Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Matthew 17:1 begins with the Greek word KAI- AND. The word 'AND' is a conjunction. In grammar, a conjunction is a part of speech that links or connects two words, phrases, or clauses together. The word 'AND' is linking together Jesus' statement in Matt 16:28 with the transfiguration of Matt 17:1.
The word "and" connects the narrative process, but it does not necessarily follow that the events are to be viewed as being one and the same. That should be obvious to anyone reading it.
For example, here is another narrative by Matthew concerning John the Baptist, when he was beheaded:
Mat 14:11 And his head was brought on a platter and was given to the girl, and she brought it to her mother.
Mat 14:12 And having come, his disciples took the body and buried it; and coming, they reported to Jesus.
The word "and" continues the narrative process, but it does not require us to connect the girl or the mother as the ones "having come" who buried the body. That was performed by John's disciples, as noted. Do you see the difference?
Ironmaw - I think for us to conclude what you and Mike believe, we have to make the assumption that when Jesus said:
Mat 16:27 `For, the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of his Father, with his messengers, and then he will reward each, according to his work.
Mat 16:28 Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his reign.'
that He was speaking of the transfiguration that would occur 6 days later, as recorded in Mat 17:1-5.
I'm not sure I can make that assumption. The fact that Peter speaks of being an eye witness to Jesus' transfiguration is granted, but how does that make one coincide it with what Jesus had said 6 days prior?
Peter, in 2 Peter 1:16, was speaking of seeing Jesus' transfiguration. That is obvious. But how do you connect what Peter said to what Jesus said "the Son of Man is about to "come", and "coming" in His reign?
If we consider the words Matthew chose to use in the narrative, regarding what Jesus said, and what transpired 6 days later, I don't think we can arrive at your conclusions. Here is why:
The term "transfiguration" is taken from the Greek word μεταμορφόω, and is derived from metá, denoting a change of place or condition, and morphóō, to form. It means to transform, transfigure, change one's form. At least according to my lexicons. And that's really all I have to work with here.
However, the word Jesus used, as recorded by Matthew, is "come" (the Greek word ἔρχομαι), which means to come, to go, move or pass along, in any direction. But it does not mean to transform, or to change ones form. So far so good, right?
Next, we come to Peter and what he records. Peter (in 2 Pet 1:16) uses a different term for the word "coming" of our Lord.
2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
The Greek word used by Peter is παρουσία (parousÃa) with it's basic meaning of being present, presence, coming or arrival. This is a different word (and meaning) than that used by Jesus in Mat 16:27-28.
So, I think if we consider it strictly from a linguistics (or semantics) point of view, the passages do not really support, IMO, what you and Mike conclude. But that is only my two cents on this matter.
Anyway, carry on .
I understand that there is no way to prove one way or the other definitely what Jesus actually meant, as with so much of the scriptures. But just reading in context, the way the the transfiguration immediately follows in the text Jesus foretelling them what he did in Matthew 16:28, tells me that the transfiguration and also i believe his resurrection is what Christ was referring to.
The way it is written leads me to believe that is what Christ was referring to. The word their translated as kingdom can also be translated as royal power
When Christ transfigured, he literally became immortal and fully overcame death in his own life by virtue of his own merit. Had he so desired he could have stayed that way and never died at all. But he chose to put off his immortality and to become mortal again in order to die for the world.
Also, when Jesus said, "coming in his kingdom", it could be translated as "coming into his royal authority". That is to say, they would see him come into his royal authority. The word word "en", which is translated as "in" in that verse, literally means "in the interior of some whole". It could be understood that Jesus was referring to his coming into his full power, and not coming back to earth within his full power. Again, i believe it is a matter of context ...
Peace ...
Last edited by Ironmaw1776; 09-11-2010 at 03:22 PM..
The word "and" connects the narrative process, but it does not necessarily follow that the events are to be viewed as being one and the same. That should be obvious to anyone reading it.
For example, here is another narrative by Matthew concerning John the Baptist, when he was beheaded:
Mat 14:11 And his head was brought on a platter and was given to the girl, and she brought it to her mother.
Mat 14:12 And having come, his disciples took the body and buried it; and coming, they reported to Jesus.
The word "and" continues the narrative process, but it does not require us to connect the girl or the mother as the ones "having come" who buried the body. That was performed by John's disciples, as noted. Do you see the difference?
Of course, but the word AND continues the context of the narrative from one scene to the next. Its not a matter of whether the word AND is referring to a particular person, but that it continues the context.
Of course, but the word AND continues the context of the narrative from one scene to the next. Its not a matter of whether the word AND is referring to a particular person, but that it continues the context.
Peace ...
Exactly. The narrative continues to unfold without necessarily linking the persons (or events in our transfiguration discussion) from one side of the word "and" to the other.
09-11-2010, 03:35 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaStorm
The word "and" connects the narrative process, but it does not necessarily follow that the events are to be viewed as being one and the same. That should be obvious to anyone reading it.
For example, here is another narrative by Matthew concerning John the Baptist, when he was beheaded:
Mat 14:11 And his head was brought on a platter and was given to the girl, and she brought it to her mother.
Mat 14:12 And having come, his disciples took the body and buried it; and coming, they reported to Jesus.
The word "and" continues the narrative process, but it does not require us to connect the girl or the mother as the ones "having come" who buried the body. That was performed by John's disciples, as noted. Do you see the difference?
Yes, it is funny that Mike's only exegetical reason given is this use of KAI - this conjunction has many nuances - as do all conjunctions. The context is clear. This is why is some translations it - 'Now six days later...' or 'Now after six days...'
Also, note Matt.17:13-14. There is absolutely no connection with these verses other than a change of topic or discussion in the narrative process.
