Matthew 24:30 may have a significant mistranslation

[3 Resurrections]

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.

What's the mistake? "Christ the First-fruits" as well as the Matthew 27:52-53 saints raised that same day of the "first resurrection" in AD 33 was most definitely a resurrection unto bodily immortality. I agree with that, and have said so many times before.

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.

Of course there are those believers in Christ that are physically dead in the grave today who have not yet been resurrected. All these are the believers who have died since the AD 70 bodily resurrection took place at Christ's second coming. All the bodies of those believers currently in the grave as well as those believers who will die in our future will be raised in the final, third bodily resurrection event. This does not negate the AD 70 bodily resurrection event, which Paul wrote was about to take place in his own first-century time frame (Acts 24:15).

There is no such thing as a so-called "general" resurrection with all without exception being simultaneously resurrected at the same time. The recorded fact of the Matthew 27:52-53 saints being already raised back in AD 33 denies that assumption of only a single resurrection event happening. The mere fact that John in Rev 20:5 mentions a "FIRST resurrection" tells us that this will be followed by at the very least another resurrection event.

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.

I am not inventing a third resurrection. Paul taught this. The context of 1 Cor. 15 was discussing the progressive, chronological order to the different resurrections - "every man in his own order". The last, third resurrection event would be when Christ "delivered up the kingdom to God". This was going to be Christ delivering up to God His Father the last group of the resurrected children of the kingdom of heaven by "presenting them faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy." This would be "the END" at the culmination of fallen mankind's history on this planet. At that point, no human rule or authority or power structures will be needed anymore once God will have purified the planet of all remaining human evil by then.

 

[3 Resurrections]

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.

Scripture prophecy can have a double fulfillment - such as "out of Egypt have I called my son" referring to the Israelites' Exodus from bondage as well as to the child Jesus leaving Egypt to come to Nazareth. It is the same case with John 19:37 claiming a fulfillment of "they shall look on Him whom they pierced" at the crucifixion, as well as Revelation 1:7 and Zechariah 12:10 both referring to those Israelite tribes of the earth who pierced Him who would be mourning in Jerusalem. It was "every eye" of those who pierced Him who saw Him coming with clouds during the siege against Judah and Jerusalem in AD 70.

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.

Zechariah 12:10-14 was NOT describing the tribes of the earth looking on the crucifixion taking place and mourning Jesus's death. This entire Zechariah 12-14 prophecy for Israel was dedicated to the subject of "the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem" (Zech. 12:2). There was no siege in Jerusalem taking place at Christ's crucifixion. That happened in AD 66-70, with Christ bodily returning in AD 70 when "every eye" of those who pierced Him saw that bodily return to the Mount of Olives.

 

[HealthyShape]

Nope. He did not tell them when

He did not told them "when" in a form of an exact date. However, He made it clear it will happen in the time span of their generation and gave them the chain of events leading to it.

but did speak about the sign of his coming and end times events.

Yes - and those signs happened.

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.

I do not know what is "OD" supposed to mean, but the destruction of the Second Temple was a significant part of the end of that age. It was a temple-centered age. God leaving and even judging the temple was a complete revolution, beginning of a new age.

 

[NotTheRock]

If Revelation and other verses are referring to some cataclysmic event in OUR future, doesnt it seem odd that there is no prophecy of the Holocaust to go with it?

 

[ewq1938]

He did not told them "when" in a form of an exact date. However, He made it clear it will happen in the time span of their generation

He did no such thing, and history shows that the events described did not happen. Poor exegesis suggests Christ said the events would happen in the disciples lives. Christ spoke of a distant generation, evident by true exegesis and actual history.

Yes - and those signs happened.

No, they did not.

I do not know what is "OD" supposed to mean, but the destruction of the Second Temple was a significant part of the end of that age. It was a temple-centered age.

Christ said the temple had been polluted long before AD70. The temple age ended at the cross for true believers. AD70 is nothing to Christians.

 

[claninja]

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.

I would argue that the surrounding language, not simple repetition, determines the meaning of γῆ. In verse 35, γῆ appears alongside “heaven,” which naturally suggests a broader sense.

• a. “The earth as opposed to the heavens” — Matthew 5:18; 5:35; 6:10; 16:19; 18:18; 24:35 (Thayer’s Lexicon).

