"Coming", but how and when?

[Yodas_Prodigy]

Matthew 24:30
30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man arriving on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Matthew 26:64
64 Jesus *said to him, “You have said it yourself. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Acts 1:9
New American Standard Bible
The Ascension
9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were watching, and a cloud took Him up, out of their sight... 11. ... This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”

I want to discuss this whole "coming" thing. Because of the Full Preterist confusion shows up in these discussions, I want to clearly describe what I believe to be true. My position first and foremost is that Christ will return bodily in the future. In my mind there is no negotiation, or compromise.

The real question from my POV is what is meant in the Olivette Discourse when Christ describes his "coming on the clouds of heaven". The Dispensationalists and others jump right to the conclusion that this is Christ coming to earth. But it just doesn't say that. You are reading that into the passage.

From a Reformed perspective, we always have to use scripture to interpret scripture. Throughout the Old Testament, clouds were often used as a description of YHWH bringing judgment upon a people. IMHO, the Olivette discourse is describing Jesus bringing judgment upon apostate Israel.

It is really that simple. No dual fulfillments. No future fulfillment.

 

[BlessedAnomaly]

Matthew 24:30
30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man arriving on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Matthew 26:64
64 Jesus *said to him, “You have said it yourself. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Acts 1:9
New American Standard Bible
The Ascension
9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were watching, and a cloud took Him up, out of their sight... 11. ... This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”

I want to discuss this whole "coming" thing. Because of the Full Preterist confusion shows up in these discussions, I want to clearly describe what I believe to be true. My position first and foremost is that Christ will return bodily in the future. In my mind there is no negotiation, or compromise.

The real question from my POV is what is meant in the Olivette Discourse when Christ describes his "coming on the clouds of heaven". The Dispensationalists and others jump right to the conclusion that this is Christ coming to earth. But it just doesn't say that. You are reading that into the passage.

From a Reformed perspective, we always have to use scripture to interpret scripture. Throughout the Old Testament, clouds were often used as a description of YHWH bringing judgment upon a people. IMHO, the Olivette discourse is describing Jesus bringing judgment upon apostate Israel.

It is really that simple. No dual fulfillments. No future fulfillment.

Where does Zechariah 14 3-11 fit into this (if at all; and if not, where)?

Matthew 24.... The Gospel books are letters, and when written did not have chapters or verses. It is my belief that what we see as chapter 24 is the same discussion that flows into chapter 25. In fact, at the start of chapter 26 it is written, "When Jesus had finished saying all these things...." So if you disagree (I don't know if you agree or disagree here) with the continuity of ch 24-25, then show me where the break is and why you think it is a break. Otherwise, we agree that 24 and 25 are Jesus' continuous talking.

Not sure why you have to point out "from a Reformed perspective...scripture to interpret scripture," for this should be the goal of all theologies. Yes, there are individuals who run on their own premise, but some are easily dismissed by using other scripture to prove them wrong. But in a sense, you said the same thing when you concluded that paragraph with "IMHO."

 

[Yodas_Prodigy]

Where does Zechariah 14 3-11 fit into this (if at all; and if not, where)?

Matthew 24.... The Gospel books are letters, and when written did not have chapters or verses. It is my belief that what we see as chapter 24 is the same discussion that flows into chapter 25. In fact, at the start of chapter 26 it is written, "When Jesus had finished saying all these things...." So if you disagree (I don't know if you agree or disagree here) with the continuity of ch 24-25, then show me where the break is and why you think it is a break. Otherwise, we agree that 24 and 25 are Jesus' continuous talking.

Not sure why you have to point out "from a Reformed perspective...scripture to interpret scripture," for this should be the goal of all theologies. Yes, there are individuals who run on their own premise, but some are easily dismissed by using other scripture to prove them wrong. But in a sense, you said the same thing when you concluded that paragraph with "IMHO."

To be honest, there are two possibilities that I consider. The first is that it all happened when Christ was here the first time. Which then requires some "spiritualizing". Or, the second is a future event. Either way, it has nothing to do with the Olivette Discourse... If you want to start a thread on Zechariah 14, I would consider participating...

 

[BlessedAnomaly]

To be honest, there are two possibilities that I consider. The first is that it all happened when Christ was here the first time. Which then requires some "spiritualizing". Or, the second is a future event. Either way, it has nothing to do with the Olivette Discourse... If you want to start a thread on Zechariah 14, I would consider participating...

