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.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 31 by Elijah John]

If the disciples expected the Apocalypse 2,000 years ago, it was because they didn't get the sense of Jesus' illustrations. Good grief, they questioned him as he was ascending back to heaven---"are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?"

If he was, surely he would have said so! But he indicated that there would be quite an amount of time before that would happen because he told them that they had a lot of work to do yet. They would have to do witnessing work throughout the whole Earth before the kingdom would be restored! (Acts 1:6-8)

So Jesus himself did not teach that the Apocalypse would occur during the disciples' lifetime. In fact, he gave an illustration that showed that it would be a long time in the future.

(The brackets are mine...rather than explain what I'm trying to say afterward.)

"For it is just as when a man, about to travel abroad [Jesus himself, returning to heaven from the earth], summoned slaves of his and committed to them his belongings. And to one he gave five talents, to another two, to still another one, to each according to his own ability, and he went abroad [to heaven]....AFTER A LONG TIME the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. [And so forth.]" (Matthew 25:14-19)

Jesus clearly indicated that it would be a long time before he returned to restore Jehovah's Kingdom. The Apocalypse was a long time in the future.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 31 by Elijah John]

Also, you still asked "what were they supposed to see if not the second coming of Christ?" I answered this already. They were to see his GLORY as the King of the Kingdom of God. He would be returning invisibly, in the SPIRIT, with great glory (as I Timothy 6:16 refers to), and the disciples could get the sense of that by viewing his TRANSFIGURATION.

He did not mean that his second coming was going to happen in their lifetime!

Would you tell me please why you ignore this explanation?

[marco]

He did not mean that his second coming was going to happen in their lifetime!

It is remarkable that you are able to expound a theory you have imbibed with the certainty of the sun arising and can happily suppose that others, taking a different interpretation, are wrong. Where, I wonder, does it indicate how we can tell those who have truth and those who have misinterpreted.


Jesus was speaking not to Einstein and Aristotle, but to ordinary people, with ideas inferior in sophistication to our own. The simple and obvious interpretation is that Jesus thought he would return soon. His listeners would have taken this meaning because of the curious mention of some not having died. To circumnavigate this apparent messianic error we have to relate Christ's words to some fanciful incident that can be interpreted as a dream sequence or something figurative. I am sure that nobody listening to Jesus took your meaning. Of course that might mean that Jesus was whispering down the centuries and passing on a secret message, understood only by a group who might claim ascendancy. I'm sure, going by bible tales, Jesus didn't work in that way.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 28 by Checkpoint]

Checkpoint, did my explanation of "some standing here will not die before they see [Jesus] coming in his Kingdom" make any sense to you? It makes a lot of sense to me.

Yes, it does make some sense to me.

What makes no sense to me is adding verse 28 to 27 as if they are talking about the same things.

And then cutting v28 from what immediately follows.

Grace and peace to you.

So you think verse 16.28 belongs with chapter 17 verse 1? The "some standing here" refers to the witnesses to the Transfiguration and not to the 2nd coming of Christ?

Perhaps, but that grouping seems artificial to me, and ignores the fact that pretty much all of the NT authors (including Matthew) expected the Parousia in the lifetime of the Apostles. Again, "these last days" (Heb 1.2) the NT writers referred to, not years or thousands of years and counting.

Perhaps? Guess that's better than a flat "no way"!

It is not an artificial grouping but rather one that fits like a glove.

Yes, it ignores "failed prophecy" claims.

These are a separate issue and were arrived at by hindsight.

Grace and peace to you, E.J.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 44 by Checkpoint]

Peace Checkpoint.

What about the context of Hebrews 1.2, indicating that those were the "last days". Days, not weeks, months, years, decades or centuries. And Paul also suggested the same, as did "Peter" and John. Unless I missed it, you still haven't accounted for that verse, and others like it.

Context, Checkpoint. Context. NT context, cultural, historical and religious context. All support the notion that the apocalypse was expected in those "last days" many centuries ago.

So...if most of the NT authors were wrong on the matter of Jesus 2nd coming, how much of Christianity needs to be scrapped, and what can be salvaged?

Seems to me that at the very least, the ethic of love of God and neighbor survives. And Jesus called that the "Law and the Prophets".

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 44 by Checkpoint]

Peace Checkpoint.

What about the context of Hebrews 1.2, indicating that those were the "last days". Days, not weeks, months, years, decades or centuries. And Paul also suggested the same, as did "Peter" and John. Unless I missed it, you still haven't accounted for that verse, and others like it.

Context, Checkpoint. Context. NT context, cultural, historical and religious context. All support the notion that the apocalypse was expected in those "last days" many centuries ago.

So...if most of the NT authors were wrong on the matter of Jesus 2nd coming, how much of Christianity needs to be scrapped, and what can be salvaged?

Seems to me that at the very least, the ethic of love of God and neighbor survives. And Jesus called that the "Law and the Prophets".

Thanks for that, E.J., a short synopsis of how things seem to you.

Yes context, not pretext.

The context of that Hebrews 1 statement is the four Gospels that record what that Son said and did, and what happened, isn't it?

As for "in these last days", what can I say?

This, for starters:

2 Peter 3:

8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

As for me, my focus on this thread will continue to be Matthew 16:27 and 28 and verses before and after, as seen in their Gospels and NT contexts.

Grace and peace.

[onewithhim]

He did not mean that his second coming was going to happen in their lifetime!

It is remarkable that you are able to expound a theory you have imbibed with the certainty of the sun arising and can happily suppose that others, taking a different interpretation, are wrong. Where, I wonder, does it indicate how we can tell those who have truth and those who have misinterpreted.

Well, yes. Folks here seem perfectly content with tacking onto Jesus the accusation that he was wrong about what he led others to believe about his return, saying that he said he would return in their lifetimes. I expound this "theory" that he transfigured before Peter, James and John to show them how he would return, sometime in the distant future, because it matches everything else that he said in the Gospels. I do not think he erred in his explanations to his disciples, which others here, and yourself, apparently believe.

So I do feel as certain about this as I know the sun will rise again tomorrow. His transfiguration helped to encourage the disciples, strengthening their confidence that he would "come in his Kingdom" eventually, and they were also strengthened to withstand major persecution that was to come upon them.

(See I Timothy 6:14-16.)

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 44 by Checkpoint]

Peace Checkpoint.

What about the context of Hebrews 1.2, indicating that those were the "last days". Days, not weeks, months, years, decades or centuries. And Paul also suggested the same, as did "Peter" and John. Unless I missed it, you still haven't accounted for that verse, and others like it.

Context, Checkpoint. Context. NT context, cultural, historical and religious context. All support the notion that the apocalypse was expected in those "last days" many centuries ago.

So...if most of the NT authors were wrong on the matter of Jesus 2nd coming, how much of Christianity needs to be scrapped, and what can be salvaged?

Seems to me that at the very least, the ethic of love of God and neighbor survives. And Jesus called that the "Law and the Prophets".

Adding my paltry 2 cents.......when the disciples mentioned the last days that they were living in, I believe that they were referring to the last days of the Jewish system of things and the immanent destruction of the temple.

John would be basically an exception, because he stated in the Revelation that he was writing about events during "the Lord's day," which would occur at the end of the present system of things, commonly referred to as "the last days," and "harvest time," as Jesus spoke of at Matthew 13: 30, 39, 40, and Daniel at Daniel 12: 4, 9, to mention just two instances.

There are two "last days" situations. One that ended the Jewish system and the other that will end the entire world's present system of things that Satan is ruling (I John 5:19).