The phrase ‘coming on the clouds’ is commonly misread as referring to Jesus’ return at the end of the age—when reading it in context and noticing its source in Daniel 7 paints a very different picture.
I have spent the week at Lee Abbey in Devon (if you have not been, you should go!), teaching on Hope and the End of the World.
In my teaching and reflection on issues around eschatology and the ‘second coming’ of Jesus, there is one phrase that keeps coming up, and to which people thinking about these things keep returning: the language of the Son of Man ‘coming with the clouds.’ When I have offered an alternative reading to the key passages in Matthew 24 and Mark 13, this is one of the main things that people get stuck on. I think the reason for this is that people assume that the key questions have obvious answers—so we don’t even need to ask them. But it is important to reflect on: in this phrase, where is Jesus coming from, and where is he coming to? When will this happen? And what is the origin of the phrase?
We find the phrase early in the Book of Revelation, at Rev 1.7, and it is striking that the near universal view of commentators on Revelation 1.7 is that it is a reference to the return of Jesus to earth, as promised in Acts 1 and elsewhere. (Note that the New Testament never uses the now-popular phrase ‘second coming’ of Jesus, since this pairs the future with his ‘first coming’ in the incarnation, whereas the NT always pairs his return with his departure, as in ‘he will return in the same way you have seen him go’ in Acts 1.11). We should also note that the phrase is in the present tense ‘He is coming’ Ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται but we often take present tenses in English to have a future sense (as in ‘I am coming round to see you tomorrow’).
So on first reading, this interpretation is perhaps not surprising when we look at the verse carefully.
“Look, he is coming with the clouds,”
and “every eye will see him, even those who pierced him”;
and all tribes on earth “will mourn because of him.”
Yes! Amen. (Rev 1.7)
In this translation, parts of the verses have been put in inverted commas by the translator to help us realise the use of biblical (that is, Old Testament) language. According to one estimate, Revelation alludes to the OT on 676 occasions, which is on average more than once in each of its 404 verses. Some commentators suggest that this verse constitutes a quotation, rather than a mere allusion, since the parallels are so clear, though on no occasion does John use any kind of quotation formula (‘as it is written…’).
The parallel texts are Dan 7.13, Zech 12.10 and Zech 12.12, albeit with some adaptations. This combination of OT texts are also combined in Matt 24.30 (though nowhere else in the NT) and some interesting things arise simply from comparing the texts:
| Matt 24.30 | Rev 1.7 | Dan 7.13 | Zech 12.10, 12 |
| All the tribes of the land will mourn | and all tribes of the land will mourn | The land will mourn, tribe by tribe (v 12) | |
| and they will see | and every eye will see him even those who pierced him | they will look to me, the one they have pierced and they will lament for him (v 10) | |
| the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory | Behold, he is coming with the clouds | behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man |
In all three places, that is, in Matthew, Revelation, and Zechariah, the term for the people is φυλή and not ἔθνος, a tribe and not a ‘nation’. Although ‘tribe’ can be used to describe a larger group, it almost always refers to a group within a nation, and in Zechariah it clearly refers to the twelve tribes of Israel. Most ETs wrongly translate this as ‘nation’ in Matthew and Revelation, under pressure from the interpretive tradition which assumes this is about Jesus’ return. (Of course, this means that appealing to ‘all the nations…’ to show this is about the return of Jesus is a circular argument).
The word for ‘land’, γῆ, can refer both to the land of Israel, the surface of the earth on which crops are grown, and so by extension ‘the earth’ meaning the whole world. (It is also used on contrast to ‘the sea’.). Which meaning is intended here hinges on the translation of φυλή; ‘nations’ belong to the ‘earth’, but ‘tribes’ belong to the ‘land [of Israel]’.
Zech 12.10 has lots of manuscript issues, arising from the difficulty of the idea of piercing God, and the change in subject (from ‘me’ to ‘him’) half way through the verse. The NET Bible notes comment:
Because of the difficulty of the concept of the mortal piercing of God, the subject of this clause, and the shift of pronoun from “me” to “him” in the next, many MSS read אַלֵי אֵת אֲשֶׁר (ʾale ʾet ʾasher, “to the one whom,” a reading followed by NAB, NRSV) rather than the MT’s אֵלַי אֵת אֲשֶׁר (ʾela ʾet ʾasher, “to me whom”). The reasons for such alternatives, however, are clear — they are motivated by scribes who found such statements theologically objectionable — and they should be rejected in favour of the more difficult reading (lectio difficilior) of the MT.
Rev 1.7 expresses the three elements of ‘coming on the clouds’, ‘every eye will see him’ and ‘all the tribes will mourn’ in exactly the reverse order to Matt 24.30. At several points, Revelation follows the OT texts more closely too, in retaining the ‘behold’ from Dan 7.13, in following Zech 12 in the right order (which Matthew reverses), and in including the reference to ‘those who pierced him’, which makes it clear that this is a reference to the Jewish nation.
Craig Koester, in his large and excellent Anchor commentary, notes the close parallel with Matt 24.30, and David Aune notes that the allusions occur in the reverse order. In both cases, the NT texts follow the future tense of the language in Zechariah. But this raises some questions about whether the reference here is to Jesus’ return.
First, within the context of this introductory section, focussing on Jesus’ return seems slightly odd. After the prologue, in Rev 1.4 John writes an epistolary opening following the usual pattern of first-century letter writing which we also see in Paul’s letters. But it is notable that the trinitarian greeting from God emphasises God’s majesty and authority, adapting the name of God as revealed to Moses in Ex 3.14, the six- or seven-fold Spirit of God in Is 11.2, and a three-fold exposition of Jesus’ significance, which include his priority in the new creation (‘firstborn from the dead’) and his de jure authority over earthly kings. The acclamation of 1.7 is then followed by repeated emphasis on God’s majesty and power. And the vision of Jesus that follows in the second half of the chapter similarly portrays his present power and authority in quite startling terms.
Second, the parallel between 1.7 and Matt 24.30 throws up a striking contrast. Matthew’s use of these biblical citations point to Jesus’ triumph and ascension to God as part of both his vindication and the judgement by God of those in Jerusalem who rejected him which (by the time Matthew is writing) are firmly in the past. Yet exactly the same set of allusions in Rev 1.7 is taken by commentators (including Koester, who notes the contrast) to refer to Jesus’ return in the future.
To explore what is going on, we need to spend a little time thinking about ‘clouds’ and what it means to be ‘coming’ with them.
For British readers, we need to make something of a cultural shift. We are used to clouds; we see them all the time; they don’t signify anything much other than that it is going to be a normal rainy day. But if you live below the olive line, then for large parts of the year, clouds are quite unusual. This is, perhaps, part of the cultural background to the regular occurrence of clouds in the Old Testament.
