The End Back Then, Part 4: Jesus' Return

'
Background
We are tracing through the verses where Jesus described the events leading up to the end of the world. First He warned His disciples of upcoming false Messiahs, wars, and disasters. Then He explained that they would become witnesses to the world. He then went on to describe the ultimate in distress which would occur in the Siege of Jerusalem; horror which would never be equaled again. All of that terror would culminate in the return of Jesus...

This is Part 4 of a five part series entitled "The End Back Then." The series entries are:

• Part 1: Rumors of Wars
• Part 2: Worldwide Witness
• Part 3: Temple Tragedy
• Part 4: Jesus' Return
• Part 5: Be Ready

The End Back Then, Part 4: Jesus' Return

It would be impossible to mistake the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, right? I mean, that would be a major event worldwide... no, universe-wide! One way to mistake it would be to misinterpret metaphors; to change what the text means in order to suit your own beliefs. While some may accuse me of doing just that, I think we should turn to the text and let it define itself. And if that does not match reality, that does not necessarily mean that the interpretation is wrong. There is another possible outcome, as we will see while we examine the signs of Jesus' Second Coming.

In Matthew 24:23-31, Mark 13:21-27, Luke 17:22-24, and Luke 21:25-28 we find verses all describing when Jesus will return. Matthew 24:23, which is nearly a word-for-word copy of Mark 13:21, begins with a reference to timing:

"At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it." NIV

"At that time"? When was that? This is conjoined to the preceding text, where it was describing the Siege of Jerusalem, so we should logically conclude that this means at a point in time in relatively close proximity to then.

Matthew 24:24-25 and Mark 13:22-23 go on to warn not to follow miracle-working false Christs who will try to trick the Elect, which is impossible, but they will try anyway. Of course, if tricking the Elect is impossible, then why bother warning them not to follow these miracle workers?

Wait just a minute. Miracle-working false Christs? Who, exactly, is giving them the power to work miracles?

The knee-jerk Christian reflex would be to say that it is Satan who is behind this, but that is just because most Christians either do not know or selectively ignore parts of the Bible. The deceivers likely come from God Himself.

What?!?! Oh yes. First, from where does all power ultimately come? God. But if that is not enough proof, I should remind you that tests of deception, up to and including miracle-working prophets, are part of God's playbook (Deuteronomy 13:1-5). So when you read in 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11 that "God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie," you know what we are talking about here.

Now you may have noticed that I have been silent on Luke's account. There is a reason for that. While Luke does warn of being led to false Christs, he wisely edited out the thought that they would be able to work miracles (Luke 17:23). That is not all the editing he did. Luke apparently was not a fan of the concept of the Elect, because he edited out that reference from his Gospel; both here and everywhere else!

Moving on, we hit one of those really odd patches of verses where Matthew and Luke both have content that Mark does not have. In Matthew 24:27-28, Jesus told His disciples that His return would be visible all over the world like a flash of lightning, and that vultures gather around corpses. I am not really sure what that last part about the vultures is supposed to mean, and I am not particularly satisfied by any of the explanations given in the classic commentaries. However, Luke takes a crack at it for us.

In Luke 17:24, Jesus also explained about His lightning-like visibility on His return. Then, a little later in Luke 17:37, we find a similar vulture-related comment. Luke 17:35-36 does provide some contextual meaning for these vultures, because in those verses Jesus explained that when He returned, certain people would be "taken." So when we get to Luke 17:37, a disciple asked "Where?," as in where will these people be taken? It is then that Jesus replied about vultures gathering around corpses, which still leaves the verse a bit open for interpretation despite Luke's added context, because, for example, we do not know if it is the good people or the bad people who are "taken". The idea of the gathering of the Elect (which we will see a little later) would suggest it is the good ones who are taken, but then, metaphorically, they are the vultures gathering around the corpse, which seems exceedingly odd.

