Matthew 16:28

My apologies if this has been discussed here recently.

I have heard more than one interpretation of the following scripture:

Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. (Matt 16:28).

How about we hear your exegesis on that?

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
My apologies if this has been discussed here recently.

I have heard more than one interpretation of the following scripture:

[b]Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. (Matt 16:28).

How about we hear your exegesis on that?[/b]

Perhaps Jesus is referring to His resurrection, the resurrection being the turning point in human history and Christ's triumph over the adversary.

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
My apologies if this has been discussed here recently.

I have heard more than one interpretation of the following scripture:

[b]Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. (Matt 16:28).

How about we hear your exegesis on that?[/b]

If my memory serves me correctly it may be a reference to the transfiguration, although i could be wrong.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it may be a reference to the transfiguration

A Christian blogger who is puzzling over this passage recently wrote:

The most popular position appears to be that He was referring to the Transfiguration -- that they would see Him in His glory there. That seems silly since that's the next thing that happens in Matthew (6 days later). "Here's a news flash for you, guys. Some of you will live another week." Not saying much.

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
My apologies if this has been discussed here recently.

I have heard more than one interpretation of the following scripture:

[b]Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. (Matt 16:28).

How about we hear your exegesis on that?[/b]

Thanks PD2 for an interesting question.

The traditional way this passages seems to have been interpreted is to spiritualise the "Kingdom", since Jesus said on several occasions that his kingdom was "not of this earth". The next step is then to identify exactly WHAT this spiritual coming of the Kingdom was during the next twenty years or so. A possibility would be the day of Pentecost.

A more heretical POV could be that the "human" side of Jesus actually made a mistake in thinking that the Second Coming, i.e. the coming to set up his kingdom, was far closer than actually happened. Such a POV could be supported by the scripture which says that "NOBODY knows THAT DAY, not even the Son, but only the Father." So Jesus did not know, and may have speculated...

Clearly, this view would be anathema to any Fundamentalist.

It is however clear from Paul's writings that the early church was literally sitting on the edge of their figurative chairs, and expecting the "setting up of the Kingdom" at any moment. Paul talked of "those of us who remain and are alive", expecting himself to be in that group.

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
A Christian blogger who is puzzling over this passage recently wrote:

The most popular position appears to be that He was referring to the Transfiguration -- that they would see Him in His glory there. That seems silly since that's the next thing that happens in Matthew (6 days later). "Here's a news flash for you, guys. Some of you will live another week." Not saying much.

No the objection is baseless, there is no time period specified, therefore to object on the basis that the transfiguration took place six days later is nonsensical, illogical, irrational, without foundation, petty and childish not to mention a whole host of other adjectives i can think of. Is that really the best objection? that the transfiguration took place six days later and thus Christs words about not tasting death before seeing him in his Kingdom is rendered senseless. Perhaps he should have been much more specific and named the hour before each of their deaths? It really is pathetic reasoning in the original sense of the word.

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
My apologies if this has been discussed here recently.

I have heard more than one interpretation of the following scripture:

[b]Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. (Matt 16:28).

How about we hear your exegesis on that?[/b]

This may not be correct and I do not know if anyone has ever said this before. I was speculating that His Church that He was to build could be the beginning of His Kingdom on earth that would eventually defeat the Kingdoms of this world. Some of them may have been revealed the coming of the Son of Man in His Kingdom by visions like those that John saw in Revelations.

But there will be a time when ALL will see Him coming in the clouds as was prophecied in the Gospels.

BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.

(Revelation 1:7 NASB)

And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”

(Revelation 19:11-16 NASB)

Originally posted by CalJust
Thanks PD2 for an interesting question.

The traditional way this passages seems to have been interpreted is to spiritualise the "Kingdom", since Jesus said on several occasions that his kingdom was "not of this earth". The next step is then to identify exactly WHAT this spiritual coming of the Kingdom was during the next twenty years or so. A possibility ...[text shortened]... t. Paul talked of "those of us who remain and are alive", expecting himself to be in that group.

Personally I would go with the Day of Pentecost explanation.

As for Christ making a mistake and speculatiing? There are far too many references which state that Christ spoke only what God told him to say, or that his words are Gods words etc. So for me that explanation holds no water.

As for Robbies defense of the JW stance re the 6 day prediction and the transfigurationn... it shows how stupid it is to bind yourself to another mans [ill thought out] explanation. Jesus could not possibly be telling anyone that he is predicting they will live another week.

The bottom line is that the Bible does not explain everything so there is no point in making firm conclusions and holding fast to dogmatic explanations of these difficult passages.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If my memory serves me correctly it may be a reference to the transfiguration, although i could be wrong.