However, verse 30 uses a different construction: “All the tribes of the γῆ will mourn ‘when’ they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds.” Here γῆ is not contrasted with “heaven”, but connected with “tribes” — a term consistently associated with Israel throughout Scripture (though it could mean a broader sense like nations, peoples, etc…)

Practically speaking, it’s difficult to imagine how “tribes” in far-off lands like South America or New Zealand could “see” the Son of Man coming on the clouds over Jerusalem. The evidence, I think, favors a more narrow view of γῆ in verse 30 rather than a global one. I think this reason is also partly why you can find futurist commentaries that vs 30 is narrow, not broad.

 

[claninja]

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.

“misrepresenting scripture” says the person who argues the antecedent of vs 3 refers to an unknown conversation Jesus had with the disciples on their journey from the temple to the mount……….how ironic.

Vs 4 literally begins the olivet discourse, which starts with “Jesus answered them”. The Greek word for “answer” literally means to respond to a question. That’s not a misrepresentation of scripture as it literally says that. Did you want me to post the entirety of the OD with every response?

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

Well for starters you can’t post scriptures that disprove Jesus was talking about the temple at all in the OD. There’s no passage that says something like “I’m not talking about the temple here”. Secondly, your position is subjective interpretation based on your framework, rather than objective fact. You disagree that Jesus was talking about the temple, seemingly only because he didn’t use the literal words temple or Romans, in the olivet discourse (a fallacious argument from silence). It’s almost as if you believe it was impossible for Jesus to use other descriptive words and/or language to answer the disciples question. 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 — I don’t know the exact day, but it’ll all happen before the year’s done.”

Did I not answer the question? Or do I have to repeat the exact literal words “house” and “torn down” again in my answer in order for you to understand what I am talking about?

 

[ewq1938]

“misrepresenting scripture” says the person who argues the antecedent of vs 3 refers to an unknown conversation Jesus had with the disciples on their journey from the temple to the mount……….how ironic.

And it's not ironic that you pretend the conversation during the unrecorded hour doesn't exist? A verse next to another verse does not mean no time passed. Nevermind that Jesus never spoke of the temple being destroyed in the OD yet we are wsupposed to use eisegesis to force it there?

Vs 4 literally begins the olivet discourse, which starts with “Jesus answered them”. The Greek word for “answer” literally means to respond to a question. That’s not a misrepresentation of scripture as it literally says that. Did you want me to post the entirety of the OD with every response?

It would show that certain claims do not actually exist but that is the very reason you aren't citing scripture.

Well for starters you can’t post scriptures that disprove Jesus was talking about the temple at all in the OD. There’s no passage that says something like “I’m not talking about the temple here”.

You are employing the argument from silence fallacy.

Secondly, your position is subjective interpretation based on your framework, rather than objective fact. You disagree that Jesus was talking about the temple, seemingly only because he didn’t use the literal words temple or Romans, in the olivet discourse (a fallacious argument from silence).

False. I never said any certain terms have to be present. It's a fact nothing about the Romans or anyone destroying the temple is found in the OD. Go ahead and cite something from it to support your claims.

It’s almost as if you believe it was impossible for Jesus to use other descriptive words and/or language to answer the disciples question.

Maybe he spoke some invisible words that can't be seen in the OD that you have the ability to see?

 

[Douggg]

If Revelation and other verses are referring to some cataclysmic event in OUR future, doesnt it seem odd that there is no prophecy of the Holocaust to go with it?

I think "OUR" future refers to meaning within the parable of the fig tree generation. Which would mean that Jesus will return not later than the end of 2037 (1967 +70 years = 2037).

1967 is when the Jews regained control of Jerusalem, it's branches being figuratively tender, as stated in the parable.

Jesus cursed a fig tree as He and the disciples were about to enter Jerusalem in Matthew 21:19, for not producing fruit (representative of that generation of Jews rejecting Jesus). So Jerusalem is the fig tree in the parable of the fig tree.

The timeframes in Revelation fit within the 7 years prior to Jesus's return. Here is a table I made of all 15 "time of the end" time frames given the bible. Note that Ezekiel 39:9, the seven years following the Gog/Magog attack on Israel, coincide with the 7 years of Daniel 9:27.

 

[HealthyShape]

He did no such thing, and history shows that the events described did not happen. Poor exegesis suggests Christ said the events would happen in the disciples lives. Christ spoke of a distant generation, evident by true exegesis and actual history.

He said "this generation". It is a poor exegesis to suggest He was talking about some distant generation.

No, they did not.

Yes, they did.

Christ said the temple had been polluted long before AD70. The temple age ended at the cross for true believers. AD70 is nothing to Christians.

