Jesus and the Olivet Discourse: The Son of Man Coming on the Clouds of Heaven (it doesn’t mean what you think it means) (Part 5: The Jewish War Series)

“And then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.” (Mark 13:26-27)

If you grew up in the late 20^th century American Evangelical subculture like I did, you know (or at least you think you know) what these verses are about: Jesus’ second coming at the end of the seven-year tribulation. I mean, after you cut I Thessalonians 4:16-17, Daniel 7:13-14, Revelation 19:11-16, Mark 13:26-27, Matthew 24:30-31, and Luke 21:27 together, with no regard whatsoever to the original context of any of those verses within their respective books—what else could it mean?

Well, to the point, it means quite a lot, and it doesn’t mean what you grew up thinking it meant.

Daniel 7:13-14, a Little Horn, and the Son of Man
When Jesus talks about “the Son of Man coming in the clouds,” he is alluding to Daniel 7:13-14. The details of Daniel 7 are much too complicated to discuss here, I need to give a very brief overview of what is going on in Daniel 7. Here goes…

In Daniel 7, Daniel sees a vision of four beasts coming out of the sea, each beast represents a world empire—and the fact they are coming out of the sea tells us they are associated with the evil forces of chaos. In any case, when the fourth beast comes, at one point a “little horn” sprouts up on his head and displaces three of his other horns. This “little horn” speaks boastful things and makes war against the saints.

It’s at that point that Daniel then sees “the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven.” Now, here is the key thing to realize—in Daniel’s vision, the Son of Man is not coming from heaven to earth, but rather from earth to heaven, to be presented before the Ancient of Days (i.e. God). In other words, Daniel 7:13-14 is describing an ascent to heaven, and not a descent from heaven.

To the point, it is vindication language that describes the Son of Man and his people being victorious over the enemies of God. In its original context, Daniel 7 was speaking about the oppression that Antiochus Epiphanes (i.e. the little horn) inflicted on the Jewish people (i.e. the saints) in roughly 167 BC, and the hope that God would raise up a messianic figure (i.e. the Son of Man) who would be given the power and authority of God to defeat the enemies of God’s people.

To put it another way, to say, “the Son of Man coming on the clouds” in a first century Jewish context, everyone knew what you were talking about—not a declaration of some future “second coming” from heaven to earth, but rather a declaration that God’s Messiah would be vindicated and given power to defeat God’s enemies.

Therefore, when this is understood in the context of Jesus’ prophecy and the resulting events of 66-70 A.D., what we see is this: Jesus is saying that when the disciples see God’s judgment upon Jerusalem that has set itself up as God’s enemy by rejecting him as the Messiah, that will mark the vindication of Jesus and of his people. God will have shown before the world that He has rejected the rebellious Jewish nation and Jerusalem, and has vindicated Jesus, the true Messiah, and his followers, the true people of God who are comprised of both Jew and Gentile. From that point on, the Jewish nation was no longer the “people of God” simply because of their heritage. No longer was it a matter of nationality, but rather a matter of faith in Christ alone.

But what are we to make of the Son of Man “sending out his angels to gather his elect from the four winds” (Mark 13:27/Matthew 24:31)? The word angelos (what we translate as “angel”) can also mean “messengers,” often times in terms of a royal messenger going about the king’s business. Does Jesus have to mean “heavenly angelic beings,” or, in the context of the obvious messianic-kingly hopes the disciples had, could he not have been making a reference to the disciples themselves that they would be his “messengers” to the Gentile nations to spread the Gospel, and to “gather his elect”—those, both Jew and Gentile, who would put their faith in Christ? Given the fact that this is precisely what happened after 70 AD, it seems reasonable to interpret these verses in this way.

Certainly, the apostle Paul had been among the Gentiles well before 70 AD, but it is also quite obvious that he was met with constant resistance by both Jews and even Jewish-Christians. Why? Because the Temple was still standing; there was still a question of the role Jews would play in Christ’s Gospel. When the Temple was destroyed though, that question was answered: the true people of God in Christ would not be defined in any nationalistic terms; the Jewish nation itself had suffered God’s judgment for rejecting Christ and continually fighting against the mission of his followers among the Gentiles.

“One Taken, One Left” and “No One Knows When the Lord Will Come”
I need to also touch upon two other things found in Matthew 24:36-44 that are often misinterpreted by the Hal Lindseys and Tim LaHayes of American Evangelicalism. In that passage Jesus says that (a) no one knows—not angels, or the Son, but only the Father—when the coming of the Son of Man will be, and that whenever it does happen, that (b) “one will be taken and one will be left.”

It is often assumed that these things are referring to the rapture, in which Christians will be taken up into heaven, and unbelievers would be “left behind.” Well, no. There’s a better explanation for these verses than the claim that Jesus was telling the disciples about a future “second coming” and “secret rapture” that wouldn’t happen for at least 2000 more years. (For that matter, the very concept of a “rapture” is simply not biblical…but that’s another issue).

