Matthew 24:30 may have a significant mistranslation

[NotTheRock]

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

I believe they will. To me it's the only theology that makes logical sense. More importantly, the Bible says that it is God's will that ALL will be saved and it also says that God gets what God wants. :)

1 Timothy 2:3-4
This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

2 Peter 3:9 esv
The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Isaiah 46:10
declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.

Isaiah 55:11
so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

Ephesians 1:11
In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.

 

[claninja]

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.

Always doesnt mean never .

You’re introducing a red herring and speculation. Whether other conversations happened during the walk is irrelevant to the narrative Matthew actually records. Grammatically, the antecedent of “these things” (ταῦτα) in Matthew 24:3 is Jesus’ statement in verse 2 — “temple buildings: not one stone left upon another.” That’s how antecedents work. If the referent had shifted to a different topic during the walk, the Gospel writer would have indicated it in between vs 2 and 3 and we’d have a different antecedent.

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.

there’s no clear grammatical nor syntactical clue that the context shifts. It seems you think it shifts based on your own eschatological framework, which forces it to.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Scripture is very clear that Jesus would come a second time, not a third time. To say He already came in 70 AD is ridiculous nonsense and I'm not afraid to say it. No, He did not come yet a second time. That is obvious. Don't fall for the preterist lie.

No, Scripture is very clear that there are three bodily resurrection events. Paul lists these three events which are ranked in chronological order in 1 Cor. 15:22-24.

•"Christ the First-fruits" was the bodily resurrection in AD 33 of Christ and the Matthew 27:52-53 saints.
•"Afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." This was the bodily resurrection which took place at Christ's second coming in AD 70, and for which the Scriptures unanimously give evidence that this has already happened.
•"Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power." This will be the last, third resurrection event in our distant future, with Christ's final third coming.

 

[claninja]

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.

I guess I'm not really sure how literally every single tribe around the whole entire earth would see Jesus coming on the clouds over the land of Jerusalem.

 

[CTK]

No, Scripture is very clear that there are three bodily resurrection events. Paul lists these three events which are ranked in chronological order in 1 Cor. 15:22-24.

•"Christ the First-fruits" was the bodily resurrection in AD 33 of Christ and the Matthew 27:52-53 saints.
•"Afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." This was the bodily resurrection which took place at Christ's second coming in AD 70, and for which the Scriptures unanimously give evidence that this has already happened.
•"Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power." This will be the last third resurrection event in our distant future, with Christ's final third coming.

Would you mind providing the scripture verses that tell the Messiah came back at 70 AD? I do not see anything that speaks of this... Thanks.

 

[3 Resurrections]

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.

It was all the tribes of the land of Israel. Zechariah 12:10-14 lists some of those Israelite tribal families by name. And the mourning would be taking place specifically in Jerusalem by those Israelite tribes. "In that day there shall be great mourning in Jerusalem...".

Revelation 1:7 and the "every eye" which would see Christ's return was specifically limited to "namely they which pierced Him". This is a guilt charge which only the first-century Israelite people would be guilty of. The martyr Stephen said it was his own generation of Israelites who had been the betrayers and murderers of Christ (Acts 7:52). So it was this guilty first-century generation of Israelite tribes who would be mourning as they viewed this return of Christ to the Mount of Olives.

This is why Scripture says that it was those who claimed to have eaten and drunk in Christ's presence, and had Him teach in their streets who would be weeping and gnashing their teeth as they viewed the returning Christ (Luke 13:25-29). This was only first-century Israelites who would be pleading, "Lord, lord, open unto us..."

 

[3 Resurrections]

Would you mind providing the scripture verses that tell the Messiah came back at 70 AD? I do not see anything that speaks of this... Thanks.

Daniel 12:11-13 gives us the exact 1,335-day countdown to the day of Daniel 12:2's bodily resurrection - in other words, the day of Christ's second coming.

The 1,335-day countdown would start with two distinct events taking place during the same season. Those two events were #1) a "daily sacrifice" being taken away, and #2) "the abomination that makes desolate" being set up. This description of a "daily sacrifice" being taken away tells us that this resurrection was definitely linked to a time when the second temple had still been operating, with daily sacrifices still being offered in that temple. And "the abomination that makes desolate" Luke 21:20 already interpreted for us as "Jerusalem surrounded by armies".

