Time of trouble

[John146]

Hi John146

<<You're a bit hard to follow so let me see if I have this straight. Are you saying that you see Matt 24:27-31 as a parenthetical section that describes the worldwide event of His future second coming and then He switches gears and comes back to talking about the local event that would occur in Jerusalem in verse 32, which would mean that you don't see Matt 24:27-31 as being included in the reference to "all these things" in verse 34?>>

Boy, and I thought I was a clear communicator. Well there goes that theory.

Most of the time you're clear, but just not in that particular case. Not to me, anyway. But I appreciate your efforts to clarify your view.

Verse 27 alone is the interjection into the "Jerusalem's destruction" discourse which continues right up to and including verse 35. In the vernacular, Jesus interjects, "Hey guys, don't expect my parousia during the siege and its tribulations; that's a totally different cup of tea."

I'm not seeing Him as saying that in verse 27 at all. Seems like a stretch to me.

Try reading the commentary I posted (post 73) on verses 20 - 30 for a clearer picture of what I'm trying to communicate.

I did and I just disagree with your understanding of Matthew 24:29-31. I can't see how the coming of the Son of man mentioned there could be different than His coming mentioned in verses 39, 42, 44, 48 and 50 as well as within Matt 25:1-13 and Matt 25:31-46.

[Vanderhoven7]

<<I did and I just disagree with your understanding of Matthew 24:29-31. I can't see how the coming of the Son of man mentioned there could be different than His coming mentioned in verses 39, 42, 44, 48 and 50 as well as within Matt 25:1-13 and Matt 25:31-46.>>

OK. Here goes. I'll try to be clear. Whether my understanding of Matthew 24 is correct or not makes no difference in how we live. Believing as futurists do, about the tribulation, the 7 years, etc. makes no difference at all in terms of how we are to live. So we can at least revel in the fact that we are looking forward to the great hope and appearing of the Lord at His second coming to earth.

Now the word "erchomai" means "coming". The Parousia is also an "erchomai". But the Parousia invariably denotes a special kind of "erchomai", that involves the personal bodily return of Christ to earth.

With that said, let's look how that unfolds in the New Testament...starting with some parables:


Mar 12:9 What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do?
He will come (erchomai) and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.


Matthew 21:
38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh (erchomai), what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

Luke 20:
13 Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him.
Luk 20:14 But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.
Luk 20:15 So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?
Luk 20:16 He shall come ( erchomai), and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.
Luk 20:17 And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?
Luk 20:18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
Luk 20:19 And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them.

The Lord did come and destroy those husbandmen (leaders) using the Romans army when they destroyed Jerusalem and killed almost everyone in it. And He did leave their house desolate and gave the vineyard to others who would bring forth the fruit. The vineyard represents the kingdom.

The timing on this is relevant:

Mat 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee into the next: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come (erchomai).


Luk 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming (ἔρχομαι erchomai) in his kingdom.

This coming (ἔρχομαι erchomai) in vengeance, would climax the tribulation and occur in the lifespan of Christ's own generation. (Matthew 24:34)

Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming (ἔρχομαι erchomai), in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.


AND THEY SHALL SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING IN
THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN WITH POWER AND GREAT
GLORY.
Does the phrase "coming (erchomai) in the clouds"
necessarily refer to a personal coming to earth? We should not
read that thought into the text. Is. 19:1 states "See the Lord rides
on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt: and the idols of Egypt
shall be moved at His presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in
the midst of it" Although this verse speaks of the Lord riding on a
cloud and of His presence, we know that the Egyptians did not see
the Lord in a personal and visible way. The expression is rather
used to indicate a coming in judgment against Egypt. Jesus
coming in the clouds against Israel thus refers to a similar kind of
judgment.

The clouds of heaven obscure or shut heaven from man's view.
They were to see the Lord Jesus coming to judgment with power.
This power was manifest in the destruction. The word glory refers
to the visible display of his honor, power and majesty.
That Jesus destroyed the city in 70 AD is accurate. As Daniel 9:27
reveals; because of the over spreading of abominations, he, the
Lord and Messiah himself would make it desolate (Titus
merely being his instrument.) Confirmation is found in Jesus'
exclusion parables.

Mt.21: 40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh
(ἔρχομαι erchomai), what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked
men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which
shall render him the fruits in their seasons. See also Lu.20:15,16

Again the timing on this is relevant this coming in vengeance, would climax the
tribulation and occur in the lifespan of Christ's own generation.

Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which
shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming
(ἔρχομαι erchomai) in his kingdom. (Mt.10:23 Lu.9:27)

[John146]

OK. Here goes. I'll try to be clear. Whether my understanding of Matthew 24 is correct or not makes no difference in how we live.

I understand that and haven't said otherwise. While I know I come across as having strong opinions about this in my posts, I'm not making this out to be a salvation issue or anything like that. I appreciate the fact that you at least recognize that Jesus spoke both about local events that would occur in and around Jerusalem in 70 AD as well as about worldwide events related to His future second coming. I'll have to read the rest of your post (it's pretty long) later as I don't have time to do so at the moment. I just wanted to make sure you knew that I agreed with what you said about this not making a difference in how we live.

[warfrog]

<<I did and I just disagree with your understanding of Matthew 24:29-31. I can't see how the coming of the Son of man mentioned there could be different than His coming mentioned in verses 39, 42, 44, 48 and 50 as well as within Matt 25:1-13 and Matt 25:31-46.>>

OK. Here goes. I'll try to be clear. Whether my understanding of Matthew 24 is correct or not makes no difference in how we live. Believing as futurists do, about the tribulation, the 7 years, etc. makes no difference at all in terms of how we are to live. So we can at least revel in the fact that we are looking forward to the great hope and appearing of the Lord at His second coming to earth.

Now the word "erchomai" means "coming". The Parousia is also an "erchomai". But the Parousia invariably denotes a special kind of "erchomai", that involves the personal bodily return of Christ to earth.

With that said, let's look how that unfolds in the New Testament...starting with some parables:


Mar 12:9 What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do?
He will come (erchomai) and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.


Matthew 21:
38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh (erchomai), what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

Luke 20:
13 Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him.
Luk 20:14 But when the husbandmen saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, This is the heir: come let us kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.
Luk 20:15 So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?
Luk 20:16 He shall come ( erchomai), and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.
Luk 20:17 And he beheld them, and said, What is this then that is written, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner?
Luk 20:18 Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
Luk 20:19 And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them.

The Lord did come and destroy those husbandmen (leaders) using the Romans army when they destroyed Jerusalem and killed almost everyone in it. And He did leave their house desolate and gave the vineyard to others who would bring forth the fruit. The vineyard represents the kingdom.

The timing on this is relevant:

Mat 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee into the next: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come (erchomai).


Luk 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming (ἔρχομαι erchomai) in his kingdom.

This coming (ἔρχομαι erchomai) in vengeance, would climax the tribulation and occur in the lifespan of Christ's own generation. (Matthew 24:34)

Matthew 24:34
Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming (ἔρχομαι erchomai), in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.


AND THEY SHALL SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING IN
THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN WITH POWER AND GREAT
GLORY.
Does the phrase "coming (erchomai) in the clouds"
necessarily refer to a personal coming to earth? We should not
read that thought into the text. Is. 19:1 states "See the Lord rides
on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt: and the idols of Egypt
shall be moved at His presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in
the midst of it" Although this verse speaks of the Lord riding on a
cloud and of His presence, we know that the Egyptians did not see
the Lord in a personal and visible way. The expression is rather
used to indicate a coming in judgment against Egypt. Jesus
coming in the clouds against Israel thus refers to a similar kind of
judgment.

The clouds of heaven obscure or shut heaven from man's view.
They were to see the Lord Jesus coming to judgment with power.
This power was manifest in the destruction. The word glory refers
to the visible display of his honor, power and majesty.
That Jesus destroyed the city in 70 AD is accurate. As Daniel 9:27
reveals; because of the over spreading of abominations, he, the
Lord and Messiah himself would make it desolate (Titus
merely being his instrument.) Confirmation is found in Jesus'
exclusion parables.

Mt.21: 40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh
(ἔρχομαι erchomai), what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked
men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which
shall render him the fruits in their seasons. See also Lu.20:15,16

Again the timing on this is relevant this coming in vengeance, would climax the
tribulation and occur in the lifespan of Christ's own generation.

Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which
shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming
(ἔρχομαι erchomai) in his kingdom. (Mt.10:23 Lu.9:27)

The difference is they were literally told as you see Him go up so also shall He return when He rode up to heaven in a cloud following His resurrection.

