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

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

Published by Editor
September 19th 2005

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

Commentary on Matthew 24:30

By Faramir

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

Mt. 24:30
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?

Daniel 7:13-14 (NASB)
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?

Act. 1:9
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:

Acts 7:54-56
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:

Matthew 24:1-2
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:

Matthew 24:3
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:

Matthew 24:30
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:

Matthew 24:30
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:

Matthew 26:61-64
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"?

Is. 19:1
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.

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 Statementor be blatantly offensive to the Christian worldview of the site Owners.

By Trout on September 19th 2005, 10:49 PM

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

Moderated By: Undisclosed

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.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

By Trout on September 20th 2005, 11:31 PM

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

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

By Trout on September 21st 2005, 11:26 PM

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

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

By A Cup of No on September 23rd 2005, 07:01 PM

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

I take offence and I'm not even a dispie.

By Sparko on September 23rd 2005, 07:28 PM

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

you're WRONG!!!!

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!!!

(was that what you were looking for Trout?)

By Trout on September 25th 2005, 07:23 PM

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

Faramir posts an article and, nothing.

Come on people . . .

By Bill the Cat on September 26th 2005, 03:50 PM

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

Originally posted by Trout
Faramir posts an article and, nothing.

Come on people . . .

Patience young Jedi. I'll be on this tomorrow

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

By Trout on September 26th 2005, 09:06 PM

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

By Bill the Cat on September 28th 2005, 04:02 PM

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

Originally posted by Editor
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??

Originally posted by Faramir

Mt. 24:30
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.

Daniel 7:13-14 (NASB)
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?

Act. 1:9
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:

Acts 7:54-56
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:

Matthew 24:1-2
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:

Matthew 24:3
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:

Matthew 24:30
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.

Matthew 24:30
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:

Matthew 26:61-64
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"?

Is. 19:1
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.

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

Last edited by Bill the Cat : September 30th 2005 at 02:07 PM.

#10

By Hitch on October 2nd 2005, 06:46 PM

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

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

#11

By Bill the Cat on October 2nd 2005, 07:00 PM

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

Originally posted by 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

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

#12

By Faramir on October 3rd 2005, 03:05 PM

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

Originally posted by Bill the Cat
Did you really think I'd let you go without at least TRYING to have a go here??

Well, I am glad you did.

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).

(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 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.

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.

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

)

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,

#13

By Faramir on October 3rd 2005, 04:30 PM

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

Originally posted by Faramir

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.

#14

By Mr. Tinkles on October 10th 2005, 04:21 AM

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

Originally posted by Editor

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

Daniel 7:13-14 (NASB)
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?

#15

By Cleombrotus on October 10th 2005, 09:21 AM

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

Originally posted by Editor
Commentary on Matthew 24:30

By Faramir

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

Mt. 24:30
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.

Matthew 24:30
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:

Matthew 26:61-64
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"?

Is. 19:1
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