Coming, Presence, or Nearness?
It was just two days before Passover and his death, sometime around midnight, when Jesus and his Apostles left Jerusalem and crossed the Valley of Cedars (Kidron), and then they walked up the Mount of Olives and sat down in a quiet spot. Then, as they looked at the marvelous Temple of Jehovah in the light of the full moon, some of his Apostles commented on the magnificence of these buildings. And Jesus said, 'Do you see all these things? I tell you the truth; There won't be a stone left on top of a stone here that won't be thrown down.'
Then, just after Jesus had foretold the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (as recorded in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21), Jesus' Apostles asked him to tell them when the thing he had just foretold would happen. It's important for us to know exactly what they asked, because this will help us to understand the meaning of his reply better, which may have to do with the end of the period (age) in which we are now living.
However, the words that Matthew quoted Jesus' Apostles as asking him are quite different from what he was quoted as saying in Mark and Luke the other two. Notice:
In Greek, Matthew 24:3 reads:
'Eipon hemin pote tauta estai kai ti to
semion tes ses parousias kai synteleias tou aionos?'
Word-for-word in English, that reads:
'Say to/us when these will/be and what the sign at/the your being/next/to and
ending the age?'
In Greek, Mark 13:4 reads:
'Eipon hemin pote tauta estai kai ti to semion hotan melle tauta synteleisthai panta?'
Word-for-word in English, that reads:
'Say to/us when these will/be and what the sign when may/be/about these ending all?'
In Greek, Luke 21:7 reads:
'Didaskale, pote oun tauta estai kai to semion hotan melle tauta ginesthai?'
Word-for-word in English, this reads:
'Teacher, say therefore these will/be and what the sign when may/be/about these begin?'
So, notice that the account in Matthew quotes Jesus' Apostles as asking a totally different question from what Mark and Luke say that they asked. For, in Matthew they were said to be asking what the signs would be of Jesus' being next to (gr. parousias) and of the ending of the age. While Mark and Luke seem to quote them as simply asking him what the signs would be when the Temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed.
We find the Greek word parousias (pronounced par-ou-see-us), which is only used in Matthew's account, also being used in similar context at 1 Corinthians 15:23, 1 Thessalonians 2:19, 3:13, 4:15, 5:23, 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 9, James 5:7, 8, 2 Peter 1:16, 3:4, 12, and at 1 John 2:28. But, when does this happen, and how should parousias be properly translated?
Well, some Bibles have translated the word parousias at Matthew 24:3 as coming, but the problem with this is that the Greek word for coming is erchomenonÉ which doesn't have the same meaning as parousias. However, although much has been written about the meaning and significance of the Greek word parousias, it probably wasn't the word that Jesus actually used, since he (as well as Paul, James, John, and Jude) spoke Aramaic, not Greek (for more information, see the link Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek?)
So, this raises the question: Does parousias (present or next to) really best describe what the Apostles were asking about? In fact, did they really ask such a question at all?
Are the Words of Matthew 24:3 Spurious (Not Genuine)?
Look again at the question that Jesus was asked in the books of Mark and Luke (as shown above)! If you examine the words closely, you'll see that they didn't say that the Apostles asked about the signs of Jesus' presence or coming. Notice that there is no mention of a parousia in either of these parallel accounts, or any question about Jesus' coming! So, somebody badly misquoted the words of Jesus' Apostles!
Also, notice that the words in Matthew don't make as much sense as what Mark and Luke quoted them as saying! Because, it would have been an unusual thing for Jesus' Apostles to ask him about a second coming, since all the Gospel accounts indicate that they didn't expect him to leave at all, but to 'restore the Kingdom to IsraEl' (see Acts 1:6). And since Jesus hadn't mentioned that he would be involved in the destruction of the Temple, there was no reason for the Apostles to have tied this destruction to Jesus and to a second coming or presence!
Then, why does Matthew's account read that way? Our research has proven that there are some additions to and errors in this Bible book. How could this have happened? There is strong evidence that the book of Matthew, as well as the writings of Peter, Paul, John, James, and Jude (where we find the other uses of the word parousias) were translated from Aramaic into Greek sometime in the Second Century, supposedly by someone using the name Zorba. And somewhere along the line (possibly during this translating), extra or unusual words were introduced (such as parousias), some mistakes were made (see the Note The missing Ancestor of Jesus), and over the years, some spurious phrases were added (see the Note Matthew 28:19). So, either Mark and Luke (who apparently wrote in Greek) were guilty of serious errors of omission when writing their Gospel accounts, or there are some spurious additions to Matthew's account.
