Matthew 16:28 Here is What and Who it Refers To

Originally Posted by Ironmaw1776

I'm just going to deal with this part of your post.


Dan 7:13-14
I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.




Verse 13 is speaking of Christ "coming in the clouds of heaven" into the presence of "the most high", and there being presented his power and kingdom. It is not describing his "coming to earth" to establish that kingdom on earth.


Verse 14 describes his earthly reign, but the coming mentioned in verse 13 is not Christs coming to earth, but it is describing his coming before the most high God in the clouds of heaven.




Now when Christ ascended after the resurrection, he rose up into the clouds and that is when he "came in the clouds" before the most high, and he at that time entered into his power and kingdom. But he has not yet returned and established it on earth. When Christ said ...


"Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in(among) his kingdom"


... he could have meant that they would see him ascend into heaven in the clouds when he rose to the father and was presented before the most high as Daniel prophesied.








Peace ..

I remember this on the other thread and here were my remarks:

Ok, let me see if I understand you - Dan.7:13-14 is talking about the Ascension - that is the 'Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven' is from Earth to heaven in the Ascension to the Ancient of Days - the Father. The kingdom and dominion is the spiritual kingdom within.

Even if this is the case how does this fit with Matt.16:27-28 - with angels and reward? Also, how does this work with the judgment theme of Dan.7 - with court, thrones, books opened, fiery flame, ect. I do not see the Ascension in those things. From the point of Jesus' words when He said '...the Son of Man will come...' that is from the perspective of earth not heaven. In otherwords he comes back to earth otherwise he would have said when you see the Son of Man going in the glory of His Father.

Unless you mean to take verse 27 as the second coming a verse 28 as the Ascension and spiritual kingdom which seems to split the two verses into two seperate categories for no apparent reason.

It seems that the angel theme fits Matt.24:29-31 when he comes to earth with His angels not when he went to heaven. Verse 29 uses the exact same phrase 'coming on the clouds of heaven.' Also, Matt.19:28 - says that in the regeneration (not the Ascension) the Son of Man will sit on His throne of glory as well as the disciples judging the tribes of Israel. I do not see the connection to the Ascension.

Also,

The point of the Son of Man coming to the Ancient of Days if from the pespective of Christ already in heaven moving laterally toward the Ancient of Days to recieve the kingdom prior to His return. I do not see it as going from earth to heaven. Furthermore, who are the they in 'And they brought him near...' This is the heavenly scene and refers to the court/council of heaven - See the previous section verses 9-10.

[Ironmaw1776]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

I remember this on the other thread and here were my remarks:

Ok, let me see if I understand you - Dan.7:13-14 is talking about the Ascension - that is the 'Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven' is from Earth to heaven in the Ascension to the Ancient of Days - the Father. The kingdom and dominion is the spiritual kingdom within.

Even if this is the case how does this fit with Matt.16:27-28 - with angels and reward? Also, how does this work with the judgment theme of Dan.7 - with court, thrones, books opened, fiery flame, ect. I do not see the Ascension in those things. From the point of Jesus' words when He said '...the Son of Man will come...' that is from the perspective of earth not heaven. In otherwords he comes back to earth otherwise he would have said when you see the Son of Man going in the glory of His Father.

Unless you mean to take verse 27 as the second coming a verse 28 as the Ascension and spiritual kingdom which seems to split the two verses into two seperate categories for no apparent reason.

It seems that the angel theme fits Matt.24:29-31 when he comes to earth with His angels not when he went to heaven. Verse 29 uses the exact same phrase 'coming on the clouds of heaven.' Also, Matt.19:28 - says that in the regeneration (not the Ascension) the Son of Man will sit on His throne of glory as well as the disciples judging the tribes of Israel. I do not see the connection to the Ascension.

Also,

The point of the Son of Man coming to the Ancient of Days if from the pespective of Christ already in heaven moving laterally toward the Ancient of Days to recieve the kingdom prior to His return. I do not see it as going from earth to heaven. Furthermore, who are the they in 'And they brought him near...' This is the heavenly scene and refers to the court/council of heaven - See the previous section verses 9-10.

