Buy me a coffeeBuy me a coffee

Support via Patreon | Subscribe

Advertisement

Coming on the clouds of heaven

Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see ‘the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven’ with power and great glory.

When people read Jesus saying that he will be "coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" in Matthew 24:30, it often taken to mean that he will be doing that literally as opposed to figuratively.

Surfing Jesus
Kinda like this, but on clouds.
Advertisement

 

Careful now, before you put on your heretic hunting hats and grab your pitchforks — let me explain why I say that Jesus wasn't telling his followers he would be surfing across the sky on literal clouds.

As I pointed out in my last post, to truly understand Jesus, and indeed the New Testament, we need to better know the Old Testament texts. This phrase that Jesus used about "coming on the clouds" is a reference to a prophecy in the book of Daniel in which Daniel see's one who 'looks like a son of man' (ie. a person with a human form) 'coming with the clouds of heaven' which has all sorts of implications that we often miss by either not knowing much of the Old Testament, or because we're not Jewish with a better understanding of these prophecies. As a small note too, it's also these visions of Daniel that Revelation in the New Testament takes a lot of its imagery from and describes the same events – I will be touching on that more in the next part in this series.

Often times, our thoughts on these phrases or this kind of prophetic language, is coloured by our upbringing or teaching from a church, or even by secular culture which has taken this imagery and "hollywoodized" it. You need only Google for "apocalypse" or "armageddon" to see this; and although it can be fun from a film watching perspective, it's not entirely helpful if we are letting modern-day secular films and interpretation influence our reading and understanding of Scripture.

Advertisement

Lets begin by looking at what Daniel saw. A little context first: the setting is Daniel in the throneroom of God, watching as the "court sat in judgment, and the books were opened" to begin a judgement process.

Daniel 7:13-14

As I watched in the night visions,

I saw one like a human being
    coming with the clouds of heaven.
And he came to the Ancient One
    and was presented before him.
To him was given dominion
    and glory and kingship,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
    should serve him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
    that shall not pass away,
and his kingship is one
    that shall never be destroyed.

Advertisement

That line which says "like a human being" is translated in some Bibles as "like a son of man" which makes Jesus's reference a little clearer when comparing the texts, though the meaning is the same.  

So what's happening in Daniel's vision, and why is Jesus talking about it?

First of all, Jesus isn't just making a reference to this vision of Daniel by talking about clouds. Jesus repeatedly calls himself the "Son of Man" throughout his ministry, which is a veiled reference to what Daniel saw. When the Pharisees were questioning Jesus during his arrest, they asked him bluntly if he was the Messiah (Matt 26:63-65), and how did Jesus answer? By making a reference to Daniel 7:

Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you,

From now on you will see the Son of Man
    seated at the right hand of Power
    and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Advertisement

The reaction of High Priest says it all: Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has blasphemed!” This was more than just an idle phrase, this was Jesus making himself equal to God and the Jewish leaders understood this which is why they got so angry. The disciples/apostles understood this about Jesus also, which is what they preached and wrote about and also why they worshipped him (cf. Ps 110:1, Jn 5:18; Matt 26:64, Acts 2:33, Acts 5:31, Rom 8:34, Col 3:1, Heb 1:3, Heb 12:2).

 

Nakedpastor101: Cartoons by David Hayward
'Jesus is coming soon' by Nakedpastor

But what's all this got to do with Jesus coming on the clouds? If Jesus is making a reference to a vision in Daniel, which describes something that happens in a purely spiritual realm, then why all of a sudden, does it become a literal, physical event when it concerns Jesus? Daniel's vision is about the Son of Man coming before the "Ancient One" (ie. God the Father) and being presented with a kingdom, power and authority that will never end – which is exactly what Jesus was preaching about when he said the Kingdom of God/Heaven had arrived with his first coming, even though it was not how the Jewish leaders and people had expected it. It is a spiritual and mystical Kingdom that dwells within us, and is evidenced by our lifestyles being that of those who live under a godly reign in this physical world (Lk 17:20-21; Jn 18:36).

So when Jesus says that he is coming again, and doing so "on the clouds," we must remember that this is a reference to a prophecy set within a context of God doing some judging (Dan 7:10). This language isn't unique to Daniel either, but is a typical example of apocalyptic imagery used by prophets.

Advertisement

*A small note to help clarify some terms here: "apocalypse" is a Greek word which simply means "revealed" or "revelation" - as in, being shown something by divine beings/intervention that was once hidden, and is also a genre of writing in Judaism and Christianity encapsulating prophetic texts of this nature. Likewise, "Armageddon" is a Hebrew word which is the name of a place in Israel. Only in modern culture have these words taken on the meaning "end of the world."

