"Will Not Taste Death..."

This verse seems to get ignored. I'm sure it's not intentional.

27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds.

Speaking of chronology......

 

Quoting Pastor Larry, "REmember the glory they saw was so overwhelming, they didn't want to leave ... kind of like hte kingdom glory will be. As I say, there are a number of interpretations. To me, that is the one that best deals with all of the evidence. To say that the chronology is "just a matter of chronology" seems to be too eager to dispense with a distinct chronological relationship recorded by all three synoptics."


Pastor Larry,

If we were to check the synoptic gospels carefully, I'd venture to say that we'd find many "chronological relationships". They were all recording the same history--so the same sequence of events is bound to come up in Mat., Mark, and Luke from time to time.

But we still have to deal with the subject matter of those events. Christ was talking about judgment and the coming kingdom in the thrice recorded prophecy. The transfiguration mentions neither of those things, but rather points to the superiority of Christ over O.T. prophets and his unique glory as the Son of God. I honestly can't see any logical fulfillment of the prophecy in the transfiguration.

As far as the other issues go, we've rehashed them many times. But I have to admit that I'm always amazed when anyone denies that God formed the church out of faithful Israel. The N.T. evidence for that is overwhelming!

Still your black-sheep brother,

Tim

 

I'm not sure what this verse means, but I do wonder if those who did taste death would say it tasted like chicken.

 

Before he died, John did "see" Christ coming in His Kingdom and glory...

Revelation 1
12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

...

Revelation 12
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

...

Revelation 22:11
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

 

HankD,

I don't know if visions count as the fulfillment of an event.

Tim

 

Good observation HankD

seeing that John was there physically present at the transfiguration and seemed to forget to mention it in His Gospel version.

if Visions dont count...What does?

Me2

 

Many of you reading this reply will not taste death before... (you finish reading this reply).

 

First of all, the transfiguration was NOT a vision. It was a very real event. I thank God I am not a Preterist. I have hope in our great God-Father, Son, and Holy Ghost!

 

Matthew 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.
(KJV)

2 Peter 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.
(KJV)

I am certainly no expert on these passages of Scripture, however, it seems to me like the Transfiguration is at least a partial fulfillment of what Jesus was talking about.

I have always held to the view that God will establish a literal Jewish kingdom in the future. Why God will do so or when is really beyond my scope. I trust God will do what He says regardless of how I understand things.

I do have a very good friend who is a Preterist and we do discuss our differences sometimes, but since neither of us understands everything God will do and how God will do it, we just sort things out the best that we can. I would imagine that we are both wrong on certain points, and that we will both be surprised when these events actually do take place.

I believe that God is more concerned with our trusting Him rather than us being able to figure out all aspects of His Word.

 

Terry,

On this we agree. If all my futurist friends were as agreeable as you, I'd probably be less wrapped up in these issues myself. But one of my main concerns is that the dogmatism that many hold on debatable issues of prophecy, could eventually lead to the disillusionment of many should their view not pan out as predicted. So I feel compelled to show that there are other ways for Bible-believers to look at these things.

In Christ,

Tim

 

PB,

I was referring to Revelation, not the transfiguation.

I have hope in our great God--Father, Son and Holy Ghost, too!

In Christ,

Tim

 

The way I take this verse is Jesus was talking about John. He was the only one to "see" the future events in the book of Revelation. He saw it all how the world would end and how Jesus would come back, etc, etc...

 

In order to see something come--doesn't it have to actually come--rather than see a vision of it's future coming?

Matthew 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."

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."

Luke 9:27
I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."

Tim

 

I have an idea: perhaps the kingdom did come at the transfiguration - but only partially fulling the prophecies (e.g. Daniel 2:24). However, it left again. Notice Matthew 17:

1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.
7 And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid.
8 And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only.
9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.
10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

Why did the disciples ask their question in verse 10 if they did not think that the kingdom had already come, but without Elijah coming first? And Jesus tells them that just Elijah has already come, but not fully (for the people rejected John), so Jesus had come, but not fully in the sense that the OT predicted (he came to die that time, not to rule); and similarly the kingdom had come (at the transfiguration), but not fully. The people had rejected John, and would reject Christ, so the kingdom only appeared briefly. And that is why only a select "few" were alowed to see it before they tasted death. This may also explain why the disciples thought the kingdom would be restored to Israel after Jesus' resurection, as mentioned in Acts 1 - they'd seen it come and go previously, because Messiah had to suffer first. So why hadn't it "come to stay" after the ressurection?

 

P.S. All three passages talk about people "seeing" the kingdom. As such, the transfiguration counts, although it is described by Jesus as a "vision", because a vision is something that one can see.

