Matthew 24:1-35

[Aaron]

Now let us look at the two words that follow: HE COMETH. “Behold! He cometh.” This phrase is from the Greek ERCHOMAI. It is the third person singular, present indicative. Any reader who knows the conjunction of verbs knows what that means. First, it means HE COMES as a present tense reality. The verb is present indicative. He comes. He is in the act of coming. Behold! He is (now) coming! In other words, He has been coming, He is still in the act of coming, and He continues to come. This is extremely important. More than once the coming of the Lord is spoken of in this tense throughout the book of Revelation.

Hi John,

Given the fact that, in Matthew 24, Jesus seems to be describing an actual historical event that was still future at the time he spoke as opposed to a present, ongoing reality; and assuming that John is referring to this same “coming” in Revelation (which to me seems more than probable), I think a more likely explanation of John’s use of the present indicative is that he was simply describing what he was then seeing taking place in his vision. In other words, if someone were to have asked John at the moment he was receiving his vision, “What do you see, John?” he would have responded, “Behold! I see him coming with the clouds!” (which would have been true, and is what he consequently wrote for his readers). And of course, the hypothetical inquirer would probably not have assumed that John meant that Christ was actually coming with the clouds at that moment, or that Christ would continue to come with the clouds into the indefinite future.

But anyways, that’s just my thoughts.

[RanRan]

Yes Jesus has been coming for some time and will continue

“Behold! He cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see Him” (Rev. 1:7).

The author is talking about an appearance - not a state of perpetual ‘coming’ - whatever that is…

So the question is WHEN will He (or the sign of Him) appear. Six sentences earlier the author’s readers of the letter learn it will happen SOON in…70ad.

There is no other explanation. Otherwise Revelation is a disobedient and pretentious act of pretending to know when His final return is (only the Father knows when.) Or it is what it is - a book depicting the end of the Jewish age and the uncontested dominion of Christ.

If SOON means 2000 years or 20,000 years later than deceitful can be added to being disobedient. Biblical prophesy has gotten a bad, bad name from the way people read Revelation. If Christ says something will happen to a generation - it will happen. If He says there will be a guy in the village with a donkey - both will be there - not 20 years later.

[John]

Ranran, think of it as Christ coming in you. His comings are continual and varied, my friend.

I don’t worry much about eschatology because the Kingdom is inward and that occupies me.

[RanRan]

Ranran, think of it as Christ coming in you. His his comings are continual and varied, my friend.

I don’t worry much about eschatology because the Kingdom is inward and that occupies me.

I understand and I think that is the key to healthy (and real) faith. It’s about presence not speculation, and enjoying the moment we are in - that is, surrounded by Love, like the air we breath.

[John]

Ranran, think of it as Christ coming in you. His his comings are continual and varied, my friend.

I don’t worry much about eschatology because the Kingdom is inward and that occupies me.

I understand and I think that is the key to healthy (and real) faith. It’s about presence not speculation, and enjoying the moment we are in - that is, surrounded by Love, like the air we breath.

I think so RanRan. Christ keeps speaking from within me, “He is taking those that trust Him explicitly and have a single eye on Him, into the deepest realms of His Glorious Kingdom.”

[I_sit_in_Awe]

Aaron,

This study for me is still on the back burner at the moment but I am curious how you would interpret vs 40 and 41.

40Then two men shall be in the field, the one is received, and the one is left;

41two women shall be grinding in the mill, one is received, and one is left

Did the “rapture” happen in AD 70?

If all the believers left the world at that time, where is the historical mention and how did christianity continue to spread?

[Aaron]

Hi Steve,

While I do believe in a “rapture,” I don’t think it took place in 70 AD. I believe that at Christ’s personal return from heaven there will be a universal “catching up” of mankind from the earth (John 14:1-4; Acts 1:10-11; 3:21; 1 Cor. 15:21-28, 50-55; Phil 3:20-21; 4:13-18). When this takes place, none will be “left behind,” and Christ will have subjected all to himself so that God may be “all in all.” But this event will, I believe, take place at the end of Christ’s reign, rather than at the beginning (as “full preterists” believe).

