Matthew 16:28-29:

[Checkpoint]

This opening post comes from an exchange between Elijah John and me, Checkpoint.

The issue raised was the validity or otherwise of combining verses 28 and 29 of Matthew 16 as being a text in its proper context, or not.

Here now, without further ado, is the exchange.


Elijah John wrote

No interpretation, let's let the text speak for itself. What does this mean, in your opinion?

27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Checkpoint wrote

Here we go again, E.J.

Who chose what you now quote as being "the text"?

It is not a text but rather a portion of two texts joined together to make what is an artificial text.

It is the end of one text and the beginning of another text.

Both are therefore out of their own context.

"A text taken out of its context becomes a pretext for a prooftext".

Elijah John wrote

In my Bible verses 27 and 28 are in the same paragraph. Same paragraph, same subject. The way I read it Jesus was speaking of his 2nd coming in verse 27. How do you read it?

And in 28 he was referring to his contemporary listener, "some standing here".

Jesus still has not returned in judgement with his Father's angels. Are his contemporaries still alive?

Having said this, I see what you mean. I did a little research and yes, some versions have v 27 +28 in different paragraphs. Others, including the ASV, RSV, NRSV, NJB, have the two verses in the same paragraph.

But that would indeed make a world of difference. Was Jesus shifting topics here? Almost like stream of consciousness? Or not.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 15 by Elijah John]

I dont know, I havent read their work so I dont know what errors if any, they may or may not have made. I should think if they are competent bible scholars they would not make the mistake of ignoring context themes, audience, timescale and language ect.


JW

Historical Jesus scholars specialize in context. Historical, cultural, religious etc. Some, (like Ehrmann) are atheists, some, (like Borg and Spong) are Theists. They all pretty much conclude that Jesus and the NT writers were all affected by apocalyptic expectation. That expectation was tangible in the first century.

Have you read any historical-Jesus literature at all beyond approved, Watchtower sources?

[Elijah John]

You appear to have accepted without question that verses 27 and 28 form a valid text.

The phrase "some standing here" refers to those alive then, not to those who are alive at his return, which is yet future, isn;t it?

Then what were they supposed to see before they died, if not the 2nd coming of Christ?

Also, are you going to address the list of verses I provided which indicate that most if not all of the NT authors expected Christ's return in their own lifetimes?

Let's focus on just one for now. Hebrews 1.2:

In these last days he has spoken to us by a Son...

Those "last days" were over 2000 years ago. That is thousands of years, not days. Once again, plain reading not theological gymnastics.

[JehovahsWitness]

They all pretty much conclude that Jesus and the NT writers were all affected by apocalyptic expectation.

Duly noted.

I have presented the evidence and my argumentation in the post above. Feel free, you so wish, to outline the actual arguments presented to support alternative conclusions (so far I see none).

If not, please enjoy the rest of your week,


JW



RELATED POSTS


Is Hebrews 2:1 refering to the "Last days" of the entire world system of things and the 2nd coming of Christ to judge the world?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 006#809006

[Elijah John]

Are these still the "last days" (Hebrews 1.2 etc.) after two thousand years?

[marco]

It just may be a "rookie" who accepts the obvious meaning as they expect the scripture to mean what it says. It can take years of coaching to advance to a veteran level when one has learned how to make the scripture not say what it clearly says.

I was once impressed that someone had found a "Bible Code" that predicted such things as the assassination of Kennedy and wars. It required a person to pick line sequences and the message would drop out. Virgil's Aeneid was similarly used for predictions. We are a clever breed, we humans, but terribly willing to believe what we wish.


Faith tells us we have a primeval "garden", an advanced first man built from mud, a labourer God who sometimes shows his builder's posterior, a swallowing whale made into a galleon and a tower bigger than the Empire State that touched God's dining room ...and so much more. The answer is not to mock but to seek deeper, better, clearer - divine - sense in the verses. And luckily we have humans who can do that. Those of us who throw stones on the sidelines will perish for an eternity of perishing.


And there is an answer to those who think they are clever, and who cynically sneer at the Bible: the wisdom of man is foolishness with God. That should also apply to clever exegesis on Matthew.

[Checkpoint]

You appear to have accepted without question that verses 27 and 28 form a valid text.

The phrase "some standing here" refers to those alive then, not to those who are alive at his return, which is yet future, isn;t it?

Then what were they supposed to see before they died, if not the 2nd coming of Christ?

Also, are you going to address the list of verses I provided which indicate that most if not all of the NT authors expected Christ's return in their own lifetimes?