So there was a literal event that unfolded directly by physical means infront of the men when Jesus rose to heaven, ow there is also prophecy in dealing of a future event that deals specifially with the exact same definitive projection that was promised in prophecy to hose men as He rose to heaven that day...which again was, as you see Him go up, so also should He return.

Thats the major difference to your well written spiritual complex of past events.

[Vanderhoven7]

The difference is they were literally told as you see Him go up so also shall He return when He rode up to heaven in a cloud following His resurrection.

So there was a literal event that unfolded directly by physical means infront of the men when Jesus rose to heaven, ow there is also prophecy in dealing of a future event that deals specifially with the exact same definitive projection that was promised in prophecy to hose men as He rose to heaven that day...which again was, as you see Him go up, so also should He return.

Thats the major difference to your well written spiritual complex of past events.

Thanks for contributing Warfrog. Be assured that I believe in the literal, visible, and personal return in glory (second coming) of Jesus Christ to earth as described in Matthew 24:36 on.

[warfrog]

Thanks for contributing Warfrog. Be assured that I believe in the literal, visible, and personal return in glory (second coming) of Jesus Christ to earth as described in Matthew 24:36 on.

No problem, again thank you for your well written spiritual complex of biblical literature.

[svfox]

It is easy to see that the end of times will be from Gods judgement. He will pour his wrath out onto the world like never before. God's patience has ended.
By saying unless those days be shortened no flesh would be saved. Every person in the world would be dead but for the elect God shortens the days.
Judgement day is coming and it will be terrible.

It was claimed the jews would again be in israel and that has happened. So we are very near to the end.
He said the generation that saw this will not pass away meaning they will be the last to live on Earth.

[Vanderhoven7]

THE OLIVET DISCOURSE - A Collation of Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21
The Destruction of the Temple and the Second Coming

Jerusalem’s Fate:

1 And as He went forth out of the temple, one of His disciples says to Him, “Master, behold, what manner of goodly stones and what manner of buildings and offerings!”
2 And Jesus said to him, Do you see these great buildings? the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another, which shall not be thrown down.
Beginning of troubles:
3 And as He sat on the mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when these things are all about to be accomplished, and of your coming (parousia) and of the end of the age?” And Jesus answered and said to them, “Take heed that no man lead you astray.”
5 “For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ/I am He’, and ‘the time is at hand’, and will lead many astray.”
6 “And when you shall hear of wars and rumors of wars, be not troubled/terrified, it is necessary for these things to come about first; but the end is not yet/immediately.”

7 Then said He to them, “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom,”
8 “And there will be great earthquakes, and in divers places famines and pestilences; and there will be terrors and great signs from heaven. But all these things are the beginning of birth pains.”

9 “But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you, and will persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for My name’s sake, for a testimony to them. Then will they deliver you up to tribulation, and will kill you.”
10 “But you will be delivered up even by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolk, and friends, and some of you will they cause to be put to death. And then will many stumble, and will deliver up one another, and will hate one another. And you will be hated of all men for My Name’s sake”
11 “And brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise up against parents, and cause them to be put to death. And you will be hated of all men for My Name’s sake.”
12 “And when they lead you to judgment, and deliver you up, do not be anxious beforehand what you will say, but whatever will be given you in that hour, that speak, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.”
13 “Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate beforehand how to answer, for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries will not be able to withstand or to gainsay.”
14 “And many false prophets will arise, and will lead many astray, and because iniquity will be multiplied, the love of the many will wax cold.
15 “But not a hair of your head will perish.
16 In your patient endurance you will win your souls for he who endures to the end, the same will be saved.”
17 “And this gospel of the kingly rule will be preached in the whole world for a testimony to all the nations, and then will the end come.”

The Sign to Flee Jerusalem’s Destruction:
18 “When therefore you see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not in the holy place (let him who reads understand), that is to say, when you see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that her desolation is at hand.”
19 “Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let him who is on the housetop not go down to take out things that are in his house, and let him who is in the field (countryside) not return back to take his cloak.”
20 “For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.”
21 “But woe to those who are with child and to those who are breast feeding in those days!”
22 And pray that your flight be not in the winter, neither on a Sabbath,”
23 “For then will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the creation which God created, until now, no, nor ever shall be, for there will be great distress on the land, and wrath to this people.”

