Is Is
there any way to make sense of the current "end times/last days"
confusion? Perhaps a sensible reading of the Bible makes more sense than
we think!
Jesus spoke of His
coming as happening while some of His listeners were still alive. Did the
Lord really mean that?
Does the language of
this passage point to something thousands of years in the future or something
about to happen in the time of Jesus' generation?
What does it really mean
that Christ comes "in the glory of His Father?" What does the
language of the Bible tell us?
At Christ's coming, He
was to "render to every man according to his deeds." What is
the Bible's teaching on that?
by Sam Frost
_______________________________________________________________
Welcome
to the first issue of the Millennial Post. Well, actually, this is not
the first issue. While in college, I, with the help of another brother, who
shall remain anonymous (he goes by the initials Thom Mesrobian),
produced a one page rag like the one here. It went by the same title. At that
time we were “postmillennial reconstructionists.”
For
those of you living on the moon, that lengthy label meant that we believed in a
second, visible coming of the Lord after (Latin - post) the so-called
1,000 years (Latin again - Mille annum), which is mentioned in Revelation
20:1-7. This millennial period symbolized the Gospel Age, which began in 70
A.D. (for those begging for yet more Latin -Anno
Domini for “in the year of the Lord”). This “age”
would continue until the conversion of the earth for Christ, more or less.
“Reconstruction”
is a word some might be familiar with. After any war there are always the
efforts of reconstruction. After the Civil War, for example, there was the
Reconstruction of the South. In Christian theology some hold to the idea that
the Bible contains the blueprints for government and penology. Most Christians
do not deny this point, and certainly European and American political theory
(especially early Colonial theory) used Christian laws. It is not impossible.
The
problem is two-fold, however. First, determining what is to be applied involves
serious consideration, and there is no wide agreement here. Secondly, not
everyone is Christian. How far does a Christian government go for unbelievers?
Toleration in the 13 States became a gigantic issue in the early stages of our
nation. Postmillennialism sought to solve the problem by asserting a conversion
by God through His own power over the masses. Therefore, there would not be
that many unbelievers to deal with. Christian government would be the result of
this conversion. Instead of gaining the upper-hand by top-down bureaucracy (by
coercion), it would be a bottom-up movement (from the converted masses).
This
is just one among three other alternatives in Christianity. Crazy?
Quite. That is the part of the problem. The subjects
in Systematic Theology, which is nothing more than the attempt of arranging the
Bible in such a way so that it makes logical sense, are divided into several
sections. Eschatology deals with the “end times” (the Greek word “eschatos” means “last, end, final”).
Those
not familiar with ten-dollar words might be familiar with seeing a preacher on
TV talking about “Jesus coming again,” and “the end is near,” and (always my
favorite), “get ready!” This view is found in popular novels like Hal Lindsey*s
The Late Great Planet Earth and the massive seller Left Behind by
Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. It posits a massive “tribulation” period of
unparalleled bloodshed before Jesus returns,
literally, in the very clouds you see everyday.
This
is called premillennialism (“prae”
for “before”). Jesus will return before the 1,000 years. The 1,000 years will
literally be on earth, in
Another
view, if you are not exhausted already, is called amillennialism
(“a-” when prefixed to a noun, negates its meaning). Amillennialists do
not deny a millennium, but, like the postmillennialist, do not see any reason
to take it as a literal period of time like the premillennialist.
Nor do they think that the earth must be first converted into a Christian
culture. Christendom is an admixture of truth and error.
Christianity
has made great cultural strides, but, the church has equally partaken of great
sins, sins all too easily pointed out in her history. For this view, then,
things pretty much continue the way they are. There is progression to be sure,
there is growth, but the unbeliever grows right alongside the church as well.
All of this occurs until the “end of the age” when the Lord returns.
What
might be noticed in all three of these views is that they posit a future,
visible return of the Lord. They equally posit that at that time the
resurrection of the dead will occur. There is some difference here as well.