Regarding Mt. 24:40-41, I agree with Adam Clarke and other commentators who understand these verses to refer to the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD. On these verses, Clarke notes, “The meaning seems to be, that so general should these calamities be, that no two persons, wheresoever found, or about whatsoever employed, should be both able to effect their escape; and that captivity and the sword should have a complete triumph over this unhappy people.”

Most preterists understand the word “taken” in a negative sense. According to this view, Jesus was referring to the siege of Jerusalem as if it were a “flood” sweeping through the nation of Israel. Understood in this sense, those “taken” were those who perished during the judgment, being “swept away” by the judgment in that day as the wicked were swept away by the flood of Noah’s day (v. 39). Those “left” were the survivors (i.e., who heeded Christ’s words and were thus able to escape the judgment - Mt. 24:15-20). The following is an article written by a “partial preterist” in response to a futurist who understands this verse to refer to the “rapture” of believers: realapologetics.org/blog/201 … -kurshner/

Other preterists (while still denying that Christ was referring to anyone’s being caught up into heaven/earth’s atmosphere) understand the word “taken” in a positive sense. According to Strong’s, the word translated “taken” (paralambanō) means “to receive near, that is, associate with oneself (in any familiar or intimate act or relation).” Understood in this sense, those “taken” may simply be those who made their escape when God provided an opportune time to do so. According to this view, the word “taken” may refer to the believers finding refuge with other believers and entering into the newly-established kingdom of God (God’s reign in and among his new covenant people) at the time of its commencement (Lk 21:28-31). Or, it may more specifically refer to their receiving supernatural assistance to make their escape, and being accompanied and protected by heavenly beings (as Lot was, except less obviously, perhaps - Gen 19:16) . It is likely (and perhaps suggested by other texts, such as Mt. 13:41) that the angels of heaven played an important role in ensuring the temporal salvation of God’s elect during this tumultuous time, guiding those 1st century Jewish Christians to safety when the time came for them to flee. In this way the heavenly angels “separated the wheat from the weeds” (or the sheep from the goats), so that the believers were “gathered into the barn” and the unbelievers were “thrown into the fiery furnace.”

Hope that helps.

[Paidion]

Regarding Mt. 24:40-41, I agree with Adam Clarke and other commentators who understand these verses to refer to the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD. On these verses, Clarke notes, “The meaning seems to be, that so general should these calamities be, that no two persons, wheresoever found, or about whatsoever employed, should be both able to effect their escape; and that captivity and the sword should have a complete triumph over this unhappy people.”

What about verse 37 which introduces all of this?

As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

Did Christ’s coming occur in 70 A.D.? If so, does that mean He is not coming physically in the future?
Or did He have a special coming in 70 A.D.? And if so, what historical evidence is there of such a coming?

[I_sit_in_Awe]

Excellent, Thanks Aaron.

This begs the question, would you then view** all **of Jesus references (in the Gospels) to Ghenna as the 70AD judgement?

I am reading through Matthew since the bulk of the “hell texts” are found there and am seeing this as a possibily but remaining Neutral while I study.

Paidon, Ill let Aaron answer your question regarding the historical evidence of Jesus coming with the clouds and Angels in AD 70 but on the preterist.org site on their FAQ section they do record some of Josephus words regarding something reported at that time. A few other historians also note this sighting, I have also heard RC Sproul refer to it.

Actually its not to long so Ill copy it here:

Josephus Wars Book 6, Chapter 5, Sections 2 and 3)
War 6:286 (6.5.2.286) Now, there was then a great number of false prophets suborned by the tyrants to impose upon the people, who denounced this to them, that they should wait for deliverance from God: and this was in order to keep them from deserting, and that they might be buoyed up above fear and care by such hopes.

War 6:288 ¶ (6.5.3.288) Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself; while they did not attend, nor give credit, to the signs that were so evident and did so plainly foretell their future desolation; but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see, or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them.

War 6:289 (6.5.3.289) Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year.

