Contradictions in Scripture: Christ’s Big Mistake Part 2 Some Standing Here Shall Not Taste Death

August 16, 2007 in Contradictions In Scripture

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.

108 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…

June 2, 2016 at 6:38 pm

Jeff

Isn.t Jesus just giving his disciples encouragement? When the second coming does come, they will go to heaven. Except, Judas or others there that didn’t fully believe.

June 17, 2016 at 8:40 pm

Precepts

Jeff, the problem with saying that Jesus is just giving His disciples encouragement is that it implies that He was willing to tell an untruth in order to do so. The Lord told them that they would not taste of death until they saw the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. If that means the second coming, then his encouragement was false, as the second coming did not take place before every last one of them died.

This is like if I would give encouragement to one who was suffering from a serious illness, saying, “Do not worry. God has told me that you will not die from this illness, but will recover and live many years yet.” This might give great encouragement to the stricken sufferer. Yet then, if that sick person dies of that illness after all, what have I done? God has not lied, but I did. In the name of “encouraging” this sick person, I have taken the name of the Lord my God in vain. I have proven myself to be a false prophet, worthy of death. This is a poor way to offer encouragement. That is pretty much what you are saying Christ was doing here if what He was doing was trying to encourage them by a false promise.

The point of Christ’s second coming is Christ coming back to this world to rule and reign, not to take people to heaven. Yet regardless of what we think will happen then, the point is that every one of His listeners that day did taste of death without the second coming of Christ happening at all. That is why I insist that the second coming and the kingdom of God are not synonymous. The Acts period was the earliest stage of the kingdom of God according to the stages of the kingdom Christ gave in His parable of the growing grain in Mark 4:26-29. Eleven of the twelve (excepting Judas) lived to see that stage. If there were other disciples there listening, most of them must have lived to see it as well.

Thus Christ’s words were true. They just were not talking about the second coming, but the Son of Man coming IN HIS KINGDOM. As I said in an answer below, that is like when Hitler came to France in his government. That had nothing to do with Hitler riding into France on a train or a motorcar or something like that. Rather, Hitler came into his government in France when the Nazi soldiers were seen on the streets, when the curfews were imposed, when the Nazi laws were established and enforced over the country, etc. That was Hitler coming into the government of France. It had nothing to do with him entering the country. So, the Son of Man coming in His kingdom (government) has nothing to do with His second coming, but has everything to do with Him laying down His governmental control over the earth.

I pray this helps.

Nathan

September 6, 2007 at 2:16 pm

precepts

Jamie Langston, 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,

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.

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!

May 24, 2016 at 3:57 am

MICHAEL CARMAN

very nicely put. we are living in the new heavens and earth now. we are in the fullness of the kingdom now. ad70 was the 2nd coming and only a fleshly interpretation would put it 2000 or more years later.

June 10, 2016 at 7:24 pm

Precepts

MICHAEL CARMAN,

I have already answered T.L. Mayle (below under my answer to Joshua) and disagreed with him, so I do not think I have much more to say about whether or not his argument is very nicely put. As for us living in the new heavens and earth now, I would point out one of the four passages that talk about this time, II Peter 3:13, “Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.” The new heavens and new earth are characterized by righteousness. If we are living in the new heavens and earth now, then we are already living in a situation characterized by righteousness. As you look at the world around you, can you truly say that you live on a planet and in a situation that is characterized by righteousness? The fact that this is not so is so manifest that I do not even have to demonstrate it. I would have to say that only a delusional interpretation would put us in the new heavens and new earth now.

Also note that Peter when he wrote did not consider himself to be in the new heaven and new earth now. Do you honestly think that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD brought this about? What changed at that point that brought in righteousness? The deaths of a few Jews? Was that all it took for righteousness to be manifested on earth?

If we are living in the fullness of the kingdom now, then it does not really amount to much. My advice to God in that case would be to scrap the kingdom and try again. But I do not think we live in the kingdom now, and God’s present purpose is not to bring in His kingdom or cause righteousness to dwell on earth but rather to show forth the riches of His grace, as Ephesians 3 makes clear.

Nathan

November 8, 2019 at 1:16 pm

Andy

Ok then with a 1000 year kingdom, we should now already be in the new heavens and new earth and the Great White Throne judgment happened already 1000 years ago?

December 24, 2019 at 3:23 am

Precepts

Andy,

With the placement of your comment it is a little hard for me to tell, but I THINK you were responding to the comments of T.L. Mayle above. If so, you make a good point about Christ’s second coming. If this happened in 70 AD, then why didn’t a thousand year period of Him ruling and reigning take place and then end? It would seem we are beyond that and should have reached the next stage by now, actually nearly a thousand years ago now.

If your comments were directed at me, which I think they probably weren’t but still, I will take the opportunity to restate my beliefs. I believe that the kingdom of God is something separate (at least initially) from Christ’s thousand year parousia reign on earth. Isaiah 2:2-4 speaks of a time when men will come to Jerusalem to learn the Lord’s ways so that they can walk in His paths. The second coming of Christ, however, is described in II Thessalonians 1:7-10 as taking place in flaming fire, with all who do not know God and do not already obey His gospel being destroyed forever. After the second coming it will be far too late for the nations to come to God in order to learn His ways. If they didn’t follow His ways already, they will be destroyed. That is a big reason why I believe there has to be a kingdom period prior to Christ’s second coming.

Mark 4:26-29 contains a parable in which Christ compares the kingdom of God to the stages of growing grain. It starts with simply a blade, like a blade of grass. Then it develops an ear. Then the full grain develops in the ear, though it is unripe. Yet when the grain is ripe, then the farmer authorizes the sickle, and the grain is harvested. The tribulation period is described in Revelation as the time of God’s harvest. I believe that the kingdom period Christ describes in this parable in Mark 4 largely takes place before then.

My teaching is that the very earliest stage of the kingdom of God Christ described in Mark 4:26-29, the blade stage, took place in the Acts period, from the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost until Acts 28:28. The entire book of Acts was under the large question mark raised by the disciples in Acts 1:6 that Christ refused to answer in Acts 1:7: whether or not the kingdom was going to now come to the extent that autonomy would be restored to Israel and the glorious prophecies of her future, like Isaiah 2:2-4, would come true. Those things would start to come true as the ear stage of the kingdom was brought forth. Yet Acts was the early, blade stage of the kingdom, as it just poked itself above the ground into the light but it was not yet manifest it all its glory. Thus the eleven disciples minus Judas and many of His other disciples saw it in that earliest stage.

At Acts 28:28, however, when the salvation-bringing gospel was authorized to all nations, the plan for God’s kingdom was set aside. This was a serious deviation from the plan of the Old Testament in places like Isaiah 2, wherein Israel would be brought into the kingdom first and then from her knowledge of God would spread to all nations. To allow the gospel to go out freely to all nations equally without any priority to Israel meant that the disciples’ question in Acts 1:6 was answered with a resounding “no.” The kingdom was not going to be restored to Israel at that time. Instead, after completing the “blade stage,” God paused His kingdom work and postponed it until the far future to perform a new and previously unrevealed work, as Paul sets it forth in the book of Ephesians.

Someday, God will begin His kingdom work again right where He left off at the ear stage. It will then proceed and all His glorious promises will come true. It will culminate in the harvest, a test of all men on earth, followed by Christ’s second coming resulting in His thousand year parousia.

I hope that makes clear what my teaching is. I realize it is very different from what most teach. But notice that it explains Christ’s words here quite clearly. This view was not developed to explain this passage, but it provides a great explanation. Of course, if you reject my view then it does not work.

I have obviously only given the briefest outline of my beliefs here. Much more is said in my series on “Bins for Bible Prophecies,” which you can read in this regard if you are interested. You can find that in my category on the “Kingdom of God.”

Thanks for writing.

Nathan

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.

https://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:

Click to access 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.
https://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.

Click to access 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, https://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

December 23, 2022 at 11:49 pm

Child of Grace

The answers are in the words of the almighty. He said: He who has seen me has seen the father. Do you not believe that I am In the father and the father is in me? Do you not believe in three persons in one essence(I.e, the most high).

Secondly, when christ was told that he was using demonic powers to do miracles, he said “But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you”
So we as children of the most high work miracles through the power of the Holy spirit sent to us by christ. And indeed, many did not die before the Holy spirit came and filled the spirits of men: Then, God gave them task and appointed the leaders and the priesthood of his government. There was a machinery in place that was explained by the most high when he said:” The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”
What does this mean? Well, christ was with them then and his spirit is with us now.
Moreover, the heavenly establishment was working and assisting the deciples to even teleport from one place to another. And I quote:
“When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing. Philip, however, appeared at Azotus and travelled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until he reached Caesarea” (Acts 8:39-40NIV)

Do we see the arms of the government at play since christ? A government has its governed people. Heaven had just paid for new citizens through the blood of christ. The news citizens were given jobs, assigned powers and promised to one day judge angels.

Christ spoke about the ” day of the lord”. However, the most high has a kingdom. Yet lucifer is allowed to exist alongside the father’s kingdom until the day of the lord, when the elect(I.e children of the alpha and omaga) are allowed to live in peace in the new jeruselem. The foundation of which are the 12 deciples; having the Alpha and omega as king over it.
Revelation 22 say:”And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Revelation 22:3‭, ‬14 KJV
https://bible.com/bible/1/rev.22.3-14.KJV“

January 12, 2023 at 11:06 pm

Precepts

Child of Grace,

First of all, though it is quite a bit of work to use punctuation, I think you should make the effort. Without using quotation marks, you quote Christ as having said, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” He did say this, in John 14:9. You then quote Him again, “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me.” He said this in John 14:10. With no break, however, you then go on to express your own opinion. “Do you not believe in three persons in one essence(I.e, the most high).” Christ never said this. These are your own words. But in your sloppy way of quoting, you have made it look like they are His, when they are not. Christ’s words are always far more valuable than our words. They are wheat, and our words are just the chaff in comparison. “What is the chaff to the wheat?” as the LORD said in Jeremiah 23:28. You need to use more care when quoting God.

Secondly, I don’t see any answers in this to what Christ said about some standing there not tasting death before seeing His kingdom. He obviously was not talking about seeing Him, since He was standing right there, and they were already seeing Him. For Him to predict them seeing Him as they were standing there seeing Him would be utter foolishness. Christ was not so silly.

While it is true that Christ said what you quote Him saying about casting out demons, He said this before he made the prediction that some standing there would not taste death before seeing His kingdom, since Matthew 12:28 comes before Matthew 16:28. Therefore, Christ could not have actually meant that the kingdom was present when He was casting out demons. I have discussed this passage in my message on “Kingdom Problem Passages,” which you can read here: https://precepts.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/kingdom-problem-passages/ . I explain there that the idea in the Greek is that the kingdom had taken a step in advance in regard to them, not that it had actually arrived, since Christ later made it plain that it had not.

I think it would be a pretty wild exaggeration to claim that anyone today works miracles like Christ did. His miracles were far above and beyond what anyone can work today.

I agree that some (many) of the disciples did not die before the Spirit was poured out at Pentecost in Acts 2. That was my argument in the article above: that what actually happened at that time was the coming of the kingdom of God. It not only gave them power; it also marked out those 120 men as leaders in God’s government. You are very right about that.

Again, if Christ being present was the same as the kingdom being present, then Christ’s prediction in Matthew 16:28 makes no sense. What would be the point of Him predicting they would see Him as they were standing in front of Him seeing Him? Christ being present or the Spirit being present are not the same thing as the kingdom of God being present; the presence of the kingdom of God is the presence of God’s government on earth. That government is not now present, and when it is, all who live on earth and all the governments of this earth will know it. The passage you quote is another one I have dealt with in part 2 of my article on “Kingdom Problem Passages” which you can read here: https://precepts.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/kingdom-problem-passages-continued/

I agree that God’s government was present in the book of Acts. One can point to many examples of its activities. Yet it is equally clear that His government is not present and active today, for we do not see these things happening around us in this day. The government of God only came in its early stages, like the early, blade stage of growing grain, as Christ suggested in His parable in Mark 4:26-29. Then, it was interrupted when Christ sent the salvation-bringing message to all nations in Acts 28:28. Since then, the kingdom has been suspended, and will take up where it left off someday. Until then, God is working in a dispensation of grace, Ephesians 3:2, showing forth His grace to the world. This is a very different time from God’s government. Nevertheless, the early stage of the kingdom that took place in Acts was God’s government, and most of His disciples (except Judas) saw it.

We do see the arms of the government at play since Christ in what we read about in the book of Acts. However, that was the extent of it. God suspended His kingdom works, and we cannot point to such things today as were evident then. Acts is very, very different from what is happening today.

You are right that Satan is allowed to live next to God’s kingdom, and is not imprisoned until the day of the Lord, and even then not at the very beginning of it (which is during the tribulation period), but after Christ’s second coming. However, once God’s government comes again in power, I believe Christ’s power will bruise (or overwhelm) Satan’s head, and he will largely be helpless before it. He does not have to be imprisoned to be defeated; he will be defeated by God’s powerful government.

The Jerusalem of the day of the Lord is just one location on earth. Many people will live on God’s earth of the kingdom, and most of them will not live in Jerusalem. Most believers today certainly will not, since we are not Israelites, and so have little business in the capital city of God’s nation. Just being on earth and being part of God’s glorious government will be more than enough. Yet the Jerusalem which has twelve foundation stones that are the 12 disciples of the Lamb is the Jerusalem of the new heavens and the new earth, not that of the day of the Lord. The new heavens and new earth exist in the day of God, not the day of the Lord.

Yes, those who have the right to enter the city are blessed. We probably will have that right, being in Christ. But I still don’t expect to live in the city, since I know that I am not an Israelite. We will have our own realm, not less glorious.

Thanks for writing. 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: https://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:

Click to access 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?”

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:

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

November 25, 2013 at 6:18 pm

Jay

I have read all the comments and agree with most however one point that may have not been considered it that God is NOT bound by TIME and John’s “vision” may not have been what we think of,as a “picture” of what was to come, BUT rather John was “literally” taken to the events of Revelation’s as they were happening. A scripture reference to this type of “time travel” would be Jesus’s prayer in John 17:5 , “glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” We are bound by time and space unless God intervenes as is evident with John’s account of revelations. As seen with Philip’s being “taken” to a different location, after the Baptism of the Ethiopian. God’s Word is full of references to “That Day”, and just because it has not happened for us yet does not mean it has not happened for God or for John before his death. Just a thought. 🙂
God bless,
A brother in Christ Jesus. “Elohim, Eli, (abiding essence…)”
p.s. I think “That Day” is close at hand, and I am looking forward to it.

December 13, 2013 at 9:07 pm

Precepts

Jay,

I would certainly agree that God, the Creator of time, need not be bound by it. Yet I would also say that God, the Creator of all rules, need not be bound by them. Yet I would point out that God often does bind Himself to work within His own structure that He has built. Oftentimes I think that God keeps His Own rules for the same reason that He made those rules in the first place: that those rules are not just arbitrary, but are reflections of His character and just the way He is. Therefore, He Himself keeps the rules He made, not because He has to, but because to do anything else would be contrary to what He is in essence, which is why the rule is the way it is in the first place. I hope that makes sense.

So I am not sure that this does not apply in a way to time as well. Yes, I know that God does not need time to exist, like we do. If God had never made time, He still would have been, though not in time, as hard as it is for us to even express such an idea. (I find myself tempted to make up ungrammatical phrases, like “God would have be,” or “God would have exist,” but I am not sure that I really know what I am talking about.)

Yet God did make time, and here is where the basic character and nature of God steps in. I believe that the God of the Bible is not a God Who stands aloof from His creation, like the old “unmoved mover” idea of God. Instead, I see Him as a God Who, after He creates, rolls up His sleeves and enters into His creation in order to stand in relationship to His creatures. In other words, He does not stand aloof, but enters into what He made and identifies with the ones He made. That said, I think it makes sense to me that God, having made time, would enter into time and participate in it. He is not “bound” by it like we are, but entering into relationship with His creatures is just the way He is, part of His very nature, something He couldn’t “not do” just because of how He is. Therefore, I think that God, after He made time, entered into it and started to participate. This is what we see Jesus Christ doing in the Bible, and Jesus Christ is the only way to see what God is like that we have. (We can speculate all day long about what “God absolute” might be like, but apart from Christ we have no way of actually knowing.)

So my point is that if God is not bound by time, that does not mean that He does not bind himself in time. It seems to me that that would be just like Him.