Furthermore, why does he think it is necessary to dissosociate verse 27 and verse 28? Why does he take any similar phrases like verse 28 and tranlate it as the 2nd coming but out of nowhere he translates it as referring to the transfiguration in this section - it is precisly because it does cause a problem that he resorts to these tactics.
He also seems to arbitraily say that the translators wrongly seperated chapter division in Matthew but got it right in Mark and then goes on to say that there were no chapter divisions in the original. ????? The six days is also enough to seperate the context.
It is all very self serving eisegesis and manipulative of the text for his own framework. And this does not even take into account other 'timing' verses in the Bible that seem to suggest that Christ was going to return within their generation. Nor does he even consider why would Jesus refer to their death if it was only six days later? They were not in any danger during the period. Nor does he explain why we should conflate the 'coming' and the 'transfiguration' as synonyms? Clearly two different concepts - Jesus was not coming or going anywhere - he was transfigured before them.
It is all an ad-hoc attempt to reconcile a problem - and a poor one at that.
Yes, it is funny that Mike's only exegetical reason given is this use of KAI - this conjunction has many nuances - as do all conjunctions. The context is clear. This is why is some translations it - 'Now six days later...' or 'Now after six days...'
Also, note Matt.17:13-14. There is absolutely no connection with these verses other than a change of topic or discussion in the narrative process.
Furthermore, why does he think it is necessary to dissosociate verse 27 and verse 28? Why does he take any similar phrases like verse 28 and tranlate it as the 2nd coming but out of nowhere he translates it as referring to the transfiguration in this section - it is precisly because it does cause a problem that he resorts to these tactics.
He also seems to arbitraily say that the translators wrongly seperated chapter division in Matthew but got it right in Mark and then goes on to say that there were no chapter divisions in the original. ????? The six days is also enough to seperate the context.
It is all very self serving eisegesis and manipulative of the text for his own framework. And this does not even take into account other 'timing' verses in the Bible that seem to suggest that Christ was going to return within their generation. Nor does he even consider why would Jesus refer to their death if it was only six days later? They were not in any danger during the period. Nor does he explain why we should conflate the 'coming' and the 'transfiguration' as synonyms? Clearly two different concepts - Jesus was not coming or going anywhere - he was transfigured before them.
It is all an ad-hoc attempt to reconcile a problem - and a poor one at that.
So what do you believe? What is your explanation? Are you a preterist and do you believe he was referring to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD?
09-11-2010, 05:48 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironmaw1776
So what do you believe? What is your explanation? Are you a preterist and do you believe he was referring to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD?
Honestly, I have not come to a final conclusion on this one - but the transfiguration is a very weak interpretation. I think alot of the statements and/or prophecies can relate to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. The only preterist position I would think about would be a partial preterism position. I do not think it is very clear regarding the 'coming' language to be anything other than a reference to a similar coming as the first - bodily presence of Christ with the physical manifestation of His rulership - the spiritual kingdom was already present prior to the transfiguration, ascension, pentecost, 70 AD - so I find it hard to go looking for other 'comings' and how we should know which 'coming' refers to what event - it is all very subjective when we try these things.
I have boiled it down to 2 possibilities:
1) Christ was wrong or the writers were wrong in their intepretation of things.
2) Some form of Partial preterism.
There might be a process 'coming' - but this just adds complications upon complications - it gets very abritrary and convoluted.
The transfiguration just seems like a 'settling' positon of retreat to avoid the above points. I am just being honest with the text - I am willing to go where the truth takes me.
Honestly, I have not come to a final conclusion on this one - but the transfiguration is a very weak interpretation. I think alot of the statements and/or prophecies can relate to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. The only preterist position I would think about would be a partial preterism position. I do not think it is very clear regarding the 'coming' language to be anything other than a reference to a similar coming as the first - bodily presence of Christ with the physical manifestation of His rulership - the spiritual kingdom was already present prior to the transfiguration, ascension, pentecost, 70 AD - so I find it hard to go looking for other 'comings' and how we should know which 'coming' refers to what event - it is all very subjective when we try these things.
I have boiled it down to 2 possibilities:
1) Christ was wrong or the writers were wrong in their intepretation of things.
2) Some form of Partial preterism.
There might be a process 'coming' - but this just adds complications upon complications - it gets very abritrary and convoluted.
The transfiguration just seems like a 'settling' positon of retreat to avoid the above points. I am just being honest with the text - I am willing to go where the truth takes me.
I understand where you are coming from, though i do disagree ... I believe the transfiguration makes perfect sense in the context, according to the original language. I never really had a problem with this verse, the transfiguration is always what i believed Christ to be referring to in that verse.
I hope you find an answer that fits your paradigm and that you are comfortable with. If you ever do find a solution that you are comfortable with, i would be interested in hearing it.
Peace ...
09-11-2010, 06:03 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironmaw1776
I understand where you are coming from, though i do disagree ... I believe the transfiguration makes perfect sense in the context, according to the original language. I never really had a problem with this verse, the transfiguration is always what i believed Christ to be referring to in that verse.
I hope you find an answer that fits your paradigm and that you are comfortable with. If you ever do find a solution that you are comfortable with, i would be interested in hearing it.
Peace ...
I used to hold to this view too but it is not just this verse but the others with similar timing passages about the soon return of Christ within the disciples liftime that start to tip the scales so to speak. If you were reading this in the 1st century I don't think we would go looking for a furturist (far future) or preterist point of view - but a soon return of Christ view. Only after centuries have gone by have interpretations changed in oreder to reconcile this problem.
Anyway, any other points that may come up I will definately post them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