No Worldwide Personal Second Coming/Parousia During Jerusalem’s Woes:
24 Then if any man shall say to you, ‘Lo, here is the Christ’, or, ‘Here’; believe it not. For there will arise false Christs, and false prophets, and will show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if it were possible, even the elect. But take heed. Behold, I have told you beforehand.”
25 “If therefore they shall say to you, ‘Behold, he is in the wilderness’, go not forth, ‘Behold, he is in the inner chambers’, believe it not.”
26 “For as the lightning comes forth from the east, and is seen even to the west, so will be the coming (parousia) of the Son of man.”


The Onslaught on Jerusalem and its Aftermath:
27 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days there will be signs in the sun, moon and stars, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give her light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and on the earth there will be distress of nations, in perplexity for the roaring of the sea and the billows, men fainting for fear, and for expectation of the things which are coming on the world, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken,”
28“And then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then will all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”
29 “And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations, and Jerusalem will be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. And except those days had been shortened, no flesh would have been saved, but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened.”
30 “Wherever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.”
31 “And He will send forth his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.”
32 “But when these things begin to come about, look up, and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near.”

33 “Now from the fig tree learn her parable. When her branch is now become tender, and puts forth its leaves, you know that the summer is near, even so you also, when you see all these things, know you that He is near ( the Kingly Rule of God is near), even at the doors.”
34 “Truly I say to you, This generation will not pass away, until all these things are accomplished.”
35 “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.”


The World’s Fate:

The Second Coming (Parousia) of Christ and its Distinctiveness:

(Worldwide Judgment, Normal Times, That Day, No Signs Given, Impossible to Anticipate, No Running Necessary, Saints Taken)

36 “But of that day and hour knows no one, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.” 37 “And as were the days of Noah, so shall be the coming (parousia) of the Son of man.”
38 “For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and they knew not until the flood came, and took them all away. So shall be the coming (parousia) of the Son of man.”
39 “Take heed, watch and pray, for you do not know when the time is, lest haply your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that day come on you suddenly as a snare, for so will it come upon all those who dwell on the face of all the earth.”
40 “But watch you at every season, making supplication, that you may prevail to escape all these things that will come about, and to stand before the Son of man.”

41 “It is as when a man, sojourning in another country, having left his house, and given authority to his servants, to each one his work, commanded also the porter to watch.”
42 “Watch therefore, for you do not know when the lord of the house is coming, whether at eventide, or at midnight, or at cock-crowing, or in the morning, lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. And what I say to you I say to all, Watch.”

43 “Then will two men be in the field, one is taken, and one is left. Two women will be grinding at the mill, one is taken, and one is left. Watch therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have watched, and would not have allowed his house to be broken through.
44 “Therefore you also be ready, for in an hour that you do not think the Son of man is coming.”

[Matthehitmanhart]

If the context is defined solely by what they did not understand (your point), then how could Jesus answer them at all?

In other words, as Matthew is writing his gospel, he is writing it as one who now understands the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. To say that Matthew didn't write from an enlightened perspective on words from Jesus that he previously did not understand would be, in my opinion, overdoing "grammatical / historical". We have to take into account the author's perspective, post-resurrection - not just pre-resurrection.

And Jesus often spoke to issues that they did not truly understand - without appealing to their "pre-cross" understanding. See: John and James' mother.

If I understand Mark's point rightly, I don't think he's saying that Jesus' answer must be limited to the terms of the disciples question, but simply that their understanding of the question should be the starting point for our understanding of Jesus' answer. And the subsequent point is that the disciples were not thinking of the word "parousia" in the later sense of a "second coming", as many simply assume in hindsight. Of course you might wish to argue that Jesus then introduces the idea of a "second coming" and thereby invests the word "parousia" with this new sense, speaking beyond the disciples understanding at that time, but there would then have to be explicit reasons from the text for such an interpretation.

I don't think there is adequate justification from the text for a post-resurrection understanding of Jesus' answer. Yes, Matthew is writing this up post-resurrection, as a now-enlightened evangelist of Christ's kingdom, but he is still trying to represent the history of Jesus' messianic career accurately, as it happened, and not merely as a reflection of the theology and needs of the early church. And thus our aim, as interpreters, should be to step into the disciples' shoes and read their question as they would have understood it at the time, not as it could have hypothetically been reinterpreted later.