I agree that John might have literally been taken forward to those events he describes, although his language to describe them certainly is symbolic and figurative in the extreme. Yet I would point out that he also might not have been taken forward, but might have simply been seeing a vision in somewhat symbolic form of what will then take place. Like Paul, whether in the body or out of the body, we cannot tell. (II Corinthians 12:2) I would not say that time travel is made “evident” by Revelation, therefore.

I don’t think Jesus receiving back glory that He had formerly had before He emptied Himself would be “time travel.”

It is true that God does not experience things like we do. One verse that shows this is II Peter 3:8. “But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” Lots of people like to use this verse for things it doesn’t really say. For example, they like to say that it has only been two days since Christ was on earth according to God’s time, since it has been two thousand years since Christ was on earth, and a thousand years are like a day to Him. That seems very clever, but consider if you took the opposite. A day is like a thousand years to God. Therefore, two thousand years is actually like 730 million years to Him! This calculation does not quite come out the same. Then, we could add in the evidence of Psalm 90:4. “For a thousand years in Your sight
Are like yesterday when it is past,
And like a watch in the night.”
A watch in the night is three hours. Two thousand years is only six hours, by this reckoning. We need 14,000 more years to reach two days by this reckoning! And what about “like yesterday when it is past”? This is no “code” by which we can unlock God’s time.

I think the point of these verses is that when the infinite God enters time, He does not experience it like we do. He does so many things in a single day that it would seem like a thousand years to us, and would take a thousand years for us, if we had to do them. On the other hand, He is infinite, so what is even a thousand years to Him? This does not sound like a God Who is not experiencing time, but rather like One Who is experiencing it, but not the same way we do.

I do think the day is close at hand….definitely not 14,000 years away. I could be wrong, but I pray I’m right. May the day come soon!

Thanks for writing, and the good comments. Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

January 10, 2014 at 10:27 pm

JOHAN NEL

Read Mark 9 :1-7 . Peter ,John and James saw HIM in all HIS power.
Compare with 2 Peter 1 :16-21.

February 21, 2014 at 8:53 pm

Precepts

JOHAN NEL,

You seem to be promoting the idea that Christ was referring to His transfiguration. I have already dealt with this idea in my article. See paragraphs 18-21 of my article above.

Mark 9:1-7 records the transfiguration:

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.
2. And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.
3. And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.
4. And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.
5. And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
6. For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid.
7. And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

In II Peter 1:16, Peter says:

16. For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

The word “coming” here is the Greek word parousia, and tells us that what Peter, James, and John saw on the mountain of transfiguration was actually a vision of Christ as He will be during His personal, official presence on the earth for a thousand years. Yet this cannot be what Christ meant when He mentioned them seeing the kingdom of God come with power. All they saw was Christ transfigured. They saw nothing of His government. All they saw was a conversation between Him, Moses, and Elijah. Moreover, the three who saw this were not the same ones standing there when He made His statement in Mark 9:1. That was a much larger group. He did not say, “If you are one of the privileged few, you will see the kingdom of God come with power.” His clear implication is that if you are not one of the ones who tastes death, you will see it. None of them tasted death in the six days between this “prediction” and the mount of transfiguration. This was a pretty weak prophecy, if that was really what He was referring to. I could tell a group of twelve or so people that none of them would die in the next six days, and chances are very good I would be right. Your explanation is a weak one, as I already expressed in my article above.

Yet before the kingdom of God came with power in the book of Acts, Judas tasted death, and so did not see it. The others saw it at Pentecost. That is what Christ was referring to.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

November 25, 2014 at 7:52 am

dennis savage

anyone who doubts the words of our lord jesus christ has no faith ye of little faith do you doubt about our lord bringing back lazarus to life. Be careful of the gnostics who fill the minds of false doctrines.

November 26, 2014 at 7:38 pm

Precepts

dennis savage,

I agree that belief in the words of our Lord Jesus Christ is key for every believer. That is much of my motivation in writing this series of articles, since these are statements that many have doubted over the years, but that I believe are true when properly understood, interpreted, and applied.

I am not sure what Lazarus being brought back to life has to do with anything I was talking about, but I for one do not doubt it. Not only did our Lord raise Lazarus from the dead, but He also proclaimed Himself to BE the resurrection and the life. This I believe. It is sad when many do not.

I certainly disagree with the gnostics. I am not sure that there are many of these still around. Though there are those who promote their works (like the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Judas), so perhaps these are what you refer to. Certainly, these ancient writings teach false doctrine and error.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

March 21, 2016 at 10:22 am

dennis

Lord Jesus has the power to do what he said in Matthew 16:28 its a question of faith do you believe this, some disciple’s of Lord Jesus are still here possible as witnesses to world events. Enoch and Elisha are still alive in heaven, they will come back in the time of tribulation and be killed in Jerusalem by the Satanists, but will rise up after three days, to the shock of the Satanists, and meet Lord Jesus in his second coming in the clouds.

March 28, 2016 at 6:19 pm

Precepts

dennis,

There is no question but that the Lord Jesus is powerful enough to keep people alive long after we would have expected them to die. In fact, He is powerful enough to do anything He chooses. Yet the question is not if He COULD keep some of the twelve alive for such a long time, but rather if He DID do that.

It is easy to make wild claims without evidence and then boast about “faith” rather than facts to back them up. Yet I am not quite ready to have “faith” in your suggestion at this point, and I would require a bit of evidence before I would be willing to accept that any of the twelve are still alive on earth now more than two thousand years after their births. If this is really the case, then where are they? What are they doing, and what have they been doing these past nineteen-hundred plus years? Why do we not know of them?

It does not seem very likely to me that powerful and Godly men like the twelve would be the kind to remain incognito. If they were alive, they would be working on the Lord’s behalf, as they did in the past. The fact that no one has heard of them or knows of people who have amazingly lived for millennia is, to me, strong evidence that no such event has occurred, and that these men are all now dead, as we would expect them to be.

That Enoch and Elijah are alive and in heaven now seems to be the clear testimony of Scripture. Yet one would suppose that the people of heaven know of this, as we do, and know of them. Why, if some of the twelve are alive, do we not know of it, and none of us have heard of it?

The fact is that the Lord did not say that some of His disciples would not die at all, but only that some of them would not die before seeing Him coming into His kingdom. The clear implication is that they would see this soon, within a normally expected lifespan, and not by living thousands of years. Eleven of the twelve saw the Lord coming in His Kingdom on the great day of Pentecost, when the Kingdom power was poured down through the agency of the Holy Spirit. Acts was the “night” period of the Kingdom, Romans 13:12. The day never came, but most of the disciples did live to see the night. Acts was the Kingdom in part, I Corinthians 13:9-10. That which is perfect did not come, but they did see what was in part. The Acts period was the early, “blade” stage of the growing Kingdom, Mark 4:28. The head and full grain in the head did not come, but the blade did, and eleven of the twelve disciples saw it. This is all that the promise of the Lord Jesus meant. After they saw this early stage of the Kingdom, they one-by-one fell on sleep, and await resurrection in order to see the full Kingdom of God as it will yet come to the earth.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

November 30, 2014 at 5:12 pm

Celegroz

I think believers would agree that this 16:28 is an important verse. It has been long-debated and discussed and several different interpretations exist. It is because of this that I ask the oft-avoided question, “Why would God make something so important so confusing and unclear?” The frequent response to this is that “it isn’t unclear – it’s clear that ‘insert my interpretation'”. However, logically that answer is non-sequitur because multiple interpretations DO exist and are still argued. Why would God, the creator of the universe and all life, not clearly and succinctly give instruction and leave no room for interpretation an important issues like when the kingdom of God will come, or more importantly, what is the kingdom of God exactly? Do you posit that one must have command and understanding of the Greek or done exhaustive study on the culture of the time or other subtleties to fully be able to interpret this? Does it make sense to you that God would want all cultures and all languages (even though English didn’t exist at the time) for all time to clearly understand the fundamental tenants of his kingdom and teachings? Why leave room for interpretation? If you were writing a book for your earthly children to read detailing rules for living and behavior, would you be subjective? How would you go about writing it so that, even if it were translated into hundreds of other languages, would be clear and objective? Try to think reasonably and objectively about this subject.

December 12, 2014 at 7:59 pm

Precepts

Celegroz,

Let me start off by saying that I am not so certain why you call this “an important verse.” While every word of God must necessarily carry some importance, I do not know why this verse should particularly be so. It is often debated because of the difficulties it presents, not because it is of much greater importance than other verses that likewise talk about when and how the kingdom of God will come. People argue about this verse because, by their views, it would appear to them that Christ was wrong. If He is God, this is untenable. Therefore, something must be done to interpret it so that He was not wrong. Once this is done and the difficulty removed, however, I am not certain that this verse is any more important than dozens of other verses that likewise tell us important facts about the kingdom of God. Therefore your argument that God should have made such an important verse more clear than He did does not seem to me to carry much weight.

The fact is that God does not have to make everything clear. Proverbs 25:2 states, “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.” Often hiding things in His Word is done by God in order to bring Himself glory. If we want glory, we need to work to search those hidden things out. He is not guilty of casting His pearls before swine (Matthew 7:6). We must prove ourselves to be better than swine before we will find many of the deep things of God.

You posit that the fact that there are many differences of opinion regarding the kingdom of God is proof that God has not made the facts about it clear. I would posit a different scenario. I would suggest that many facts about the kingdom of God are perfectly clear. The problem with disagreements is for several other reasons. First of all, many (if not most) do not know the facts of what the Bible says about the kingdom of God. Many of the things God says about that kingdom are made in the Old Testament prophets, and who in Christendom knows those books? Secondly, very few take the Biblical facts alone into account when arguing a doctrine. Instead, they are saddling the Biblical facts with the predetermined ideas of their church, their denomination, or their orthodoxy. Therefore the facts are not allowed to speak clearly on their own, but are forced to align with a preconceived conclusion. If they do not naturally align with that conclusion, they must be forced to align with it. These two facts result in much disagreement, and they will result in much disagreement whether the Bible is clear about a thing or not.

I do not think that a study of Hebrew culture or language, nor a study of the Greek language, is necessary to understand the kingdom of God and what it is. An exhaustive study of the topic from a good English Bible will reveal much truth about it. Most are not willing to make such a study, or if they do, they have their denomination’s doctrinal statement as a roadmap to force them away from many logical conclusions while they make the study.

Now you make a jump from studying the kingdom of God and what Christ says about it in Matthew 16 to God’s detailed rules for living and behavior. Matthew 16:28 has nothing to do with current living and behavior. Why would you suggest that these things are unclear? Do you honestly think the following things are difficult to understand?

Ephesians 4:25. Therefore, putting away lying, “Let each one of you speak truth with his neighbor,” for we are members of one another. 26. “Be angry, and do not sin”: do not let the sun go down on your wrath, 27. nor give place to the devil. 28. Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need. 29. Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers. 30. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31. Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. 32. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you.

While there are some issues of interpretation here, I would suggest that for the most part these things are quite clear. If you are not living according to these things, the problem is not that you cannot understand them. You know that you should not lie; you should not sin when angry; you should not steal; you should work hard at a good, honest job; you should give to those less fortunate; you should not say dirty things; you should build others up with your words; you should not be bitter, wrathful, angry, clamorous, slanderous, and malicious; and you should be kind, tender, and forgiving. What is difficult to understand about any of these things? Ephesians 4-6 are full of just such things, clearly stated, regarding how believers should live their lives. If you do not know these things, it is because you have not been studying the right things, not because they are hard or obscure.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

February 6, 2015 at 11:59 pm

Celegroz

I honestly don’t understand how you could suggest this isn’t an important verse. It is speaking about the kingdom of God and when Christ will “come again” or “return”, however one chooses to interpret the meaning. In my response I simply suggested that this verse has had many different interpretations therefore, by logical conclusion, the meaning isn’t clear. I also suggested in my response that a common rebuttal to this proposition is to declare that the verse is, in fact, very clear and then to insert your particular interpretation. Nathan, this is exactly what you did. You also suggested that it wasn’t necessary to be able to understand the original language to be able to correctly interpret the meaning but in your OP you gave your interpretation on the meaning based upon the Greek. My point in posting my comments to point out that a significant catalyst (and I believe many other’s) in my de-conversion had much to do with the fact that I just couldn’t believe that the God I’d been taught to understand would choose to manifest himself through written text left up to interpretation by fallible human beings. It isn’t reasonable.

In summary, I strongly submit that if a written statement is able to be interpreted in several (or many) different ways, it is, by definition, not clear. If Jesus meant he was actually coming back from heaven to establish his kingdom then why didn’t he spell it out clearly by saying something like, “before all you guys die, I’ll will return from heaven with a big loud trumpet fanfare and out of majestically parting clouds; appear to the entire planet; and take all the good people to a really cool place and that will be the end of things as you know them?” or “before all you guys die, I’m going to get all shiny and glowy and appear before you with images of Moses and Elijah and then I’ll change back into the way I look now?” Yes, I allowed a little derision here, so please excuse me but I wanted to make my point.

Also, I hate the fact that you can’t edit your posts on here. I’m embarrassed rereading my posts and finding lots of typos.

March 20, 2015 at 6:37 pm

Precepts

Celegroz,

I’m sorry about the lack of editing power, but I do not think there is anything I can do about it.

I am also sorry you failed to understand my point about the importance of the verse. I will try again to explain what I mean. I believe that what to God is of primary importance in the Bible is revealing Himself and His plan to His creatures. Therefore what is of primary importance to Him in any passage is the lesson He is trying to teach. There are many times in the Bible where sensational things are passed over as of little importance whereas small details are magnified and discussed at length. For example, consider the matter-of-fact way that II Kings introduces the idea that Elijah is about to be caught up to heaven. This incredible event that any human author would introduce with fanfare is instead introduced in an off-hand way, as if it was of little importance. The idea of heavenly beings cohabiting with human women and having children with them, an incredible idea that is dealt with at length by human authors in, for example, I Enoch, is mentioned briefly in Genesis 6 before the Bible quickly moves on to other, more important(?) things. Much more time is given to the descendants of Esau, something that seems largely uninteresting to us, than to this amazing idea. God is seldom impressed with the sensational things that would be plastered on the front page of tabloids.

As such, I think that what God would consider an important idea that needs to be clearly communicated or God is being derelict in His duty is not the same as what you would consider to be that important. If God did not clearly tell us how to enter into relationship with Him, for example, this would be most disturbing. But to say that He was required to tell us absolutely plainly when the kingdom of God is going to come or He is deficient somehow is simply not true. Consider Luke 19:11.

11. Now as they heard these things, He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately.

Here the problem was just the one you bring forward: some people were confused about when the kingdom of God was going to come. Instead of telling them plainly, “You are wrong,” He told them a parable instead. A parable is almost by definition a thing that is hard to interpret or understand. Christ did not seem to think He had to speak plainly about this. Your claim that this is something so important that He had to speak plainly or He was at fault is something that Christ would disagree with you about. I do not think He believes this is nearly as important an issue as you make it out to be. That was the point I was trying to convey.

Hmmm. I believe that this verse is very clear if you accept my premise that the kingdom of God does not start with the second coming of Christ, as many people claim, but actually starts long before that. If you do not accept that idea, then it is not so clear. So I guess its clarity depends on how clear my claim about the kingdom of God is. Since my belief about the kingdom is something that most people disagree with, I am not about to claim that it is clear. But if you accept my propositions about the kingdom, then this verse falls clearly into place. Otherwise, it must remain a puzzler. Good luck interpreting it without my view of the kingdom of God! That is all I can say on that.

You do not appear to have read my response very carefully. I said it is not necessary to understand Hebrew, Greek, or even the culture of Bible times in order to understand many Biblical facts about the kingdom of God. I was speaking generically, not applying that to this verse. If you think this verse is the premiere one in the Bible about the kingdom of God, then you are sadly lacking in knowledge of many important verses of the Bible.

Yes, I did use the Greek, as well as a knowledge of Hebrew figures of speech, in order to interpret this verse. I never said that all facts about the kingdom of God can be understood just with an English Bible and without knowledge of ancient culture. Certainly, when it comes to a verse of questionable interpretation that is hard to understand, going back to the original languages and considering things like Hebrew figures of speech can be a crucial thing in order to come upon the right meaning. But I would go back to your overestimating the importance of this verse due to your fixation on its proving something you want to prove against the Bible. This is not the most important verse in the Bible about the kingdom of God.

You seem to be laboring under the impression that God was required to write His Word like a child’s primer. Since He didn’t do that, you sling mud at Him. This is hardly reasonable. You think a Book written by the same One Who created the universe and all the incredible and complex systems in it would write a book so easy that anyone could understand every verse? This is a foolish idea. You have mostly ignored my arguments about this as well. Is the statement God makes from the cross about His love for sinful humanity unclear? Are His statements about how He wants believers to live in Ephesians 4-6 unclear? He is very clear about the important things. When exactly the kingdom is going to start is just not as important as those things.

