Luke 21 and Its Parallels

[whirlwind]

Perhaps this is what is referred to.....

Revelation 1:7 Behold, He cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see Him, and they also which pierced Him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him. even so, Amen.

Or....

Acts 1:9 And when He had spoken these things, while they beheld, He was taken up; and a cloud received Him out of their sight. (11) Which also said, "Ye men of Galilee why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, Which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven."

I do not think the view you present is plausible. We need to take the reference to Daniel 7 seriously. Now here is the verse that Jesus is quoting from:

I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.

Is Jesus coming down from Heaven to Earth? No. Emphatically no - He is coming up to the Ancient of Days. This cannot be an allusion to the 2nd coming - Jesus would not have got his directions wrong. People in that culture really knew their Old Testament. An allusion to Daniel 7:13 would be understood as a reference to travel from earth to heaven - and more specifically, as an allusion to upward exultative ascent after suffering. One needs to understand the OId Testament references when they are invoked in the New Testament.

I agree with what you are saying Drew....Daniel is about ascending. Where I disagree is in the time frame of the Daniel scripture. You are saying....

Drew wrote:
No doubt, many will be familar with Luke 21 and its parallels. And no doubt, most of you think that the account is of Jesus' second coming. I do not think it is. Consider this part of the Luke 21 account:

There will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth dismay among nations, in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, 26men fainting from fear and the expectation of the things which are coming upon the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27"Then they will see THE SON OF MAN COMING IN A CLOUD with power and great glory.

Then you use the Daniel quote to validate your theory that the Luke scripture isn't about His 2nd Advent. Consider the timing of the Daniel verses and to do that you must read the preceeding verses....

• * Daniel 7:9-10 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, Whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head like the pure wool: His throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him: thousand thousands ministered unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.
  
  7:11-12 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time

.

Then...your quote:

• * 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought Him near before Him.

Jesus arrives with clouds and after His wrath then the Daniel verses apply.

As to your other scriptures that have clouds related to downward travel from heaven to earth. I do not deny such texts. But, and I cannot emphasize this strongly enough, those texts were not in existence at the time of Jesus’ trial before Caiaphus. So Jesus could not have been alluding to them. Caiaphus and Jesus both know what the reference to coming on the clouds is. It is a reference to Daniel 7 and if we are true to context, we will understand that Jesus is referring to an upward ascent in vindicative victory.

Jesus taught the following to His disciples before He was taken before the high priest....

• * Mark 13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

Besides, ww, do you really think that Jesus is telling Caiaphus that he will see Jesus’ 2nd coming? Boy, that would make Caiaphus over 2000 years old. Remember what Jesus says:

Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ,[f] the Son of the Blessed One?"
62"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Yes I do believe he will see...everyone will see. At present Jesus sits on the right hand of God in heaven. All souls go to heaven upon their physical death...to one side or the other but still...it is heaven. And...all souls return with Him for judgment so...all souls, including and perhaps especially Caiaphus, will see Him as they are those that pierced Him.

 

[Drew]

The event depicted in Daniel is after the second Advent of Christ. It is the beginning of the millennium. The first beast is thrown in the lake of fire. The second beast (Satan) is locked away for the thousand years and....Jesus reigns. [Daniel 7:11-14] At that time He is with His "clouds of witnesses." [Hebrews 12:1]

I think that the fourth beast is Rome and I will argue that this must be so, given that Jesus - the son of man in the Danielic material - has already been enthroned. My basic argument is this:

1. In the Daniel 7, the 4th beast is destroyed prior to the enthronement of the son of man;
2. The son of man is Jesus;
3. Jesus has already been enthroned;
4. Therefore the beast cannot be any kind of future figure – the prophecy has already been fulfilled.

I suspect what 1 and 2 are non-controversial and therefore the whole argument turns on point number 2. If Jesus has already been enthroned as king, the 4th beast must already have been defeated since that is the sequence of events in the Daniel 7 account:

Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. 12 (The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time.) 13 "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.

I am always surprised that people do not see Jesus as already enthroned. What did Jesus come to do, if not inaugurate the kingdom of God. And if He is not king, who is? And again, note the “direction†of travel of the son of man in the Daniel 7 material. Is it from heaven to earth as in a second coming interpretation? No. It is from earth to heaven, entirely consistent with an enthronement interpretation (if that was not otherwise clear)

In any event, here is just one of many arguments that Jesus has already been enthroned:

From Acts 4:

On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them. 24When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. "Sovereign Lord," they said, "you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. 25You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:
" 'Why do the nations rage
and the peoples plot in vain?
26The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the Lord
and against his Anointed One

Note the context: Peter and John are praying this prayer in response to the actions of the religious leaders. Now the content of the prayer quotes directly from Psalm 2. This is not “co-incidenceâ€Â. Here is the material from Psalm 2:

Note that the prayer quotes Psalm 2, verses 1 and 2:

Why do the nations conspire
and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the LORD and against his Anointed One.

