Matthew 24

Part 4

The next anomaly I want to address in this chapter; is the reference to the "coming of the Son of man". (Which again, will only be covering a couple of verses in this chapter of this study.) This portion will also be divided into multiple parts; for of course as I begin to dig, there is so much I end up finding.

So let's begin with: there are two variants of this phrase. One is simply "coming of the Son of man" and the other is some rendition of "coming of the Son of man in glory".

There are two "coming of the Son of man" in Scripture; or even technically three, if we were to count the incarnation. We have the incarnation; followed by the ascent upon death into heaven (Daniel 7:13); the bodily resurrection; (which was a "return of Christ to earth" although not in "glory") a bodily ascent back to heaven; and a glorified bodily return to earth.

This phrase "Son of man in glory" appears in three parallel passages; those being Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. All these passage have very similar language, but also some variant of phrasing. Matthew is the only chapter that uses "clouds of heaven". Compare this to Daniel which also uses "coming", "clouds" and "heaven". Daniel depicts a very specific context to this "coming", "clouds" and "heaven". That context is "return to the Father". More information about this event is given to us in Revelation 5.

Matthew:

Matthew is also the only passage that uses the phrase "immediately after the tribulation of those days…". Mark and Luke only say "after the tribulation…" (omitting "immediately"). Mark uses the phrase "coming in the clouds" and Luke says "coming in a cloud".

Luke:

Now Luke is interesting; because compare Luke's "cloud" to Acts 1:9. Acts speaks of Jesus's bodily ascension back to heaven; which is also in a (singular) cloud. Could Luke 21's "coming" actually be talking about the bodily ascension of Christ's return back to heaven?

Luke uses "cloud" in the singular in one other passage; which is about the Mount of Transfiguration event. So here in, this could be some sort of foreshadow of the believers' experience of "caught up in the air" as Paul describes in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. Peter, James and John saw Moses and Elijah in that event and in the "caught up in the air", are believers "transfigured" as Moses and Elijah were? Note that in that event, Jesus was the only one the apostles actually couldn't "see". He was too "bright". Yet they could see each other and they could see Moses and Elijah.

Now look at verse 28. They are instructed to look up for their redemption draws near.

So if the passage in Luke is actually talking about Christ's bodily return to heaven; verse 28 would make more sense in the context of Pentecost. For us believers who are post Pentecost; our redemption is realized at regeneration, which is caused by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

For us who are physically present living between Pentecost and the end of time; the final resurrection is not our "redemption". Just as in Christ's rising from the dead was not actually the completion of the atonement, but only the earthy proof that death had been conquered. The last enemy to be conquered was death and this is why Christ died. At the point of His/his death, the conquering of this enemy was actually accomplished. The proof was that He/he came back from the dead, because God by nature is an immortal entity.

Not to say the resurrection wasn't important as the manifest reality of redemption of the material world; because it certainly was. After all, the redemption plan would not be complete without the material world aspect of it; because the material world was what was corrupted by the manifestation of evil in the first place.

Evil came into existence, likely as the reaction to God's creative action; or at least that's my theory. (See Bible Study: Theory on Origin of Evil) And the fact that God knew this would happen was part of His knowledge of good and evil. The nature of God being the entity that He is though, can not be corrupted by that knowledge and this is why Christ never sinned. His Divine nature is incorruptible. But because Adam wasn't God; this is why the fall happened in the first place.

Thus not that the resurrection was necessary from the judicial standpoint of forgiving sin; but more that it was inevitable from the standpoint of the nature of God. The last enemy to overcome (death) was a "piece of cake" in comparison to contending with the wrath of God, as determined by His righteousness. I.E. the resurrection was not the "hard part". Taking on sin was the "hard part". We know this because Jesus says: "It is finished." before he actually dies.

Now if the atonement had been forsaken (not on account of Jesus humanity choosing to sin); the bodily resurrection would not have been prevented, yet as pertained to redeeming a fallen creation would have been unnecessary.

If that had been the case the resurrection would have likely commenced the absolute annihilation of the cosmos. The only thing that would have come into existence hence, would have been what ever God chose to replace it with for the sake of His resurrected Son.

I'm not sure I could say there even would have been a Lake of Fire, as a remnant of what had been; for judgement itself is actually predicated upon the reality of the atonement. After all, the Redeemer is the judge, for the Father gave him that authority because he was the son of man. So forsaking the atonement would have also meant forsaking that rightfully bestowed authority.

Yet Scripture does declare that the cosmos was the Son's inheritance of His own choosing. The fact that the Son wanted that inheritance was the reason He created it in the first place. This is why Scripture says all things were made by him and through him. So to create the inheritance only to forsake it, would have manifest some form of "shadow of turning" in God. At the very least a "divinity" indecisive enough to change his mind, which invariably would have dethroned him as Divinity to begin with, because He would have broken His own word.

Now if Christ had sinned, there would have been no creation period. Again demonstrating the dethroning of a divinity that does not meet the qualification to be Divine to begin with.

So, thus (now having been blasted with that fire hose of theology!) For us post Pentecost, our "translation" is like unto Christ's resurrection. It's the proof of the finality of the reality of the atonement. We've already been redeemed upon conversion because of the completed atonement within material time.

So going back to verse 28 "…your redemption draws near.." can only be talking about Pentecost as atonement was made applicable upon them in the span of their life time. And thus would make historical contextual sense also for Jesus to tell them that their generation would not pass until these things happened.