With that in mind, let's look at the other references to God coming on the clouds through the Old Testament, and what it means. I'll add some emphasis to some of the verses just so you can see what I'm pointing out.

Isaiah 19:1-2

An oracle concerning Egypt.

Advertisement

See, the Lord is riding on a swift cloud
    and comes to Egypt;
the idols of Egypt will tremble at his presence,
    and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.
I will stir up Egyptians against Egyptians,
    and they will fight, one against the other,
    neighbor against neighbor,
    city against city, kingdom against kingdom;

Nahum 1:5

The mountains quake before him,
    and the hills melt;
the earth heaves before him,
    the world and all who live in it.

Isaiah 34:4

Advertisement

All the host of heaven shall rot away,
    and the skies roll up like a scroll.
All their host shall wither
    like a leaf withering on a vine,
    or fruit withering on a fig tree.

Ezekiel 20:35

and I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there I will enter into judgment with you face to face.

Plus also see: 2 Sam 22:8-16; Isaiah 19:1; Ezekiel 30:3; Ezekiel 30:18; Ezekiel 32:7; Ezekiel 34:12; Joel 2:1-2 to name a few more!

Notice a theme going on here?

Advertisement

This brings us right back to the disciples asking "what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age" and Jesus saying that he would "come on the clouds with power and great glory." The first thing to take note of here is that the disciples as about the end of the age, although some Bible mistranslate this as "end of the world," which is incorrect since if you check out the underlying Greek text, it uses the word aion (we would understand as "eon" or "age" in English) and not the word for "world" (Gk. kosmos).

Jesus also says that "the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven will be shaken" which sounds pretty cataclysmic on the face of it, until you realise that this yet another reference to an Old Testament prophecy, this time from Isaiah, and possibly also Ezekiel as they use the same kind of language. I'll quote the relevant Isaiah passage, but you can read the other references here: Isa 34:4-5; Ezek 32:7-8.

Isaiah 13:1,10

The oracle concerning Babylon that Isaiah son of Amoz saw ...

For the stars of the heavens and their constellations
    will not give their light;
the sun will be dark at its rising,
    and the moon will not shed its light.

Note that the theme here continues – it is all concerning God visiting a nation with judgement. These nations and cities were destroyed by armies that God used as his weapon of choice, as it were. None of it was a literal event that saw God flying across the sky on clouds, or the stars actually falling out of the sky and going dark! This is all figurative language for a dramatic and drastic change in the world; the heavenly bodies, such as stars and moons etc. are often references to earthly kings and nations, political powers and systems, and their power on or over the Earth.

These are the things that God was going to shake up, blot out and cause to fall: earthly kingdoms, powers and systems. Which is exactly what Jesus was prophesying about in Matthew 24 — the destruction of the Temple and the end of the Old Covenant age, which will usher in the New Covenant in its fullness along with a new age of Grace through and by the life, death, resurrection and forgiveness of Christ!

Jesus's coming which he spoke of here was never to do with a physical return, but was always a prophetic reference to him visiting Jerusalem in judgement, just like God had done in previous generations, when he spoke to the people through prophets using this type of figurative language.

Advertisement

When we can clearly see that all of these visitations by God in the Old Testament, using the same phrases and language that Jesus used, were prophetic and symbolic references to God using armies and other nations to bring war and destruction on something as judgement against them as though God himself had done it, why then do we suddenly expect the complete opposite to happen when Jesus comes?

Now, people will still cling to a physical and literal interpretation of this and use other New Testament quotes to back up that view, such as 2 Peter 3:4,9 which says:

...saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? [...] The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.

Though the dating and authorship of 2 Peter is doubted in academic circles, if we assume that Peter did write this letter, and did so before his death, then it had to be written before 70 AD which is when the Jewish War was happening and the Temple destroyed. Which is what Jesus used as the focal point in his reference to his 'coming'.

Advertisement

You can't use a quote written prior to 70AD to proof text Jesus not coming yet, though that is what often happens. It's like someone in 1938 quoting H.G. Wells saying in 1914 that WWI will be the "war to end all wars" when history quite clearly shows the opposite.

So to conclude, there's nothing in what Jesus says to suggest anything other than a reference to judgement by God on Jerusalem and the Jewish nation, using the symbolic language of the prophets to make his point, that what was to comes was going to be God's judgement on them! 

In the next part of the series I will be taking a closer look at Matthew 24 (and the parallels in the other Gospels) alongside Revelation and seeing how, and if, history shows us that what Jesus prophesied as the signs of his coming were fulfilled. 