Let's focus on just one for now. Hebrews 1.2:

In these last days he has spoken to us by a Son...

Those "last days" were over 2000 years ago. That is thousands of years, not days. Once again, plain reading not theological gymnastics.

What he said, "they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom".

No, I am not going to address your list of verses.

That list is your support for your own claim drawn from your own conclusions regarding the "text" issue.

I made this thread a specific "text" issue, so that is where my focus is.

You say the two verses form a valid text, and I say they are not a valid text, but instead are the end of one text joined with the start of another text.

Grace and peace.

[onewithhim]

This opening post comes from an exchange between Elijah John and me, Checkpoint.

The issue raised was the validity or otherwise of combining verses 28 and 29 of Matthew 16 as being a text in its proper context, or not.

Here now, without further ado, is the exchange.


Elijah John wrote

No interpretation, let's let the text speak for itself. What does this mean, in your opinion?

27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Checkpoint wrote

Here we go again, E.J.

Who chose what you now quote as being "the text"?

It is not a text but rather a portion of two texts joined together to make what is an artificial text.

It is the end of one text and the beginning of another text.

Both are therefore out of their own context.

"A text taken out of its context becomes a pretext for a prooftext".

Elijah John wrote

In my Bible verses 27 and 28 are in the same paragraph. Same paragraph, same subject. The way I read it Jesus was speaking of his 2nd coming in verse 27. How do you read it?

And in 28 he was referring to his contemporary listener, "some standing here".

Jesus still has not returned in judgement with his Father's angels. Are his contemporaries still alive?

Having said this, I see what you mean. I did a little research and yes, some versions have v 27 +28 in different paragraphs. Others, including the ASV, RSV, NRSV, NJB, have the two verses in the same paragraph.

But that would indeed make a world of difference. Was Jesus shifting topics here? Almost like stream of consciousness? Or not.

Didn't we discuss this weeks ago? I know it has been the subject of posts almost ad nauseum. It has been pointed out that Jesus said to those standing there with him that they would see him "coming in his Kingdom." (Matthew 16:28) Then immediately the text goes on to say (Matt.17:2) that Jesus was transfigured before them, and his face glowed, etc. This has to be included in the discussion because to ignore it would be taking verses 24-28 out of context.

This was the disciples seeing him coming in his Kingdom. This is how he would come back after receiving the Kingdom rulership and coming back to rule the earth. He would be a glorified, mighty spirit person (in the form of his Father once again), as Paul describes at I Timothy 6:16:

"...Who dwells in unapproachable light."

Then, when they came down from the mountain, Jesus said, "Tell the vision to no one until the Son of man is raised up from the dead." (Matt.17:9)


They, in effect, saw him "coming in his Kingdom."

I might be overly sensitive, but.....It's very difficult for me to be completely ignored. I really feel that I have something valid to say, so I posted once again, above, what I had said about the OP.

[Checkpoint]

This opening post comes from an exchange between Elijah John and me, Checkpoint.

The issue raised was the validity or otherwise of combining verses 28 and 29 of Matthew 16 as being a text in its proper context, or not.

Here now, without further ado, is the exchange.


Elijah John wrote

No interpretation, let's let the text speak for itself. What does this mean, in your opinion?

27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Checkpoint wrote

Here we go again, E.J.

Who chose what you now quote as being "the text"?

It is not a text but rather a portion of two texts joined together to make what is an artificial text.

It is the end of one text and the beginning of another text.

Both are therefore out of their own context.

"A text taken out of its context becomes a pretext for a prooftext".

Elijah John wrote

In my Bible verses 27 and 28 are in the same paragraph. Same paragraph, same subject. The way I read it Jesus was speaking of his 2nd coming in verse 27. How do you read it?

And in 28 he was referring to his contemporary listener, "some standing here".

Jesus still has not returned in judgement with his Father's angels. Are his contemporaries still alive?

Having said this, I see what you mean. I did a little research and yes, some versions have v 27 +28 in different paragraphs. Others, including the ASV, RSV, NRSV, NJB, have the two verses in the same paragraph.

But that would indeed make a world of difference. Was Jesus shifting topics here? Almost like stream of consciousness? Or not.

Didn't we discuss this weeks ago? I know it has been the subject of posts almost ad nauseum. It has been pointed out that Jesus said to those standing there with him that they would see him "coming in his Kingdom." (Matthew 16:28) Then immediately the text goes on to say (Matt.17:2) that Jesus was transfigured before them, and his face glowed, etc. This has to be included in the discussion because to ignore it would be taking verses 24-28 out of context.

