We will now move on to the second set of verses we will look at that are popular verses that the higher critics use to “prove” that the Lord’s teaching was contradictory to what actually happened. These verses regard His statement that some who stood there with Him would not taste death until the Kingdom came. This teaching is contained in all three synoptic gospels, and the passages in question are given below.
Matthew 16:28. “Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
Mark 9:1. 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.”
Luke 9:27. “But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God.”
The higher critic would point to these verses as proving that Christ expected the kingdom to soon arrive, and that His second coming would follow soon after His first. Then, they smugly proclaim that His expectation contradicts reality, for it seems clear that the kingdom did not come, and Christ did not return. What, then, can those of us who believe in the absolute truth of Scripture say to respond to this?
The explanations of this passage by those who hold with the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures are numerous. Some, as I said above, are quick to make this out to be a “spiritual kingdom,” and that Christ was predicting the beginning of the “church,” which they see in the ekklesia of the Acts period, as well as in Christendom of today. I have already dealt with this idea in the previous message. The church of today can in no way be defined as God’s government.
Others, generally amillenialists, believe that the Lord’s prediction came true at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. It is amazing to me that anyone would have so muddled a picture of the kingdom of God that he could imagine that the destruction of the city of Jerusalem fulfilled the coming of the Kingdom! This is contrary to everything we learn of the Kingdom from the Scriptures. The kingdom of God, as I have said, is nothing more nor less than the government of God upon the earth. The destruction of the city of Jerusalem cannot even compare to the reality of God’s kingdom.
Others, including many in the dispensational camp, point out the presence of a little Greek word, the word “an,” in this verse. It is clear, to all who correctly identify the kingdom as God’s government ruling on the earth, that the Lord was speaking of that government coming in the lifetime of the disciples to whom He was speaking. Yet, those who note the presence of this word “an” believe they have a solution for this puzzle. The word “an” is basically untranslatable. It is a Greek particle, and it indicates that what is being said is conditional, and only if this condition is met would the statement be true. It is similar to the word “if” in English, which really has no meaning nor translation, but indicates the presence of a condition in order for the statement to be true. So, those who believe this word is the key claim that it should change these statements to read, using Matthew as an example, “there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they may have seen the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” For example, the Companion Bible suggests this reading on page 1347. This word “an” means a condition, and they are ready to tell us what the condition was. It was that Israel had to accept the Lord Jesus as their Messiah in order for this to take place. Since this did not happen, the condition Christ referred to by the word “an” was not met, and so what He said here did not take place.
This is an interesting idea, and seems at first glance to have a lot of merit. At first, I myself accepted this idea, since it seemed to make sense, it explained a difficult passage, it fit in well with dispensationalism, and it was taught by some of my favorite Bible teachers. However, I found in the writings of Otis Q. Sellers, who was one man who set this idea forth, that he later changed his mind and stated that his studies had led him to conclude that the word “an” could not be used in this way. Now, since I was getting conflicting information, I determined that the only way that I was going to settle my mind on this issue once and for all was to examine the word “an” for myself. Thus, I went through a Greek-English interlinear, noting each time the word “an” occurred, to see what I could learn regarding it. My conclusion from my study was that Mr. Sellers was correct to change his mind, and that the word “an” can indeed not indicate this sort of a condition.
It is difficult to demonstrate this without quoting every passage in which the word “an” occurs, but I will try to do it the best I can. In order for this claim about the word “an” to be true and for it to make Christ’s statement about them seeing the Kingdom dependent on Israel accepting him, the word “an” would have to be able to refer to a condition that is not stated in the sentence in which the word “an” appears. The truth is that this word cannot do this. The word “an” does indicate the existence of a condition before the sentence will be true, but the condition is always stated in the sentence. It is never something pulled from the “wider context,” as those who try to say the word “an” is used this way claim.
The best way to demonstrate this is to compare this word “an” to our English word “if.” I cannot say to my friend, “If, then I will pay you a thousand dollars.” My friend might be interested in the thousand dollars, but he would say to me, “What do you mean, ‘If, then I will pay you a thousand dollars.’ If WHAT?” And he would be right to ask this, for the word “if” cannot be used without the condition to which it refers being stated.
Now, regarding the “wider context” idea. Suppose I relented, and said to my friend, “Okay, what I meant was, if you go to the grocery store with me, I will give you a thousand dollars.” My friend is all for that, so he does go to the grocery store with me. When we get back, he asks me for his thousand dollars. I reply, with a laugh, “No, no, I’m not giving you that. You didn’t fulfill the condition!”
“Yes, I did,” he indignantly would insist, “I went to the grocery store with you!”
But then I would reply, “Yes, but you were supposed buy me a carton of chocolate ice cream. Since you didn’t do that, I am not giving you the thousand dollars.”
“You never said I had to do that!” he would complain with disgust. “All you said was that I had to go to the store with you!”
“Yes,” I tell him, “But didn’t you notice that I used the word ‘if’ in that sentence? The word ‘if’ meant you had to look at the wider context. And the context was that just yesterday, we were talking about how good some chocolate ice cream would taste. You didn’t realize it, but I made that conversation my wider context, and used the word ‘if’’ so that you would think of that and realize you had to get me some chocolate ice cream to get the thousand dollars.”
Now, of course this example is ludicrous, but the point I am trying to make is that this is not at all how the word “if” is really used. There is no “wider context” to the word “if.” The condition that “if” implies is always stated in the sentence in which the word “if” occurs. In my statement to my friend, the condition that “if” implied was that he go to the store with me. Then, if he did that, I would give him the thousand dollars. If he failed to fulfill that condition, I would not give him the thousand dollars. The word “if” cannot be carried beyond that sentence. My argument about “wider context” would obviously be ridiculous. And the same is true of the word “an.” It does indicate a condition, but always one that is contained in the sentence in which it occurs. In the case of Matthew 16:28, the condition is clearly stated. It is contained in the word “some.” If they were part of the “some,” then they would not taste death until they saw the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. If, however, they were not part of the “some,” then they would taste death and would not see Him coming in His kingdom. This is the condition that the word “an” points to, and this is the only condition it points to. To argue for a “wider context,” or to bring the actions of Israel in here, is just as ridiculous as my argument for the word “if” meaning my friend had to buy chocolate ice cream in my example above. The word “an” simply does not work this way.
So we are left with this verse, and no way to wiggle out of it. Either some of those standing with Christ did not taste death until they saw the Son of Man coming in His kingdom, or else the words of Christ failed, and He is proved to be mistaken. Now some, in attempting to make this to have actually occurred, point to the transfiguration six days later. They claim that by seeing the transfiguration, some of His disciples standing there, namely, Peter, James, and John, saw Him coming in His kingdom through the transfiguration. Thus, Christ was preparing them here for what was soon to happen, and it did happen immediately afterwards in the transfiguration.
