Coming
In The Clouds*
Milton S.
Terry
Immediately after the tribulation of
those days shall the sun be
darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall
fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And
then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall
all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man
coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall
send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather
together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the
other. (Matt. 24:29-31)
The language is appropriated in the main from the books of Isaiah and
Daniel, but also from other prophets. The following passages are
particularly in point:
For the stars of heaven and the
constellations thereof shall not give
their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon
shall not cause her light to shine. (Isa. 13:10)
And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall
be
rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the
leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.
(Isa. 34:4)
I saw in the night visions, and,
behold, one like the Son of man came
with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they
brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and
glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should
serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not
pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. (Dan.
7:13,14)
In that day shall there be a great
mourning in Jerusalem, as the
mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. And the land shall
mourn, every family apart; the family of the house of David apart, and
their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their
wives apart; The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives
apart; the family of Shimei apart, and their wives apart; All the
families that remain, every family apart, and their wives apart. (Zech.
12:11-14)
And it shall come to pass in that day,
that the great trumpet shall be
blown, and they shall come which were ready to perish in the land of
Assyria, and the outcasts in the land of Egypt, and shall worship the
LORD in the holy mount at Jerusalem. (Isa. 27:13)
If thy dispersion be from extremity of
the heaven to extremity of the
heaven, Thence shall the Lord thy God gather thee. (Sept. of Deut.
30:4)
For from the four winds of the heaven will I gather you, Saith the Lord
(Sept. of Zech. 2:6)
From these quotations it is apparent that there is scarcely an
expression employed in Matthew and Luke which has not been taken from
the Old Testament Scriptures.
Such apocalyptic forms of speech are not to be assumed to convey in the
New Testament a meaning different from that which they bear in the
Hebrew Scriptures. They are part and parcel of the genius of prophetic
language. The language of Isaiah 13:10, is used in a prophecy of the
overthrow of Babylon. That of Isaiah 34:4, refers to the desolation of
Edom. The ideal of "the Son of man coming in the clouds" is taken from
a prophecy of the Messianic kingdom, which kingdom, as depicted in
Daniel 7:13,14, is no other than the one symbolized in the same book by
a stone cut out of the mountain (Dan. 2:34,35). It is the same kingdom
of heaven which Jesus liken to a grain of mustard seed and to the
working of leaven in the meal (Matt. 13:31-33). The other citations we
have given above show with equal clearness how both Jesus and his
disciples were wont to express themselves in language which must have
been very familiar to those who from childhood heard the law and the
prophets "read in the synagogues every Sabbath" (Acts 13:27; 15:21). A
strictly literal interpretation of such pictorial modes of thought
leads only to absurdity. Their import must be studied in the light of
the numerous parallels in the Old Testament writers, which have been
extensively presented in the foregoing part of this volume. But with
what show of reason, or on what principle of "interpreting Scripture by
Scripture," can it be maintained that the language of Isaiah, Joel, and
Daniel, allowed by all the best exegetes to be metaphorical when
employed in the Hebrew Scriptures, must be literally understood when
appropriated by Jesus or his apostles?
We sometimes, indeed, are meet with a disputant who attempts to evade
the force of the above question by the plea that if we interpret one
part of Jesus's discourse literally we are bound in consistency to
treat the entire prophecy in the same way. So, on the other hand, it is
urged that if Matt. 24:29-31, for example, be explained metaphorically,
we must carry that same principle through all the rest of the chapter;
and if the words "sun, moon, and heavens" in verse 29 are to be taken
figuratively, so should the words "Judea," and "mountains," and
"housetop," and "field" in other parts of the chapter be explained
metaphorically! It is difficult to understand how such a superficial
plea can be seriously put forward by one who has made a careful study
of the Hebrew prophets. Every one of the Old Testament examples which
have been cited above stands connected, like these apocalyptic saying
of Jesus, with other statements which all readers and expositors have
understood literally. The most prosaic writer may at times express
himself through a whole series of sentences in figurative term, and
incorporate the extended metaphor in the midst of the plain narrative
of facts. ...
Our fourth and concluding proposition is that this apocalyptic passage
is a sublime symbolic picture of the crisis of ages in the transition
from the Old Testament dispensation to the Christian era. The word
picture must be taken as a whole, and allowed to convey its grand total
impression. The attempt, in a single passage like Mark 13:24,25, to
take each metaphor separately and give it a distinct application, ruins
the whole picture. ... The picture of a collapsing universe symbolizes
the one simple but sublime thought of supernatural interposition in the
affairs of the world, involving remarkable revolution and change. The
element of time does not appear in the picture. So the Son of man
coming on the clouds means here just what it means in Daniel's vision.