And what does Psalm 2 go on to say a few breaths later in respect to this "annointed one"?:

I have installed my King
on Zion, my holy hill

It is important to think this through. Assuming that Peter and John know their scriptures, they know that Psalm 2 describes rebellion against a sitting King. Do you really believe that the Holy Spirit would inspire the writer of Acts to record this prayer, which exactly echoes the Psalm 2 account of rebellion against a sitting King, and not expect us to draw the obvious conclusion – Jesus is indeed that very King, already installed, just as Psalm 2 declares.

The scriptures are clear and consistent. Even though (obviously) we do not have Jesus with us in person, his Kingship has been established. Therefore when we read Daniel 7 and have the son of man enthroned after the demise of the 4th beast, we cannot see the 4th beast as denoting anything in the future. The fourth beast – Rome – is defeated and Jesus has already been enthroned.

 

[Drew]

Yes I do believe he will see...everyone will see. At present Jesus sits on the right hand of God in heaven. All souls go to heaven upon their physical death...to one side or the other but still...it is heaven. And...all souls return with Him for judgment so...all souls, including and perhaps especially Caiaphus, will see Him as they are those that pierced Him.

I think this is a highly implausible position. One needs to imagine being there at the time to understand how far-fetched such a reading is. Is Caiaphus thinking in terms of a 2nd coming? Of course not - no Jewish mind would have any sense of such an event. So it seems very implausible that Caiaphus would get enraged at Jesus making any kind of a statement about a second coming - Caiaphus was entirely oblivious to the concept of a 2nd coming.

What Caiaphis is aware of are the Messianic implications of the son of man figure. And he is aware of the image of the son of man being enthroned beside God in Daniel 7. So Caiaphus tears his robe because he understands that Jesus us saying "I am the Messiah, and what's more I will be vindicated as such by being raised (through resurrection by implication) to take my place as an equal with God.

Now that is something for a first century Jew to tear his robe over. A first century Jew would not be angry at a claim of a second coming - he would be throroughly puzzled by such a claim.

 

[whirlwind]

The event depicted in Daniel is after the second Advent of Christ. It is the beginning of the millennium. The first beast is thrown in the lake of fire. The second beast (Satan) is locked away for the thousand years and....Jesus reigns. [Daniel 7:11-14] At that time He is with His "clouds of witnesses." [Hebrews 12:1]

I think that the fourth beast is Rome and I will argue that this must be so, given that Jesus - the son of man in the Danielic material - has already been enthroned. My basic argument is this:

1. In the Daniel 7, the 4th beast is destroyed prior to the enthronement of the son of man;
2. The son of man is Jesus;
3. Jesus has already been enthroned;
4. Therefore the beast cannot be any kind of future figure – the prophecy has already been fulfilled.

Hi Drew,

Perhaps Rome was a type for the fourth beast but I see the fourth beast as a future type for Satan and his kingdom. The little horn of this fourth beast "made war with the saints, and prevailed against them." And too, this beast "shall devour the whole earth." that isn't Rome...unless you are thinking of Catholicism.

I suspect what 1 and 2 are non-controversial and therefore the whole argument turns on point number 2. If Jesus has already been enthroned as king, the 4th beast must already have been defeated since that is the sequence of events in the Daniel 7 account:

Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. 12 (The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time.) 13 "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.

But it is a vision in the future. When the "Ancient of Days did sit" the thrones are thrown down....not before. This event is when "the judgment was set, and the books were opened." That hasn't happened.

I am always surprised that people do not see Jesus as already enthroned. What did Jesus come to do, if not inaugurate the kingdom of God. And if He is not king, who is? And again, note the “direction†of travel of the son of man in the Daniel 7 material. Is it from heaven to earth as in a second coming interpretation? No. It is from earth to heaven, entirely consistent with an enthronement interpretation (if that was not otherwise clear)

I agree He is one the throne. He won the war upon His crucifixion but the battle must still be fought until all enemies are put under His feet. We await the seventh trump.

• * Revelation 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdoms of this world are become the kings of our LORD, and of His Christ; and He shall reign for ever and ever.

In any event, here is just one of many arguments that Jesus has already been enthroned:

From Acts 4:

On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them. 24When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. "Sovereign Lord," they said, "you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. 25You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:
" 'Why do the nations rage
and the peoples plot in vain?
26The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the Lord
and against his Anointed One

Note the context: Peter and John are praying this prayer in response to the actions of the religious leaders. Now the content of the prayer quotes directly from Psalm 2. This is not “co-incidenceâ€Â. Here is the material from Psalm 2:

Note that the prayer quotes Psalm 2, verses 1 and 2:

Why do the nations conspire
and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the LORD and against his Anointed One.