If you enjoyed this, leave a comment below.

Advertisement

 


Further Reading:

Contribute on Patreon

Enjoying this? Consider contributing regular gifts for this content on Patreon.
* Patreon is a way to join your favorite creator's community and pay them for making the stuff you love. You can simply pay a few pounds per month or per post that a creator makes, and in return receive some perks!

Subscribe to Updates
Order my new book today from Amazon or fortydays.co.uk

Subscribe to:

Have something to say? Leave a comment below.

Leave a comment   Like   Back to Top   Seen 3.4K times   Liked 5 times

Subscribe to Updates

If you enjoyed this, why not subscribe to free email updates and join over 163 subscribers today!

Order my new book today from Amazon or fortydays.co.uk

Subscribe to Blog updates

Enter your email address to be notified of new posts:

Subscribe to:

Alternatively, you can subscribe via RSS RSS

‹ Return to Blog

All email subscriptions must be confirmed to comply with GDPR.

I've already subscribed / don't show me this again

Recent Posts

Does Easter Have Pagan Origins?

| 22nd March 2021 | Easter

Does Easter Have Pagan Origins?

Much like any major Christian holiday, there are the usual arguments and accusations about how it’s all just pagan festivities with a “Christian mask”. Easter is no different, and usually gets hit the hardest over its so-called “pagan roots”, or in the month or so preceding it, Lent being some “invention of the Catholic Church”. Table of Contents The Lenten Fast The Easter controversy and why we celebrate it when we do Is the Name “Easter” really the Anglo-Saxon goddess Eostre? Chocolate eggs and bunnies? Concluding Thoughts Further Reading and Sources I like to try and observe Lent, as it is one of the most ancient customs in the Church, which led me to researching its origins, along with the Easter celebration, to see where they have their basis. Unsurprisingly, it turns out that much of the accusations against Easter and Lent as “pagan” are either fabricated or is just misinformation. So let’s examine the different aspects of Easter to see how we got from Passover to resurrection, to little bunnies and chocolate eggs! The Lenten Fast A forty day fast prior to Easter has been a long established practice within the Church dating back to possibly within the first century. This is well established from ancient letters we still have available, such as from Irenaeus in the second century: For some consider themselves bound to fast one day, others two days, others still more. In fact, others fast forty days … And this variety among observers [of the fasts] did not have its origin in our time, but long before in that of our predecessors.–Irenaeus (c.180) Notice here that Irenaeus mentions that this was a practice passed onto them by their “predecessors”, a term often used in conjunction with the Apostles themselves, or those who immediately came after them, putting the origins of this Lenten fast much earlier than when Irenaeus wrote in 180, and also possibly having Apostolic origin. The Easter controversy and why we celebrate it when we do Back in the days of the early church, there arose a controversy around the celebration of Easter (or “pascha” as it was known then). But no, before your imagination runs wild, it wasn’t quite as exciting as it sounds and still had nothing to do with “paganism”. The dispute was over which day to hold the festival! Yep, the controversy really is as mundane as that. In fact, it was one of the issues raised at the council of Nicea to be discussed and hopefully settled, and is officially known as the Quartodeciman (lit. Fourteenth) controversy/dispute. It’s called this due to the issue being over whether the Easter celebration should follow the Jewish pattern of Passover on the 14 Nisan or not and simply follow the days of the week (Friday and Sunday). It became a bigger issue when the not only the Jewish community of believers wanted to follow this method, but when the Gentile Asian communities also claimed that their Quartodeciman practice was of Apostolic origin! It was a disciple of John the Apostle, and bishop of Smyrna, called Polycarp (c.69–c.155) who followed this practice in one of the seven churches of Asia as well as Melito, bishop of Sardis (died c.180). Irenaeus tells us that, in his old age, Polycarp visited the bishop of Rome to discuss this matter with him as the Roman church had diverged from the Quartodeciman custom and celebrated the resurrection according to the day Jesus rose instead: Sunday (the first day of the week). We gain an important glimpse about this whole dispute from Irenaeus though, when he tells us of the meeting between Polycarp and Anicetus: Neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it, as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him. … And they parted from each...

