heaven with the “ancient of days” was in fact the destruction of Jerusalem, more specifically, the temple.

Now let’s look at the next phrase:

and all the tribes of the earth will mourn . . .

Again, the translation from the Greek can be highly misleading here. Many translation say, “Nations”, instead of tribe. But the same Greek word can be used of both. The Greek word translated, “earth” can, and usually is, translated, “land”, and often refers to a limited area. And when you have, “tribes of the land” together in a phrase like that, it is almost certainly talking about the nation Israel. (Do a quick search of “the land”, in the OT to see how often that phrase is used to describe a specific nation and also specifically the nation of Israel.)

So we have all the tribes of Israel mourning.

Let’s move on:

and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Later, in Mt 26:60-64, we see Jesus accused of saying He could destroy the temple, He responded:

and said, "This man said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.'"And the high priest stood up and said, "Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?" But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Jesus uses the same language. “seated at the right hand”, and, “coming on the clouds”. He also says that you (Greek present tense, meaning: the people then and there) would see him. This is yet another reason to see this as a first century event.

So whatever this, “coming in the clouds” is all about, it is a first century event.

Where else in the bible do we see the phrase, "coming in clouds"?

An oracle concerning Egypt. Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt; and the idols of Egypt will tremble at his presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.

This is a prophecy concerning God’s coming judgment against Egypt. God here is described as, “riding on a swift cloud”. Other verses that have God coming, “down” in judgment include: Gen. 11:5, Ex. 3:8, Ps. 18:9-14, Is. 31:4, Ezek. 21:9-10, and Micah 1:3-4.

In light of the statement of Jesus regarding the destruction of the temple in Mt. 24:1-2, his response to the question about His ability to destroy the temple in Mt. 26:64, the use of, “coming in clouds” to denote God’s judgment in Is. 19, and the other uses of the term, coming to denote God’s judgment in the OT, it is clear that the “coming on clouds” is referring to Jesus coming in judgment on apostate Israel, manifested in the destruction of the temple.

To sum up, Mt. 24:30 is: The sign that the Son of Man is in heaven; (The destruction of the temple.), causing the tribes of Israel to mourn; which is Jesus, (Who is God) passing His judgment against apostate Israel.

Jesus spoke these words, around AD 30, and within a generation, the temple was destroyed, validating His claims to be the Messiah and vindicating Him against His people that rebelled against Him. This is some of the most powerful proof that Christianity is right, yet so many Christians are so resistant to this truth.


500


Notice - The featuring of a particular article does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view contained therein by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular article is that said article must not contradict the essentials articulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statement (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/mission/)or be blatantly offensive to the Christian worldview of the site Owners.

[Trout]

Notice – The ministries featured in this section are guests of this site and very often not active members of debate forums. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

[Trout]

:bump:

Come on, there has to be a few Dispies out there who take offence?

[Trout]

:bump:

This is really starting to tick me off, BtC, whats the deal man?

[A Cup of No]

I take offence and I'm not even a dispie. :faramir: :whip:

:hehe:

[Sparko]

you're WRONG!!!! :rant: I take offense at all this!!!

It is not a sign!! If it were a sign then why does the very next sentence say "you will see the SON OF MAN..."

Death to the preterists!!!

:rant:


(was that what you were looking for Trout?)

:hehe:

[Trout]

Faramir posts an article and, nothing.

Come on people . . .

:bump:

[Bill the Cat]

Faramir posts an article and, nothing.

Come on people . . .

:bump:
Patience young Jedi. I'll be on this tomorrow :teeth:

And 5 words for ya Far: "The end of the Age"

:hehe:

[Trout]

:popcorn:

[Bill the Cat]

Commentary on Matthew 24:30

By Faramir

(All scripture quotes are taken from the ESV, unless otherwise indicated)


Did you really think I'd let you go without at least TRYING to have a go here?? :smile:


Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, 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.

First we need to establish the timing of the verse.

Mt. 24:34 states that all these things will take place within the generation then living. This limits not only when v. 30 takes place, but also what it can be talking about.


I too think this is important. I will try to not present a futurist explanation if i can help it, just examine your thoughts here in light of the text in question and the other verses that parallel these elsewhere in scripture.

The specific timing of this verse is established in vs. 29 "Immediately after the tribulation of this day". I see this as very critical to your position.

At that time the sign of the Son of man will appear in the sky. (emphasis mine)

Note here, that there is no mention of Jesus physically appearing, but a sign of the Son of Man. Where else in scripture do we see this language?


Actually, verse 30 does say that all the tribes of the earth will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky.

I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. 14"And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.

And we also see the interpretation of this vision in vs Dan 7:27 where it is explained "the sovereignty and dominion and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be given to the people of the saints of the Highest One". Now I read this to mean that all the kingdoms and governments in the world will belong to the saints. This is still not a reality.

The first part of Daniel 7 mentions four beasts, parallel to the four beasts in Daniel 2. Most, even non-preterists, interpret these beasts as representing four kingdoms, with the last Kingdom being the Roman Empire. So, whenever this “Coming of the Son of Man” took place, it seems likely to have taken place during the Roman Empire. This fits very nicely with the preterist interpretation of Mt. 24:34.

But remember that these events happen after the 10 kings come and after the 11th king comes and subdues 3 of them.The Roman Empire continued for many years after 70 AD.

Notice also that the “Son of Man” came UP to the ancient of days (God), not DOWN to earth. When did the Son of Man (Jesus) come to UP to God?

And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.

See also:

Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him. But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56And he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."


Here's where your timing falls apart. Remember the direct context of when the Son of Man comes in Daniel 7. Verses 2-12 discuss the 4 beasts and the 11 horns. After they do their thing, then the Son of Man is presented. From a preterist standpoint, the 10 horns are done around 70 AD, but the Son of man was presented about 33 AD. The timing is off.


So the “Coming of the Son of Man” was not a coming down to earth, but a ‘coming’ up to God. (The ancient of Days).

Also note that the Greek word “sky”, is the same Greek word translated Heaven. A better translation of that verse would be: “Then shall appear the sign, of the Son of Man in Heaven…" (In fact, this is the order of the words in the Greek text.) In other words, the sign that the Son of Man is in heaven, which is exactly what Daniel 7 describes.

Again, notice in Matt 24:30 that it says that all the nations see the Son of Man coming on the clouds after the tribulation of those days. The timing is off here too.

So what we have in the first part of Mt. 24:30 is a “sign” that Jesus is in fact the Messiah, and is in fact with God, in heaven, as declared in Daniel 7.

How do you reconcile the timing of these things? Sequentially, you are summising:

1. Sign appears of Son of Man presented around 33 AD
2. Tribulation happens in around 70 AD

but scripture in both instances show

1. Tribulation happens
2. Son of Man presented


So what is that sign?

This question takes us back to the beginning of Matthew 24:

Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."

Here we have Jesus describing the destruction of the temple (Not some future temple, but rather the temple standing at that time. The temple that Jesus and the disciples had just left). This description prompts the following questions from the disciples:

As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"

It is clear that the disciples equated the sign of Jesus “coming”, with the destruction of the temple.

Why is this?

In John, we see Jesus saying, “destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days.” John tells us that Jesus was talking about His body. I think we all agree on this so far, right? In fact if we look at the trial narratives we see that this is one of the primary charges against Him.

Jesus claim to Messiahship and the destruction of the Temple are inter-related. When Jesus proclaimed that the temple was being restored, He was reiterating that He was now the temple, and that the temple in Jerusalem would no longer be a place of worship (Jn. 4:21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.)

If the temple had remained, it would have invalidated Jesus’ claims.

So the “sign” of Jesus being in heaven with the “ancient of days” was in fact the destruction of Jerusalem, more specifically, the temple.