My understanding is that dispensationalism has Jesus coming back (second coming) to the earth "in the same way you saw him go into heaven" (Acts 1:11). This is what Matthew 24 says: the Son of Man will be seen arriving on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. Because of the language in ch 24 such as (v31) "angels...will gather his elect" and (v40) "one will be taken and one left," many immediately assign this to the Rapture. There is also language such as (v50) "the master ...will come...[unexpected] at an hour [the slave] does not foresee and will cut him in two, and assign him a place... weeping and gnashing of teeth," which I don't think fits the Rapture.

Also I think that chapters 24 and 25 are one story, one view of Jesus telling parables on the Mount of Olives. And in 25:31+ we see a description of a judgement of nations. Verse 31 begins, "When the Son of Man comes in his glory..." (same description of him coming on the clouds in power and glory) "...and all the angels with him..." (same language) "...then he will sit on his glorious throne." This is NOT in heaven.

I bring up Zech 14 because it is combined with the second coming as Jesus coming back to the earth, descending as he ascended, and when his foot touches the top of the Mount the earth will split in two. I've read stories about a fault line running directly under the Mount of Olives -- I don't know if these are true or not, but this digresses the OP. I only bring up Zech 14 for that point, not necessarily a full discussion.

I have a myriad of thoughts and I'm trying to get them out concisely, so I hope I made sense above for beginnings and starts of this discussion. Things to keep in mind as this discussion goes forward.

 

[robycop3]

Then, there's the matter of Acts 1:11, Rev.1:7, & Rev.19:11-21. They are NOT yet fulfilled, and will be fulfilled by Jesus' physical, visible, bodily return.

 

[BlessedAnomaly]

Then, there's the matter of Acts 1:11, Rev.1:7, & Rev.19:11-21. They are NOT yet fulfilled, and will be fulfilled by Jesus' physical, visible, bodily return.

Acts 1:11 and Rev 19:11-21 do indeed show Jesus coming back to earth. Rev 1:7 does not specifically (doesn't preclude it either).

When you take Rev 19:11 along with Matt 25:31-32, I think we see the same picture. Judgement of the nations. Matthew is not giving us a step by step, swing by swing description, but rather dealing with a person's soul and eternal place.

 

[Yodas_Prodigy]

Then, there's the matter of Acts 1:11, Rev.1:7, & Rev.19:11-21. They are NOT yet fulfilled, and will be fulfilled by Jesus' physical, visible, bodily return.

Acts 1:11 is future.

Revelation 1:7
7 Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.

This could be taken future or passed. This is a very Israel centric verse. Clouds are judgement. Tribes are Israelites. Earth is the land of Israel. The sticking point is "every eye will see him". What is meant by these words? We must remember that this book was meant for the 1st Century Christians.

Revelation 19:11-21 is future...

 

[Yodas_Prodigy]

Acts 1:11 and Rev 19:11-21 do indeed show Jesus coming back to earth. Rev 1:7 does not specifically (doesn't preclude it either).

Agreed

When you take Rev 19:11 along with Matt 25:31-32, I think we see the same picture. Judgement of the nations. Matthew is not giving us a step by step, swing by swing description, but rather dealing with a person's soul and eternal place.

Agreed

 

[BlessedAnomaly]

Revelation 1:7
7 Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.

This could be taken future or passed. This is a very Israel centric verse. Clouds are judgement. Tribes are Israelites. Earth is the land of Israel. The sticking point is "every eye will see him". What is meant by these words? We must remember that this book was meant for the 1st Century Christians.

Hmm. "Every eye will see Him." Every. All peoples, all over.

So if you want to take "tribes" as Israel, I have no issue. But all that says is that the subset of "every eye," specifically Israel, shall mourn because they will then see that their rejection was in error.

This book (Revelation) was meant for all people who read it from the 1st century onward. Nowhere does it preclude the 2nd century.

Verse 1: "God gave him (Jesus, given the revelation) to show his servants." Are you not a servant of Jesus Christ? I am. I might be a lazy one, but I am one.

Verst 3: "Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy aloud." Are you not blessed if you read this aloud?