Now this, too, sounds like a good idea, until we examine it more closely. First of all, this leaves the Lord predicting to a crowd of His disciples that some of that group would not die in the next six days! Even if we limit the disciples present to the twelve, it would make Him a poor prophet indeed, to have made such an obvious prediction. I could also make such a prediction to a group of twelve men, and the chances would be very large that I would be correct. And if all the disciples, not just the twelve, were present here…well, I could make a prediction to a crowd of that size, and the chances would surely be greater than a million to one that I would be correct. It would be somewhat more risky to say that none in a crowd of that size would die in the next six days, but even that would be more likely to come true than not. Why would the Lord make such a useless and obvious prediction?
Secondly, consider that the condition the Lord gives for them seeing this is that they be one of the “some” that does not taste death. Yet in the transfiguration, none of the disciples had yet tasted death, and yet nine of them never saw the transfiguration. Do not the Lord’s words suggest that if they were alive at the time, they would see this? Why then were only Peter, James, and John allowed to follow the Lord to the mountain for His transfiguration? Wouldn’t Christ have been said, then, “there are some standing here who shall be chosen by Me who shall see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom”? This would have been a far better thing than talking about their dying or living, as if any of them was going to die in the next six days!
Finally, this idea breaks down when we consider, not just the Matthew passage, but also the parallel Mark and Luke passages. Mark declares that they would not taste death, “till they see the kingdom of God present with power.” Luke, even more impossible to associate with the transfiguration, says they would not taste death, “till they see the kingdom of God.” Seeing Christ transfigured in His glory might fit with seeing Him, “in His kingdom,” but this cannot possibly correspond with seeing His kingdom itself! The transfiguration cannot be the fulfillment of this. This has to refer to the actual coming of His kingdom.
So what do I believe the meaning of these passages is? First of all, I have tipped off part of my answer above. That is, that the “coming” referred to in Matthew is not the second coming, but instead is simply the coming of the kingdom itself. The idea of the “Son of Man coming in His kingdom” is that they would see Him coming into His governmental power. It does not mean that they would see the second coming before dying.
Yet, did the kingdom come in the lifetime of some of those disciples? I believe that it did. And here is where dispensationalism is crucial. It is clear that the government of God does not exist on the earth now. Each of my readers is under a human government. These governments regulate and control our lives. If we defy these governments, they will have something to say about it. Yet if we defy God, it becomes evident that we are not under His government, for nothing happens because of it. We can defy all we want. If I were to defy the United States government right now, I would soon be reminded that I am under the control of that government, for it would be there to deal with me. Yet no such reminder is evident when anyone defies God. To claim that we are currently under God’s government is just silly. Those who talk about “spreading the kingdom” simply do not know what they are talking about.
Yet just because we are not under the government of God now does not mean that the Son of Man didn’t at least start to come into His governmental power in the lifetime of many of these disciples, or that some of them did not see that government coming with power, or see the government itself at work. That it was working can clearly be seen in many ways in the book of Acts. One notable example is the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5. These two defied God’s government by lying to the Holy Spirit. Since they were under God’s government, that government dealt with them powerfully, bringing death to each. This is the government of God at work, and many of His disciples saw it.
I believe that that government did start to come in, and the time it started was at the feast of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2. This was some time after His transfiguration. Some of those disciples He was talking to had no doubt passed into the state of death since He had made that statement. One example we can give is Judas, who followed up his betrayal of the Lord by hanging himself, and so never saw the events of Acts 2. Yet eleven of the twelve did live to see it, and no doubt most of the rest of His group of followers did as well. And so, they saw the Son of Man coming into His governmental power. They never saw Him fully come into it, though. The reason is that the full power of the kingdom never did come in. Instead, the complete presence of the kingdom of God was postponed for a later time, and the current work of God in grace came in in its place. That is the truth of the mystery, and God’s present work in the dispensation of grace.
I will further explain my beliefs regarding the beginning of the Kingdom and the Acts period in my upcoming study of the book of Acts. Until then, I will not go into great detail on my beliefs on this subject. Instead, let me reiterate that this passage is not a mistake of Christ’s. The Lord knew exactly what He was saying. He was not talking about the second coming, for none of those standing there lived without tasting death to see that. Rather, He was talking about His Own coming into His Kingdom authority, something that began to happen at Pentecost, but was never completed. Thus, the Lord’s words were not a mistake. He was not suffering under an illusion when He claimed that these men would see Him coming into His Kingdom power in their lifetimes. They did see Him receiving that authority, although later He gave it up again to bring in instead the dispensation of grace. His receiving that authority during the Acts period is what the Lord was referring to in this passage, and it came true to the letter of what He said at that time.
24 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 6, 2007 at 12:23 pm
jamie langston
could this whole issue be something to do with the translation and the severe limitations of the english language compared to the greek and hebrew? This verse has intrigued me for some time and i would love be able to make some judgement based on as close a translation to the original text and opposed to an NIV…
September 6, 2007 at 2:16 pm
precepts
I do not believe that there is really any problem with the translation here. The translations given above from the New King James Version are pretty much what the Greek says here. My only complaint might be that the word “not” is too weak. Perhaps “by no means” or “most certainly not” would better express what is meant by the Greek expression “no not,” which is the strongest possible negative in the Greek.
The Greek is fairly simple here and straightforward. That is exactly why this verse has given so much trouble to expositors down through the centuries. If the translation was difficult, it would be an easy way out. Since the Greek here is easy and plain, there is no wiggle room for denying what Christ said so clearly. The only real difficulty is in the word “an,” which is untranslateable. I went into that word in the article, though, and showed that it does not really change the meaning of the sentence.
Do not place too much emphasis on the limitations of the English language. Like all languages, it is weak in some respects, but it can be very strong in others. The same is true of both Koine Greek and Hebrew. The problem comes in where English is weak and Greek and Hebrew are not. But this is only in certain cases, and does not spread out to every sentence. Sometimes the English is stronger where Greek or Hebrew are not, and so we have a choice of multiple words to translate a single Greek or Hebrew word.
September 6, 2007 at 5:34 pm
precepts
Jamie writes: Does the very fact that there are discrepencies between the gospels show that it is not 100% accurate. Christ only said the quote once and there are 3 different interpretations. At best one is right and the other two wrong. Although the difference in words in minor the overall picture given changes quite substantially… you said in your article that it is harder to defend mark and luke and so suggests that it may have been mistakes made on the authors part as opposed to Christ?
I reply: I do not believe that I said in the article that it is harder to defend Mark and Luke. What I said was that the idea that Christ was referring to the transfiguration breaks down when compared with Mark and Luke as opposed to Matthew. My actual point can be argued equally from Matthew, Mark, or Luke.