Some hold that the body that is in the grave will
literally rnaterialize (recomposition)
and come out of the grave. It will also be able to pass through matter (in this
case, a casket and dirt). It will be the same body, but entirely transformed
and perfect. Yet, others see the body that was buried as remaining in the
grave, for the most part. The person, however, will be given a new body.
If
there are any unbelievers reading this, then I advise to take a pause, shake
your head in disbelief, grab a drink, and continue to read.
In
the last two hundred years there has been a virtual revolution in eschatological
studies. Noted scholar N.T. Wright observes that, “Twentieth-century
scholarship has at least one great advantage over its predecessors... .it has been realized that Jesus must be understood in
his Jewish context” [1].
What
this means is that when we interpret the words and events of Jesus in the
gospel accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), we must be aware of the time
in which he lived; the cultural and historical setting; the language and
figures of speech; and the current theological movements. In short, Jesus did
not speak to twenty-first century Americans, but to first-century
Aramaic/Hebrew/Greek speaking Jews. Our Lord, indeed, said “salvation is from
the Jews” (John
What
does this mean for believers today? Well, first off, it means that if we are to
understand Jesus and salvation today, we must not short-cut what it meant to
them in that day. If it has any meaning for us, and it most certainly does,
then we must first understand what it meant to them. There are no short-cuts.
Earlier,
I had mentioned that, because of the differing views as to how the world will
come to an end, a problem has been created in the subject of eschatology. Which
view is correct? It would seem that if the Bible is to be heard on this
subject, then it would be more clear. By the divergency of views, however, this “clear-ness” goes out
the window.
I
have only touched upon the tip of the iceberg. In premillennialism
alone there are the schools of historic premillennialism,
and dispensationalism. Within dispensationalism
there are pre-tribulation rapturists, mid-tribulation
rapturists, and post-tribulation rapturists.
Is there, yet still, another approach? Most certainly.
This
last approach is a new comer (19th century), but it does build off from a
historic line that goes back to the second century A.D. It takes full advantage
of the scholarship noted by N.T. Wright above. It is, however, under two
obligations. It must explain the mess of non-agreement in this area of thought.
Why
are there so many divergent views in this area, when, at the same time, each
group, amillennialists, postmillennialists, and premillennialists, all agree on the other fundamentals of
the faith concerning the deity of Jesus, the Trinitarian expression (God is one
God and three Persons), and the infallibility of Scripture, to name a few? If
the Bible is clear on these matters so as to produce widespread agreement among
the various denominations, then why are we so far apart concerning eschatology?
This must be answered, and, at the same time, offer a clear approach from the
Bible that makes logical sense. That is the second obligation.
For
example, take this passage in the Gospel According to Matthew (
If
we consider this discourse as being written in the first century, and, further,
being spoken in or around 32 A.D. (when Jesus was ministering), then we can
locate the audience he was addressing. Some were “standing* there with Jesus in
Caesarea Philippi, a northern district in
We
can also note that the phrase, “he will repay to each person according to his
or her deeds” is found a few times in the Hebrew Scriptures. In Psalm 28:4, for
example, it reads, “Repay them according to their work.” There, David is
beseeching God to repay his enemies. There is no indication here that the
“repayment” is at some end of the world. God can “repay the wicked here and
now, in time and history. In 62:12 we have the same sentiment.
Equally,
in Proverbs 24:12 we find no need to posit an end of the world event in order
for God to “repay” either for good or bad deeds. Finally, we find in Ecclesiasticus 35 we find the same idea: God rewards and
punishes in time and history. This time of repayment need not be the end of
history.
Secondly,
we have the most clear expression of all: “some
standing here now will not die until they see the son of man coming in his
kingdom.” This can mean only one of three things:
1.
Either some of the disciples of Jesus then standing with him in 32 A.D.
are still alive today, making them nearly 2,000 years old (if it be supposed
that Jesus has not yet “come in his kingdom”);
2.