Verse 11: "Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches." Who are the seven churches? Did they exist only in the 1st century, or do they span this age? Do they represent churches that have continued until today? And here's a question I don't know that I've seen before: how do you know that Revelation is the book that John was to write? Perhaps Revelation is simply Jesus' revelation to John, the recording of that revelation -- did John then write a book to the seven churches that was lost to us? I know: very, very farfetched; but is it precluded? One other thing to keep in mind is that John was told (v11) “Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches—to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.” Then in verse 2 and 3 he is *specifically* told "To the angel of the church in <city/area>, write...".

Beginning in chapter 4, we are done with the seven churches and the writing into a book.

Yes, there are specific messages to each of the seven churches mentioned. But, no, this book (again, assuming Revelation is the book John was told to write) is for all who will read it and be blessed.

Then in 22:14 "Blessed are those who wash their robes so they can have access to the tree of life and can enter into the city by the gates." Are you precluded from this? If this book is for the 1st century people, then surely you are precluded.

Finally in 22:18: "I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy contained in this book:" The one reading aloud is blessed. And then we have the ones hearing what is read aloud, the ones who are warned not to add or take away from what they hear.

 

[Yodas_Prodigy]

Hmm. "Every eye will see Him." Every. All peoples, all over.

You are reading "all over" into the text.

So if you want to take "tribes" as Israel, I have no issue. But all that says is that the subset of "every eye," specifically Israel, shall mourn because they will then see that their rejection was in error.

You left this part out, "even those who pierced Him".

This book (Revelation) was meant for all people who read it from the 1st century onward. Nowhere does it preclude the 2nd century.

The Churches in Chapters 2 and 3 were the immediate target for this letter.

I do understand this point:
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness;

 

[BlessedAnomaly]

You are reading "all over" into the text.

Sure. I'll try it again. "Every eye will see Him." Do Hindus have eyes? Do Muslims have eyes? How about Taoists? How about Buddhists? Atheists probably have at least one eye, don't'cha think?

Do I need to describe "every?" I doubt I do with you.

You left this part out, "even those who pierced Him".

You want Romans, too? They did the actual piercing.

With the "all over" critique and bringing up the "piercing," it almost seems like you are trying to limit "every" to just Israel on a type, i.e.: tribes. Are you saying that I cannot find one use of "tribes" in scripture that does not relate to Israel. And I won't even touch Rev 7 ... yet.

The Churches in Chapters 2 and 3 were the immediate target for this letter.

You said that backward. Chapters 2 and 3 were the immediate writings to the churches. They are specified, individually. The section to Ephesus was written to Ephesus; not Smyrna. The section to Smyrna was not written to Philadelphia. For "every" one to see, but the rebukes and praises were not for "every" church across the board. But you know this.

So the book of Revelation was for the churches? For Laodicea, for instance, yes? Except for chapters 2:1 thru 3:13. That part is not for Laodicea.

But yet I wouldn't disagree that the whole of Revelation is for the churches (subset of "every eye"). The church is the one who should be speaking this book aloud. But then, your initial comment was that the book of Revelation was for the first century Christians. I say the churches of all the age.

I do understand this point:
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness;

If read correctly, I agree. You wouldn't want Copeland to use Inspired Scripture to teach and rebuke you, would you now?

 

[Yodas_Prodigy]

Sure. I'll try it again. "Every eye will see Him." Do Hindus have eyes? Do Muslims have eyes? How about Taoists? How about Buddhists? Atheists probably have at least one eye, don't'cha think?

Do I need to describe "every?" I doubt I do with you.

Like I said, what is meant by every eye? Every eye alive? Every eye both dead and alive? If this was a judgment upon Israel, then it is limited to the Jews of the day.

You want Romans, too? They did the actual piercing.

With the "all over" critique and bringing up the "piercing," it almost seems like you are trying to limit "every" to just Israel on a type, i.e.: tribes. Are you saying that I cannot find one use of "tribes" in scripture that does not relate to Israel. And I won't even touch Rev 7 ... yet.

Again, it was a Jewish judgment.

You said that backward. Chapters 2 and 3 were the immediate writings to the churches. They are specified, individually. The section to Ephesus was written to Ephesus; not Smyrna. The section to Smyrna was not written to Philadelphia. For "every" one to see, but the rebukes and praises were not for "every" church across the board. But you know this.