So it took Him 40 years to get to Heaven from the ascension? Then how did Stephen see Him standing at the Right Hand of God, as you quoted earlier?


Now let’s look at the next phrase:

and all the tribes of the earth will mourn . . .

Again, the translation from the Greek can be highly misleading here. Many translation say, “Nations”, instead of tribe. But the same Greek word can be used of both. The Greek word translated, “earth” can, and usually is, translated, “land”, and often refers to a limited area. And when you have, “tribes of the land” together in a phrase like that, it is almost certainly talking about the nation Israel. (Do a quick search of “the land”, in the OT to see how often that phrase is used to describe a specific nation and also specifically the nation of Israel.)

So we have all the tribes of Israel mourning.

Let’s move on:



Agreed. Nothing much to gripe about here that is relevant.

and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Later, in Mt 26:60-64, we see Jesus accused of saying He could destroy the temple, He responded:

and said, "This man said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.'"And the high priest stood up and said, "Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?" But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Jesus uses the same language. “seated at the right hand”, and, “coming on the clouds”. He also says that you (Greek present tense, meaning: the people then and there) would see him. This is yet another reason to see this as a first century event.

This was directed at Caiaphas who only lived to see 60 years old. This would have put his death at well before 70 AD.

So whatever this, “coming in the clouds” is all about, it is a first century event.

Maybe this one to Caiaphas in particular, but not the one in Matthew 24, or you have some timing issues to deal with.


Where else in the bible do we see the phrase, "coming in clouds"?

An oracle concerning Egypt. Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt; and the idols of Egypt will tremble at his presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.

This is a prophecy concerning God’s coming judgment against Egypt. God here is described as, “riding on a swift cloud”. Other verses that have God coming, “down” in judgment include: Gen. 11:5, Ex. 3:8, Ps. 18:9-14, Is. 31:4, Ezek. 21:9-10, and Micah 1:3-4.


Yet we also see in Lev 16:2 that God's presence will literally appear in the cloud over the mercy seat. This is not a judgement, but a visitation, as the verse in question may allude to; the physical appearing of our Lord in the clouds


In light of the statement of Jesus regarding the destruction of the temple in Mt. 24:1-2, his response to the question about His ability to destroy the temple in Mt. 26:64, the use of, “coming in clouds” to denote God’s judgment in Is. 19, and the other uses of the term, coming to denote God’s judgment in the OT, it is clear that the “coming on clouds” is referring to Jesus coming in judgment on apostate Israel, manifested in the destruction of the temple.


The destruction of Jerusalem is (was for you) the tribulation. Jesus "coming on clouds" is AFTER the tribulation of those days. It more likely refers to Jesus appearing on the clouds for all to see just as He appeared to Aaron over the mercy seat

To sum up, Mt. 24:30 is: The sign that the Son of Man is in heaven; (The destruction of the temple.), causing the tribes of Israel to mourn; which is Jesus, (Who is God) passing His judgment against apostate Israel.

I hopefully have cast a bit of doubt over these summations...

Be well and blessed
:btc3:

[Hitch]

The destruction of Jerusalem is (was for you) the tribulation. Jesus "coming on clouds" is AFTER the tribulation of those days. It more likely refers to Jesus appearing on the clouds for all to see just as He appeared to Aaron over the mercy seat

Maybe this one to Caiaphas in particular, but not the one in Matthew 24, or you have some timing issues to deal with.


This is Jesus quoting the same passage....


Well Cat if you're going to literalize to this point how do you account for M26;64?

Its unlikely any of those present remain, and if this should be literalized,,, well you see the point

I reckon its here the literalry overview of the preterist gains much over the literalist codebook rendering.

Take care

H

[Bill the Cat]

The destruction of Jerusalem is (was for you) the tribulation. Jesus "coming on clouds" is AFTER the tribulation of those days. It more likely refers to Jesus appearing on the clouds for all to see just as He appeared to Aaron over the mercy seat

Maybe this one to Caiaphas in particular, but not the one in Matthew 24, or you have some timing issues to deal with.


This is Jesus quoting the same passage....


Well Cat if you're going to literalize to this point how do you account for M26;64?

Its unlikely any of those present remain, and if this should be literalized,,, well you see the point

I reckon its here the literalry overview of the preterist gains much over the literalist codebook rendering.

Take care

H

Hiya Hitch. As I said to Faramir, I am not advocating Futurism in my post, nor specifics of it, just trying to examine Faramir's article. If you have a problem with me looking at what Jesus said literally here, then I can accuse you of the same when it comes to "this generation", but I'd rather not go there if that's alright with you.

Blessings,
Bill

[Lizard]

Did you really think I'd let you go without at least TRYING to have a go here?? :smile:

Well, I am glad you did. :smile:



I too think this is important. I will try to not present a futurist explanation if i can help it, just examine your thoughts here in light of the text in question and the other verses that parallel these elsewhere in scripture.

The specific timing of this verse is established in vs. 29 "Immediately after the tribulation of this day". I see this as very critical to your position.



Actually, verse 30 does say that all the tribes of the earth will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky.

Good point, however, my intent was to break the verse down, I was speaking of the first phrase of that verse, not the enitire verse. Of course re-reading the article, I see that I did not acuratley articulate that nor did adequately articulate the differences (or non-difference) between that first phrase the the "the tribes of earth will see the Son of Man..." phrase.

I will have to address that in the re-write (if there is one). :wink:

(This is one of the wholes that I mentioned that I saw in our PM, good catch).


And we also see the interpretation of this vision in vs Dan 7:27 where it is explained "the sovereignty and dominion and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be given to the people of the saints of the Highest One". Now I read this to mean that all the kingdoms and governments in the world will belong to the saints. This is still not a reality.

Not yet, but recall the Kingdom parables that have a small Kingdom growing large (even world wide). The leven the mustard tree etc. I see this as an continual process that we are in the middle of. Note that the rock started out as a rock and became a Mountain. It was not always a Mt.



But remember that these events happen after the 10 kings come and after the 11th king comes and subdues 3 of them.The Roman Empire continued for many years after 70 AD.

I know. How does this contradict the preterist interpretation of these verses? Consider Nero was the 10th "king" His next three "successors" were a list of short lived (less than a year reign). For more detailed info see JPH's artilce (http://www.tektonics.org/esch/danman.html)on this.

If there was no rock, only a Mt. then you might be right to suspect that whatever Kingdom would "disappear" immediately at that time. But Christianity did eventually take over the Roman Empire.

Here's where your timing falls apart. Remember the direct context of when the Son of Man comes in Daniel 7. Verses 2-12 discuss the 4 beasts and the 11 horns. After they do their thing, then the Son of Man is presented. From a preterist standpoint, the 10 horns are done around 70 AD, but the Son of man was presented about 33 AD. The timing is off.

Again, how so? You seem to think that preterist have only one "presentation" of the Son of Man. The destruction of the Temple was a visible validation of the Messianic claims of Jesus. Though I must admit I never thought of it quite the way you put it, this does need further study (more for better means to articulate this, than for any "perceived" problem).




Again, notice in Matt 24:30 that it says that all the nations see the Son of Man coming on the clouds after the tribulation of those days. The timing is off here too.




How do you reconcile the timing of these things? Sequentially, you are summising:

1. Sign appears of Son of Man presented around 33 AD
2. Tribulation happens in around 70 AD

But that is not what I said. (Or not what I meant to say anywa). The "Sign" of the Son of Man is not the same thing as the "Son of Man" the destruction of the temple was the "Sign" that validated the Messianic Claims of Jesus.

but scripture in both instances show

1. Tribulation happens
2. Son of Man presented

Not sure I agree that Daniel presents a clear chronology, but I still agree. Tribulation happens, the "Sign" of the Son of Man is seen. The "Sign" here is the destruction of the temple.