Nathan

January 6, 2015 at 4:59 am

Joe Flaherty

My god, you people are pathetic. Just take a step back and look at this old anthology with an open mind. IT’S FAKE! It’s just superstition and legends based on even older superstition and legends. Read a book that’s not black occasionally.You’re trying SO hard to make it work but you’re making fools of yourselves and I know at least some of you realize that.

You write that the critic or skeptic will “smugly proclaim that His expectation contradicts reality, for it seems clear that the kingdom did not come, and Christ did not return” and that this is one of the “verses that the higher critics use to “prove” that the Lord’s teaching was contradictory to what actually happened.” And there are very many like this in your “inerrant” Bible. But why the attitude? Because skeptics and critics are pointing out what is obvious? Look at the LONG page of your original writing and all the comments and not a single one of you can make the passage work in any way.

But you must try lest your whole worldview collapse.

A quote from another commenter:
“Therefore, something must be done to interpret it so that He was not wrong.”

This illustrates my point beautifully. Christians say over and over that, of course it’s ridiculous to believe in an ancient book filled with talking donkeys, dozens of zombie saints clawing their way out of their graves after an earthquake, Moses and his armies slaughtering thousands and thousands of people (always mindful to give the virgin girls to the soldiers, as per god’s commandments, just like the Taliban and ISIS are doing right this minute), Jesus (if he ever even existed) wrongfully predicting his second coming and THE KINGDOM COME, as can plainly be seen from the text, no matter how you try to fight it, and no matter how many delusional people still expect it ANY DAY NOW, no matter that it’s 100 generations overdue, etc etc.

But all you have to do to believe it is believe it!

No thanks. You don’t need to get your morals from an old, immoral, horrible book and you don’t need candles, robes, silly hats and magic spells to be a good person. You probably already are, you just lack faith in yourself.

As one pompous commenter, who is “not so certain why you call this “an important verse,” quotes:
“It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.”

So the god that made a man out of dust and a woman out of his rib and the entire universe just by poofing it into existence purposely made the most important tome ever written so obscure that for millennia scholars, priests and theologians have tried to decipher it, wars have been fought over it, 41,000 denominations of Christianity disagree on it, untold lives have been lost because of it, people tortured and persecuted, all because NO ONE CAN FIGURE IT OUT! Is your god that incompetent? He inspired a book filled with inscrutable, contradictory nonsense and then couldn’t be bothered to help out the people making translations for the non-Hebrew? Sure, you would expect to have to work at it. No god would just give away the Kingdom of Heaven to just anybody. But come on!

February 6, 2015 at 8:20 pm

Precepts

Joe Flaherty,

Don’t be so coy with your position. Are you a Christian or a skeptic?

The fact is, Mr. Flaherty, that I am not really writing my articles to scoffers like yourself, but to people who have some respect and interest in the Bible, which you clearly do not. Yet allow me to defend my “pathetic” answer by pointing out that the position I advocated in this article was not a desperate attempt to explain away a passage by stretching a point, but was actually applying what is my heartfelt and fully studied conviction as to the purpose and proper division of the New Testament: that Christ’s work was all about Israel and God’s Kingdom, which came in its earliest stages in the Acts period, up until He interrupted that program to introduce a previously unprophesied event: the dispensation of the grace of God, in which we currently live. Much of my theology and teaching is based on the assumption that the Acts period was the kingdom of God, but today is not. I realize that this is the not the standard teaching of most of Christianity, but it is the point I am conveying, and what I teach throughout my ministry.

Your summary of the story of the Bible is obviously lopsided and biased, with no respect for the stories or the real lessons being taught there. It saddens me that you feel this way about God. What did He do to you to cause you to hate Him so much? Don’t you realize He came to earth and became a man in order to suffer and die to pay the penalty for the wrong things you have done? What is there in this that would cause you to hate Him?

If you do not get morals from the Bible, I wonder where you would get them from? The same place Hitler or Stalin or Mao Zedong got their morality from? They were all atheist rulers, and they slaughtered dozens of times more people in a century than all the Christian rulers had done in the nineteen hundred years before them. Is this what you would call an improvement? If you really wish to be angry at something dangerous and destructive, why not be angry at atheism?

Putting faith in yourself is a highly questionable position, my friend. I wonder if the atheist rulers I mentioned above put faith in themselves? I wonder if your faith will come through for you when you are lying on your deathbed? Will you be able to help yourself then?

You scoff at the idea of God poofing the earth into existence. I would suggest that you reconsider your own view of the beginning of the universe. Do you not believe that the universe poofed itself into existence? You just dignify that idea by putting several billion years’ worth of “o”s between the “p” and the “f.” Your position hardly seems like a solid enough one from which to scoff at others who might believe something a bit more sensible.

You might not like nor understand the fact that God has not more directly guided His people, or at least those who claimed to be His people, in the time in which we live, yet I do not think you can explain exactly why He would be obligated to do so. I think with your obvious hatred of God that you would not be very likely to give Him the benefit of the doubt, nor trust that He knows what He is doing. In reality the matter might be a bit less clear cut than your dogmatic way of putting it. Perhaps God made His truth somewhat difficult to find so it could not be easily laughed at by scoffers like yourself? That might be one reason, anyway.

I do not believe that God is at all like you think He is. You have built an ugly picture of Him in your mind, and then you spew hatred at it. I would caution you that you have allowed the teachings of God’s enemies to color your view of Him to the point where you cannot really see the beauty and love of the One Who first created you, and then died for you. The fact is that He would rather give you grace than destroy you. But you have listened to so many lies about Him that you cannot really believe that. Nevertheless it is true. Your casting God away from you is really just hurting yourself. It would be far better for you to accept His love than to rail against Him. The One Who died for your sins has much, much more He would like to do for you if you would only believe it.

Nathan

February 6, 2015 at 11:25 pm

Celegroz

Nathan, I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth but I think you’ve misinterpreted derision for an idea for “hatred”. I don’t think Joe hates God. Joe doesn’t believe in God nor the idea of a super-being or creator. He is casting derision upon the idea by scoffing at the fact that an all-knowing, all-loving, all powerful God would choose to manifest himself in the way the Bible describes. It is because of the inconsistent, unscientific and unreasonable aspects of the these beliefs that lead someone like me and Joe to discount the worldview en masse. I’ve posted my feelings on this particular method of discussion in other forums because I find it to be somewhat lacking especially when discussing this issue with very firm believers. It often is misinterpreted as anger toward God because the firm believers have trouble empathizing with the disbeliever’s position. I find it best to give the facts about why I don’t believe and dispense with the mockery and scoffing. I was once as staunch believer but am no longer so. People like me have the unique perspective of being able to understand both sides of this sometimes very emotional disagreement. I’m not saying I have all the answers. I just submit that I can empathize with both sides.

March 13, 2015 at 7:10 pm

Precepts

Celegroz,

You claim to be able to empathize with both sides of this issue, so I would request that you empathize with mine for a minute. I believe in the God of the Bible. Then, I read someone who speaks of Him in terms like, “always mindful to give the virgin girls to the soldiers, as per god’s commandments,” “Jesus (if he ever even existed),” “an old, immoral, horrible book,” or “Is your god that incompetent.” Practically the whole of Mr. Flaherty’s post drips with spite and hatred for the God of the Bible. Yet I am not to believe that he hates Him? Oh, but he can’t because he doesn’t believe in Him, you say. So then this hatred is not really hatred? What is it, then?

It is hard for me to answer your accusations, since you do not make them clear. Inconsistent? The Bible was written over thousands of years by dozens of authors, yet Its message remains surprising consistent throughout. Unscientific? You mean, as opposed to the scientific brilliance of the idea that rocks will spontaneously turn into people given enough time? This violates multiple scientific laws, but is a basic principle of atheism. Unreasonable? What is unreasonable about the Scriptures? I will not deny that the theology of many Christians can be quite unreasonable. I fight against this myself in my writings and teachings. But that is different from the Bible Itself being unreasonable.

You are unclear whose “particular method of discussion” you dislike, but since you are defending Joe Flaherty, I will assume it is mine you are referring to. I will respond to your dislike by explaining that I responded to a person who came to me spewing hatred for the God of the Bible, and I urged him to reconsider his accusations because of the love of the God of the Bible. Perhaps you don’t like this method of discussion, but I am afraid I fail to see anything amiss in it. If we wanted a factual discussion distanced from an emotional one, then we would need to start with a factual accusation distanced from an emotional one. This is not what we were starting with with Mr. Flaherty’s comments.

Are you referring to me or Mr. Flaherty when you mention mockery and scoffing? You are again unclear. I would certainly admit that there was much mockery and scoffing in what Mr. Flaherty said, as I pointed out above. If you call my characterizing what he said as being hatred toward God as mockery and scoffing, then I would again refer you to my first paragraph of this reply.

I am sorry to hear that you were once a “staunch” believer but have since become an atheist. I think you have made a mistake. I would pray that God would lead you to the point where you might reconsider your current position.

Nathan

February 4, 2015 at 5:22 pm

intrepidbelief

Just letting the author know, as I was searching for something and found this article..Jesus did not contradict Himself when saying that some would not die and would be there when the kingdom of heaven came. Jesus Christ died and returned, this is called resurrection but it also needs to be perceived as reincarnation. Some of those prophets standing there that day who heard Jesus, are still here. Their spirits have returned over and over again. So, If you really want to deny God, please read the whole bible and UNDERSTAND the bible, instead of making your own assumptions (misleading people) as when all is taken into account, nothing that GOD or JESUS said was contradicted by God or Jesus. Man did that, by adding lies to the bible. Remember there are books taken out, the church is NOT a building..For the author to state that when we defy God, nothing happens, well..to the author, you are still blind. Do you not see the repercussions of our disobedience to God’s laws, not man’s? You don’t see all this death, war and hunger, poverty? You don’t see that? Again, we all pay for everything we do (by the way, please refer to Webster’s Dictionary for the definitions of the word “for”..Jesus Christ died “for” our sins=Jesus Christ died “because of” our sins. We still pay for our sins, that man did not die to “cover” any sin for anyone, the proof is in our world today). God stated not to cut down trees, as they are the life in a man’s nostrils but we do and look what has happened due to that. God also states there is no preeminence of man over beast, yet look what we think we are to do..kill and eat animals when the bible specifically states that the trees are for meat. (Again, see how the word FOR is used, the context? It’s used this way through the whole bible, yet people truly believe that ONE time it meant different? NOPE!).

Also, there are no human-led governments that serve God and never have been. Take the story of King Solomon and his 666 talents of gold received and you will see that, no, there was never to be any paid government..nor was there ever to be a human ruling over us. This occurred due to the people constantly asking God for a human to look to, in the name of God. So, like any parent, God finally gave in and said “Ok, but you will regret it”. I do, do you? Anyway, that man that God set over the people, King David, fell. He became a warring, bloody king and God sent an angel to tell him he had lost favor in God’s eyes. So, when his son, King Solomon, built the so-called temple to the Lord (receiving 666 talents of gold in the first year of “gifts” to do so –what are taxes but gifts–get it?), he was building that church under false teachings. There are NO buildings on the planet that contain God and that has not changed. Covering up the earth (If we can’t breathe through concrete, neither can the EARTH), digging and removing oil, gold, silver and all that..a no no! So, that church Solomon built, with money (or mammon-cannot serve God and mammon both, it is impossible)..was NOT of God. Plain and simple, that building was the start of collecting money in God’s name, collecting satan’s tool in the name of the Lord. (Taking the Lord’s name in vain=if you live in the USA, look at your money. “In God We Trust”..a LIE. Taking the name of the Lord in vain). If God said not to kill, then why is any country killing in the name of God? Why is anyone? JS!

Thank you.

March 6, 2015 at 8:40 pm

Precepts

intrepidbelief,

I fully agree with you that Jesus neither contradicted Himself nor reality when He claimed that some would not die first but would be there when the kingdom of heaven came. In fact, that was the whole point of my article and its conclusion, which you either did not read at all or else did not read very carefully. At least I can console myself in that clearly your reading of the Bible is either just as careless or else just as non-existent.

My friend, your beliefs may be intrepid, but I am afraid they are also entirely Biblically ignorant. You chide me for not reading all the Bible or paying attention to what It says just after you redefine resurrection as reincarnation. Yet resurrection is a Biblical concept wherein one who had died lives again, whereas reincarnation is a pagan concept held by such false religions as Hinduism and Buddhism. Ultimately, the idea of reincarnation is just another way to deny God’s initial statement regarding the forbidden fruit in the garden, that “the day you eat of it dying you shall die” and believing instead the lie of Satan, “dying you shall not die, but shall be as God.” Humans ever since have preferred Satan’s lie to God’s truth, and reincarnation is one of those ways they have worked out to justify what Satan said in spite of the glaring reality of death that stares them in the face every time someone does indeed die.

At any rate, even if your statement were true, what Christ said was not just that they would be alive when the kingdom of heaven comes, but also that they would not taste of death before that kingdom comes. By your solution, these people have tasted death and then been reincarnated over and over again. So your idea certainly puts the lie to what Christ said, unlike what I proposed, which credits Him with speaking the exact truth.

I certainly do not wish to deny God, my friend. Yet I would note that part of not denying God is not denying His truth, and I would point out to you that just about every statement of your reply to me does exactly that.

I suppose it is nice of you to claim that lies are added to the Bible and books are dropped out. That way, you can disbelieve anything in the Bible you don’t wish to believe, and you can insist that anything you like is Biblical truth even when it isn’t. Yet I think your intrepid belief is then going to be in just whatever you want to believe, and not in what God has said. The reality of this is clearly demonstrated time and again by the un-Biblical and ridiculous statements you make throughout your reply to me.

It is nice that you think I am blind, but tell me, are there not people who have shaken their fists at the heavens and have stated that if there is a God, He should strike them dead? And is it not true that nothing has happened and they have not been struck dead? I believe this was a favorite trick of Robert G. Ingersoll, and it generally seemed an impressive thing to his audiences. This is what I was talking about, my friend. Do you realize this has happened over and over? Or are you the one who is blind?

If the Lord Jesus did not die to pay for our penalty for sin, then our penalty is still unpaid. Since the penalty for sin is death, then we will have to pay that penalty. If Christ did not die to take away your sins, then YOU will have to pay that penalty. And trust me, if He puts you to death, you will not reincarnate! Are you truly prepared to pay your own penalty for your sin?

God never made the statement about trees that you ascribe to Him. Deuteronomy 20:19 says not to cut down the fruit-bearing trees near a city when besieging it, since that would vandalize that area’s source of food. Yet this is far from the statement you made.

God also never made any statement that there is no preeminence of men over beasts. Ecclesiastes 3:19 says this regarding death, but that is an entirely different matter from having no preeminence entirely. I am not sure if you are getting these ideas from your “books taken out” or from your own, wild imagination, but what you say is exactly contradictory from what God did say, which is that man has dominion over all the animals (Genesis 1:26).

You fail to live up to your own admonishing of me to “read the whole bible and UNDERSTAND the bible” when you claim that it only gives us plants for food, since Genesis 9:3 tells us we are free to eat animals.

Your statements about governments, David, Solomon, and the temple again reflect your almost total ignorance of what the Bible actually says. For one thing, God established the government in Israel. He certainly never sent an angel to David to tell him he had lost God’s favor by fighting wars, most of which were on God’s behalf! And God clearly states that the temple (not “church”!) in Jerusalem was His, and that He would place His name there. I suppose you are discounting all these things as lies men have added in. It must be nice to know the truth better than God Himself!

The earth breathing through concrete? How can a planet made of dirt breathe? Are you a pagan, my friend?

What you say about “in God we trust” is interesting. I suppose it is a lie in most cases, and therefore a vain statement about God.

I do not suppose any country should kill in the name of God. That would only be proper if God Himself had told you to do the killing, like when He told the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites. But I suppose you think that is another lie added in. How nice it is to be talking to THE person who is the ultimate standard for truth, even more than the Bible Itself!

You have “just said” a bunch of things, but you should not have said most of them. You certainly are intrepid in what you believe, but since what you believe is not Bible truth, it is not at all what truly qualifies as faith in God’s sight. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, as Romans 10:17 tells us. Most of what you have said is a denial of faith. I am afraid you need to stop being intrepid and start being humble before God and His Word. Only then will you truly have a chance to become a believer.