A cloud (or clouds) first feature prominently in the exodus narrative, as God travels with his people in the form of a ‘pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night’ (Ex 13.21, perhaps first showing that there is no smoke/cloud without fire…). There is no doubt that this symbolises God’s presence in power, protecting his people and confounding the Egyptian army. But as the narrative progresses, it become clear that the cloud of God’s presence on Sinai (Ex 24.15–16) and in the tabernacle (Ex 40.34–35) also signify God’s mystery, otherness and unknowability. In later parts of the narrative, it is often ‘dark clouds’ which signify God’s action in power (e.g. in the song of 1 Sam 22.10) and his impenetrable presence (1 Kings 8.10–11 = 2 Chron 5.14).
Within the wisdom tradition, clouds mostly form part of the created order which manifests God’s glory and power (e.g. Job 37.15) but this is combined in the Psalms with the previous narrative tradition. So God ‘makes the clouds his chariots’ (Ps 104.3) as a symbolic expression of his presence and power in the natural realm.
It is within this symbolic context that we see the development of the language of ‘coming with the clouds’ in the prophetic tradition. When God comes again in judgement to Egypt, he ‘rides on a swift cloud’ (Is 19.1)—and when he comes to his own people to bring the judgement that leads to exile, ‘he advances like the clouds, his chariots come like a whirlwind’ (Jer 4.13). The emphasis here is less on the direction of travel (there is little reference in these verses to God going up or coming down) as it being a sign of his authority and power.
This is the canonical context for reading Daniel 7.13. God’s people are surrounded by the ferocious beasts of successive imperial powers, and they look to the Ancient of Days to render judgement in their favour—which he does as the One like a Son of Man comes to him on the clouds. And this is clearly Jesus’ intention in his use of the phrase in the gospels (Matt 24.30 = Mark 13.26, Matt 26.64 = Mark 14.62). It is worth noting here that the passage so often put with these, 1 Thess 4.13-18, doesn’t draw on this language at all. The ‘coming’ in v 15 is the noun parousia, and the ‘coming’ in v 16 is actually the word ‘descend’. And there is no mention of him coming ‘with clouds’; it is only ‘in the clouds’ that we will meet him. Paul is here drawing on imagery of an imperial visit, and not on this OT symbolic meaning of ‘clouds’.
We also need to be aware how much our interpretation of these ideas is shaped by the implications of the term ‘to come’. In English, this almost universally has a sense of motion towards the reader. But the same is not true of erchomai in Greek. The word occurs frequently, and it is not uncommon for ETs to render it as ‘go’ or ‘went’, as in ‘I may go and worship him’ in Matt 2.8, ‘he went and lived’ in Matt 2.23, 4.13, ‘he had gone indoors’ in Matt 9.28, ‘he went throughout Galilee’ Mark 1.39, and so on. There is a clear sense of arriving at something, but that something is not always the place of the observer or speaker. It is interesting to reflect on how different it would be to translate Dan 7.13 and its echoes as ‘he went/is going with the clouds…’
This also highlights a major issue we have with almost all English translations, which is a particular problem in Matthew 24. At different points the text refers to his arrival and royal presence as king at The End, for which the Greek term is the noun parousia (Matt 24.3, 37, 39); at others Jesus refers to his Danielic ‘coming with the clouds [to the throne of God]’, for which the Greek term is the participle erchomenos (Matt 24.30); and at still others he talks about his future return being like a thief who ‘comes’ at an unknown hour, using the finite verb erchetai (Matt 24.43, present tense though translated in ETs as past). But all three of these are translated using the term ‘coming’, which in English is both a participle (‘Coming to a stop, he put the brake on…’) and a gerund (‘the moment of his coming to us…’) and is used for the continuous present tense, sometimes with a future meaning (‘I am coming to see you tomorrow’). No wonder we get confused!
I actually now think it is highly irresponsible of translators to use ‘coming’ to translate parousia. The standard Greek NT lexicon, BDAG, actually translates the term as follows:
1. the state of being present at a place, presence
2. arrival as the first stage in presence, coming, advent
…of Christ, and nearly always of his Messianic Advent in glory to judge the world at the end of this age.
So English translations really should say something like ‘royal presence’ or ‘Advent’. This issue is particularly acute in Matthew 24: the disciples ask him:
“Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (verse 3)
εἰπὲ ἡμῖν, πότε ταῦτα ἔσται καὶ τί τὸ σημεῖον τῆς σῆς παρουσίας καὶ συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος;
and in verse 30 we find Jesus saying:
they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory…
καὶ ὄψονται τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ μετὰ δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης πολλῆς
In English, we think verse 30 is the answer to the question in verse 3; in Greek they bear no relation to each other, and cannot be confused.
It is now difficult to see why Rev 1.7 (and, with it, Matt 24.30) shouldn’t be read within this scheme of Dan 7.13 and its use in the gospels. The text builds the picture of the authority of God as a counterpoint to the claimed authority of imperial power, and between which John’s readers must choose their allegiance. I therefore say in my commentary on Revelation:
7. The style changes again, drawing on the apocalyptic texts in Dan. 7:13 and Zech. 12:10. Most commentators think that coming with the clouds refers to expectation of Jesus’ return; but everywhere else in the New Testament, Dan. 7:13 is used to describe Jesus’ victorious ascent to the right hand of the Father. In Matt. 24:30–31 the same two verses are combined, and Jesus then declares solemnly ‘This generation will not pass away until all these things take place’ (Matt. 24:34). In Mark 14:62, Jesus quotes Dan. 7:13 to tell the High Priest what he will witness. And Stephen’s final vision, before his martyrdom, is a vision of the ascended Jesus, described using the ‘Son of Man’ terminology from Daniel 7:13 (Acts 7:55–56). Those who pierced Jesus have indeed mourned (Acts 2:37) and many have seen the truth about Jesus. John reconfigures the context of Zech. 12 from being Jerusalem to the whole of the known world, where Jesus has been ‘publicly attested as crucified’ (Gal. 3:2).
Such a reading fits perfectly with the preceding verses: the acclamation here is of God and Jesus as the ones who are enthroned with power, setting the stage for the displacement of imperial authority as the one that rightly commands our allegiance. The Greek Yes corresponds to the Hebrew affirmative Amen, emphasizing the mixed Jewish-gentile nature of the recipients.
I wonder whether our difficulty in reading this way arises from our desire to connect the text with something in the world of our expectation before we read it canonically in its own symbolic world.
This is further reinforced by reading the allusion to Zech 12.10, 12 in its context:
And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him…
12 …The land will mourn, each clan by itself…
The ‘mourning’ is associated both with the ‘piercing’ of God, and of God pouring a new [S]pirit on the house of David. How can this be anything other than something that happens in the first century? Indeed, at Pentecost we find exactly this—the crowd mourning and repenting when they realise what they have done to God’s anointed one.
For this reason, it seems to me to make more sense to read Rev 1.7, along with all the other NT uses of the phrase including in Matt 24.30, as pointing to the majesty and power of God and Jesus’ participation of that in the present by virtue of his resurrection and ascension. It also, incidentally, helps us make a bit more sense of another image in Revelation which has taken to be rather sterile in modern culture—the redeemed seated on the clouds singing with harps (Rev 14.3). Rather than suggesting the smooth, creamy taste of Philadelphia cheese spread, it is connected with the heavenly might of God in which we now participate because of Jesus.
