Matthew 16:27-28

[SteveF]

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.

I see it the same way. Just to clarify, I don't see him switching subjects entirely but rather see him pointing to the majesty of Mt Transfiguration as a direct revelation of His "power and coming". Mt Transfiguration seems to be a very significant experience to Peter.

Mellontes, we are so close in our understanding that I hesitated to even post this clarification.

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!!

Yes, I heartily agree!

[Mellontes]

Ezekiel 36:16-36
Similar to the above (Jeremiah). 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.[

Admittedly, a little more difficult. We know for a surety that verses 25-27 stand for the new covenant because we have all the canon of Scripture. They didn't. I would include verse 24 into that equation as well since it expresses a future event of "I will."

Ezekiel 36:24 - For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.

I am not so sure as you are that this strictly refers to the return from captivity. It is also very similar to the figurative description of the Gospel, also in many places of the OT.

and then (at that time)...

Ezekiel 36:25 - Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

These folks had a veil upon their hearts, but it is removed in Christ. <--- sounds like a desperation attempt...

As for the vision of the dry bones and the two sticks in the next chapter, I can only see this being fulfilled as the resurrection of Israel and being fulfilled in the church...

Ezekiel 37:27-28 - My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
28 And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.

Compare with:

2 Corinthians 6:16 - And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

I think what causes a lot of difficulties is our literal, physical understanding of the OT. The pharisees had the same problem. They refused to accept NT illumination (Christ and His Apostles) upon the OT texts. The dispensationalists do exactly the same thing.

Your other texts are going to demand much more time...

[Mellontes]

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.

I seem to see the divisions quite clearly, but then again, I just got new glasses a couple of months ago...

I have no trouble in holding to what you believe for Isaiah 10, but in Isaiah 11 we depart. Isaiah 11 gives two indications of a future time...

Isaiah 11:1 - And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:

"and there shall come forth" expresses a future event, although admittedly a vague one. And then there is a description for that future event for nine verses, and then, what I believe to be the clincher indicating a different day than what Isaiah was addressing in Isaiah 10 and that is Isaiah 11:10-11:

Isaiah 11:10-11 - And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. 11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.

"in that day" is obvious (at least to me) that there is a definite introduction of a new subject and time. And, of course, Paul in Romans 15:12 bears this out as the time of the inclusion of the Gentiles into the same Jewish promise...just as he had been trying to prove in three other OT texts (Romans 15:9 <-> Psalm 18:49, Romans 15:10 <-> Deut 32:43, and Romans 15:11 <-> Psalm 117:11)

I doubt that Isaiah's audience had much of a clue in understanding what Isaiah said in chapter 11, but then there is that nasty veil. The dispensationalists still have that same veil and take that passage to ignore the Jews and Gentiles as representing the lamb and the wolf - the clean versus the unclean (Acts 10). Would we not consider this the mystery of the church (inclusion of Gentiles to make one body of Jew and Gentile) that was hidden from these OT people?

I think for the other portions of Scripture I'll just chalk it down to the veil that was upon their hearts (2 Corinthians 3:14). But I will be glad to address a very specific passage - it is just that I have time constraints too. I hope I have not dissapointed. These things take time as you well know...

To me, the New Testament is a whole different ball of wax. Jesus Christ was the speaker in Matthew 16:27-28. He didn't speak in "veiled" terms to His disciples. They might not have understood everything, but He wasn't holding back anything they wouldn't understand at a later date. At least, that is the way I see it. We have the advantage of being able to look back at the OT with the additional NT illumination. It would be upon that exact basis that Christ was either received or rejected...

Blessings,

[Mellontes]

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.

I see it the same way. Just to clarify, I don't see him switching subjects entirely but rather see him pointing to the majesty of Mt Transfiguration as a direct revelation of His "power and coming". Mt Transfiguration seems to be a very significant experience to Peter.

Mellontes, we are so close in our understanding that I hesitated to even post this clarification.

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!!

Yes, I heartily agree!

Why don't you PM me? I would like to meet face to face some time. This text-based stuff is real horrific communication...I live in Oshawa as I think you know.

[steve]

Hi Mellontes,

You had originally asked for two examples. I simply decided to go the second mile. I was not trying to create extra work for you, since I did not post my examples as projects for you to explain away. I gave them (and could have given more) in order to establish conclusively a trend in prophetic passages, which I had earlier claimed to exist, and you, apparently not being that familiar with Old Testament prophecy (like most Christians), had asked for me to document. It is not necessary for you to comment on them, unless you wish to explain them away. However, attempts to do so will be futile and disingenuous. The phenomenon is there for anyone to observe—assuming they are not committed to an alternative paradigm.

Your comments about Isaiah 11 are a good example of how we inadvertently impose our ideas on the wording of a passage, rather than see the meaning of the words as they stand. You said that there are two indicators of a time change in Isaiah 11. The first was in the words "There shall come forth." Of course, there is not a word in this phrase indicating anything about timing. We know to apply it to a later time only because we live late enough to know that it did not occur immediately in proximity with the events described in chapter 10.

This is nothing but our advantage of hindsight (the same kind that could assist the disciples and us in knowing, for example, that the dead were not raised and the rapture did not occur in AD 70). Your taking the passage this way is simply an excellent demonstration of my point: We often don't and can't know if two events prophesied in the same place are to occur at the same time, until the events actually transpire.