So it took Him 40 years to get to Heaven from the ascension? Then how did Stephen see Him standing at the Right Hand of God, as you quoted earlier?

Nope. Never said that. The destruction of the temple was just a "Sign" of Jesus being in heaven, the "official" corronation day. It also marks a break between Judaism and Christianity. Prior to AD 70 Christianity was considered a sub sect of Judaism, afterwards it was considered an independent religion (Note the "break" was not "clear cut" but somewhat gradual, but the events of AD 70 certainly marked a huge turning point, specifically the Christian Jews, heeding Christ warning in Luke to flee the city, and not helping the other Jews fight the Romans (and each other) put a huge strain on the relationship between church and synagaouge (sp?).)


Agreed. Nothing much to gripe about here that is relevant.

:bugeyes:



This was directed at Caiaphas who only lived to see 60 years old. This would have put his death at well before 70 AD.

Good point. I will have to get back to you that with either additional info or a a retraction of that (Have no time to look into at the moment).



Yet we also see in Lev 16:2 that God's presence will literally appear in the cloud over the mercy seat. This is not a judgement, but a visitation, as the verse in question may allude to; the physical appearing of our Lord in the clouds

True, but the "coming" language is missing, as is the "tribulation/judgment" language.

The destruction of Jerusalem is (was for you) the tribulation. Jesus "coming on clouds" is AFTER the tribulation of those days. It more likely refers to Jesus appearing on the clouds for all to see just as He appeared to Aaron over the mercy seat

Does not. :tongue:

I hopefully have cast a bit of doubt over these summations...

Parts, but certainly not the whole. (and not as many as you would have liked :tongue: )

Be well and blessed

Same to you bro.

I wish I had the time now to address some of your better points in more detail, but I have too many "irons in the fire" at the moment. Maybe I can come back and get into this in more detail at a future date.


In Christ,

:sig:

[Lizard]

Good point. I will have to get back to you that with either additional info or a a retraction of that (Have no time to look into at the moment).


Sorry. I did not have the time, but it was driving me nuts, I had to find out (IOW, I made the time to spare what's left of my sanity). I had a hunch (and my Greek is so bad, I had to really dig). But unless my research is wrong (and again, my Greek is really weak, but I am like 98% on this) the "you" in that verse is plural (i.e. my hunch was right) and not singular (i.e. he was not talking to JUST the high priest, but to everyone present. ).

Plus, if it were singular, it would be a real wrench for the preterist but would devistate the futurist.

:tongue:

[Mr. Tinkles]

(All scripture quotes are taken from the ESV, unless otherwise indicated)

I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. 14"And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.

Faramir, why did you choose to use the NASB for this quote only? I note that no other tranlsation includes 'up' which seems to detract from your conclusion on this verse. Any reason for preferring the NASB over (every) other version here?

[Cleombrotus]

Commentary on Matthew 24:30

By Faramir

(All scripture quotes are taken from the ESV, unless otherwise indicated)

Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, 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.

First we need to establish the timing of the verse.

and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Later, in Mt 26:60-64, we see Jesus accused of saying He could destroy the temple, He responded:

and said, "This man said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.'"And the high priest stood up and said, "Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?" But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Jesus uses the same language. “seated at the right hand”, and, “coming on the clouds”. He also says that you (Greek present tense, meaning: the people then and there) would see him. This is yet another reason to see this as a first century event.

So whatever this, “coming in the clouds” is all about, it is a first century event.

Where else in the bible do we see the phrase, "coming in clouds"?

An oracle concerning Egypt. Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt; and the idols of Egypt will tremble at his presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.

This is a prophecy concerning God’s coming judgment against Egypt. God here is described as, “riding on a swift cloud”. Other verses that have God coming, “down” in judgment include: Gen. 11:5, Ex. 3:8, Ps. 18:9-14, Is. 31:4, Ezek. 21:9-10, and Micah 1:3-4.



Hello, Faramir,

I am enjoying yout thread considerably.

Only let me ask you to consider this: If "coming in the clouds" is what you say it means, why was the High Priest's immediate reaction "Then the High Priest tore his robes, and said, 'He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his blasphemy? What is your judgement" They answered, 'He deserves death'." (Matt.26: 665-66)?

The answer can only be understood if one looks at the text from a Jewish first century perspective, not from a Greek/ Aristotelian perspective which the Western church has grown accustomed to doing. But consider that it was written by first century Jews.

At this point in the trial they still could not come up with any conclusive evidence which would justify their putting Jesus to death, which was their goal. Even their eyewitness accounts conradicted one another. And since He knew that He had come for this purpose and was purposely directing events to that end, He actually had to take the situation in hand Himself to accomplish His purpose. He had to give them the evidence they needed because they were too incompetent themselves to accomplish this. It is an amazing thing to consider when you think on it.

To a first century Jew, (and to those Jews today whom I have spoken to) the phrase "coming on the clouds" is a claim of Deity, not necessarily a physical event. (It may be that also, I am not saying it isn't). Caiaphas knew that was what Jesus was saying when He said, "Hereafter, you shall see the Son of Man...coming on the clouds of heaven" because he interpreted Scritpures with a method called Midrash.

Trying to interpret these things from the Aristotelian mindset is a recipe for error and why so many of the arguments of the sceptics in here and at large aren't even worth the trouble trying to refute. You really need to teach them a different language rather than try to argue them in the language they are using and that can't be done without a change of heart and mind. They cannot "see" the Kingdom of God".

The same can be said for much of the Western church today, unfortunately.

Consider the following from a Messianic Jewish website, the full text of which can be obtained at : http://moriel.org/articles/sermons/midrash.htm


Midrash

by James Jacob Prasch

The Way The New Testament Writers Handled The Old Testament


Midrash is the method of hermeneutics (Biblical interpretation) used by the ancient rabbis in the time of Jesus and Paul. Midrash incorporates a grammatical-historical exegesis, vaguely similar to the western models of Biblical interpretation that the Reformers borrowed from 16th century Humanism, but it sees this as simply a first step.In its handling of various Biblical literary genre — such as narrative, wisdom literature, Hebrew poetry and apocalyptic — it seeks cognate relationships between different scriptural texts in order to interpret them in light of each other. The approach is more topical than linear.


Midrash makes heavy use of allegory and typology to illustrate and illuminate doctrine, but never as a basis for doctrine. It sees multiple meanings in Bible texts found in strata, but this is very different in certain fundamental respects from the Gnostic and Alexandrian uses of figurative interpretation associated with Philo and Origen, reflecting more of Hebraic, rather than Hellenistic philosophical world-view and view of theology.

When you begin to understand Midrash you also begin to understand why those who interpret Scripture strictly from the Preterist viewpoint are incorrect as are the Polemicist, Futurist, Historicist-only crowds.

Regards,
Cleombrotus

[A Cup of No]

[/indent]Faramir, why did you choose to use the NASB for this quote only? I note that no other tranlsation includes 'up' which seems to detract from your conclusion on this verse. Any reason for preferring the NASB over (every) other version here?

Does it really make a difference? I think everyone knows where the Ancient of Days resides.

[Lizard]

[/indent]Faramir, why did you choose to use the NASB for this quote only? I note that no other tranlsation includes 'up' which seems to detract from your conclusion on this verse. Any reason for preferring the NASB over (every) other version here?

I chose the NASB becasue it does include "up" as part of the translation. I do not see how this "detracts" from my conclusion. :shrug:

[A Cup of No]

Hello, Faramir,

I am enjoying yout thread considerably.

Only let me ask you to consider this: If "coming in the clouds" is what you say it means, why was the High Priest's immediate reaction "Then the High Priest tore his robes, and said, 'He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his blasphemy? What is your judgement" They answered, 'He deserves death'." (Matt.26: 665-66)?