BOOK REVIEW: Four Views on Hell 2nd edition

| 17th March 2021 | Book Review

BOOK REVIEW: Four Views on Hell 2nd edition

This is a guest post by David Jakubovic. The views are that of the author and don't necessarily reflect the views of That Ancient Faith. A 20 year update of the 1996 book by the same name, this slim volume (211 pages) is a helpful cross-section of current evangelical thought on Final Punishment, sampling Denny Burk on Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT hereafter), John Stackhouse Jr on Conditional immortality (CI hereafter), Robin Parry on Christian Universalism (CU hereafter) and Jerry Walls on (a Protestant) Purgatory. Preston Sprinkle pens both Introduction and Conclusion, plus there are Scripture, Author and Subject indices. The Introduction sets the scene, listing the 3 historically available views along with speculation about post-mortem purgatorial sanctification, before clarifying that it is not the existence of hell that is here in doubt: “They agree that hell exists, but they differ on what this hell is like.” (11) Sprinkle lists verses used by all 4 views, then introduces the academic background of the 4 essayists. He finally issues a substantial challenge to the reader: “You, of course, will probably agree with only one of the following essays and disagree with the other three. But keep in mind: disagreement is not refutation. We must be able to refute the evidence of the views that we disagree with and then provide more compelling biblical evidence for the view that we uphold.” (15) Burk kicks off Chapter One (‘Eternal Conscious Torment’) with a startling parable. He visualizes a man torturing creatures in increasing order of complexity and dignity: first torturing a grasshopper, a frog, a bird, a puppy and finally a human baby. Burk states: “In each of the scenarios above, the ‘sin’ is the same – pulling the legs off. The only difference in each of these scenarios is the one sinned against…The seriousness of the sin is not measured merely by the sin itself (pulling off the legs) but by the value and the worth of the one being sinned against.” (19, italics his) This macabre thought-experiment is of course a gruesome version of Anselm’s ‘Status Principle’, namely that to sin against an infinitely good God merits infinite or eternal punishment. But fellow pro-ECT essayist Walls squashes this analogy: “There is profound disanalogy in the parable that undermines the central point he wants to establish. This resides in the fact that we do not have the power to do anything to God that is remotely analogous to the harm the character in the parable inflicts on helpless creatures ranging from grasshoppers to human infants. Indeed, God is so far above us in power, glory, and moral perfection that we are utterly incapable of harming him.”1 Burk even ventures that ECT “will ultimately become a source of joy and praise for the saints as they witness the infinite goodness and justice of God.” (20) Yet it is grossly incongruous to place ECT side by side with notions of ‘joy’, ‘goodness’ or ‘justice’ as these are universally understood. The very philosophical logic behind the ‘Status Principle’ is itself highly suspect, as Kronen points out when dismantling the ‘Classical Doctrine of Hell’ (CDH): “It is by no means obvious that an offense against an infinite being must be punished by the sorts of torments envisioned by CDH. One might sin more or less gravely against such a being, and in that case it does not seem that just any sin against an infinite being would merit eternal, continuous, and excruciating pain.”2 Spiegel adds that “human guilt is at most maximally great, not infinitely great”3, meaning that human guilt is still finite: “Finite guilt, however great, presumably does not warrant endless punishment in the form of ECT.” (Spiegel, op. cit. 41) He adds that, under the ‘Status Principle’, even the first sin you commit as a child is enough to incur ‘infinite guilt’, but this does not allow for the vast spectrum of p...

What does the word "Catholic" mean?

| 08th March 2021 | Etymology

What does the word "Catholic" mean?

For many people today, non-Christians and (low church) Christians alike, when they hear the word “Catholic”, certain images spring to mind: the Pope, the rosery, Catholic school, big old churches buildings, choirboys, maybe monks or statues of Mary even; and sadly more recently, sex abuse scandals. But generally speaking, all of these are actually aspects of Roman Catholicism — a particular branch of Christianity, and not what the word “catholic” truly means as we’ll see when examining how the early church used the word and what the original Greek word means. καθολικός (katholikos) The Greek word where we get the English word “catholic” from is καθολικός (katholikos) meaning “universal”, which comes from the Greek phrase καθόλου (katholou), meaning “on the whole”, “according to the whole” or “in general” (catholicus in Latin). In non-ecclesiastical use, it still retained its root meaning in English in some literature from the 1800s, though that usage has fallen out of common use in modern times. The first reference to this word can be found in Acts 9:31 when speaking about “the church throughout [all] Judea, Galilee, and Samaria...”. The words “throughout” and “all” are καθ (κατά) and ὅλης (ὅλος) respectively in Greek, which together come to form the word καθολικός. The earliest historical use of the word in the context of the Church can be found in one of the letters of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written around AD 107, where he writes: Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. From here on we begin to see that the word catholic was used in reference to mean “orthodoxy” (the word “orthodox” means “right belief”) as opposed to the non-orthodox heretics who were then by definition not catholic as they were not ‘according to the whole’ which was, as Jude wrote, “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). The Catholic Church, in its original and Apostolic sense, would have meant the entirety of the Body of Christ across the world; i.e. all of the believers wherever they may be, rather than it being “universal” in the physical sense that the institution of “church” should be all encompassing (like as an official, global institution that all must attend). The difference may be subtle, but it’s an important one. Historical Use of the Term As we saw above, Ignatius was the earliest Christian writer we have who applied the word katholikos to the Church. Some people object to using Ignatius as evidence of this, as some of the letters attributed to him are considered spurious (not authentic), though scholarly opinion on this is pretty universal in which are genuine letters as neither Eusebius nor Jerome makes any reference to the eight spurious epistles. Justo L. Gonzalez explains in his book, The Story of Christianity: Volume 1: The Early Church to the Reformation, Volume One: The original meaning of Catholic church referred to this episcopal collegiality, as well as with the multiform witness to the gospel in several canonical gospels. … It was the church “according to the whole,” that is, according to the total witness of all the apostles and all the evangelists. The various Gnostic groups were not “Catholic” because they could not claim this broad foundation. … Only the Church Catholic, the church “according to the whole,” could lay claim to the entire apostolic witness. (pp.81,82). The other early uses that appear after Ignatius are in the Martyrdom of Polycarp (around AD 150), “…and to all the congregations of the Holy and Catholic Church in every place…”, and then also in the earliest New Testament list from around AD 177, the Muratorian fragment the phrase is found three times: “…in the esteem of the Church catholic …...