The Holy Ghost and Pentecost:

Now here's a subject that's confusing to a lot of people. What was the relationship of the Holy Spirit to believers prior to Pentecost? We get several clues from Scripture itself.

There is the Spirit "with" you; to "in" you dynamic. John 14:17 He "..dwells with you and shall be in you". Several of the epistles talk about God's spirt "in" believers. The Old Testament also reveals that this is a condition that is coming in time upon believers. (Ezekiel 36:27)

Now the "indwelling of the Holy Spirit" is not to be confused with one having been atoned for. Those who had the Spirit "with" them as opposed to "in" them were not in any more danger of losing their salvation because Christ was still the "lamb slain from the foundation of the world". Atonement having taken place outside of time, as well as within time secured that for them; even if they never knew what it was like (prior to the death of Christ) to be cleaved to God through the Spirit.

Now the reason the "great tribulation" was so great, actually wasn't in Jesus's decision making process to complete the atonement or not to complete the atonement. He'd already decided that at the point he was incarnated. The tribulation was about whether or not the mortal part of Him/him could endure. Was the human Jesus going to "give up the ship" (basically by going insane)?

It was pretty ingenious how God had set up the "triune death" that represented the severance between Himself and Adam. There was a "spiritual death", a physical death and an eternal judgement that became the consequence of Adam's sin. And because God had constructed Adam as a body, soul and spirit; He was able to "dismantle" Jesus in the unfolding of the atonement to "preserve his sanity" so He…he could actually "finish the job". The human soul of Jesus had two options; either descend to Sheol or go insane. And insanity likely would have caused the Roman authorities to rule against putting him to death, because insanity was not an executable offense in the absence of a committed criminal act. Enough of human reasoning (as related to being created in God's image) remained intact for even fallen humanity to understand that would not have been just in God's eyes. Today we don't see the insane that have committed crimes, as even fit to stand trial.

So the event that causes this dynamic change in the atoned (of Spirit "with" as opposed to Spirit "in") is Pentecost. We see this in a couple of places in the gospels. Jesus makes a reference to Peter being "converted". (Luke 22:32)

Now we often think of "conversion" as "belief"; yet it's very clear from the context of this passage that Peter; at the very least, intellectually believes. Jesus makes this statement about Peter being converted just before the crucifixion. This is after Peter's declaration to Jesus that: "You are the Christ the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16) and Jesus replies that flesh and blood did not reveal that to Peter, but the Father in Heaven did.

We also generally equate "belief" / "faith" in context of trust. Do we trust God? Do we trust that Christ did what He claimed He would? Do we trust that our sin is atoned for? Those things we also equate to "faith" or "belief".

Yet even in this context; it raises the question of whether or not we can conclude that what Jesus meant by Peter "being converted" was that Peter trusted Jesus? In the human context I certainly think Peter did. We see Peter has the intention to be martyred with Jesus, although he is not capable of carrying out that intention at the point Jesus is crucified. Post resurrection, Jesus does indicate to Peter that Peter will indeed be crucified. Now there are theological reasons related to the atonement that Peter did not die the same time Jesus did. Pete was certainly pushing in that direction by lopping off people's ears; but he escaped death at that particular point in history. So, by this we see that "belief" / "faith" and what Jesus meant by his "converted" comment to Peter, isn't about human trust either.

Sticking with Peter as our example here; we see his security in what he believed did not sustain him even after Jesus rose from the dead. But if we compare Peter to John, we see a difference between the two of them; (John believes the resurrection before he actually sees Jesus when Peter does not). Which is also interesting because the context is still pre-Pentecost.

Now to be fair here; we also don't have any Scriptural record of what John may have been struggling with either. John's own self epithet where he stats he is the "disciple Jesus loved" isn't clear if he "felt" that way, or realized what that meant prior to Pentecost.

John was probably age wise somewhere mid to late teens; (Which Paul was actually probably close in age to John.) and developmentally that is the point in life where humans generally haven't had enough life experience to be jaded from their ideological optimism. Lots of people between 15 and 25 believe "we can change the world"; but most of us who've passed the age of 50, have lost that ideological optimism.

Peter as opposed to John, was closer in chronological age (or even older) to/than Jesus. Jesus was 6 months short of 40 years old when he died. So the difference we see between Peter and John's reactions to the resurrection, could have had more to do with their chronological ages and developmental stages of life, than it had any indication that John was "closer" to Jesus (or closer to the Holy Ghost) than Peter was.

Scripture says John believed; (i.e. believed Jesus had risen from the dead) which was like unto "Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness." This does not mean though that John knew what that meant in the context of the atonement and experience of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. John believed what he saw; but he was not yet intimately acquainted with / cleaved to Christ through that event. That "knowing" didn't happen until later. And the cleaving that occurred as a result of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, is likely the impetus as to why John refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved".

Now I know the homosexual agenda reads its own meaning into John's phrase; which the material manifestation of any of Jesus's relationships was definitively not sexual. Yet the metaphor which does actually describe Pentecost as "the consummation" is true to the experience of God cleaving to believers by sending the Spirit to live "in" us and not just "with" us.

So again, the major intersecting event in all of this is Pentecost.

And… we've hit "the great divide". I'll stop here and pick up next chapter with the same wording in Mark. There will be some more comparisons between the phrasing in Mark and Matthew. I'll also cover some interesting comparisons of what Luke was describing with Noah's flood and the geological "scar tissue" God's plan has left on the earth.