It could be that verse 27 is referring to the ascension in the first half, and the second half of the verse is referring to his return after his ascension in the second coming which obviously has not happened yet. And he didnt tell the disciples that some of them would not taste of death before they saw him reward every man according to their works.

What is certain, is that the disciple did see Christ ascend into heaven and among the clouds in the presence of angels and his coming before the most high as prophesied in Daniel 7, and not all of the disciples were alive at the time either, as Judas had already died by that time.


So the ascension fits both the prophetic vision in Daniel 7concerning the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven before the most high to enter into his power and kingdom, and it fits with what Christ said in Matthew 16:28.



Nemaste ...

My remarks in Blue:

Originally Posted by Mike555

Followng are six links with excerpts which give good information concerning the fact that the transfiguration was the fulfillment of Jesus' promise in Matthew 16:28.

Excerpt:
Peter, James, and John received a vision of the future kingdom and glory of Christ. They saw Him coming in His kingdom.

Matt.16:28 does not have preview/vision language - there is a difference between the actual coming an a preview/vison of that coming. Nothing in verse 28 suggest the latter. Furthermore there is no justification in seperating verse 27 from 28.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt:
The presence of Moses and Elijah are associated with the kingdom, they were expected by the Jewish people to return at the end of the age with the Messiah. This is why Peter wanted to build them tabernacles. He thought the kingdom had arrived with their being present and seeing Jesus glorified.

Moses and Elijah were reprsentative of the Law and the Prophets - these confirmed the Sonship and Messiahship of Christ not his future coming - as did the Father's vioce . As Peter said We were eyewitnesses of Christ's majesty/Glory when they made known to them the power and coming (the first Coming) of Christ - Christ life and works were witnessed to and confirmed at the tranfiguration. The law, the prophets, Peter, James, John, and the Father were confirming this truth. That is what the transfiguration is about - Christ's true nature and Status being witnessed and confirmed - has nothing to do with a preview of the Second coming. The prophetic word mentioned by Peter was the OT - THE LAW and THE PROPHETS - this is what was confirmed regarding the Messiah.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt:
The following is taken from John Darby's Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, Volume 3, page 137:

In each Gospel that speaks of it, the transfiguration immediately follow the promise of not tasting death before seeing the kingdom of the Son of Man. And not only so, but Peter (in his second Epistle, 1:16), when speaking of this scene, declares that it was a manifestation of the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He says that the word of prophecy was confirmed to them by the view of His majesty; so that they knew that whereof they spoke, in making known to them the power and the coming of Christ, having beheld His majesty. In fact it is precisely in this sense that the Lord speaks of it here, as we have seen. It was a sample of the glory in which He would hereafter come, given to confirm the faith of His disciples in the prospect of His death which He had just announced to them.

Just because something follows in the narrative sequence does not necessitate any correspondence to the previous section, phrase, or verse. Earlier in this thread I and another showed you why and commented on your 'kai' example to show this to be the case.

See above for other remarks regarding Peter's statements.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt:
That verse could lead you to believe that somewhere in this world are some very old men! What does Christ mean? I believe what Christ was saying can be translated, "Some of you standing here will see the Son of Man coming in His royal majesty before you die." The Greek word translated "kingdom" (basileia) is used over 160 times in the New Testament. It is correct to render it not only as "Kingdom," but also as "the kingliness of the King" "regal splendor" or "royal majesty." The emphasis in verse 28 is on the coming of the King Himself in His royal majesty.