The answer can only be understood if one looks at the text from a Jewish first century perspective, not from a Greek/ Aristotelian perspective which the Western church has grown accustomed to doing. But consider that it was written by first century Jews.

Amen. :teeth:


At this point in the trial they still could not come up with any conclusive evidence which would justify their putting Jesus to death, which was their goal.

Yes, but one has to wonder why he was arrested in the first place if they couldn't put anything on him. I think that the final evidence presented before Caiaphus' interrogation presents a good lead to what one of the main issues of controvery with Jesus was: his dealings and sayings concerning the temple. With his cleansing of the temple, He had pronounced himself as one having authority over it, which was only possible from the temple leadership,a king, and ultimately God. Also, his claim to rebuild the temple in three days (the other times the temple had been destroyed was because of Israel's lack of faithfulness to God), would have been perceived as a messianic and royal claim, since the original temple had been built by the king. But I agree, most of Jesus' statements until that time had been very cryptic.

Even their eyewitness accounts conradicted one another. And since He knew that He had come for this purpose and was purposely directing events to that end, He actually had to take the situation in hand Himself to accomplish His purpose. He had to give them the evidence they needed because they were too incompetent themselves to accomplish this. It is an amazing thing to consider when you think on it.

Well, I think he would have eventually been tried for his constant subversion of the Temple's authority.


To a first century Jew, (and to those Jews today whom I have spoken to) the phrase "coming on the clouds" is a claim of Deity, not necessarily a physical event. (It may be that also, I am not saying it isn't). Caiaphas knew that was what Jesus was saying when He said, "Hereafter, you shall see the Son of Man...coming on the clouds of heaven" because he interpreted Scritpures with a method called Midrash.

Why do you think so? How do you know it meant that to a first century Jew?

While I agree that saying 'coming on the clouds' would make the audience remember OT stories where YHWH "come with clouds", I think it is much more a language of vindication and ultimately kingship. As you describe later on in your section on midrash,

n its handling of various Biblical literary genre — such as narrative, wisdom literature, Hebrew poetry and apocalyptic — it seeks cognate relationships between different scriptural texts in order to interpret them in light of each other. The approach is more topical than linear.

Jesus' statement is combining two key texts. The verse reads (ESV)

Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on, you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."

His first statement refers to Psalm 110, which begins,

The Lord says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool."

By saying He would sit at the right hand of Power, Jesus is bringing this crucial text to their mind as He proclaims Himself to be David's lord.

The other passage to which he refers is in Daniel 7:13

I saw the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like the son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.

So I think that the language makes perfect sense for a cry of blasphemy, seeing that Jesus was equating himself with the Son of Man who would receive the greatest kingdom ever and be vindicated, and more specificlaly, that He was someone who would share God's throne by being seated at his right hand, since He had already claimed to be David's lord.

When you begin to understand Midrash you also begin to understand why those who interpret Scripture strictly from the Preterist viewpoint are incorrect as are the Polemicist, Futurist, Historicist-only crowds.

Regards,
Cleombrotus

I think the preterist viewpoint is perfectly consistent with a socio-historic reading of the Scriptures, but of course, you've already shown you disagree :wink:

[Bill the Cat]

Amen. :teeth:




Yes, but one has to wonder why he was arrested in the first place if they couldn't put anything on him. I think that the final evidence presented before Caiaphus' interrogation presents a good lead to what one of the main issues of controvery with Jesus was: his dealings and sayings concerning the temple. With his cleansing of the temple, He had pronounced himself as one having authority over it, which was only possible from the temple leadership,a king, and ultimately God. Also, his claim to rebuild the temple in three days (the other times the temple had been destroyed was because of Israel's lack of faithfulness to God), would have been perceived as a messianic and royal claim, since the original temple had been built by the king. But I agree, most of Jesus' statements until that time had been very cryptic.



Well, I think he would have eventually been tried for his constant subversion of the Temple's authority.




Why do you think so? How do you know it meant that to a first century Jew?

While I agree that saying 'coming on the clouds' would make the audience remember OT stories where YHWH "come with clouds", I think it is much more a language of vindication and ultimately kingship. As you describe later on in your section on midrash,



Jesus' statement is combining two key texts. The verse reads (ESV)

Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on, you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven."

His first statement refers to Psalm 110, which begins,

The Lord says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool."

By saying He would sit at the right hand of Power, Jesus is bringing this crucial text to their mind as He proclaims Himself to be David's lord.

The other passage to which he refers is in Daniel 7:13

I saw the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like the son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.

So I think that the language makes perfect sense for a cry of blasphemy, seeing that Jesus was equating himself with the Son of Man who would receive the greatest kingdom ever and be vindicated, and more specificlaly, that He was someone who would share God's throne by being seated at his right hand, since He had already claimed to be David's lord.



I think the preterist viewpoint is perfectly consistent with a socio-historic reading of the Scriptures, but of course, you've already shown you disagree :wink:
I'll try to get back to this tomorrow to prove what I was trying to relate to Faramir. I've had a few days to think this through and have seen how to explain my POV.

[Bill the Cat]

Well, I am glad you did. :smile:

OK, back to business... :poke: :smile:


Good point, however, my intent was to break the verse down, I was speaking of the first phrase of that verse, not the enitire verse. Of course re-reading the article, I see that I did not acuratley articulate that nor did adequately articulate the differences (or non-difference) between that first phrase the the "the tribes of earth will see the Son of Man..." phrase.

I don't think there is a separation really, but that's my interpretation of the text. I've had some time to ponder these issues and I think I may have some clarification...

Not yet, but recall the Kingdom parables that have a small Kingdom growing large (even world wide). The leven the mustard tree etc. I see this as an continual process that we are in the middle of. Note that the rock started out as a rock and became a Mountain. It was not always a Mt.

Meh, I can understand where you can see this as I can still see my interpretation. Yours is a gradual growing, as per Dan 2, and mine is an instantaneous domination, as the language of Dan 7:14 implies


I know. How does this contradict the preterist interpretation of these verses? Consider Nero was the 10th "king" His next three "successors" were a list of short lived (less than a year reign). For more detailed info see JPH's artilce (http://www.tektonics.org/esch/danman.html)on this.


Actually, JP says that Vitellus was the 10th and the triumvirate was not to be considered.

If there was no rock, only a Mt. then you might be right to suspect that whatever Kingdom would "disappear" immediately at that time. But Christianity did eventually take over the Roman Empire.

But that's not what the language of Daniel 2:34 had in mind, I believe. It says the rock "crushed" the feet (Roman Empire), not changed it from within or gradually overtook it.


Again, how so? You seem to think that preterist have only one "presentation" of the Son of Man. The destruction of the Temple was a visible validation of the Messianic claims of Jesus. Though I must admit I never thought of it quite the way you put it, this does need further study (more for better means to articulate this, than for any "perceived" problem).

What we are referring to here is the connection between Dan 7 and Matt 24, specifically the "coming in clouds" and whether or not this was the same event as Psa 110:1. I am contending that for both of us, this poses a question as to exactly when they happened. Jesus was already at the right hand of God in Acts 7:55, and it was declared to the High Priest (as shown in Acts 7:1 who Stephen was talking to), just as Jesus said would happen in Matt 26.

Admittedly, this does little to help my interpretation of the events, but defending futurism isn't my goal here, just helping you define your view better in light of what I can bring up :wink:


But that is not what I said. (Or not what I meant to say anywa). The "Sign" of the Son of Man is not the same thing as the "Son of Man" the destruction of the temple was the "Sign" that validated the Messianic Claims of Jesus.