However, later on in Chapter 24, we do read of the events surrounding Jesus' actual coming (gr. ercomi), starting at Matthew 24:29. And since those prophecies were never fulfilled during the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple, these verses must specifically refer to a greater series of events which have not yet happened. And thereafter, throughout the rest of Matthew 24 and 25, Jesus talks about this period of his arrival (gr. elthon), which appears to apply to the events that include (or lead up to) the Battle of Armageddon.
So, are we saying that this 'Zorba' deliberately changed the Bible? No, for understand that these early Christian translators and scribes didn't view such writings as 'the Bible,' but rather, as the words of Christian brothers. And it appears as though some of them added textual comments or viewpoints, which were later copied and included as part of the original books. However, there are clear cases of later attempts at changing the Bible to make it come in line with false Church doctrines, as can be seen in the cases of Matthew 28:19, 20 and 1 John 5:7.
Two More Comings?
However, based on what appears to be a corruption of Matthew's text, some religious groups have argued that there were to be two more comings of Jesus; a heavenly coming and a later earthly coming. For they teach that Jesus comes first in a heavenly role, followed by the ouster of the Slanderer from heaven and a time of great woe for the earth (the signs), and then he comes again to bring Armageddon to the earth. So, they teach that the period between these two comings or arrivals is the time of Jesus' presence (parousias).
The scripture they quote to prove this theory is found at Revelation 12:7-12, where we read: 'Next, war broke out in heaven. Michael and his messengers went to war against the dragon, and the dragon and his messengers fought back; but he lost and could no longer stay in heaven. So, the huge dragon was thrown out. He is the first snake, the one who is called the Slanderer and Opposer, who is leading the whole earth astray. He was thrown down to the earth along with his messengers. Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say, This is the moment when the salvation, the power, the Kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Anointed One begins. Because, he who has been accusing our brothers has been thrown downÉ the one who has been complaining about them day and night before our God! They conquered him by the blood of the Lamb, by the things they said while they were testifying, and because they didn't value their lives even in the face of death! This is why the heavens and those who live there should be joyful! But woe to the earth and to the sea, because the Slanderer has come down to you in a rage, knowing that he has little time.'
Now, it is true that the things mentioned in this scripture didn't happen in some ancient time, because, as we were told at the beginning of the Revelation, it was a vision of what would happen 'in the Lord's Day.' So, when is that Lords Day, and when will the prophecy, which starts at Matthew 24:29, begin its fulfillment?
Well, those who teach the two comings of Jesus point to 1914-C.E. as the time when this great war in heaven began and when the Slanderer was thrown down to the earth, bringing a time of great woes upon us. For, that was when the terrible First World War started, followed by famine throughout Europe and the horrible world-wide plague of Spanish Influenza, which each brought death to millions throughout the earth. This Influenza plague, by the way, was so bad that the then U.S. President, Woodrow Wilson, commented that these events all looked like 'the ride of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse.'
So, was this conclusion correct, and did the year 1914 see the great war in heaven, the ride of the four horsemen, and the beginning of Jesus' heavenly presence? Well, no one can be sure of the meanings of the events that started in 1914, and these things could in fact be the signs that Jesus told us to look for as 'the beginnings of the birth pains,' which he spoke of in verse 8. However, there are no scriptures or prophecies that tell of two comings of Jesus. So, although the signs could possibly be correct, we have a problem with the theory that Jesus came in 1914.
Notice what all three accounts say will happen at the coming of Jesus: 'The sun will grow dark, the moon won't put out light, the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the Heavens will shake É the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds in the sky with power and great glory.'
Therefore, it appears as though 'the little time' during which the Slanderer is allowed to bring his rage to the earth is still something that will happen in the future.
So, saying that Jesus has already 'come' is very misleading and technically wrong; and this leaves us with no reason to believe that the things which follow in the account in Matthew 24, 25 (such as the identifying of the faithful wise slave) have already happened. For more information, see the linked documents, 'Armageddon – When?' and 'The Faithful and Sensible Slave.'