I do not believe that there is any real discrepancy between the three gospels here. They are all three referring to the exact same thing. The Son of Man coming in His kingdom is the same thing as the kingdom of God or the kingdom of God coming with power. There is not much difference in the Greek here. I believe that the three statements help explain each other. They are really all talking about the same thing.
If the authors of the gospels made mistakes, then we really have no foundation on which to base any teaching about Christ whatsoever, since all we really know about Christ comes from the gospel authors. The basis for faith in Christ, or for anything that He said, breaks down if we cannot take the word of the gospel authors as being accurate. Either we can trust their writings as being God’s truth, or we really have no basis to stand on in regards to faith.
Nathan
April 27, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Joshua
You say,
Matthew 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.”
Seeing as He rewards every man according to his works at the time at which He shall come in the glory of His Father, and seeing as this somewhat parallels the passage in Matthew 24 (including “this generation will by no means pass till all these things take place”), it is evident that He was talking about the End Times.
I know your post is almost a year old, but I’m commenting on it because I recently posted on my blog about these passages, and saw this post as being related. You might want to take a look about what I had to say about Matthew 16:28 and 24:34.
May 10, 2008 at 1:55 pm
T. L. Mayle
The 70ad coming of Christ is not at all hard to consider. The destruction of Jerusalem was much more than a 3 1/2 year war, it was the end of the 1300 years of old covenant rites and sacrifices. This was a BIG DEAL to the people living then, who had to ‘switch’ their faith from the Temple, to Christ. As the old covenant faded out, the new covenant faded in, and who’s to say God is not ruling here on earth in His SPIRITUAL kingdom? Why does it have to be flesh and blood, since flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom? Why are we looking for a physical king on a physical throne when Jesus said “My kingdom is not of this world.” and “It doesn’t come with observation.” We are just like the Jews who missed their Messiah the first time, only we missed Him the 2nd time, because we want a sensual kingdom, something we can see hear and touch. It never was about that!! It was all about reclaiming us and reconciling us back to God, which we now have in the grace of the new covenant. We are not just ‘sealed’ today, we are fully in the presence of God, no more death (spiritual death) and the Living Water is flowing. If Jesus has not yet returned, we are still under law. Jesus did not make a mistake by saying “Some standing here will not taste death before the Son of Man comes in His Kingdom.” He came 40 years later, just as He promised. (Read Hebrews for the 40 year typology of the wandering in the desert.) – Blessings!
September 22, 2008 at 10:58 pm
precepts
Joshua,
I have written on the Matthew 24 “this generation” topic in the very next message in this string. I explained that passage there. He was definitely talking about the time of the parousia in Matthew 24.
I do not believe that this passage and Matthew 24 are talking about the same thing. As I said, the Son of Man coming in His kingdom is not the same as Him coming to be personally present on the earth for a thousand years. To learn more about my thoughts on this, see my series on “Bins for Bible Prophecies” in my “Kingdom of God” category.
http://precepts.wordpress.com/category/kingdom-of-god/
T.L. Mayle,
I would not deny that the destruction of Jerusalem, the temple, and everything that had to do with it was a big deal. However, I do not believe that this means it was the parousia of Jesus Christ. This goes back to the meaning of the word parousia. Your viewpoint seems to hinge on the translation of this word by “coming,” as it is translated in the King James Version and not a few others. Yet anyone who studies this word out will know that parousia is an inadequate, misleading, and incorrect translation. This word does not mean “coming,” it means “personal presence.” Moreover, it is a technical word, as there is another Greek word that means personal presence (pareimi.) This word parousia is a presence because of who one is and what one does.
For example, if I went to a meeting of Russian immigrants living in the United States, I could be personally present (pareimi,) but I would not parousia present, since I am not a Russian immigrant, nor am I otherwise qualified to lead or do anything else in such a meeting. If, on the other hand, I went to a meeting for those who can trace their ancestry back to before the American Revolution, I could be both pareimi and parousia present, because I can trace my ancestry, and some of my ancestors have been in the United States since before the Revolution.
Many people argue about the coming of Christ who show no knowledge that He will ever have a parousia on earth. The Lord was on earth once, but He was not present because of Who He is (God,) and what He does (reveal God in all His glory, and reign with all the rights of God.) He was present emptied of all these things. Thus, though He was standing right there with them, His disciples could ask Him what would be the sign of His parousia, as they did in Matthew 24:3. This is what His parousia is all about. He will then be present on earth as Ruler and God. He will act in these capacities to their fullest extent.
The word parousia does not even remotely fit with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. You might argue that it fits a “coming,” but you can never argue that it fits a parousia. A proper understanding of this word makes such a suggestion foolish.
The new covenant faded in? The new covenant is defined by Hebrews 8:8-12.
“Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
The new covenant is the law written on the minds and hearts of men. They both know it, and want to fulfill it. I have seldom met BELIEVERS who knew much of anything about the law, not to mention wanted to keep it. Moreover, the new covenant results in all men knowing God, so that none has to teach his brother to know God. Since I spend my time constantly trying to teach my brothers and sisters to know God, to suggest to me that the new covenant has “faded in” is something I cannot seriously consider.
If God is ruling here on earth, then He is doing a pretty poor job of it. A good ruler would do something about all the violence, all the abuse, all the heartache, and all the iniquity that we see on every hand around us today. No one could claim to be a good ruler and not try to fix these things. Our rulers try, and yet there is so little they can do. Yet without question God could do much. What has He done to fix these things? Is He really so incompetent? Okay, but you argue it’s a spiritual kingdom. Fine, what about spiritual problems? What has God done about the deception that has clouded the minds of so many? What has God done about the ignorance that keeps so many men from the knowledge of a true God? What has God done about the spiritual wickedness that causes so many to fall prey to misleading and destructive religions? Would not a good “spiritual ruler” have done something about these things? Why has God not done anything about them? Why has He allowed them to continue for two millenia since the time of Christ? He has not even spared His people, those who believe in Him, from constant confusion, misunderstanding, ignorance, and strife. No, my friend, God’s kingdom is not ruling over the earth in any sense today, spiritual or otherwise. What He is doing is pouring out the riches of His grace to the undeserving.
I answered some of your questions on the kingdom in my two articles on “Kingdom Problem Passages,” under the “Kingdom of God” category.
If Jesus has not yet returned, then we are still under law? That is a conclusion that I do not believe you can back up with Scripture.
No, Christ did not return 40 years later, nor did He say He would. As I explained, these men saw Him coming in His kingdom. You are never going to understand the book of Acts, or much of the New Testament, if you do not recognize that the Kingdom of God was present, in its earliest stages, in the Acts period. This kingdom WAS a kingdom on earth, and that is ALWAYS what it was all about. Yes, there are more important things about the kingdom than its outward aspects. The most important is what it does inwardly in the hearts of men. Yet it always was about God’s plans to rule this earth with His government. You need to study the Old Testament to see this. Start with Isaiah 2. Then check out Ezekiel 20. Also, see my articles on the kingdom of God. This is what God’s plan has always been all about!