You could be wrong? 😲

Originally posted by whodey
You could be wrong? 😲

Yes I know its hard to take, but one must appreciate that we are human and prone to aberration unless of course you are like Rajk and jaywill, infallible as the pontificate maximus himself.

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
My apologies if this has been discussed here recently.

I have heard more than one interpretation of the following scripture:

[b]Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. (Matt 16:28).

How about we hear your exegesis on that?[/b]

It seems to me the verse announces that a coming of the Son of man would soon take place in the future. This advent was probably the destruction of Jerusalem that occurred about 40 years later, in a time where some of his auditors were still be alive. The main aspect of this advent took place during the overthrow of Jerusalem and its temple and the establishment and development of the gospel. In this context, “some of them that stand here”, like John, did survive the destruction of Jerusalem.

If this holds, then the verse is a metaphor, since Jesus is “coming in his kingdom" (not into his Kingdom) in the power and glory that appertain to his kingdom. It is not meant that he would appear in person, but that his mystical presence will be seen by its effects (the judgment on the Jewish nation and the establishment of a spiritual kingdom in the place of the old covenant). The same essence is held also in John 21:23 and Matthew 24:34.
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
It seems to me the verse announces that a coming of the Son of man would soon take place in the future. This advent was probably the destruction of Jerusalem that occurred about 40 years later, in a time where some of his auditors were still be alive. The main aspect of this advent took place during the overthrow of Jerusalem and its temple and the esta ...[text shortened]... e place of the old covenant). The same essence is held also in John 21:23 and Matthew 24:34.
😵

Well again, another explanation that makes no sense neither does it fit into the passage as it reads :

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16:27-28 KJV)


The kingdom to which Christ refers is described as the one [as stated in the previous verse], where he comes with his angels and rewards every man according to his works. I cannot see how the destruction of Jerusalem fits into that.,

Originally posted by Rajk999
Well again, another explanation that makes no sense neither does it fit into the passage as it reads :

[i]For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man comin ...[text shortened]... every man according to his works. I cannot see how the destruction of Jerusalem fits into that.,

To refer the verse exclusively to the Day of Judgment is just incompatible with Christ's assertion that some present shall see it. I see the verse as a prophecy that is fulfilled step by step. The transfiguration, the resurrection etc displayed somehow the kingdom of Christ, but the bigger event was when Jerusalem’s destruction offered the opportunity for the full establishment and development of the gospel
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
To refer the verse exclusively to the Day of Judgment is just incompatible with Christ's assertion that some present shall see it. I see the verse as a prophecy that is fulfilled step by step. The transfiguration, the resurrection etc displayed somehow the kingdom of Christ, but the bigger event was when Jerusalem’s destruction offered the opportunity for the full establishment and development of the gospel
😵

You are adding unnecessary explanations which violate the meaning of the passage.

We are discussing what the Bible says. So here is a question, or rather a couple. Did the Bible ever state or imply that there are people who did not die? The answer is Yes. I think Enoch and Elijah are two such examples. Did the Bible refer to people who died but returned or what hindus call reincarnate? Yes Elijah it is implied returned as John the Baptist. In fact the Bible contains a whole long list of wierd stuff which many Christians would prefer to ignore. Like stories of the witch of Endor who brought back King Saul from the dead. Melchizedek who had no parents and no beginning, apparently he just appeared. Christ's story of the Rich Man going to a place of torment and Lazarus going to a place of rest after death does not help simplify matters either.

The next important thing is that the Bible is not a complete list of these wierd or unusual occurrences. The Bible contains 2 people who apparently did not die but were taken by God. There could have been hundreds or thousands who did not die. There could have been dozens like Melchizedek.

Christ could have had in his congregation people who are still alive and waiting to see His grand return with the angels and to perform the judgement. We do not know. I know the first thing people would say is there is proof that all the disciples did in fact die. What about the rest of the people? Can anyone be sure that all died?

Originally posted by Rajk999
You are adding unnecessary explanations which violate the meaning of the passage.

We are discussing what the Bible says. So here is a question, or rather a couple. Did the Bible ever state or imply that there are people who did not die? The answer is Yes. I think Enoch and Elijah are two such examples. Did the Bible refer to people who died but returned o ...[text shortened]... disciples did in fact die. What about the rest of the people? Can anyone be sure that all died?

Edit: "You are adding unnecessary explanations which violate the meaning of the passage."

I 'm Greek and I understand the verse in full. Of course we are discussing what the Bible says and I do not add explanations which violate the meaning of the passage; to me, it's crystal clear we are in front of a metaphor. All the teachers use metaphors and Jesus wasn't an exception. Just my two cents anyway, Rajk my man!

On the other hand, this atheist is not ready to discuss topics like "There could have been hundreds or thousands who did not die" and "Christ could have had in his congregation people who are still alive and waiting to see His grand return with the angels and to perform the judgement."
😵