In mid AD 66, a "daily sacrifice" that had been continually offered for Rome and its emperor was taken away by Eleazar ben Ananias, governor of the temple. In response to this uprising against Rome and other Jewish attacks on Rome at Masada and in Jerusalem, Nero sent Cestius Gallus to Jerusalem in October of AD 66. Once Gallus's army broke into Jerusalem and was preparing to undermine the temple gate, this was the fulfillment of the abomination of desolation "standing where it ought not" on that day. Exactly 1,335 days later, AD 70's Pentecost day in Jerusalem arrived. Christ returned on that AD 70 Pentecost day to gather all the resurrected believers to Himself and return to heaven with them, as He had promised to do while some of those He had personally ministered to were still alive to see it (Matt. 16:27-28).

This is only one of many Scripture texts that point to an AD 70 fulfillment of Christ's second coming and a bodily resurrection on that day.

 

[WPM]

I would be careful with saying it means "the planet", because such concept did not exist back then. It's a very modern concept based upon European discoveries/voyages and modern technology.

People in the first century had some vague idea that there are some people living outside of their known world, but I doubt they consciously included them when addressing their audience. When for example Matthew used the word "gé", he did not have the image of a blue rotating planet in his mind, like can be seen from the orbit or from the Moon. For obvious reasons.

Yea right! God was ignorant of what He created???

 

[NotTheRock]

Yea right! God was ignorant of what He created???

A very unfruitful response.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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.

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".

There's a major problem with your preterist claim. There was no age that ended in 70 AD. Jesus spoke of this age in terms of the current temporal age during which people get married and they die and the age to come in terms of when the resurrection of the dead occurs and this age ends, bringing the eternal age to come when people will no longer get married or die.

Luke 20:34 Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yea right! God was ignorant of what He created???

I can't decide which is worse. The preterist nonsense that we see on this forum or the hyper-futurist, pre-trib dispensational nonsense. Both are ridiculous doctrinal systems that can't be taken seriously at all.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

A very unfruitful response.

Wrong. It was a very fruitful response, but you obviously don't understand his point. Who inspired the Bible? God. You're talking about the Bible authors not having certain knowledge at the time they wrote, but that means nothing. The God who inspired them to write down His word has all knowledge, and certainly knew about the entire world even beyond the known world of that time. He revealed things to the Bible authors that they would have otherwise not know. You're acting as if they just wrote things down from their own imaginations or entirely based on their own understanding of things. Not so.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

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)

Ah, yes, let's just ignore other parts of Matthew 24 for context, such as Matthew 24:35-39 referring to heaven and earth (gē) passing away when Jesus comes. Clearly, the earth (gē) in that verse should be understood in the same context and scope as Matthew 24:30. The earth in Matthew 24:35 is clearly referring to the entire planet earth and so is Matthew 24:30.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, Scripture is very clear that there are three bodily resurrection events.

No, it is not. Which is why you are alone in that belief.

Paul lists these three events which are ranked in chronological order in 1 Cor. 15:22-24.

•"Christ the First-fruits" was the bodily resurrection in AD 33 of Christ and the Matthew 27:52-53 saints.

Oops. There's your first mistake. Paul indicated that Christ's resurrection itself was the firstfruits "of them that slept" (1 Cor 15:20). Which means His resurrection was the first resurrection in order of a certain type of resurrection that all of "them that slept" or "the dead in Christ" will also experience at His second coming (1 Cor 15:22-23), which is a resurrection unto bodily immortality.

•"Afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." This was the bodily resurrection which took place at Christ's second coming in AD 70, and for which the Scriptures unanimously give evidence that this has already happened.

Total nonsense. That event has clearly not yet happened. Obviously, they are many who are physically/bodily dead who belong to Christ and have not yet been resurrected, so there is no possibility that 1 Corinthians 15:23 has already happened. There's no basis for thinking that it's not talking about literally all of the dead who are ever in Christ before eternity is ushered in being resurrected at the same time.

•"Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power." This will be the last, third resurrection event in our distant future, with Christ's final third coming.

There is no resurrection event mentioned there. You are adding something to scripture which isn't mentioned in that verse or anywhere else. How you can think that your belief can be taken seriously is beyond me. I certainly don't take it seriously whatsoever.

 

[ewq1938]

Always doesnt mean never .

You’re introducing a red herring and speculation. Whether other conversations happened during the walk is irrelevant to the narrative Matthew actually records. Grammatically, the antecedent of “these things” (ταῦτα) in Matthew 24:3 is Jesus’ statement in verse 2 — “temple buildings: not one stone left upon another.” That’s how antecedents work. If the referent had shifted to a different topic during the walk, the Gospel writer would have indicated it in between vs 2 and 3 and we’d have a different antecedent.

Nevertheless, Jesus did not address anything about the temple being destroyed in the OD.

there’s no clear grammatical nor syntactical clue that the context shifts.

