The Days of the Son of Man

[CadyandZoe]

Discussion came up about Luke 17, and I began to wonder why Luke didn't place this information in with his record of the Olivet Discourse. Suddenly, I saw something that, for some reason, I didn't see before. Or perhaps I should say, I think I now understand the significance of Jesus' use of the phrase "son of man." Once I understood what he meant by it, the Olivet discourse opened up for me.

So, I would like to share my discovery in a video. Please watch it and let me know what you think.

The Days of the son of man.

[RandyPNW]

Discussion came up about Luke 17, and I began to wonder why Luke didn't place this information in with his record of the Olivet Discourse. Suddenly, I saw something that, for some reason, I didn't see before. Or perhaps I should say, I think I now understand the significance of Jesus' use of the phrase "son of man." Once I understood what he meant by it, the Olivet discourse opened up for me.

So, I would like to share my discovery in a video. Please watch it and let me know what you think.

Hi Cady: I always enjoy your videos, whether I agree completely or not, because there are always some things I will agree with, and your points are able to clarify some things I had not seen before and some of the differences among positions that we need to resolve and explain.

I'm a firm postribulationist and believe all accounts, Matt 24, Mar 13, Luk 17, and Luk 21 all say the exact same things. That being said, you show the weakness of my positions, and force me to try to explain them.

Being that I've been doing this such a long time it is not likely that I will change much. But every weak point is something I want to either justify or change. So your videos, brought home so clearly, are always helpful, regardless of any differences.

The weak point I have forces me, with your presentation, to adjust somewhat, which I've been doing for some time, but perhaps not enough. When Jesus stated, straight forward, that the temple would be destroyed by the Romans, he was asked about his Coming.

I used to think that his Coming was purely eschatological, and that Jesus was being asked to speak to 2 events, and not just one. And though this is true, I think, to some degree, I think the central focus was on the 66-70 AD event, aligning his Coming with the destruction of the temple.

In other words, like the Preterist, I do see Jesus referring to his Coming in alignment with the 70 AD destruction of the temple. The only difference I have with Preterists is that I don't see this as an *eschatological* Coming, but rather, alluding to OT references to the Coming of the Lord in judgment against Israel or against their enemies.

So when the Disciples asked Jesus about his Coming the implication was that they saw the Day of the Lord as a day of judgment against Israel, or as a day of judgment against Israel's enemies. And they likely wanted to understand the difference.

They certainly also wanted to know when the Kingdom of God would come. They did not know how to associate Jesus' Coming in judgment against Israel in their generation with his Coming to initiate his Kingdom at the end of the age. What was Jesus' relationship to Israel's judgment in 70 AD compared to his relationship to the judgment of all nations at the coming of the Kingdom?

One thing your video brought home to me was the idea that Noah's era was intended, by Jesus, to represent normal life throughout the NT era. You may or may not have intended to say it this way, but that's what came across to me.

Everyday life was like it was in Noah's day, a mix of God's "sons" with pagan "daughters of men." They carried on a normal life, mixing the godly line of Seth with the ungodly line of Cain. This was not so much a "racial" mixture, but a *religious* mixture, a combining of two very different cultures.

The opposite can be seen in Israel's being separated from the pagan world, requiring that Israel not intermarry with pagan cultures. The dangers in the NT era would be, once again, a mixing of Christian nations with pagan cultures. And this would precede final judgment of the nations.

And so, the "days of Noah" really refers, I think, to the entire NT era, simultaneous with the Tribulation period of Jewish dispersion, which Jesus said would be prompted by the initial judgment of 70 AD.

The Jews would be exiled throughout the NT period, with Jewish believers suffering the indignity of rejection by their own nation, as well as suffering among pagan nations to which they were dispersed. This is a picture of the Church age, in which Christians live among cultures that are often hostile to them and to the Gospel of Christ.

So the Day of Christ's "Revelation" is really the revelation of judgment that Jesus said he was bringing upon Israel for their heinous acts of sin. It was not the eschatological Coming of Christ, but rather, the beginning of a long age of Jewish judgment.

This would inform the Church of all nations to expect the same. While people carry on with their normal lives, ignoring the mixture between saintliness and worldliness, judgment would creep up upon all until eventually God's Kingdom would bring eternal judgment upon all.

What I'm really trying to convey is that Jesus in effect did not want to focus primarily on his 2nd Coming as an event to be planned for by dating that event in advance. It could only be prepared for by moral living, which is always under judgment by a patient God.

Jesus' focus was away from eschatological movements which might promise an escape from the issues of life that force us to make tough moral choices. False Kingdom movements, therefore, were to be avoided.

Current issues had to be confronted without expectation of an early means of avoiding this. Jesus' non-eschatological comings in judgment upon nations in the present era were just as significant in terms of eternal judgment as final judgment at the 2nd Coming.