It is an apocalyptic concept of the Messiah, as King of heaven and
earth, executing divine judgment and entering with his people upon the
possession and dominion of the kingdoms of the world. Here again the
element of time does not enter, except it be the associated thought of
Daniel's prophecy that "his dominion is an everlasting dominion" (Dan.
7:14). It is the same coming of the Son of man in his kingdom which is
referred to in Matt. 16:27,28, the inception of which was to occur
before some of those who heard these words should taste of death. The
mourning of all the tribes of the land is the universal wail and
lamentation of Judaism over its national overthrow. In the fall of
their city and Temple the priests, scribes, and elders saw "the Son of
man sitting at the right hand of power" (Matt. 26:64), and thus it was
made manifest to all who read the prophecy aright that "Jesus the
Galilean" has conquered. The gathering of Christ's elect from the four
winds is the true fulfillment of numerous prophecies which promise the
chosen people that they shall be gathered out of all lands and
established forever in the mountain of God (comp. Amos 9:14,15; Jer.
23:5-8; 32:37-40; Ezek. 37:21-28). The time and manner of this
universal ingathering of the elect ones cannot be determined from the
language of any of these prophecies. As well might one presume to
determine from Jesus's words in John 12:32, where, when, and in what
manner, when the Christ is "lifted up out of the earth," he will draw
all men unto himself. The point made emphatic, in the eschatological
discourse of Jesus, is that all things contemplated in the apocalyptic
symbolism employed to depict his coming and reign would follow
"immediately after the tribulation of those days" (Matt. 24:29); or, as
Mark has it, "in those days, after that tribulation." That is, the
coming of the kingdom of the Son of man is coincident with the
overthrow of Judaism and its temple, and follows immediately in those
very days.
Whatever in this picture necessarily pertains to the continuous
administration of the kingdom on the earth must of course be permanent,
and continue as long as the nature and purpose of each work requires.
When, therefore, it is affirmed that "this generation shall not pass
away until all these things be accomplished," no one supposes that the
kingdom and the power and the glory of the Son of man are to terminate
with that generation. The kingdom itself is to endure for ages of ages.
It is to increase like the stone cut from the mountain, which itself
"became a great mountain and filled the whole earth." It is to grow and
operate like the mustard seed and the leaven until it accomplish its
heavenly purpose among men. The entire New Testament teaching
concerning the kingdom of Christ contemplates a long period, and the
abolishing of all opposing authority and power; "for he must reign
until he has put all his enemies under his feet" (I Cor. 15:25). The
overthrow of Jerusalem was one of the first triumphs of the Messiah's
reign, and a sign that he was truly "seated at the right hand of
power." ...
But what ought to settle the question of time beyond all controversy is
the most emphatic declaration: "This generation shall not pass away
until all these things be accomplished." These words are clearly
intended to answer the disciples' question, "when shall these things
be?" Their meaning is substantially the same as that of Mark 9:1, and
the parallels in Matthew and Luke. The words immediately preceding them
show the absurdity of applying them to another generation than that of
the apostles: "When YOU SEE THESE THINGS coming to pass, YOU KNOW that
he is nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say UNTO YOU, this generation
shall not pass away," etc.
But not a few expositors presume to nullify the import of these words
by affirming that they are glaringly inconsistent with what follows in
Mark and Matthew: "But of that day or hour knoweth no one, not even the
angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." It is difficult to
understand how any interpreter, uninfluenced by a dogmatic
prepossession, can insist on making one of these statements contradict
or exclude the other. But it is not difficult to see that, when one has
it already settled in his mind that the kingdom of Christ is not yet
come, that the "Parousia" is an even event yet future, and that "the
end of the age" is not the close of the pre-Messianic age, but "the end
of the world," such a weight of dogma effectually obliges him to
nullify the simply meaning of words as emphatic as Jesus ever spoke. If
the language of Mark 13:30, and its parallels in Matthew and Luke are
to be so arbitrarily set aside on such ground we see not but it is just
as proper a procedure to reject the statement of Jesus's ignorance of
the day and the hour, which indeed does not appear in Luke at all. Why
not reject Mark 13:32, which has no parallel in Luke, rather than verse
30, which appears in all the synoptic gospels? Such an arbitrary
procedure is a two-edged sword which may smite in one direction as well
as another.
* From Biblical
Apocalyptics by
Milton S. Terry (1898)