Again, as I have said before, I don't think Jesus was interested in an irrelivant building beyond telling the Jews that it would be destroyed, as he said in John 2. His raising on the third day validated His messianic claims (John 2:22). Since Jesus' resurrection was His validation, perhaps the "sign" is the resurrection of the righteous before the 1000 years? If so, this does some justice to my position...except that it is post trib...but I digress...



Not sure I agree that Daniel presents a clear chronology, but I still agree. Tribulation happens, the "Sign" of the Son of Man is seen. The "Sign" here is the destruction of the temple.


:hrm: Again, this rests on if the Son of Man is not presented before 70 AD, which Acts 7 seems to contradict.

Nope. Never said that. The destruction of the temple was just a "Sign" of Jesus being in heaven, the "official" corronation day.

You see why I think that is hard to swallow?


It also marks a break between Judaism and Christianity. Prior to AD 70 Christianity was considered a sub sect of Judaism, afterwards it was considered an independent religion (Note the "break" was not "clear cut" but somewhat gradual, but the events of AD 70 certainly marked a huge turning point, specifically the Christian Jews, heeding Christ warning in Luke to flee the city, and not helping the other Jews fight the Romans (and each other) put a huge strain on the relationship between church and synagaouge (sp?).)


I think that the destruction of the temple was nothing more than forcing the Jewish Christians to let go of the "judaizing" of the Gospel, by removing the temple as a place to congregate. I would love to know what happened to the Church in Jerusalem after 70 AD though. ALso, remember what Matthew 24:31 says in relation to what happens next:

Matt 24
30" And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory.

31" And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.


So, immediately after this sign of the Son of Man appears, the elect are gathered together from every corner of the world.

In these 2 verses, we have:

1. The son of Man coming on the clouds
2. Angels
3. Trumpets
4. Gathering the elect together
5. Some sort of sign (I say is the resurrection of the righteouss dead)

Seems to fit more with:

1 Thess 4
16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.


which contains:

1. The son of Man coming on the clouds
2. Angels
3. Trumpets
4. Gathering the elect together
5. Resurrection of the righteous dead

Good point. I will have to get back to you that with either additional info or a a retraction of that (Have no time to look into at the moment).

I think that this statement of Jesus (Ciaphas and the others around him seeing the Son of Man at the right Hand of the Father) was fulfilled in Stephen's discourse. There was in there judgment on them, Jesus at the right hand of the Father in the clouds of Heaven. Just a possibility, and I think Ted Noel sees this in the same way.


True, but the "coming" language is missing, as is the "tribulation/judgment" language.

Don't need the Tribulation language, because again, it is after the Tribulation of those days. And the coming language can be imported from the angel's words in Acts 1:11.

***edit to add***

Clarifying that a bit, the Lev. verse that shows that God would physically come to visit the High Priest in a cloud fits well with the angel's proclamation that Jesus would come in the same manner as He left, in the clouds. This is how I see the Matt 24 verse.

Sorry. I did not have the time, but it was driving me nuts, I had to find out (IOW, I made the time to spare what's left of my sanity). I had a hunch (and my Greek is so bad, I had to really dig). But unless my research is wrong (and again, my Greek is really weak, but I am like 98% on this) the "you" in that verse is plural (i.e. my hunch was right) and not singular (i.e. he was not talking to JUST the high priest, but to everyone present. ).


I think I explained this above. The council that Jesus addressed in fact did get to experience exactly what Jesus said they would via Stephen's discourse and martyrdom.

Plus, if it were singular, it would be a real wrench for the preterist but would devistate the futurist.

Perhaps, but I need to do some more digging and asking around...

Again, thanks for a lively conversation!

:billsign:

[Bill the Cat]

OK, back to business... :poke: :smile:




I don't think there is a separation really, but that's my interpretation of the text. I've had some time to ponder these issues and I think I may have some clarification...



Meh, I can understand where you can see this as I can still see my interpretation. Yours is a gradual growing, as per Dan 2, and mine is an instantaneous domination, as the language of Dan 7:14 implies




Actually, JP says that Vitellus was the 10th and the triumvirate was not to be considered.



But that's not what the language of Daniel 2:34 had in mind, I believe. It says the rock "crushed" the feet (Roman Empire), not changed it from within or gradually overtook it.




What we are referring to here is the connection between Dan 7 and Matt 24, specifically the "coming in clouds" and whether or not this was the same event as Psa 110:1. I am contending that for both of us, this poses a question as to exactly when they happened. Jesus was already at the right hand of God in Acts 7:55, and it was declared to the High Priest (as shown in Acts 7:1 who Stephen was talking to), just as Jesus said would happen in Matt 26.

Admittedly, this does little to help my interpretation of the events, but defending futurism isn't my goal here, just helping you define your view better in light of what I can bring up :wink:




Again, as I have said before, I don't think Jesus was interested in an irrelivant building beyond telling the Jews that it would be destroyed, as he said in John 2. His raising on the third day validated His messianic claims (John 2:22). Since Jesus' resurrection was His validation, perhaps the "sign" is the resurrection of the righteous before the 1000 years? If so, this does some justice to my position...except that it is post trib...but I digress...




:hrm: Again, this rests on if the Son of Man is not presented before 70 AD, which Acts 7 seems to contradict.



You see why I think that is hard to swallow?




I think that the destruction of the temple was nothing more than forcing the Jewish Christians to let go of the "judaizing" of the Gospel, by removing the temple as a place to congregate. I would love to know what happened to the Church in Jerusalem after 70 AD though. ALso, remember what Matthew 24:31 says in relation to what happens next:

Matt 24
30" And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory.

31" And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.


So, immediately after this sign of the Son of Man appears, the elect are gathered together from every corner of the world.

In these 2 verses, we have:

1. The son of Man coming on the clouds
2. Angels
3. Trumpets
4. Gathering the elect together
5. Some sort of sign (I say is the resurrection of the righteouss dead)

Seems to fit more with:

1 Thess 4
16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.


which contains:

1. The son of Man coming on the clouds
2. Angels
3. Trumpets
4. Gathering the elect together
5. Resurrection of the righteous dead



I think that this statement of Jesus (Ciaphas and the others around him seeing the Son of Man at the right Hand of the Father) was fulfilled in Stephen's discourse. There was in there judgment on them, Jesus at the right hand of the Father in the clouds of Heaven. Just a possibility, and I think Ted Noel sees this in the same way.




Don't need the Tribulation language, because again, it is after the Tribulation of those days. And the coming language can be imported from the angel's words in Acts 1:11.

***edit to add***

Clarifying that a bit, the Lev. verse that shows that God would physically come to visit the High Priest in a cloud fits well with the angel's proclamation that Jesus would come in the same manner as He left, in the clouds. This is how I see the Matt 24 verse.



I think I explained this above. The council that Jesus addressed in fact did get to experience exactly what Jesus said they would via Stephen's discourse and martyrdom.



Perhaps, but I need to do some more digging and asking around...

Again, thanks for a lively conversation!

:billsign:
:bump: :poke: :faramir:

Not being impatient or anything...:teeth:

[Lizard]

OK BTC since you are so impatient, I will reply (though I reserve the right to say “I’ll have to get back to you on that” for responses that may take more time than I have at the moment.



I don't think there is a separation really, but that's my interpretation of the text. I've had some time to ponder these issues and I think I may have some clarification...

Well, by all means clarify.

Meh, I can understand where you can see this as I can still see my interpretation. Yours is a gradual growing, as per Dan 2, and mine is an instantaneous domination, as the language of Dan 7:14 implies

Well if there were not Mt. 13 or Dan. 2 I might could see why you “infer” that Dan 7:14 “implies” instantaneous domination. But how do you resolve the gradual language in Dan. 2, Mt. 13, etc. with this?



Actually, JP says that Vitellus was the 10th and the triumvirate was not to be considered.