Next we come to the shared sentiment of Matthew 24:29 and Mark 13:24-25:

"Immediately after the distress of those days
  'the sun will be darkened,
    and the moon will not give its light;
  the stars will fall from the sky,
    and the Heavenly bodies will be shaken.'" NIV

Note the time frame again: immediately following those days, referring to the Siege of Jerusalem. Immediately is a relative term, for sure, and within the span of five or so years could be a reasonable interpretation, but two thousand years... not so much.

Besides the timing, what does the rest of that verse mean? Sun darkened? Moon not giving its light? (That, by the way, is another tell of bad Biblical science, given that the moon does not produce light of its own.) Stars falling? Heavens shaking? Sounds like some miraculous metaphysical manipulation! While this could be meant literally, like the Plague of Darkness on the Egyptians, this is most likely to be metaphorical, but what does the metaphor mean?

Classic Bible commenter John Gill suggests that the darkened sun refers to "...the Shekinah, or the divine presence in the temple...", i.e. God leaving the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, and the darkened moon refers to "...the [Jewish] ceremonial law, the moon, the church is said to have under her feet, Revelation 12:1 so called because the observance of new moons was one part of it..." The problem is that Jesus already took care of this. God left the Temple when the curtain was torn (Matthew 27:51, Mark 15:38, Luke 23:45), and Jesus allegedly ended ceremonial law too. So that is a nice try, but let us let Scripture guide the interpretation instead.

In Isaiah 5:30, Isaiah 13:10, Ezekiel 32:7, Joel 2:10, Joel 2:31, Joel 3:15, Amos 8:9, and Micah 3:6 you find similar references to these celestial signs. In fact, let us take a look at Ezekiel 32:7 for example:

"When I (God) snuff you (Egypt) out, I will cover the heavens and darken their stars; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon will not give its light." NIV

Given that this language is applied to Egypt, we can know with some certainty that this is no allusion to God leaving the Temple or the end of Jewish ceremonial law. ;-) However, what you probably picked up on in this verse is God's judgement of condemnation.

Darkening the sun, the moon, and the stars is a metaphor which is connected with God's judgement, and it means that essentially that the subjects of this judgement are without hope. There is no sun to light their path by day. There is no moon to track the months to tell the seasons. There are no stars to guide them. In short: at that point, there is no way that they can escape their judgement.

You may have noticed the multiple references above in Joel. Take a quick read through Joel 2 and you will see that this metaphor here in the Gospels was most likely meant as a reference to the Judgement Day.

Continuing on, Matthew 24:30 and Luke 21:27-28 both share the sentiment of what Mark 13:26 concisely expressed:

"At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory." NIV

Again we see that this is to occur at "that time." By Biblical prophesy standards, all of these time references are pretty darn precise, and all point to the time around the Siege of Jerusalem and the time soon thereafter.

Now, what does that phrase "see the Son of Man coming in clouds" mean? Well, our friend John Gill thinks that it is a metaphor; that "...he (Jesus) shall appear, not in person, but in the power of his wrath and vengeance, on the Jewish nation which will be a full sign and proof of his being come." Indeed, there are other verses where God's vengeance came with clouds, such as Isaiah 19:1, Isaiah 30:27, Lamentations 2:1, and the above-quoted Ezekiel 32:7.

So Gill's suggestion on this verse is reasonable and closer to the mark, but he is still way off target. God's vengeance would be displayed, but in the much larger context Judgement day. The verse itself was likely inspired by and intended to allude to Daniel 7:13-14:

"In my (Daniel's) vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed." NIV

Does that sound like anyone we are supposed to know? ;-) Conveniently for us, this prophesy is explicitly explained in Daniel 7:23-27, with another reference to 3.5 years ("a time, times and half a time") like we saw in my earlier post on the Temple destruction which quoted a different prophesy from Daniel. Daniel's prophesy stated that at the end of this three and a half years there would be a swift act of judgement, and then God's eternal kingdom would be established!

Make no mistake. What Jesus allegedly prophesied here is the end of the world, and the timing was explicitly claimed to be shortly after the fall of the Temple. In fact, stepping up to the earlier verse with the celestial signs, there is the curious mention that the stars would fall from the heavens. There is only one Old Testament reference to stars actually falling: Isaiah 34:4. Isaiah 34 is a prophesy of judgement against all nations. This was an explicit reference to Jesus coming back, in person (Revelation 1:7), initiating the final Judgement Day.

