Some will not see death until the Kingdom comes. When is this?

[Robert Snow]

Not to derail this thread but a careful examination of Scripture will show there is no difference between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven!

Amazing! Two Sundays ago my Sunday School teacher said there was a difference.

 

[asterisktom]

It's not a question of who is alive, it is a matter of who sees. Only some see. In the immediate context, the ones who see Jesus in His glory are the three disciples.

Here are the key questions to answer:

Was Jesus' Kingdom glory revealed on the mount of transfiguration?

Did everyone who was listening to Jesus see that glory?

The answers are "yes" and "no". Therefore the revelation on the mount of transfiguration perfectly fulfills the words Jesus spoke. Therefore, this is the proper interpretation.

Yes, but if it is not a question of who is alive then Christ needn't even have mentioned the tasting of death. That phrase cannot just be passed over.

 

[David Michael Harris]

I though this would be a good topic for its own thread, not buried in another one: What about Christ's prophecy to His disciple before the Transfiguration? He said that some here would not see death until they see the Kingdom coming in power, Christ coming into His kingdom? When did this happen?

"And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." Mark 9:1

I wrote this earlier:
But perhaps the biggest factor that turned me away from this theology was that it just had no answer for Christ's many promises to come to His own "soon", or "quickly". And that He told them at the time of the Transfiguration that some of them would still be alive when He came into His kingdom.

Well Jesus said for one thing that those who believe in Him will never see death. Do you believe this?

Then there are those who will not see death but in the twinkle of an eye will be changed.

Work it out.

Not too hard.

I have not seen death yet. Will I? I will never leave you or forsake you.

 

[asterisktom]

Well Jesus said for one thing that those who believe in Him will never see death. Do you believe this?

Then there are those who will not see death but in the twinkle of an eye will be changed.

Work it out.

Not too hard.

I have not seen death yet. Will I? I will never leave you or forsake you.

This does not touch upon the problem of the passage at all.

 

[David Michael Harris]

This does not touch upon the problem of the passage at all.

Maybe it does. Do Christians see death. Also surely a born again person sees the Kingdom before he dies?

 

[David Michael Harris]

Was this not before Pentecost? Have we forgot Pentecost?

 

[David Michael Harris]

James tasted physical death after Pentecost.

 

[David Michael Harris]

Does not any true born again Christian see the Kingdom of God come with power.

Christ's words are cryptic at times if you ask me.

 

[Grasshopper]

It's not a question of who is alive, it is a matter of who sees. Only some see. In the immediate context, the ones who see Jesus in His glory are the three disciples.

What exactly does this mean if it's not about who's alive:

"which shall not taste of death"

Clearly Jesus is indicating some will not be alive to see this event.

Here are the key questions to answer:

Was Jesus' Kingdom glory revealed on the mount of transfiguration?

Here is what Jesus said they would see:

"till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

Did everyone who was listening to Jesus see that glory?

No, and why? Because Jesus said only some standing there would not taste of death before this event occured.

The answers are "yes" and "no". Therefore the revelation on the mount of transfiguration perfectly fulfills the words Jesus spoke. Therefore, this is the proper interpretation.

Except of course the preceding verse that you completely ignored and which is connected by the "Verily".

 

[Grasshopper]

Exactly. Changing the wording can make the text say practically anything one likes. The text does not state 'alive' nor does the Greek word even stand for or allude to it meaning 'alive'.

So let me get this straight, saying "some standing here shall not taste of death" has nothing to do with some being "alive" and some not?

You to also ignore verse 27.

 

[Grasshopper]

Did the Son of Man come in the Glory of the Father in 70AD?

The Study of the Time and Nature of Christ's Second Coming: The nature of Christ's return is being hotly debated, at last. Did Christ predict a return in a literal fleshly body, as most modern believers suggest? Or was Christ's coming to be an event in which He would come in the same way His Father had come, many times, in the Old Covenant? The latter is the clearly stated truth, yet, this essential truth is greatly ignored by most Bible students. The preterist view of prophecy is growing rapidly, across all denominational boundaries. The Gordian Knot problem of the New testament time statements of the nearness of the end is unraveling in light of a better understanding of the nature of Christ's parousia (presence). In short, Jesus did not promise to come back in a physical body! He promised to come as the Father had come, and that precludes a visible, bodily coming! But, this convincing explanation is not welcome by all, and preterism is being labeled as heretical. undaunted by such charges, Don K. Preston candidly confronts the leading critics of preterism today, responding in-depth to the writings of John MacArthur, Kenneth Gentry and others, showing that their paradigm is false, and that their accusations are misguided. In this comprehensive and definitive work, Don K. preston shows with powerful, persuasive evidence, that Christ's second coming was not to be a bodily, physical, visible return; but a manifestation of His Sovereignty as He came, In the Glory of the Father!

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0938855271/?tag=baptis04-20

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I though this would be a good topic for its own thread, not buried in another one: What about Christ's prophecy to His disciple before the Transfiguration? He said that some here would not see death until they see the Kingdom coming in power, Christ coming into His kingdom? When did this happen?

"And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." Mark 9:1

I wrote this earlier:
But perhaps the biggest factor that turned me away from this theology was that it just had no answer for Christ's many promises to come to His own "soon", or "quickly". And that He told them at the time of the Transfiguration that some of them would still be alive when He came into His kingdom.

Many think this is an embarrasing quote for Christianity.

 

[Grasshopper]

Many think this is an embarrasing quote for Christianity.

