Matt 16.27-28 " For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of his Father with his angels , and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly i say to you ,there are some of those who are standing here who WILL NOT TASTE DEATH until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
Various intrepertations have been exponded such as "coming in his kingdom" to mean the transfiguration or the day of Pentacost or the resurrection followed by the kingdom or the judgement on Jerusalem in 70AD.
But considering the fact that in Matt 16.25 Jesus is talking about eternal life "For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it" could'nt he be continuing the same theme here by hinting here that some of his disciples will gain eternal life and not taste death because they will conquer death through the soon to be resurrection of himself. Another words "not taste death" because Christ will conquer death so when these disiples physically die they will find life.
Any comments are appreciated.
"Who will not taste death" Matt 16.28 What does J
-
_STEVE7150
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm
"Who will not taste death" Matt 16.28 What does J
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Steve,
Your suggestion is as good as many others are, but I am inclined to see another as more likely.
It is true that many interpretations of this prediction exist, and the context does seem to complicate the question somewhat. While I believe that verse 28 is referring to AD 70, the previous verse sounds very much like a reference to the second coming at the end of the world.
The juxtaposition of these two verses has led some to say that both statements are about the second coming (and the second prediction just turned out to be wrong!), while others (some preterists) have applied both statements to AD 70. I do not believe either of these approaches is correct.
Most evangelicals believe that verse 27 is about the future second coming, and I am inclined to agree with them. However, virtually all evangelicals, unwilling to suggest that Jesus missed His prediction, take "the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" as something other than the second coming.
I think the most popular view is to say Jesus is here referring to the Transfiguration, which occurred about a week later. Your suggestion that it may be referring to regeneration, or the similar one that applies it to Pentecost, share a weakness with the Transfiguration view.
The problem is, if Jesus was referring to something as near in time as any of these three things, it seems a great overstatement to predict that "some" of them would not die before the predicted event. The wording sounds as if some or most of those there would die, but not all, before the fulfulliment.
In the case of the Transfiguration, none of the disciples had died before it occurred, and in the case of regeneration or Pentecost, only Judas had died in the interrim, but everyone else was still living.
The AD 70 view has two advantages over the others, I believe. First, it was far enough away that most of Jesus' contemporaries had probably died by then, but some (at least John, if not others as well) were still living. Second, the prediction is seemingly made again, in Matthew 24:30, 34, where the context strongly suggests an AD 70 fulfillment (and certainly rules-out the Transfiguration view).
If Jesus twice predicted a significant "coming" of the Son of Man, which would occur within the lifetimes of many of his contemporaries, and if one of these can be shown to be the events of AD 70, then it argues strongly that both predictions have that date in view.
It remains to solve the riddle of why Jesus would predict His actual second coming in one verse, and His judgment on Jerusalem in the next—using similar language in both.
I don't know the answer to this, but it is a problem that can only be eliminated by making both verses apply to the same event. This, however, as mentioned, either makes Jesus a false prophet (applying both to the second coming) or else makes both verses apply to AD 70, which is possible, but I am not convinced of (though many preterists are).
Why am I not prepared to see verse 27 as the second coming? Mostly intuitive, I suppose, which isn't a sound basis for anyone else to follow me on this. There are certain things that are going to happen at the second coming, which did not happen in AD 70. These include the resurrection of the dead, the rapture of the saints, and the judgment of the world. To me, Matthew 16:27 appears to be referring to that series of events rather than the other.
I don't think it too strange for Jesus to mention His second coming (which was an event quite far off at the time) and then to mention a near-future event that would be His "coming" in another sense. This is especially true if Jesus meant for the nearer event to be seen as a short-term confirmation of the more distant one.
In any case, it doesn't bother me if others find my reasoning unconvincing. There is nothing at stake for me in this. It is just my response to your quection.
Your suggestion is as good as many others are, but I am inclined to see another as more likely.
It is true that many interpretations of this prediction exist, and the context does seem to complicate the question somewhat. While I believe that verse 28 is referring to AD 70, the previous verse sounds very much like a reference to the second coming at the end of the world.
The juxtaposition of these two verses has led some to say that both statements are about the second coming (and the second prediction just turned out to be wrong!), while others (some preterists) have applied both statements to AD 70. I do not believe either of these approaches is correct.
