Matthew 24:30 may have a significant mistranslation

[Aunty Jane]

I just don't see how the Spirit of Truth would guide both of us in opposite directions

Bingo! God does not speak with a forked tongue....it’s the other guy who has one of those.

God’s spirit unites his people...it does not divide them. Truth is what divides “the sheep from the goats”.

Parents will lead and guide two sons in the same way, with the same morals snd discipline, yet sometimes they go off in different directions.

Even the “sons of God”, like Satan the devil, (because of free will), did not stay faithful to their God and Creator. The lake of fire awaits them. Eternal death.

But I do see evidence ( and the Bible uses parables to explain it) that some among us aren't really saved. Not all church goers are born again. Some are tares, some on the fence not really trusting in Jesus or the scriptures, who are filled with doubts about everything. The seed gets planted in shallow soil but later on they fall away.

And this was all foretold. “Wheat and weeds”.....”sheep and goats”....travellers on a broad road and those who chose the narrow one....always there are only two choices......right and wrong, but unfortunately the devil can make one look like the other, and he has fooled the majority into believing his lies.....(Matt 7:13-14; 21-23)

Did you test your symbolism with the angel's literal statement about Jesus returning in like manner as you saw him leave? (Acts 1 :9-11) You did not attempt to.
Go ahead and try to present a symbolic interpretation of those verses. Finding scriptures that support the doctrine is crucial.The Bible is in harmony with itself.

Yes indeed, we can trust the Scriptures to interpret themselves if we are students of the Bible, instead of mere readers on of just one translation. Bible study involves much more than a cursory reading......context and original language meanings of the words used, go a long way to helping us see the truth and to identify the lies. Whose world are we living in after all? (1 John 5:19) Nothing is going to be as it appears to the masses. Satan already has them....but he will tighten the thumb screws on any who are holding fast to the faith, which will become increasingly difficult.
This is his last hurrah....his final opportunity to take as many down with him as he can whilst he still controls everything....and he is hopping mad! (Rev 12:7-12)

So how did Jesus leave this earth, telling his disciples that ‘the world would no longer see him”?
He said to them....
“I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you. In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me. Because I live, you will live too. On that day you will know that I am in my Father, you are in me, and I am in you. The one who has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. And the one who loves me will be loved by my Father. I also will love him and will reveal myself to him.” (John 14:18-21 ESV)

How was Jesus to return in the “same manner” as they saw him leave? Only his closest associates witnessed it, and the world at large did not have a clue that something so monumental had taken place. He left quietly without fanfare, and would return in the same “manner”. He is already here and has been for over 100 years, separating “sheep from goats”.....”wheat from weeds”. Patiently teaching those whom his Father has drawn to his teachings. (John 6:44; 65)
He knows who is on ‘the cramped road to life’ and who chose the easy super highway with the majority, heading to a place they cannot imagine. (Matt 7:13-14; 21-23)
When were his disciples to see him again? He mentions “that day” meaning at a future time....when he would return to take them “home”....to where he had gone “to prepare a place for them”. The “first resurrection” is for his elect...those who will rule with him as “kings and priests” in his Kingdom. (Rev 20:6)

His manifestation as judge would come at the conclusion of the last days.....not a quiet affair at all.

Once the Kingdom’s rule is established over the whole earth, (Dan 2:44) then the general resurrection of the dead will begin. (John 5:28-29) For these ones, satan will not be a threat because he will have been imprisoned for the full thousand year reign of Christ. (Rev 20:1-3) Only after one final test for all redeemed humanity will God grant everlasting life to those who proved worthy by their obedience....which is all God has ever asked of us humans.
He will then restore his original purpose for mankind on this earth. (Rev 21:2-4)

 

[NotTheRock]

Truth is what divides “the sheep from the goats”.

So those with a doctrinal misunderstanding are goats?

 

[Aunty Jane]

So those with a doctrinal misunderstanding are goats?

There is only one way to come to God’s truth and that is the way Jesus said......
We cannot come to God except through Christ.....but he also said....
John 6:44; 65...CSB...
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day. . . .
He said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted to him by the Father.”

So the “goats” are not those with doctrinal misunderstanding, but those who choose not to accept the truth when they hear it. Because all who come to Christ are invited by his Father, they are commanded to adhere to one God and one truth. Christendom is a divided mess who cannot agree about anything.

The sheep will not be standing at the narrow gate complaining that it is too narrow to accommodate their chosen point of view. They will do whatever it takes to get in through that gate, shedding whatever weight is holding them back, and asking for God’s guidance to stay on track. One truth does not allow for deviation.

Would God deliberately withhold the truth from a genuine seeker.....? Who was Jesus drawn to? “The lost” ones who were spiritually hungry but never fed by their appointed shepherds....they were the opinionated leaders of the faith who mistreated them, whilst leading the rest of the nation astray with false doctrines. (Matt 15:7-9)

The devil already has the “many” (Matt 7:21-23).....they jump up and down at the mere mention that their doctrines might be wrong.....yet Jesus already told us that the majority would be on the wrong road...one that leads to somewhere they cannot imagine.

