Coming on the Clouds

[Drew]

Post 1 in a multi-post series.

Many readers interpret the “coming on the clouds†image used by Jesus in the gospels as a reference to His 2nd coming. I will argue that this interpretation is not likely to be correct. In the two cases of use of this image that I will treat, the image is deployed as part of an answer to a question. My argument is based on a specific assumption: Jesus would attempt to answer the specific question posed to Him – He would not answer an entirely different question. This is not to say that the answer He gives would be easily understood, however.

Note that I am focusing on one dimension of the matter of the meaning of this phrase – there are other dimensions (or aspects) for which other arguments can be made against this phrase denoting a 2nd coming (however, my present argument will stray into those other arguments at certain points – I am not sure this can be avoided). So to be clear: I will focus on how a 2nd coming allusion behind the “coming on the clouds†image would constitute an answer to a question other than the one that has been posed to Jesus, and therefore Jesus was not talking about His 2nd coming when he used this image.

Here is one use of this image from Matthew 24 in a teaching delivered to the disciples in response to a question from them:

But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30"And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory.

What is the specific question that the disciples have posed? It is this question, posed just after Jesus has made a statement about destruction of the temple:

“Tell us,†they said, “when will this happen and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the ageâ€Â.

No doubt, many readers will wonder how my assertion is not undermined at this very point. The disciples are asking a “coming†that is to take place at the end of time – how could this not be a reference to the 2nd coming?

To be continued....

 

[Drew]

Post 2 in a multi-post series:

“Parousia†is the Greek word rendered as “coming†in the disiples’ question. The word “parousia†simply means “presence after at time of absence†– the word in and of itself does not necessitate a reading where Jesus descends to us from the heavens. My opponent will perhaps assert this reading of parousia still only leaves the 2nd as the possible referent – Jesus ascended to heaven and has promised to return. First, and most obviously, it needs to be asserted that we can have a “coming†of Jesus other than the 2nd coming and yet still embrace the reality of a second coming. There is no “rule†that Jesus can only “come to us†in one sense only and at one time only. Second, and more importantly, within the Old Testament framework, we have texts like this one from Daniel 7:

As I looked,
"thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.

In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

No doubt, the careful reader will realize that Jesus is quoting this very passage in his statement from Matthew 24 where He speaks of “coming on the clouds of the skyâ€Â. For present purposes, the important point is that we have a picture of a “son of man†figure “coming†in a sense other than that of a return from heaven to earth – here the son of man figures “comes†from earth to heaven to be enthroned. I suggest that the disciples’ question of Matthew 24:3 could be about this kind of coming. More on this shortly.

To round off the treatment of Matthew 24:3, note that the phrase “end of the age†does not necessarily connote the end of time, it could equally denote the end of a specific phase in God’s redemptive plan. So it is clear that the question of 24:3 might be about something other than a literal return from heaven to earth at the end of time.

To be continued....

 

[Drew]

Post 3 in a multi-post series:

Outside the specifics of the question, what is the broader context of the Matthew 24 discourse? To whom was it made? The disciples. Where were they? They are on the Mount of Olives looking across to the Temple mount. What has happened in the recent past? Jesus has cleared the temple and made this clear allusion to His role as “replacing the templeâ€Â.:

“The stone which the builders rejected, this became the chief corner stoneâ€Â

Jesus has just entered Jerusalem triumphally. He has just cleared the temple and declared himself as its replacement. Any Jew who knew his Old Testament would know that these actions are an implicit claim of kingship. That is what a king does in the Jewish world – he goes to Jerusalem to get enthroned and he assumes authority over the temple. There is a whole raft of supporting examples of this including David (from the Bible) and such non-Biblical figures as Simon ben Kosibar (acclaimed to be the Messianic King some years after Jesus’ death by the great rabbi Akibar).

The situation could not be more highly charged with this question: Is this Jesus declaring Himself to be King through such actions. Given this matrix of expectation, it would be exceedingly odd for the disciples to be asking a question about Jesus return at the end of time. They are charged with expectation that He will be declared King in the present – a discourse on a 2nd coming would make absolutely no sense to them at all. No – Jesus is answering their actual expectations and addressing events that will take place shortly, events related to His being enthroned as King and the judgement of God against Israel through the agency of Rome. And the Scriptures are clear – Jesus becomes King at this resurrection, not at His 2nd coming.