Just how I see it. Thanks for your viewpoint though. It really drove home weaknesses that I'm trying to deal with. God bless.

[CadyandZoe]

Thanks for your comments and encouragement. I hope that my visualizations, including the chart where I compare "3 episodes" were helpful. I like it when I can create visual pictures of complex ideas.

I agree with your view that 70AD (episode 1) was God's judgment against Israel.

I'm not sure you said this exactly, but if you did, I agree that the disciples weren't asking about the Second Advent. At that point in their training,  they didn't know to expect a Second Advent.

Rather, I think the disciples were anticipating "The Advent", i.e. Jesus' coming into his role as king of Israel. Legally, Jesus was already king of Israel, but as of the moment Jesus spoke to them about the destruction of the temple, Jesus remained the Heir Apparent to the throne. The Advent of a king takes place when he is sworn in as king and he takes his rightful place on the throne. The disciples were waiting for Jesus to take the throne. Imagine their surprise when he announced that the temple would be destroyed.

Imagine what must have been on the minds of his disciples as they saw Herod's temple. They must have been excited in anticipation that Jesus would rule from such a magnificent building. These men understood, from the Bible, that Jesus would rule from Zion and live in the temple complex. I believe these men understood that Herod's temple was a sign that the Messiah would come to rule in Zion as the prophets predicted. Jesus' prediction of destruction, challenged that view.

As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

In other words, if the temple is destroyed then what IS the sign of your coming? If this beautiful new temple is not a sign of your coming (being installed as king) what are we to make of the prophetic word that the messiah would rule from Zion and live in the temple complex? When does the heir apparent become the sovereign? Were the prophets wrong?

The short answer? There is a better sign of Jesus' Advent, one that no one will miss.

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

Those who are living at that time will see the sign of the son of man. What is that sign? "The son of man coming on the clouds of the sky."

[RandyPNW]

Thanks for your comments and encouragement. I hope that my visualizations, including the chart where I compare "3 episodes" were helpful. I like it when I can create visual pictures of complex ideas.

I would emphasize: your visuals are excellent, and help us progress towards greater understanding. It doesn't matter if we get everything right the first few times through!

I'm very happy you take a humble, inquiring approach. Most utterly fail in this regard, wanting to proclaim every element of their view as fact, cutting short God's willingness to correct them gradually. I assume the same approach you do, obviously.

I agree with your view that 70AD (episode 1) was God's judgment against Israel.

I'm not sure you said this exactly, but if you did, I agree that the disciples weren't asking about the Second Advent. At that point in their training,  they didn't know to expect a Second Advent.

Rather, I think the disciples were anticipating "The Advent", i.e. Jesus' coming into his role as king of Israel. Legally, Jesus was already king of Israel, but as of the moment Jesus spoke to them about the destruction of the temple, Jesus remained the Heir Apparent to the throne. The Advent of a king takes place when he is sworn in as king and he takes his rightful place on the throne. The disciples were waiting for Jesus to take the throne. Imagine their surprise when he announced that the temple would be destroyed.

Imagine what must have been on the minds of his disciples as they saw Herod's temple. They must have been excited in anticipation that Jesus would rule from such a magnificent building. These men understood, from the Bible, that Jesus would rule from Zion and live in the temple complex. I believe these men understood that Herod's temple was a sign that the Messiah would come to rule in Zion as the prophets predicted. Jesus' prediction of destruction, challenged that view.

As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

In other words, if the temple is destroyed then what IS the sign of your coming? If this beautiful new temple is not a sign of your coming (being installed as king) what are we to make of the prophetic word that the messiah would rule from Zion and live in the temple complex? When does the heir apparent become the sovereign? Were the prophets wrong?

The short answer? There is a better sign of Jesus' Advent, one that no one will miss.

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

Those who are living at that time will see the sign of the son of man. What is that sign? "The son of man coming on the clouds of the sky."

This really helps me to look at it fresh. Yes, I see the main focus of the Olivet Discourse to be not on the eschatological event, which of course is real, but rather, on the more immediate need for Jews to repent and embrace the Messiah *before* judgment in 70 AD takes place! We do this today--we focus so much on trying to interpret the Revelation that we fail to see that its focus is on the immediate need to live for Christ today!

And yes, the sign that Jesus was focusing away from, ie the sign of his heavenly advent, was  how he wanted his disciples to look at it from the perspective of their own time. He would come as the Prophets had described the "Day of the Lord," as a time of judgment upon Israel, just as we read in Joel. It wasn't purely eschatological, but it was a rebuke to a nation that had fallen into religious compromise and apostasy.

So instead of looking for a sign of temple restoration under Herod, they were to see it as a falling structure, just as the Prophets had predicted. The sign actually was the fall of Jerusalem and the temple--not yet the future Coming of the Messianic Kingdom.