 

[claninja]

Did Jesus actually say that the "tribes of the WORLD" would see his coming, or only the tribes "of the land" (Israel)?

Matthew 24:30 KJV
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 in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Matthew 24:30 CLNT
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Mankind in heaven, and then all the tribes of the land shall grieve, and they shall see the Son of Mankind coming on the clouds of heaven with power and much glory.

The Greek word γῆ (gē) has a broad range of meanings—from soil, to land, to the earth as a whole.

In Matthew 24:30, πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς
(“all the tribes of the earth/land”)

Some Bible translations render γῆ as “earth”

• NIV, KJV, ESV, etc.

while others render it as “land”

• ISV, Mace, Worsley, etc.

Neither translation is inherently wrong. The key question is whether γῆ here carries a broad (global) sense or a narrow (local) sense within the context.

The context of Matthew 24 is established at the chapter’s opening:

• “Not one stone will be left upon another…” (24:2)

—clearly referring to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. Within this framework, I think γῆ naturally takes on a local meaning, i.e., the land of Israel rather than the whole earth.

Matthew may even be intentionally echoing the Septuagint (LXX) wording of Zechariah 12:11–14, which uses the same Greek words—φυλαί (phylai, “tribes”) and γῆ (gē, “land”):

• “And the land (γῆ) shall mourn, each family (φυλή) by itself…” (Zech. 12:12 LXX)

 

[ewq1938]

The context of Matthew 24 is established at the chapter’s opening:

• “Not one stone will be left upon another…” (24:2)

No, that is not the context of the entire chp. That is the context of a brief conversation at the temple, long before Jesus sat and taught the OD which was a completely different context.

 

[HealthyShape]

No, that is not the context of the entire chp. That is the context of a brief conversation at the temple, long before Jesus sat and taught the OD which was a completely different context.

It is the opening context of the entire last days teaching. His disciples asked Him about it and this question started the whole discourse - what will be the signs, what will lead to it etc.

 

[NotTheRock]

The Greek word γῆ (gē) has a broad range of meanings—from soil, to land, to the earth as a whole.

In Matthew 24:30, πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς
(“all the tribes of the earth/land”)

Some Bible translations render γῆ as “earth”

• NIV, KJV, ESV, etc.

while others render it as “land”

• ISV, Mace, Worsley, etc.

Neither translation is inherently wrong. The key question is whether γῆ here carries a broad (global) sense or a narrow (local) sense within the context.

The context of Matthew 24 is established at the chapter’s opening:

• “Not one stone will be left upon another…” (24:2)

—clearly referring to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. Within this framework, I think γῆ naturally takes on a local meaning, i.e., the land of Israel rather than the whole earth.

Matthew may even be intentionally echoing the Septuagint (LXX) wording of Zechariah 12:11–14, which uses the same Greek words—φυλαί (phylai, “tribes”) and γῆ (gē, “land”):

• “And the land (γῆ) shall mourn, each family (φυλή) by itself…” (Zech. 12:12 LXX)

Thank you!

Are you a Preterist?

 

[ewq1938]

It is the opening context of the entire last days teaching.

No, it isn't. The last days teaching started when Christ sat on the mount.

His disciples asked Him about it and this question started the whole discourse - what will be the signs, what will lead to it etc.

Questions do not always drive a discourse. He answered one, but did not answer the other. He already knew what he was going to teach regardless of the questions asked.

 

[HealthyShape]

No, it isn't. The last days teaching started when Christ sat on the mount.

Yes, it is.

3While Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?”

Questions do not always drive a discourse. He answered one, but did not answer the other. He already knew what he was going to teach regardless of the questions asked.

In this case, the discourse was about the questions of the disciples.

You may think that the destruction of the Second Temple was some small thing, but it was such game changer that it deserved to be associated with "the end of the age".

 

[claninja]

No, that is not the context of the entire chp. That is the context of a brief conversation at the temple, long before Jesus sat and taught the OD which was a completely different context.

Your counter argument overlooks the pronoun in Matthew 24:3

• 3As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things (ταῦτα) be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

Grammatically, these things (ταῦτα) points back to the antecedent in Jesus’ prior statement of “not one stone atop another”, regardless of the change of setting.

A change in setting does not automatically change the context, if the conversation is a continuation throughout the different settings.

 

[claninja]

Thank you!

Are you a Preterist?

I would say so.

 

[Lambano]

Grammatically, these things (ταῦτα) points back to the antecedent in Jesus’ prior statement of “not one stone atop another”, regardless of the change of setting.

Narratively also, "these things" has to point back to the immediately preceding statements in the narrative itself for the story to make sense. That's just how stories work.

 

[rebuilder 454]

Mat 16:19 - And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth G1093 shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth G1093 shall be loosed in heaven.
Tools

Mat 17:25 - He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth G1093 take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of

Mat 18:18 - Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth G1093 shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth G1093 shall be loosed in heaven.
Tools

Mat 18:19 - Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth G1093 as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
Tools

Mat 23:9 - And call no man your father upon the earth: G1093 for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Tools

Mat 23:35 - That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, G1093 from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Tools

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 G1093 mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory

Tribes of the earth.

He only comes "in power and great glory" in Rev 19.

