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

[Amy.G]

Starting a new thread on the 2 Kingdoms.

 

[David Michael Harris]

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)

Eusebius is fascinating. As are many others after the Apostles time. He had a problem with the deity of Christ I believe. Also some strange visions which seem to try to enforce a particular system of eschatology.

Worth a study. But let's never forget the words of the Apostles with regards to things that would happen after.

 

[kyredneck]

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

Yea, I'm about 20 lbs heavier than what my avatar shows......

Thank you TS. I take that as a compliment.

 

[swaimj]

Let me address some of the questions I have been asked, and thanks to all for your interaction.

First, here is the phrase that is in question:

And he said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power."

AsterickTom commented:

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.

Several observations: First, the fact that some would not taste death before this event occurred is an indication that the event he is speaking about will happen soon. If we take the event to be to be the transfiguration, then that fulfills the requirement. Again, this is the simple solution.

Note that, while the synoptic writers often move events around and place them in various sequences, in ALL THREE synoptics, this prediction is immediately followed by the transfiguration. Again, the context tells you, not only here, but in all three synoptics, what event the statement refers to.

Grasshopper said

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.

No grasshopper, it is doubtful that anyone who heard this statement died before the event took place. That is not the point. The point is that, though ALL of them were alive the next day, NOT ALL of them saw the event. Only Peter, James, and John saw it. Again, the context makes this clear.

Grasshopper also said

Here is what Jesus said they would see:

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

Incorrect, Grasshopper. That is not what Jesus said that some would see before death. You are referring to what Jesus said in the last verse of chapter 8. Obviously, Jesus did not come in the glory of His Father with the holy angels on the mount of transfiguration. If I was arguing for that I would be incorrect because that did not happen. Rather, on the mount of transfiguration, Jesus appeared in His kingdom glory with Moses and Elijah, not with angels. What Jesus said is that "some would not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power." THIS is the event that took place on the mount of transfiguration. Peter, James and John saw the kingdom of God present with power on the mount. This is clear in the context. This is what the statement means.


Here are the two questions I asked earlier. Think about them in the context and the answers are clear:

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" respectively.

 

[Grasshopper]

Note that, while the synoptic writers often move events around and place them in various sequences, in ALL THREE synoptics, this prediction is immediately followed by the transfiguration. Again, the context tells you, not only here, but in all three synoptics, what event the statement refers to.

Yes, and in all 3 this verse precedes it:

Luk 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.

You still haven't explained why we are to ignore the preceding verse.

Grasshopper saidNo grasshopper, it is doubtful that anyone who heard this statement died before the event took place.

Which makes one wonder why would Jesus say such an absurd thing if no one was going to die. However, if Jesus is speaking of something 40 years later "some" is an accurate word to use.

That is not the point. The point is that, though ALL of them were alive the next day, NOT ALL of them saw the event. Only Peter, James, and John saw it. Again, the context makes this clear.

You can twist it every which way, but the clear implication is that some would taste death before this occured. It didn't say some standing here will see the event, it says some standing will not taste death till it occured.

Incorrect, Grasshopper. That is not what Jesus said that some would see before death. You are referring to what Jesus said in the last verse of chapter 8. Obviously, Jesus did not come in the glory of His Father with the holy angels on the mount of transfiguration.

Obviously! Thats why it not referring to the Transfiguration. You separate the 2 verses by 2000 years and flip the order of occurance.

If I was arguing for that I would be incorrect because that did not happen. Rather, on the mount of transfiguration, Jesus appeared in His kingdom glory with Moses and Elijah, not with angels. What Jesus said is that "some would not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power." THIS is the event that took place on the mount of transfiguration. Peter, James and John saw the kingdom of God present with power on the mount. This is clear in the context. This is what the statement means.

"some would not taste death till they see" This statement makes no sense with you interpretation.

Here are the two questions I asked earlier. Think about them in the context and the answers are clear: Was Jesus' Kingdom glory revealed on the mount of transfiguration

2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2Pe 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour 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.
2Pe 1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

Says nothing of coming in His kingdom.

Did everyone who was listening to Jesus see that glory?

Mat 16:27 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.
Mat 16:28 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.

Here is what you do:

Mat 16:27 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.

(2000 year gap and reverse the order)

Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which snip shall not snip see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

 

[Steven2006]

"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." Mat 16:27,28

Looking at these two verses together, Verse 27 has always given me some trouble even with the transfiguration explanation. Are Moses and Elijah to be considered angels? There is no mention of Jesus repaying every man according to his deeds associated.