January 14, 2010 at 5:47 am
Phil
You people are *so* delusional!
September 14, 2010 at 3:03 pm
precepts
Is it worth taking the time to respond to comments from the peanut gallery? Probably not.
July 24, 2012 at 2:49 am
Yahwehtzedeknu
Peace you are correct Christ thought it was in his time, but in fact it was not. It will be in my time, I am the seed of Jesus Isaiah 53:10-, the seed of David Jeremiah 23:5-. I will gather the lost sheep, and the name African American will be cast into forgetfulness, and the name Yisrael will be taken up!
September 5, 2012 at 11:07 pm
Precepts
Yahwehtzedeknu,
May you have peace as well.
I am not sure whom you are referring to when you say “you are correct.” Phil may believe that Christ thought it was in His time and was incorrect, but I certainly do not. This was in fact the point of my article.
If you believe that Jesus is the one and only true Savior of the world, and that He is the Son of God, God in human form, then you are what Isaiah is referring to as the “seed.” However, the Branch of David spoken of in Jeremiah 23:5- is Christ Himself, and you certainly do not qualify there.
I find it very disturbing that you claim that you will gather the lost sheep! I wonder who you think yourself to be? Only the true Shepherd, Jesus Christ, can gather the lost sheep.
If you think that African Americans are going to turn into Yisraelites, then I am afraid you are badly mistaken. God’s true Israel is those who are descended from the man Israel. Only God knows for certain who these are today, since He can see their lineage all down through time. There is little reason to believe that Africans in general are thus descended, though certainly some true Israelites did move to Africa from time to time. Certainly, moving from Africa to America did not change anyone’s status regarding being an Israelite whatsoever.
You are taking much upon yourself, my friend. You need to realize that there is no glory in what we are. We are lost sinners, and we are desperately in need of a Savior. If we have Jesus Christ, then we have the Savior we need. If we do not have Jesus Christ, then we have nothing, regardless of whether we are African, American, Yisrael, or anything else. You need the salvation that only Christ can provide. The following is a good article about this:
http://www.seedandbread.org/seedandbread/SB001YouNeedaSavior.pdf
I pray you will see your need for a Savior, and find Him in the Lord Jesus.
Nathan
August 5, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Robert
As usual,EVERYTIME I read anything about the parousia,there is some long winded explanation about when Christ was to return.Good grief people,he said he was returning in THEIR generation.How the hell do you expect others to see any scripture clearly if you don’t see that? Look,when my wife was pregnant,I didn’t know the hour or the day of the delivery,but I damn sure knew that it would be in the next nine or ten months.Is that so hard to see???? Oh,you Christians sure have the term “misdirection” down real good.
September 14, 2010 at 3:02 pm
precepts
Robert,
I am sorry you find my comments long-winded. Clearly, this is not a fault you have adopted in your own comments. No doubt they make up in brilliance for what they lack in length.
I am not sure what gives you the idea I was discussing the parousia. The word “parousia” does not occur in the gospels outside of Matthew 24, and that is not the passage I was dealing with here. I am afraid you have adopted a habit quite common among the Christians you despise so much, which is relating a passage to a topic that is never mentioned in the passage.
As for Christ “returning” in their generation, I have discussed this topic in the next article in this series, “Contradictions in Scripture: Christ’s Big Mistake Part 3, This Generation Shall By No Means Pass.” I believe that I did see Scripture quite clearly in that article, and used the very next verse (in context!) to interpret what that verse means.
http://precepts.wordpress.com/2007/08/16/contradictions-christ%e2%80%99s-big-mistake-part-3-this-generation-will-by-no-means-pass/
I do quite agree that it will at one point be quite possible to know the year, and perhaps even the month, of the start of the parousia. However, I do not think it is possible to know even that much now. You would have to have a starting point to count from. You have that in the case of your wife’s pregnancy, but there is no such starting point for us to work from now.
I am sorry that you have such a low view of Christians. I am certainly not on this site to argue on behalf of Christians. However, if you really are so against Christians, I would urge you to consider whether that means you have to be against Jesus Christ. Have you really given Him a chance, or have you just rejected Him along with those who have taken His name to themselves? You may find that Christ Himself is far different from most of the Christians you have known.
If you would care to reconsider your attitude towards Jesus Christ, I would suggest the following as an excellent article to start with.
http://www.seedandbread.org/seedandbread/SB158ThoseTurningFromtheChurchShouldTurntoJESUs.pdf
It expresses my own attitude on the matter. I do feel that Christians are often good at “misdirection.” The biggest misdirection of all is getting caught up with religious, political, or social things, and not really learning the truth about who Jesus Christ is and what He is all about. I would pray that this article might help you consider if perhaps, though you want nothing to do with Christians, there might still be a place for you with Jesus Christ.
Sincerely,
Nathan
September 11, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Chris sparkes
Thank you, Nathan Johnson, for raising this matter of some not tasting death, and for the sensitive and intelligent way you’ve discussed it. I loved your brilliant analogy about the ice-cream and I laughed out loud: and more than just humorous, though, it excellently demonstrates your point.
Yes, you’re most certainly correct in saying that God’s government will indeed be over the earth. How refreshing and unusual to hear that. And concerning Matthew 16\28, no, Christ was not hinting at His transfiguration: otherwise, as you indicate, He’d be implying most of them would be dead in a few days! And no, AD 70 and Jerusalem is nothing whatsoever to do with Christ’s coming in His kingdom. In the context of Matthew 16\28, Christ was describing His return with His angels, the great revealing of Himself to mankind: “the Son of Man will appear in the glory of His Father with His angels … [and] some of these standing here will not most certainly not taste death until they see the Son of Man …” (Matthew 16\27-28). His appearing will be a visible physical manifestation of Himself with His angels (Revelation 19). Nobody can intelligently pretend that this has happened!
I’ll direct my comment particularly to the Matthew 16\27-28 passage: “the Son of Man will appear in the glory of His Father with His angels … [and] there are some of these standing here who will most certainly not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming [or, appearing] in His kingdom [or, government].” There are 4 variables: some standing here; not tasting death; the Son of Man coming; His kingdom.
I believe our only sensible interpretation of this passage lies not in trying to understand the final clause of that passage, that is, when Christ’s coming will happen, nor what that means. The answer lies, rather, in focusing on the first two clauses of the passage: “there are some of these standing here who will most certainly not taste death”.