 

I ask again, what do you do with the preceding verse?

27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds.

Did the angels show up at the Transfiguration? Was there a judgement at the Transfiguration?
Or do you say vs. 27 refers to somthing 2000+ years in the future and vs. 28 refers to something 6 days later?

 

I've been thinking more about this question, and as Tim's Bible quotes show, Jesus simply promised that some would see the kingdom before they died. Did the disciples see the kingdom on the mount of transfiguration? I think the answer is "yes"! Bare in mind that this episode comes right after Peter had rebuked Jesus for telling them that the Son of man had to suffer and die. That had probably put some doubt into Peter's mind! Peter must surely have been wondering what this meant for the Messiah - was Jesus really going to come and destroy the gentile kingdoms and set up the Jewish kingdom, as the Old Testament claimed? What with all this talk of dying...

And that could well be why Jesus promised that some really would see the kingdom before they died. Notice that Peter was one of the three whom Jesus took up the mount, and it was there that they saw the kingdom. Whether the kingdom physically came, or whether it was only a vision (which, having thought more about the passage, seems more likely), I think matters little. The point is that they certainly did see the kingdom, so Jesus was correct.

Now Grasshopper, you ask about the angels and the judgement - but notice that Jesus did not say that anyone alive at that time would see them; nor that they would come. All that is promised is seeing the Con of Man coming in his kingdom. Yes, there is no reason at all to think that verse 27 can't refer to 2000 years in the future, and verse 28 to six days later.

But now I have a question for you and Tim:

Jesus said:

Tim said,

Great! Now, can you please tell me what "see" means? I don't know what you two actually think this kingdom is/was, but please can you tell me how the any of those standing there actually "saw" it??? If it was an ivisible spiritual kingdom, then nobody "saw" it at all. However, Peter James and John certainly did "see" the transfiguration. I agree: words certainly do mean things...

 

I just quoted this in another thread, but I think it fits here as well:


from Shaff's History of Christianity--

"The awful catastrophe of the destruction of the Jewish theocracy ... was the greatest calamity of Judaism and a great benefit to Christianity; a refutation of the one, a vindication and emancipation of the other. It not only gave a mighty impulse to faith, but at the same time formed a proper epoch in the history of the relation between the two religious bodies. It separated them forever. ... God himself destroyed the house , in which he had thus far dwelt, in which Jesus had taught, in which the apostles prayed; he rejected his peculiar people for their obstinate rejection of the Messiah; he demolished the whole fabric of the Mosaic theocracy; ... in doing so he cut the cords which had hitherto bound the infant church to the outward economy of the old covenant, and to Jerusalem as it's center. Henceforth the heathen could no longer look upon Christianity as a mere sect of Judaism, but must regard and treat it as a new , peculiar religion The destruction of Jerusalem, therefore, marks that momentous crisis at which the Christian church as a whole burst forth forever from the chrysalis of Judaism, awoke to a sense of its maturity, and in government and worship at once took its independent stand before the world."


I believe this is the way in which the kingdom was seen.

Tim

 

Yes, there is no reason at all to think that verse 27 can't refer to 2000 years in the future, and verse 28 to six days later

Of course you HAVE to believe it, otherwise Preterism is proved correct. Are there any other instances of a break of 2000+ years between 2 verses is Jesus' teaching? Is this how futurist interpret scripture? One verse speaks to those alive 2000+ years in the future, then in Jesus' very next breath He speaks of something to those living at that time? Ive never taken a class in hermeneutics(sp) but I don't think thats how its done.

And Jesus tells them that just Elijah has already come, but not fully (for the people rejected John),

Since Elijah=John, how did John not fully come?

so Jesus had come, but not fully in the sense that the OT predicted

Did the OT not predict Jesus coming to die?

and similarly the kingdom had come (at the transfiguration), but not fully

So the prediction in Daniel 2 that the Kingdom would be established during the Roman Empire failed to come to pass?

Great! Now, can you please tell me what "see" means?

Romans 11:8 according as it is written, God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not SEE, and ears that they should not Hear, unto this very day.


Is 42:18 Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see.
19 Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I send? who is blind as he that is at peace with me, and blind as Jehovah's servant?
20 Thou seest many things, but thou observest not; his ears are open, but he heareth not.

Could it mean understanding? If not you have some real problems taking a physical literal meaning.
You see?

 

I don't think that can possibly be the case. Let's look at what Jesus said:

OK, so who "saw the Son of man" when Jerusalem was destroyed? All they saw was destruction of buildings and people. However, Peter, James and John certainly did see the Son of man on the mount of transfiguration! You're right: words do mean things.