So the book of Revelation was for the churches? For Laodicea, for instance, yes? Except for chapters 2:1 thru 3:13. That part is not for Laodicea.

Now you are being absurd. When letters were written, they were shared throughout a region.

But yet I wouldn't disagree that the whole of Revelation is for the churches (subset of "every eye"). The church is the one who should be speaking this book aloud. But then, your initial comment was that the book of Revelation was for the first century Christians. I say the churches of all the age.

Again, Revelation was written to seven churches. Every eye includes the first century churches. They would also see the fulfillment.

Revelation is for us in this. We learn from Revelation, firstly because of the fulfillment of prophecy gives greater confidence of the return of Christ...

 

[robycop3]

Acts 1:11 is future.

Revelation 1:7
7 Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.

This could be taken future or passed. This is a very Israel centric verse. Clouds are judgement. Tribes are Israelites. Earth is the land of Israel. The sticking point is "every eye will see him". What is meant by these words? We must remember that this book was meant for the 1st Century Christians.

Revelation 19:11-21 is future...

"All the tribes of the earth" , as well as the land itself, is much more than Israel. The Israelis aren't the only people divided into tribes. But I agree it's still future, same as most of Revelation is.

 

[Yodas_Prodigy]

"All the tribes of the earth" , as well as the land itself, is much more than Israel. The Israelis aren't the only people divided into tribes. But I agree it's still future, same as most of Revelation is.

It's a matter of whether this book is Israel Centric or whole world focused.

 

[BlessedAnomaly]

Like I said, what is meant by every eye? Every eye alive? Every eye both dead and alive? If this was a judgment upon Israel, then it is limited to the Jews of the day.

"Every eye"....another idiom. Meaning all people. What's with the dead?

But where do you get judgement upon Israel? That is not in the text. You have to lay it over the text to get that from the Revelation.

Again, it was a Jewish judgment.

It is NOT a Jewish judgment. Chapters 2 & 3 are clearly written to non-Jews: i.e.: Christians.

No, there is nothing there to make one read "every eye" as only Jewish.

Now you are being absurd. When letters were written, they were shared throughout a region.

Absolutely not absurd. But yes, they were shared and each church could see what commendation and what admonition was given to each of the other churches. But each section to a given church was for that church alone. Others could certainly learn from it, but still.

Again, Revelation was written to seven churches. Every eye includes the first century churches. They would also see the fulfillment.

Nope. You are bringing your presuppositions to the table to reach that conclusion. This conclusion is but one way to support your presuppositions.

Revelation is for us in this. We learn from Revelation, firstly because of the fulfillment of prophecy gives greater confidence of the return of Christ...

Much like the letters to each of the churches can help the other churches and help us now (in the future) and all Christians throughout time.

---

Other notes:

Rev 1:7. Here is the footnote in the NET bible for the term "tribes."

​

tn In this context, tribes (φυλαί, phulai) could also be translated as “nations” or “peoples” (L&N 11.56).​

​

.

 

[Yodas_Prodigy]

Nope. You are bringing your presuppositions to the table to reach that conclusion. This conclusion is but one way to support your presuppositions.

As do you

 

[Yodas_Prodigy]

"Every eye"....another idiom. Meaning all people. What's with the dead?

But where do you get judgement upon Israel? That is not in the text. You have to lay it over the text to get that from the Revelation.

It is NOT a Jewish judgment. Chapters 2 & 3 are clearly written to non-Jews: i.e.: Christians.

No, there is nothing there to make one read "every eye" as only Jewish.

Absolutely not absurd. But yes, they were shared and each church could see what commendation and what admonition was given to each of the other churches. But each section to a given church was for that church alone. Others could certainly learn from it, but still.

Nope. You are bringing your presuppositions to the table to reach that conclusion. This conclusion is but one way to support your presuppositions.

Much like the letters to each of the churches can help the other churches and help us now (in the future) and all Christians throughout time.
---
Other notes:
Rev 1:7. Here is the footnote in the NET bible for the term "tribes."

​

tn In this context, tribes (φυλαί, phulai) could also be translated as “nations” or “peoples” (L&N 11.56).​

​

After giving your post some thought and reading again through that mess above, I realized your error. Shame on me for not realizing it sooner. You are making the same dispensational mistake all dispies make. You are ignoring the time-texts of the Revelation.