Also where is says "is going" in verse 27 is translated from the Greek word mellō. Mellō seems to imply "about to".

 

[swaimj]

You still haven't explained why we are to ignore the preceding verse.

Because I don't think we should ignore the preceding verse and because I did not ignore the preceding verse, I explained it. The verse at the end of chapter 8 is speaking of Jesus return to set up His kingdom, verse 1 of chapter 9 is speaking of Jesus revelation of His kingdom glory that occurs in the transfiguration. I explained that verse 28 cannot refer to the transfiguration. My explanation fits an orderly theological view of Christ's return, which is still future and it fits the context in which, 6 days later, three of the people saw Jesus in his kingdom glory.

If there is no distinction between what is being talked about in verse 28 and what is being talked about in verse 1, then why did Jesus say the same thing twice?

And, I'll ask you again, did Jesus reveal his kingdom glory on the mount of transfiguration?

 

[Grasshopper]

The verse at the end of chapter 8 is speaking of Jesus return to set up His kingdom,
　

Mar 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

The kingdom was to arrive during the Roman Empire:

Dan 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

"These kings" refers back to verse 40:


Dan 2:40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.

The fourth kingdom by virtually all commentators is the Roman Empire.
John Gill:

Dan 2:40 And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron,.... This is not the kingdom of the Lagidae and Seleucidae, the successors of Alexander, as some have thought; for these are designed by the thighs in the third kingdom; and, besides, the kingdom of Christ was to arise in the time of this fourth kingdom, which it did not in that; nor the kingdom of Gog, or the empire of the Turks, as Saadiah, Aben Ezra, and Jarchi; but the Roman empire, which is compared to iron for its strength, firmness, and duration in itself; and for its power over other nations; and also for its cruelty to the Jews above all others, in utterly destroying their city, temple, and nation:

Did it arrive during the Roman Empire? Right on time Jesus states the "time is fulfilled":

Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

What time is fulfilled? The predicted kingdom of Daniel 2!

So when you claim that Mark 8:38 is still unfulfilled then you deny the Prophet Daniel and the words of Jesus. It is because of this "problem" for futurists that they must now insist on a postponed kingdom. Something the Bible never teaches.
　

verse 1 of chapter 9 is speaking of Jesus revelation of His kingdom glory that occurs in the transfiguration.

But you have not explained why you can separate 8:38 from 9:1, other than presupposition. Just as there were no chapter divides in the original texts neither were there verse numbers. This was one complete thought. The verily connects verse 38 to the next verse.
　
"An examination of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance reveals that the word "verily" is used some 95 times in the New Testament. Unless "verily" is used as introductory and not for emphasis in Matthew 16:28/Mark 9:1 there are only three places in all of the New Testament where the word is used to introduce a new subject. In all other occurrences, that is 92 out of 95 instances, THE WORD IS ALWAYS USED TO EMPHASIZE A STATEMENT ABOUT A SUBJECT THAT IS ALREADY UNDER CONSIDERATION! (The exceptions are John 10:l; 13:21; and Hebrews 9:11. Now when you have a word that is used in such a consistent manner, with so few exceptions, unless you have some overwhelming contextual reason for doing so you must go with the normal definition and usage. Where is the contextual evidence to demand that "verily" introduces a new subject in Matthew 16:28/Mark 9:1?"
http://www.eschatology.org/index.ph...28&catid=41:second-coming-of-christ&Itemid=61
　

My explanation fits an orderly theological view of Christ's return, which is still future and it fits the context in which, 6 days later, three of the people saw Jesus in his kingdom glory.

Sure, if you are allowed to insert gaps, deny time-statements and postpone events.
　

If there is no distinction between what is being talked about in verse 28 and what is being talked about in verse 1, then why did Jesus say the same thing twice?

He didn't say the same thing twice.


Mar 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

He tells "this generation" of His coming in judgment then He tells them some will see it:

Mar 9:1 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.

And, I'll ask you again, did Jesus reveal his kingdom glory on the mount of transfiguration?

That's not what Peter said.


2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Those two verses go as a unit, so there fulfillment was not at the Transfiguration.

 

[Marcia]

Because I don't think we should ignore the preceding verse and because I did not ignore the preceding verse, I explained it. The verse at the end of chapter 8 is speaking of Jesus return to set up His kingdom, verse 1 of chapter 9 is speaking of Jesus revelation of His kingdom glory that occurs in the transfiguration. I explained that verse 28 cannot refer to the transfiguration. My explanation fits an orderly theological view of Christ's return, which is still future and it fits the context in which, 6 days later, three of the people saw Jesus in his kingdom glory.