Nathan

March 15, 2015 at 12:55 pm

Chris Sparkes

Hello Nathan
You will remember that in 2010 you most excellently defended your position on Matthew 16\128 and you fully persuaded me.
I would be most glad to hear your opinion on Jesus’ coming rule and kingdom. Do you believe it extends outside Israel and into the whole world? Obviously, I mean in the time before the New Earth.
Chris Sparkes.

May 1, 2015 at 8:29 pm

Precepts

Chris Sparkes,

I do recall our conversation from 2010.

I do believe that the coming rule and reigning of our Lord Jesus Christ extends outside Israel and into the whole world. There are multiple statements in the Bible of the universality of God’s Kingdom on earth. One such is Psalm 22:27-28.

27. All the ends of the world
Shall remember and turn to the Lord,
And all the families of the nations
Shall worship before You.
28. For the kingdom is the Lord’s,
And He rules over the nations.

Psalm 67 is another Psalm that proclaims the universal reign of God over the earth.

1. God be merciful to us and bless us,
And cause His face to shine upon us, Selah
2. That Your way may be known on earth,
Your salvation among all nations.
3. Let the peoples praise You, O God;
Let all the peoples praise You.
4. Oh, let the nations be glad and sing for joy!
For You shall judge the people righteously,
And govern the nations on earth. Selah
5. Let the peoples praise You, O God;
Let all the peoples praise You.
6. Then the earth shall yield her increase;
God, our own God, shall bless us.
7. God shall bless us,
And all the ends of the earth shall fear Him.

Daniel’s interpretation of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2 also communicated to him the universal character of the reign of God over the earth.

44. And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.

References to this could be multiplied, such as Psalm 103:19.

19. The Lord has established His throne in heaven,
And His kingdom rules over all.

The New Testament gives testimony to this as well. The angel’s words in Luke 1:33 declare the Kingdom of Jesus Christ as having no limit.

33. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.

Often I think this is taken as being a statement of time, but ultimately I believe it is a statement of extent. I could go to a place where the authority of the United States government comes to an end. Over that line, the authority is Canada’s or Mexico’s, or else is international waters. Yet the kingdom of Jesus Christ will have no such end. It will not come to a stop at the borders of Israel, even the enlarged Israel of the kingdom of God. Instead, one could circle the earth, and never would he find a place where the kingdom of Jesus Christ comes to an end.

Ultimately, God’s kingdom is proclaimed as bearing rule over the whole earth, not just the nation of Israel. Israel might be the head and not the tail in the kingdom, but they are not the only ones in it.

I pray this helps.

Nathan

April 18, 2015 at 4:42 pm

Con Man

Say, what is the problem with the simple literal interpretation? Some people among us are about 2000 years old. In the Old Testament, lifetimes were mentioned in the same range.

May 22, 2015 at 6:54 pm

Precepts

Con Man,

I have some trouble taking a comment like yours from someone who calls himself “Con Man” entirely seriously. Yet to perhaps unwisely give you the benefit of the doubt, I will answer as if you were serious.

I do not believe anyone among us is 2000 years old. I would tend to think that if there was such a person, we would have heard about it. Moreover, if one of the Lord Jesus Christ’s disciples was still alive, I think all believers would know about it, and we would all be very interested. I certainly would have some questions I would like to ask such a person.

In recent millennia, it is very rare for anyone to live to much more than 120 years old. As for the Old Testament times you mentioned, even the oldest age stopped short of 1000 years, so 2000 years seems out of the question.

If you know of a person who is about 2000 years old, I would love to hear about it. But, perhaps you would be “conning” me?

Nathan

July 3, 2015 at 3:04 am

Jonathan Hemlock

Yeah . . . Yeshua thought the world was about to end. He was, as many have noted, a prophet of the alleged coming apocalypse. It didn’t happen. And then S/Paul said it would all end as soon as he finished preaching. It didn’t happen. The simplest explanation is the best: they were all wrong.

August 14, 2015 at 6:39 pm

Precepts

Jonathan Hemlock,

You seem to be laboring under several misconceptions. First of all, that Yeshua (or Iesous in the Greek) talked about the “end of the world.” This is, in fact, not the case, but has come into our thinking from a faulty translation contained in the popular King James Version of the Bible. In the King James Version, this phrase (or one almost exactly similar) occurs in Matthew 13:39,40,49; Matthew 24:3; Matthew 28:20; and Hebrews 9:26. However, this phrase is a poor translation of the Greek original. In Greek, the word “end” is not the normal word for “end,” which is telos, but is the word sunteleia. A sunteleia means to reach a desired or expected end, and perhaps could better be translated by the word “consummation.” For example, a pregnancy can end in an abortion or a miscarriage, but its only consummation is in a birth. A courtship can end in a breakup, but its only consummation is in a marriage. A consummation is the end of one thing, but it also is really the beginning of another. Then, the word “world” is not the Greek kosmos, which would be the proper word for “world,” but instead is the Greek word aion. What Christ was talking about (and the author of Hebrews) was the consummation of one eon into another, not the end of the world at all. Christ never predicted this, and there is nothing He said to indicate He remotely thought that the world was about to end.

Many may have suggested that Christ thought the “apocalypse” was soon coming, and yet there are a great many misunderstandings in this. One of them is the meaning of the word “apocalypse” itself. In modern English, this word has come to mean a terrible tragedy, an earth-shaking calamity, and even the end of the world, such as we discussed above. This, however, is not at all the actual meaning of the Scriptural word. This meaning is largely derived from medieval, Catholic superstitions. Many cultures around the world have believed in the superstition of a terrible day of calamity that will end this world we live in. The medieval Christians transferred this superstition to the second coming of Christ, and taught that that coming would mark the ending of the world. Their dire predictions took the Greek name for the book of Revelation, Apokalupsis, and changed it from what it actually meant to meaning a terrible tragedy that ends this world. This whole idea was foolish, however, and has no basis whatsoever in Scripture.

When one actually studies the Greek word apokalupsis, one will find that it means a drawing aside of the curtain or an unveiling. An apocalypse is not a calamity or tragedy at all. In reality, it is exactly the opposite. An apocalypse is a revelation of God, a much greater revelation than was ever given before. When such an unveiling of God happens, it will be a great benefit to the world and the people of the earth, not a tragedy. May God’s apocalypse come soon! This is what Christ was anticipating, not a terrible tragedy.

I think you are pulling the idea that “S/Paul said it would all end as soon as he finished preaching” out of thin air. Paul did say things like “the night is far spent, the day is at hand” and “now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.” Paul was anticipating a great benefit for the world, not a tragedy. That the “end of the world” did not happen at that time can hardly be a surprise, therefore.

The simplest explanation may sometimes be the best, but that is not universally true. For example, when a young woman is found dead in her home, the simplest explanation may always be that her husband or boyfriend killed her. Yet if you were the husband or boyfriend in question and you didn’t kill her, you might be inclined to wish that the police would look for an explanation that was a bit more complicated in this case. Therefore it should be necessary to take a careful look at the evidence to see if it supports the “simplest explanation” in any particular case before confidently proclaiming that it must be true. Yet there is a simple explanation that is doubtless right in this case: you yourself are wrong.

Nathan

November 3, 2015 at 3:05 pm

joseph a.

I do not believe the verses should be taken out of their context. Matt. 16:27-28, Mark 8:38-9:1, and Luke 9: 26-27 all show that the event being spoken of by Jesus is a return in the splendor of his Father, accompanied by holy angels. The transfiguration does not fulfill his prediction because there were no angels present. The event that does fulfill his prediction was his appearance in the sky over Jerusalem prior to its destruction in 70 a.d. Angels were seen wearing gleaming armor at that time. Josephus and Tacitus both relate the same event but do not mention the appearance of Jesus, just the angels arrayed for battle.

November 20, 2015 at 9:17 pm

Precepts

joseph a.,

You are correct that in all three passages, the Son of Man coming in the glory of His Father and with the holy angels is mentioned. This is not too surprising, since they were obviously spoken on the same occasion, and so we would expect that the words preceding these words would be the same. That is not to say that those words are what should define for us what the Lord was talking about. It is certainly true that when the Lord comes in His kingdom, He will come in glory and His holy angels will be involved in it with Him. But that does not mean that this defines for us what the Lord was talking about.

What I would point out that would help us understand these passages is a comparison of a phrase that is worded differently in all three books, and yet which is clearly speaking of the same thing. In Matthew 16:28 the phrase is “the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” In Mark 9:1, the phrase is “the kingdom of God present with power.” Finally, in Luke 9:27, the phrase is simply “the kingdom of God.” A comparison of these three verses will show that these three phrases must all refer to the same thing. In other words, “the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” is the same as “the kingdom of God present with power,” which is the same as “the kingdom of God.” Thus what Christ was talking about coming is the Kingdom of God.

Now by your argument. the thing that they would not die before seeing, the Kingdom of God, was the Son of Man appearing in the sky over Jerusalem with angels wearing gleaming armor. By comparing your argument with Scripture, this would then become your definition of what Christ was talking about, your definition of the Kingdom of God. Now if I took this definition and plugged it into some of the many Scriptural passages that talk about the Kingdom of God, what would be the result?

Matthew 6:33. But seek first the Son of Man appearing in the sky over Jerusalem with angels wearing gleaming armor and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.

Matthew 19:24. And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Son of Man appearing in the sky over Jerusalem with angels wearing gleaming armor.

Matthew 21:43. Therefore I say to you, the Son of Man appearing in the sky over Jerusalem with angels wearing gleaming armor will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.

Mark 1:15. and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the Son of Man appearing in the sky over Jerusalem with angels wearing gleaming armor is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.”

Mark 4:26. And He said, “The Son of Man appearing in the sky over Jerusalem with angels wearing gleaming armor is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground.” (Many of the parables are about the Kingdom of God, and so they would be about this according to your definition.)

Mark 9:47. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the Son of Man appearing in the sky over Jerusalem with angels wearing gleaming armor with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire—

Mark 10:14. But when Jesus saw it, He was greatly displeased and said to them, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the Son of Man appearing in the sky over Jerusalem with angels wearing gleaming armor.”

Mark 15:43. Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent council member, who was himself waiting for the Son of Man appearing in the sky over Jerusalem with angels wearing gleaming armor, coming and taking courage, went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.

Luke 6:20. Then He lifted up His eyes toward His disciples, and said: “Blessed are you poor, For yours is the Son of Man appearing in the sky over Jerusalem with angels wearing gleaming armor.”

Luke 8:1. Now it came to pass, afterward, that He went through every city and village, preaching and bringing the glad tidings of the Son of Man appearing in the sky over Jerusalem with angels wearing gleaming armor. And the twelve were with Him,

John 3:3. Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the Son of Man appearing in the sky over Jerusalem with angels wearing gleaming armor.” (Were Josephus and Tacitus born again, then?)

Acts 14:22. strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, “We must through many tribulations enter the Son of Man appearing in the sky over Jerusalem with angels wearing gleaming armor.”

Romans 14:17. for the Son of Man appearing in the sky over Jerusalem with angels wearing gleaming armor is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

I Corinthians 6:9. Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Son of Man appearing in the sky over Jerusalem with angels wearing gleaming armor? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,

Colossians 4:11. and Jesus who is called Justus. These are my only fellow workers for the Son of Man appearing in the sky over Jerusalem with angels wearing gleaming armor who are of the circumcision; they have proved to be a comfort to me.

II Thessalonians 1:5. which is manifest evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be counted worthy of the Son of Man appearing in the sky over Jerusalem with angels wearing gleaming armor, for which you also suffer;

The definition you provide, when applied consistently, makes these passages ludicrous. I apologize if I have rather belabored the point, but I did make this point above in brief and you seem to have ignored it, so I was required to make it in more detail. The reality is that whatever the Lord Jesus was saying would come before some standing there tasted death, it was the same thing as the kingdom of God, and you cannot say what it was without making that thing BE the kingdom.

If you are ever going to come to an accurate understanding of the New Testament, you are going to have to adopt a Biblical and consistent definition of what the Kingdom of God is, something that most who read the Bible have refused to do. My definition of it I have given above. I believe that the Kingdom of God is the very same thing as the Government of God, and refers to a future time when God will reign over this earth and make the governments of this world His Own. I believe if you plug my definition, the Government of God, into all the passages I quoted above, it would make good sense. Moreover, it would be true to the Greek, and true to the truth. This is what the Lord was saying would come. I explained how it came, and why it is not still here, above.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

May 24, 2016 at 4:03 am

MICHAEL CARMAN

ad70 was the 2nd coming. the kingdom is now “here” in fulness. it is a spiritual kingdom as opposed to the jewish fleshly kingdom.

June 10, 2016 at 7:37 pm

Precepts

MICHAEL CARMAN,

If the kingdom is now “here” in fullness, then I have to say that it really does not amount to much. All the glorious promises of the Bible appear rather to have fizzled.

As for it being a “spiritual kingdom,” I do not think you even know what that is. I would challenge you to give me one, sensible, Biblical fact about a spiritual kingdom and how it differs from one that is not spiritual. I do not believe you can do this. Calling the kingdom “spiritual” is just a hand-waving argument to make it go away. There is no real, Biblical justification for imagining the kingdom to be spiritual. This was just the desperate interpretation of a lot of confused early church fathers who failed to grasp Paul’s teaching in his later, prison epistles that the kingdom was postponed. They decided that maybe, instead of spreading the kingdom of God, what the apostles really meant to do was to start a religion, and so they started one called Christianity in the form of the Catholic Church. Yet this Church bore little resemblance to anything the apostles did, and it certainly was nothing like what the Bible describes as the kingdom of God.

The Catholic Church is still here, and has been joined by many other Christian organizations, first after splitting into the Roman and Orthodox branches, and then by the fragmenting of the Roman Church into many, Protestant organizations. Yet the kingdom of God is still not here, not in any of these organizations, and not anywhere on earth. The kingdom of God is and always was the government of God, the government of God on earth. Psalm 67:4, “Oh, let the nations be glad and sing for joy! For You shall judge the people righteously, And govern the nations on earth. Selah.” This government is not yet here, it did not come in full, and it certainly has nothing to do with what General Titus and the Roman army might have done at Jerusalem almost 1950 years ago. That kingdom, manifest in part in the book of Acts, has been postponed, and only at some future date will we get to see what an earth governed by God will look like. Right now, we get to see what the earth governed by men like Barack Obama or Vladimir Putin looks like. This is not the government of God.

Nathan

June 8, 2016 at 2:27 pm

jujuice17

I know this thread is old but I have theological articles from 2009 that people still comment on. That being said, I’ll preface my comments by stating that theologians often spend an inordinate amount of time with “word studies” and not enough time noting the context, historical and biblical! When audience relevance is considered and following the rather simple syntactic flow of this text and the Book of Matthew in general, Christ comments leave no ambiguity! Also, when you consider exactly what the “temple” represented, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD becomes more than a significant historical event! Its actually the most important historical event because it illustrates Christ was no wrong about the eminence of his return! The temple represented( The Old order, the Old man, The old covenant Old creation, The Old Heavens and Earth) Of course, the people of those days were more familiar with “biblical” symbolism then we are! So for them, when they heard of a “New Heaven and Earth” coming, they were not looking for the cosmos to dissipate! They knew that Israel represented “Heaven and Earth”! Moreover, you are right, it’s way more than just the destruction of Jerusalem-God also divorced his covenant people! The book of Revelation is a divorce decree. For more insight, David Chilton’s “Daysbof Vengeance” is a good resource! Finally I would say that we lose a lot of credibility when we play “coy” with the text! Again, often times, word studies( In this case, Paruosia) are often preferd over the clear wording of scripture!

July 1, 2016 at 8:50 pm

Precepts

jujuice17,

There is no need to apologize for commenting on an old post. I actually seldom receive comments on my latest posts. Most are on old posts that are on a topic that generates a lot of interest, like this one. Feel free to post on anything, no matter its age.

It is always my desire to take into account all relevant information when seeking to interpret a passage, whether it is word studies or historical context or Biblical context, especially what came before a passage and what came after, as well as which book it is in and the topic of the book, etc. There is much that must be considered when interpreting.

To say that Christ’s comments leave no ambiguity and that He was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD is just spouting wind. How in the world did He leave no ambiguity? He said He was talking about His coming into His kingdom, about the kingdom of God coming with power, or simply about the kingdom of God. How did the temple being destroyed win Him a kingdom? Was destroying Israel’s religion and all it represented really all He came to do? Is this what He bought on the cross? Is this the hope He held out to His followers? Is this the message that He proclaimed to inspire tens of thousands of Jews to follow Him? This makes no sense.

The temple represented God’s presence. He placed His name, that is, His reputation, upon it. Its destruction then would be sign that He was no longer centering His presence among His people Israel. Yet why would the house of God’s presence represent the old man? Not to mention the old heavens and earth.

