The Book of Matthew

[Theophilus]

Matt 16:27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.

This verse sounds like universal judgment (each person), which did not happen in 70AD.

Matt 16:28 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

This could be referring to Jesus' resurrection, ascension and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. I'm not sure, and I'm guessing here, but the "some" could be referring to the disciples minus one because Judas was not a witness of these things.

[psychohmike]

Matt 16:27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.

This verse sounds like universal judgment (each person), which did not happen in 70AD.

What evidence do you have that the events spoken of in this passage DIDN'T happen?

Matt 16:28 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

This could be referring to Jesus' resurrection, ascension and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. I'm not sure, and I'm guessing here, but the "some" could be referring to the disciples minus one because Judas was not a witness of these things.

Can you explain why one should separate these two verses from each other? Seems pretty clear that the, "I tell you the truth," does more to demonstrate a connection here rather than disassociation.

Pmike

[Mellontes]

Mike,

I am willing to go out on a limb (branch theology) and say that no one will respond to my post. And if they do suprise me, I hope they include Scripture because so often they just "assert" their view without the inspired support...

[Mellontes]

Matt 16:27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.

This verse sounds like universal judgment (each person), which did not happen in 70AD.

Matt 16:28 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

This could be referring to Jesus' resurrection, ascension and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. I'm not sure, and I'm guessing here, but the "some" could be referring to the disciples minus one because Judas was not a witness of these things.

Theophilus,

Can you explain how "This could be referring to Jesus' resurrection, ascension and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost." To my way of thinking, His second appearing has nothing to do with his earthly ministry (Calvary) or his leaving (ascension). Were the angels present at Pentecost? Were rewards given at Pentecost? Were rewards given at the ascension, the resurrection? The epistles (written after Pentecost) express His second appearing as a "near," "nigh," "shortly coming to pass," "quickly" and "a very little while" future event to them in the first century. I think these are valid questions which deserve an answer, don't you?

[Theophilus]

May our discussions be marked with love. That is how the world will know we are Christ's disciples! As a disciple, I am continuing to learn what Scripture says and I am not claiming to be an expert on this topic. My current understanding is as follows.

Matt 16:27 and Matt 16:28 could belong to different scriptural topics/groupings.

Matt 16:27 should be read and understood in the context of Matt 16:21-27.

Matt 16:28 should be read and understood in the context of Matt 16:28-Matt 17:11. Please refer to the parallel passage in Mark 9:1-12. This chapter division in Mark provides some support for how these verses could be read and interpreted together.

Matt 16:28 is very similar to Mark 9:1:
And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."

Peter testifies about the "power and coming of our Lord Jesus" in 2 Pet 1:16:
16We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."[a] 18We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

If the above holds, then it is possible that Matt 16:28 refers to the first parousia and not the second.

Christ demonstrated His coming with power in Matt 16:28 in the first parousia in these ways:
1. transfiguration - glory in the Kingdom with Moses and Elijah
2. resurrection - power over death
3. ascension - See Daniel 7:13
4. pentecost - See John 14:15-21

I'm not sure if 70AD is in view in Matt 16:28 although similar language is used in Matt 24.

[Mellontes]

Theophilus,

You seem to say that there were two parousias. The NT only talks of THE parousia. I wonder verses you use to refer to the 2nd parousia (I assume you mean the final one that you believe hasn't arrived yet).

I have asked so many people to take a piece of paper (or electronic document), divide it into two columns, one for 70 AD Parousia and the other for ??? Parousia and then list the verses that apply to each. No one, I repeat, no one has ever responded with such a list. I think it would be a beneficial thing to do in order to concentrate on the differences.

I wonder, have you ever had the fortune to do a study on Strong's 3195 (mello) the "about to" aspect in regards to the events of the last days. It is a very rewarding study. Let me know if you have done it or if you plan to if you haven't.. I am serious here. I hope my posts do not reflect an unloving attitude, because it is not intended in the least. You are where I was less than two years ago. I understand the difficulties you face. Once I realized the decision that had to be made I knew what it was going to cost, but that only made the decision clearer...

Blessigns, Mellontes

[Theophilus]

Hi Mellontes,

I think the NT metions 2 parousias. The first parousia was the incarnation of Christ, and as such, most of the verses in Matthew relate to the first parousia as they establish who Jesus is and what He did. The second parousia is also mentioned in Matthew with respect to the coming of the Kingdom of God/Heaven.

