Matthew 24:30 and the "seeing"

[Leaf]

"Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory."

I am trying to wrap my head around preterism, and I have only really dabbled in preterist books via google books and amazon "previewing" (I am a horribly cheap person.) And I am comfortable with how preterists interpret the rest of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24, but 24:30 seems to be a stumbling block to me. When it says

"They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with great power and glory."

It is hard for me to interpret that in a non-literal way.
I suppose my question is can the word "see" be used in a non-literal fashion? Or has the word "see" been used in a non literal fashion? Its the word "see" that I am getting hung up on here.

[JohnnyP]

I believe in a future return and literally everyone on earth seeing Jesus. But I don't see why there couldn't have been a partial fulfillment with destruction of Jerusalem, and even before that. For example, Jesus doesn't specify a one-time only event, only, "hereafter":

Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

Acts 7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

[John Reece]

"Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory."

I am trying to wrap my head around preterism, and I have only really dabbled in preterist books via google books and amazon "previewing" (I am a horribly cheap person.) And I am comfortable with how preterists interpret the rest of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24, but 24:30 seems to be a stumbling block to me. When it says

"They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with great power and glory."

It is hard for me to interpret that in a non-literal way.
I suppose my question is can the word "see" be used in a non-literal fashion? Or has the word "see" been used in a non literal fashion? Its the word "see" that I am getting hung up on here.

One meaning of ὁράω (see) listed in BDAG is to be mentally or spiritually perceptive, perceive.

From The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT: Eerdmans, 2007), by R. T. France (pages 925-926 via Accordance):

Matthew’s other addition to the Son of Man saying of Mark 13:26 is the puzzling introductory clause “And then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven”, which, because of its obscurity, I have left to the last for comment in the hope that the sense of the rest of the saying may cast light on it. Some interpreters take the “of” to be epexegetic: “the sign which is the Son of Man in heaven;” in that case there is no separate “sign” in view, but the Son of Man himself. But if it is [Matt, p. 926] taken to speak of an actual sign belonging to or about the Son of Man, the sense will depend on whether “in heaven” is taken to specify the location in which the “sign” will be seen or as linked more closely with the immediately preceding words “the sign of the-Son-of-Man-in-heaven,” i.e. the sign of the heavenly authority of the Son of Man. Some take it in the former sense, and speak of a symbol visible in the sky, but there is little in the context to indicate what sort of “sign” might be expected. Some patristic writers supposed that the prediction was of a vision of a cross in the sky such as Constantine is reputed to have seen (Eusebius, Vit. Const. 1.28), but there is nothing in the context to suggest that and surely it would require some indication of what sort of “sign” to look for. If, however, “in heaven” is taken with “the Son of Man,” the following clauses perhaps suggest an answer. The tribes are to see the vindication and enthronement of the Son of Man in heaven, but how are they to “see” it, i.e. to know that it is true? Not perhaps by a celestial phenomenon, but by what is happening on earth as the temple is destroyed and the reign of the “Son-of-Man-in-heaven” begins to take effect in the gathering of his chosen people. In that case the “sign” is not a preliminary warning of an event still to come, but the visible manifestation of a heavenly reality already established, that the Son of Man is in heaven sitting at the right hand of Power (26:64).

The disciples had asked for a “sign” of the parousia and the end of the age, but Jesus will give no such sign because the parousia will be sudden and unexpected (vv. 27, 36–44). He has urged them too not to interpret current events as signs of the end for Jerusalem (vv. 4–14), and while he has himself [Matt, p. 927] given them one cryptic sign of when that event is to be expected (v. 15) he has warned them that visible “signs and wonders” are rather the province of false prophets (v. 24). It would be consonant with that generally negative approach to the sort of “signs” the disciples (and earlier the Jewish leaders, 12:38; 16:1) wanted that the “sign” here offered is not a prior notification but simply the visible evidence of what has already been achieved.

[Geert van den Bos]

It would be consonant with that generally negative approach to the sort of “signs” the disciples (and earlier the Jewish leaders, 12:38; 16:1) wanted that the “sign” here offered is not a prior notification but simply the visible evidence of what has already been achieved.[/indent]

Do you mean that the destruction of Jerusalem was "the sign of the Son of Man"?

Doesn't that imply also that Matthew must have been written after those events?

[John Reece]

Do you mean that the destruction of Jerusalem was "the sign of the Son of Man"?

Not solely; read France's comment again, more carefully.

Doesn't that imply also that Matthew must have been written after those events?

No.

[Geert van den Bos]

"Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory."

I am trying to wrap my head around preterism, and I have only really dabbled in preterist books via google books and amazon "previewing" (I am a horribly cheap person.) And I am comfortable with how preterists interpret the rest of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24, but 24:30 seems to be a stumbling block to me. When it says

"They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with great power and glory."

It is hard for me to interpret that in a non-literal way.
I suppose my question is can the word "see" be used in a non-literal fashion? Or has the word "see" been used in a non literal fashion? Its the word "see" that I am getting hung up on here.

It seemingly it is not about a seeing with the physical eyes, since after the preceding verse the sun has been darkened and the moon doesn't give light either.


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:

"the powers of the heavens shall be shaken" --they are checkmate, Hebrew Shachmat - "mat" from "mut" = to totter., shake.

[Leaf]

I appreciate the input, thank you all.

[Geert van den Bos]

I found a noteworthy take on "the sign of the son of man".

http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/w...html#matt2430a

[Geert van den Bos]

I do think the clue of the "three days and three nights" lies in Jonah 2:15,

And the Lord said to the fish, and it spewed Jonah onto the dry land.

the dry land = "hayabashah"

We know from the third day of creation.

The whole book of Jonah lays stress on that.

Jonah 1:9,
And he said to them, "I am a Hebrew, and I fear the Lord God of heaven, Who made the sea and the dry land." - work of the third day.

Jonah 1:13,
And the men rowed vigorously to return to dry land, but they could not, for the sea was becoming stormier upon them.

To return to dry land = לְהָשִׁיב אֶל הַיַּבָּשָׁה, "l'hashiv al hayabashah" -- remarkable is that "hashiv" is a permutation of "yabashah" (written with the same letters).

Genesis 1:10, And God called the dry land earth

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ull=1#post7662