Question about Caiaphas

[asterisktom]

Here is the verse in question, from the ESV:

Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven".

First, note that Jesus says "hereafter" (NASB) or "from now on". Two events are then described: Jesus seated at the right hand of power and Jesus coming in the clouds. I think the key question being asked on this thread is: when do these events occur? It is clear that neither event, or if one holds that they are two aspects of the same event, occurs immediately. So the term or phrase "hereafter" or "from now on" does not entail an immediate start. The leaders did not observe Jesus ascending to power nor coming in the clouds at that instant.

Agreed on all this. There does seem to be two events, though closely linked. But given that the prophecy was given to specific persons present then it is linked to sometime within the lifespans of at least some of the people addressed. IOW at least some of those priests were alive to have seen the second event.

Can we find an indication elsewhere that these events have occurred either together or separately?

It is apparent that the first event has occurred. In the book of Acts, as Stephen is stoned, he looks into heaven and "saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. And he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." This stance by Christ to the right hand of God occurred at his ascension.

I agree on this too. I also believe (you probably don't) that this is the time spoken of in Daniel when Michael (a name for Christ) stands up for His people. I think that was Dan. 12:1

The "coming on the clouds of heaven" event is apparently a separate event. I can find no indication in the scriptures that it has already occurred. Please correct me if I'm wrong here. Therefore I would consider it a future event.

See, this is where I would say that we are constrained to place this also within the lifetime of at least some of the hearers. To me AD 70 fits very well.

In the futurist framework, as I stated, it is definitely a problem, seeing that futurism precludes, not just one, but two, opportunities for Caiaphas to see Christ's coming:
1. They believe it cannot be in AD 70, of course, because they don't place His coming then.
2. They cannot have him seeing Christ's coming anytime before the Millennium either, since the wicked dead are still in the ground until afterward.

This is all I have time for now.

 

[swaimj]

See, this is where I would say that we are constrained to place this also within the lifetime of at least some of the hearers. To me AD 70 fits very well.

Thank you for your reply, Tom. I find your argument to be problematic. Let me explain why.

First, Jesus, though speaking to Caiaphus, the high priest, uses a plural "you" to address all of the Jewish leaders who were assembled there. I think this is important when we compare Jesus' statement to his disciples and the crowd before his transfiguration. There he specifically said "some of you". So, in that situation, not everyone sees the coming revelation of the kingdom (the fulfillment of that statement is a subject for another time). However, with the plural "you" in Matt 26, everyone is included. Your argument that at least some of the people present would have lived til 70 AD does not qualify as a fulfillment of what Jesus said. The prophecy cannot be fulfilled in 70 AD because not everyone who was there at Jesus' trial would have been alive to see it. Caiaphus' ossuary has been discovered (with near certainty) and his bones have been estimated to be about 60 years of age. He most likely would have been much older than 60 if he had lived til 70 AD. And it is doubtful that he was the youngest person present when Jesus prophesied.

To summarize, the prophecy requires that everyone present see both events while your argument lessens this requirement. I see no justification for changing the requirement from "all" to "some". And if you argued that everyone was present in 70 AD, this is highly unlikely and, in Caiaphus' case, almost certainly impossible.

 

[asterisktom]

To summarize, the prophecy requires that everyone present see both events while your argument lessens this requirement. I see no justification for changing the requirement from "all" to "some". And if you argued that everyone was present in 70 AD, this is highly unlikely and, in Caiaphus' case, almost certainly impossible.

I am not sure of what is problematic. I am saying that some were present and that Jesus' prophecy only required that. At any rate I think we'll just have to leave this one.

Thanks for your answer.