We need to remember that Jesus was not talking to us in the 21st century when He gave the Matthew 24 teaching. He was talking to disciples who had no clue at all about any 2nd coming – they came to Jerusalem with Jesus because they were expecting a coronation, not a crucifixion followed by a (much later) 2nd coming. To think that Jesus is teaching about a 2nd coming is deeply anachronistic – given the whole context that leads up to the discourse, Jesus must be addressing the matter of his coming enthronement. This interpretation, by the way, is entirely consistent with chasing up the Daniel 7 reference, a reference that does not work at all with a 2nd coming reading.

to be continued....

 

[Drew]

Last (4th) post in a multi-post series:

Now consider the use of the “coming on the clouds†image in the interaction between Jesus and Caiaphus. Here is the relevant material form Mark 14:

The high priest stood up and came forward and questioned Jesus, saying, "Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?" 61But He kept silent and did not answer Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" 62And Jesus said, "I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN." 63Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, "What further need do we have of witnesses?

What is the question that Caiaphus has asked. Is it a question about a 2nd coming? Obviously not. First, we are told what the question is. It is “Are you the Messiahâ€Â. Second, there is no reason at all to think that Caiaphus has any clue whatsoever about a 2nd coming. If Jesus is actually answering the question that has been posed – and I think that He is – His answer is an affirmation of His Messiahship (kingship) amplified by two quotation from the Old Testament (Psalm 110 and Daniel 7).

Here is the Psalm 110 material:

The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.†The Lord will extend your mighty sceptre from Zion; you will rule in the midst of your enemies…

The issue here is kingship and, more to the point in explaining Caiaphus’ anger, Jesus is implying equal status with God (“sit at my right handâ€Â).

The Daniel allusion is similar:

As I looked,
"thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.

In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Jesus is not talking about a 2nd coming – he is talking about his enthronement as King. When the nature of Jesus’ cryptic response is combined with the stated assumption that Jesus is answering the question posed by Caiaphus, the evidence mounts that the “coming on the cloulds†image is deployed in reference to imminent enthronement, not a second coming. Let’s go back a bit in the exchange:

Then some stood up and gave this false testimony against him: “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this man-made temple and in three days will build another, not made by man’†Yet even their testimony did not agree. Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?†But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.

What is the issue here? It is clearly Jesus and the temple, with likely implicit reference to his recent temple-clearing. Again, Caiaphus would know, as any Jew would, that the one with authority over the temple is the king. So the entire discourse works very well with Jesus answering a question about enthronement, not about a 2nd coming.

 

[Joyce]

Hi Drew,

Your defintion of "parousia" is, "The word “parousia†simply means “presence after at time of absence†.[/i] And therein lies the difficulty with your conclusions. Let me explain.

As you wrote, Matthew 24 records the disciples asking Lord, in part, "what shall be the signs of your coming", i.e. Gr."parousia". You're saying that the difinition of "parousia" tells us that the disciples were asking when Christ would be present after His "time of absence". But Luke 18:31-34 tells of the scene in which Christ told the disciples of His death and resurrection, but "they understood none of these things; and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken". As you know, they did not understand those things until it was explained to them after Christ's death and resurrection.

In other words, there was no reason for the disciples to think at the time of the conversation of Matthew 24 that Christ was going anywhere. That being the case, there was no reason for them to ask when He would "return" after an absence, as you suggest "parousia" means.

I agree that the question and the answer had more to do with when Christ would be crowned as King, but Christ knew of course, that He wouldn't be crowned until after His death and resurrection. Therefore, I see no reason to conclude that Christ was not referring to His second coming, when He would be crowned as King, when He spoke of coming in the clouds.

In Christ,

Joyce

 

[turnorburn]

I don't care about multiple posts, when you contradict the word of God
I take offense , makes me wonder if your born again..

 

[Drew]

I don't care about multiple posts, when you contradict the word of God
I take offense , makes me wonder if your born again..

This is, of course, an entirely unacceptable response.

If you wish to show me where I have erred, please do so. Otherwise, you should really not question whether God has included me in His family.

 

[Drew]

But Luke 18:31-34 tells of the scene in which Christ told the disciples of His death and resurrection, but "they understood none of these things; and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken". As you know, they did not understand those things until it was explained to them after Christ's death and resurrection.

In other words, there was no reason for the disciples to think at the time of the conversation of Matthew 24 that Christ was going anywhere. That being the case, there was no reason for them to ask when He would "return" after an absence, as you suggest "parousia" means.

