A preposition is a “linguistic form that combines with a noun, pronoun, or noun equivalent to form a phrase that typically has an adverbial, adjectival, or substantival relation to some other word.”1 There is a recurring phrase in three of the gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and Revelation that refers to a certain figure coming in the future. His coming is associated with heavenly clouds. In the gospels this figure is the Son of Man and in the Book of Revelation this figure is the resurrected Lord Jesus.2
All of these recurring expressions are thought by New Testament Scholars to be derived from the Book of Daniel 7:1-28, where the author says:
I saw in the night visions and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him (Daniel 7:13, RSV).
The preposition (‘m) in the phrase “with the clouds of heaven” is regularly translated as with and it is so translated in the Septuagint (Greek translation of Hebrew Bible) as meta, which is “with” in Greek. The image evoked by the phrase (“coming with the clouds of heaven”) is unclear—that is to say: do the clouds surround him or precede him or follow in his wake?
In the New Testament three different Greek prepositions are used in the phrase “coming [with, in, upon] the clouds of heaven. Two verses (Mark 14:62; Rev 1:73) use the preposition “with,” as it appears in Dan 7:13. Three verses (Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27, 1 Thess 4:174) use the preposition “in” (en in Greek). The image evoked by the phrase (coming in the clouds of heaven) is also unclear. Is the figure covered by the cloud, or among the clouds in the air? There are parallels in Hebrew Bible for this figure being covered by (that is, he is “within”) the cloud (Exod 19:9, 24:15-16, 34:5; Lev 16:2; Num 11:25, 12:5). On the other hand, five verses (Matt 24:30, 26:64; Rev 14:14-16) use the preposition “upon” (epi in Greek). There is no question about the image evoked in these verses. The figure is upon the cloud (in Revelation he is “seated” upon the cloud).
Ancient Gods were associated with heavenly clouds. The Greek God Zeus, for example, lived on Mount Olympus among the clouds and was called the “Cloud-gatherer”; and the Canaanite storm God, Baal, was known as the “Rider of the Clouds.” Here is a similar statement from Hebrew Bible:
An oracle concerning Egypt: Behold, the Lord is riding on a swift cloud (Isa 19:1, RSV).
Artists have shown a great fascination with the subject of the triumphant Christ returning [with, in, upon] clouds of heaven. Modern readers of the Bible, however, should note that a scientific view of clouds was common knowledge in 5th century BC Greece. Here is a quotation from a comedy by the Greek playwright, Aristophanes, making that clear:
[I]s the phenomenon of rain best explained as a precipitation of totally fresh water, or is it merely a case of the same old rainwater in continuous re-use slowly condensed by the Clouds and then precipitated once more as rain?5
For the careful critical reader, the inconsistencies between the images and their obvious mythology do little to inspire confidence in the historical credibility of the biblical narrative. Only in myth, romance, or fiction do clouds become stable platforms for divinities.
Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University
1Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, s.v. “preposition.”
2Critical Scholars in general think that the “Son of Man” is an apocalyptic figure other than the resurrected Christ. See Funk and Hoover, The Five Gospels (Harper, 1993), 76-77.
3A few manuscripts change the preposition “with” to “upon” (epi in Greek) in these verses.
41 Thess 4:17 refers to the saints “in the clouds,” while the Lord is “in [eis] the air.”
5From The Clouds: W. Arrowsmith, Four Plays by Aristophanes (Meridian, 1994), 125.
8 comments:
This is such a WELL DEFINED article.
Charlie
Strepsiades’ comment about the rain you quoted from “The Clouds” (“Which theory do you side with, that the rain falls fresh each time, or that the Sun draws back the same old rain, and sends it down again?”) is probably not as important to the author’s theme as the answer of Amynias (a creditor to whom Strepsiades owed money) to this question. “I’m very sure I neither know or care.” Amynias is concerned about the money owed him, not about the theory. Stresiades spends his time “in the clouds” consulting Socrates and others about rain, the clouds and thunder while his creditors, Amynias and Pasias, the other creditor, (whose name might signify a cue name. Do not “all” (pas) want to be paid?) I think the author was saying the life of the elite might have been concerned with the rain, thunder and clouds, but most were concerned about their daily life. As Stesiades says to Socrates, one of the funniest lines (I think) of the play, “Yet before, I had dreamed that the rain-water streamed from Zeus and his chamber-pot sieve.” While Strepsiades and his son open the play in bed, with Strepsiades complaining about being eaten by bugs and spending time wondering about the clouds (“head in the clouds?”), he and his son have “run up” a sizable debt, with creditors moving in their direction. It is scathing commentary, as typifies an Aristophanes play.