If there is no distinction between what is being talked about in verse 28 and what is being talked about in verse 1, then why did Jesus say the same thing twice?

And, I'll ask you again, did Jesus reveal his kingdom glory on the mount of transfiguration?

I think you gave very good explanations.

Many times in the Bible, a prophet and even Jesus make a statement that includes two predictions though they may be stated together.

For example, Is. 61 states:
1The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me,
Because the LORD has anointed me
To bring good news to the afflicted;
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to captives
And freedom to prisoners;
2To proclaim the favorable year of the LORD
And the day of vengeance of our God;
To comfort all who mourn,
3To grant those who mourn in Zion,
Giving them a garland instead of ashes,
The oil of gladness instead of mourning,
The mantle of praise instead of a spirit of fainting
So they will be called oaks of righteousness,
The planting of the LORD, that He may be glorified.

But when Jesus quoted this in Luke 4, he stopped at the beginning of verse 2, not quoting "and the day of vengeance of our God," which is still future.

17And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written,
18"THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME,
BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR.
HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES,
AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND,
TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED,
19TO PROCLAIM THE FAVORABLE YEAR OF THE LORD."

There are lots of examples like this in the Bible, so it's totally plausible to see that 8:28 and 9:1 are two different events.

 

[olegig]

There are lots of examples like this in the Bible, so it's totally plausible to see that 8:28 and 9:1 are two different events.

You seem to have an interest in unfulfilled prophecy.
What do you make of the wording concerning the days?

We see in the Mt and Mk passages the mention of "after six days" while in Luke 9:28 the wording is "about and eight days".
Now I wonder what is between 6 & 8, and how does this relate to 2Pet 3:8.

Of course one could go to some "manuscript evidence" to show the 6 & 8 were somehow "mis-translated", or one can take the Word as it stands and find meaning in the difference.

 

[kyredneck]

....... "and the day of vengeance of our God," which is still future.....

WRONG, it is not still future, it came upon that generation. 'The day of vengeance of our God' is synonymous with:

22 For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all things be accomplished. Lu 21

'The year of Jehovah`s favor, and the day of vengeance of our God' [Isa 61:2], and 'The day of vengeance and the year of my redeemed' [Isa 63:4], are synonymous with:

22 Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell, severity; but toward thee, God`s goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. Ro 11

and

10 And even now the axe lieth at the root of the trees: every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:
12 whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing-floor; and he will gather his wheat into the garner, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire. Mt 3:10-12


The year of Jehovah`s favor, and the day of vengeance of our God [Isa 61:2]

The day of vengeance and the year of my redeemed [Isa 63:4]

The goodness and severity of God [Ro 11:22]

The baptism in the Holy Spirit and the baptism in fire [Mt 3:11]

.........these all came upon that generation.

All you sensationalists should read the eyewitness account of Josephus, and see first hand 'the severity of God' that came upon that generation.

 

[swaimj]

Thanks, Marcia, for pointing out that often in prophetic passages, individual events that take place at different times are conflated into one statement. There are many examples of this and I think the two statements in Mark are examples.

Grasshopper, it's really outside the scope of this topic to bring in things from the book of Daniel. That's another discussion that I don't have time to indulge right now and it really not the topic of this thread.

I am confused as to whether you see the statement in vs 28 and verse 1 as being two descriptions of the same event or descriptions of two separate events.

It's also interesting that you reject my interpretation of verse 1, saying that the transfiguration narrative never says the kingdom appeared in exact words, then you say that verse 28 is speaking of an event that occurs during the time of the Roman Empire. I can't find where verse 28 says that anywhere.

I think the key question that I have asked separates me in my view from what you are saying. Is Jesus' kingdom glory revealed in the transfiguration? It's clear to me that it does. If it does (since it does IMHO), my conclusion is obvious and simple. Because of its simplicity, it becomes the default interpretation. I think that if we asked that question to 100 Christians as a blind question that the consensus would be "yes, it does". I think that Peter's description of it in II Peter is clear that this is the way Jesus will appear when he returns in kingdom glory. I think it is really a stretch to say that Jesus appeared in power and glory as a visible man in 70 AD the way he was on the mount of transfiguration.

