Now that we have looked at some different "comings" of Christ, we should again notice the text above. The text states emphatically that Jesus had just been "taken from you into heaven." Thus, logically when the angel proclaims that Jesus "will come back", it begs the question, come back where? Obviously if we are true to the text, the place to which Jesus would come back is the opposite of where He left. He left from His disciples to heaven. He would come back then, FROM heaven. It is also relevant to note that the angel does not say that Jesus will come back "to you." He simply says that Jesus will come back, and from deductive reasoning it is obvious as to where Jesus is coming back to.
In Revelation, the first chapter, we have a statement being made concerning a coming of Christ. It reads as follows:
"Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen."
The same verse in Young's Literal Translation is as follows: "Lo, he doth come with the clouds, and see him shall every eye, even those who did pierce him, and wail because of him shall all the tribes of the land. Yes! Amen!"
Here is Matthew 24:30 from Young's: "and then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in the heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth smite the breast, and they shall see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of the heaven, with power and much glory;"
The reason that Young translates the word "earth" here as "earth," as opposed to "land," is because although the same word is translated as both, it should normally be translated as "earth" when it is immediately connected with the word "heaven." Thus, "earth" is the opposite of "heaven" and that makes more sense than to say "heaven and land."
Nevertheless, unless one is blind it is easy to see that these verses are very similar. We know that from the context in Matthew 24, Jesus' words are directed to four of His disciples who are sitting with Him on the Mt. of Olives. His words, in context, are relevant for that generation of men. Furthermore, we understand that by the use of this phrase "coming upon the clouds of the heaven," that a reference to judgment is being made using Old Testament language that these first Jewish disciples would have been familiar with. Even though Jesus states that "they shall see the Son of Man," it begs the question as to how they would "see" Him. Using the Old Testament as a backdrop, they would see Him the same way Egypt "saw" Him. They would see him in His judgment against them through a foreign oppressor. The terms "power and much glory" here do not refer to pomp and circumstance, but to our equivalent of the terms, "shock and awe."
Thus, I disagree with those who try and make a case that this "coming" the Final one. I also disagree with those orthodox preterists who try and make this Christ's coming to the Father. It is clear that this is not what is being referred to here.
So how do we interpret John's use of the phrase, and to which coming does it refer? The context of the Revelation is to show God's servants things that were to "shortly come to pass." Taken at face value, which is correct here, this coming could not have been the Final one necessarily.
However, this again begs the question. If we continue to point out verses that depict Christ's coming, and almost always say that it cannot be the Final coming of Christ, then to where do we turn in the Bible to defend this belief? Either we have to practically deny the Final Coming, and in doing so throw out 2,000 years worth of belief by the Church, or we have to understand the text with certain presuppositions.
It could (and has) been argued, that if a late date is taken for the book of Revelation, the intended meaning will naturally change. How could the book of Revelation be speaking of the destruction of the temple if that event has already occured? Thus, the Amillennial take here is worth mentioning for the sake of argument...(To be continued...)
0 comments:
Post a Comment