While it’s true that there was a demonstration of Christ’s power during the Acts period, it’s not true that the Son of Man was seen at that time appearing “in the glory of His father with His angels” and “coming in His kingdom”. He was seen in a vision by Paul after His resurrection, but He has not yet been seen “in the glory of His father with His angels”. What the 12 received on the Day of Pentecost was empowerment from on high (Luke 24\48), not any sighting of Christ with His angels. There are many prophecies of life on earth in the kingdom to come (such as Joel 3\17-21) and it’s impossible to say that that age of His kingdom has come. We can fiddle around with irrelevant historical events and dates in order to try to fit them into the likely lifetimes of the disciples, but we cannot resolve any of them with Christ being seen “in the glory of His father with His angels” and “coming in His kingdom”.
In that case, we’re left with one and only one resolution to this passage, and it’s so simple that we might wonder why we didn’t see it before: the Son of Man has not yet been seen; some standing with Christ would not taste death until that happens. They are, therefore, still alive!
Enoch was taken up to God (Genesis 5\24, Hebrews 11\5). Elijah was taken up to God (2 Kings 2\11). John was taken up to God (Revelation 4\1, John 21\22). Paul, also, for those who can receive it, was taken up to God (Philippians 1\23, 2 Timothy 4\6, 4\14-18) which was Paul’s “prize of the high calling” (Philippians 3\14). And Paul knew somebody who was taken up to “the third heaven” (2 Corinthians 12\2-4).
Some of those standing with Christ when He spoke the words of Matthew 16\27-28, were, therefore, presumably taken up to God, and they have not tasted death – just as Christ said they most certainly wouldn’t.
I’ve written a detailed study on Paul being taken up to God, but I won’t presume to send it unless asked. Otis Sellers also wrote an article on it, too, called Paul’s desire to depart (Seed & Bread 85).
There is, as you say, no translation issue with Matthew 16\28. There are two points to consider, though.
First, however we render Matthew 16\28, Christ’s wording that some would not taste death “until” the time of His appearing with His angels could imply that after that they could die! We must allow, though, that the language of the time and the meaning would have been understood.
Second, if Christ said that only “some of those standing” with Him would not taste death until they see “the Son of Man coming”, then that means some of them were going to die. Some might die of natural causes, and others might die at the hands of persecutors. And however they die, this fits in with Paul’s saying that at Christ’s descent there will be “those having been put to sleep” and those “living who remain until His presence” (1 Thessalonians 4\13-15). This also fits in, on the one hand, with Christ’s saying that “he who endures to the end will be preserved” (Matthew 10\22), and it also fits in, on the other hand, with Christ’s saying “they’ll deliver you up to tribulation, and they’ll kill you” (Matthew 24\9), although obviously not all of them because “some … will most certainly not taste death”.
I do not believe, incidentally, that any of this applies to ourselves: Christ was not speaking to us, and we should not substitute ourselves for the disciples – that way madness lies. I believe that the armour of God in Ephesians 6 applies to ourselves for protection in the combat against Satan’s forces in that “day of evil” (Ephesians 6\13) which is to come at the end.
September 14, 2010 at 3:01 pm
precepts
Chris sparkes,
Thank you for your kind comments. I am glad you enjoyed my article, and appreciate the good things you have to say about it. Yes, I do believe that God’s government will soon be over the earth, may He speed the day!
Obviously, I do not agree with your assessment that Matthew 16:28 defines verse 29, though you have nicely edited the passage to make it appear so. I do believe that the Acts period was the early stages of the kingdom of God, so they did see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. We have to be careful to distinguish between passages which speak of Christ’s parousia and those which merely speak of Him coming, erchomenon. Especially since our translators have made no such distinction. Matthew 16:29 is one which speaks of erchomenon. This does not necessarily imply the parousia, and in light of the parallel passages in Mark and Luke, I do not believe that this is what it is talking about.
If you wish to read more about my view that the Acts period was the early stages of the kingdom of God, you can read my article on Mark 4 Continued, http://precepts.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/mark-4-continued/
I would be happy to read your article about Paul being taken up to God, if you wish to send it my way.
Of course, one way to explain the passage is to believe that some of those standing before the Lord are still alive. I do not see any Biblical evidence for this, however. Paul would not count since he was not present there, even if he did choose to “depart and be with Christ,” which I do not think he did, since he indicates he had chosen to count all things loss in order to know Him and “the power of His resurrection.” Even if you argued he did get caught away like Enoch or Elijah, that wouldn’t fulfill Christ’s words. You would have to speculate that some of the other apostles were likewise caught away, and for that you have no evidence in Scripture beyond these three parallel verses, which makes it seem an unlikely scenario.
John and Paul did have visions wherein they were caught to heaven and into the future, but that does not mean that either of them did not taste of death until the parousia of Christ. Seeing a vision of it in advance is not the same as living until it happens. To suggest such a thing wouldn’t be much different from applying this to the transfiguration.
Matthew 24 is speaking of the Lord’s apostles in the tribulation period. To make it into that period, they will have to be raised from the dead, which I believe they will be.
I agree that His promise does not have to do with us. If we do not taste death until His kingdom comes, it will just be by luck of when we were born. Generations of believers before us read this same passage, and all died. To apply this to ourselves, then, is foolishness.
Thank you again for your kind words. Keep studying the Word!
Nathan
September 20, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Chris Sparkes
Thank you for your prompt response. Indeed, I accept and believe you are right in pointing out that “the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” is not the same event as His parousia. (Thank you, too, for your interest in my essay on Paul’s departure. Should I send it as an attachment by email, as it’s too long to post onto here?)
I read your study on Mark 4\26-29. Interesting. Otis Sellers, as you might know, comments on this in Seed & Bread no. 48, which I reread. I have to confess to a long uncertainty about this passage and I’ve held it lightly, but do you know that while for myself I would not like to be didactic in ascribing the stages to definite periods, I do think that you might very well be right that the Acts period fulfilled “the grain”. The occurrences of basileia in the letters of the New Testament suggest this to me. I’m glad you drew my attention to it.
This does not, though, affect our passage of interest, Matthew 16\28, that some would not taste death until they see “the Son of Man coming in His kingdom”, which “coming” has not yet taken place, nor has anybody seen Him in it.
Obviously my reason for mentioning Paul and others being caught up is to establish that God has done this taking up of a few of His special servants even up to the time of the disciples. Paul’s reference to “the out-resurrection of the dead” (Philippians 3\11) is not to do with any concept of physical death, but, rather, death of a sinful nature and attaining to the complete brightness of righteousness from Christ, in exactly the same way Paul uses this figure in Romans 6. For Paul describes this “out resurrection” in that which precedes it, that is: “not having any righteousness of my own which is out of law, but that which is through Christ’s faith, the righteousness from God based on faith” (Philippians 3\9). I’ve explored this fully in another essay.