Most evangelicals believe that verse 27 is about the future second coming, and I am inclined to agree with them. However, virtually all evangelicals, unwilling to suggest that Jesus missed His prediction, take "the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" as something other than the second coming.
I think the most popular view is to say Jesus is here referring to the Transfiguration, which occurred about a week later. Your suggestion that it may be referring to regeneration, or the similar one that applies it to Pentecost, share a weakness with the Transfiguration view.
The problem is, if Jesus was referring to something as near in time as any of these three things, it seems a great overstatement to predict that "some" of them would not die before the predicted event. The wording sounds as if some or most of those there would die, but not all, before the fulfulliment.
In the case of the Transfiguration, none of the disciples had died before it occurred, and in the case of regeneration or Pentecost, only Judas had died in the interrim, but everyone else was still living.
The AD 70 view has two advantages over the others, I believe. First, it was far enough away that most of Jesus' contemporaries had probably died by then, but some (at least John, if not others as well) were still living. Second, the prediction is seemingly made again, in Matthew 24:30, 34, where the context strongly suggests an AD 70 fulfillment (and certainly rules-out the Transfiguration view).
If Jesus twice predicted a significant "coming" of the Son of Man, which would occur within the lifetimes of many of his contemporaries, and if one of these can be shown to be the events of AD 70, then it argues strongly that both predictions have that date in view.
It remains to solve the riddle of why Jesus would predict His actual second coming in one verse, and His judgment on Jerusalem in the next—using similar language in both.
I don't know the answer to this, but it is a problem that can only be eliminated by making both verses apply to the same event. This, however, as mentioned, either makes Jesus a false prophet (applying both to the second coming) or else makes both verses apply to AD 70, which is possible, but I am not convinced of (though many preterists are).
Why am I not prepared to see verse 27 as the second coming? Mostly intuitive, I suppose, which isn't a sound basis for anyone else to follow me on this. There are certain things that are going to happen at the second coming, which did not happen in AD 70. These include the resurrection of the dead, the rapture of the saints, and the judgment of the world. To me, Matthew 16:27 appears to be referring to that series of events rather than the other.
I don't think it too strange for Jesus to mention His second coming (which was an event quite far off at the time) and then to mention a near-future event that would be His "coming" in another sense. This is especially true if Jesus meant for the nearer event to be seen as a short-term confirmation of the more distant one.
In any case, it doesn't bother me if others find my reasoning unconvincing. There is nothing at stake for me in this. It is just my response to your quection.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
This is a continual problem for me as I study eschatological passages.
Daniel 12 comes to mind
The 2nd half of the Olivet Discourse
The passage you mentioned
It's hard to grasp how the writers & Jesus can switch (if indeed that is what they are doing) b/w 70AD and the 2nd coming w/o what we would consider an adequate segue.
Sometimes I think the problem is in western minds. Perhaps we have trained ourselves to read in such a logical linear manner that a Jewish way of speaking seems very strange.
Daniel 12 comes to mind
The 2nd half of the Olivet Discourse
The passage you mentioned
It's hard to grasp how the writers & Jesus can switch (if indeed that is what they are doing) b/w 70AD and the 2nd coming w/o what we would consider an adequate segue.
Sometimes I think the problem is in western minds. Perhaps we have trained ourselves to read in such a logical linear manner that a Jewish way of speaking seems very strange.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hemingway once said: 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for'
I agree with the second part (se7en)
I agree with the second part (se7en)
-
_STEVE7150
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm
It seems to me that Jesus is applying the principal from verse 25 "Whoever will lose his life will find it" to specific people and prophecizing that some people standing here will be saved. The confusing part is he then mentions his second coming and seemingly connecting the two events. I guess by referencing an event thousands of years away Jesus is emphasizing the longevity or certainty of eternal life for them. Jesus had asked the disciples if they were going to leave him and Peter responded by saying "Lord who else has the words of eternal life" so this issue of eternal life was on their minds and perhaps Jesus was giving them comfort and encouragement and the emphasis here is not the second coming but eternal life and that they would be with him at his second coming , whenever it would be.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: