Matthew 16:27-28

[livingink]

Thank you for the discussion so far. Preterist posts are always welcome as many of us tend to hold that view. Actually any post or view is welcome as long as it remains pertinent to the original question. One of my references expresses a line of reasoning where the coming in power as in Mark 9:1 refers to the resurrection of Jesus since the resurrection is something only God could do. The author is not dogmatic about this view but simply puts it forth as a possibility. Could someone clarify why AD70 would more accurately correspond to the coming Jesus was referencing in Matt. 16:28? I understand that the coming may refer to "coming in judgement" as opposed to "physically appearing".

livingink

[steve]

The reason I choose AD 70 among the various other possibilities for the fufillment of Matthew 16:28 (e.g., the transfiguration, Christ's resurrection, Pentecost) is that the prediction here seems to be identical to that of Matthew 24:30, 34, which (I think) points pretty clearly to AD 70. At least it points to something later than the other suggested fulfillments.

[Mellontes]

The reason I choose AD 70 among the various other possibilities for the fufillment of Matthew 16:28 (e.g., the transfiguration, Christ's resurrection, Pentecost) is that the prediction here seems to be identical to that of Matthew 24:30, 34, which (I think) points pretty clearly to AD 70. At least it points to something later than the other suggested fulfillments.

I agree and I have no problem with AD 70 for Matthew 16:28 and I have no problem with the Parousia event for Matthew 16:27. Hey, hey...that's a plug for our position

[Mellontes]

Thank you for the discussion so far. Preterist posts are always welcome as many of us tend to hold that view. Actually any post or view is welcome as long as it remains pertinent to the original question. One of my references expresses a line of reasoning where the coming in power as in Mark 9:1 refers to the resurrection of Jesus since the resurrection is something only God could do. The author is not dogmatic about this view but simply puts it forth as a possibility. Could someone clarify why AD70 would more accurately correspond to the coming Jesus was referencing in Matt. 16:28? I understand that the coming may refer to "coming in judgement" as opposed to "physically appearing".

livingink

Just off the top of my head (the part where no hair is), I would say it would be unreasonable to think that MOST of the people would have died by the time of Christ's resurrection. It wasn't that far away and Agabus hadn't yet prophesied of the great famine...just kidding about the last part. I tend to be somewhat humorous because these discussion can get quite "motivated" at times. This forum is very well behaved. Koodos to the moderator! Right now I am tending to divorce the transfiguration from Matthew 16:27-28, but I am not being dogmatic about it. <--- if you say something like that after making a point you can't get into trouble

[Mellontes]

Hi Steve F. May I ask one clarifying question before I attempt to answer? Well, actually two, if you count the one I am really interested in

Which advent do you suppose Peter meant by the phrase "the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" in 2 Peter 1:16?

I probably won't be able to respond by today, but I'll try. Definitely by noon tomorrow.

Blessings!

Hi Mellontes, I think the coming is referring to Peter's personal earthly encounter with him. This would fall under the first advent.

What I'm specifically pointing to is Peter seemed to point to Mt Transfiguration as a specific manifistation(I'm trying to think of a better word than manifistation but can't come up with one right now) of his "coming in His kingdom" statement. The fact that the Transfiguration happend days after Christ's promise also seems to indicate this was a part of his "coming in the kingdom" promise. I think it was ultimately fulfilled/manifested (there's that word again...if you can think of a better one let me know) in 70AD. That's my present understand of how these two verses relate to each other.

I realize what I'm trying to say is nuanced but I'm hoping you can pick up on what I 'm attempting to articulate. I may not have made it entirely clear.

SteveF

PS...no hurries getting back, take care of the important things first! Relatively speaking....

I am glad you chose the first advent. I have had people say that it spoke of the second advent (perhaps as a type or a practice session) of the transfiguration. I look at 2 Peter 1:16 where Peter tells his audience about how he had spoke of God's power in His first coming and then he switches to tell them of His majesty - which they got a glimpse of at the transfiguration; after all they were eyewitnesses.