This was the disciples seeing him coming in his Kingdom. This is how he would come back after receiving the Kingdom rulership and coming back to rule the earth. He would be a glorified, mighty spirit person (in the form of his Father once again), as Paul describes at I Timothy 6:16:

"...Who dwells in unapproachable light."

Then, when they came down from the mountain, Jesus said, "Tell the vision to no one until the Son of man is raised up from the dead." (Matt.17:9)


They, in effect, saw him "coming in his Kingdom."

I might be overly sensitive, but.....It's very difficult for me to be completely ignored. I really feel that I have something valid to say, so I posted once again, above, what I had said about the OP.

Good for you, onewithhim, you often have something valid to say.

We walk the walk, we run the race, we keep our eyes on Jesus.

On the way is difficult at times, but the prize is priceless.

Grace and peace to you, sister.

[Imprecise Interrupt]

This opening post comes from an exchange between Elijah John and me, Checkpoint.

The issue raised was the validity or otherwise of combining verses 28 and 29 of Matthew 16 as being a text in its proper context, or not.

Here now, without further ado, is the exchange.


Elijah John wrote

No interpretation, let's let the text speak for itself. What does this mean, in your opinion?

27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Checkpoint wrote

Here we go again, E.J.

Who chose what you now quote as being "the text"?

It is not a text but rather a portion of two texts joined together to make what is an artificial text.

It is the end of one text and the beginning of another text.

Both are therefore out of their own context.

"A text taken out of its context becomes a pretext for a prooftext".

Elijah John wrote

In my Bible verses 27 and 28 are in the same paragraph. Same paragraph, same subject. The way I read it Jesus was speaking of his 2nd coming in verse 27. How do you read it?

And in 28 he was referring to his contemporary listener, "some standing here".

Jesus still has not returned in judgement with his Father's angels. Are his contemporaries still alive?

Having said this, I see what you mean. I did a little research and yes, some versions have v 27 +28 in different paragraphs. Others, including the ASV, RSV, NRSV, NJB, have the two verses in the same paragraph.

But that would indeed make a world of difference. Was Jesus shifting topics here? Almost like stream of consciousness? Or not.

Didn't we discuss this weeks ago? I know it has been the subject of posts almost ad nauseum. It has been pointed out that Jesus said to those standing there with him that they would see him "coming in his Kingdom." (Matthew 16:28) Then immediately the text goes on to say (Matt.17:2) that Jesus was transfigured before them, and his face glowed, etc. This has to be included in the discussion because to ignore it would be taking verses 24-28 out of context.

This was the disciples seeing him coming in his Kingdom. This is how he would come back after receiving the Kingdom rulership and coming back to rule the earth. He would be a glorified, mighty spirit person (in the form of his Father once again), as Paul describes at I Timothy 6:16:

"...Who dwells in unapproachable light."

Then, when they came down from the mountain, Jesus said, "Tell the vision to no one until the Son of man is raised up from the dead." (Matt.17:9)


They, in effect, saw him "coming in his Kingdom."

I might be overly sensitive, but.....It's very difficult for me to be completely ignored. I really feel that I have something valid to say, so I posted once again, above, what I had said about the OP.

There is no mention of a kingdom in the Transfiguration narrative. And what sense does it make for Jesus to say that not all of the disciples listening to him will be dead in the next six days? Plus considering that only three of the Apostles will see the Transfiguration, it makes even less sense.

But consider that both verses 27 (which is clearly about the judgment at the end of days) and verse 28 refer to the Son of Man and that virtually every other use of the word 'kingdom' in Matthew either explicitly or implicitly refers to the kingdom of heaven, it is very hard to see how verse 28 can be about anything other than the return of Jesus as described in the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24.

[John Human]

You appear to have accepted without question that verses 27 and 28 form a valid text.

The phrase "some standing here" refers to those alive then, not to those who are alive at his return, which is yet future, isn;t it?

Then what were they supposed to see before they died, if not the 2nd coming of Christ?

Also, are you going to address the list of verses I provided which indicate that most if not all of the NT authors expected Christ's return in their own lifetimes?

Let's focus on just one for now. Hebrews 1.2:

In these last days he has spoken to us by a Son...

Those "last days" were over 2000 years ago. That is thousands of years, not days. Once again, plain reading not theological gymnastics.

I' m inclined to agree -- the "last days" (just under 2000 years ago) were the pregnant pause before the apocalyptic revolt that led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the demolition of the temple and the end of any homeland for Jews.