“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” (Matthew 24: 30). 

  Most Christians are agreed that the above passage details Jesus Christ’s glorious second advent, when He will appear to the salvation of Israel.  Preterists, however, have sounded a note of dissent, asserting that the passage refers to a figurative ‘coming‘ which took place in A.D. 70.  As part and parcel of their interpretive scheme, Preterists claim that the “cloud coming” language is entirely ‘metaphorical.’  Barring the question of whether there is a single metaphor in the entire passage (note: what Preterists label ‘metaphor’ is most often the figure ‘hypocatastasis‘), it remains to be seen whether or not the Preteristic contention is true.

   In order to bolster their view that the cloud-coming language is symbolic, Preterists point to a number of Old Testament passages, in an attempt to show that such language was used of local judgments that have already been fulfilled.  In Isaiah 19: 1 it is used to describe the judgment of Egypt; and in Psalm 18: 9-11 almost identical imagery is employed to depict David’s deliverance from the hand of Saul.  Preterists are wont to claim that because such passages were already fulfilled in history, an A.D. 70 view of Matthew 24 is not as unreasonable as most Christians suppose.

   And yet the Preteristic reasoning breaks down woefully when we examine the very passages they use to support their theory.  For if the truth be told, neither Isaiah 19: 1 nor Psalm 18: 9-11 refers to any judgment unto destruction –  which is what the Preterists affirm Matthew 24: 30 teaches.  When taken in their entire context, it is evident that both passages speak of a judgment to salvation.  Egypt will be smitten, but healed (Isaiah 19: 22); and David, as we recall, was delivered from Saul; he was not destroyed!  Another passage in Habakkuk (see Hab. 3: 3-15), sometimes cited by Preterists as proof of allegorical interpretation, explicitly teaches the national deliverance of Israel (Hab. 3: 12-13).  So even if such passages were symbolic, they would teach the exact opposite of what Preterists hold.   They can in no sense be used to teach a destruction of the Jewish nation in A.D. 70.

   That said, we must now ask the question: what does the cloud-coming language of Matthew 24: 30 actually mean?  Well, it is interesting that we may take the same approach that Preterists take, and have recourse to the analogia fidei.  Since “Scripture interprets Scripture,” we may best narrow down the meaning of these disputed passages by looking at passages where language affords us a maximum of certainty, and a minimum of speculation.

  In my studies of the inspired Word, I have found that when relating to any ‘adventual‘ theme, clouds are always associated with the personal visitation of Deity.  This was the case when Jehovah came down to Mount Sinai at the giving of the law.  We read that there were “thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the Mount, and the voice of a trumpet exceeding loud” (Exodus 19: 16; cf. Deut. 4: 11).  The whole passage must be studied, as language remarkably similar is used in Matthew 24: 27-30.  Why this correspondence is ignored by many students of prophecy, is beyond our ability to explain.  It defies explanation.

   In Exodus 24: 15-16, an actual cloud is again associated with the personal advent of Jehovah.  And one must not forget that the cloud over the tabernacle in the wilderness was a sign of the Lord’s personal presence (see Exodus 40: 34-38).    The prophet Ezekiel is also recorded to have been visited by Jehovah, Who appeared out of the midst of a visible cloud (see Ezekiel 1: 4, 26-28).  None of these passages are taken in any sense other than the literal.  Why?  Because no other meaning is possible.

   With all these facts and evidences before us, literality must at least be confessed as a possibility.  At any rate, such interpretation as the literal is not based on man’s ideas of what may or should be, but on established Biblical precedence.  To sweep away the weight of evidence, as Preterists do, is to demonstrate an interpretive bias which will not hold up under careful scrutiny.

   Evidence carefully garnered from the New Testament likewise supports our conclusion that Matthew 24: 30 is to be interpreted literally.  It can hardly be denied that the apostles had an experiential basis for understanding Christ’s language in a literal sense.  When on the Mount of Transfiguration, it is recorded that a cloud covered Peter, James, and John; and that Jehovah Elohim spoke out of the cloud (Matthew 17: 5; Mark 9: 7; Luke 9: 34).  Since Peter, James, and John were the very disciples addressed by Christ on the Mount of Olives (see Mark 13: 3), it is highly probable that they understood Christ’s words in the literal sense.  In fact, there is not the slightest evidence that they believed otherwise!

   While this article is not meant to be an exhaustive study of the cloud-coming passages, my hope is that it helps to establish one thing: that the benefit of the doubt must be given to Futurists, who claim that Matthew 24: 30 relates to a future historical reality; and not to Preterists who teach a symbolical “judgment coming” in A.D. 70.  In fact, if Preterism is true, we are left wondering whether the judgment itself was literal or figurative!  But when the evidence is fairly looked at, one cannot help feeling that the Dispensational understanding of Matthew 24: 30 is based on a firm foundation of Biblical truth, and a right understanding of what the ‘coming in clouds‘ actually denotes.  It is none other than the personal return of Jesus Christ to earth.  In our opinion, this closes the case against Preterism.