It is easy to make wild claims about “‘biblical’ symbolism,” but where is the proof that Israel represented heaven and earth? It is easy to “prove” things when you craft your “‘biblical’ symbolism” to lead to the conclusion that you are the new Israel, yet your proof is merely your own desires, as far as I can see.

If the people who heard Christ really understood His symbolism so well, then why were they so surprised months later in Matthew 24:2 when He told them that the temple would be destroyed? And do you really believe that so many followed Him because they were looking forward to the destruction of their own nation and of their temple? Is this what He was telling them to anticipate, what John was telling them to anticipate, when they spoke of the kingdom of God? This makes no sense. It fits nowhere when the Scriptures talk about the kingdom of God. See my response to joseph a. above. It is the same thing if you plug in “the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem” into the passages I mentioned. This is a silly definition of the kingdom of God that makes no sense in any of the passages talking about it. But if we take the kingdom of God to be the government of God on earth, then all makes perfect sense. This is what the kingdom is, and what all Christ’s followers were looking forward to. This is what Revelation presents as well, in Revelation 11:17, when it speaks of Him taking His great power and reigning. This does not mean destroying the temple or divorcing Israel. This means ruling over the earth.

If God divorced Israel at the destruction of Jerusalem and had been calling a new bride since Pentecost in Acts 2, that means He was a polygamist for about 41 years (assuming that Christ died and Pentecost occurred in 29 AD). Is this what you are teaching? If not, when AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem did He choose a new people and start a “New Heaven and Earth”? Your timeline does not work out very well, unless you are a supporter of polygamy. I would point out that it isn’t very nice to take a new wife, and then a few years later divorce the first one.

If the book of Revelation is a “divorce decree,” as you claim, then why are the 144,000 all from the tribes of Israel? Why does He speak so harshly of the “synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie,” (just like, for example, those today who claim to be “spiritual Israel”)? And most especially, if the destruction of Jerusalem was the same as the destruction of the beast in Revelation 19, then where was the “living and reigning” of the overcomers with Him for a thousand years of Revelation 20? Why did believers continue to die that whole time? Why did the world plunge into the dark ages of ignorance and Biblical illiteracy instead of rising to the heights of God’s kingdom? This view makes no sense at all.

You have not really defined what you mean by playing “coy” with the text. I take it you mean my whole explanation is doing this. You do not seem to understand that there is no such thing as the “clear wording of Scripture” in English, since God never wrote the Bible in our language. The point of a word study is to learn what the “clear meaning” of a word in Scripture is. The “clear” meaning of some word an English translator used is entirely irrelevant. As far as parousia, I do not think I did a word study. I only pointed out that this word does not occur in this passage, so we must question whether the so-called “second coming” of Christ is really what is meant in this passage at all. I concluded, as I showed, that what is meant is the coming of the kingdom of God, God’s government on earth. That government came in its early stages after the resurrection of Christ, but has since been postponed.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

July 31, 2016 at 4:54 pm

David johnson

By your writing skills it sure seems that your an educated person so eather your purposely miss leading your readers or your just lacking in common seance. It do sent take a genius to read and understand that Jesus kept his word and came back to receive his loyal servents as he so promised them.truly hope you realize the seriousness of what your trying to convince people into believing.

August 19, 2016 at 6:20 pm

Precepts

David johnson,

I hope I am not lacking in common sense (though I would prefer to lack in common seance), but I am having trouble figuring out exactly what it is that you think is misleading about what I wrote. I was not commenting on Jesus promising to come back to receive His loyal servants. He promises that in John 14:3. I do believe He did that, but that verse is not what I was talking about. I was discussing Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, and Luke 9:27, in which the Lord told His disciples that some of them would by no means taste of death before they saw the Kingdom of God.

Most scholars believe that this never happened, at least as far as His earthly kingdom is concerned, but that all these disciples died without that happening. Therefore many different explanations are put forward as to what the Lord meant that try to salvage His words as being accurate. Others simply insist that He was wrong. Therefore, I was dealing with these verses and what they meant.

Though my title mentions Christ telling a white lie, my conclusion, if you actually read through to reach it (which I wonder about considering your comments) is that the kingdom of God actually did come in the lifetime of eleven of the twelve disciples, Judas excepted. They saw it come with power at Pentecost, and it moved through the early, blade stage, as in the parable of the growing grain in Mark 4:28. Then, it was postponed, and the remainder of it awaits some future time. Yet it did come in its earliest stage in the lifetime of eleven of these twelve men, so what the Lord told them was not a lie but is absolutely true.

I realize that what I am trying to convince people to believe is very serious. I am trying to convince them that every word of Scripture, and certainly every word of Christ, is true and reliable. That is a very serious thing, and I intend to continue doing it to the best of my ability. I hope I have the education to do it well.

Nathan

October 22, 2016 at 10:19 pm

Alex

With all due respect, I think your wrong. The kingdom did come, except not the ways the Jews (or dispensationalists, for that matter) expected it to. The kingdom is spiritual, not physical (Romans 14:16-17). It does not come with observation (Luke 17:20-21). It is not of this world (John 18:31). In other words, it is “at hand” (Matthew 3:2), which mean it is here! Right in your midst (Luke 17:21).

December 10, 2016 at 12:00 am

Precepts

Alex,

Thank you for writing. Of course, you have a perfect right to believe me wrong. We all must come to our own conclusions regarding the Bible and what it teaches.

I have examined the view you propound, that the kingdom in fact came and is spiritual, not physical. I believe such a statement to be largely a pie-in-the-sky kind of statement, since I do not believe that you or anyone else can really make any kind of clear explanation as to what exactly a spiritual kingdom is, or how it is a benefit to anyone that it came. You also use the word “spiritual” in a way that I do not believe the Bible ever uses it. Christ tells His enemies that they will be seeing “Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out.” How could they see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in a spiritual kingdom, whatever that is?

As for the verses you quote, I have written a series of two articles considering these verses and the kind of arguments you bring forward to attempt to claim that the kingdom of God is not the future government of God over this earth, as I believe it is. These articles, called “Kingdom Problem Passages,” are here:

Kingdom Problem Passages Continued

Kingdom Problem Passages

I linked the second article first, since it deals with the verses you mentioned.

Also, in my article on “The Theme of the Bible,” I dealt with some of the suggestions you make:

The Theme of the Bible

If the kingdom was actually present in Matthew 3:2 with John’s “at hand” statement, then why could Christ speak of it “coming” in the future in Luke 22:18? How could Joseph of Arimathea still be waiting for it in Mark 15:43 and Luke 23:51 if it was already there?

The Jews (or dispensationalists, for that matter) knew far more about what the kingdom of God truly is than you do, my friend. The New Testament does not define it because every Jewish student of the Old Testament knew all about the future time when God will rule over all nations on the earth that the Hebrew Scriptures set forth so clearly. The church of today knows little about this because it either does not know the Old Testament, or else makes it of no effect by their traditions and spurious spiritualizations. The Bible teaches a literal, physical, manifest kingdom of God on earth that will yet come in the future.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

May 12, 2017 at 4:47 am

lovemore

its the transfiguration…..those at the mountain saw a preview of what it will be like at His second coming…they saw Jesus glorified…….they saw Elijah representing those who will not taste death at HIS SECOND COMING and Moses …..those who will have tasted death but will be resurrected.”Some of you standing here will see….

they saw ….Jesus had told His disciples that there were some standing with Him who should not taste of death till they should see the kingdom of God come with power. At the transfiguration this promise was fulfilled. The countenance of Jesus was there changed and shone like the sun. His raiment was white and glistening. Moses was present to represent those who will be raised from the dead at the second appearing of Jesus. And Elijah, who was translated without seeing death, represented those who will be changed to immortality at Christ’s second coming and will be translated to heaven without seeing death. The disciples beheld with astonishment and fear the excellent majesty of Jesus and the cloud that overshadowed them, and heard the voice of God in terrible majesty, saying, “This is My beloved Son; hear Him.”

i would not belittle this event…..”some of you standing here ‘saw something we are expecting to see and this was awesome …..Peter s reaction sums it all

May 12, 2017 at 6:16 pm

Precepts

lovemore,

You are quite correct that the three disciples at the transfiguration saw a preview of what things will be like in the glorious parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ. This will be the time when He is on earth among His people for a thousand years. When we put together the facts that Christ called this a “vision” (Matthew 17:9), and that Peter said that what they saw on that mountain was “the power and coming” (parousia) “of our Lord Jesus Christ,” II Peter 1:16, then we can deduce for a certainty that what they saw was a vision of that coming, glorious time. They did indeed get a preview of it, as you said.

You might well be right that Moses and Elijah represented those who will enter the kingdom by being resurrected and those who will enter the kingdom by being alive at the time. Both those things will certainly happen. But I would point out that Moses also represents the Law, and Elijah represents the Prophets. The great lawgiver and the greatest of the prophets both are seen to be inferior next to the Lord Jesus Christ. This was the great lesson of the transfiguration, not how one will enter the kingdom.

Regarding your making this out to be the fulfillment of Christ’s promise, however, I must disagree with you. I would point out that the transfiguration was between six (Matthew and Mark) and eight (Luke) days after Christ made this promise. (Six twenty-four hour days, with two partial days.) He was a pretty poor prophet if He told a group of twelve men, “Some of you will not be dead eight days from now.” Anyone could predict that. I could tell a group of twelve men that, even very old men in poor health, and I would be right 999 times out of a 1000, and these men Christ was speaking to were young, healthy men. I do not believe Christ gave worthless prophecies ever, and particularly not when He emphasized them with a phrase like ou me, “by no means.”

Moreover if this were what He was talking about, He left a very important piece of information out of His statement. Nine of those twelve men there present did not see the transfiguration. The reason was not that they were dead. The reason was that He did not choose them to go with Him up the mount. His promise did not say that they would see the kingdom of God if He chose them to. His clear implication was that if they were alive when it came, they would see it. Since this was not true of the transfiguration, it is as clear as it can be that what Christ was referring to was not the transfiguration.

I would not at all desire to belittle the transfiguration. It was an amazing and an important event. Yet to make it the fulfillment of Christ’s promise to His disciples is contrary to the facts, and it does not make sense. Christ was not talking about His transfiguration when He said some of the disciples would not taste of death before they saw the kingdom of God. He was talking about what happened at Pentecost, when eleven of the twelve disciples (Judas being dead) saw the Son of Man coming into His kingdom by the pouring out of the Spirit in power.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

August 23, 2017 at 9:23 am

Dennis

Gods power is unlimited if he wanted people to stay until his return that is simple for him. But you have people with little faith like Peter when started to sink into the sea lord save me, Jesus said WHY did you doubt yea of little faith. Enoch and Elisha have to come back to die, as they are still alive as per Reverlations, because with God all things are possible.

September 1, 2017 at 7:26 pm

Precepts

Dennis,

I agree that God’s power is unlimited, and of course if He wanted to keep someone alive for two thousand years He could do so. The question, then, is not one of power. In fact, it is never really a question of power with God, since He always is powerful enough to do anything. Rather it is a question of IF He did such a thing. And I do not believe there is the remotest evidence that He did. If one of the initial twelve disciples was still alive and living on earth, I believe we would have heard of it. Since we have not, I would conclude what tradition declares: that they all died, most of them martyr’s deaths.

Not only so, but a reading of the passage would argue against that having been Christ’s meaning. If I tell a group of people that something will happen in the lifetimes of some of them, the natural conclusion is that the group I am talking to will live out a lifespan that is normal, natural, and consistent with that which Adam’s race might be expected to live at this time. To take it that I meant that I would keep some of them alive for thousands of years so a thing could happen in their lifetimes would be an unnatural explanation and twisting of my words. No one could reasonably be expected to interpret my words this way. If that is what Christ really meant, then it would appear His words were spoken to deceive, for His disciples would not have taken them that way.

The natural interpretation of Christ’s words is that He was saying that the kingdom of God would arrive in the lifetimes of some of the disciples standing before Him. As I expressed in my article above, I believe that it did come in its early, “blade” stage, according to the parable in Mark 4:26-29. The book of Acts records that early stage of the kingdom, and eleven of the twelve disciples were alive to see it. The remainder of the kingdom has been delayed, and we will not see it until God introduces it in the future.

Of course we must believe God’s words, and faith is the necessary thing we all need to have. However, we cannot really believe God’s words until we understand them. Believing a wrong interpretation of a passage is NOT believing the passage. In fact, it is disbelieving it, though perhaps done inadvertently. We must understand a passage before we can believe it. Imagining that Christ meant that some of the twelve would live two thousand years without dying is misinterpreting this passage.

Elijah is indeed coming back, and will restore all things. That is per Matthew and Mark though, not Revelation. The identification of Enoch and Elijah with the two witnesses of Revelation seems to me shaky at best. There is not the slightest indication that those witnesses restore anything, or do a work so successful that Christ does not have to come and smite the earth with a curse, which are the things predicted of Elijah in Matthew, Mark, and Malachi.

Thanks for reading.

Nathan

September 1, 2017 at 8:21 pm

Robert Atnip

The church came at Pentecost. Be some alive to witness it. It came with power. The kingdom came with power. The kingdom is the church. So, the kingdom came with power that was promised from on high. They waited in Jerusalem for the fulfillment of this promise. Yes or no? The Holy Ghost was the power from on high. Poured out. Power poured out. Apostles are now charged with this power and speak in tongues. The kingdom of God did not come with observation. The way no parade of horses. No dog and pony show. No flashy crowned king .
Nothing like a coronation. Elisha did come in John the Baptist and twala at the transfig. That deal is done. Be some that wouldn’t die till they saw Jesus COMING ….IN!!!…. His KINGDOM. So you see, if you have eyes to see (understand. Percieve), the kingdom came and Jesus was gonna come into it!!! He left, yet his kingdom was being set up, and it was the purpose of the Holy Ghost to guide them into all truth along the way.
, Until he returned. Now let’s look at his return. It’s different than the kingdom being established. Not with observation yet his return, every eye would see him, even those who pierced him…..twala. The difference. As one pours water into a glass, so the Holy Ghost was poured out. And now it was Jesus time to enter his Kingdom as Lord of Lords and King of Kings. To take possession of it and rule from within. The church/kingdom is within us is it not? He came to be Glorified…IN…..His Saints. Is HE in you? Do you glorify him knowing that HE is in you? Are you not bone of HIS bone and flesh of HIS flesh? I am so grateful to realize this and strive to walk daily knowing this. Christ in me.
So when did Christ enter his kingdom? And does he still enter people today?

Transfig. No.
Pentecost. No
Yet it had to be in their lifetime!
Jesus made a promise to Caiphas.
Jesus made a promise to His disciples.
Jesus told them in Matthew 24

When was Jesus (Yaweh) revealed from heaven…… REVEALED!!!!! There’s ya a keyword

Yaweh. Commander. Leader of vast legions of angels. My Commander in Chief.

Rest with us. Jesus revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, taking vengeance. Not the flames at Pentecost.

Just some observations. I H S. Robert

September 8, 2017 at 7:17 pm

Precepts

Robert Atnip,

I quite agree that the kingdom of God began at Pentecost. That was the point of my argument. However, your definition of the kingdom of God as being “the church” I do not agree with. I find the whole concept of “the church” to be a highly nebulous one. What exactly is this “church” that most make to be so important? The Greek word ekklesia, Hebrew qahal, certainly is important, particularly when it is used of “the ekklesia which is His body” (Ephesians 1:22-23), but whether or not that is what is commonly called “the church” today may certainly be questioned.

What “the church” is is a matter of great confusion. For example, is “the church” the Catholic Church, as many in the western world believed and still believe? Is it the “Orthodox Church,” as those further east believed? Is it one of the many Protestant churches that broke off from the Catholics? Is it one of the many groups that have formed since the Protestant Reformation? Is it all of these, or some combination of these? Or is it a building where Christian services are held? If so, what sort of services? Are there certain services that must be done or held before it can be a church? Or is “church” rather a name for all true believers? If so, if one has a meeting of believers in any location whatsoever, is that a church? If there is an unbeliever among them, does it stop being a church? If a group is half believers and half unbelievers, is that a church or not? If a believer is by himself, is he a church? You see that the idea of a “church” is not at all a clear one.