When we start from the right ground historically, understanding the word "parousia" as the disciples would have understood it, great light is shed both on the disciples' question and on Jesus' answer. Remember that only days before this scene Jesus had entered Jerusalem in triumphal procession with multitudes from the city coming out to welcome him as their rightful king. In other words, Jesus had just come to Jerusalem in what would have been seen as nothing less than a royal parousia. The narrative in each of the synoptics suggests strongly that the disciples were expecting him to set up his messianic rule immediately upon his entrance into Jerusalem, but all he does when he gets there is symbolically enact the desolation of the Temple by disrupting the levitical business going on inside (the fact that this episode was indeed an intentional symbolic enactment of the coming judgment of Israel is confirmed by the mutually interpretive "fig tree" event which occurs next to it in all three synoptic accounts). What Jesus does shortly afterwards then, in answering the disciples puzzled question about his parousia, is make explicit the event which he enacted symbolically only days before. And the mutually interpretive point is this: that Jesus' enthronement as Messiah, his parousia, and therein the rule of God, will be seen by the desolation of the present ruling regime within Israel, the nation which has rejected his offer of peace and his way of the kingdom.

The allusion to Daniel 7:13 is thus intended to cast the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple in a particular theological light, namely putting degenerate Israel in the place of the "beast" while putting Jesus and his followers in the place of "the son of man" vindicated over the "beast". Jesus had previously made a similar point with an allusion to Daniel 2:34, casting the leadership of Israel as the "feet" of Daniel's statue which the "stone" of the kingdom breaks in pieces (Matt 21:43-45). Pulling on similar Danielic themes, Jesus' prophetic announcement of the destruction of the Temple is also the announcement of his own vindication; in other words, of his own "coming" into the presence of the ancient of days, exalted over his enemies as the rightful king. This explanation makes much more sense, both historically and contextually, of the disciples' question and of Jesus' answer.

But one more point to note is that whereas Matthew relays the disciples' question in a three-pronged form (when will these things be, what will be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the age?), Mark and Luke relay the same question in a more basic two-pronged form (when will these things happen and what will the sign that they are about to take place?). Note, first, that while Matthew attaches the "sign" to Jesus' "coming", both Mark and Luke attach it to "these things", i.e. the destruction of the Temple. We must ask, then: is the disciples' question in Matthew different from Mark and Luke, or is it simply rephrased? Mark and Luke both seem to think that the disciples' question relates wholly to the destruction of the Temple, and the burden of proof rests on those who would argue that Matthew's version isn't simply a rephrasing of the same question. On the other hand, it would be entirely appropriate for Matthew (Jewish scribe that he was) to cast the destruction of Jerusalem in a more heavily apocalyptic light as the "coming" of Jesus and the "end of the age". Like the common use of the phrase "the day of the Lord" throughout the OT prophets to refer to various socio-political events which were not, properly speaking, the day of the Lord, this is simply how eschatalogical language regularly works.

[Matthehitmanhart]

But one more point to note is that whereas Matthew relays the disciples' question in a three-pronged form (when will these things be, what will be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the age?), Mark and Luke relay the same question in a more basic two-pronged form (when will these things happen and what will the sign that they are about to take place?). Note, first, that while Matthew attaches the "sign" to Jesus' "coming", both Mark and Luke attach it to "these things", i.e. the destruction of the Temple. We must ask, then: is the disciples' question in Matthew different from Mark and Luke, or is it simply rephrased? Mark and Luke both seem to think that the disciples' question relates wholly to the destruction of the Temple, and the burden of proof rests on those who would argue that Matthew's version isn't simply a rephrasing of the same question. On the other hand, it would be entirely appropriate for Matthew (Jewish scribe that he was) to cast the destruction of Jerusalem in a more heavily apocalyptic light as the "coming" of Jesus and the "end of the age". Like the common use of the phrase "the day of the Lord" throughout the OT prophets to refer to various socio-political events which were not, properly speaking, the day of the Lord, this is simply how eschatalogical language regularly works.

Something else which testifies in favor of this last point is the way that Matthew and Mark both speak of the "abomination of desolation" with an appeal to Daniel, and then give a nod to their (presumably) Jewish audiences by the parenthetical instruction "let the reader understand" - but Luke, thinking that his Gentile audience might not understand the reference, simply interprets the apocalyptic language into the terms of its referent: "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near." This further strengthens the view that all three accounts are relaying the same discourse, in which Jesus is answering the same questions, and that all three accounts are concerned, from their respective vantage-points, with the destruction of Jerusalem as the climactic event through which Jesus' messianic claims would be vindicated to that generation.