False. It's a fact Jesus never says a word about the temple being destroyed or the Romans in any part of the OD. The OD hasn't happened yet, which is why there is nothing at all about AD70 events.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

It was all the tribes of the land of Israel. Zechariah 12:10-14 lists some of those Israelite tribal families by name. And the mourning would be taking place specifically in Jerusalem by those Israelite tribes. "In that day there shall be great mourning in Jerusalem...".

Revelation 1:7 and the "every eye" which would see Christ's return was specifically limited to "namely they which pierced Him". This is a guilt charge which only the first-century Israelite people would be guilty of. The martyr Stephen said it was his own generation of Israelites who had been the betrayers and murderers of Christ (Acts 7:52). So it was this guilty first-century generation of Israelite tribes who would be mourning as they viewed this return of Christ to the Mount of Olives.

This is why Scripture says that it was those who claimed to have eaten and drunk in Christ's presence, and had Him teach in their streets who would be weeping and gnashing their teeth as they viewed the returning Christ (Luke 13:25-29). This was only first-century Israelites who would be pleading, "Lord, lord, open unto us..."

Revelation 1:7 is not the fulfillment of Zechariah 12:10-14. The similarities in some of the text in Revelation 1:7 and Zechariah 12:10 have thrown preterists like you off and made you think they refer to the same event. Futurists make the same mistake. But, they absolutely do not relate directly to each other. Zechariah 12:10 is quoted by John in John 19:37 in direct relation to people literally looking upon Jesus while He was being pierced. The context of that passage is in relation to people mourning His death. In contrast to that, Revelation 1:7 (and Matthew 24:30) are in relation to people wailing in fear over His second coming because they know He is coming to bring His wrath down on His enemies (unbelievers).

The following 2 passages are related and have nothing to do with the context of Zechariah 12:10-14.

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.

Revelation 6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; 16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: 17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Revelation 1:7 and Matthew 24:30 are not talking about people seeing Jesus and mourning His death like Zechariah 12:10 talks about, they are talking about people seeing Jesus and wailing in fear because of the wrath of the Lamb that is about to come down on them.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Nevertheless, Jesus did not address anything about the temple being destroyed in the OD.

So, He decided not to answer their question about when the temple buildings would be destroyed? You know, the temple buildings He had said would be destroyed shortly before the disciples asked Him questions that spawned the Olivet Discourse? Do you think that the following passage (and the parallel passages of Matthew 24:15-22 and Mark 13:14-20) just coincidentally describes what happened when the temple was destroyed in 70 AD?

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Shortly before 70 AD, Jerusalem was surrounded by the Roman armies and many in Judea fled to the mountains and there was great distress in the land, and wrath upon the Jewish people in 70 AD which included the destruction of the temple buildings, which matches what Jesus said in this text exactly. But, somehow, what Jesus said here doesn't relate to what happened in 70 AD? That's not even reasonable. He was asked when the temple buildings would be destroyed. This passage is obviously His answer to that question. But, He was also asked about His second coming and the end of the age which have not yet happened and He answered that question separately. This view is far more reasonable than the typical preterist and futurist views which assume that everything Jesus said in the Olivet Discourse relates to the same event instead of to two separate events (one local past event and one global future event).

 

[claninja]

Nevertheless, Jesus did not address anything about the temple being destroyed in the OD.

Jesus clearly said the temple would be destroyed in vs 2. Then in vs 3 the apostles ask “when”. In vs 4, “Jesus answered them”.

False. It's a fact Jesus never says a word about the temple being destroyed or the Romans in any part of the OD. The OD hasn't happened yet, which is why there is nothing at all about AD70 events.

That’s not an objective fact, though.

For example,

If I said, “This house is going to be torn down,” and you asked, “When?” and I answered, “First we have to complete inspections and permits, then the crews will arrive, utilities will be shut off, and heavy equipment will be brought in — but it all these things will happen before the year passes,” would you really claim I wasn’t talking about the house being torn down?

Just because Jesus doesn’t repeat the exact same language He already said in verse 2, but answers their question using different language and describes the events leading up to it and around it, doesn’t mean He isn’t answering the disciples’ question.

 

[covenantee]

It's a fact Jesus never says a word about the temple being destroyed

There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. Matthew 24:2

That's a word.

In fact more than one.

 

[ewq1938]

Jesus clearly said the temple would be destroyed in vs 2. Then in vs 3 the apostles ask “when”. In vs 4, “Jesus answered them”.

Verse 4 says no such thing. That's called misrepresenting scripture.

Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

Just because Jesus doesn’t repeat the exact same language He already said in verse 2, but answers their question using different language and describes the events leading up to it and around it, doesn’t mean He isn’t answering the disciples’ question.

Do I need to post the scriptures to again disprove your claims? Not one word about the temple being destroyed or the Romans are mentioned in any part of the OD.