Let me get back to you on that. I thought I read that JP had said Nero was 10, but I could be wrong, and do not have time to check. Regardless of what JP said though, the fact is that the 10th emperor was around the time of AD 70, so it “fits” historically.

But that's not what the language of Daniel 2:34 had in mind, I believe. It says the rock "crushed" the feet (Roman Empire), not changed it from within or gradually overtook it.

Yes. It leaves the “method” of the crushing out. This does not eliminate a gradual crushing. We have already have a highly symbolic passage that even most futurist agree is symbolic. Why insist that the crushing has to be an “instantaneous” thing as if the stature were really a statue? Yes, absent any other scripture that would be the logical “inference”. However, in the same passage you have the Rock “crushing” the feet and “becoming” world wide. So there is either a need for at least some laps of time, or the “crushing” is different from the “rock” ruling the area of the former Kingdoms.

What we are referring to here is the connection between Dan 7 and Matt 24, specifically the "coming in clouds" and whether or not this was the same event as Psa 110:1. I am contending that for both of us, this poses a question as to exactly when they happened. Jesus was already at the right hand of God in Acts 7:55, and it was declared to the High Priest (as shown in Acts 7:1 who Stephen was talking to), just as Jesus said would happen in Matt 26.

I’m not so sure the “when this event” happened is as “black and white” as you want to make it. You seem to see Ps. 110 as a “snap shot” and I see it more as a motion picture with an elapse time of several years.

Admittedly, this does little to help my interpretation of the events, but defending futurism isn't my goal here, just helping you define your view better in light of what I can bring up

Well, if there were an eschatology with no difficulties we wouldn’t be having this discussion, now would we? :wink:



Again, as I have said before, I don't think Jesus was interested in an irrelivant building beyond telling the Jews that it would be destroyed, as he said in John 2. His raising on the third day validated His messianic claims (John 2:22). Since Jesus' resurrection was His validation, perhaps the "sign" is the resurrection of the righteous before the 1000 years? If so, this does some justice to my position...except that it is post trib...but I digress...

Well, I would not call the center of worship of the one true God for several hundred years, irrelevant. True, it was no longer relevant to redemption as a result of the once for all sacrifice of Christ, but it was hardly irrelevant. The fact that it was destroyed and never again rebuilt for sacrifice is very relevant. If the temple had remained the Jews would have a much stronger counter claim to true worship. As it is modern Judaism is a shadow of OT Judaism because there is no more sacrifice. So I would hardly use the word “irrelevant” to describe the buildings of the temple nor the destruction of said buildings. It was God’s temple. He allowed it to be destroyed for a reason. The reason is that it was no longer needed. The reason it was no longer needed was the once for all atonement sacrifice of Jesus. Hardly irrelevant.

As far as the Resurrection “validating” His Messianic claims, you are absolutely right. But is there some rule saying that an event (especially one of such importance) has only one validation? Have you never been required to show “two forms of ID”? If you show your Drivers License, does that mean your Birth Certificate cannot also be validation of who you are?

Again, this rests on if the Son of Man is not presented before 70 AD, which Acts 7 seems to contradict.

Interseting choice of words. “Presented”. That is exactly the comparison I use to the Son of Man in relation to AD 70. AD 70 was a “presentation” of the Kingship of God the Son. Sort of like a coronation. In an hereditary monarchal system the heir apparent becomes King upon the death of his predecessor. However, there is a following coronation or (to use your word) presentation of the King at a later date.

Yes Jesus was at the right hand in Act. 7. But His coronation was not until AD 70.

You see why I think that is hard to swallow?

:no: :wink:

I think that the destruction of the temple was nothing more than forcing the Jewish Christians to let go of the "judaizing" of the Gospel, by removing the temple as a place to congregate. I would love to know what happened to the Church in Jerusalem after 70 AD though.

Nothing more? Well it was also the end of the sacrificial system. And by forcing the Jewish Christians to “let go” it highlighted the differences and allowed Christianity to more easily separate from the false religion that Judaism had become.



ALso, remember what Matthew 24:31 says in relation to what happens next:

Scripture Verse:

Matt 24
30" And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory.

31" And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.



So, immediately after this sign of the Son of Man appears, the elect are gathered together from every corner of the world.

In these 2 verses, we have:

1. The son of Man coming on the clouds
2. Angels
3. Trumpets
4. Gathering the elect together
5. Some sort of sign (I say is the resurrection of the righteous dead)

Not quite. What you have is:


The sign of the son of man appearing in heaven.
Angels (plural)
Trumpet (singular)
Gathering of the elect (which would include the righteous dead so it can not be a sign of itself)
The “sign” is the same thing as #1.
Seems to fit more with:

Scripture Verse:

1 Thess 4
16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.



which contains:

1. The son of Man coming on the clouds
2. Angels
3. Trumpets
4. Gathering the elect together
5. Resurrection of the righteous dead

Not quite:


The Son of Man coming from Heaven (no clouds mentioned)
Angel (singular)
Trumpet Singular
(I’ll give you 4 and 5).

Yes, they are similar (though not nearly as similar as you would like to make them :poke:.) And some preterist (orthodox even) say that 1 Thes. 4 was AD 70. However, I do not. But I do not see the gathering of the elect in Mt. 24 as a one time event but a continuing and ongoing process that will end with the Resurrection of 1 Tim. 4.

I think that this statement of Jesus (Ciaphas and the others around him seeing the Son of Man at the right Hand of the Father) was fulfilled in Stephen's discourse. There was in there judgment on them, Jesus at the right hand of the Father in the clouds of Heaven. Just a possibility, and I think Ted Noel sees this in the same way.

So, do you think that the people stoning Stephen actually literally saw Jesus, or do you depart from the majority of Dispy Futurist and allow that Jesus was speaking of a symbolic seeing?

Also, where did those stoning Stephen “see judgment”? As I read the verse, Stephen saw Jesus and told those around him that he did. But those around closed their ears and refused to hear. I just don’t see this applying to Jesus words to Chaiphas et al. (though I do think Acts 7 has HUGE eschatological implications)



Don't need the Tribulation language, because again, it is after the Tribulation of those days. And the coming language can be imported from the angel's words in Acts 1:11.

***edit to add***

Clarifying that a bit, the Lev. verse that shows that God would physically come to visit the High Priest in a cloud fits well with the angel's proclamation that Jesus would come in the same manner as He left, in the clouds. This is how I see the Matt 24 verse.

But if you apply Mt. 26:64 to Acts 7, and to Acts 1:11 then you have Jesus lterally coming “in the clouds” in AD 33 or so, even before the hyperpreterist do. Even before hymenaeus. (sp?).

Clearly (or clear to me) there is both symbolic and literal comings of Jesus associated with clouds. One be a type of the other (maybe??). And if this typological relationship exist (which I think it does), then comparing two (or three or four) and assuming they are the same event is going to result in error. You need to look at the context of each passage to determine which type is being described. And for me the context of Mt. 24 suggest (even demands) a first century fulfillment.

I think I explained this above. The council that Jesus addressed in fact did get to experience exactly what Jesus said they would via Stephen's discourse and martyrdom.

But if this is the case, then that voids (or at least maims) your use of Act 1:11 to demand that all comings of Jesus in clouds is literal and physical.

Again, thanks for a lively conversation!



Hey, it takes two. Thank you.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/customsmilies/2473.gif :poke: :faramir:

Not being impatient or anything...:teeth:

Anyone who thinks 2000 years is soon can not be accused of impatience. :poke:

[Ted]

Faramir,

I’m surprised at you. Especially after I went through Matthew 24 at such length not so long back. You make several key errors, but space only allows me to point out a couple for the moment.