[Matthehitmanhart]

Post-cross, Matthew and Luke seem to be thinking about the Second Coming. Matthew 25 is about the Second Coming. Matthew 25 is not a separate discourse, but a continuation of the flow of thought related to the actual "Parousia" of Jesus, not the redefinition of "Parousia" you have introduced here.

I agree that the "coming" in view in Matthew 25 is the same "coming" in view in Matthew 24, but I think you're making some unwarranted assumptions about what exactly that "coming" entails, and I don't think you're allowing for the full weight of Jesus' insistence that it would come within that generation. Even if we did take the "coming" literally, that would not justify our reinterpreting Jesus' reference to "this generation". But if we’re really going to understand the "coming of the son of man" literally, then it should be acknowledged that in its original Biblical context the "son of man" comes up on the clouds into the presence of the Ancient of Days, not down on the clouds to the earth. The real point of the son of man’s exaltation in Daniel is not metaphysical, however, but sociological: the point is that this human figure is vindicated over his enemies, the "beasts", and given the kingdoms of the world which previously belonged to them.

From every other “son of man” saying in Matthew’s Gospel, it appears that he retains the original Danielic sense of vindication and exaltation. This is most obvious in 10:23, 16:27-28, and 26:64, which all speak of the son of man receiving his kingdom and executing judgment within the lifetime of those listening. The disciple’s won’t even finish carrying the gospel throughout all the cities of Israel, Jesus says in 10:23, “before the son of man comes”. Or, very close to the first line of the passage in question, he declares in 16:27 that “the son of man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done”—and, believe it or not, “there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the son of man coming in his kingdom.” Finally, in the often-overlooked trial scene in 26:64, Jesus says to the high priest that “from now on you will see the son of man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

The key phrase in that last passage is “from now on”, which is about as close as Matthew comes to the outright investment of glory which John gives to the cross when he attests Jesus as saying things like “Now the son of man is glorified”, “Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out”, and “When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people to myself” (John 12:31, 32; 13:31). The conviction which both Matthew and John unambiguously express is that the exaltation of the son of man would be seen not merely at the end of history but also in the matrix of events unfolding from his messianic work in the middle of history.

The Jesus we see in the Gospels, and especially in Matthew’s own account, regularly envisaged events of judgment and vindication which were to come about in the generation to which he was sent. The cross, the resurrection and ascension, and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 were all such events. Jesus invested these events with a cosmic and theological significance beyond what would have been readily obvious to a casual bystander—indeed, a significance beyond the grasp of many of his later would-be interpreters. But what all of the above examples reveal, especially the ones most closely resembling Matt 25:31-46, is that Jesus regularly anticipated those nearly unfolding and closely related events in the traditional prophetic terms of a “last judgment”, i.e. the time when the righteous would be gathered and vindicated and the wicked decisively judged.

The point is that Jesus is to be exalted as the ruler of the world, vindicated after his suffering, and what we are invited to witness in Matt 25:31-46 is the way in which this just rule will be exercised. As N.T. Wright puts it in his Matthew for Everyone, “The scene is the climax of a long discourse in which Jesus has denounced his own people, especially their would-be leaders, for their failure to live as God’s people should, and has spoken of his own coming exaltation in accordance with the biblical picture of the vindication of the son of man. In that context, what we have here is a refocusing of one regular Jewish way of talking about God’s judgment of the world.” In other words, with the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus after suffering, the final judgment has, in some sense, come forward to meet us. Hence the reason why Matthew’s Jesus concludes this long eschatological discourse by speaking of the coming Passover in Jerusalem and his own Messianic mission, as the “son of man”, to be delivered up to be crucified. The point is that New Exodus has come. All those found on the side of the crucified Messiah will be redeemed and vindicated together with him while all those standing against him will be judged according to his just rule.

How, then, is this just rule to be exercised? Wright comes to our aid once more: “Instead of the nations being judged on how they had treated Israel, as some Jewish writings envisage, Jesus, consistently with his whole redefinition of God’s people around himself, declares that he will himself judge the world on how it has treated his renewed Israel. Judging the nations is, of course, regularly thought of as part of the Messiah’s task (e.g. Psalm 2:8-12); and the king or Messiah is often pictured as a shepherd (e.g. Ezekiel 34:23-24). That, perhaps, is why the image of sheep and goats is inserted into this scene of judgment.”