 

[Marcia]

You seem to have an interest in unfulfilled prophecy.
What do you make of the wording concerning the days?

We see in the Mt and Mk passages the mention of "after six days" while in Luke 9:28 the wording is "about and eight days".
Now I wonder what is between 6 & 8, and how does this relate to 2Pet 3:8.

Of course one could go to some "manuscript evidence" to show the 6 & 8 were somehow "mis-translated", or one can take the Word as it stands and find meaning in the difference.

Actually, I don't have a strong interest in unfulfilled prophecy, though it is interesting but I don't go out of my way to study it - yet. I have other stuff on my plate to study for now.

I don't know the answer about the 6 days vs. the 8 days. Why don't you research it if you are curious?

As for 2 Pet. 3:8, that has nothing to do with any mention of exact days elsewhere. The 2 Peter passage is about something else - not how much time is passing for something, but rather that to God time means nothing when it comes to His patience. God does expect us to use our common sense.

To take the statement from 2 Pet. 3:8 and try to use it as a standard for time elsewhere is ludicrous. I think even a child could see that and I'm always amazed that some Christians try to use it for the 6 days of Genesis. Otherwise, we could say the body of Jesus was maybe in the tomb 300 years instead of 3 days; or any time a day is mentioned somewhere in the Bible, that could be 1,000 years. 2 Pet 3:8 has nothing to do with a specific time.

 

[Marcia]

WRONG, it is not still future, it came upon that generation. 'The day of vengeance of our God' is synonymous with:

22 For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all things be accomplished. Lu 21

'The year of Jehovah`s favor, and the day of vengeance of our God' [Isa 61:2], and 'The day of vengeance and the year of my redeemed' [Isa 63:4], are synonymous with:

22 Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell, severity; but toward thee, God`s goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. Ro 11

and

10 And even now the axe lieth at the root of the trees: every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:
12 whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing-floor; and he will gather his wheat into the garner, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire. Mt 3:10-12


The year of Jehovah`s favor, and the day of vengeance of our God [Isa 61:2]

The day of vengeance and the year of my redeemed [Isa 63:4]

The goodness and severity of God [Ro 11:22]

The baptism in the Holy Spirit and the baptism in fire [Mt 3:11]

.........these all came upon that generation.

All you sensationalists should read the eyewitness account of Josephus, and see first hand 'the severity of God' that came upon that generation.

So why didn't Jesus quote it?

Also, I think one could argue that the "day of vengeance" in Isaiah is not the same as the "days of vengeance." What about

To comfort all who mourn,
3To grant those who mourn in Zion,
Giving them a garland instead of ashes,
The oil of gladness instead of mourning,
The mantle of praise instead of a spirit of fainting
So they will be called oaks of righteousness,
The planting of the LORD, that He may be glorified

Jesus did not read that, either. He deliberately stopped in mid-passage.

 

[Marcia]

You seem to have an interest in unfulfilled prophecy.
What do you make of the wording concerning the days?

We see in the Mt and Mk passages the mention of "after six days" while in Luke 9:28 the wording is "about and eight days".
Now I wonder what is between 6 & 8, and how does this relate to 2Pet 3:8.

Of course one could go to some "manuscript evidence" to show the 6 & 8 were somehow "mis-translated", or one can take the Word as it stands and find meaning in the difference.

You can Google and find stuff on this:

It is interesting that Matthew says this took place after six days, and Luke says about the eighth day. Edersheim2 wonders if Peter’s great confession might not have been made on a Sabbath day, and then after six days, the night of the next sabbath, or the morning of the first day of the week, the eighth day, the Lord appears in His glory. If this is correct, and it is the only meaning for the days that makes sense, then the symbolism of a Sunday transfiguration and a Sunday resurrection is significant.

http://bible.org/seriespage/transfiguration-matthew-171-13

The above is actually an interesting article on the events on the Mt. of Transfiguration and how it paralleled Moses on Mt. Sinai.

At first glance, it may appear to some that Luke’s time line contradicts Matthew and Mark’s account of the amount of time that elapsed between Christ’s prophecy and His transfiguration. However, a closer examination reveals that Luke never intended for his readers to understand that exactly 192 hours (eight 24-hour days) elapsed from the moment Jesus finished His prophecy to the time that He and the others began their ascent to the mount of transfiguration. Luke recorded that it was “about eight days,” not exactly eight days. Although Luke was a physician (Colossians 4:14), he did not use “scientific precision” in this case. He merely approximated the time between the two events.