With regard to “all of the tribes of the earth shall mourn,” you said: Again, the translation from the Greek can be highly misleading here. Many translation say, “Nations”, instead of tribe. But the same Greek word can be used of both. The Greek word translated, “earth” can, and usually is, translated, “land”, and often refers to a limited area. And when you have, “tribes of the land” together in a phrase like that, it is almost certainly talking about the nation Israel. (Do a quick search of “the land”, in the OT to see how often that phrase is used to describe a specific nation and also specifically the nation of Israel.)

So we have all the tribes of Israel mourning.
You commit a fundamental error in exegesis here. All you do is look at ge/land and phule/tribes and then combine them without looking at the phrase actually used in 24:30 – pasai ai phulē tēs gēs. Had you allowed yourself to do this elementary bit of exegetical legwork, you would have been unable to come to the conclusion you did.

This phrase means “all the tribes of the earth.” It is used seven places in scripture. Five of them are in the LXX (Gen 12:3, 28:14, Psa 72:17, Amos 3:2, Zech 14:17). In Genesis 12:3 and 28:14 the usage is identical. The Hebrew says that through Abraham and Jacob “all the families of the earth” would be blessed. The Greek translators substituted “tribes” for “families.” Since the gospel, by which “all the families of the earth will be blessed” is to go to “all the nations” (Matt 28:19), the phrase means “every people group on the earth.”

In Amos 3:2, God speaks to the “sons of Israel…the entire family which He brought up from the land of Egypt.” He declares that, “You only have I chosen among all the families of the earth.” This is reminiscent of choosing Abraham from among the pagans in Chaldea and the rest of the world. And the intent is exactly the same. Every people group in the world is in view in the term in this passage.
Psalm 72:17 substitutes “all the tribes of the earth” in Greek for the Hebrew “all nations.” The context of the passage indicates that the Hebrews are included, so the term again means “every people group on the earth.”

The final use is Zechariah 14:17. The Hebrew is slightly different from the others, using hā āres (the land) instead of hā ādāmāh (the world). But the meaning is the same. If any “family of the land” does not come to Jerusalem to worship, they will receive no rain. The context declares that the former enemies of Jerusalem will come to celebrate the Feast of Booths, so these people are Gentiles. The Hebrews were already commanded to come to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast (Deut 16:16), so the term means every people group in the world.

In every Old Testament case, pasai ai phulē tēs gēs means “every people group in the world.” There are no exceptions, and no caveats. Because New Testament writers use Old Testament quotations to import the Old Testament meaning into their writing, we may be completely confident that this is what it means.

Because the phrase functions as a technical term, in 24:30 it should be understood as that technical term. Since that term is universal, it should be understood as universal in 24:30. Your local approach is incorrect.

Regarding “coming in the clouds,” you adduce Isaiah 19:1 and declare it to be a local oracle against Egypt. This allows you to argue that the “coming in judgment” is a local one. But you have improperly used Isaiah.

Isaiah 19 is an oracle in local language against Egypt. But that oracle contains a lot of language that raises serious questions for your premise. The first is civil war of a type never yet seen. But this is about “pharaoh” (v. 11). Next, we have cities of Egypt swearing allegiance to the Lord (vv. 18ff). You again appear to have misused the OT to serve your preferred interpretation.

Finally, you assert that the “coming” in 24:30 is that of Jesus up to heaven, as reported by Stephen in Acts 7 and predicted in Daniel 7. But that denies the simple statement that “all the tribes of the earth” will “see” the sign. It’s not something that is reported by prophets. It’s something that is OBSERVED by everyone on earth. That’s what the verb horao speaks of. While this verb doesn’t have to speak of physical sight, it does speak of personal observation.

You are a better scholar than this current article of yours represents.

Ted

[Bill the Cat]

OK BTC since you are so impatient, I will reply (though I reserve the right to say “I’ll have to get back to you on that” for responses that may take more time than I have at the moment.

Thanks, and sorry for the delay in response. School is keeping me busy…ethics :ahem:

Well if there were not Mt. 13 or Dan. 2 I might could see why you “infer” that Dan 7:14 “implies” instantaneous domination. But how do you resolve the gradual language in Dan. 2, Mt. 13, etc. with this?


Well, as a dispy, I see the current kingdom as the “mystery Kingdom” described in Matt 13 that is growing like Dan 2 says. The rule of the King (Jesus) of this current Kingdom only extends to those in the kingdom. Now what Daniel is witnessing in Ch.7 is not this growing kingdom, but a total domination, as seen in Dan 7:27, which says that all dominions and kingdoms on earth will serve Him.


Let me get back to you on that. I thought I read that JP had said Nero was 10, but I could be wrong, and do not have time to check. Regardless of what JP said though, the fact is that the 10th emperor was around the time of AD 70, so it “fits” historically.

Coincidence IMO.

Yes. It leaves the “method” of the crushing out. This does not eliminate a gradual crushing. We have already had a highly symbolic passage that even most futurists agree is symbolic. Why insist that the crushing has to be an “instantaneous” thing as if the stature were really a statue?

The language is striking (no pun intended) as the force of the Aramaic word Daniel used, which means to strike into pieces.


Yes, absent any other scripture that would be the logical “inference”. However, in the same passage you have the Rock “crushing” the feet and “becoming” world wide. So there is either a need for at least some laps of time, or the “crushing” is different from the “rock” ruling the area of the former Kingdoms.

There is time between the two events. Dan 2 is referring to the mystery Kingdom which is growing and consuming the area of the former kingdoms. But Dan 7 speaks of after the one comes who speaks out against the most high, and says that his kingdom will be annihilated and destroyed, and then the sovereignty of all the kingdoms of the earth will be given to the Saints, and they all will serve Him. This does not mesh with a slowly growing kingdom. All kingdoms are given to the saints and those of the kingdoms will serve the King. This is not a gradual thing, but an instant and total thing which I believe lines up with the millennial reign of Jesus on the earth as in Zech. 14:16


I’m not so sure the “when this event” happened is as “black and white” as you want to make it. You seem to see Ps. 110 as a “snap shot” and I see it more as a motion picture with an elapse time of several years.

Nah, it isn’t a snapshot. It is a progression until the day of wrath, which initiates the total rule



Well, I would not call the center of worship of the one true God for several hundred years, irrelevant. True, it was no longer relevant to redemption as a result of the once for all sacrifice of Christ, but it was hardly irrelevant.

Sure it was. Jesus went from calling it “My Father’s House” to “your house”. It was nothing more than an unbelieving temple on par with the pagan temples Paul visited to preach the Gospel.

The fact that it was destroyed and never again rebuilt for sacrifice is very relevant. If the temple had remained the Jews would have a much stronger counter claim to true worship.

They still do, claiming to be Abraham’s seed and holders of the Torah.

As it is modern Judaism is a shadow of OT Judaism because there is no more sacrifice. So I would hardly use the word “irrelevant” to describe the buildings of the temple nor the destruction of said buildings.

The building was not irrelevant, but the destruction was.

It was God’s temple.

Which His presence vacated. The temple after Jesus was raised is the body of a believer.

e allowed it to be destroyed for a reason. The reason is that it was no longer needed. The reason it was no longer needed was the once for all atonement sacrifice of Jesus.

Just like the Ark of the Covenant. It is no longer needed, nor is circumcision. None of these shadows are relevant in light of the New Covenant.


As far as the Resurrection “validating” His Messianic claims, you are absolutely right. But is there some rule saying that an event (especially one of such importance) has only one validation? Have you never been required to show “two forms of ID”? If you show your Drivers License, does that mean your Birth Certificate cannot also be validation of who you are?

Again, this rests on speculation as to the significance of the destruction of an irrelivant temple by pagan Romans.