In Matt 24, there are 2 events in view, and the parallel passages in Luke are instructive.

Matt 24:1-35 Signs of the End of the Age - Judgment of the Jewish system. See the parallel passage in Luke 21:5-38. This could be linked to the first parousia, but I'm not sure, because Jesus was not visibly seen although God's judgment was seen and the OT sometimes uses God's "coming" in reference to judgment on a city/nation.

Matt 24:36-51 The Day and Hour Unknown - Final judgment. The second parousia. See the parallel passage in Luke 17:20-37. Since Jesus has not visibly returned, Acts 1:11, this is what we are eagerly waiting for. The reference to the "days of Noah" also indicate this judgment has wider scope than Jerusalem.

The chapter and topical arrangement in Matt 24 can be confusing and the similar language between the two topics adds to the difficulty.

My guess is that some of the arguments presented for the full preterist position with respect to events that are about to take place should be applied to the first parousia and not the second parousia.

God Bless.

[Mellontes]

Hi Mellontes,

I think the NT metions 2 parousias. The first parousia was the incarnation of Christ, and as such, most of the verses in Matthew relate to the first parousia as they establish who Jesus is and what He did. The second parousia is also mentioned in Matthew with respect to the coming of the Kingdom of God/Heaven.

In Matt 24, there are 2 events in view, and the parallel passages in Luke are instructive.

Matt 24:1-35 Signs of the End of the Age - Judgment of the Jewish system. See the parallel passage in Luke 21:5-38. This could be linked to the first parousia, but I'm not sure, because Jesus was not visibly seen although God's judgment was seen and the OT sometimes uses God's "coming" in reference to judgment on a city/nation.

Matt 24:36-51 The Day and Hour Unknown - Final judgment. The second parousia. See the parallel passage in Luke 17:20-37. Since Jesus has not visibly returned, Acts 1:11, this is what we are eagerly waiting for. The reference to the "days of Noah" also indicate this judgment has wider scope than Jerusalem.

The chapter and topical arrangement in Matt 24 can be confusing and the similar language between the two topics adds to the difficulty.

My guess is that some of the arguments presented for the full preterist position with respect to events that are about to take place should be applied to the first parousia and not the second parousia.

God Bless.

Theophilus,

When I mentioned 2 parousias I was thinking you meant two additional comings of Christ which is a prevalent partial preterist view - the coming in judgment at Jerusalem and the final coming in judgment. I don't think anyone questions the first advent other than outright liberals

Many believe the judgment in 70 AD was just a "type" of the final judgment although they have no Scriptural support that express this event as a type or a shadow as the temple system represented a shadow of the Lord Jesus.

Actually I'm a little confused as to what position you do take. Would you be willing to elaborate for me? Also, would you be willing to address the "mello" (Strong's 3195) study request of mine? It is really hard to progress especially by limited text (this chat) if questions aren't answered completely. I am sure you understand.

Blessings, Mellontes

[Theophilus]

Hi Mellontes,

Actually I'm a little confused as to what position you do take. Would you be willing to elaborate for me?

As far as eschatology is concerned, I would describe myself as an amillenial partial preterist. I've listened to Steve Gregg's topical lecture series on eschatology and some of his verse-by-verse teachings and am in agreement with most of his teachings on this subject. I'm still studying, but that's where I am at this time.

Also, would you be willing to address the "mello" (Strong's 3195) study request of mine?

I would be willing to look at the materials of the study to determine if I should invest more time. I am currently studying Isaiah, so I don't have a lot of extra time between that and this forum . I did look at μέλλω at http://www.zhubert.com. There appear to be 8 uses of this word in Matthew.

[Mellontes]

Theophilus,

Thanks! I don't know too much about amillennialism, but Philip Mauro's "hope of Israel,' "The Gospel of the Kingdom" and "Daniel's Seventy Weeks..." were very helpful...

And regarding "mello," here are 3 verses (there are many more) indicating the "about to" nature of some important topics: 2 Timothy 4:1, James 2:12 and 1 Peter 5:1. This is barely a 3 minute study and will allow you to continue with your studies in Isaiah, but at the same time giving you some food for thought...

Do you have InstaVerse? http://www.instaverse.com (hovering your mouse over a Bible reference pops up the Bible passage) Excellent for reading electronic documents that contain a lot of Scripture in parenthesis!

Blessings, Mellontes