The Bible is another matter. It is read differently than other literature by the majority of the population (around 60% for Catholics and mainline Protestants and 84% for evangelicals – see link – since it is seen as inspired by God or the revealing of God to humanity, the “Word”). Whereas other literature is dissected and critiqued, the Bible, but for some is “off limits” for discussions of contradictions, inconsistencies, and anachronistic “science” for a large population. The reader is not "allowed" to see nor the purpose of myth. I think the most useful way to elevate the Bible is to humble it to being what it is: A collection of ancient literature. “The Plutus” is my favorite by Aristophanes, in which “Wealth” is portrayed as blinded by Zeus so he couldn’t distinguish between the “good” and “wicked,” since he was spending all his time with the “wise and good and orderly.” (I discovered a book of ancient plays in a used bookstore at Bay City this spring.)
https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/interpreting-scripture/
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Hi Dennis,
Nice analysis of the Clouds in your first paragraph. With the Greek Comic playwrights in translation I am always mindful that translations are as much the translator as the playwright. In my case it was as much Arrowsmith as Aristophanes. The delightful line about rainwater being due to Zeus' leaky chamber-pot is another poke at superstitious views of reality. At the moment I am reading Aristophanes The Birds (also from a used book store)--used book stores hold a lot of dangerous ideas!
Cordially,
Charlie
Good Evening Charlie!
1) Why do you think the book of Revelation is included in the NT canon? Do you know anyone who has read it- has your church preached any sermons on it or taught any Bible studies? What is your opinion of that book of the bible? Do you find its ideas to be dangerous?
2) What does the term "Son of Man" mean? How is it different from "Son of God?" Does the OT define that term differently than the NT? We've got "Son of Man," "Son of God," and "Son of Adam." Is Son of Man the only one associated with the coming of clouds?
3) Do Torah observing Jews look to the clouds for their own Messiah to appear someday?
Thank you as always for shining the light of clarity on these cloudy mythologies! Elizabeth
Good Morning Elizabeth,
1. I don't think anyone can answer the question about why Revelation is in the bible--why did the early Christians add some and not others? In the early stages of the movements it was local practice that determined which were used and which not. Revelation did not make it into some collections that were read in worship, but it did in others. By the fourth century it had become an accepted book in some areas. It is a type of literature in antiquity called apocalyptic (Apokalypsis)--the Apocalypse. Actually its ideas are no more dangerous than those of some other books in the Bible. What makes it more dangerous is how it is used in the hands of TV preachers.
2. Son of Man: there are three ways the term is used in the Bible. See Funk and Hoover, The Five Gospels (Macmillan, 1993), 76-77.
3. I cannot answer this question. I am not a scholar of modern Judaism. Perhaps other readers will have an answer.
Cordially,
Charlie
Thank you Charlie... Do you consider the book of Daniel to be apocalyptic? And- do you think the book of Revelation was written so that the NT would have it's own apocalyptic literature? I do wonder why the apocalypse was so heavy on people's minds back then. Many thanks, Elizabeth
Good Morning Elizabeth,
Daniel is thought to be an apocalyptic book of which there are many examples in the ancient world. In my view the Apocalypse (i.e., Revelation) was not written to secure for apocalyptic literature a place in the New Testament.
Cordially,
Charlie
Apocalyptism is probably as large a worldview today as it has ever been, both religious and secular. For instance, the Christian tenet that Jesus Christ is coming back to Earth (the second coming), as well as Christian Zionism (see Specter, Evangelicals and Israel) are both apocalyptic. Secular apocalyptism manifests itself in, among other things conspiracy “theories" of world domination or those mind altering (or poisoning) "chem trails" of modern folklore.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.
Post a Comment