It is such a pleasure to be on a forum where people try to abide by the hermeneutic of audience relevance and sincerely wish to compare Scripture with Scripture! Amen!!

[Mellontes]

Mellontes,

You asked for examples of the phenomenon of the prophets mixing short-term events with long-term events in the same oracles. Here are a very few of the numerous examples that are found in the prophets:

Isaiah 10:24—11:16
The chapter divisions, of course, are man-made. Chapter 10:24 introduces the promise that God will not allow Judah to fall (along with Samaria) to the Assyrian invaders. God will deliver Zion (Jerusalem) from this invasion. Before you know it, it is no longer the salvation of Jerusalem from Assyria, but the coming of the Messiah to save and restore (ch.11). There is no indication of a change in time of fulfillment, though the gap is one of seven centuries.

Isaiah 40—46
Throughout these chapters we find one, sustained prophecy of hope for the people of God, sometimes referring specifically to Cyrus (e.g., 41:2; 44:28; 45:1-4; 46:11) and the rescue from Babylon (43:14), intermixed with predictions about the coming of John the Baptist (e.g., 40:3-5) of Jesus (42:1-4), and of numerous developments that the New Testament writers apply to the new covenant era (e.g., 43:5-6; 44:3; 45:17, 23).

Jeremiah 31
A chapter beginning and ending with predictions of the restoration of Judah from Babylon, but containing (without notice of a change of subject) promises of the new covenant (e.g. vv.31-34) which was not established until 500 years later than that earlier restoration.

Ezekiel 36:16-36
Similar to the above. The best way to understand vv.25-27 is of the new covenant, though the verses just before and after this paragraph speak of restoring Judah from Babylon.

Zechariah 9
The chapter begins with the conquests of Alexander the Great, and progresses to the Macabbean war between Judah and the "sons of Greece"(v.13). In the midst of this discussion of events (that all occurred in pre-christian times), there is the prediction of God's sparing Jerusalem from Alexander's ravages (v.8). This is immediately followed by a glimpse forward to Christ's entering Jerusalem on a donkey, bringing salvation (v.9). Then, without notice, the view returns to the events post-Alexander, but pre-Christ.

This kind of mixing is a commonplace of prophetic writings. When a near-term event prefigures or agrees in principle with a more important far-term event, both seem to get discussed together.

I believe, as I have said, that Jesus is doing the same thing, in Matthew 16:27-28. I acknowledge that you have a good point in comparing the parallel in Mark 9, which mentions "this...generation." I would find it both convincing and unobjectionable, too. The main problem I have is the verbal similarities between Matthew 16:27 ans Matthew 25:31. The former speaks of Jesus coming in His Father's glory, with his holy angels, while the latter speaks of Christ coming in His own glory, and all the holy angels with Him. The language is nearly identical, suggesting identy of subject matter. My problem is that I can not bring myself to see the "sheep and the goats" judgment as applying to AD 70, at this point in my understanding (I do not see how the fate of the rebels in AD 70 subjected them to eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels). Perhaps I may someday change my mind. I suppose one might say that, in AD 70, Jesus came in His Father's glory, but, at the end of history, He will come in His own glory—which would allow your view of Matthew 16:27-28 and my view of Matthew 25:31...but that seems like a stretch to me, at this point.

You ask, if Matthew 16:27-28 has two different events in view, how were the disciples to know that these were two separate events? I suppose by the same means that Old Testament readers were to recognize two separate events in Zechariah 9, etc.: Either a) the Holy Spirit was to make it known to them, or, b) more likely, they were to learn simply by the outworking of history. They would already know well enough that "coming" was a word having generic application to God's judgments. If they expected that AD70 would result in the judgment of the whole world (as per v.27), then they would discover otherwise in due time, just as the Jews learned that the Messiah did not appear at the time of God sparing Jerusalem from Alexander's attacks. Jesus knew that many of His predictions would not be understood or fully appreciated prior to their fulfillments (John 13:19; 14:29; 16:4). We are assured that there were times when the disciples did not understand, prior to their fulfillment, Jesus' more cryptic predictions (e.g., John 2:21-22) or even some of His unvailed, plain predictions (e.g., Mark 9:31-32). Why should this be different?