If we take the “kingdom of God” to be “the church,” the problems that arise are innumerable. For example, consider Matthew 5:20. “For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” The only way to get a righteousness greater than that of the scribes and Pharisees is by imputation, that is, imputed righteousness. That would mean that one has to be a believer to enter the church. Since plenty of unbelievers enter church buildings and even are made members, and since many who are just as self-righteous and hypocritical as the Pharisees and who do not have the righteousness of Christ can be found in any denomination, both these possible definitions of “the church” are eliminated for us. The only one we have left is that of “the church” being the same as “believers.” But if that is the case, consider Matthew 8:11, “And I say to you that many will come from east and west, and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.” Are Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the church? If so, then the church must have begun long before Pentecost, right? Moreover, consider Paul’s proclamation to the disciples in Acts 14:22, “Strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, “We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God.” If the kingdom of God is the church, then these disciples, already followers of Christ, had not entered the church yet, and had to go through many tribulations first. Is going through trials a prerequisite to entering the church? No, this does not fit with Scripture. The kingdom of God is not the same thing as the church.

An examination of the word “kingdom” will reveal that it is just the old-England-style English word for what we call “government.” The government of God was what began at Pentecost. It chose out its leaders (by tongues of fire resting on their heads), it had rules which it punished when broken (Ananias and Sapphira, those who became weak and sick and fell asleep in I Corinthians 11:31), it moved against its enemies (Herod being struck dead, Paul being converted on the road to Damascus, Elymas being blinded). These things were in evidence in Acts. They are not in evidence today. What started at Pentecost was interrupted and does not continue.

The Lord said that Elijah was still coming in Matthew 17:11 and Mark 9:12, which were both after John the Baptist’s death. Moreover John himself said unequivocally that he was not Elijah, John 1:21.

I am not sure what “twala” means, so I am not sure what it did at the transfiguration. Perhaps it means something like “presto”?

I agree that Christ’s return is different than the kingdom being established. The two are not concurrent.

While what you say about the kingdom being within us sounds nice, an examination of Scripture reveals that when the Lord Jesus said, “The kingdom is within you,” He was speaking to the quibbling and unbelieving Pharisees (Luke 17:20). Unless we are claiming to be like them, we had best use a little care before deciding what He meant by the kingdom being within.

I agree that the Spirit dwells in those who believe, and that Christ should dwell in our hearts by faith (Ephesians 3:17). However, that is not the same as the government of God dwelling in us. If it does, then it is very poor at governing, for most believers do what is right in their own eyes as if they had no king, as in the book of Judges. God might be within us, but we are not in God’s government. If we were, He would be handing out punishments regarding the many, many unworthy things we as believers do.

I am confused. After agreeing with me that the kingdom came at Pentecost, though disagreeing with me by saying that is the same thing as the church coming at Pentecost, you appear in the last part of your argument to say that Christ did not enter His kingdom at Pentecost. Are you trying to make a point? If so, I am afraid you need to make it more plainly.

Christ entering people is NOT the same as the kingdom of God coming. As I said, if that was the case, those people would have to be GOVERNED, and God would have to punish us for our sins against His rules. Then the words of Ephesians 4:32 could no longer be true, and God could not be forgiving (dealing graciously) with us in everything today, as He is doing. The kingdom started at Pentecost, but it was interrupted and the remainder of it postponed. We are not in the kingdom today.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

August 31, 2017 at 11:54 pm

Robert Atnip

How bout another spin on it?

September 1, 2017 at 7:27 pm

Precepts

Robert Atnip,

If you mean you have another spin, then feel free to share it. I am not going to produce another spin, as I have already stated what I believe the Lord meant. Until someone can convince me differently, I do not have another spin to offer.

Nathan

September 1, 2017 at 8:25 pm

Robert Atnip

I love ya brother!

September 8, 2017 at 7:17 pm

Precepts

Thank you! And Christ’s love to you, brother.

Nathan

October 8, 2017 at 6:33 pm

Stephen Kirk

I believe the answer to this question is simple and straightforward. People have difficulty seeing it because they’re stuck on the notion that whatever it is that Jesus prophecied had to actually occur before all present had died.

Jesus didn’t say he would come in his kingdom before all present had died. He said some there would see it before they died. When interpreting what Jesus says it’s important to pay close attention to every word and avoid preconceptions.

John saw the kingdom come before he died. Whether he saw it in a vision or in the flesh is irrelevant. He saw it.

Revelation 21:2-5 KJV
And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. [3] And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. [4] And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. [5] And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

He continues describing what he saw in the next chapter.

Some might object that Jesus said some and John is only one. In truth some means one or more. John seeing future events, as recorded in Revelation, fulfills Jesus’ prophecy fully and literally.

October 13, 2017 at 7:03 pm

Precepts

Stephen Kirk,

You present a new idea, at least in my experience (though you certainly may have heard it from someone else), yet it ultimately is not all that different from the idea that Christ was referring to His transfiguration a week or so later. Basically you are saying that John saw the kingdom and saw it in vision, not actually coming to pass. He certainly did see many things in the future in his vision of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, and he definitely was one who was standing there, there is no doubt.

The problems with your view are not too different from the problems with the idea that the transfiguration is what Christ was referring to. Basically, the problem with what you say is that you make Christ to purposefully speak deceptively. If you read His statement without preconceptions there can be no doubt what His disciples, and indeed any reasonable person, would have thought He was saying. He was saying that the kingdom, the government of God, was so near that it would actually come before some of those present were dead, and that they would see it coming. This is what they all would have thought He meant, and what any reasonable person would have thought He meant. If the kingdom did not come in the lifetime of any of them, if instead one of them saw a vision of the kingdom and that was it, then we would have to say that Christ was very disingenuous in what He said. Imagine if Simeon, instead of seeing the baby Jesus with his own eyes and holding Him in his arms, had actually only seen a vision of the baby Jesus and God told him, “There, now you saw Him. I kept My promise.” Would that not have been very disappointing to Simeon, and indeed nothing short of plain deception on the Holy Spirit’s part?

On top of this, Christ’s clear implication is that the only thing necessary for any of these disciples to see the kingdom is for them to live until He comes in it. There is no indication that God would have to include them in a special vision in order for them to see it. Even if we imagine John as the last living disciple at the time of his vision of Revelation (which I greatly doubt), we still would have to stretch credulity to suggest that receiving a special vision is what Christ meant. Implied in Christ’s words is that, since He is coming in His kingdom, anyone who is present to see it would see the kingdom coming. Yet your view would make it that even another believer in the same room with John when he received his vision would not have seen it, or if he literally was caught into the future such a believer would not have been caught there with him. Thus merely living until the time came was not enough to see it. One had to be one of the chosen (or in your view the only one chosen). Yet Christ’s implication is that His coming in His kingdom will be visible for all to see who are present. Your view makes that not the case. Again, His words then appear to be very deceptive. Does God really say things that sound grand and glorious, and then when the time comes say, “Ha, ha! A loophole! I don’t have to do that after all!”

I still insist that the view expressed in my article is correct, that Christ did come in the form of His kingdom in the lifetime of eleven of the twelve disciples, Judas having died by his own hand. (As I expressed above, His coming in His kingdom was not by His second coming, but just like you could have seen Hitler coming in his kingdom in France after the Nazi victory and occupation of France. If you saw Hitler coming in the Nazi kingdom you would have seen Nazis in the streets, Nazi law being enacted, curfews, etc. Christ’s disciples saw powerful miracles of God’s kingdom, kingdom laws being enacted, people judged and punished or rewarded based on kingdom standards, etc.) His government started coming at the time of Pentecost in Acts 2, though it was only present in its early form like the blade stage of growing grain (see the parable of the growing grain in Mark 4).

I realize that this idea that the kingdom began in Acts 2 has been rejected by those who believe in a literal, physical kingdom of God on earth. They reject it because many who say that was the start of it are also teaching a spiritualization of the kingdom. I do not for a moment believe that Christ was not teaching a physical kingdom when He talked about the kingdom of God but rather a “spiritual kingdom in your hearts,” as many are fond of saying. I do not know anything about a spiritual kingdom, and I do not think those who say this could tell me one sensible fact about one. I believe that the kingdom, the government of God Himself, is literal and physical on earth, while at the same time being very, very spiritual. (I think we ought to define what “spiritual” means.) But I still believe that the real, literal, physical reign and rule of Christ started at Acts 2, only in an early, incomplete form.

The key here that I believe that most do not have to understand this is that I believe and teach that God’s kingdom work was interrupted and postponed after it had begun, interrupted and postponed for a new work that God is performing today. This postponement took place at Paul’s great pronouncement at Acts 28:28 that transferred God’s glorious salvation from being centered around the Jewish people to being freely available to all nations. I do not believe this because of Christ’s statement in these passages about coming in His kingdom. That would certainly be a flimsy foundation to base such a thing on. I believe this from my careful study of Scripture in many, many places and regarding many, many of Its statements. Yet believing this, it does make this passage very plain. If God’s kingdom did begin, but then before it fully came in was suspended and postponed for God to do a new and different, previously-unrevealed work first, then Christ’s statement makes good sense. The literal, physical kingdom did come in the lifetime of these men, but it was postponed before finishing its work of taking control of the whole world. It will continue and finish that work in the future, hopefully the near future, if I may say so.

I fully realize that my view will not seem acceptable to those who do not share my viewpoint of Acts 28:28. Yet I believe it to be the right answer regardless. And I still insist that no other explanation put forward really fits the bill. I am sorry, but yours included.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

October 17, 2017 at 10:48 am

Stephen Kirk

Since you brought it up, let me say that I didn’t get this idea from any man. I came to this view in response to an atheist’s claim that Jesus was mistaken when he spoke. John Bunyan is said to have believed “better a little from God than a lot from men” when it came to answers to deep questions. I share his view.

Jesus was never dishonestly deceptive but was often misunderstood by most. He spoke on a plane, in a dimension, that most couldn’t grasp and fewer still could occupy. I wouldn’t put any more stock in the conclusion of the majority back then than I do now. I leave it to the one who guided me into truth to persuade you.

By all means, keep studying the Word.

October 20, 2017 at 5:52 pm

Precepts

Stephen Kirk,

It really does not matter to me if you formulated this idea or if you heard it from someone else. I did not mean to imply that it did. Some of my views I have come to by my own studies and consideration, while many of them have been suggested to me by others. When I find something that matches with Scripture, whether I discovered it myself or got it from another, I make it my own and believe it the same either way. All truth is ultimately God’s, and His Word is the only real standard for determining it.

Just because I have a new thought that others have not had before does not automatically mean that thought came from God. We must always check our thoughts against Scripture and see if they fit. If they do not, then they did not come from God, most certainly. They might have come from the wicked one, of course. But more probably it was just a faulty idea of my own that needed to be checked against Scripture and discarded.

I too have experienced the scoffing arguments of unbelieving critics. This is why I started to write the “Contradictions in Scripture” series more than two decades ago. Yet I have tried to make my goal to always be to set forth God’s truth, not to convince scoffing critics. They are unlikely to be convinced, anyway.

I would agree with your quote from John Bunyan. I would add that the only way to truly get from God is to get from His Word. He does not speak otherwise today.

I am sure it is very flattering to imagine that Jesus spoke on a plane where His disciples didn’t understand Him but we do. Yet this does not seem very likely to me. The Lord taught His disciples for three years, and I believe He was a very good teacher, much better than I am, certainly! Then He gave them His Spirit to further teach them even after He was gone. I would tend to think they knew far more than we do what Christ was talking about in most cases. The cases where that was not so was when a thing was purposefully hidden from them.

I am sorry, but saying the Lord was speaking on a different plane does not change the fact that what He said appears to be deliberately deceptive if some of the men standing there did not see Him coming in His kingdom. Yet again that is not a problem if we believe that He did start to come in His kingdom beginning with Pentecost in Acts 2.

I think it would be best for both of us to keep studying the Word!

Nathan

February 17, 2018 at 9:46 pm

solomon

Couldn’t the argument you put up for the six day period prophecy have the same relevance in your own proposition? I ask because the period between Jesus’ speech and the Pentecost also stands as a short interval for which such predictions can be accurately made. I mean, even for a 5 year interval, a declaration that some individuals–among a group– shall not die doesn’t pass as a prophetic declaration. It is a statement of fact!

March 2, 2018 at 6:51 pm

Precepts

solomon,

You bring up an excellent point that no one else has mentioned to me up to now. Thanks for bringing it up.

You are right that under normal circumstances, a prophecy to twelve healthy, young men that some of them would not die during the coming period of less than three years would be a poor kind of prophecy indeed, all things being equal. But were all things really equal in this case? Let us consider a few facts, some of which are found right here in these chapters.

First of all, the opposition of the religious leaders had clearly already started. Matthew 16 starts off with the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to Him to try to trap Him in His words. It was very unsafe to have these wealthy, powerful, and unscrupulous men as your enemies. The disciples clearly felt this. In John 11:16, after the Lord insisted against their protests on returning to Judea where His enemies were, Thomas expressed the idea that they might as well go along and die with Him! Thomas was not just being a pessimist, as some have accused him of being. The danger was very real, and the lives of these men were clearly in danger. The Lord reveals this as a real threat when, at His arrest in the garden, He shows His authority over the arresting army by knocking them to the ground with a word in John 18:6, and then by commanding them to allow His followers to go their way without hindrance in John 18:8-9, which command they obeyed. The only one of His party they attempted to molest, probably before His command, was the young man of Mark 14:51-52. I believe this was Lazarus, the only one of His followers they wanted nearly as badly as they wanted Him, John 12:10-11. But the point is that the lives of these men were in danger, and the Lord used His power to protect them. The idea that there might have been eleven other crosses next to the Lord’s on Calvary if He had not forbidden it is not a far-fetched one.

Secondly, consider the teaching the Lord had just expounded right before making this prophecy. Matthew 16:21, “From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.” Without the final phrase, which they probably did not hear due to shock at the rest of the statement, that was a grim prediction indeed, and it was what caused Peter to rebuke the Lord that this would never be, to which Christ replied with “Get behind Me, Satan!” He then went on to make the statement, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.” If I was His disciple and hearing these things, it would not have raised my opinion of my life expectancy! I might well have been wondering if we all were going to die, and soon. Therefore, after His grim and depressing pronouncements, this word was not just a dispassionate proclamation but a compassionate assurance to the men who followed Him in hopes of seeing His kingdom. The troubles He had told them about would remove some among them, but they would not remove them all. Some of them would live without dying to see His kingdom that they so expected and longed for.

Finally, think about the fact that this prophecy works two ways. By saying that “some” of those standing there would not taste of death, He clearly indicated that at least one would! (The audience might have included more than just the twelve, too, so there may have been a few other deaths for one reason or another.) This does not work regarding the 6-8 days until the transfiguration (exclusively-inclusively reckoned), because of course none of them died before that, proving that this is not what the Lord was talking about. Yet Judas did die before the kingdom of God came. How opposite to what might have humanly been expected! The traitor ought to have been the one spared, and the disciples of the Man executed ought to have been the ones to die. But Judas removed himself from the Lord’s protection, and he died because of it. Thus the Lord’s prediction also included the fact that those who were not among the “some” would die, something that might not have been expected for men that young and healthy with the Lord’s power of healing.

So this prophecy actually fits well with the kingdom coming in Acts 2, even though it was not that far in the future. The life of all those men was in question. They had very real reasons, many of which had just been stated, to imagine that none of them might live more than a few months more. Men facing a calamity whose lives are in danger of being snuffed out in it would appreciate a prophecy that not all of them are going to die in the coming conflict. This is a special circumstance, not just life as usual. Yet there was no conflict or chance for them to die in the following week. That was not what the prophecy was about.

Thanks again for writing the great comment. You are a thinker. Live up to your name, and keep studying the Word!

Nathan

July 19, 2018 at 7:17 pm

johnmhummasti333455225

the passages in question (Matthew 16:28, Mark 9.1, Luke 9.27) must be read within a narrow context – the restoration of the kingdom to Israel and an end to the foreign [Roman] occupation! see Acts 1.6 & 7 – “Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel? Jesus replied, “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by His own authority.”

In my honest opinion [as a former Xtian,] this is an instance where Jesus made a false prophesy (of his imminent restoration of the kingdom to Israel within the lifetime of his disciples).

It is stated in B’midbar (Numbers) 23.19 “G-D is not man, that He should lie, nor the son of man that He should repent: When He hath said, will He not do it? Or when He hath spoken, will He not make it good?”

As well, if Jesus were G-D then he would be Omniscient – knowing when the Kingdom would be restored to Israel

August 24, 2018 at 6:09 pm

Precepts

johnmhummasti333455225,

I am not sure what you mean by a “narrow context.” Christ’s statements must be considered in two contexts. One is all the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) has to say about God’s coming government over the earth. Psalm 67:4, “Oh, let the nations be glad and sing for joy! For You shall judge the people righteously, And govern the nations on earth. Selah.” This was written long before the Roman Empire existed or Israel was occupied, so that was not the focus of it. Certainly the people of that time hoped that the government would come in their own lifetimes and end their oppression by Rome, but that was not originally what was predicted.