Buy me a Coffee
How do you handle Rev 22:7,12,20 and the talk of “coming soon”? The context seems to be about the End – if it’s referring to the ascension etc then why is it saying it will happen “soon” with an exclamation of “come Lord Jesus”? But the Greek is erchomai ἔρχομαι – same as 1:7, as though it’s saying the scroll whose “time is near” is an expounding of what will happen when Jesus “ἔρχου”.
My feeling is that the NT doesn’t clearly distinguish the two senses of “coming” and the language (and prophecy) is deliberately ambiguous – much like Revelation as a whole. I agree with you that ἔρχομαι often refers to the ascension and continued royal presence, particularly in judgement on the enemies of God and vindication of his faithful. But Rev 22 seems to confirm it can also refer to the final coming and that the two Greek words were not used with neatly distinct senses. But, since you presumably disagree, how do you handle the “coming” in chapter 22?
Hi Will
Erchomai is used in all sorts of ways, including in Revelation. I don’t say anywhere that ‘erchomai’ is always a reference to the Ascension! Of course in Rev 22 we are looking to his return. Though interestingly in Revelation, several examples of Jesus ‘coming’ are coming in the present to bring judgement.
My point is simply this: the phrase in both Rev 1.7 and Matt 24.30 is ‘the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds’, and despite variations in English translation, in Greek it is also verbatim of Dan 7.13.
And I don’t see how on earth (no pun intended!) it is possible to believe that Dan 7.13 is about anything other than the Son of Man going on the clouds to the throne of the Ancient of Days, that is, the Ascension.
So I really don’t know what is in the minds of both translators and commentators who claim that it is about Jesus’ parousia, especially when the term is absent. Do they miss the connection with Dan 7? Or do they ignore it? Or what?
I think it may be because the Son of Man image is explained in Dan 7:26-27 to mean that the dominion of evil will be given to the people of God forever.
“26 But the court shall sit in judgment,
and his dominion shall be taken away,
to be consumed and destroyed to the end.
27 And the kingdom and the dominion
and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven
shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High;
his kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom,
and all dominions shall serve and obey him.’”
This seems to suggest a final judgement. But I agree with you that it can be understood as judgement and vindication less than the final one, as a royal presence flowing from the ascension, which is how Jesus seems to be using it, combining it with Zech 12 to cast it as reflecting primarily the desolation and judgement of Jerusalem in the first century. But the confusion of commentators may arise from the apparent link to final judgement in Dan 7 itself. I think in truth apocalyptic imagery like this is often deliberately ambiguous, admitting of multiple meanings.
I have not heard them make that argument. I just think they don’t link ‘son of man coming on the clouds’ with Dan 7, or fail to notice the direction of travel there.
Yes, in OT eschatology, all happens at once—messiah comes, is exalted, and the people of God receive their full inheritance.
But NT eschatology is *partially* realised, since not all the dead were raised, and the kingdom is inaugurated not fully realised. Hence we continue to pray ‘Your kingdom come.’
The symbolism of clouds in scripture includes Holiness and Judgement.
Here is one aspect – the intra Trinitarian Holiness of God:
https://learn.ligonier.org/podcasts/things-unseen-with-sinclair-ferguson/consecrated-to-god
And that is an aspect that can be exegetically extrapolated as in Ian’s article, without actually considering the question of God’s Holiness.
However, that exegesis, of itself, does not consider the dual aspect of God’s Holiness and Judgement, which would be manifested on Christ’s return.
Where is Jesus coming to with great glory in Matthew 24:30. You (Ian) say he is coming (back) to his father in heaven, mission accomplished, after his crucifixion and resurrection, and that this happened at the Ascension. I don’t believe this because
1. You say it happens when Jerusalem is destroyed as also mentioned in parts of Matthew 24. That event took place in AD70, which is some 37 years distant from the Ascension.
2. Matthew 24 says that the peoples of the earth, or in your preferred translation the tribes of the [holy] land, will see the son of man coming with great glory. To see that on the day of the Ascension or even the day Jerusalem was destroyed, they would have to be given a vision of the event from the heavenly point of view. What is the evidence that they recognised him?
3. You take the quote from the prophets, that the sun moon and stars will be darkened (24:29,), to be poetic. Would you not regard that as far-fetched in any other exegetical context?
Your starting point, upon which you build your exegesis of Matthew 24, is verse 34 in which Jesus says that those things will happen before “this generation passes away”. Last time we discussed it, you said generation always referred to people and their human lifespan, and you disputed my view that it could have a wider meaning by saying it *always* meant that in scripture. It doesn’t. Please see Luke 16:8, “the sons of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind [genea] than are the sons of light.”
That doesn’t comport well with
(a) Mark 9.1.
(b) Especially when we take Mark 9.1 together with the normal meaning of ‘genea’.
(c) And with the context of Jesus being questioned about times and sequences.
Hi Anthony. No, I don’t say these things.
1. I note that the phrase ‘the son of man coming with the clouds’ is nearly verbatim from Dan 7.13. In Dan 7.13 the son of man is going *to* the throne of God, not coming *from* it. Do you disagree? How then can this be about his parousia?
2. I don’t claim that it happens ‘at the destruction of Jerusalem’. I note that Jesus says ‘All these things will happen before this generation passes away’, that is, all these things happen within their lifetime. Do you think, then, that Jesus was wrong in saying this, and so Matthew also recorded him as being wrong?
3. I don’t have a ‘preferred translation’. I am noting that phule simply does not mean ‘nation’, and that ETs that translate this way are corrupted by theological assumption. This phrase comes from Zech 12.12 and clearly means ‘tribe’.
4. Again, noting that it is from Zech 12.12, this is all associated with the crucifixion and resurrection. ‘They will look on me whom they have pierced.’ And the Jews have indeed done that—some at the cross itself, and others at Pentecost, when they ‘see’ what they have done, and mourn and repent. (The phrase actually makes no sense for the parousia, since those who will then see Jesus are not the ones who crucified him.)
5. It is Peter at Pentecost who uses exactly the same kind of cosmic language—and says ‘This [Pentecost] is that about which the prophet Joel wrote…’ So if you think that this is a misreading, then you need to take that up with Peter.
6. I don’t see how ‘dealing with their own generation’ in Luke 16.8 changes anything. and note that Jesus’ *specific point* is precisely about the passing of time, since he is answering the question of the disciples ‘when will this happen ie the stones of the temple be overturned?’ and Jesus replies ‘within your lifetime.’ And I don’t see how he could say it more clearly.
OK?
No. I never mentinoed Joel and cts 2, and last time we did this it was an absolutely central plank of your argument that ‘genea’ in Matt 24:34 had to mean one lifetime. Luke’s usage disproves this.
