Re: Matthew 24:30

From: Russ Reeves (
Date: Mon Feb 19 1996 - 16:21:51 EST

On 19 Feb 96, Carl W. Conrad wrote:

> I suppose that "county" is a typo for "country" and that the Dictionary is
> not really limiting the "earth" to a single "county."

Yes, it was my typo.

> You are right--that Zech 12:10-14 in the LXII does clearly refer to the
> tribes of Israel. But the text, which does indeed specify tribes of Israel
> by name, reads very differently from the phrasing of Mt. 24:30, and in the
> AKRWN OURANWN hEWS AKRWN AUTWN, although I suppose one could argue that
> "the elect" are Jews alone in this passage, it certainly likes like a
> cosmic phenomenon.

Verse 31 is at the close of the section, so I don't think it
necessarily has to be fulfilled by 70 AD (within my interpretation).
 Couldn't TOUS ANGELOUS could refer to human messengers spreading
the gospel thoughout the earth after 70 AD (or the continued process
since Pentecost)?

(snipping some comments...)
> earth. Moreover, in view of the by-no-means-uncommon NT reading of OT
> prophecies in a manner bearing no relationship whatsoever to their original
> context and probable purpose, I think one should be cautious about assuming
> the verses are used in their original OT sense.

But the disciples certainly would recognize these as allusions to the
OT. I think that since 24:30 could be understood as either "tribes
of the land" or as "nations of the earth," with no clear grammatical
reason (that I know of) to prefer one over the other, the OT allusion
can provide an indication of how the original hearers and readers
would have understood it. On its own, it seems that much of the
language in Matthew 24 indicates cosmic fulfillment (stars falling,
Son of Man appearing, a tribulation as has never been seen before
and never again, etc.) But so many of these are allusions to the OT
and use of OT phrases that would work well within the 70 AD
timeframe, I think it is safe to understand Matthew 24:31 in the same

> Well, there has been discussion on this list about an earlier dating of
> Revelation than the erstwhile assumption that it dates from the time of
> Domitian, so perhaps it does look forward to the events of the sack of
> Jerusalem; certainly it looks forward to a consummation "soon"--although
> what that means has been subject to debate for centuries. But would you
> hold that the events of the year 70 constitute a fulfilment of all that is
> prophesied in the book of Revelation?

I'm still working though Matthew 24; Revelation is next. I don't
think that all of Revelation could handle a 70 AD fulfillment, though
some of it could.

Thank you for the comments,

Russ Reeves

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:38 EDT