War 6:290 (6.5.3.290) Thus also, before the Jews’ rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus [Nisan], and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which light lasted for half an hour.

War 6:291 (6.5.3.291) This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it.

War 6:296 (6.5.3.296) So these publicly declared, that this signal foreshowed the desolation that was coming upon them. Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the twenty-first day of the month Artemisius [Jyar],

War 6:297 (6.5.3.297) a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it,

War 6:298 (6.5.3.298) and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sunsetting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen

War 6:299 (6.5.3.299) running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise,

War 6:300 (6.5.3.300) and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, “Let us remove hence.”

[Aaron]

Paidion wrote:
What about verse 37 which introduces all of this?

As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

Did Christ’s coming occur in 70 A.D.? If so, does that mean He is not coming physically in the future?
Or did He have a special coming in 70 A.D.? And if so, what historical evidence is there of such a coming?

Hi Paidion,

I think the “coming of the Son of Man” referred to in v. 37 took place in 70 AD, but I also believe in a future, personal coming of Christ on the “last day,” when the dead are raised (Jn 14:1-4; Acts 1:10-11; 3:21; 1 Cor 15:21-28, 50-55; Phil 3:20-21; 4:13-18). I think there are far more references in Scripture to Christ’s coming in 70 AD than there are to his future, personal coming, however (not because the latter coming is less important, but because the former was so close at hand in the days of the apostles, and was understood to be tied to the anticipated establishment of the “aeonian kingdom” of the Messiah in and among God’s new covenant people).

The following is a simple, logical argument from Scripture that I believe demonstrates that the “coming of the Son of Man” spoken of by Christ in Mt 24:37 took place in the first century at the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

In Luke’s account of the Olivet Discourse, we read (21:20-21):

"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it."

We find in Matthew a parallel account of what we read in Lk 21:21, above. In Mt 24:16-18, Jesus tells his disciples,

"So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. And let him who is in the field not turn back to get his cloak."

Finally, we find that these verses in Mt 24:16-18 are parallel to Lk 17:30-31:

“…Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed. On that day, let him who is on the housetop, with his goods in the house, not come down to take them away. And likewise let him who is in the field not turn back.”

If Lk 21:21 parallels Mt 24:16-18, and Mt 24:16-18 parallels Lk 17:30-31, then the rules of logic demand that Lk 21:20-21 (in which Christ prophecies the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple) is referring to the same event as that spoken of in Lk 17:30-31 and Mt 24:37. In other words, the time when the Judean Christians were to flee the city and countryside places “the day when the Son of Man is revealed”/“the coming of the Son of Man” within the general timeframe of 67-70 AD.

As far as historical evidence of this coming, I think the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is probably the best historical evidence, for it is the fulfillment of this event that I believe signified that the “coming” prophesied by Christ had taken place. I also think the supernatural events described by Josephus as taking place at this time are good collaborative evidence for the preterist position.

Steve wrote:
This begs the question, would you then view all of Jesus references (in the Gospels) to Ghenna as the 70AD judgement?

Yeah, that’s my understanding.

[Barry]

Hi Steve,

While I do believe in a “rapture,” I don’t think it took place in 70 AD. I believe that at Christ’s personal return from heaven there will be a universal “catching up” of mankind from the earth (John 14:1-4; Acts 1:10-11; 3:21; 1 Cor. 15:21-28, 50-55; Phil 3:20-21; 4:13-18). When this takes place, none will be “left behind,” and Christ will have subjected all to himself so that God may be “all in all.” But this event will, I believe, take place at the end of Christ’s reign, rather than at the beginning (as “full preterists” believe).

Hi Aaron.
I am struggling to understand your first paragraph.
Are you saying rapture is at Christ’s personal return
AND rapture is at end of Christ’s reign
THEREFORE Christ’s personal return is AFTER Christ’s reign?

Barry

[Aaron]

Hi Aaron.
I am struggling to understand your first paragraph.
Are you saying rapture is at Christ’s personal return
AND rapture is at end of Christ’s reign
THEREFORE Christ’s personal return is AFTER Christ’s reign?

