Explain Matthew 16:28

The only logical answer is that the Lord was speaking of His transfiguration that was about to take place.

 

Did verse 27 also take place there?

 

Full preterists say it did happen, in A.D. 70.

(BTW, I'm not a full preterist.)

 

Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, and Luke 9:27 have a common theme in the three Gospels. Jesus was talking to the elders, chief priests, scribes, His disciples including Peter, James and John. In these verses our Lord promises that many will not experience death '. . . until they see the Son of man coming in His Kingdom.'

He immediately explains this by taking them up into the mountain where He reveals, Moses-the author of the Law/Ten Commandments, Elijah-the greatest prophet of O.T. times and finally they are removed from the heavenlies and in verse eight only Jesus is transfigured before their eyes. The greatest lesson of this transfiguration of Christ is that He is the author of grace and everlasting life, and the Father sealed this tremendous truth by saying, 'This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him. Probably only Peter, James and John saw this grand Transfiguration.

Do not any longer follow Moses or Elijah but follow Jesus Christ because in this Transfiguration we are to learn that only this Son of man is coming with the authority of the Kingdom of God.

I doubt very seriously that no child of God could create the miracle that the Triune Godhead did in three dimensional picture for Peter, James and John to see and experience. God is pointing to His Son as to the One Who will bring into existence the Kingdom of God.

The Apostle Peter experienced the Transfiguration and latter years refers to this momumental event in II Peter 1:16-18. Here are his words. 'For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in His majesty.' When was the eyewitness event? At the Transfiguration of Christ as the only Mediator between God and humankind. [I Timothy 2:5] Peter went on to say, 'For He received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to Him from the excellent glory, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from Heaven we heard, {not that I heard}-inferring that James and John were also present for this grand miracle in the sky; 'when we were with Him in the holy mountain.'

These words were not a treatise on some alleged Second Coming of Christ in 70 A.D. or thereabouts.

The lessons of Matthew 16:24-27 were that all Christians have a cross to carry in this life, to be faithful to Jesus to then end of their lives, stay close to the Lord and your souls will be saved, and that one day Jesus will not only come with His angels, but Christ will reward His people because of their faithfulness to Him and His glorious church/kingdom of God. Verse 27 points to the rapture of the church. [I Thess. 4:17] How do we know this is the rapture and not the Great White Throne Judgment; it is because the Lord does not reward sinners/evil doers. He is referring to the I Thessalonians 4:17 event because no sinner 'takes up his or her cross and follows Jesus. [Matthew 16:24]

Dr. C.I Scofield, said, 'The Transfiguration scene contains, in miniature, all the elements of the future Kingdom in manifestation. The Lord, not in humiliation, but in glory.'

He, of course, is referring to the future theocratic Kingdom which will be on earth right after the Second Coming of Christ which has not taken place yet in time.

 

Verse 27 says he comes with His angels and renders judgement. Did that happen at the Mount of Transfiguration?

Verse 28 says "some" standing, why "some" if this event happens 6 days later. Would it not in all probability be "all" who would still be alive? It also says He comes in His Kingdom, not a glimpse or a picture of a future Kingdom, but "coming in His Kingdom" did this happen 6 days later?

 

It is possible that Stephen was in the audience...

John the Revelator was also known to be there...


The "some' in the Greek is not as precise as some would have us believe... It does not neccesarily mean more than one, according to my copy of Strong's.

But, even if it did... John the revelator definately saw Jesus in all His Glory and His Return...

Stephen saw the Lord high and lifted up sitting at the right hand of God the father.

So, we have one definate... And, at least one other probable...

 

Did a quick study in E-sword. Found this... (Not much else to find, though.)

Education Excerpt

Interesting thing for Henry to say?

 

In Isaiah 7 the prophet relates about present day events and then in the middle of nowhere says ' . . . a virgin shall conceive,' a prophetic utterance about Jesus future coming birth.

Jude speaks of the church having 'spots in their feasts of love,' vs.12 and then jumps into the deep water of the Second Coming of Christ some multiple thousands of years later in verse 14.

So too in Matt. 16:27 Jesus is dealing with the rapture [I Thess. 4:17] and in the next verse, verse 18 through chapter 17:1-8 reminds at least three apostles that they will not die until they see Jesus Transfiguration before their very eyes.