Jesus came in his kingdom with the glory of his father and his repayment
to the wicked and righteous (Revelation
3.
Jesus was just plain wrong.
Which
one makes sense and preserves the truth of Scripture? Obviously, if Jesus came
again in the generation of those original disciples, then the earlier views we
mentioned must be immediately asked: How do they deal with this passage? We
will cover this question in our next installment.
_____________________________________________________________
Footnote
[1] – Wright, N.T. Jesus and the Victory of God Fortress Press, 1996
_____________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
More on Matthew 16:27,
28
(Part Two on Matthew
16:27-28)
by Sam Frost
_______________________________________________________________
Matt
In
the previous issue we left off in Matthew where Jesus had specifically given
the time of the coming in his kingdom (Matthew
The
grammar is not necessarily the issue. Semantics, on the other hand, is the
issue. What does “coming in his kingdom” mean? This is where the issue becomes
divided, and it is my obligation to fairly represent the views that have been
given.
In
every commentary I have read on this passage, none mistake the “nearness”
aspect. Unquestionably, Jesus is saying that something is going to happen in
their time, even before some of them die. The fact that Jesus says, “some”
implies that some will, in fact, die before this event.
This
allows us to deduce that the event, though near (within their generation), is
also far off. So far off that some standing before Jesus would die. We have,
then, two notions of time: near (within their time) and far off (some would die
before the event occurs). Basically, Jesus has in mind his own contemporary
generation and their passing away.
With
this analysis being sound enough, let us investigate one school of thought.
This first line states that what Jesus was referring to is the transfiguration
on the mountain. The “transfiguration” of Jesus continues directly after these
words mentioned above (Matthew 17:1 ff.).
In
the transfiguration, Jesus becomes so changed that his face is likened to the
sun, and his garments are white as light (17:2). Moses and Elijah are said to
have appeared as well. Now, this is just “six days” after Jesus uttered the
words with which we are dealing (17:1). Finally, in the climax of the scene,
God speaks from heaven “This is my son, in whom I am
pleased Hear him!” (17:5).
The
argument runs, then, that since Jesus appeared in glory with Moses and Elijah,
and since this occurs directly after Jesus* utterance that some standing there
would not die until they “saw” the son of man coming in his kingdom, it follows
that this is what he was referring to. In another variation of this argument,
the transfiguration points to the end time “coming” at the close of history.
Thus the ones “standing here” saw a glimpse of that final coming.
It
is quite obvious, however, that this cannot be the case. Jesus had mentioned
before that the son of man would come in his father*s glory, with his angels,
and would then judge each man according to their deeds (
This
may be the case, but it does not follow that the transfiguration answers all
that Jesus said would occur when he “comes.” The transfiguration guaranteed the
coming of the Son*s kingdom, and was a manifestation of that very kingdom, but
it cannot be said to be the “coming of his kingdom.” The New Testament authors
still anticipate a coming kingdom as well as the rewards to each man for their
deeds far after the transfiguration.
The
other obvious factor is concerning the time implication that some would die.
The transfiguration occurred just six days after the utterance! How many
“standing” died in just six days? Matthew tells us that only John, James and
Peter witnessed the transfiguration (17:1). This would mean, then, that the
“some” that would not die only refers to those three! In effect, Jesus would be
saying, “John, Peter and James will not die in the next six days until they see
the coming kingdom.”
From
a textual standpoint, then, this view becomes untenable. The “death” mentioned
in the text is stated just after Jesus announced that following him would be
costly, even at the expense of ones life (
Others
have suggested the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2, but this fails to
meet the objections listed above: there were no angels, and no one was judged
according to their deeds. And, again, the time factor comes into play as well.
The force of the fact that some would die implies a lengthy amount of time, and
Pentecost does not reach that length.