There is no emphasis that would lend to this special cherry picking of definitions. Furthermore, all references to the 'coming' that are tied to the phrase 'Son of Man' refers back to the only OT reference - Daniel 7 - which has been commented on already as being the Second coming - something you agree with.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt:
This is Peter’s narrative of what he saw on the Mount of Transfiguration. In verse 16 he affirms to his audience that he was not telling them a tale when he told them about the power and coming of Jesus. He was an eyewitness of His majesty. It is noteworthy that the Greek word translated "coming" in verse 16 is our favorite word, parousia. Peter associates the term parousia with the Mount of Transfiguration event. Matthew 16:28 states that some of the disciples would not taste death until they saw the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. Mark 9:1 states that some of the disciples would not taste death until they saw the kingdom come with great power. Peter writes that he was not telling a tale when he made known to his audience the power and coming of Jesus. There you have it. If we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, we see that Matthew 16:28 and Mark 9:1 are time statements which were fulfilled at the Mount of Transfiguration.

See above comments on Peter's account. Also, the word 'coming' in Matt.16:28 is not 'parousia' - so why you pointed this out is not clear. The significance of which is irrelevnt to the case at hand. The above connection with the term 'parousia' and the Tranfiguration is made on the assumption that Peter is referencing Matt.16:28 - which as shown above is not the case nor has the writer of your point proven so. You cannot assume what you are trying to prove - Peter refers to Matt.16:28, Matt.16:28 must be speaking of the 'parousia' because Peter uses that term. The parousia that Peter speaks of is the 1st parousia.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt:
Third, the transfiguration confirmed that the kingdom of the Messiah would be characterized by glory. In the transfiguration the three selected disciples saw a foretaste of the glory and victory of Jesus. This posture of victory would be even clearer to them after Jesus' resurrection, and it was really only then that the disciples began to put it all together. But for now this scene encouraged the disciples. It showed them that Jesus was indeed the glorified Son of God.

Whether the Transfiguration was a preview or not is really irrlevent because the connection to Matt.16:28 has not been established - it is assumed based solely on the fact that is follows in the narrative sequence. See above points.

As a final thought, it is appropriate to point out that verse 27 and 28 must be seperated by those who interpret verse 28 as refering to the transfiguration beacuse in verse 27 Christ comes with his angles and reward and in judgment - which he certainly did not at the transfiguration. Once again there is no justification for such a seperation.

[Michael Way]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

My remarks in Blue:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Followng are six links with excerpts which give good information concerning the fact that the transfiguration was the fulfillment of Jesus' promise in Matthew 16:28.

Excerpt:
Peter, James, and John received a vision of the future kingdom and glory of Christ. They saw Him coming in His kingdom.

Matt.16:28 does not have preview/vision language - there is a difference between the actual coming an a preview/vison of that coming. Nothing in verse 28 suggest the latter. Furthermore there is no justification in seperating verse 27 from 28.

As I previously posted in post #38, I post again below,

The transfiguration was the fulfillment of Matthew 16:28. John was the last apostle to die, and that was around 100 A.D. The other apostles were dead well before that. From the time that Jesus made His statement in Matthew 16:28 to the time of the death of the last of the apostles, these things happened.

1) The Transfiguration.

2) Jesus was crucified, resurrected, ascended, and seated at the right hand of God the Father where He currently is.

3) The beginning of the church-age on the day of Pentecost.

4) The destruction of the Jewish temple and the city of Jerusalem.

And that's it. No secret appearances of Jesus. Nothing within the lifetime of any of the apostles except for the transfiguration that even remotely fulfills the promise of Jesus in Matthew 16:28.

There is every justification for separating verse 27 and verse 28. Jesus has not returned to the earth as of yet. He at no time made a return to the earth during the lifetime of the apostles. The statement that Jesus made was a reference to the transfiguration.

Previous posts are #1, 10, 23, 26, 28, and 38

I think Mikes last post says it all - his position is a position of default and an exclusion of possibilities that he refuses to examine or eleminate through exegesis. Anyway, I would at last just encourage people to read the entire Thread to see why - enjoy.

[twin.spin]

Matthew 16:28

I have read several possible fulfillments of this:

1. The Transfiguration (as Mike has explained)

2. Pentecost ... After Jesus ascended into his kingdom, he promised to send the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit of God was seen as tongues of fire.

3. The Ascension of Jesus ..."they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

All three are plausible, with the first two being more likely and the first being held most applicable.