While I accept that many references to Christ's "coming" are references to AD70, it seems a great stretch to say that He referred to AD70 and the destruction of Jerusalem in His references to His "coming" to Ephesus, Pergamos and Sardis. In what sense did He "come," at that time, to these cities? There was no judgment on those cities at the time of Jerusalem's destruction. Each of them met its end in its own time, though considerably later than AD70.

You are very concerned that we not allow ourselves to force scripture into a pre-accepted paradigm. Well, there are correct and incorrect paradigms. Those that arise from a faithful synthesis of the whole counsel of scripture provide a reliable framework by which to determine the correct interpretations of individual, unclear passages. Our paradigm itself must be capable of modification from new insights that various passages may provide in our future studies.

Every Bible student does this, as you yourself also do, whether inadvertently or consciously. Your paradigm seems to be: "It all happened in AD70." You appear to feel a compulsion to force even the most unpromising interpretations on certain passages in order to remain true to this pre-fabricated assumption.

I actually strive not to do that. I do not possess an a priori commitment to futurism, to preterism or to historicism. I actually do not have a position that I am interested in seeing proven. My own partial preterism is not a paradigm that I adopted, and then looked for ways to make obstinate passages conform to it. Partial preterism is simply a description of the position that I have tentatively reached as a result of my exegetical pursuit of the meaning of each passage. I would have no objection to learning that partial preterism is an incorrect synthesis, but such will require a more reasonable approach to hermeneutics than that which has been presented to me, to date, by full-preterists.

I can see that you have given me quite the homework assignment (which is good). I will say one thing before I sign off tonite.

When you said:

"The main problem I have is the verbal similarities between Matthew 16:27 and Matthew 25:31. The former speaks of Jesus coming in His Father's glory, with his holy angels, while the latter speaks of Christ coming in His own glory, and all the holy angels with Him. The language is nearly identical, suggesting identy of subject matter."

and:

"I suppose one might say that, in AD 70, Jesus came in His Father's glory, but, at the end of history, He will come in His own glory—which would allow your view of Matthew 16:27-28 and my view of Matthew 25:31...but that seems like a stretch to me, at this point."

Would this verse help to clarify things or make matters worse?

Luke 9:26-27 - For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels. 27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

This verse probably has so much in it that it might take a while to exhaust all of it. I know it exhausts me!
It seems to represent the same event just by the fact that Jesus puts a time statement associated with both the Son and Father glories. And that time stamp is that some would still be alive when it happened. That is, IF verse 27 is associated, and I see no reason why it wouldn't be. And if it isn't, why is it there?

[steve]

Good cross-reference! I guess that makes it not very reasonable to separate Jesus coming in His Father's glory from His coming in His own glory. Good point.

[Mellontes]

Good cross-reference! I guess that makes it not very reasonable to separate Jesus coming in His Father's glory from His coming in His own glory. Good point.

The implications that verse represents are very interesting...

I was hoping that you might be able to reduce your examples from your previous post to one specific passage of Scripture to illustrate your point. It would be a whole lot easier (for me ), but I will attempt it nonetheless - it is a tremendous amount of work...

Blessings!

[Allyn]

I am enjoying this study and would like to participate in it as time permits but so far it doesn't. I have time to ask, however, what paticular fulfilments does Jesus have left to do that He did not accomplish in His time on earth? I feel He fulfilled all prophecy concerning Himself but if the partial preterist says there is more then what are they?

[Mellontes]

Jeremiah 31
A chapter beginning and ending with predictions of the restoration of Judah from Babylon, but containing (without notice of a change of subject) promises of the new covenant (e.g. vv.31-34) which was not established until 500 years later than that earlier restoration.

Steve, I will tackle the smaller portions first...I have a feeling I might getted bogged down with the rest...

Jeremiah 31:31 - Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

To me, this does sound like a definite change of subject. The "days come" and "I will" speak of the future, but a vague future at that. I am just glad that you realize its fulfillment in the Gospel and not a dispensational millennial kingdom...

Blessings,