Furthermore, it seems clear that whereas Matthew and Mark excluded the days of the two terminal events (the prophecy and the transfiguration), Luke included both days, as well as the six intermediate days, and thus mentioned that the two events were eight days apart. Even today, when people rehearse something they witnessed a few days earlier, they may refer to the events as happening on “different” days. For example, if a store was robbed on a Monday afternoon, and the following Monday morning a witness told friends what he had seen, he could say truthfully that he recalled the events six days or eight days after they occurred. If one were counting only full days, then six would be correct (i.e., Tuesday through Sunday). However, it also would be correct to speak of the events as occurring eight days earlier—if one were including both full and partial days (Monday through Monday). Whether one uses “six” or “eight” does not discredit his story. Likewise, the time difference between Matthew, Mark, and Luke in no way represents a legitimate Bible contradiction. Luke simply used the inclusive method of reckoning time, whereas Matthew and Mark counted only complete days (Coffman, 1971, p. 261).

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/149

 

[olegig]

As for 2 Pet. 3:8, that has nothing to do with any mention of exact days elsewhere. The 2 Peter passage is about something else - not how much time is passing for something, but rather that to God time means nothing when it comes to His patience. God does expect us to use our common sense.

To take the statement from 2 Pet. 3:8 and try to use it as a standard for time elsewhere is ludicrous. I think even a child could see that and I'm always amazed that some Christians try to use it for the 6 days of Genesis. Otherwise, we could say the body of Jesus was maybe in the tomb 300 years instead of 3 days; or any time a day is mentioned somewhere in the Bible, that could be 1,000 years. 2 Pet 3:8 has nothing to do with a specific time.

Thanks for your impressions.

 

[Marcia]

Thanks for your impressions.

Well, you are welcome. Thank you for your gracious response -- I was somewhat overreacting there and I apologize. :wavey:

 

[Grasshopper]

Thanks, Marcia, for pointing out that often in prophetic passages, individual events that take place at different times are conflated into one statement. There are many examples of this and I think the two statements in Mark are examples.

I think it was quite common for NT writers to quote portions of OT passages knowing full well the Jewish audience understood the entire context of that OT passage was in play.

Grasshopper, it's really outside the scope of this topic to bring in things from the book of Daniel. That's another discussion that I don't have time to indulge right now and it really not the topic of this thread.

You said this: "The verse at the end of chapter 8 is speaking of Jesus return to set up His kingdom",

If this is about Jesus setting up His Kingdom then I think when the OT Prophets and Jesus tell us the "when" of His Kingdom it is of direct relevance to the passage. If the Kingdom was to be established in the 1st century during the Roman Empire then that puts the verses in question within a 1st century fulfillment.

The Kingom and His coming are tied together:

2Ti 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

I am confused as to whether you see the statement in vs 28 and verse 1 as being two descriptions of the same event or descriptions of two separate events.

They are tied together and are the same event. That is why it cannot refer to the Transfiguration.

It's also interesting that you reject my interpretation of verse 1, saying that the transfiguration narrative never says the kingdom appeared in exact words, then you say that verse 28 is speaking of an event that occurs during the time of the Roman Empire. I can't find where verse 28 says that anywhere.

I assume you mean 38, if I said 28 sorry for the misunderstanding. Since I believe 38 is connected to verse 1 and verse 1 is about the coming Kingdom then I think we should explore when the Bible teaches the Kingdom would arrive. You find that in Daniel 2.

I do not think you can separate the two verses from each other. As I posted earlier:

"An examination of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance reveals that the word "verily" is used some 95 times in the New Testament. Unless "verily" is used as introductory and not for emphasis in Matthew 16:28/Mark 9:1 there are only three places in all of the New Testament where the word is used to introduce a new subject. In all other occurrences, that is 92 out of 95 instances, THE WORD IS ALWAYS USED TO EMPHASIZE A STATEMENT ABOUT A SUBJECT THAT IS ALREADY UNDER CONSIDERATION! (The exceptions are John 10:l; 13:21; and Hebrews 9:11. Now when you have a word that is used in such a consistent manner, with so few exceptions, unless you have some overwhelming contextual reason for doing so you must go with the normal definition and usage. Where is the contextual evidence to demand that "verily" introduces a new subject in Matthew 16:28/Mark 9:1?"

Is there a reason we should assume a new subject?

I think the key question that I have asked separates me in my view from what you are saying. Is Jesus' kingdom glory revealed in the transfiguration? It's clear to me that it does.