Revelation 1
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, 2 who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, everything that he saw. 3 Blessed is the one who reads, and those who hear the words of the prophecy and keep the things which are written in it; for the time is near.

Before we read that Christ is coming in verse 7, we see that John tells us these things "must soon take place" and those who read this prophecy knew "the time was near" in verses 1 and 3. The time-texts support my position overwhelming over your position.

It becomes clearer when we know that these things "must soon take place" that it was the first century Jews who were being judged here and their eyes were the ones John spoke of along with the first century Church. Every eye was those who were being judged and those who knew they were to be judged.

Judgement upon Israel can be another thread. I am focusing on what is meant by coming in the passages quoted...

[so͞on]
ADVERB
in or after a short time:

near
[ˈnir]
ADVERB
a short time away in the future:

short
[SHôrt]
ADJECTIVE
lasting or taking a small amount of time:

 

[BlessedAnomaly]

As do you

Not in this case.

 

[BlessedAnomaly]

After giving your post some thought and reading again through that mess above, I realized your error. Shame on me for not realizing it sooner. You are making the same dispensational mistake all dispies make. You are ignoring the time-texts of the Revelation.

Even though I'm not a dispy in the traditional sense.

Revelation 1
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, 2 who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, everything that he saw. 3 Blessed is the one who reads, and those who hear the words of the prophecy and keep the things which are written in it; for the time is near.

Before we read that Christ is coming in verse 7, we see that John tells us these things "must soon take place" and those who read this prophecy knew "the time was near" in verses 1 and 3. The time-texts support my position overwhelming over your position.

With your arbitrary definition of 'soon' and 'near'?

Let's see your hermeneutic in action...

<I took this one out because you'll perceive it as too snarky.>​

Or...

1 Peter 4:7​

But the end of all things is at hand; therefore be serious and watchful in your prayers.​

The "end of all things is at hand." What does "at hand" mean. Well, in Matthew 26:45, after Jesus was praying in the garden and the disciples fell asleep, he said his betrayal into the hands of sinners was "at hand." And then Judas shows up "while he was still speaking." So, geez, "at hand" means immediately. So from the time Peter wrote his letter to the "end of all things" should be: immediately!!!

Your hermeneutic is not working, YP. And, no, I'm not being flippant.

Your personal definition of "soon," "near" and "at hand" are flawed. "Soon" to an infinite God does not mean in your lifetime (or John's).

So in an earlier post you said (linked here):

Revelation 19:11-21 is future...

Since what is told in chapter 19-22 is all related, all is in the future.

In Revelation 22 John is shown the "pure river of water of life...proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb."

And it is told:

Revelation 22:6-7​

Then he said to me, “These words are faithful and true.” And the Lord God of the holy prophets sent His angel to show His servants the things which must shortly take place.​

7 “Behold, I am coming quickly! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book.”​

Certainly, in your hermeneutic, verse 7 could be showing Christ "coming quickly," meaning, presumably, in 70 AD.

But verse 6 says that all the stuff you agreed was future events "must shortly take place." They didn't. They are future even to us. Shortly. "Lasting or taking a small amount of time." I ask below: Whose "short [time]?"

It becomes clearer when we know that these things "must soon take place" that it was the first century Jews who were being judged here and their eyes were the ones John spoke of along with the first century Church. Every eye was those who were being judged and those who knew they were to be judged.

When you take your presupposition away that John is writing to 1st century churches, and read what is written, and understand that it is written to all Christians in this age, then "must soon take place" is on a God-time scale. The number of the Gentiles must come in first. That's all part of "soon." Your hermeneutic fails at your presupposition.

Judgement upon Israel can be another thread. I am focusing on what is meant by coming in the passages quoted...

[so͞on]
ADVERB
in or after a short time:

Whose "soon?" John or God?

near
[ˈnir]
ADVERB
a short time away in the future:

Whose "near?" John or God?

short
[SHôrt]
ADJECTIVE
lasting or taking a small amount of time:

Whose "short [time]?" John or God?

Quit injecting Israel into this and read what scripture says. "Every eye" means everyone, not just Israel; not just 1st century churches.

 

[robycop3]

It's a matter of whether this book is Israel Centric or whole world focused.

Jesus didn't say "all the tribes of Israel". He said "all the tribes of the EARTH. That includes the Israelis, of course.