And what does Psalm 2 go on to say a few breaths later in respect to this "annointed one"?:

I have installed my King
on Zion, my holy hill

It is important to think this through. Assuming that Peter and John know their scriptures, they know that Psalm 2 describes rebellion against a sitting King. Do you really believe that the Holy Spirit would inspire the writer of Acts to record this prayer, which exactly echoes the Psalm 2 account of rebellion against a sitting King, and not expect us to draw the obvious conclusion – Jesus is indeed that very King, already installed, just as Psalm 2 declares.

The scriptures are clear and consistent. Even though (obviously) we do not have Jesus with us in person, his Kingship has been established. Therefore when we read Daniel 7 and have the son of man enthroned after the demise of the 4th beast, we cannot see the 4th beast as denoting anything in the future. The fourth beast – Rome – is defeated and Jesus has already been enthroned.

I agree with much of that but...not that the fourth beast isn't a yet future event.

 

[whirlwind]

Yes I do believe he will see...everyone will see. At present Jesus sits on the right hand of God in heaven. All souls go to heaven upon their physical death...to one side or the other but still...it is heaven. And...all souls return with Him for judgment so...all souls, including and perhaps especially Caiaphus, will see Him as they are those that pierced Him.

I think this is a highly implausible position. One needs to imagine being there at the time to understand how far-fetched such a reading is. Is Caiaphus thinking in terms of a 2nd coming? Of course not - no Jewish mind would have any sense of such an event. So it seems very implausible that Caiaphus would get enraged at Jesus making any kind of a statement about a second coming - Caiaphus was entirely oblivious to the concept of a 2nd coming.

What Caiaphis is aware of are the Messianic implications of the son of man figure. And he is aware of the image of the son of man being enthroned beside God in Daniel 7. So Caiaphus tears his robe because he understands that Jesus us saying "I am the Messiah, and what's more I will be vindicated as such by being raised (through resurrection by implication) to take my place as an equal with God.

Now that is something for a first century Jew to tear his robe over. A first century Jew would not be angry at a claim of a second coming - he would be throroughly puzzled by such a claim.

I just realized, when Jesus said "ye see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven," means...when you understand...not when you visibly see.

 

[Drew]

Perhaps Rome was a type for the fourth beast but I see the fourth beast as a future type for Satan and his kingdom. The little horn of this fourth beast "made war with the saints, and prevailed against them." And too, this beast "shall devour the whole earth." that isn't Rome...unless you are thinking of Catholicism.[/b]

One needs to read statements like "devour the whole earth" in their Biblical setting. I could write pages and pages of Old Testament examples of where such "end of the world" language is actually used to denote much more "mundane" events - such as the fall of Babylon.

It is through use of such "apocalyptic" language that Hebrew writers invested such events with their theological significance. I cannot emphasize enough - such language is not to be taken literally. This literalism error is what gets people off on the wrong track about texts like Luke 21 and other where Jesus uses "end of the world" language to denote the coming defeat of Rome.

So when Daniel refers to the beast "devouring the whole earth", Christians should not jump to the conclusion that this must be a future event because no such "devouring of the whole earth" has yet to happen. So this phrase does not mean that the 4th beast is not Rome.

 

[whirlwind]

Perhaps Rome was a type for the fourth beast but I see the fourth beast as a future type for Satan and his kingdom. The little horn of this fourth beast "made war with the saints, and prevailed against them." And too, this beast "shall devour the whole earth." that isn't Rome...unless you are thinking of Catholicism.[/b]

One needs to read statements like "devour the whole earth" in their Biblical setting. I could write pages and pages of Old Testament examples of where such "end of the world" language is actually used to denote much more "mundane" events - such as the fall of Babylon.

It is through use of such "apocalyptic" language that Hebrew writers invested such events with their theological significance. I cannot emphasize enough - such language is not to be taken literally. This literalism error is what gets people off on the wrong track about texts like Luke 21 and other where Jesus uses "end of the world" language to denote the coming defeat of Rome.

But....it wasn't Hebrew writers that wrote the Scripture. :yes Penned them yes...wrote them no. They are not for just those of that time but are for all for all times.

The fall of Babylon, although historic is also future. It is symbolic of the fall of Satan's kingdom and that is future.

So when Daniel refers to the beast "devouring the whole earth", Christians should not jump to the conclusion that this must be a future event because no such "devouring of the whole earth" has yet to happen. So this phrase does not mean that the 4th beast is not Rome.