When Christ spoke of some not tasting death, we can assume that John was there, and Christ later spoke somewhat mysteriously about John, saying to Peter, “If I want him to remain alive until I come [erchomai], what is that to you?” This is strong enough evidence for me that he was one of those who was not going to taste death. And, indeed, he definitely was caught up from Patmos and into the heavens (Revelation 4\1-2; and, for what it might be worth, right up to the 16th century strange rumours remained in Ephesus about his death).
Last Tuesday evening I was invited to a birthday party, and a Christian man was there who was excessively talkative and excessively argumentative, and when I said that an apostle was one who had seen the risen Christ (1 Corinthians 15\7-9), this excessively argumentative man straightaway argued against me and said, “Oh come on, haven’t you seen Christ?” He wanted to make the word “see” mean seen in the mind. Well, if you want to do that to Scripture you can make anything mean anything you want it to mean. Yet only the Bible seems to get treated this way – try that in the courts of law and you’d soon enough get yourself done for perjury.
Now, if at Matthew 16\28 Christ did mean that some standing there would not taste death until they see the kingdom power in the Acts period, this would mean that some were to remain alive until at least the short period between His statement and the Day of Pentecost and perhaps some time beyond, until, say, the great deeds of power began to fade out, while the others not included in the statement were to be dead by that time. None of this, though, really makes Christ’s statement much worth making, and at the least a bit odd and unnecessary: over the next decade or so some of you will die and some will live – not a typical divine prophecy, more like cunning astrologists in fact. Yet even that did not come true! For it’s not until Acts 12\2 that we do see the death of any one of them (James, John’s brother, killed by Herod), and after that nobody, not one, among the disciples and apostles. We read of no other deaths among them other than James’s. Hence Christ’s statement is altogether empty if we limit His statement in this way to only seeing something of the kingdom, rather than focusing on some seeing “the Son of Man” – which seeing means nothing other than a yet unfulfilled sighting of the resurrected Christ in His kingdom. Only James seems to have died, making Christ’s statement empty and pointless. Therefore, since only James died, if we want Christ to mean that some would not taste death until some fulfilment of that period, then even the parallel passages in Mark 9\2 and Luke 9\27, which refer only to seeing the kingdom coming, echo just as hollow as the Matthew 16\28 passage under such a restriction.
We must remember that Christ said that some would not taste death until they would see “the Son of Man coming in His kingdom”. See the Son of Man, see the Lord Jesus Christ in His resurrection glory, not just see the kingdom: it’s not by accident that the transfiguration accounts follow the not tasting death statements. And in the Book of Acts period the only sightings of the Son of Man were by the disciples who watched Him ascend from the Mount of Olives (Christ was heard only by Paul on the Damascus Road). The disciples saw Christ going up, not coming down. So nobody present at the statement of not tasting death saw the Son of Man coming. They only saw him going. And see here means see Him, not see Him in the mind. Nor does it mean see some demonstrations of His power: that would be to change Christ’s exact words.
I might see my neighbour driving away from home in his old car, and I might see his new Volkswagen in his drive but not actually see him driving his new Volkswagen: therefore, I’ve seen him going, I’ve seen his new car, but, no, I definitely have not actually seen him coming in his new car. The fact is, he hasn’t even driven his new car because it’s not licensed yet. In court, though, I testify that yes, all last week I saw him driving his new car. Down in the cells my lawyer asks, “Why did you say that? You’ve got yourself six months for perjury,” so I say, “Well, I imagined him driving, perceived him doing it in my mind.”
Nobody ever since Christ’s ascent has seen Him, because it’s written that “Heaven must receive [Him] until the times of the restoration of all things which God spoke of through the agency of the mouth of all His holy prophets of old” (Act 3\21). Hence, as He has not been seen, some of the disciples are still alive, just as He said (hence some died, and they’ll be raised). I don’t see the difficulty.
So when will those who have remained alive since Matthew 16\28 see “the Son of Man coming in His kingdom”? In the later letters of Paul he speaks of the epiphenia of Christ, His glorious appearing. The word is usually rendered as “appearing”, but Sellers suggests “favourable intervention” for epiphenia. I’ll leave it transliterated as epiphenia for now. These are the passages which give the circumstances when those still alive since the statement at Matthew 16\28, now around 2,000 years old, not having tasted death, will see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom:
… keep this commandment without spot, beyond rebuke, until the epiphenia of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He’ll bring to light in its own seasons, the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords. (1 Timothy 6\14-15)
I solemnly charge you, therefore – in the sight of God and the Lord Jesus Christ, the One about to judge the living and the dead at His epiphenia, that is, His kingdom … (2 Timothy 4\1)
Finally, the crown of righteousness is laid up for me, with which the Lord, the Righteous Judge, will recompense me in that day, and not to me only, but also to all those having loved His epiphenia. (2 Timothy 4\8)
… anticipating the blessed hope, namely, the epiphenia of the glory of the great God, that is to say, of our Saviour Jesus Christ. (Titus 2\13)
Chris Sparkes
September 20, 2010
October 27, 2010 at 9:15 pm
precepts
Chris Sparkes,
Yes, you can send your article to me at the e-mail address under “About” on my website.
I do think that the Acts period fulfilled the early stage(s) of that parable. I am not so certain whether it fulfilled the blade stage, or the blade and the ear stage. Mr. Sellers thought it fulfilled both, but I have been wondering lately if that is so. As you say, it is hard to be dogmatic. Yet I do think that the Acts period was an early stage of the kingdom.
Philippians 3:11 is a strange verse, and it is hard to say exactly what the Lord is talking about here. I do not think it is exactly the same as any other passage, because it contains this unique word “out-resurrection” of the dead (or, if you accept the Wescott-Hort Greek text, “out-resurrection out of the dead.”) I am not saying I know exactly what this is, but I do not think it is so simple that we can say that this is just like Romans 6 or any other passage.
I am afraid you are falling prey to a classic example of not noticing the context of a verse which you are using to try to prove a point. The Lord Jesus did indeed tell Peter regarding John, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.” Yet in the very next verse, John 21:23, John tells us, “Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, ‘If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?’” John seems to mention this largely to dispel a rumor that was flying around at the time he wrote John: that is, that he would not die. This was not the Lord’s point, and to think so is to miss His point entirely. It is rather defeating the purpose of verse 23 to continue to spread the rumor that John would not die, especially considering that the reason John brought it up seems to be so he could carefully dispel it.
The fact is, the Lord spoke elsewhere of both John and his brother James, telling them in Matthew 20:23, “You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father.” (See also Mark 10:39) A check of the context will reveal that He was speaking of His baptism into death which He was going to accomplish soon after this. By saying this, then, He revealed that both James and John were going to die martyr’s deaths. We read of James’ death in Acts 12. We do not read of John’s death, but we can be sure he died the same kind of death, since the Lord said he would be baptized with the same baptism as the Lord was about to be baptized with.