Barry

Hi Barry,

I believe Christ’s reign will end when he abolishes death (the “last enemy”), and that death will be abolished when, after personally returning from heaven, Christ confers a sinless immortality upon mankind. After being immortalized, I believe all people will then be “raptured” from the earth to join Christ in the clouds.

[Barry]

Hi Aaron.
I am struggling to understand your first paragraph.
Are you saying rapture is at Christ’s personal return
AND rapture is at end of Christ’s reign
THEREFORE Christ’s personal return is AFTER Christ’s reign?

Barry

Hi Barry,

I believe Christ’s reign will end when he abolishes death (the “last enemy”), and that death will be abolished when, after personally returning from heaven, Christ confers a sinless immortality upon mankind. After being immortalized, I believe all people will then be “raptured” from the earth to join Christ in the clouds.

Thanks for your answer Aaron.
I don’t have much time to spend reading forums like this, but when I do I just love reading your contributions.
You seem to have a good mix of “partial preterism” with “christian universalism”, which appeals to me very much.

Do I assume from your answer above that you think Christ will reign (during the millenium ?) from the heavens, not from earth as many/most think?

Do you have anywhere (on this forum or elsewhere) a fuller description of your eschat views than in this posting that I can read without having to ask questions that you might have already given comprehensive answers to previously?

Thanks. Barry

[Melchizedek]

Thanks for this one Aaron. Great work as usual.

[Psalmist]

But if the “coming of the Son of Man” took place in 70 A.D., or thereabouts, what historical evidence (and I am referring to early-church documentation) do we have for its assertion? In other words, what precisely was it that happened when (and if) Christ appeared at that time? Are there any historical records available to back up such a claim?

Aaron, I am taking the following into account, but I still want to find manuscripts from that era to uphold the perspective that Christ did come in some manner. I have a have hard time accepting that the the temple’s and Jerusalem’s destruction sufficiently reveal the revelation of the Son of Man in a manner indisputable by His followers in that era. Shouldn’t there be some sort of identifiable testimony corroborating His sudden revelation?

As far as historical evidence of this coming, I think the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is probably the best historical evidence, for it is the fulfillment of this event that I believe signified that the “coming” prophesied by Christ had taken place. I also think the supernatural events described by Josephus as taking place at this time are good collaborative evidence for the preterist position

[AUniversalist]

Sorry Aaron, this got lost in the entirety of other posts. I intended to post earlier.

Or, coming from the clouds doesn’t mean what many think it means.

Well you’ve piqued my curiosity. As a non-preterist, what do you think Christ’s “coming with the clouds” means, and how/when do you see it as being fulfilled?

1 Corinthians 13:12
For now we are looking in a mirror that gives only a dim (blurred) reflection [of reality as in a riddle or enigma], but then [when perfection comes] we shall see in reality and face to face! Now I know in part (imperfectly), but then I shall know and understand fully and clearly, even in the same manner as I have been fully and clearly known and understood by God].

Simply, coming in the clouds does not refer to a physical event in some point in time, but the moment we grasp and understand God. He is coming from the clouds means that for now, some don’t see Him but there is a time in their life (or afterward) where the clouds shall clear and we shall see Him.

1 John 4:2-12
By this you may know (perceive and recognize) the Spirit of God: every spirit which acknowledges and confesses [the fact] that Jesus Christ (the Messiah) [actually] has become man and has come in the flesh is of God [has God for its source]; And every spirit which does not acknowledge and confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh [but would [a]annul, destroy, sever, disunite Him] is not of God [does not proceed from Him]. This [nonconfession] is the [spirit] of the antichrist, [of] which you heard that it was coming, and now it is already in the world.

Little children, you are of God [you belong to Him] and have [already] defeated and overcome them [the agents of the antichrist], because He Who lives in you is greater (mightier) than he who is in the world. They proceed from the world and are of the world; therefore it is out of the world [its whole economy morally considered] that they speak, and the world listens (pays attention) to them.