Essay "The World's Last Night" (1960), found in The Essential C.S. Lewis, p-385.

"Say what you like," we shall be told, "the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And He was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else. It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible."

 

[kyredneck]

For yet a very little while, He that cometh shall come, and shall not tarry. Heb 10:37


After the transfiguration:

...And the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven. Mt 26:63-64

Josephus records the death of Annas during the siege of Jerusalem AD70 at the hands of the Idumeans.


from the Parousia:

The reply of our Saviour to the solemn adjuration of the high priest is the almost verbatim repetition of what He had declared to the disciples on the Mount of Olives,-- 'They shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory ' (Matt. xxiv. 30). It is evidently the same event and the same period that are referred to. The language implies that the persons addressed, or some of them, would witness the event predicted. The expression 'Ye shall see' would not be proper if spoken of something which the hearers would none of them live to witness, and which would not take place for thousands of years. Our Lord therefore told His judges that they, or some of them, would live to see Him coming to judgment, or coming in His kingdom. This declaration is in harmony with what our Saviour said to His disciples,-' The Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels. . . . Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man in his kingdom' (Matt. xvi. 27, 28). Some of His disciples, and some of His judges, would live long enough to witness that great consummation, less than forty years distant, when the Son of man would come in His kingdom, to execute the judgments of God on the guilty nation. This is precisely what the prophecy on the Mount of Olives asserts: 'This generation shall not pass,' etc. Here again we have neither obscurity nor ambiguity.... -James Stuart Russell

21 Peter therefore seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me.

The words themselves are sufficiently simple. All the obscurity and difficulty have been imported into them by the reluctance of interpreters to recognise in the ' coming' of Christ a distinct and definite point of time within the space of the existing generation. Often as our Lord reiterates the assurance that he would come in His kingdom, come in glory, come to judge His enemies and reward His friends, before the generation then living on earth -bad wholly passed away, there seems an almost invincible repugnance on the part of theologians to accept His words in their plain and obvious sense. They persist in supposing that He must have meant something else or something more. Once admit, what is undeniable, that our Lord Himself declared that His coming was to take place in the lifetime of some of His disciples (Matt. xvi. 27, 28), and the whole difficulty vanishes..... -James Stuart Russell

 

[David Michael Harris]

Geez that's a mix, surprised you did not throw some Eusebius in there.

 

[kyredneck]

The Study of the Time and Nature of Christ's Second Coming: The nature of Christ's return is being hotly debated, at last. Did Christ predict a return in a literal fleshly body, as most modern believers suggest? Or was Christ's coming to be an event in which He would come in the same way His Father had come, many times, in the Old Covenant? The latter is the clearly stated truth, yet, this essential truth is greatly ignored by most Bible students. The preterist view of prophecy is growing rapidly, across all denominational boundaries. The Gordian Knot problem of the New testament time statements of the nearness of the end is unraveling in light of a better understanding of the nature of Christ's parousia (presence). In short, Jesus did not promise to come back in a physical body! He promised to come as the Father had come, and that precludes a visible, bodily coming! But, this convincing explanation is not welcome by all, and preterism is being labeled as heretical. undaunted by such charges, Don K. Preston candidly confronts the leading critics of preterism today, responding in-depth to the writings of John MacArthur, Kenneth Gentry and others, showing that their paradigm is false, and that their accusations are misguided. In this comprehensive and definitive work, Don K. preston shows with powerful, persuasive evidence, that Christ's second coming was not to be a bodily, physical, visible return; but a manifestation of His Sovereignty as He came, In the Glory of the Father!

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0938855271/?tag=baptis04-20

There have been soooo many answers given and sooo many 'problem passages' cleared up for me since I began using the 'Preterist modifier'.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

For yet a very little while, He that cometh shall come, and shall not tarry. Heb 10:37


After the transfiguration:

...And the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven. Mt 26:63-64

Josephus records the death of Annas during the siege of Jerusalem AD70 at the hands of the Idumeans.


from the Parousia:



21 Peter therefore seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me.

Kyredneck, there is more to you than meets the eye. :thumbsup:

 

[Grasshopper]

Geez that's a mix, surprised you did not throw some Eusebius in there.

Eusebius:

On Matthew 24:15
"--all these things, as well as the many great sieges which were carried on against the cities of Judea, and the excessive. sufferings endured by those that fled to Jerusalem itself, as to a city of perfect safety, and finally the general course of the whole war, as well as its particular occurrences in detail, and how at last the abomination of desolation, proclaimed by the prophets, stood in the very temple of God, so celebrated of old, the temple which was now awaiting its total and final destruction by fire,-- all these things any one that wishes may find accurately described in the history written by Josephus." (Book III, Ch. 5)
　
On Matthew 24:34
"And when those that believed in Christ had come thither from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men." (Book III, Ch. 5)

 

[AnotherBaptist]

Amazing! Two Sundays ago my Sunday School teacher said there was a difference.

He's right. There is. Just remember, it wasn't Matthew who used the different terms, it was Jesus. He was quoted by Matthew. This isn't some confusing part of the narrative. There was a reason Jesus kept the two terms separate.

 

[Amy.G]

He's right. There is. Just remember, it wasn't Matthew who used the different terms, it was Jesus. He was quoted by Matthew. This isn't some confusing part of the narrative. There was a reason Jesus kept the two terms separate.

I have heard this as well, but why does Jesus refer to both the kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven in these verses? He uses the terms interchangeably.

Mt*19:23 ¶ Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mt*19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.