No visible angels at the Transfiguration but they will attend the Second Coming of Christ. [Matthew 24:29-31 & Revelation 19:17]

 

There is no doubt that Matthew 16:27 and 28 are tied together. Only those who can not force this into their little box of theology would dare attempt to separate the two. So then, if this was the transfiguration as some suppose, tell me how Moses and Elijah fit into the category of the Holy angels! Secondly, was the Lord Jesus Christ in such a lost for understanding that He would make such a statement as "some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" when such an event was but six days away!!! Surely Jesus did not expect a significant amout of his audience to die in just six days! Why not just believe our Lord that what He said He meant rather than trying desperately to explain it away? Also to those who believe that we are not yet in the kingdom, but believe this passage dealt with the transfiguration, did the Lord fail to deliver His kingdom as promised?

 

'There is no doubt that Matthew 16:27 and 28 are tied together.'

Ray is saying, 'You need to give us the exact reasons why these two verses must be tied together. Please, list them 1,2,3,4. Mere declarations become quickly marginalized if you do not give us the reasons why these verses should be collated; and I really doubt that you can offer up authentic reasons.'

'Only those who can not force this into their little box of theology would dare attempt to
separate the two.'

Ray is saying, 'In Isaiah 7:1-13 the prophet deals with events in his lifetime, but then most quickly moves on to his prophetic utterance about a virgin maiden, who remains unnamed in verse fourteen. Isaiah moved from his present circumstances to 740 years down the line to Jesus holy birth. So for Matthew to deal with the gathering of the church to Heaven, and then quickly move to an event six days away is within the will of God. Both truths were and are important.'

'So then, if this was the transfiguration as some suppose, tell me how Moses and Elijah fit into the category of the Holy angels!'

Ray is saying, 'I never read in God's Word that Moses and Elijah were spoken of as holy angels. Please, offer Scriptural backing for your idea. Both were men of God; the one represented the Law and the latter the leading--O.T. prophet.'

'Secondly, was the Lord Jesus Christ in such a lost for understanding that He
would make such a statement as "some who are standing here will not taste
death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" when such an
event was but six days away!!!'

Ray is saying, 'Many people would die in Israel before the six days passed; many would also be alive when Jesus brought into being His own miraculous Transfiguration in the sky.'

'Surely Jesus did not expect a significant amout of his audience to die in just six days!'

Ray is saying, 'Verse 28 is an emphasis on the living and not only the dead. [Matthew 16:28] We must keep in mind that this was a vision to Peter, James and John. [vs. 9d] This vision was to the leadership of His future church.'

'Why not just believe our Lord that what He said He meant rather than trying desperately to explain it away?'

Ray is saying, 'Only a small minority of people believe that all of the eschatological events of the Book of Revelation are in the distant past of 70 A.D. You are not giving us Scriptural or historical documentation as to events of the Book of Revelation being in the distant past. Secular and religious history does not agree with this absurdity.'

'Also to those who believe that we are not yet in the kingdom, but believe this
passage dealt with the transfiguration . . . '

Ray is saying, 'We are the church and yes we are part of the kingdom of God. The inner core of the Apostolate knew they were in the kingdom and they personally saw the Transfiguration of Christ. They were eyewitnesses as to seeing Jesus-Who was and is God.'

'Did the Lord fail to deliver His kingdom as promised?'

Ray is saying, 'Yes, Jesus offered His kingdom to the Israelites but they turned Him away. This is documented in John 1:11. There always was and will be a remnant of Jews who will believe and trust in Jesus for salvation, as in the Messianic Christians. The Israelites rejected their Messiah/Jesus while He was on the earth, but they will be engrafted again, in the future, [Romans 11:23c-27] during the Great Tribulation and the Millennial reign of Christ on the earth. This interpolation of time is the church age, [Ephesians 3:3 'the mystery' and vs. 9 'the fellowship of the mystery' vs. 10 'the church.

The kingdom offered to the Israelites was rejected, but they will receive it fully after the church is taken to Heaven.'

Regards . . .