I believe what Peter said:

2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

If it does (since it does IMHO), my conclusion is obvious and simple. Because of its simplicity, it becomes the default interpretation.

If you ignore the previous verse and assume "some standing here will not taste of death" can mean 6 days later.

I think that if we asked that question to 100 Christians as a blind question that the consensus would be "yes, it does".

I don't think so assuming they had not been indoctrinated in a futurist eschatology.

I think that Peter's description of it in II Peter is clear that this is the way Jesus will appear when he returns in kingdom glory.

Mat 17:2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

What about the Acts appearing, is it the same as Matthew 17:2?:

Act 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Does the coming in Revelation fit either of these verses?

Rev 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Rev 19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Rev 19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

I think it is really a stretch to say that Jesus appeared in power and glory as a visible man in 70 AD the way he was on the mount of transfiguration

Who says He appeared as a visible man in AD70? Did the numerous Jehovah comings in the OT do so? Even futurist acknowledge AD70 was at least "a" coming of Jesus:

John Gill on Matthew 26:64:

and coming in, the clouds of heaven. So Christ's coming to take vengeance on the Jewish nation, as it is often called the coming of the son of man, is described in this manner, Mat_24:27.

Adam Clarke:

Rev 1:7
Behold, he cometh with clouds - This relates to his coming to execute judgment on the enemies of his religion; perhaps to his coming to destroy Jerusalem, as he was to be particularly manifested to them that pierced him, which must mean the incredulous and rebellious Jews.

Albert Barnes on Matthew 10:23:

Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel ... - That is, in fleeing from persecutors from one city to another, you shall not have gone to every city in Judea until the end of the Jewish economy shall occur. See the notes at Mat_24:28-30. By "the coming of the Son of Man," that is, of "Christ," is probably meant the destruction of Jerusalem, which happened about thirty years after this was spoken. The words are often used in this sense. See Mat_24:30; Mar_13:26; Luk_21:27, Luk_21:32.

 

[olegig]

Well, you are welcome. Thank you for your gracious response -- I was somewhat overreacting there and I apologize. :wavey:

No problem.....

I too hold your concern for the seemingly "lose" use of 2Pet 3:8, especially when it comes to the literal 6 days of creation.
However 2Pet 3:8 is scripture, so therefore it must have some application.
IMO the application can be found in the context. Please note:

2 Peter 3:4 (King James Version)
4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

It seems the scriptures are addressing the very same question that has been asked here about those early followers of Christ having the feeling that His return would come quickly.
And since it did not happen quickly, then perhaps His physical return was somewhat in question.

My point is that the "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" statement is made in context of how one should deal with prophetic statements.

Is the Gen 6 day account of creation prophetic??? I don't think so....
But are the accounts of the transfiguration prophetic, well I suppose that is left on the contingency of how Israel accepted Jesus.
Please see in context:

Matthew 11:13-14 (King James Version)
13For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
14And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.

In other words, the kingdom of Heaven was at hand, it was there for the taking, it only depended on Israels reaction to Jesus.

But, since all Israel rejected Jesus as the promised Messiah, then the transfiguration account becomes future.

IMO the statement of days in the differing accounts places the coming of the kingdom of God with power after 6,000 yrs (6 days) but before 8,000 yrs (8 days).

 

[swaimj]

If you ignore the previous verse and assume "some standing here will not taste of death" can mean 6 days later.

Grasshopper, this is a statement you made that deals with the actual context, so I am going to address this statement. The others involve a complete systematic theology of end times and, sorry, I don't have time for it.

"Some standing here will not taste death" is not the complete statement. It is not the point of the statement. There is a qualifier; "...till they see the kingdom of God present with power". Here is where my repeated question is relevant. On the mount of transfiguration, when Jesus face was brightened, were the disciples seeing the kingdom of God present with power? The answer to this is yes. If it is not, what were they seeing?

That paragraph is really all I have to say about this topic. My point in saying it is that the answer to who would not taste death is found, not by doing a systematic theology of the whole Bible on the subject of end times, but by looking in the context. Sometimes, we do have to look further than the immediate context to find an answer, but often we do not. I have discovered the answer in the immediate context. It is as clear as...as...as...Jesus appearance on the mountain!

If I was on a deserted island and had never seen a Bible in my whole life and Mark 8:38 - 9:12 washed up on the shore, I would know who did not taste death until they saw the kingdom of God present with glory just by reading that passage.