A New Look at the Meaning of Matthew 24
Now, let's just take away what look like spurious words in Matthew's account in Chapter 24 verse 3, and see what we find.
Notice that the answer to the question which Jesus' Apostles asked (about the destruction of the Temple) becomes clearer in verses 4 through 28, and it appears to be speaking of things that happened to Jerusalem back in the 1st Century (not something that happens in an unnamed 'greater fulfillment' a couple of milleniums later). So, there would be signs such as wars, famines, plagues, earthquakes, persecution of Christians, and a preaching of the good news of the Kingdom among all the nations before the Temple in Jerusalem is destroyed. This would then lead up to the coming of the disgusting destroyer, as mentioned in verse 15 (the coming of the armies of Rome), which is followed by the difficult time or great tribulation, mentioned in verse 21 (the siege of Jerusalem and the resulting terrible famine and killing within). Yes, all of this was fulfilled in the years between 66 and 70-C.E.
But if the above conclusions are true, then Jesus' coming happened somewhere around 70-C.E., because we are told at Matthew 24:29, 30, 'Immediately after (gr. eutheos de) that difficult time, the sun will grow dark and the moon will not give out its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the Son of Man's sign will appear in the sky, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with great power and glory.'
Did this series of events take place immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple? Some (who call themselves preterists) say that all Bible prophecies have already been fulfilled. However, we have neither seen nor heard of any obvious signs that Jesus has ever come 'on the clouds of the sky with great power and glory.' So we would have to conclude that such a belief is both faithless and cynical.
The Arrival of Jesus
It is interesting that Neither Mark nor Luke use the words 'Immediately after' (gr. eutheos de). Mark simply writes that Jesus said (at Mark 13:24), 'But in those days (gr. alla en ekeinais tais hemerais) following that difficult time,' and Luke wrote (at Luke 21:27),'And then (gr. kai tote) they will see the Son of Man Coming in a cloud with great power and glory.'
So once again, we have a major deviation from the words of Jesus as found in Matthew. Which can we trust?
Well, let's go back to the prophecy that Jesus was quoting from when he spoke those words, to see what it says. It's found at Joel 2:30-32, which reads, 'Miracles I'll create in the skyÉ fire, blood, and smoke I'll bring to the land. The sun will convert into darkness, and the moon [will be changed] into blood, before the coming and appearance, of the great Day of the Lord.'
And notice again that Joel wrote (at 3:12-16), 'Awaken all nations and make them decend, upon the Valley of JehoShaphat; for there I will sit and separate nationsÉ those that live round-about you! And then send for the scythes, since the crops are ready to harvest! Climb in and tread, for the wine vat is fullÉ the vats overflow with their badness! [Cries] resound through the valley, where they are ready to be punished, for the Day of the Lord is now near! Then the sun and the moon will grow dark, and all the stars will grow dim. Out of Zion the Lord will then shout, and from JeruSalem His voice will be heard. Then the heavens and earth will be shaken, but the Lord will spare all His people, and make the sons of IsraEl strong. And all those will then be saved, who have called on the Name of the Lord.'
If you read the whole book of Joel (it is interesting reading), you will see that his prophecy talks about the destruction of Jerusalem. But then it suddenly changes focus and tells of God's rage against those nations that did the attacking, and of an Armageddon-like destruction of them 'in the day of the Lord (Jesus).' However, this occurs after his people have been held as captives by them. So, the event doesn't appear to happen immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem, as the account in Matthew says.
Therefore, it is our (non-preterist) opinion that the accounts in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 all start off with Jesus discussing the signs that the Apostles had asked about, which would lead up to the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple. And it appears as though all these signs were fulfilled back in the 1st Century. However, the signs that led up to that ancient destruction could also have a second and greater fulfillment.
And because Jesus' words in the account at Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 clearly show that he was referring to the prophecy in Joel, we must assume that his arrival didn't happen 'immediately after' the destruction of Jerusalem, nor was he 'present' before its destruction. Rather, as the prophecy in Joel tells us; there is still to be a period of destruction and the freeing of God's people, which will happen at Jesus' arrival during the day of the Lord, which is yet future.
To return to the previous document, select the Back arrow on your browser