 

J.N. Darby says in his interpretation of St. Matthew:

'In each Gospel that speaks of it, the transfiguration immediately follows the promise of
not tasting death before seeing the kingdom of the Son of man. And not only so, but
Peter (in his second Epistle, 1: 16), when speaking of this scene, declares that it was
a manifestation of the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He says that the
word of prophecy was confirmed to them by the view of His majesty; so that they
knew that whereof they spoke, in making known to them the power and the coming of
Christ, having beheld His majesty. In fact it is precisely in this sense that the Lord
speaks of it here, as we have seen. It was a sample of the glory in which He would
hereafter come, given to confirm the faith of His disciples in the prospect of His death
which He had just announced to them.'

 

Seems to me likely this means either the Transfiguration (which comes after this statement)or the Ascension.

 

'The student of the Word has to first learn contextual understanding. Matthew 16:24-17:9 is a perfect example.

In 16:24 we see that Jesus is talking to his true followers, not sinners. This being true he moves them to understand that they must give up all to follow Him and that being led of Him will return the greatest feeling of accomplishment. Then He explains the value of a human lost soul, which points them to the evangelism of the lost ones/sinners. In verse 27 He speaks of His return for His people and that they will not be without reward from His hands. [Revelation 22:12] In 28-17:9 we have the Transfiguration of Christ. To the new student of study they will abide by the artificial concluding of one chapter as ending a thought. This is a mistake.

Matthew 16:28 & 17:8 is reaffirmed in II Peter 1:16-18. Peter says we personally saw Jesus coming forth in His transcendent power in the 'holy mount' [II Peter 1:18] and were 'eyewitnesses as to His resplendent, majesty'. [vs.16] So this 'coming of our Lord Jesus Christ' [II Peter 1:16] was and is not the Second Coming of Christ as preterists perceive things.

The great lesson of this Transfiguration is that Jesus is greater the Moses and his Law, and Elijah as the greatest O.T. prophet, because the Jewish people had nearly canonized these saints by now. The Transfiguration briefly shows again Jesus miraculous power and is a window of opportunity for all Christians to see something of what His coming for His church will be like, of course, in the future. [I Thessalonians 4:16]

Regards to the brethren . . .

 

Mark's version tells us more:

Mark 8:34 And he called unto him the multitude with his disciples,

 

Grasshopper,

Good point! The shortest Gospel and yet offering more information on this same passage.

 

Ray,
You need to give sound biblical and literary reason why they must be separate, because the context of the passage is evident.

 

Matthew 16:28-17:8 deals with the Transfiguration of Christ. Moses represented the Law as the servant of the Lord God. Elijah surfaces as the greatest of the prophets of the O.T., while Jesus pointed and still points to God's free grace. [John 1:17] Moses and Elijah were sent by the Lord for their ministry to the Jewish/Israelite people.

The main purpose of the Transfiguration is to show Peter, James and John the superiority of Jesus to that of Moses and Elijah. After all these men would spearhead a new era called the age of grace or the church age. That is why Matthew said, 'And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only.' [Matthew 17:8]

There are no angels mentioned in the Transfiguration passages; while verse 16:27 and Revelation 19:17 says, 'And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven; Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God.'

The Transfiguration passages are Matthew 16:28-17:8; Mark 9:1; and Luke 9:27. In the Gospel of Mark chapter nine, Mark includes the entire Transfiguration passage starting with a new chapter which is, of course, chapter nine.

II Peter 1:16-18 seals the case for the fact that Peter is speaking of the Transfiguration message. ' . . . the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . ' was not the Second Coming of Christ, but clearly points to the fact that the phenomenon happened ' . . . in the holy mount, which agrees with Matthew 17:1 where Matthew says that Jesus ' . . . brought them up into a high mountain . . . ' Jesus did not need to come again; He was walking with His disciples on the earth as they climbed the mountain.

Many Israelites/Jews today think Moses is even greater than Abraham. Jesus gave this clear testimony that He is the Source of all grace offered and given, under both covenants. [Hebrews 8:6]

 

Small correct.

I said, 'In the Gospel of Mark chapter nine, Mark includes the entire Transfiguration passage starting with a new chapter which is, of course, chapter nine.'

I mistated the fact that it was more recent translators who divided the chapters into there present statements of division rather than St. Mark.

Are there any who still think that this passage deals with the Second Coming of Christ? [Matthew 16:24-17:8] If so, this is a most glaring mistake.

 

Matthew 16:27 deals with the rapture/when Christ will come for His loved ones, the church. [I Thess. 4:17]