When read within the context of Jesus’ prophecy in 33 AD about the destruction of the Temple, and the subsequent destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, Matthew 24:36-44 isn’t hard to figure out. Jesus is basically saying to the disciples, “The Temple is going to be destroyed because the Jewish people have rejected me as the Messiah and will persecute you, my followers. I am the Son of Man who will be vindicated, they are the little horn, you are my followers, the saints. No one knows exactly when this will happen, but it’s going to happen within this generation (Matthew 24:34). And when Rome comes in and destroys Jerusalem, they will take some people into slavery and they will leave some in the land.”

Anyone familiar with basic military practices of not only the ancient world, but of even today, can see that these verses can easily be understood in terms of a conquering nation coming in, rounding up rebels, and leaving the peasantry behind. This was precisely what Nebuchadnezzar did in 587 BC, when Jerusalem and the first Temple was destroyed, and this was precisely what Titus did in 70 AD, when he destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple as well.

Everything that Jesus says in the Olivet Discourse makes perfect sense within that first century context. It is irresponsible and foolish to completely ignore that original context, and instead cling to the baseless and speculative fancies of the likes of Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye. Sadly, the reason why so many people simply accept the claims of Lindsey and LaHaye is because people are largely ignorant of Christian history. And sadly, because so many have become so distracted with speculations about third temples, raptures, and Nicolae Carpathia, they’ve presented a version of Christianity to the world that is utterly absurd.

And, if I may get on a soapbox for a second, let me say this: Satan is the great deceiver of the whole world. What greater deception has there been within American Evangelicalism over the past 50-100 years than this rabid “End Times-Industrial-Complex” that leads so many astray?

Conclusions
Understanding the Olivet Discourse in its original context, as Jesus’ prophecy about the destruction of the Temple that did, in fact, happen in 70 AD, has huge implications.

First, one has to realize that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all probably written somewhere between 70-80 AD, right after the events of 66-70 A.D. While no doubt the various stories and parables of Jesus were known and written down separately among the early Christian communities before 70 AD, we must ask why it was at this time that the Synoptic Gospels were compiled? It seems to me that it was the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy concerning the destruction of the Jewish nation and Temple that was the impetus for composing the Synoptic Gospels. Just as a prophet’s disciples in the Old Testament collected and preserved that prophet’s message when his prophecies were fulfilled, thus vindicating him as a true prophet, so too did Jesus’ disciples collect and preserve his teachings and record of his ministry when his major prophecy about the Temple’s destruction was fulfilled.

Second, it also helps us read the narratives in Mark, Matthew, and Luke with a better understanding. Go ahead and read Mark 11-16 and Matthew 21-28, the chapters from Jesus’ triumphal entry to his resurrection, and note how many times the issues of kingship and Temple pop up—it’s everywhere. Let me just point out one instance, when Jesus is put on trial before the Sanhedrin: he is accused of saying the Temple would be destroyed, and when the high priest asks him if he is the Messiah, what does he say? Basically this, “Yes, and you are going to see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of God and coming on the clouds of heaven!” Translation? “Yes, I’m the Messiah—and you’re the little horn of Daniel 7! You are just like Antiochus Epiphanes! You are the enemy of God’s people, and you will be destroyed!”

And it is at that point that the high priest tears his robes and the Sanhedrin declares Jesus deserves death. And then, a few hours later, after they convinced Pilate to nail Jesus up on the cross, what two things do they mock him for? Being the king of Israel and saying he would destroy the Temple.

And while we’re at it, let’s look at the martyrdom of Stephen in Acts 6-7. What is he accused of? Speaking against Moses and the Temple. What’s his response? “I’m not speaking against Moses—it was your forefathers who rebelled against him! As for this Temple—God never asked for one, and he doesn’t need one!” And when he described the Temple as “being made by human hands,” Stephen was equating it with an idol—and as soon as he did that, along with shoving it in their faces that they had killed the Messiah, they proceeded to stone him. And what did he say as he was being stoned? “I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”

Just as Jesus had said, Stephen was making it clear: the Sanhedrin was the enemy, they were making war with the saints—the followers of Christ. Thus, when the Temple was eventually destroyed, it was seen as the vindication of Jesus and his followers.

Finally, it is often claimed by some scholars that (a) the early Christians expected the “second coming” to happen in their lifetime, but when Jesus didn’t come back by the end of the first century, that (b) they had to essentially “re-invent” Christianity so it would survive. But such claims are really based on the same misreading of the Olivet Discourse that people like Lindsey and LaHaye share.

By contrast, if we properly understand the Olivet Discourse within its first century context, we should conclude that (a) yes, they did expect the Son of Man would “come on the clouds of heaven,” but that (b) they saw that as happening when the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD—hence, they expected it to happen, they proclaimed it would happen, and it happened. Simply put, Christianity survived precisely because the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD—Jesus’ prophecy had come true.

Final Note
Now, I realize that understanding the Olivet Discourse in this way raises the natural question, “If that is true, then will there be a future ‘second coming’?” I admit, for those of us who have grown up with the Evangelical Dispensationalism of Lindsey and LaHaye, all this can cause a certain amount of eschatological vertigo. It’s something I am still contemplating and thinking about. At this point, I’d say this: yes, I believe that at some point in the future, Christ will return, the dead will be resurrected, and there will be a re-created heavens and earth.

At the same time, that future is “the future” from my perspective. God is not bound by time—that future is not “the future” to him…it is ever present.