The coming In 1 thes 4 it is the pretrib rapture

The coming In Rev 14:14 it is the Jewish gathering

The coming in Rev 19 is the return Of Jesus to the Earth on white horses post 7 yr trib, in power and glory, to defeat the army of the Antichrist, to chain satan, and to start the millennium with the Saints which he had already raptured 7 years earlier.

"Power and great glory ".....only to israel??????
Way off

 

[NotTheRock]

I would say so.

Do you believe that all people will be in God's Kingdom?

 

[NotTheRock]

Narratively also, "these things" has to point back to the immediately preceding statement in the narrative itself for the story to make sense. That's just how stories work.

 

[claninja]

Do you believe that all people will be in God's Kingdom?

My hope is that all people will be in God's kingdom

 

[Davidpt]

The Greek word γῆ (gē) has a broad range of meanings—from soil, to land, to the earth as a whole.

In Matthew 24:30, πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς
(“all the tribes of the earth/land”)

Some Bible translations render γῆ as “earth”

• NIV, KJV, ESV, etc.

while others render it as “land”

• ISV, Mace, Worsley, etc.

Neither translation is inherently wrong. The key question is whether γῆ here carries a broad (global) sense or a narrow (local) sense within the context.

The context of Matthew 24 is established at the chapter’s opening:

• “Not one stone will be left upon another…” (24:2)

—clearly referring to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. Within this framework, I think γῆ naturally takes on a local meaning, i.e., the land of Israel rather than the whole earth.

Matthew may even be intentionally echoing the Septuagint (LXX) wording of Zechariah 12:11–14, which uses the same Greek words—φυλαί (phylai, “tribes”) and γῆ (gē, “land”):

• “And the land (γῆ) shall mourn, each family (φυλή) by itself…” (Zech. 12:12 LXX)

Matthew 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 in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.”

Regardless of how one interprets the Greek word 'ge' (whether it refers to the land of Israel in 70 A.D. or to the entire world), I think many interpreters may be overlooking something important in verse 30----particularly the phrase, 'then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn'.

The text doesn’t say that only 'some' of the tribes will mourn, it clearly says 'all' the tribes of the earth shall mourn. That’s significant, because it means the scope of this mourning is universal --- that it includes every people group, not just a select portion.

The Greek word for 'tribes' here is 'phylē'. Notice how this same word is used elsewhere:

James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes (phylai) which are scattered abroad, greeting.

Revelation 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds (phylē), and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands.”

In both of these examples, 'tribes' refers to the people of God---those within the covenant community, including believers in Christ. So when Matthew 24:30 says 'all' the tribes of the earth will mourn, that must logically include not only unbelieving nations but also those who belong to God’s people----the redeemed themselves.

If 'tribes of the earth' includes all people groups, then the mourning might not just be due to judgment, but also because of an awareness of Christ’s glory and majesty, which leads to both grief (over past rejection) and joy (over the fulfillment of God’s promises). The mourning, therefore, could be both a sign of repentance and a realization of divine victory.

This would mean the mourning is bad news for some---those who face judgment---but good news for others---those who see the fulfillment of their redemption.

And that ties naturally into verse 31, where the Son of Man sends out His angels to gather His elect from the four winds. Why couldn’t this gathering include those very tribes mentioned in verse 30? The two verses seem connected---the universal mourning in verse 30 leading to the universal gathering in verse 31---one event seen from two perspectives. Grief for the unrepentant, but glory and joy for the redeemed.

 

[ewq1938]

Your counter argument overlooks the pronoun in Matthew 24:3

• 3As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things (ταῦτα) be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

Grammatically, these things (ταῦτα) points back to the antecedent in Jesus’ prior statement of “not one stone atop another”, regardless of the change of setting.

Oh? There is roughly an hours walk between the temple and the mount. Are you saying there was zero conversations during that time?

Also, I explained that questions do not always drive the topic of a discourse.

A change in setting does not automatically change the context, if the conversation is a continuation throughout the different settings.

We know from what Jesus said that the context and topic changed. The OD is about events surrounding his second coming, not events happening in 40 years.

 

[ewq1938]

Yes, it is.

3While Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?”


In this case, the discourse was about the questions of the disciples.

Nope. He did not tell them when but did speak about the sign of his coming and end times events.

You may think that the destruction of the Second Temple was some small thing, but it was such game changer that it deserved to be associated with "the end of the age".

Nope. It is unrelated to the sign of his coming and the end of the age. We cannot force things said BEFORE the OD into the OD.

 

[NotTheRock]

particularly the phrase, 'then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn'.

The text doesn’t say that only 'some' of the tribes will mourn, it clearly says 'all' the tribes of the earth shall mourn. That’s significant, because it means the scope of this mourning is universal --- that it includes every people group, not just a select portion.

That's why it seems more likely that the interpretation should be the "tribes" in "the land" (of Israel) would mourn, not the entire world. And the reason the tribes of the land would mourn would be due to the destruction of Jerusalem and the dissolution of Israel. After all, what would Aztecs, Incas, ancient Japanese, etc., be mourning about?

That's my parochial understanding. I readily acknowledge that I may be misunderstanding.