Interseting choice of words. “Presented”. That is exactly the comparison I use to the Son of Man in relation to AD 70. AD 70 was a “presentation” of the Kingship of God the Son. Sort of like a coronation. In an hereditary monarchal system the heir apparent becomes King upon the death of his predecessor. However, there is a following coronation or (to use your word) presentation of the King at a later date.

Why would He be “presented” to a bunch of pagans and non-believers? His resurrection was the validation, and I think Pentecost was possibly the coronation, and when He comes to rule on earth, it will be with a rod of iron over the other nations of the earth.

Yes Jesus was at the right hand in Act. 7. But His coronation was not until AD 70.

So the “presenting” of Jesus, and the sitting at the right hand of the Father could not be the same thing as the sign of the Son of Man coming to the Father on the clouds, as you related in Dan 7.




Nothing more? Well it was also the end of the sacrificial system.

The sacrificial system came to an end when Jesus was sacrificed once for all. The animal sacrifices after that were as useless as the Greek sacrifices to their gods.

And by forcing the Jewish Christians to “let go” it highlighted the differences and allowed Christianity to more easily separate from the false religion that Judaism had become.

I don’t agree with that significance. Christianity was separated near Paul’s third journey in Roman eyes. (info from a Biblical historian friend of mine)


So, do you think that the people stoning Stephen actually literally saw Jesus, or do you depart from the majority of Dispy Futurist and allow that Jesus was speaking of a symbolic seeing?

No, they didn’t see Him, but they tore their garments for a reason. Stephen was proclaiming judgment on them, calling them killers of the prophets.

Also, where did those stoning Stephen “see judgment”?

Acts 7:52-53

As I read the verse, Stephen saw Jesus and told those around him that he did. But those around closed their ears and refused to hear. I just don’t see this applying to Jesus words to Chaiphas et al. (though I do think Acts 7 has HUGE eschatological implications)

Stephen validated exactly what Jesus said to Caiaphas and pronounced that they were murderers of the Messiah.

But if you apply Mt. 26:64 to Acts 7, and to Acts 1:11 then you have Jesus lterally coming “in the clouds” in AD 33 or so, even before the hyperpreterist do. Even before hymenaeus. (sp?).

No, I allow for multiple “comings” as referring to different events.


Clearly (or clear to me) there is both symbolic and literal comings of Jesus associated with clouds. One be a type of the other (maybe??). And if this typological relationship exist (which I think it does), then comparing two (or three or four) and assuming they are the same event is going to result in error. You need to look at the context of each passage to determine which type is being described. And for me the context of Mt. 24 suggest (even demands) a first century fulfillment.

And for me, your timeline doesn’t add up. Is the destruction of the temple the spoken of tribulation? When did he “come in judgment?” and was that judgment the spoken of Tribulation?


But if this is the case, then that voids (or at least maims) your use of Act 1:11 to demand that all comings of Jesus in clouds is literal and physical.

Nope. I think that Jesus’ warning to Caiaphas was different than His warning to the Disciples.

Tally ho!!!

[Lizard]

Faramir,

I’m surprised at you. Especially after I went through Matthew 24 at such length not so long back. You make several key errors, but space only allows me to point out a couple for the moment.

With regard to “all of the tribes of the earth shall mourn,” you said:
You commit a fundamental error in exegesis here. All you do is look at ge/land and phule/tribes and then combine them without looking at the phrase actually used in 24:30 – pasai ai phulē tēs gēs. Had you allowed yourself to do this elementary bit of exegetical legwork, you would have been unable to come to the conclusion you did.

This phrase means “all the tribes of the earth.” It is used seven places in scripture. Five of them are in the LXX (Gen 12:3, 28:14, Psa 72:17, Amos 3:2, Zech 14:17). In Genesis 12:3 and 28:14 the usage is identical. The Hebrew says that through Abraham and Jacob “all the families of the earth” would be blessed. The Greek translators substituted “tribes” for “families.” Since the gospel, by which “all the families of the earth will be blessed” is to go to “all the nations” (Matt 28:19), the phrase means “every people group on the earth.”

In Amos 3:2, God speaks to the “sons of Israel…the entire family which He brought up from the land of Egypt.” He declares that, “You only have I chosen among all the families of the earth.” This is reminiscent of choosing Abraham from among the pagans in Chaldea and the rest of the world. And the intent is exactly the same. Every people group in the world is in view in the term in this passage.
Psalm 72:17 substitutes “all the tribes of the earth” in Greek for the Hebrew “all nations.” The context of the passage indicates that the Hebrews are included, so the term again means “every people group on the earth.”

The final use is Zechariah 14:17. The Hebrew is slightly different from the others, using hā āres (the land) instead of hā ādāmāh (the world). But the meaning is the same. If any “family of the land” does not come to Jerusalem to worship, they will receive no rain. The context declares that the former enemies of Jerusalem will come to celebrate the Feast of Booths, so these people are Gentiles. The Hebrews were already commanded to come to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast (Deut 16:16), so the term means every people group in the world.

In every Old Testament case, pasai ai phulē tēs gēs means “every people group in the world.” There are no exceptions, and no caveats. Because New Testament writers use Old Testament quotations to import the Old Testament meaning into their writing, we may be completely confident that this is what it means.

Because the phrase functions as a technical term, in 24:30 it should be understood as that technical term. Since that term is universal, it should be understood as universal in 24:30. Your local approach is incorrect.

Regarding “coming in the clouds,” you adduce Isaiah 19:1 and declare it to be a local oracle against Egypt. This allows you to argue that the “coming in judgment” is a local one. But you have improperly used Isaiah.

Isaiah 19 is an oracle in local language against Egypt. But that oracle contains a lot of language that raises serious questions for your premise. The first is civil war of a type never yet seen. But this is about “pharaoh” (v. 11). Next, we have cities of Egypt swearing allegiance to the Lord (vv. 18ff). You again appear to have misused the OT to serve your preferred interpretation.

Finally, you assert that the “coming” in 24:30 is that of Jesus up to heaven, as reported by Stephen in Acts 7 and predicted in Daniel 7. But that denies the simple statement that “all the tribes of the earth” will “see” the sign. It’s not something that is reported by prophets. It’s something that is OBSERVED by everyone on earth. That’s what the verb horao speaks of. While this verb doesn’t have to speak of physical sight, it does speak of personal observation.

You are a better scholar than this current article of yours represents.

Ted

Thanks for your critique and the complement at the end. I admit that I did not give this article the level of analysis I could. I basically wrote it as an OP for another board at a time when there was a call for articles here, it was available and "new" to TWeb. Please do not think I intended this as an example of my finest work.

Unfortunately I do not have a lot of time to address you points at the moment. I find you comment about all the tribes paricularly interesting and want to "dig some more". I will as soon as time allows.

[rusaved@direcwa]

Hi Faramir,

You did not post all of the Acts text. You said Jesus was not coming back or returning to the earth.......

Acts 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? 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.

Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

These verses seem to counter your pret view IMO.

YBIC,
Frankie :wink:

[rusaved@direcwa]

Hi Again Far.,

I know. How does this contradict the preterist interpretation of these verses? Consider Nero was the 10th "king" His next three "successors" were a list of short lived (less than a year reign). For more detailed info see JPH's artilce on this.

First of all, Nero died in 68AD. Vespacian died in 78 AD.
The ten kings in the Rev were contempories and not consecutive.
Nero never gathered all nations to Armageddon or Rome.
Nero fed Christians to the lions, Domitian sent them to exile. (Patmos in John's case)

And finally, John wrote the Rev in about 95 or 96 AD under Domitian's reign.

This one fact alone puts preterism in the refuse dump. Unless of course you have any documentation that John wrote before 70 AD?

And if he did, then it would have to have been real close to the temple's destruction, and if it was, why is the whole book called a prophecy? If all was to be fulfilled in a couple of years, why did the HS een have John pen it?

JMHO,
Frankie