Leave your preterist view just for a short time and look through futurist glasses at the fourth kingdom of Daniel. Do you not see that it is Satan's kingdom being described? Was it about Rome? Yes, I think it was. Is it also about the future? Yes...it is.

 

[Sinthesis]

Perhaps Rome was a type for the fourth beast but I see the fourth beast as a future type for Satan and his kingdom. The little horn of this fourth beast "made war with the saints, and prevailed against them." And too, this beast "shall devour the whole earth." that isn't Rome...unless you are thinking of Catholicism.[/b]

One needs to read statements like "devour the whole earth" in their Biblical setting. I could write pages and pages of Old Testament examples of where such "end of the world" language is actually used to denote much more "mundane" events - such as the fall of Babylon.

It is through use of such "apocalyptic" language that Hebrew writers invested such events with their theological significance. I cannot emphasize enough - such language is not to be taken literally. This literalism error is what gets people off on the wrong track about texts like Luke 21 and other where Jesus uses "end of the world" language to denote the coming defeat of Rome.

But....it wasn't Hebrew writers that wrote the Scripture. :yes Penned them yes...wrote them no. They are not for just those of that time but are for all for all times.

The fall of Babylon, although historic is also future. It is symbolic of the fall of Satan's kingdom and that is future.

So when Daniel refers to the beast "devouring the whole earth", Christians should not jump to the conclusion that this must be a future event because no such "devouring of the whole earth" has yet to happen. So this phrase does not mean that the 4th beast is not Rome.

Leave your preterist view just for a short time and look through futurist glasses at the fourth kingdom of Daniel. Do you not see that it is Satan's kingdom being described? Was it about Rome? Yes, I think it was. Is it also about the future? Yes...it is.

I would not be surprised if most modern preterists arrived at their view from a futurist starting point. Putting on 'futurist glasses' for the preterist is easy because we all have an old pair lying around. It is much more difficult to obtain a pair of 'preterist glasses', but the view is one of a world in which God has already kept his promises, rather than a dread future dominated by the rise of Satan's kingdom. :yes

 

[whirlwind]

Leave your preterist view just for a short time and look through futurist glasses at the fourth kingdom of Daniel. Do you not see that it is Satan's kingdom being described? Was it about Rome? Yes, I think it was. Is it also about the future? Yes...it is.

I would not be surprised if most modern preterists arrived at their view from a futurist starting point. Putting on 'futurist glasses' for the preterist is easy because we all have an old pair lying around. It is much more difficult to obtain a pair of 'preterist glasses', but the view is one of a world in which God has already kept his promises, rather than a dread future dominated by the rise of Satan's kingdom. :yes

Perhaps you should pick up that old pair again. :yes Your new pair is blurring your vision. :shades

 

[Sinthesis]

Leave your preterist view just for a short time and look through futurist glasses at the fourth kingdom of Daniel. Do you not see that it is Satan's kingdom being described? Was it about Rome? Yes, I think it was. Is it also about the future? Yes...it is.

I would not be surprised if most modern preterists arrived at their view from a futurist starting point. Putting on 'futurist glasses' for the preterist is easy because we all have an old pair lying around. It is much more difficult to obtain a pair of 'preterist glasses', but the view is one of a world in which God has already kept his promises, rather than a dread future dominated by the rise of Satan's kingdom. :yes

Perhaps you should pick up that old pair again. :yes Your new pair is blurring your vision. :shades

I see fine thank you. :shades
But don't take it too personally if I try to keep you from running into things. I don't want to see you get hurt. :D

 

[whirlwind]

Perhaps you should pick up that old pair again. :yes Your new pair is blurring your vision. :shades

I see fine thank you. :shades
But don't take it too personally if I try to keep you from running into things. I don't want to see you get hurt. :D

Thank you Sinthesis. I appreciate that thought. :yes

 

[Drew]

But....it wasn't Hebrew writers that wrote the Scripture. :yes Penned them yes...wrote them no. They are not for just those of that time but are for all for all times.

That's not the point. There is hard evidence that Old Testament writers repeatedly used "apocalyptic" end of the world language to describe "non end of the world" events.

The fall of Babylon is just one example - I can provide many others. People need to know the cultural context in which the Scriptures were written. They were not written by 21st century fundamentalists who take everything literally. They were written by people in a culture where such metaphorical "end of the world" language was used to describe much more "commonplace" events.

Shall I list a number of examples?

Modern Christians radically misread such language as denoting events that can only be associated with a yet to come "end of the world". But there really is little doubt - that was not the intent of the writers of Scripture.

It is very important to interpret such things through the mindset of those who wrote such material.