Closing out this prophesy, that is why in Matthew 24:31 and Mark 13:27 you see that at that time Jesus would send forth angels to gather the Elect from the four winds (another bad Biblical science reference). The Elect would be saved from experiencing the intense tribulation of that dreadful day. This is but an echo of prior Old Testament prophesies, as we see in Ezekiel 34:12:

"As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I (God) look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness." NIV

The Shifting of Riches

'
Background
We are in Judea on Jesus' final approach to Jerusalem. Recently, Jesus explained to His disciples that the Kingdom of God belongs to people who are like children (Matthew 19:13-15, Mark 10:13-16, Luke 18:15-17), similar to the sentiment discussed before. Then, Jesus told a rich man that he should obey the Commandments to gain eternal life, and also that he should sell his belongings, give to the poor, and follow Him. The man apparently rejected Jesus' proposal, causing Jesus to say that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.

The Shifting of Riches

Jesus' Gospel focused on the coming Kingdom of God to a large extent, but were the God-granted benefits of the Gospel completely ascribed to the afterlife? Maybe so. Maybe not. Let us take at the benefits of being friends with Jesus.

The section we will study here is integral to the section studied previously, where Jesus told a rich man to sell everything, give to the poor, and follow Him. Then, when the rich man had walked away saddened, implicitly rejecting Him, Jesus commented that it is impossible for wealthy people to be Saved without God's intervention (implicitly, an intervention above and beyond the atonement that would be offered through Jesus' crucifixion).

In Matthew 19:27-30, Mark 10:28-31, and Luke 18:28-30, you find Peter's response to the shocking episode with the rich man. Peter challenges or questions Jesus about the Disciple's compensation for giving up everything to follow Him. Jesus' subsequent response reveals much. But just like in the last study, it is most informative to start here with the source; Mark. So after Peter says that the Disciples have left everything, in Mark 10:29-30 we find the most interesting part of Jesus' reply:

"I tell you the truth," Jesus replied, "no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father[ or wife] or children or fields for Me and the Gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life." NIV

First, note that I added "or wife" in brackets. That is because this verse has variations in it depending on which source manuscripts you use. Consequently, the King James Version reads "... or father or mother or wife or children ..." while the New International Version reads "... or mother or father or children ..."

Besides the inclusion of the wife, you can see that another variation is the order of father and mother. Given that Judaism was a patriarchal society, it is more likely that the father would have been listed first. Also, given that "or wife" is extra information and matches the context well, it is more likely that it was part of the original source, but was possibly dropped in a copyist's error. Coincidentally, the father-then-mother versions all include the mention of leaving the wife, suggesting that the error of dropping "or wife" came at the same time when the order of father and mother were reversed. Furthermore, Luke, who was using a Mark-based text in help to construct his Gospel, included "or wife" in his account.

It is no surprise that the NIV opted to follow the version without the mention of leaving a wife due to the cultural ideals modern Christianity is trying to promote regarding the "sanctity" of marriage. Having a Jesus who promoted leaving your wife would be contrary to their purpose. However, as noted before, there are other spots where Jesus' message promoted forsaking all others, including spouses, in pursuit of God and His Kingdom, and these could not be worked around by picking an alternate manuscript.

In the previous study, we noted how this episode had possibly provided a glimpse of the real Jesus. If that is so, then the glimpse may have ended in the section covered in this study. Why? Well, where before Jesus had apparently humbled Himself, stating that only God was good, here He is instructing that people forsake everything else "for Me," that is for Jesus, not for God. So, in a way, this Jesus is putting Himself above God, or at least at the same level. However, "for Me" could have been another way of saying "because of what I have explained to you." I lean more towards the latter, more-humble explanation, so I suspect that this may still be in line with what the real Jesus probably said.

More interesting is that Jesus said that people would receive rewards "in this present age" for forsaking everything else in this life, as well as being granted eternal life in the "age to come."