Still,
others have suggested the ascension of Jesus. Here, Jesus is taken up into
glory, angels are with him, and certainly this can be construed as Jesus coming
in his kingdom. The object towards which this “coming” is becomes the issue. Is
the idea that Jesus is coming “with” his kingdom “to” earth? Or, is Jesus
coming “into” his kingdom by approaching the father*s throne and receiving it?
This
view has merits to it in that it fulfills some requirements. But, to be
consistent, it must fulfill all of the requirements: angels, a coming, his father*s glory, the kingdom, and judging each man according
to their deeds. The latter concern is not met at the ascension. When did Jesus
judge “each man according to their deeds” when he ascended? The time factor
equally rules this out the same way it rules out Pentecost.
Before
moving on, we must consider two more approaches. This next to last attempt is
noble. It combines the elements of the ascension of Jesus, but adds a dimension
of time; a successive order of events. First, Jesus comes in glory, and this is
found in the ascension (he comes “into” glory when he ascended). Second, the
“father and his angels” are obviously present at this coming in heaven. Third,
at the end of history, of which no man knows the day or hour, he will judge
each man according to his deeds
Looks
attractive, doesn*t it? One problem: Jesus stated
that when he comes in his kingdom then” he would judge all men (the Greek text
clearly states the link). You cannot separate the events by thousands of years.
Finally, it dismisses the “some standing here” factor. Obviously, they are dead
already, and according to this view Jesus has not yet judged all men at the end
of history. Either Jesus is false, the text is uncertain, or our interpretation
must be abandoned for one that incorporates all of these factors. We cannot
overlook any consideration.
The
last attempt we will consider is rather ingenious. It divides
These
advocates, however, state that verse 28*s “coming” is
How
is such a view justified? In the same way as others have approached this text,
the coming of the kingdom was when the
Yet,
I ask again, how was
In
the New Testament we find that the kingdom was something that was going to
occur, and that the judgment of all men would occur when it comes. Indeed, this
was Paul*s message (Romans 2:6 is the same phrase found in Matthew
What
is of equal importance in Paul and John is that they saw themselves as living
“near” that coming. In the words of John*s revelation,
“Behold! I come soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to
everyone according to their deeds” (Revelation
If
one considers that Jesus told John specifically that some standing would not
die, then the implication is clear. John, now much
older, was still alive when he penned Revelation. The word of the Lord Jesus
was that the kingdom would come while some were living. Many had already died
who heard the message of Jesus, and walked with him. The logical conclusion for
John, then, is “it is at hand.” It must be, unless our Lord was a liar.
Consider
also this: John was one of the witnesses of the transfiguration and he uses the
same words of Jesus as it relates to rewarding all men. Clearly, then, he is
looking forward, not backward. Yet, he writes that this coming kingdom is
“near,” “soon,” “at hand.” It makes sense to write “soon” when you have been
told by the Lord himself that many in your generation would live to see the
coming kingdom.
If
you were nearing death because of old age, as John was when he wrote
Revelation, then it follows by clear observation that this coming must be
around the corner, because the generation is almost all dead! To believe that
John had thousands of years in view when speaking of the “near-ness” must be
proven. The burden of proof is on the one saying that “near” does not mean
“near.”
With
this brief analysis being laid out, one might notice what I am advocating. But,
since the other views are hardly helpful, and shamelessly lacking in exegetical
integrity, then what harm is there to consider another alternative? This
alternative does not seek to stretch the time and does not divide up the text
in order to conform to a preconceived notion about the timing of the second
corning.
Basically,
Jesus told his disciples that some of them would not die until the son of man
comes in his father*s glory, with the angels, and would at that time reward
each man according to their deeds. This coming is the coming of the
Secondly,
and I made brief mention of this in the last letter, the verb in verse 27 is,
in the Greek text, “about to come,” further denoting the “near-ness” of the
time. Thus, exegetically, everything in this passage tells me that this coming
was to be expected in their generation, before all of them had died.