Is The Rapture Biblical?

| 21st September 2020 | Eschatology

Is The Rapture Biblical?

Most people have some idea about what the rapture is – or do they? Generally there is an idea or concept of a form of escapism from the world when Jesus returns, which happens pre, mid or post tribulation and in some connection to the millenium. Now, if you understood any of those terms, you are most likely on, or aware of, the Dispensationalism side of things. There’s a lot of doctrine all bundled together in “end times” beliefs, and a fair bit of speculation around “the rapture” with its timing and logistics etc. which makes the whole thing a but murky, but nonetheless, it’s pretty much taken for granted as a staple belief within the Evangelical world. But has this always been so, and does it have any biblical basis? In short: sort of. What is The Rapture? This is the primary verse where the doctrine finds its footing: …then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. — 1 Thessalonians 4:17 On the face of it, that is a pretty obscure (and short) text, yet so much has been written on and speculated about around this event.  I’m not going to cover every aspect of rapture doctrine here, but rather want to just highlight the context of this verse and its parallels in Paul’s other letters, as this seems to get lost under centuries of doctrinal baggage, which, incidentally, also the leads to the next point to look at: is the rapture biblical? The origin of The Rapture The word “rapture” itself comes from the Latin word rapere, which means: “to seize” or “to abduct”. It is a translation from the Greek word that is rendered as “caught up” (ἁρπάζω / harpázō) in our English Bibles today. For many, asking if this belief is biblical is a non-starter because it is assumed so based on 1 Thess. 4 so obviously it is. But this is a presupposition, reading the modern ideas of what “the rapture” means into the text. The modern idea being that Jesus comes back briefly (and maybe secretly), whooses all the Christians into the sky and takes them to heaven, away from all the troubles on the earth, before coming back later to do a proper “second coming”. John Nelson Darby, a 19th-century theologian, is often credited with creating this premillennial rapture doctrine, followed closely by C.I. Scofield who wrote a best-selling annotated Bible which promoted Darby’s rapture views in its footnote commentary. This particular Bible became wildly popular across America in the early 1900s and ended up solidifying the futurist dispensational viewpoint for generations to come within Evangelicalism. Despite the popularity of Scofield’s Bible, what it (and Darby) taught was a novel idea which had not been seen nor heard of before in the previous 1800 years of Church History, yet many Christians accepted it without hesitation, likely due to it being part of the exposition alongside the Scripture they were reading, and therefore a seeming authority. I realise there is somewhat of an irony here in that I’m acting similarly like an authority telling you that this belief is wrong whereas Scofield was writing as though it were accurate, but in an even more ironic twist, just a handful of verses later, the same letter to the Thessalonians says to “test everything; hold fast to what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). This is what I would invite you to do: don’t just take my word for it, test everything and see if what I say is accurate. The context of The Rapture So what is the context of these verses, if not about being whisked away into the sky with Jesus? A couple of things, but one slightly more obvious than the other, though still overlooked by people, I’ve noticed; the other requires knowing some more about the ancient Greco-Roman culture of the time. Firstly, we only need go back a few verses to see what Paul is writing about here: he begins the passage in verse 13 by say...