That would treat (1) uniform meaning vs non uniform meaning as the only issue.
(2) Likely meaning is terms of normal usage is a second issue.
(3) Likely meaning in context is a third.
Both points (2)-(3) are as central and important as you can get for interpretation.
Whereas point (1) is not a point about likely meaning, only about possible meaning.
But that is irrelevant, since there will always be many possibilities; their percentage likelihoods differ vastly, most being very unlikely; and we are concerned only with probabilities.
Hence point (1) will always be dependent on what we say about (2)-(3), will always be subordinate.
That is before we get to the additional point of why, in unbiased context, some *possibilities* would be highlighted at the expense of others. A question which does not arise with probabilities.
It is (2)-(3) which determine which options count as possibilities, and which as probabilities.
So what is the answer…?
That the word means ‘generation’, as you say.
No, you didn’t mention Acts and Joel 2; but I am. You object to my reading of the cosmic language in Matt 24; I am pointing out that Peter uses the same kind of language in Acts 2.
Luke’s usage proves nothing. Jesus is answering a question about timing using the language of time ‘This generation will not pass away until…’ What do you think that means? If you claim that the term means ‘age’, then
a. Jesus is saying this age will not end before this age ends, which is tautological and meaningless, or
b. Jesus is saying that the temple will fall some time before this age ends, which is pointless.
Which are you suggesting it is?
And what of my other points?
Ian: As you rightly ponited out in a previous exchange, Jesus had just had a hot confrontation with the Pharisees. Usg GENEA in the same way as Luke in the verse I have quoted, Jesus is saying “people with those views will not pass away until…”.
When at any time whatsoever between the Ascension and the destruction of the Temple is it recorded that the tribes of the land (ie of Israel) witnessed Jesus coming with great glory?
Anthony, the crowds at Pentecost ‘see’ that the son of man has been exalted as they have seen with their eyes the Spirit poured out, and now ‘see’ that they need to repent.
They mourn and ask how they can ‘call on the name of the Lord Jesus’ to be saved, which Joel says will happen in the last days.
These sceptics see him coming *on the clouds*? With great glory?
Yes. As Peter says in Acts 34–36, God has made him sit at his right hand, and made him both Lord and Christ. That is the meaning of ‘coming with the clouds in glory’ in Dan 7.13.
They now see this, and repent.
You appear to be treating all these texts with a bizarre literalism.
In Luke 7.27, is Jesus saying that John the B is actually an angel? And does Jesus send angels to a Samaritan village in Luke 9.52?
Ian,
But most of the tribes did not repent. Given that the glory of God when manifest in the Old Testament knocked someone’s socks off, and dazzled Paul to blindness on the road to Damascus, I regard ‘wooden literalism’ as a cover for inadequate argumentation. I am not the man to hold to a flat earth because Isaiah refers to the ‘four corners of the earth’.
That the word means ‘generation’ as you say.
I found this really quite helpful (especially the note on weather patterns) – if slightly limited. All I know for certain is that everyone who has predicted the ending of the world thus far has been wrong – and I am inclined to leave the rest in what I term “God’s problem box.” It is difficult to reconcile Paul’s thinking with what you have written, and maybe I shouldn’t try because the notion that John the Elder had at least read Matthew’s Gospel is intriguing (from which you will gather that I don’t believe that John the Apostle is the author). I understood the word “coming” παρουσία as a noun in Greek meant arrival in a ceremonial sense and that advent is actually a good translation in the sense of the end of the time of waiting. Thank you for making me think seriously and please forgive the brevity of my response.
Thank you for the comment.
Why do you think this is difficult to reconcile with Paul? At what point?
I don’t think I suggest anywhere that John has read Matthew. Why should not Matthew have read Revelation…?! I simply note that they both cite the two texts of Dan 7.13 with Zech 12.12, and this is the only place in the NT that this happens.
I think it is intriguing that the phrases are cited in a different order…
Yes, parousia is a noun, but in English ‘coming’ isn’t really, and that is why we should not use it.
I think Matthew has clearly read Revelation. One of the many reasons for this is because this parallel is Mark + Rev (i.e., it is precisely the non Mark bits that are Rev; and there is one explanation of that datum that is far more economical than any competitor. However, this is in the further context of the source-analysis of the Sermon I handouted at Tyndale 2019). The Sermon analysis was the topic of my paper ‘RIP Q? Unconsidered simple options in Synoptic Problem studies’ to Professor Stanton’s Junior NT Seminar, start of July 1999; however it runs like a thread through most of my analyses.
(Of course, this parallel is not in the Sermon, but some of the Rev parallels are.)
PS I actually think we should translate ‘parousia’ with ‘Arrival’, but I might be biased because I love the film…!
One problem with translating Revelation is that multiple words can be translated as “come” or as a phrase such as “come here” or “come out.” One way to help the English reader is to use different words in translation with slightly different nuances, like “arrival,” whenever possible.
To broaden this out a little from the proof texts motif [as Ian Indicates]
The Jews were/are waiting for a Warrior Messiah to vanquish their enemies; In much the same way Christians are waiting for a Messiah
that will transport them out of an increasingly godless world.
The motif of “the day of the Lord” runs very broad and deep in the Holy Scriptures.
Whereas many in Israel envisioned the day of the Lord to be one of light, the prophets stressed that for all the unrepentant, it would indeed be night. “Why would you have the day of the LORD? It is darkness, and not light” (Amos 5:18; cf. Mic. 3:6). “When I blot you out, I will cover the heavens and make their stars dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give its light. All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over you, and put darkness on your land, declares the LORD God” (Ezek. 32:7–8; cf. Joel 2:2, 10, 31; 3:15; Amos 8:9; Zeph. 1:15). When God enters our space and time, the natural forces react; storms awaken and ground quakes. Such depictions of Yahweh’s day should cause hearts to tremble.
Perhaps the Church should be focused on the “ fleeing from the wrath to come” and of Paul’s “attaining to the Resurrection”
However Christ comes it will be a day of Darkness, the elements and creation reverted to its primeval disorder, thunder and the sound of trumpets and the Final Trumpet of God.
The “Day of the Lord “ motif is very gruesome and salutary.
See for instance an in-depth study of the same
.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-day-of-the-lord/
Please correct me if I’m wrong, Ian, but your post suggests that you do not believe in Christ’s physical return to earth with a “heavenly host” to establish the New Kingdom. If this is your position, it stands against the teachings of the entire Church for the last 2,000 years.
AI: The belief in the literal, physical return of Jesus Christ (the Second Coming or Parousia) is an ancient and foundational Christian doctrine. It has been universally affirmed across all major historical traditions since the era of the early Church.