The rewards are enticing, but let us take a quick moment to reflect on what was meant by "in this present age" first. In our modern eyes, we would likely judge this to be equivalent to "in this present life," or perhaps "in the time up to God's final Judgement Day." Either of those may be the best interpretation, but history provides another possibility.

Back in those times, Astrology was a very meaningful practice. There are several verses in the Gospels with possible allusions to Astrology, like the verses we are studying here. This "age" could be referring to an Astrological Age. It just so happens that around the time of Jesus, the Age of Aries (the Ram), was coming to an end. The next age in line was the Age of Pisces (the Fish). It is then a curious coincidence that Jesus called His Disciples "fishers of men," like ambassadors for bringing people into the coming new age. It gets even more curious when in Mark 14:13, in preparation for the Last Supper, Jesus tells His Disciples to follow a man carrying a jar of water, which is the symbol for the Age after Pisces, the Age of Aquarius (the Water-Carrier).

Anyway, about those rewards in this present age... homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields. There are a few possible ways to look at this.

1. These rewards are a metaphor for the spiritual wealth you receive in following Jesus, but that perspective seems unlikely given the specific nature of particular physical rewards being listed.
2. These are actual physical rewards to be granted by God for giving up everything to follow Jesus. It is tempting to play the cynic and suggest that this verse was used as a justification for the wealth that early church leaders soon found at their disposal from the donations of generous followers. Indeed, many preachers of Prosperity Theology today probably see it in that same light. However, such an intent would seem oddly juxtaposed with Jesus telling the rich man to sell all of his belongings.
3. These rewards come through a realigned perspective within the community of believers. In other words, you will get many new family members because your fellow believers will be your family, like what Jesus said about His own family, and the homes and fields you will gain will be the shared, communal property which each new believer contributes to the group. This communal message is seen to be implemented in the words of Acts 4:32-35, so this perspective appears to align with the true intent.

So in a nutshell, I believe Mark's Jesus' perspective was that those who gave up everything to follow His teachings would find that they had an even larger family than before; one consisting of fellow believers who shared their possessions generously. Just like with the hippie communes in the late 1960's in the U.S.A., they would be persecuted for their beliefs and communal living. But sometime soon, the next age would dawn, and God would grant them all eternal life and many other blessings.

Let us now quickly turn to the Luke 18:28-30 version of this story section. Luke may have been tired of copying, because he shortened the text a bit. Among the changes are writing "or parents" instead of "or father or mother," writing "for the sake of the Kingdom of God" as opposed to "for Me and the Gospel" (which conveniently avoids the possible misunderstanding noted above in Mark), dropping the specific reward list for this age, and writing "many" instead of "a hundred" times reward. Besides being shorter, Luke's alteration also drops the need to explain that "a hundred times" was not meant to be literal. Other than that, Luke matches Mark very well.

Matthew 19:27-30, on the other hand, significantly changes the message. The idea of rewards in this life vanishes, and the message becomes distinctively more Jewish in nature, as Matthew 19:28-29 demonstrates in the critical part of Jesus' reply:

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on His glorious throne, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for My sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life." NIV

So for Matthew, the reward will not come until "the renewal of all things." The particular sect associated with Matthew may not have subscribed to the communal living practices which Luke had experienced, or perhaps Matthew just did not understand the allusion to the communal living, and so he changed that reward to be purposed for the next life.

It is difficult to know how the idea of "judging the twelve tribes of Israel" crept into this passage when it was obviously not in Mark, the source. It appears as though this may have been a teaching of Jesus which was recorded without any context. This teaching was available in some form for both Matthew and Luke when they wrote their Gospels. Matthew chose to insert it here. Luke would insert that same teaching much later, at the Last Supper, in Luke 22:28-30.

When you consider all of these factors and variances at play, things become paradoxically both unclear and more clear. What the real Jesus said, meant, and believed is unclear with a great degree of certitude. However, it does become clear that the Gospel texts were written with and subjected to all of the follies of men.