The second context is the background of all that Christ Himself taught. In Mark 4:26-29, He set forth a parable about the kingdom (government) of God that showed that He taught it would come in stages, like growing grain.

26. And He said, “The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground, 27. and should sleep by night and rise by day, and the seed should sprout and grow, he himself does not know how. 28. For the earth yields crops by itself: first the blade, then the head, after that the full grain in the head. 29. But when the grain ripens, immediately he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come.”

Christ’s prediction that the kingdom of God would come in the lifetime of some standing there, therefore, only had to take us to the “blade” stage of that kingdom. When we examine the book of Acts, we can say that when God is marking out leaders by signs from heaven (Acts 2:3), then that is the government of God. When God is enforcing His laws and striking down any who fail to obey them (Acts 5:5, 10), then that is the government of God. When God is acting to reverse the effects of sin and death on His people (Acts 5:15-16), then that is the government of God. When God acts to destroy His enemies and guard His great name (Acts 12:23), then that is the government of God. It may not be doing all the things it will do when it is fully present in the “full grain in the head,” but it was there and was acting, like a blade of wheat just starting to stick up above the ground.

You have done a great job of pointing out exactly what Christ said. He said that the government of God would come in the lifetime of some of His disciples (in the three passages in question), but He refused to tell them whether or not it would get to the point of delivering Israel from her oppressors (in Acts 1:6-7). For men who knew His teaching in Mark 4, they should have well realized what He meant: that the very starting stage of the kingdom would come at least, but that the later stages of it might or might not come in their lifetimes. That is exactly what happened: the first stage came, the later stages were postponed.

Of course you are correct: for Christ to be God, He would have to always tell the truth. But my point here is that He did tell the truth. In the context of His teaching, what He meant is plain enough.

I pray that you will reconsider the Godhood of Jesus Christ.

Nathan

August 27, 2018 at 3:48 pm

johnmhummasti333455225

if Jesus were G-D then he would be Omniscient – knowing when the Kingdom would be restored to Israel – He plainly states in Acts 1.6-7 that he does not know; that only the Father knows! An attribute of deity is omniscience knowing all things. Since our Torah clearly states that G-D is NOT man and that G-D cannot lie; it can be demonstrated that Jesus falsely prophesied his imminent restoration of the kingdom of David within the life-time of his disciples! He was a nevi sheker (a false prophet): the passages in question (Matthew 16:28, Mark 9.1, Luke 9.27) must be read within a narrow context – the restoration of the kingdom to Israel and an end to the foreign [Roman] occupation! How much more clearer can I be – a narrow context – the restoration of the kingdom to Israel – It NEVER happened because the Moshiach (Messiah) has not come – that is, King David has not been “raised up”, as prophesied in Jeremiah 30:9, Ezekiel 37:24-25 and Hoshea 3:5. Moreover, Daniel 7:18, 27 states that the righteous shall “possess the kingdom” and that “all people shall serve them” (“them” in Daniel 7.27 is in the plural – meaning the Nation of Israel shall rule over the world with King David as Prince….)

August 27, 2018 at 4:24 pm

johnmhummasti333455225

Nathan it is for YOU to reconsider the G-D-hood of Jesus. “G-D is not man” is stated three times in the Tanak (Jewish Bible). If G-D and Jesus were “eternally co-equal” then Jesus would not eventually be in subjection to the Father as falsely prophesied in 1 Corinthians 15.28. Point being that G-D does not change [from limitless Deity to sin filled flesh] Malachi 3.6 and “there is no god beside Me” Isaiah 44:6-8, 45.5

October 12, 2018 at 9:30 pm

Precepts

johnmhummasti333455225,

Repeating the same arguments you made before as if I had never replied to them proves nothing. I pointed out that Jesus Christ’s words must be taken, not just in the context of the Old Testament, but also in the context of His Own teaching. There is nothing in the Old Testament that says that God’s government cannot appear as the Lord Jesus said it would come…slowly and in stages, like the stages of growing grain. He said that the kingdom of God was going to come in the lifetime of some of His disciples. He also said that the kingdom was going to come in stages, first the “blade” stage. He also said that He was not going to tell the disciples whether or not the kingdom would get to the stage wherein Israel would have their own, independent government restored by God. Putting all these facts together, what He actually predicted is clear enough. You simply do not want to see it. But blindly repeating your arguments does nothing to answer mine.

The blade stage came in the lifetime of most of His twelve disciples. Israel did not at that time get their government restored to them, however, as the kingdom did not proceed on beyond that first stage.

Your hatred for Jesus Christ causes you to misread and twist His words in Acts 1. He did not say that He did not know if the kingdom was going to be restored to Israel at that time. He merely said that it was not for the disciples to know that. Any person has a perfect right not to answer a question, even if he knows the answer. If he is honor bound not to answer, even more so. Since the Lord Jesus knew it was not His Father’s will that the disciples know this, then of course He had every right not to answer their question. There is no proof here that He is not omniscient.

While I certainly agree that David will be raised up to sit on his throne over Israel, you ignore the fact that the Messiah must be far more than David. As the Lord Jesus argued regarding Psalm 110, the Messiah must be more than merely David’s son (or than David himself) because in Psalm 110:1 David calls Him “Lord.” The Messiah is not just David resurrected. The Messiah is the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is God in human form.

God is not Man, but God did use His power to become a Man, the Lord Jesus Christ. He did not just make these claims. He backed them up by displaying God’s power, and finally by rising from the dead. He fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah, both in His life and in His death. Many more He will fulfill when He ends the long delay and brings in the remaining stages of His kingdom.

I certainly do not believe that there are any gods beside the true God. That is why I argue that Jesus Christ IS the true God. He is not a second god. There is no such thing. Over and over in the Hebrew Bible you can read of God YHWH appearing in what seems to be a human form. He walks with Adam in the garden. He comes and dines with Abraham and tells him what He is about to do to Sodom. He calls Moses and company up the mountain and they see Him and eat and drink. He tells Aaron and Miriam that He speaks with Moses face-to-face. These are all just as John declares it in John 1:1: the Word, the Expression of God, was with Him in the beginning, and is God. Then that Word, that Expression, became a Man and tabernacled among those living at that time. This was the same One Who appeared over and over again to the great men of Israel in the Hebrew Bible. Now, though, He had emptied Himself and become a Man. No man can exalt himself to become a god. But God can and did humble Himself to become a Man.

You misunderstand subjection. Jesus Christ does not subject Himself to the Father because He is inferior to Him. He subjects Himself because He loves His Father, and because it is right for Him to do so. Subjection does not imply inferiority. The Bible teaches the subjection of women to men. This is not because women are inferior to men. Both are human beings, and are created equal. Women are to be subject because God decreed this and so it is right. Jesus Christ subjects Himself for the same reason.

Malachi 3:6 is talking about God’s character never changing. This is true. God has made great and unequivocal promises to Israel. He will never change and fail to fulfill these. His character is always faithful, even when we are unfaithful. That is why He did not consume Israel when they rebelled against Him. But this does not mean that His eternal Expression could not take on the form of humanity if He so wished.

Jesus Christ was in the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3), yet without sin (Hebrew 4:5). Just because He was in human form does not mean that He was sin filled. Adam was flesh when he was created, and yet he was created upright. The Lord Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, was the same way.

Nathan

August 5, 2018 at 4:57 pm

Jeff

Have you ever considered that maybe the Bible contains contradictions in order to accomplish the purpose it’s intended to? If scripture contains contradictions in it, it is for the purpose of forcing a person to decide what they believe… It’s not there to force a person to believe a certain thing based on fact… Whether one considers them facts at all or not… If you see a contradiction you have to decide. So scriptures’ purpose is accomplished regardless.

August 27, 2018 at 4:55 pm

johnmhummasti333455225

there is no contradiction in the Jewish Bible and a maxim states “there is no contradiction in the truth”

October 12, 2018 at 9:40 pm

Precepts

johnmhummasti333455225,

I agree that there is no contradiction in the Bible or in the truth. But surely you realize that, to the careless student, there can be found seeming contradictions in the Hebrew Bible, just as in the Greek New Testament. I have written about several of these. For example: Josiah was to die in peace (II Chronicles 34:28), and yet he actually was killed in battle (II Chronicles 35:23-24). Jonah said that in forty days Nineveh would be destroyed (Jonah 3:4), and yet this did not happen (Jonah 3:10), and Nineveh remained for around a hundred years longer. Manasseh is said to be only wicked in II Kings 21, and yet in II Chronicles 33 it is claimed that he repented and turned back to the true God.

I believe that a careful student can find explanations for these seeming contradictions. But the same is true of those seeming contradictions in the New Testament. There seem to be more there because we have there the unprecedented reality of three or four books repeating dozens of stories, which never happens in the Hebrew Bible. But the careful student can find explanations for these, just as he can for those in the Hebrew Bible. But don’t act like the Hebrew Bible does not have these contradictions! It certainly does, and these must be dealt with.

Nathan

October 15, 2018 at 3:28 am

johnmhummasti333455225

Genesis, Exodus and Deuteronomy states that seventy souls descended down into Egypt. Exodus 1:5 The descendants of Jacob numbered seventy in all; Joseph was already in Egypt.

Genesis 46:26-27 All those who went to Egypt with Jacob – those who were his direct descendants, not counting his sons’ wives – numbered sixty-six persons. 27 With the two sons who had been born to Joseph in Egypt, the members of Jacob’s family, which went to Egypt, were seventy in all.

Deuteronomy10:22 Your forefathers who went down into Egypt were seventy in all, and now the Lord your God has made you as numerous as the stars in the sky.

Acts states that Seventy Five souls went down into Egypt:

Acts 7:14 After this, Joseph sent for his father Jacob and his whole family, seventy-five in all.

The Christian Scriptures account for how many souls descended into Egypt cannot be reconciled with the Torah.

This (Acts 7.14) is a plain contradiction of the seventy souls we find written in the Torah!

Another contradiction is the fact that in three places the Tanak (Jewish Bible) says G-D is not man; yet the Christian scriptures (John 1.1, 14) states that Jesus is G-D. The idea that a man could be G-D goes against the plain meaning of Numbers 23.19, 1 Samuel 15:29 and Hoshea 11.9.
Since G-D does not change (Malachai 3.6) how could an Eternally Co-Equal G-D (Jesus) be in subjection to G-D as Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 15.28. That Jesus is alleged to be “the same yesterday, today and forever” (Hebrews) goes against what Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 15.28! It is contrary to what we understand about Deity that G-D is in submission to any being. G-D is Supreme! Therefore, we can deduce from what Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 15.28 that Jesus is not and has never been Eternally Co-Equal with G-D.

October 15, 2018 at 4:12 am

Robert Atnip

In the book of Acts 7:14 it is counted 75. How can it be? Stephen possibly counted 1. Leah, 2. Bilhah, 3. Zilphah, 4. Dinah (daughter of Jacob) and 5. Serah (daughter of Asher – Gen. 46:17). Rachel was not included because she was already dead (Gen. 35:19).

Shalom!

February 8, 2019 at 7:15 pm

Precepts

johnhummasti333455225,

It is very common in the Bible that different numbers are found in different places when the exact criterion used for each number is different. For example, see my article on David’s census in II Samuel 24 wherein I compare the numbers there and in I Chronicles and show why they are different:

David’s Census

In this case, Stephen particularly mentions “Jacob and all his kindred,” his sungenea or relatives. Included in this could be other relatives who were not “direct descendants,” as your translation of Genesis 46:26 makes a point of saying. The Companion Bible suggests checking I Chronicles 7:14-20 for some of these other people, suggesting those like Machir son of Manasseh and Shuthelah son of Ephraim as being some of those who make up the extra five. It all hinges on what we think Stephen meant by “his whole family,” as your translation puts it. If he meant only those who came into Egypt, not those who were there already, then Joseph and his children are out and there is a difference of nine between the two. As I said, Jacob certainly had other family members not descended from him with him as well. As Robert Atnip suggested, this might include some of the wives or other women who were purposefully excluded from the number in Genesis.

As far as Numbers 23:19, I Samuel 15:29, and Hosea 11:9, you are making the common error of confounding the fact that a man cannot be God, which is true, with the fact that God can become a Man if He chooses to, which is also true. John 1:14 does not say that a man was God, but that the Word, Who was God, became a man, flesh, and dwelt among us. God was and is capable of projecting Himself. As John 1 states, His Expression had been with Him from the beginning. We see Him walking in the garden with Adam, meeting and having dinner with Abraham, appearing to Moses and talking to him face-to-face, and so forth. This Expression of God became a Man when God willed it to be so.

I have to repeat to you what I said before, “Repeating the same arguments you made before as if I had never replied to them proves nothing.” I already commented on Malachi 3:6, which you are misusing. Hebrews 13:8 has the exact same meaning, speaking of God’s character, which indeed never changes.

I never said anything about “Eternally Co-Equal.” I said that Jesus Christ is God. I don’t know anything about “Eternally Co-Equal.”

That God is subject to Himself is not that difficult of a concept. There are plenty of things that God cannot do because of them being contrary to His nature. He cannot look (with favor) upon evil, for one thing (Habakkuk 1:13). This is because it is against His nature and character, and He will always subject Himself to His nature and character. He cannot lie, for another, as one of the very verses you used points out. Yet the fact that God subjects Himself to His Own character and nature does not change the fact that He is supreme. If God can subject Himself to His character, cannot His Expression subject Himself to His Father as well?

Nathan

October 1, 2018 at 6:35 pm

Precepts

Jeff,

I am afraid that I cannot agree with the purpose of Scripture being to encourage us to decide what we believe for ourselves. If this was the case, then what good was it for God to reveal Himself to us in the first place? The purpose of Scripture is to be a revelation of God to us, and as long as God is silent, it is the only detailed and accurate revelation of God that we have. The purpose of the Bible is to give us something to believe, to have faith in, and when we believe it and have faith in it (the two are the same, being the same word in Greek), then we have demonstrated faith in God’s Word. This is what Romans 10:17 says, “So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.”

Yet if the record of the Bible is unreliable and we just have to decide for ourselves which parts of it to believe or which not to believe, then faith in the word of God is left out of the picture. We are back to believing whatever we want to believe or decide to believe. Instead of having an accurate revelation of God we can rely on, we are back to searching within ourselves to decide what we think God is like, making God in our own image. This is the opposite of faith. The purpose of Scripture is accomplished when It forces us to choose whether or not to believe Its words. Yet when we fail to believe this was not an allowable choice…we condemn ourselves at the feet of God’s Word.

Seeming contradictions do challenge our faith, but what we need to conclude is that it is not the Bible but our own understanding that is faulty. If we conclude that the Bible is faulty then we criticize God and elevate ourselves above Him. This will never lead to praise from God.

Nathan

October 15, 2018 at 5:08 am

Robert Atnip

John,

At the time it was written, Jesus was not yet born. So there was only one being sitting on the throne in Ezekial Ch 1. The Ancient of Days, Spirit Filled, with Words flowing from His mouth. And in Genesis, the Spirit of Good moved upon the face of the Waters. And God SAID, let’s there be light. Again, let US make man in OUR image and on OUR likeness
So, Father, Spirit, Word( the Father’s literal words. Spoken). All in One yet three. Ice. Solid turns to Liquid then to Gas All one. Water! H2o. God=F-W-S=Diety. Deity at that point in time was not human but later, one part, Word, became Flesh so at the time written, there was truly no one else sitting beside the Father on His throne because the Word came out of the mouth of the Father.. At the time written, the Father’s Words we’re just that, His Word! “I give you my word on this”
The Word of the Father became Flesh. The Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary. Apparently, the Father spoke to her DNA
And the Holy Spirit started cell division. I am adding my thoughts there.
So now we have a body called Jesus. The Father had never Begotten a child of his own before. Adam was made dust. Why could the Father not speak or miraculously fertilize One of Mary’s eggs using His own Godly DNA or whatever you wanna call it. Or he could have just spoken it!!! Let there be light!!!! Let there be cell division!!!!
So, the Father was in this Body known as Jesus. Your people could only see the body, Jesus. Yet when Jesus spoke, it was from the Father who was dwelling inside that body, Jesus. The Father was always looking thru the eyes of that body, Jesus. As Jesus hung on the cross and the crowd gazed at him, they could not see the Father inside:
” And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.”. Zechariah 12:10
the body also had 2 other inhabitants. Jesus’ mind and the Holy Spirit. And Jesus’ mind was always in communion with the Father and the Holy Spirit
“Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.” John 5:19
“For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken.” John 12:49

February 15, 2019 at 7:58 pm

Precepts

Robert Atnip,

Thanks for joining the conversation with John. I am happy we both cling to the truth of the Godhood of Jesus Christ.