But
how can this be? Did Jesus reward “each man” already? Isn*t
the end of the universe as we know it supposed to occur, being burned to a
cinder? When did any of this happen? Since it is seen as impossible to assert
that the Final Coming of the Lord has already occured
(near the end of their generation), then the text we are dealing with must be
interpreted in such a way that it yields to the conclusion that Jesus was not
talking about his coming at the end of time. He was talking about his
ascension, or transfiguration or maybe, as many standard commentaries have
suggested, the judgment on
It
seems that we will twist the text in order for it to not say what in fact it is
saying! For some reason, we cannot possibly entertain the notion that Jesus
came again in his father*s glory, with the holy angels, and rewarded each man
according to their deeds within that generation of them “standing” before the
Lord. Why? This is the plain meaning of the text in question.
In
order to do justice to the text, let us suppose that the plain ordinary meaning
is what it is. Let us, for a moment, suspend our notions of the second coming
as we have been taught in the church. The question is, then, — granted that
Jesus is foretelling that he would come again in that generation — does the rest of Scripture bear this out?
In
other words, is it possible from the light of Scripture to show in fact that he
did indeed come again within their time? If this view is false, and if my
interpretation of this passage is faulty, then surely there is no harm in
testing it with other Scriptures. If it is false, then Scriptures will bear
this out. But, equally, if it is true, arid if the Scriptures support it, then
we have to make radical changes in the way we have approached this topic of the
second coming.
The
next study will deal with the topics of the son of man*s “coming in his
father*s glory, with the angels, and then he shall reward each man according to
their deeds.” What do these three designations mean? Does the Bible mention the
“father*s glory” anywhere else? Rewards? Coming with
the angels? Is this a spiritual event, or purely physical, or both? What would
this “look” like when it did, in fact, occur? Does the Bible answer these
questions? I think you are in for a surprise. Stay tuned!
_____________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
More on Matthew 16:27,
28
(Part Three on Matthew
16:27-28)
by Sam Frost
____________________________________________________
Matt
These
are the verses that we have been dealing with over the past two issues. We have
dealt with the various interpretations put forward, and have found each of
them, in some way, wanting. They either do not take the time references
seriously, or, with no exegetical “cue" whatsoever, divide the verses into
two completely different “comings.” Verse 27 refers to the ‘final, Second
Coming' and verse 28 refers either to the “coming' in
We
have assumed that:
1.
There are no reasons to make such a break. Both “comings” refer to only
one event, not two.
2.
70 AD fits perfectly with the time locutions, which is roughly a generation
(40 years).
Our
task is now, how? How can
Let
it be said at the outset that if the above assumption concerning the Second
Coming's global catastrophe is correct, then obviously, the events of AD 70 cannot
be that! The question then is, “Is this picture, this interpretation,
correct? Does the Bible teach that when Christ comes
again the globe and her surrounding planets, the stars, and the moon are all
literally dissolved?” We think not. And this is the case we set out
to prove. First off, we will take verse 27, piece by piece and see if
what happened in AD 70 can be construed in those terms.
Our
first phrase is “For the son of man shall come” (Greek transliteration: mellei gar ho huios tou anthropou erchesthai).
Greek is not English, therefore, it is necessary
to look at the Greek text. The first word in the Greek sentence is not “for”
but “he is ready to” (mellei). The word is listed as
“mello” (Strong’s 3195) in the Greek dictionaries. I will try and avoid being
technical as much as possible, but sometimes, it becomes necessary. We cannot
leave any stone unturned.
The
verb “mello” is used 109 times in the New Testament (NT). The primary
meaning of this verb is “ready.” 1. mello, “to be
about to,” is translated “to be ready” (from Vine's Expository Dictionary of
Biblical Words). Again, the Baur, Arndt and
Gingrich Greek Lexicon lists the meanings from order
of primary to possible. In that dictionary, “mello” is translated as an event
that will “certainly take place.” Also, as an event “on the point of” occurring
or “about to” occur.