AI: Preterism—from the Latin praeter, meaning “past”—originated in the early 17th century as a Roman Catholic counter-argument against Protestant Reformers. Its systematic development is credited to Spanish Jesuit priest Luis de Alcasar in 1614, who sought to defend the Papacy by arguing that prophecies in the Book of Revelation were fulfilled in the past during the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Liberal Protestants adopted this concept in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Gary: My, my. The Holy Spirit was sent to earth on Pentecost (c. 33 CE) to edify the Church in “all truth” but he didn’t reveal the true meaning of Jesus’ prophecies regarding the Parousia until 1614, when Catholics were attempting to crush nascent Protestantism.
Yes, God works in mysterious ways…
Gary,
If you are using AI then the very fact indicates that you do not have the knowledge to act as referee in any discussion between contending schools of eschatology.
Your aim appears to be to stir up dispute among representatives of those schools while making no useful contribution yourself. Why do you want to do that?
Gary,
So you run a blog called “Escaping Christian Fundamentalism.” Those of us who suspected you were an ex-Christian coming here not for information but a fight were correct.
Persons who have never been Christian sometimes turn up for fights too, and some of them get converted. You are different because of Hebrews 6:4-6. This is not a statement that Jesus has no power to save apostates, but a statement that those who backslide too far never wish to return to his fold.
I’m not interested in fighting you but I shall argue against your anti-Christian comments here in order to show to third parties that they can be answered. Your blog has the catchline “Some prefer the comfort of faith. I prefer the cold, hard truth.” Let me assure you that nothing is harder than seeing loved relatives reject Jesus. As for the comfort of faith, you should set that against the difficulty of temptation and the likelihood in many times and places of persecution. It is foolish to suppose Christian life is easy. What it is, is rewarding. You write: “You don’t need a degree in theology to determine the probability that first century virgins were impregnated by ghosts or that first century dead men really could rise from the dead.” Your satire would be effective if not for the fact that these things – and many others which came to pass – were predicted centuries before within the same culture.
You tell us to read Bart Ehrman, a biblical scholar who lost faith. No doubt his words struck a chord in you at a time you were on that path, but your opponents aren’t going to read entire books written from points of view they disagree with. If you were really on top of your position you could summarise Ehrman’s views in a paragraph or two. According to his Wikipedia entry, he found the problem of suffering decisive. That is his choice. (CS Lewis wrote a rather good book about the problem.) But God did not make us puppets, and some of us are going to make wrong decisions having harmful consequences – especially if we have messed with evil and let it get into our heads.
Doubtless you have seen that argument before. Feel free to reply. I ask only that you not defer argument to references.
Hi Gary ‘your post suggests that you do not believe in Christ’s physical return to earth with a “heavenly host” to establish the New Kingdom’
yes you are wrong. Where do I say I do not believe that? My argument here is merely that that is not what Matt 24.30 is about.
OK?
So, what’s the practical outworking of this revised eschatology?
I posted this in ‘Ascension Day: the key moment of the New Testament?’ by mistake.
The practical outworking: After preaching that the End is near for almost 2,000 years, it allows embarrassed Christians to deny that Jesus ever promised to return, thereby robbing skeptics of the opportunity to label Jesus a failed prophet and Christianity à false apocalyptic cult.
Classic revisionism.
Gary, I don’t know anyone who is arguing that. I am certainly not.
What I am pointing out is that Jesus never promised to return within one lifetime, as some have claimed eg Albert Schweitzer. That is a misreading of the text.
Ok. Sorry, Ian. I misunderstood your point.
No problem.
Hi Steve, the practical outworking is:
a. Jesus was not a deluded apocalyptic prophet, whose prediction that he would return within on lifetime did not materialise..
b. We should not be ‘looking for signs of the times’, since in Matt 24 all the signs belong to the period *before* Matt 24.35; once Jesus starts talking about the parousia from v 36, there are no signs, since he will come at an hour we do not expect, like a thief in the night.
Both are rather important.
Preterist or partial Preterist
How about stating which of the 16 mentions of Jesus’ Parousia that you think happened in the past, and which ones are yet future?
How about considering in context the Second Coming passages only in the book of Matthew that contain Erchomai (“to come,” the verb about his Second Coming)? Which ones do you think are past and which are future? I am not holding my breath.
Do Ian the favour of reading what he’s written elsewhere and summarised here before. He takes a preterist view of Matthew’s telling of the Olivet discourse up to verse 35 of chapter 24, and a futurist view thereafter. I do not share that view, but Ian has made it perfectly clear.
Thanks Anthony, but I don’t take a ‘preterist’ view of anything.
I am looking at the language Jesus is using, and paying attention to where it comes from in the OT, and therefore its meaning as Jesus uses it.
How could Jesus use the language of Dan 7.13 and think his hearers would identify that with his parousia?
Alan, where does Jesus use the term parousia? In which verses?
As I point out very clearly, the verb erchomai is used to mean ‘come’ but also ‘go’, as English translations show.
[Rather than sitting on clouds with harps, eating Philadelphia Cheese, my memory takes me back to “Not Only But Also”, with Pete (Cook) and Dud (Moore) in raincoats and caps with wings, and the dialogue:
D: Pete, what do we eat in heaven?
P: We eat ambrosia, Dud.
D: Eaargh!
]
I note that in Matt 24:3 the Vulgate has adventus as the translation of parousia. This is an example, I think, of how the Vulgate shaped early English translations.
However, Young’s literal translation goes with ‘presence’, whcih matches the natural use of the word in, for instance, 2 Cor 10:10.
Both those translations are better than our ETs ‘coming’, which is just the wrong part of speech.
To answer the question asked in the title, Jesus came from earth to heaven on a cloud as you rightly point out in your article but that does not mean the language is not also used when looking forward to his return. I agree that (Mt 24:30=Mk 13:26, Mt 26:64 = Mk 14:62) speak of the ascension.
I as much as I would like to spend time listing our points of agreement and seeing if we agree for the same reasons, I think it would be more useful to look at where we disagree. Can you please answer the following questions.
1. You say “Paul is here drawing on imagery of an imperial visit, and not on this OT symbolic meaning of ‘clouds’ for 1 Thess 4:16, can you give an example of a text he draws on like you did for the OT passage that Matthew & John clearly draw on?
2. Has the trumpet in Mt 24:31 sounded?
3. If you think it has, how many trumpets are there? I assume if it’s the case you think it is a different one from 1 Thess 4:16 & 1 Cor 15:52 else I can’t imagine how that can be explained faithfully.
4. If the trumpet has not been called, what causes you to separate Mt 24:31 from Mt 24:34 given you think all these things have taken place? For my part I think the Lord is currently gathering His elect but the gathering has not yet been completed and will not until His return.
5. If “the NT always pairs his return with his departure”, where is the departure of the Lord in 1 Thess 4:13-18? Paul, unlike Luke in Acts 1:9-11 mentions the Resurrection but not the Ascension. Another example I think is contrary to your view is Tt 2:11-14 which compares the appearance of “the grace of God” which I say is the incarnation with the later appearance of “of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” which I say is the return. Here, again, there is no mention of the ascension.