The John of Ephesus was probably a false apostle and imposter, as I discuss here: http://precepts.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/john-introduction/ At the very least, he was another man named John who has been since mistaken for the apostle. So rumors about this false John’s death are meaningless. The most reliable record we have is that he died in his bed, which is opposed to Matthew 20:23 and shows he was not the real John.
I do not believe that I Corinthians 15:7-9 is defining what an apostle is, though it may be true that all the apostles saw the risen Christ. I wonder if Andronicus and Junia saw him though? (Romans 16:7)
It is, of course, ridiculous to claim to have seen Christ today. We see Him only through His revelation in the Word of God, and that through the eyes of faith. If we perceive God’s truth about Him, we have seen Him in a sense, but I do not think that is even remotely what I Corinthians 15:7-9 is talking about.
The Lord was speaking to His disciples in Matthew 16:28, as we can see from verse 24. This does not say He was speaking exclusively to the twelve. The disciples included a larger group, 120 on the famous day of Pentecost. Of these, we know that only Judas of the twelve died before Christ’s resurrection, but of the others, we do not know if any others died. Just Judas dying was enough to make the Lord’s statement about “some” rather than “all” true. Christ’s point was that the kingdom was close, and so He tells them that some of them will see it before they die. This was true, as the kingdom came within a few years of Him making this statement.
I think you are missing altogether what it would mean to be seen coming in a kingdom. It can hardly be anything like seeing someone coming in a car. Suppose you saw Christ coming in His kingdom. What color would the kingdom be that He was coming in? Would it have wheels? How big would it be? What shape would it have? How fast would the kingdom be moving? You see, coming in a kingdom is not like coming in a car.
If I had been in one of the countries taken over by Hitler during World War II, I would have had opportunity to see Hitler coming into my country’s government. I would have seen it in dozens of little ways, from my Jewish neighbors being rounded up and disappearing, to a curfew being imposed at night, to German soldiers pursuing the streets. I might never have actually seen Hitler himself, and probably would not have. Even if I had seen Hitler, would that sighting mean I had seen him coming into his government? Not really. Even if I saw him meeting with the former leaders of my nation and them acquiescing to his rule, this would not really have been seeing him coming in his government. Seeing him coming into my country’s government would have been seeing those everyday little things (and some big things) that would show that a major change in administration had taken place. It is the same with Christ coming in His government. Even if I saw the second coming of Christ, watched Him descend from the clouds and land on the earth, I would not have seen Him coming in His government. I would not see that until I saw the world around me changing to conform to His rule. This has nothing to do with actually seeing Him in the flesh at all.
I defined seeing the Son of Man coming in His kingdom by the two parallel passages. There is no difference between seeing the Son of Man coming in His kingdom and seeing the kingdom of God present with power, and there is no difference between seeing the kingdom of God present with power and seeing the kingdom of God. To make this have anything to do with seeing the second coming, or with seeing Christ physically, is to completely confound the passage.
The difficulty is gone, but not by the fact that some of the disciples are still alive, for all the disciples have passed into death. You are assuming that something must be true which in fact does not need to be true at all. The kingdom of God came on that famous day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Many of those who were with the Lord when He made that prediction saw it, and some of them watched it progress over 33 years after that point. Since then, they have all died. You have no Biblical evidence for any being yet alive, or any indication of what it was that could have extended their lives to such a great length.
The passages you quote to show the kingdom coming in the future are all after Acts 28:28, when the kingdom was interrupted and the remainder of it postponed until a still future date, when the epiphaneia of Christ will take place. These passages quite rightly speak of God’s kingdom as future, since at this point it is. However, in the Acts period, the kingdom was then present, and the only thing they were anticipating was its further expansion to fill the earth.
Keep studying the Word!
Nathan
January 17, 2011 at 9:57 am
Chris Sparkes
Jan 16, 2011
Hello Nathan
Yes, yes, yes. I agree! At last! Every misunderstanding I had in my mind concerning Matthew 16\28 you have successfully demolished, and all that you say makes perfect sense. I concede every point you make about it in your last response. It’s a good analogy of Hitler’s government and I fully accept that argument.
I must admit that until I read your article, I had not spent that much time in considering any early fulfilment of Christ’s kingdom. I’ve now amended my notes concerning Matthew 16\28, and I’m going to have to persuade my two friends who study these things with me. I’ll direct them to your website. Thank you for your excellent explanations of this passage. Well done!
Concerning the apostle Paul, I do believe he was taken up, and I’m looking over my essay on that subject. I do also believe that Philippians 3\11 is about being perfected, and I’m revising my study on that, although I do very much agree with you that it’s a “strange verse”, as you say, and it might well have something else in it which I have not yet perceived.
There’s one extremely important point we might take up: – you say in a parenthesis “if you accept the Wescott-Hort Greek text”. It’s quite impossible for me to accept that text. Those two men were unbelievers and rogues and “enemies of Christ”. Harsh words? Not at all: they were most definitely not believers in either the Scriptures or in Christ’s redemption, and it’s easy to see that from their writings. Hort wrote that he preferred the idea of a ransom to Satan than to the Father (I’ve seen the very sentence in the British Museum.) Their methods were dishonest, poor, and inconsistent. Hence all their textual work has been extremely harmful, endeavoring to take away from the Scriptures. The classic authority on this vital subject is the great John Burgon’s Revision Revised. If you want a short account of Burgon’s work, may I direct you to the website of my friend Graham Thomason, http://www.faraboveall.com, where you’ll find 2 articles:
The reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 Codex C
and
Scripture, Authenticated and Fabricated.
They’re available from this page:
http://faraboveall.com/015_Textual/01_Textual.html
The actual document Scripture, Authenticated and Fabricated is at:
http://faraboveall.com/015_Textual/Authentic.pdf
These are intriguing studies by Graham, and they open up another dimension of the study of the Bible. I’ve published a short essay on the subject: John Burgon: Chichester’s Greatest Scholar.
Graham Thomason and I are also making translations of the New Testament. You can find Graham’s work which he’s done so far on his website, and his translation includes a column which has many unique notes on textual variations: http://www.faraboveall.com.
These are some of the beliefs from Westcott’s and Hort’s own pens (cited by Hoste, p. 17-18):
Hort to Bishop Lightfoot: “But you know I am a staunch sacerdotalist.”
Westcott to the Archbishop of Canterbury: “I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness.”
Hort wrote: “The pure Romish view seems to be nearer and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical … we dare not forsake the sacraments or God will forsake us.”
Hort wrote of his “…serious differences with Evangelicals on authority, and especially on the authority of the Bible.”
Westcott wrote: “No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history.”
Hort wrote: “I am inclined to think that no such state as ‘Eden’ (I mean the popular notion) ever existed.”