Nothing only if you ignore Mt 24 and make it to be about something in a distant future, irrelevant for the disciples asking the questions.

And then you must also make the church age to be just some intersection in the age of Israel and so on and so forth. A lot of tricks and tweaks.

 

[covenantee]

He did no such thing, and history shows that the events described did not happen. Poor exegesis suggests Christ said the events would happen in the disciples lives. Christ spoke of a distant generation, evident by true exegesis and actual history.






No, they did not.




Christ said the temple had been polluted long before AD70. The temple age ended at the cross for true believers. AD70 is nothing to Christians.

So when Jesus "said unto them" in verse 2, He was only talking to Himself.

I invite you to provide the name and a verbatim quote from any pre-Darby/Scofield recognized exegete who denies that Jesus was referring to the AD 70 destruction of the temple.

You say that "AD70 is nothing to Christians". It was obviously something to Jesus' disciples, who heeded His warning in verse 15, and fled and survived as admonished in verse 16.

Thankfully, not one of them was a Darby/Scofield dispensational fantasy futurist.

 

[David in NJ]

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.

Revelation 6:12-17

And I watched as the Lamb opened the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black like sackcloth of goat hair, and the whole moon turned blood red, 13and the stars of the sky fell to the earth like unripe figs dropping from a tree shaken by a great wind. 14The sky receded like a scroll being rolled up, and every mountain and island was moved from its place.

15Then the kings of the earth, the nobles, the commanders, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and free man hid in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains. 16And they said to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide usb from the face of the One seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb. 17For the great day of Theirc wrath has come, and who is able to withstand it?”

 

[David in NJ]

So when Jesus "said unto them" in verse 2, He was only talking to Himself.

I invite you to provide the name and a verbatim quote from any pre-Darby/Scofield recognized exegete who denies that Jesus was referring to the AD 70 destruction of the temple.

You say that "AD70 is nothing to Christians". It was obviously something to Jesus' disciples, who heeded His warning in verse 15, and fled and survived as admonished in verse 16.

Thankfully, not one of them was a Darby/Scofield dispensational futurist.

Matthew chapter 24 BEGINS with the prophecy of the destruction of the temple.

After that prophecy, the LORD then prophesies about the ENTIRE Length/Duration of the GOSPEL = past, present, future!!!

@HealthyShape

 

[covenantee]

Matthew chapter 24 BEGINS with the prophecy of the destruction of the temple.

After that prophecy, the LORD then prophesies about the ENTIRE Length/Duration of the GOSPEL = past, present, future!!!

@HealthyShape

Is Matthew 24:15-16 past, present, or future?

 

[WPM]

Is Matthew 24:15-16 past, present, or future?

Past!

 

[David in NJ]

Is Matthew 24:15-16 past, present, or future?

past, present and future

Past/Genesis ch3 = the human temple of God was desecrated when sin entered mankind
Present/ John 3:18-20 = the human temple of God continues to be desecrated by sin
FUTURE/Revelation chapter 12 & 13 = the human temple will reach a Final Desecration with the Mark of the Beast

What came first = the chicken or the egg?

 

[covenantee]

past, present and future

Past/Genesis ch3 = the human temple of God was desecrated when sin entered mankind
Present/ John 3:18-20 = the human temple of God continues to be desecrated by sin
FUTURE/Revelation chapter 12 & 13 = the human temple will reach a Final Desecration with the Mark of the Beast

What came first = the chicken or the egg?

No reference to any "human temple".

 

[David in NJ]

No reference to any "human temple".

YES there is = HalleluYAH

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

 

[3 Resurrections]

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.

This worldwide coverage with the gospel already occurred back in the first century, as Paul freely testifies in Colossians 1:6 &23 and other texts. After that gospel coverage was accomplished back then, the end spoken of came back then in the first century.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Past/Genesis ch3 = the human temple of God was desecrated when sin entered mankind
Present/ John 3:18-20 = the human temple of God continues to be desecrated by sin
FUTURE/Revelation chapter 12 & 13 = the human temple will reach a Final Desecration with the Mark of the Beast

None of these examples are Scripture's exact definition of exactly what the "abomination of desolation" was composed of. Specifically, Luke 21:20 defines this AOD phrase as being "Jerusalem surrounded by armies". Daniel 9:27 wrote that it would be "with the abominable armies he shall make it desolate" (speaking of Jerusalem). This AOD phrase was never defined as being sin entering mankind, a human temple being desecrated by sin, or even the mark of the Beast (which is ancient history, and ended in AD 66).