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.
Skeptics of the Bible like to use Matthew 16:28 to discredit Jesus Christ. They say that what was promised by Jesus never happened. They are wrong.
In Matthew 16:24, Jesus was speaking to His disciples about the cost of discipleship, about taking up their cross and following Him. In Matt. 16:27 He relates the fact that He is going to come again in the glory of His Father with His angels. Then He makes the following statement.
Matthew 16:28 ''Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.''
This passage has been a source of contention between believers and skeptics. But there is no mystery to this passage at all. What and who does it refer to? The answer is given by Peter in 2 Peter 1:16-18 who was an eyewitness to the event spoken of by Jesus. Following is what Peter said.
2 Peter 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17] For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory. ''This is My beloved Son with whom I am well pleased''--18] and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
Peter was referring to the transfiguration which had occurred six days after Jesus had told him and the other disciples concerning those who were standing there that would see Him coming in His kingdom. Peter relates the transfiguration with the coming of the Lord in power and majesty. The transfiguration is described in Matthew 17:1-8.
Matthew 17:1 And six days later Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John his brother, and brought them up to a high mountain by themselves. 2] And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light. 3] And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. 4] And Peter answered and said to Jesus, ''Lord, it is good for us to be here; If You wish, I will make three tabernacles here, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.'' 5] While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying, ''This is My beloved Son, With whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!'' 6] And when the disciples heard this, they fell on their faces and were much afraid. 7] And Jesus came to them and touched them and said, ''Arise and do not be afraid,'' 8] And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one, except Jesus Himself alone.
Skeptics say that believers use the transfiguration as a desperate attempt to explain Matthew 16:28. But the Apostle Peter verifies that the Lord's transfiguration is precisely what He was referring to.
The transfiguration was an extraordinary preview of the Lord's future coming in power and great glory in His kingdom majesty.
May it be that no believer's faith ever be shaken by those who would attempt to discredit the Bible and Jesus Christ.
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 .
09-11-2010, 01:02 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Peter confirmed in 2 Peter 1:16 thatit was the transfiguration.
Of course II Pet. was talking about the transfiguration - not denying that - Of course it shows you don't read what people post yet expect them to do so for you.
What did Peter confirm was the transfiguration? Matt.16:27-28 - WRONG. Peter was not trying to find a solution to the problem that these verses create. Try Again to stick to the context - please.
The 'coming' in II Pet.1:16 is the 1st coming not the second mentioned in Matt.
Of course II Pet. was talking about the transfiguration - not denying that - Of course it shows you don't read what people post yet expect them to do so for you.
The misunderstanding is yours, as I was referring to the fact that Peter linked the transfiguration with what Jesus was referrig to in Matthew 16:28.
Quote:
What did Peter confirm was the transfiguration? Matt.16:27-28 - WRONG. Peter was not trying to find a solution to the problem that these verses create. Try Again to stick to the context - please.
The 'coming' in II Pet.1:16 is the 1st coming not the second mentioned in Matt.
Again, Peter confirmed in 2 Peter 1:16 that the transfiguration was what Matthew 16:28 refered to.
Peter links the power and coming of the Lord with the transfiguration on the holy mountain.
This is not a matter of debate. The passage doesn't create any problem. Jesus was refering to the transfiguration. Nothing else.
09-11-2010, 02:55 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
The misunderstanding is yours, as I was referring to the fact that Peter linked the transfiguration with what Jesus was referrig to in Matthew 16:28.
Again, Peter confirmed in 2 Peter 1:16 that the transfiguration was what Matthew 16:28 refered to.
Peter links the power and coming of the Lord with the transfiguration on the holy mountain.
This is not a matter of debate. The passage doesn't create any problem. Jesus was refering to the transfiguration. Nothing else.
I am afraid it you who misunderstand - I responded with another thread on the subject - which you obviously did not read - if you did you would not have responded with somthing I agreed with - that II Pet. does refer to the transfiguration but does not refer to Matt.16:27-28. You have not shown that but only stated it as if you proclamation solves everyhting - unless you are God and some sort of prophet - your eisegesis is meaningless.
If it is not a matter of debate why did you feel it necessary to write about it?
Jesus was not refering to the transfiguration - there was no kingdom, angles, rewards, ect. You want the transfiguration to be it to solve the problem.
Furthermore, the phrase 'Son of Man' refers to Daniel 7 and links it to the 'kingdom' and His 'coming' - I suggest you read Daniel and tell me if it refers to the transfiguration or the first coming. Also, look at the similar phrases as Matt.16:27-28 and tell me if it refers to the transfiguration and not the second coming - you are the one forcing the interpretation precisly because it is a problem and then acting as if it is not by just stating it as so, yet it is clear that you felt it needed to be addressed - odd I must say.
II Peters reference to the 'coming' is about the 1st 'coming' not the 2nd 'coming' and Matt.16:27-28 is not the 1st 'coming' but the 2nd.
Nice try but your interpretation, or should I say other mens attempts to reconcile these verses, is weak and fails.
The misunderstanding is yours, as I was referring to the fact that Peter linked the transfiguration with what Jesus was referrig to in Matthew 16:28.