I think you should reconsider some of the things you say here, though. I do not think the reason there was only One sitting on the throne in Ezekiel 1 is because Jesus had not yet been born. There was only One because God is invisible and no one has seen Him at any time. The unique Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father, was the One sitting on the throne at that time, as He has been since the beginning when He made all things.

I also disagree that the Word was literally just God’s spoken words before He became a Man. The Greek logos or “word” means “expression,” how God expresses Himself. We can express ourselves by our words. Yet the invisible and unknowable God also expresses Himself by a physical, visible, understandable (to some extent) form called the Word. This Word was with God in the beginning. He was the One Ezekiel saw on the throne, the one Moses and the elders saw and whom Moses spoke with on the mount, the One Who walked with Adam in the garden in the cool of the day, etc. In other words, the Lord Jesus Christ of the New Testament is the Jehovah of the Old Testament. Here is an excellent article on the topic if you want to read it.

Click to access SB002TheLordJesusisJehovah.pdf

Or, if you would rather listen, here is one of my radio programs where I argue this.

[audio src="http://www.knowinggodintheword.org/audio/Ep%205-02%20How%20to%20Know%20God%203-Jesus%20Is%20Jehovah%201-16-19.mp3" /]

The exact nature of God is a Divine mystery. But one thing I think is clear. Jesus is God. He is not God’s offspring. He did not come into being when He was conceived and begotten of a virgin. He was in the beginning with God, John 1.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

November 8, 2019 at 1:08 pm

Andy

This is again contradicting this verse:
“Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you;

Pentecost can‘t be the kingdom, otherwise Jesus would have said yes. Could it be possible that Jesus just didn‘t know about it and expected his second coming to be at 70ad but the father instead choose to destroy Israel instead? Such a confusing topic.

December 13, 2019 at 8:15 pm

Precepts

Andy,

Acts 1:6-8 is a very important passage for understanding just what was going on during the period of history covered by the book of Acts. It teaches us two important facts. One is that the many acts of the apostles that we have recorded throughout the period of time of which the book of Acts is the history were carried out under a question mark as to whether or not the kingdom was going to be restored to Israel at that time or not. If the apostles talk at times in Acts or in the epistles written during Acts as if they thought that the kingdom might come in their lifetimes, this is understandable because according to Christ’s words it might have come. It was not until later that they learned that no, it was not in fact going to come then, as we now know it did not.

Your objection is not quite correct. Their question was as to whether or not He was at that time going to restore the government to Israel. Clearly what they had in mind was the phase of the kingdom when Israel would no longer be under the control of Rome or any other Gentile power but would have their own autonomy under God, when they would be the head and not the tail, above only and not beneath, regarding all other nations (Deuteronomy 28:13). Christ would not tell them if that was going to happen in the near future or not, but He did tell them they were going to get authority when the Holy Spirit came on them. This is what happened at Pentecost. They received authority, and that was governmental authority, the government of God. They demonstrated this authority at times, such as when Peter spoke and Ananias and Sapphira fell down dead, or when Paul spoke and Elymas the sorcerer became instantly blind. Yet that government and the governments of this world were on earth together at that time as rivals. God’s kingdom had not yet acted to remove and replace those other governments. It was that fuller part, the part where God’s kingdom takes control of the earth, that Christ would not tell them if it was going to come in their lifetimes or not. That the kingdom in part, in its earliest, formative stages was going to come He had made clear in passages like the one I was talking about in this article, in Matthew 16:28 and its parallel passages.

Since Jesus is God, I do not believe there is anything He does not know. He certainly did know whether or not the kingdom was going to proceed to the stage when Israel gets its autonomy back. It was just the disciples who were not given to know, and that was only at Acts 1:6-8. By the end of Acts the answer was revealed when Paul made his declaration in Acts 28:28. Instead of Israel becoming the head of nations, as it will be when God’s government proceeds to its next stage, that next stage was delayed and God now started to deal with all nations equally. This is expressed in Acts 28:28 by the gospel being made freely available to all nations, and in Ephesians 3:6 (written soon after Acts 28:28) by all nations now being joint and equal before God. Israel cannot be the head nation and all other nations following after if all nations are joint and equal. Acts 28:28 ended the possibility that the disciples were wondering about in Acts 1:6. As soon as Paul by inspiration spoke the words of Acts 28:28 and wrote the words of Ephesians 3:6, the question of Acts 1:6 was answered. The answer was obviously no. God was going to do something else instead, which involved a complete equality among the nations.

The destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD was an outcome of God changing His work to deal with all nations equally. If God was now going to let other nations’ capital cities be destroyed, He would have to allow Israel’s capital city to be destroyed as well. He could no longer favor Israel and see to it that Jerusalem could not be destroyed. But I do not believe for a second that it was God Who destroyed it. It was Rome who destroyed it, and if a supernatural power instigated them doing it it was Satan, not God.

God certainly did not decide to destroy Israel. God decided to act graciously towards all. Ephesians 3:2 calls this the dispensation of the grace of God. Ephesians 4:32 tells us to deal graciously with others as God has dealt graciously with us. (The word in Greek is grace, not forgiveness.) God could not make a blanket statement telling us to deal graciously as we have been dealt graciously with unless God was dealing graciously with all. That is exactly what God is doing. Every day and in every situation since the writing of the book of Ephesians, God has been doing nothing but dealing graciously with all. He has not been destroying cities or nations. That would not be gracious. Cities and nations have been destroyed, but that has not been by the actions of God. If He did that, that would not be dealing graciously, and His words in Ephesians 3:2 and 4:32 would be negated.

Thanks for writing. Keep studying the Word.

Nathan

April 13, 2021 at 11:02 am

Gadar Perets

If what you are saying is true I would challenge you to a public debate with Don Preston. I think we would see him prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the truth concerning the true parousia. Many are afraid to do a public debate because it would be an embarrassment of scripture old testament and new that reveal the Jesus fulfilled all old testament prophecies when he came in judgment upon apostate Israel. Again please contact Don Preston for a public debate I would enjoy watching you put to shame his eschatology

May 13, 2021 at 8:09 pm

Precepts

Gadar Perets,

Public debates are not necessarily in my line, but I am not completely opposed to them. Nevertheless, I wonder how it is you think you can offer me such a debate? Are you Don Preston’s event manager?

The idea that Jesus fulfilled all Old Testament and New Testament prophecies when He “came in judgment upon apostate Israel” is a silly one. There are a plethora of passages that have to do with the glorious things God is yet going to do and to bring about when His glorious government takes control of this earth. None of these prophecies, or anything even close to them, came to pass at any time in the past. God’s prophecies of His glorious plans for the future must be future, or they will simply be proven untrue.

You seem to bounce back and forth, my friend. I take it you are a fan of Don Preston, and are speaking tongue-in-cheek when you suggest I would “put to shame his eschatology.” The fact is that any eschatology that leaves God’s future government on earth out of the picture is put to shame by the testimony of Scripture. That government has been promised from the time of the fall. It will come about in its time.

Nathan

January 29, 2022 at 10:57 pm

Lena

Just a thought. Could it be that Jesus was referring to John and John’s vision in Revelation?

February 24, 2022 at 8:19 pm

Precepts

Lena,

That is an interesting thought. However, it would be subject to some of the same objections as saying He was referring to the transfiguration. Namely, that the Lord’s only stated criterion for them seeing the kingdom was that they not have tasted death before that time. However, John’s vision in Revelation was given to him by God’s choice, not just because he lived long enough to see it. Other people lived as long as John did. Why did they not see the vision, then? Because it took more to see the vision than just living long enough.

Christ’s clear statement to His disciples is that the kingdom of God was going to come before some of them died and, if they lived long enough, they would see it. This is not how visions work, unless it was a vision seen by every person on earth at once. Since we have no examples from history of such a vision, certainly not from the history soon after Christ’s advent, such a vision does not seem to have taken place. Therefore, I do not believe Christ could have been referring to a vision.

It is something of a side issue, but I also do not believe in the long life of John. I would suspect John died around the same time the rest of the twelve did (excepting James, who had died already). The John of Ephesus, who is thought to be the apostle John and therefore to prove he outlived the other disciples, sounds to me like a false apostle and not the real John at all. The late date for John’s vision on Patmos does not ring true to me. I think John had his vision long before then, probably in the 50s AD, and while some of the other disciples were still alive. Disciples who did not see the vision. But regardless, I simply don’t think a vision fits with what Christ was talking about.

As I said above, I think the realization that the kingdom comes in stages, as Christ taught in the parable of the growing grain in Mark 4:26-29, and the fact that the Acts period was the first stage of the kingdom, fits exactly with Christ’s statement. The fact that the following stages never came but that the rest of the kingdom was delayed didn’t change the fact that the disciples saw the kingdom of God coming. That is what they experienced on Pentecost. What Christ told them was true. Only Judas, who had died by his own hand before then, didn’t live to see the kingdom of God. There was no choice of certain ones of them to see it. There was no vision. They saw the kingdom of God really coming.

Thanks for writing. Keep studying the Word.

Nathan

August 14, 2022 at 2:22 am

Tim

With all due respect. BS! That it meant to represent only the Kingdom itself & not His second coming & that this Kingdom came @ the point of time we know as Pentecost, as revealed in the Book of Acts? If I was to apply your logic. Then, what of the disciples’ ‘Christly’ powers they displayed when they were sent off to visit peeps in their homes to heal them & drive out demons etc, while still being taught by Yeshua while he was still on earth, going about his fleshly life? Also, what of John the Baptist’s followers who were using Yeshua’s power over demons & sickness in His name? Do you see your huge error here?!?

October 31, 2022 at 7:06 pm

Precepts

Tim,

The powers of the Holy Spirit given to the disciples were given in light of the statement made by both John and Christ, that “the kingdom of the heavens is at hand” (Matthew 3:2 and Matthew 4:7). These powers of healing and over demons demonstrated that kingdom that was about to come, both in demonstrating the solutions the government of God will offer over some of life’s difficulties (sickness) and the power it will display in defeating Satan and driving him out of his position of power over the earth (casting out demons). These were demonstrations of the coming government of God while it was at hand, though it had not come yet.

When Christ died on the cross, that paid the penalty for sin that was the one, great requirement for the kingdom to come. Before Christ died, all God’s government could justly do is to begin to wipe sinners off the face of the earth, which would have resulted in the extinction of Adam’s race. With the penalty for sin paid, the kingdom could then begin. When the power of the Spirit was poured out on Pentecost, that was God’s government finally arriving on earth. As Christ revealed in His Parable of the Growing Grain in Mark 4:26-29, the kingdom will come in stages, with the first like the blade stage of growing grain, the next like the ear, the next like the full grain in the ear, the next the ripened grain, and finally the harvest. Therefore, the kingdom does not come all at once and fully formed. The kingdom came in its first, initial, blade stage in the Acts period. It was interrupted before the next stage, however, and the ear stage and the full grain in the ear await a future time.

Just because you have not personally heard of an idea before does not mean that it is BS (which remains a disrespectful phrase whether or not you say “with all due respect” before saying it). This explanation straightens out much that is difficult and obscure about the book of Acts, and explains much better how it relates to us today than the hopeless task of trying to harmonize Acts with what is going on today. You really should calm down and give it a second look.

Nathan

February 16, 2023 at 4:46 pm

Joseph

You wrote, “they smugly proclaim that His expectation contradicts reality, for it seems clear that the kingdom did not come, and Christ did not return.“

Ahem. What seems clear is not always so. The second abomination that caused desolation foretold by Christ occurred when Titus erected the standard to Jupiter (his god) in the temple at Jerusalem in 70 A.D. (Matthew 24:15 “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains…) Notice that this second abomination that causes desolation was foretold in Daniel 12, and is distinct from the first one foretold in Daniel (fulfilled when Antiochus Epiphanes slaughtered a pig on the alter). This is why the reader must understand Daniel. Notice that this second abomination is standing, which is what a standard does. According to the timing of Daniel 12, Christ’s return and the inception of His millennial reign would have occurred between 1,290 and 1,335 days after this event.

March 23, 2023 at 9:45 pm

Precepts

Joseph,

I will readily admit that what seems clear is not always so. Yet once one studies out what Christ returns to earth for in what in Greek is called His parousia; which is to be personally, officially present on earth as God for a thousand years; it should be clear to anyone that this never happened, either in any connection with Titus erecting a standard to Jupiter or at any other time. As I said above, such a view contradicts reality.

I am mystified as to why you would think that Christ could accurately predict an event that was going to happen about 40 years after He spoke these words, and yet would then be mistaken about the event that He said was supposed to follow soon after.

Then there is the fact that none of the other signs of Matthew 24 as showing the nearness of His parousia can be connected in any way with the attack on Jerusalem of Rome. Earthquakes, famines, pestilences, wars and rumors of wars; all these things have existed from long before 70 AD, and have continued from then until now. None that happened then could have been the signs Christ was speaking of, any more than walking out of your house and discovering roads there would be a sign that you are living in southern California. The significance of the signs of Matthew 24 is in the fact that earthquakes, famines, pestilences, and wars will have ceased for a time before this. Until they cease, their existence cannot possibly be a sign of anything.

The kingdom of God is the government of God; no more, no less. Not until God takes control of the governments of this world and makes them His Own can we say we are living in the kingdom of God. Yet Christ also revealed that the kingdom will come in stages like growing grain in His parable in Mark 4:26-29. The apostles who stood with Christ, all but Judas, lived to see the first of these stages come with power when the Holy Spirit was poured out at Pentecost. It marked out His leaders, it gave its leaders kingdom power, it gave them a message for the people, and it offered them citizenship. The following stages, however, when the kingdom takes control of the whole earth and conforms it to God’s government, never came, but were postponed. They await a future fulfillment.

Nathan

September 29, 2023 at 4:32 pm

Joseph

Nathan, you wrote: “I will readily admit that what seems clear is not always so. Yet once one studies out what Christ returns to earth for in what in Greek is called His parousia; which is to be personally, officially present on earth as God for a thousand years; it should be clear to anyone that this never happened.”

There was a time when I would have agreed that the 1000 year millennial reign never happened. However, I’ve now been presented with enough evidence to cause me to question the version of history I was taught (although not enough evidence to construct a clear alternative version… just enough to cause me to question what I was taught). If you truly agree that what seems clear is not always so, then you will keep an open mind about what really “should be clear to anyone.” For now, I am happy to be in disagreement with you.

December 7, 2023 at 6:37 pm

Precepts

Joseph,

You put things in an interesting way. “The 1000 year millennial reign never happened.” This way of putting things seems to assume that it ought to have happened already. This is a false assumption. Christ spoke much of His parousia. He never said when it was going to happen. It is currently a future event. This is not that it never happened; this is that it has not happened yet.

I am aware of the people who try to make out that many, miraculous signs occurred at and around the siege of Jerusalem in 69 A.D. and the destruction of the city in 70 A.D. These supposed signs and legends of signs took place long ago, and so cannot be either proven or denied easily. Yet is this truly the right place to start? A much better place for a Bible student to start is to examine what the Bible actually says. Its term is not the millennium. This is a modern phrase that throws all the emphasis on the length of time. The Bible term is the parousia of Jesus Christ. This tells us something about what it is going to be, not just how long it is going to be. There is also the term “kingdom of God.” God’s messengers, like John and Christ Himself, assumed that all the people of Israel would already know what this phrase meant because they knew their Old Testaments. One thing that is clear in modern Christianity is that we do not have this knowledge. If one wants to discover God’s truth about these things, one must discover what a parousia is, what a kingdom is, and then what the parousia of Jesus Christ is and what the kingdom of God is.

Once these things are searched out and discovered, any thought that the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 might be either of these things dissolves. It is not just a matter of if the version of history we have been taught is right or not. Once these things take place, no one could hide them under history or anything else. You are simply not understanding either what the kingdom of God is nor what Christ’s parousia is. You would do better to study out these things than to study out questionable histories. If you would, then perhaps you might find that I was right about what such a study would make clear to you.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

Contradictions in Scripture: Christ’s Big Mistake Part 2 Some Standing Here Shall Not Taste Death

Links

Scripture Index (pdf)

Categories

108 comments

Leave a reply to precepts Cancel reply

Contradictions in Scripture: Christ’s Big Mistake Part 2 Some Standing Here Shall Not Taste Death

Share this:

Related

Links

Scripture Index (pdf)

Categories

108 comments

Leave a reply to precepts Cancel reply