6. I think that John in Rev 1:7 is looking forward to the Lord’s return in contrast to Mt 24:30. This is perhaps because I take a post 70 dating, perhaps it’s because Rev 1:5-6 already has Jesus on the throne which the ascension inaugurated, or maybe due to the consensus view of the admittedly limited number of Church Fathers I have read on this passage. For the record I have checked the commentaries of Andrew of Caesarea, Oecumenius, Victorinus of Pettau, Apringius of Beja, St Bede, Fulgentius of Ruspe. Other Fathers like Jerome and Augustine seem to me to refer to the passage indirectly when speaking of the “Second Coming” but the latter in contexts where the Ascension is also in View. I would like to know if you have an example of an early church writer who took Rev 1:7 as the Ascension to the exclusion/neglect of the “Second Coming”?
I could go on for a lot longer but I get tired and I’d rather discuss fewer points of disagreement in greater detail than raise many points that make it impractical for you to adequately respond.
Many thanks.
Thanks for engaging. I am not sure I understand all your questions.
1. He is drawing on Roman practice, rather than a text.
2. Yes, it was sounded at Pentecost, and the apostles sound the gospel trumpet all through Acts.
3. The sounding of a trumpet in the OT means multiple things, including calling people for battle, and the call to worship. It is sounded to announce Sabbaths. Why should it only ever mean one thing? Jesus uses it as a metaphor for announcing the gospel; it is also metaphorically used for Jesus’ return.
4. As I show in my other article, ‘gathering’ signifies the gentile mission. This began within a generation. https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/why-and-how-does-jesus-gather-his-people/
5. Titus 2.11f actually connects Jesus’ appearing with his glory (which he now has with his Father), and that ‘he gave himself for us’ ie his death and resurrection.
6. How come Rev 1.7 says something different from Matt 24.30 when they both cite exactly the same OT texts? How can Dan 7.13 now mean something different? Or Zech 12.10 talking about ‘looking on the one they had pierced’?
Yes, I disagree with the Fathers, because they are not infallible. I also disagree with them on their cessationism, and their belief in monarchical episcopacy as essential for orthodoxy, both of which contradict the NT.
OK?
Thank for taking time to respond. I knew we would have significant differences as I am a Catholic and you are an Anglican. I don’t want to divert attention from the topic at hand so I will simply say I agree with you that individual fathers can be wrong but when I find an interpretation that is not just different but directly contradicts the fathers, I become doubtful of that interpretation.
1. I have checked some of the commentaries I have to see if they discuss how the coming with clouds relates to imperial visitation. And now I think I see where the misunderstanding came from based on my earlier question. They talk about how eis apantēsin was technical language for sending a delegation to meet a dignitary and they provide some context. My question though was more specific about the clouds which are not very frequent and are part of the commonalities between Mt 24:30, Rev 1:7, Dan 7:13 & 1 Thess 4:17. The commentaries do not mention cloud language being related to an “imperial visit” but instead draw comparison to OT theophany passages like Dan 7:13. The Greco-Roman texts I see cited supposedly talk about the departed in relationship to being with the gods like Paul says we shall always be with the Lord. I checked the following commentaries: AYB, PNTC, NIGTC, Ben Witherington III, SP, NAC, BNTC and some others. From this it seems clear to me that the cloud imagery is drawn from the OT and Dan 7:13 seems closer to me than the next nearest one, Exod 19:16. If you have a Roman text which uses cloud imagery for a similar point I like to know.
2. I agree with Pentecost but perhaps I’m being too literal in expecting a single event to match the sounding of the trumpet. Perhaps the further breaching can be an echo of the original sound.
3. I agree with you that there are multiple trumpets in the OT and multiple in the NT but I do not want to dilute the singularity of the trumpet in certain passages. Mt 24:31 speaks of a single trumpet, so does 1 Cor 15:52 & 1 Thess 4:16. I think the latter two have the same event in mind which is different to the Mt 24:31. I agree with you that trumpet in Mt 24:31 can mean different things but I argue Pentecost is the best candidate for its fulfilment. Revelation speaks of the 7 trumpets and one day I hope to get your commentary and see what you have to say about them but for now I’ll leave them for another day.
4. I agree. I think this officially began at Pentecost and will continue until the time of the harvest. I will read that article closely and perhaps even comment on it.
5. I feel like you have missed the substance of my question or dismissed it too casually. 1 Thess 4:13-18 does not mention the ascension but does mention the return. You agreed that it speaks of the return. I was using Tt 2:11-14 as a counter example to you claim that “the NT always pairs his return with his departure” as the passage just like 1 Thess 4:13-18, at least as I understand it, speaks of the return without mentioning the departure. Tt 2:14 does mention His death in saying ‘he gave himself for us’ but I do not know where you get the resurrection. The two events while connected are still distinct. Besides, the pairing of the “appearances” in Tt 2:11 and Tt 2:14 seem to makes them the obvious points of contact, with Tt 2:14 serving as the explanation. To me this is a clear example of the return being paired with the epiphany, a coming to earth, and not the ascension, a departure from earth.
6. I think different NT passages can refer to the same text while saying something different. Paul uses Gen 15:6 in Rom 4 differently than he does in Gal 3. I won’t even get into James otherwise we might get sidetracked. An even better example is between the usage of Gen 22:18 between Gal 3:16 where Paul specifies one seed of Abraham and compare it to Rom 4:16 where he mentions all the seed of Abraham. I could give more examples but I hope the last example suffices, especially because it was the same author. Dan 7:13 does not mean anything different nor does Zech 12:10 instead Rev 1:7 says something different from both of them while drawing on both passages. Dan 7:13 does not say just say coming with the clouds, but also mentions the destination. Rev 1:7 does not do that; it simply quotes part of the passage that matches and does not refer to the latter. The same happens with Zech 12:10-12 as John selectively uses the text to make his own point that is in continuity but different from both Matthew and Zechariah. This is similar to what the Lord does in Lk 4:18 where he quotes Is 61:1-2 but stops before mentioning the day of vengeance as that was not appropriate to His purpose at the time. Your issue as I see it, is wanting to see an exact match between the OT context to the neglect of the actual wording of the NT. You noticed the difference in order between Mt 24:30-31 yet did not offer any reasons for it. Taking your interpretations, Mt 24:30-31 has the tribes mourning before the ascension, which matches Jn 19:37 quoting Zech 12:10 during the crucifixion but Rev 1:7 has the Ascension followed by the seeing and the mourning this would not make sense chronologically with Matthew but would make sense with your interpretation of the Ascension followed by Pentecost. You yourself claim that “some at the cross itself, and others at Pentecost” fulfilled Zech 12:10, showing that the same passage can refer to different things. I would then argue, along with the church fathers, that a similar thing will happen in the future.
I have written more than I expected. I do not expect you to spend any more time responding to me but I hope my criticisms have built you up.
God bless.
“The light of faith is given to us chiefly to enable us to behold the glory of God in Christ.