Perhaps worst of all, Hort wrote this, in a letter to Westcott in 1860 (and this is what I’ve seen for myself in the British Museum):
“I cannot yet make up my mind. Perhaps we may be too hasty in assuming an absolute necessity of absolutely proportional suffering. I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan, though neither am I prepared to give full assent to it. But I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the notion of a ransom paid to the Father.”
~ (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, by Hort’s son Arthur Fenton Hort, Macmillan, London, 1896, volume 1, p. 428).
These two unregenerate men were at the head of the Revision Committee, working in secret, and wanting, they said, to “rid the church of that vile text”, by which they meant the Received Text.
Westcott and Hort must be the only people in history who’ve gone so far as to call the Scriptures “vile”. Anyway, Graham Thomason is the better scholar of these matters.
Best wishes,
Chris Sparkes
January 26, 2011 at 6:01 pm
precepts
Chris Sparkes,
I am glad I have been able to help you see the truth of Matthew 16:28. Yes, I do believe the Acts period was an early stage of the kingdom of God, now completed while the kingdom yet awaits its future, final fulfillment.
As for my comment about the Westcott-Hort text, this was not meant to imply that I do accept that text. In fact, I am generally in agreement with you about it. These two men were higher critics, and their work has done great harm to the Word of God.
Keep studying the Word!
Nathan
July 5, 2012 at 5:40 pm
Michael Thomas
When Jesus speaks of those who will “not know death” , He is referring to those who save their soul when their earthly body dies. This means that they pass from this world into the Kingdom without losing their persona. They retain their personality, their memory and their opinions They also retain their voice and their recognizable physical appearance, albeit in an enhanced version of their old body in accordance the normal procedure of those who have passed through the narrow gate and now dwell in the Kingdom. Jesus does not make mistakes !
August 24, 2012 at 6:49 pm
Precepts
Michael Thomas,
While you have positively stated many things here, I do not believe you have Scriptural evidence for much of anything you have stated.
First of all, the Bible says very little about “saving souls,” and what It does say does not match at all with what you have said.
Then, you refer to some nebulous “Kingdom” that exists outside this world. I do not believe that any such thing is found in Scripture. See my article on “What Is a Kingdom?”
http://precepts.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/the-kingdom-of-god-part-5-what-is-a-kingdom/
You seem to be well acquainted with “the normal procedure of those who have passed through the narrow gate and now dwell in the Kingdom.” If you manage to pass through this gate and maintain all the things you claim you are going to maintain, then congratulations. However, I do not see much Scripture for what you are saying.
Yet you seem to be saying that by doing this, you will “not know death.” I wonder how many people you think pass through this gate? I have known quite a few elderly believers, and many of them have known death. I can testify positively to this, since I have seen their bodies at their funerals. Those who have not known death are still alive and on earth. These retain their personality, at least some of their memory, and their opinions, as well as their voice and recognizable physical appearance. Yet I don’t think they now dwell in the Kingdom.
I agree wholeheartedly that Jesus does not make mistakes. However, at this point, I am sticking with my explanation, not yours. If you want me to consider your view, you had better provide some Scripture and a reasonable explanation, rather than a lot of logorrhea.
Nathan
November 21, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Dan Scott
Great lesson!
I’m not sure if anyone has made this point yet as I’ve not read through all the comments, but the word “coming” in these 3 verses is “erchomai” Strong’s G2064. The “2nd coming” of Christ is referring to as His “parousia” Strong’s G3952. One example is found in Matthew 24:3. “Parousia” is more accurately translated “presence” NOT “coming”.
January 9, 2013 at 6:54 pm
Precepts
Dan Scott,
Thank you for your kind words.
You make a very good point. The word is erchomai, which means “coming,” rather than the word usually used regarding Christ’s coming, parousia, which means “a personal presence because of who one is and what one does.” As I said above, He is seen coming in His kingdom, but not necessarily being personally present yet as King.
Keep studying the Word!
Nathan
February 17, 2013 at 8:12 pm
Mark Joseph
Luke 17:21 seems to be missing from this discussion. “Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.”
If the kingdom of God is within each of us, then so is the king and his government, including the Holy Spirt given to us at pentecost. Every man that has lived since the time of Christ has access to the 2nd coming of Christ within you! Not the outward searching for the kingdom of God, but the inward work and cleansing so that the Christ will appear within us.
While on the isle of Patmos, John saw the 2nd coming of Christ, inwardly, before his death. The Book of Revelation, is the another such road map of Jesus teaching us to “follow him”. It is an inward experience, not an outward experience.
Our work is not to wait for a literal 2nd coming, but to actively change our consciousness now to prepare ourselves inwardly for our own 2nd coming. Philippians 2:5 – Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.
Finally, Jesus instructed us not to worry about the day to day pursuit of things (Mathew chapter 6). He did say: “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” Was mankind relegated to wait 2000 years for the kingdom of God, or are we actively instructed to seek the kingdom of God and the 2nd coming of Christ within us now, and every year since the time of Christ?
For me, there is no conflict in the scriptures regarding the 2nd coming.
March 21, 2013 at 5:56 pm
Precepts
Mark Joseph,
It is true that yours is the first mention of Luke 17:21 in this discussion. However, I have dealt with this verse in my second message on “Kingdom Problem Passages,” found here:
https://precepts.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/kingdom-problem-passages-continued/
In that article, I pointed out that the people whom the Lord Jesus was talking to were the Pharisees, who had come up to Him and demanded that He tell them when the kingdom of God would come. According to your interpretation, the kingdom of God and Christ’s second coming would have to have taken place in the lives and hearts of people who are hateful and suspicious towards Jesus Christ, who oppose and question Him at every turn, and who ultimately reject Him and would put Him to death if they had the opportunity. If this is what the kingdom of God and Christ’s second coming are like, then they are not really desirable things.
The book of Revelation is a road map to an inward experience of Jesus Christ? That is a pretty far-fetched claim, my friend.
It is certainly true that we need an inward change. Yet to describe this as “our own 2nd coming” makes little sense. What was our first coming, if this is our second? The words of the angels in Acts 1:11 belie your teaching. “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.” Your own, personal second coming is not the same manner as the disciples saw him go into heaven.
You ask an easy question. Mankind was relegated to wait 2,000 years for the kingdom of God. Actually, you are cutting it quite short, since we have really been waiting since the fall for the kingdom of God, which makes our wait at least 6,000 years.
It is nice for you to wave aside the second coming by claiming to have received it inside yourself. You are one of those Peter speaks of in II Peter 3:3-4, when he says, “Knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.’” You would do well to read the rest of the chapter and absorb Peter’s message. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as you might count slackness. Everything He has said will be fulfilled in its time.
Keep studying the Word.
Nathan