Actually, that is what you've not been able to demonstrate. The fact that you adamantly say so, does not make it so. This is why I can't really take you seriously on this forum.
Quote:
Again, Peter confirmed in 2 Peter 1:16 that the transfiguration was what Matthew 16:28 refered to.
You've not really been able to show us that. I've posted the same scriptures and gave what evidence I have against it. The only part of Peter's testimony that refers to the transfiguration is (in bold and underlined) shown below:
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.
Furthermore, the last two phrases:
1. "when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,"
and
2. "but were eyewitnesses of his majesty."
are not necessarily "linked" synonymously as you suppose. They are two different events and what appear to be two different trains of thought, running in parallel. When reading it again, the last phrase (#2 above) is the evidence for the lead in statement (re-arranged like this): "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables", but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. That is the link, if there is one.
Nor have you been able to demonstrate that what Peter was speaking of is what Jesus spoke of in Mat 16:27-28. And further, you've not shown us any evidence that what Jesus said (again in Mat 16:27-28) was the foretelling of His transfiguration that occurred six days later.
You've been corrected (or rather dismissed) as to your arrogance on this subject by others, so why the hunker down in your boots approach? It's not gonna work...
Quote:
Peter links the power and coming of the Lord with the transfiguration on the holy mountain.
Show us the money (link...lol) my friend. You've not "linked" anything as yet!
Quote:
This is not a matter of debate. The passage doesn't create any problem. Jesus was refering to the transfiguration. Nothing else.
And now you're going to tell us what can and can't be debated on the forum? And dictate what all scripture means? If so, Hail to the forum king!...LOL Com'on, you gotta be kidding us...LOL Your arrogance and boasting is overwhelming.
I am afraid it you who misunderstand - I responded with another thread on the subject - which you obviously did not read - if you did you would not have responded with somthing I agreed with - that II Pet. does refer to the transfiguration but does not refer to Matt.16:27-28. You have not shown that but only stated it as if you proclamation solves everyhting - unless you are God and some sort of prophet - your eisegesis is meaningless.
Again, my statement in post # 3, which was this, ''Peter confirmed in 2 Peter 1:16 that it was the transfiguration.'', was intended to convey the fact that Peter confirmed that Matthew 16:28 was a reference to the transfiguration. Not that 2 Peter 1:16 was a reference to the transfiguration. It is of course, but I was relating his statement to Matthew 16:28. And it this which you have misunderstood.
Quote:
If it is not a matter of debate why did you feel it necessary to write about it?
Refer to the very last sentence in post #1.
Quote:
Jesus was not refering to the transfiguration - there was no kingdom, angles, rewards, ect. You want the transfiguration to be it to solve the problem.
Furthermore, the phrase 'Son of Man' refers to Daniel 7 and links it to the 'kingdom' and His 'coming' - I suggest you read Daniel and tell me if it refers to the transfiguration or the first coming. Also, look at the similar phrases as Matt.16:27-28 and tell me if it refers to the transfiguration and not the second coming - you are the one forcing the interpretation precisly because it is a problem and then acting as if it is not by just stating it as so, yet it is clear that you felt it needed to be addressed - odd I must say.
II Peters reference to the 'coming' is about the 1st 'coming' not the 2nd 'coming' and Matt.16:27-28 is not the 1st 'coming' but the 2nd.
Nice try but your interpretation, or should I say other mens attempts to reconcile these verses, is weak and fails.
Jesus was referring to the transfiguration. The Scriptures are clear on this and there is nothing to debate.
In Matthew 16:28 Jesus tells His disciples ''Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom.
This is immediately followed in Matthew 17:1 with 'AND six days later Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John his brother, (under Jewish law 2 or 3 witnesses were needed for testimony, to establish proof) and brought them up to a high mountain by themselves. 2] And He was transfigured before them...
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.
Because in Matthew the statement of Jesus is in one chapter and the transfiguation event is in the following chapter, this may cause some to question whether the two are related. But the chapter and verse breaks, the references to particular chapters and verses, were not a part of the Bible when it was originally written. Everything was run together. The distinctions between chapters and verses were added, apparently by Stephen Langton, Archbiship of Canterbury around the year 1227 A.D., in order to make it easier to locate what you wanted to find. The chapter and verse breaks are sometimes poorly placed.
In Matthew, the chapter break was placed between Matthew 16:28 and Matthew 17:1, thus putting Jesus' promise that some who were standing with Him would not die before seeing Him come in His kingdom in one chapter, and the transfiguration in a different chapter.
But in Mark, the two are properly placed together.
Mark 9:1 'And He was saying to them, ''Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.'' 2] AND six days later, Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John, and brought them up to a high mountain by themselves. And He was transfigured before them; 3] and His garments became radiant and exceedingly white, as no launderer on earth can whiten them. 4] And Elijah appeared to them along with Moses; and they were talking with Jesus...
There is nothing ambiguous about the fact that Jesus was referring to the transfiguration when He made His promise in Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1. And 2 Peter 1:16 verifies this. There are only those who don't want to acknowledge the reality of it.
Readers may refer back to post #1.
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.
.