” This is how the image of God is renewed in us and how we are made like Christ. ”
From, ‘The Glory of Christ’, by John Owen, Banner of Truth
“Revelation is not a handbook to last-day events. It is a pastoral letter written to Christians of every generation. Its purpose is to teach them how to live lives faithful to God and Christ in the midst of all the challenges a hostile pagan world throws at them. ”
Opening sentences from the Introduction to a book, which is a double distillation of G. K. Beale’s commentary, by David H Campbell in his book, Mystery Explained.
No, it was not written *to* every generation. It was written *to* the first generation, and only then for others.
Yes. As a pastoral letter for Christians of every generation,
More abstracts could be taken from the book, staring with an overview of the whole book including the main OT understanding of prophecy, and key storylines of the book, one of which is re-tracing the Exodus.
Another is a return to the very beginning, to the garden of Eden, to restore it in a better form, the goal of history: from the temple of that Garden, to that of the Tabernacle. to the new Temple in Christ: from the rivers of Eden, to the river of Ezekiel, to the new river in Christ, to the eternal river of the new Jerusalem; how far we have come through the sacrificial death of the Lamb, pointing forward to the Lamb’s rule manifest to all creation.
The book’s heavenly perspective is on the victory of God, from the throne room of God.
And more—- onto the opening question of the article and beyond—
As I read it, it seems that all interpretive views of Revelation
Ie. Idealist Historicist Preterist Futurist all have their strengths and weaknesses which militate against a dogmatic stance.
Of course all will accentuate their strongest case to win the day
For example the Preterist view is based on an uncertain foundation
“What clinches it for the Futurist view is the date for the Book of Revelation. If the Preterist is right, and the book of Revelation was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans, John must have written it before AD 70. Yet we know John received his visions on the island of Patmos, where early church history tells us he had been banished by the Emperor Domitian. That was not till long after AD 70. When Domitian died in AD 96, John was allowed to return from exile and lived the rest of his days in Ephesus. The Preterist view of Revelation is refuted by the historical evidence of the timing of John’s imprisonment on Patmos.
What clinches it for the Futurist view is the date for the Book of Revelation?
https://calvaryoxnard.org/blog/2024/05/10/four-views-of-revelation
Im not sure how much weight anyone should give to ‘early church history’.
P.S.While we ought to expect a literal fulfillment of prophecy in world events, we must be careful about making dogmatic “this-is-that” statements.
Hi Ian
Mm, not convinced. Take the refs in order
Dan 7. 9-14 tell us of God, the Ancient of Days, taking his seat on Judgement Day, the books opened; and our Lord the Son of Man “coming (erchomai) with the clouds of heaven” and being given glory with all peoples, nations, men of every language worshipping him: the era of his universal and eternal reign. We are talking of the Return of Christ, the Last Judgement and its outcome. Every knee will bow.
Matthew 24.29-31 tell of the stars falling from heaven, all the peoples of the earth weeping as they see our Lord the Son of Man “coming (erchomai) on the clouds of heaven” with great glory, the trumpet sounding, and the angels gathering his chosen people from the ends of the earth. We are talking of the Return of Christ and the outcome of the Last Judgement/ Judgement Day.
Matthew 26.62-64 tell of Jesus affirming He is Messiah and warning of two successive sights they will have of Him the Son of Man first sitting and then coming (erchomai) on the clouds of heaven: ‘which means that the coming must be to earth, for Jesus must come to God before he can sit at God’s side. But the decisive point is that everywhere else in our Gospel the coming of the Son of Man and Dan.7.13,14 both refer to the Parousia; and in 19.28 and 25.31 the sitting on a throne belong not to the Son of Man’s present reign but to the eschatological future.’ (Davies and Allison ad loc, p. 493)
Acts 1.11 Jesus taken up and a cloud hid him. This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back (erchomai) in the same way you have seen him go (poreuomai) into heaven.
Rev. 1.7 He is coming (erchomai, future sense as you say, i.e. it is something which has not yet happened although Jesus’ ascension has) with the clouds, every eye will see him; even those (the Jews) who pierced him and all the tribes of the earth will mourn (i.e. as per Rev 6, at Judgement)…
You’ve said (I think) that erchomai in Rev 1.7 means ‘going’ here. But where is he going? He has already freed us from our sins, ascended and made us a kingdom and priests.
Seems to me Rev.1.7 is eschatological, re our Lord’s Return. Everywhere, erchomai, He is coming i.e. coming back, returning.
Thanks. But as I say in answer to your question: he is going to the Father.
Dan 7.13 is about the one of man being lifted up from the earth to the throne of the Ancient of Days.
That is what happened at his ascension.
Jesus said that all the events, including the ‘coming of the son of man on the clouds’ would happen within one lifetime. You are making Jesus out to be deluded, and Matthew recording him being so.
Please note that, in reading OT eschatology, they only offer a single eschatological moment.
The partially realised eschatology of the NT changes everything.
Hi Ian, do you believe that one of Jesus’ comings which he refers to may have been at the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem? Ie a coming in judgement.
No, I cannot see anywhere that he says that.
He does say that destruction will come because ‘you did not recognise the time of your visitation’ ie God’s coming to them in the person of Jesus in Luke 19.44.
And in the messages to the seven cities, he talks of coming in judgement to remove their lamp stand in Rev 2.5.
But I cannot see any mention of ‘coming’ in judgement in Matt 24. Can you?
Ciao
An observation and a question.
1. erchomai *can mean ‘go’ as well as ‘come’; but poreuomai is commonly used for ‘go’, and in Matt 8.9 there is a clear distinction in the verbs – as I think there is generally in Matthew (cf. Matt 28.19).
2. If Matthew 24.30 is actually a reference to the Ascension and not the Parousia, why is it *preceded* by the long description of worldwide distress, persecution of the Church and the abomination of desolation (Matthew 24.3-29) – things which didn’t happen before the Ascension – and the comment, ‘*Then (tote) will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn’ etc (Matthew 24.30b)? And what does Matthew 24.31 mean in this context?
I think your interpretation of Matt 24.30 is a tour de force but it doesn’t sit easily with the time sequence in Matthew 24.3-31. You also lay great stress on the precise wording of Daniel 7.13 but I don’t find NT fulfilment of OT prophecy as always being ‘au pied de la lettre’, and there is no reference in Matthew to ‘coming to the Ancient of Days’. Many OT prophecies were never fulfilled literally in every detail (e.g. Jeremiah’s New Covenant prophecy) but opened up new horizons with the coming (pardon, Advent) of Christ. (And you are quick to deny that the OT promise of the land to Israel has any more validity today.) Daniel’s language is (partially) there but the meaning is transposed to some degree.
James,
I think the angels are us! We go out in the Spirit. Revelation says the woman was given wings.
She is the church, the gift of wings is the power of the Spirit. We bear the message , therefore we are the angels. We go in and out of the sheepfold, We go up and down upon the son of man. We go into the wilderness.