The other indicator of a change of timing that you thought you found in Isaiah 11 was the expression, "in that day." Sorry, but this phrase does not mean "at another time." Taken by itself, it is more likely to mean "at the same time." Again, in hindsight, we recognize that "that day" was the coming of Christ, which occurred much later in time than the events of the previous chapter. One could never have reached that conclusion exegetically from the phrase, "In that day." In fact, one would deduce the opposite conclusion.

I suggest that you don't waste any further time trying to explain away these examples. It really can't be done without unwarranted creativity. Recognizing the correctness of my point on this does not require you to give up the whole farm. You do not have to apply the same principle to Matthew 16:27-28, as I have done, if you don't want to. I just appeal to this phenomenon to show why my approach to Matthew 16:27-28 is not necessarily inconsistent with the way prophecy is done, in scripture. Why not just accept this as a bit of biblical teaching from which you can learn something? Learning new things can actually be fun! I know, because I am doing it all the time!

[mikew]

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28 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 his kingdom. KJV

This passage may have been discussed previously on the forum and I would be glad to read that thread if someone can direct me to it. My question is whether verse 28 refers specifically to the resurrection while verse 27 appears to possibly refer to the second coming. I question that because in 27b he mentions rewarding every man according to his works. By the way, this thread is not meant to discuss faith vs. works nor dispensational vs. preterist views of the second coming unless either of these topics must be discussed to understand these verses. Just a friendly little ground rule.

livingink

If I were inclined to assign one of the verses to a resurrection, it would be verse 27 due to the similarity to John 5:28-29 and Dan 12:2

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, (29) And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. (KJVR)

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. (3) And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars forever and ever. (KJVR)

So the righteous would consist of those who had the good works. At the same time, Dan 12:2-3 precedes the kingdom as seen by the interpretation of Matt 13:43 (as part of the vv 37 to 43) which extended the Daniel passage to include mention of the kingdom.

Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Really then Matt 15:27-28 are tied to the same sequence, as could naturally be expected -- but of course there are exceptions.

[livingink]

Thanks mikew for pointing out a flaw in my original post. I should have said the resurrection of Jesus and not given the impression that I was referring to the future resurrection. Again thanks to all for the info so far as I have to teach this tonight.

livingink

[Mellontes]

Hi Mellontes,

You had originally asked for two examples. I simply decided to go the second mile. I was not trying to create extra work for you, since I did not post my examples as projects for you to explain away. I gave them (and could have given more) in order to establish conclusively a trend in prophetic passages, which I had earlier claimed to exist, and you, apparently not being that familiar with Old Testament prophecy (like most Christians), had asked for me to document. It is not necessary for you to comment on them, unless you wish to explain them away. However, attempts to do so will be futile and disingenuous. The phenomenon is there for anyone to observe—assuming they are not committed to an alternative paradigm.

Your comments about Isaiah 11 are a good example of how we inadvertently impose our ideas on the wording of a passage, rather than see the meaning of the words as they stand. You said that there are two indicators of a time change in Isaiah 11. The first was in the words "There shall come forth." Of course, there is not a word in this phrase indicating anything about timing. We know to apply it to a later time only because we live late enough to know that it did not occur immediately in proximity with the events described in chapter 10.

This is nothing but our advantage of hindsight (the same kind that could assist the disciples and us in knowing, for example, that the dead were not raised and the rapture did not occur in AD 70). Your taking the passage this way is simply an excellent demonstration of my point: We often don't and can't know if two events prophesied in the same place are to occur at the same time, until the events actually transpire.

The other indicator of a change of timing that you thought you found in Isaiah 11 was the expression, "in that day." Sorry, but this phrase does not mean "at another time." Taken by itself, it is more likely to mean "at the same time." Again, in hindsight, we recognize that "that day" was the coming of Christ, which occurred much later in time than the events of the previous chapter. One could never have reached that conclusion exegetically from the phrase, "In that day." In fact, one would deduce the opposite conclusion.

I suggest that you don't waste any further time trying to explain away these examples. It really can't be done without unwarranted creativity. Recognizing the correctness of my point on this does not require you to give up the whole farm. You do not have to apply the same principle to Matthew 16:27-28, as I have done, if you don't want to. I just appeal to this phenomenon to show why my approach to Matthew 16:27-28 is not necessarily inconsistent with the way prophecy is done, in scripture. Why not just accept this as a bit of biblical teaching from which you can learn something? Learning new things can actually be fun! I know, because I am doing it all the time!

I'm sorry if you think my thoughts were merely attempts to "explain things away." I thought I would be allowed opportunity to express openly and freely without the criticism. Fortunately, for me, I am able to go to the OT and interpret without the veil, and consequently I can see where the new topics start and end because of NT illumination. I am not trying to look at it from the perspective of an unbelieving Jew nor from a pre-first-advent viewpoint. I am in Christ, and because of that, the veil is gone. Poof! Anyway, I hope Luke 9:26 is as beneficial to you as it was for me...

Blessings,

[Paidion]

(I'm trying to think of a better word than manifistation but can't come up with one right now)

How about "manifestation"?

Sorry, Steve. I just couldn't pass that one up!

[SteveF]

(I'm trying to think of a better word than manifistation but can't come up with one right now)

How about "manifestation"?

Sorry, Steve. I just couldn't pass that one up!

You see? I knew there was something wrong with that word!

You're right Paidion, your word is much better!