We are [children] of God. Whoever is learning to know God [progressively to perceive, recognize, and understand God by observation and experience, and to [get an ever-clearer knowledge of Him] listens to us; and he who is not of God does not listen or pay attention to us. By this we know (recognize) the Spirit of Truth and the spirit of error.

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is (springs) from God; and he who loves [his fellowmen] is begotten (born) of God and is coming [progressively] to know and understand God [to perceive and recognize and get a better and clearer knowledge of Him]. He who does not love has not become acquainted with God [does not and never did know Him], for God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest (displayed) where we are concerned: in that God sent His Son, the only begotten or [f]unique [Son], into the world so that we might live through Him. In this is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation (the atoning sacrifice) for our sins.

Beloved, if God loved us so [very much], we also ought to love one another. No man has at any time [yet] seen God. But if we love one another, God abides (lives and remains) in us and His love (that love which is essentially His) is brought to completion (to its full maturity, runs its full course, is perfected) in us!

1 John 3:1-3
SEE WHAT [an incredible] quality of love the Father has given (shown, bestowed on) us, that we should [be permitted to] be named and called and counted the children of God! And so we are! The reason that the world does not know (recognize, acknowledge) us is that it does not know (recognize, acknowledge) Him.

Beloved, we are [even here and] now God’s children; it is not yet disclosed (made clear) what we shall be [hereafter], but we know that when He comes and is manifested, we shall as God’s children] resemble and be like Him, for we shall see Him [c]just as He [really] is. And everyone who has this hope [resting] on Him cleanses (purifies) himself just as He is pure (chaste, undefiled, guiltless).

[Catherine]

I’ve just spend the last six months fully immersed in the ‘premillenial, dispensationalist, pre- trib rapture (and post trib) mind set of the ‘end time’ proponents- interesting to say the least! I’m struggling to see how ALL Jesus’ words were fulfilled leading up to 70 AD. I do not dispute that Jesus is talking about the coming destruction within the life time of some of those alive as He spoke. I struggle with 1) the tribulation being unsurpassed in all history. I can accept it was the worst tribulation up til then, but surely the sufferings that the Jews experienced in world war II was much worse 2) The signs in the sun, moon and stars. You maintain Aaron, that these are not proper astronomical signs but rather judgmental language. Peter in Acts 2:14-21 quotes from Joel. Peter says in verse 22 that Joel’s prophecy has been fulfilled as they themselves ‘know’. Could Peter be also referring to the astronomical signs that happened on the day Jesus died (as well as the speaking in tongues)? On the ‘Bethlehemstar’ website, it gives some powerful ‘proofs’ for a lunar eclipse on the day Jesus died ie the ‘blood moon’. We know the day turned to night ie the sun was turned to darkness on the day Jesus died, and an earthquake happened that would have caused plumes of smoke and ash ie blood (blood moon) and fire and billows of smoke. So all these ‘signs’ occurred as Joel predicted. They were literally fulfilled. Jesus speaks about similar astronomical signs that will occur IMMEDIATELY after the great tribulation. I’m wondering if there were any such astronomical signs reported in 70 AD? If not, then I’m struggling to see how Jesus’ words were fulilled in 70 AD and I’m struggling to see how these ‘signs’ are merely judgmental language.

[Catherine]

I’ve been thinking about the disciples’ question to Jesus in verse 3. Why do they equate the destruction of the temple with Jesus’ coming back and the end of the Age? The disciples didn’t understand a lot of what Jesust taught them, and didn’t understand about Jesus having to die etc and about Jesus not reigning in Jerusalem at that time (are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?’ Their question to Jesus in verse 3 is confusing to me. What did they have in mind when they talk about Jesus’ coming back? What did they have in mind for ‘the end of the Age?’

[Sherman]

Hi Catherine, in Aaron’s defense he has not been posting on here for awhile now. He informed us some months ago that he was stopping.

[Catherine]

Hi Catherine, in Aaron’s defense he has not been posting on here for awhile now. He informed us some months ago that he was stopping.

Thanks for letting me know Sherman. That’s a shame as I’ve read quite a lot of Aaron’s postings and he makes a lot of sense in what he says.