There is more to life than one-verse proof texts, but Isaiah 11:11-12 is extraordinarily persuasive, promising a second return (so not the return from Baylon) of the people of Judah (the Jews) to the land from the four corners of the earth, i.e. from just about everywhere. I couldn’t describe the Zionist return more accurately in a succinct sentence even after it has happened.
This is God acting a second time—the first to raise up his anointed one, the second to gather his people. Where is there a mentioned of a second gathering?
Both are fulfilled in Jesus; he is the one who ‘gathers the scattered children of God’ in John 11.52 in fulfilment of this promise—which is the gentile mission.
Hi James
1. Yes, but in Matt 24.30 he is simply using the exact language of Dan 7.13.
2. Because Jesus is talking about all the events in their lifetime, but not necessarily in chronological order. Note he mentions false Christs more than once.
3. I think you have answered your own question. Why doesn’t Jesus mention the Ancient of Days? I don’t know, but he does obliquely in Mark 14.62 ‘at the right hand of the Power’ with exactly the same phrase about the coming of the son of man.
It is reckoned by some scholars that Preterist is mainly the view of Theologians but that Futurism is favoured by the pew dweller
and that such views are problematic.
Many of us has a preference of one or other of the four main views, some quite dogmatically so.
There is one other view that remains and has increasingly been endorsed by Theologians Academics and Influencers,
the Eclectic View of the end times, it is well worth a look
@https://oncedelivered.net/tag/eclectic-view/ Shalom.
Mathew 24:30-31 describes what Christians have been doing since Pentecost. They go out in the power of the Holy Spirit with His wings , out into the wilderness lifting Jesus high. The effect on those being saved is to see Him coming on the clouds, I.e. as God most high.
The Bible is like a wheel. The books are the spokes, the hub is Revelation. The prophecies point to Jesus at the centre.
Theologians are like Nicodemus the founder of Nicolaism. (Provocatively tongue-in-cheek I am)
That’s actually very helpful Alan and summarises a lot of my own thinking on the subject.
It seems that most comments here seek to place Ian’s exegesis and theology on the book of Revelation, into a main category, which Ian seems to be at pains to avoid.
1.Preterist, ( past, prior to AD70);
2. Historical ( dividing history into 7 sections, ages, typified by the 7 churches)
3. Futurist. Other than chapters 2-3, the whole book refers to events at the very end of history. It includes dispensational futurism promated by Hal Lindsey’s books.
4. Idealist; interprets Revelation in the light of the Old Testament, with its numerous allusions and symbols which forms much of the books substance. There is only one return of Christ, visible to all and no end to history but portrays events immediately prior to the Lords return, but this occupied a relatively small portion of the book.
(Abstracted from David H Campbell’s book, mentioned above)
———
What, to me, seems to be a key to the categories ( notwithstanding the Symbolic nature of Revelation) is an understanding of the biblical, Old Testament meaning of ‘prophecy’.
Both Campbell and Sam Storms ( in his Book Kingdom Come).
Prophecy in the OT is not a generalized set of predictions. ….,
(‘ but here (Revelation 1:1-3) is a divine command from God) calling for a response . The message of the Old Testament prophets featured calls to repentance and right relationship with God and was by no means simply about future prediction.’- Campbell)
Cambell continued.
‘Verse 3 “the time is near” This echoes Jesus words in Mark1:15.
‘ The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God has is at hand’
In Mark, the verb ‘to be at hand has the Meaning of ‘About to Arrive’ or ‘Is Now Arriving’. (emphasis mine).
‘The two clauses in Mark are parallel: the time Jesus spoke of is now FULFILLED and the Kingdom has ARRIVED.
John sees the end – times kingdom of Daniel as having now Arrived in the Person of Jesus Christ.
‘ His prophetic words will speak into the heart of the present, not simply the distant future…. the present experience of every believer….
‘….some parts parts do address situations at the end of history before the return of Christ, but these comprise a small portion of the book as a whole’ Campbell with my emphasis again.
I was present at a full day of teaching by Campbell. There were a number of church leaders who were greatly disgruntled as the teaching did not conform to their cherished deep convictions about the book of. Revelation. (I was a guest if my Church leader). Campbell is a former leader of a New Frontiers church in the UK)
Why the need for special categories for Revelation? It is a letter. Why is it not simply written to the people who read it?
So much information! I am quite overwhelmed!
Here is my mite to add to the discussion.
Yes, I agree Dan. 7 refers to the Ascension but Rev. 1:7 looks to the Ascension itself and Acts 1:11, and Rev. 14:14 is that fulfilment.
What really interests me is the 3-fold aspect of the Parousia:
1) The Lamb standing on Mt Zion (Rev 14:1-5) I suggest this corresponds to the Sign (Mt. 24:30a); and Matthew’s trumpet (Mt. 24:31) is the seventh one in Revelation (we don’t know how long it will last);
2) Cloud(s) (Rev 14:14) corresponds to part of the Olivet Discourse (Lk. 21:25-28, Mt. 24:29-30, Mk. 13:24-26);
3) and the Rider (Rev 19:11-16) is part of the Day of God’s Wrath, which climaxes with the Great Battle – it’s not the Judgement Day and its outside the the Olivet Discourse. Hopefully, none of us will be around to experience this but it is terrible to anticipate.
Ian, how do you link the 3-fold presence/ coming/Advent?
(yes, I have read your commentary – but no commentaries that I have seen bring the 3 together on the same page).
Daniel 7 may refer to the Ascension but that doesn’t mean its partial citing in Mathew 24 has to. The New Testament very frequently quotes from the Old – sometimes quite loosely – and recontextualises it. Ian is rhd first to insist that the OT promises of the land to Israrl are obsolete and defunct. I think he is mistaken on this point, but wonder how he can dismiss such a large chunk of the OT, while insisting that the Ascension of AD 33 is foretold in Daniel 7.12 and this is therefore the meaning of Matthew 24.30 while the whole context of that chapter is clearly the Parousia. This seems like special pleading.
Thanks Lynn
I think the first is Jesus ascending to the throne on the clouds.
The second is him in the heavenlies.
The third is his return from heaven to earth, though bringing heaven with him…! I don’t think the parousia is in fact Jesus ‘leaving’ ‘heaven’ to come to earth; the new Jerusalem comes to the earth, so that which was divided is now reunited, and God is present with humanity.
Thanks Ian, most helpful. I never really understood why so many learned scholars took the Parousia to be The Rider and the Great Battle. Now, it is clearer. If I understand you right, the Parousia is the New Jerusalem.
Why do you think John was so focused on the ‘coming’ ? The coming of the New Jerusalem?
John was writing so long after the Ascension – looking to the future seems more likely.
In 1:7 ‘Look! He is coming with the clouds; every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and on his account all the tribes of the earth will wail. So it is to be. Amen.’
I accept the problem with coming/ going and ἔρχεται /ἔρχομαι.
But there is also 22:20 ‘The one who testifies to these things says, “Surely I am coming soon.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!’
Do you think John saw it in the way you suggest – or is that just idle speculation on my part?
I think I must give more thought to the New Jerusalem.
Thanks