I entirely agree that the disciples did not even expect Jesus to die. I did not follow that line of argument in my post. But this does not really damage my argument. The fact is that the disciples did ask about the "coming" of Jesus. I agree that they never really accepted that he would leave them. But look at your argument. You are here, on the one hand, arguing that the "parouisa" in verse 3 cannot denote a "return after a time of absence" since the disciples never expected Jesus to leave them. Fine, I can agree with that. But then, in the rest of your post, you argue as if parousia does indeed denote a return after an absence - you suggest it refers to Jesus' 2nd coming:

Therefore, I see no reason to conclude that Christ was not referring to His second coming, when He would be crowned as King, when He spoke of coming in the clouds.

Do you see the problem?

I am more than happy to accept that “parousia†need not specifically denote a presence after absence in verse 3, for precisely the reasons you give. It could, perhaps refer to “when Jesus becomes Kingâ€Â. But then, we have even stronger reasons to doubt that Jesus uses the word to refer to a second coming in, for example, verse 27:

For just like the lightning 1 comes from the east and flashes to the west, so the coming (parousia) of the Son of Man will be.

I grant you that the disciples may not have been able to understand that Jesus would leave them. How then, could they make sense of a statement about a 2nd coming?

 

[Joyce]

Hi Drew,

I obviously did not make my point very clearly, so let me try again.

In terms of the meaning of "parousia" the disciples did not ask when Christ's second coming would occur, they asked when He would be crowned. I think we agree on that.

But in terms of Christ's answer, He certainly knew that He would depart and return. So Christ's comment was in answer to the question of when He would be crowned, but it also took into consideration something the disciples did not know, i.e. that he would leave and return. That would, of course, be His second coming.

I'm afraid I don't understand what your point is about the lightening verse. If you would explain your point I will be happy to address it.

In Christ,

Joyce

 

[Zinc]

the word in and of itself does not necessitate a reading where Jesus descends to us from the heavens.

The use of "parousia" in Matthew 24:3 is something that partial preterists disagree about. A partial preterist commenting on 24:27:

"So far as we know, parousia, when used in connection with Christ, refers to his second personal coming."

J. Marcellus Kik (1971) An Eschatology of Victory


But anyway, "parousia" can be a term used in reference to the "second coming", (e.g. 1 Thess 4:15) And what is being spoken of in the Olivet Discourse, is a future parousia of Jesus with a judgement, e.g. Matthew 25:31, (a judgement where persons are rewarded or punished).

Seems to fit pretty well with the "2nd coming".

Second, and more importantly, within the Old Testament framework, we have texts like this one from Daniel 7:

I have commented on this elsewhere.

To round off the treatment of Matthew 24:3, note that the phrase end of the age does not necessarily connote the end of time, it could equally denote the end of a specific phase in God's redemptive plan.

With regard to the "end of the age", the most relevant material is probably in Matthew 13:

[36] Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
[37] He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
[38] The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
[39] The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; [or "end of the age"] and the reapers are the angels.
[40] As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
[41] The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
[42] And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
[43] Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

That seems to fit pretty well with a "2nd coming" / "final judgement".

Note that Matthew 13:43 contains a possible allusion to a resurrection, (see Daniel 12).

 

[Stormcrow]

Hey Drew...

Good points overall, however Christ had been consistent with this message to His disciples throughout the last part of His earthly ministry:

{21} From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. Matthew 16:21 (NASB)

A few verses later, He tells them this:


{27} "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS. {28} "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Matthew 16:27-28 (NASB)

Some would argue that this was fulfilled at the Transfiguration, but then Jesus repeats almost these exact words to Caiaphas at His trial before the Sanhedrin, which happened AFTER the Transfiguration!

We need to see His coming as judgment upon those who "broke the covenant" and "acted with hostility" toward Him (Leviticus 26). That's the only way to harmonize the many verses in the NT that point to His coming "in their lifetime."

For what it's worth.

 

[Vic C.]

Hi Drew,

There seems to be some rather odd characters in your copy/paste. . Could you look into that? Thanks.

Also, don't forget to cite your sources f you haven't already.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

Scripture clearly outlines where Jesus is going to when he comes on the clouds.
Isaiah 19:1 "Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt"

 

[Lehigh3]

Update! @ the great tribulation of AD67-70:

Matt.26:62-64, (NKJV)

62 And the high priest arose and said to Him, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?†63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!â€
64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.â€