Now,
in any consideration of words, context plays a major role for a given
meaning. Therefore, let us look at several other verses where this verb is used
in the NT. First off, let us see Matthew's usage, since it is in Matthew's
Gospel that we are primarily concerned with. In
These
verses are all plainly referring to events “about to” unfold on the horizon.
They were not thousands of years off. In fact, the NIV translates this verb 22
times as “about to,” more than any other available meaning (hence, the “primary
meaning”).
Now,
to be fair, it is not always translated this way, and we must note a few of
those passages as well that translate the verb with different words. For
example, the phrase “this age and the age to come” is used with this verb, and
some have translated it as “the age about to come” meaning that, in the time of
the apostles, they expected the “age to come” to arrive within their time
(Matthew
Sometimes,
17 times in the NIV, it is translated simply with the future verb “will.” Like, “the devil will put some of you in prison to test you” (Rev.
2:10) and “you will hear of wars and rumors of wars” (Mt. 24:6).
However, in the first example, it is clear that those living in
Another
major option for this verb in translation is “going to.” In Mark 10:32, Jesus
told them “what was going to happen to him.” John
Here
is the point: in every case of this verb's occurrence the idea is that
something is about to occur in the near future and not something thousands of
years off, whether translated “will,” “going to” or “about to.” Context is
always crucial for defining word-meaning.
One
thing that has happened in the last hundred years is the explosion of Bible
translations. These have been welcomed to some extent, but to another, have
caused a great deal of confusion. The criticism is largely aimed at the
translations reflecting a theological bias, rather than sticking to a “literal”
word-for-word rule. In my years of studying Hebrew and Greek, and pouring over
several translations, I have certainly noticed what these scholars are alarmed
about. Like I said in the beginning, Greek is not English, and the nuance of
Greek is many times lost in translation, or
reflects the bias of the translation committee. In noting every usage of this
verb “mello,” it is unquestionable in my judgment that such a bias has gone on.
Let us, then, work through a few more examples to see what I mean.
The
verb in question occurs frequently within contexts of eschatology, and in every
case, is translated with a vague English future verb like “will” and never
“about to,” In Acts alone, the judgment “will come” instead of the judgment
“about to” come. Or, the resurrection “to come” instead of
“about to come.” Or “he will judge the world” instead of “he is about to
judge the world.” (Acts 17:31; 24:15; 24:15, respectively).
Why? Is it possible that the bias surrounding the theology of the Second Coming
has come out in these renderings? The judgment and resurrection could not be
so near to the apostles' future, so it is assumed. therefore,
the translation reflects this understanding.
Let
me make this point once again. If the Second Coming, the judgment and the
resurrection are said to be literal, global, entirely catastrophic, earth-ending,
time-ending, history-ending events, then OBVIOUSLY these events could not have
occurred near to their time, in their generation. Therefore, the plain meaning
of the Greek verb is translated accordingly, not with regards to the actual
verb and its overwhelming usage in contexts of events “soon to occur,” but in
accordance with an assumed futuristic, cataclysmic globe-ending event which has
yet to happen. Bias? Definitely.
It
begs the question as to whether or not this futuristic globe-ending eschatology
is correct as it is assumed to be. We are challenging this very notion today in
accordance with the Scriptures. I challenge any one of you readers to get a
concordance, find this verb, look at all 109 entries and ask yourself if
“thousands of years” are meant. In each verse, a translator is given the
decision to translate using “about to,” “going to,” “will,” or “to come” with
this verb. There is a choice. Why then, is one placed over the other? Because a
theology controls much of what goes in translating.
As
one who works in translating, I have done this myself, and in many ways, it is
inescapable. We have to render it something. But, in the case of this verb, the
overwhelming contexts are decidedly something that is “about to” take place. In
contexts concerning eschatology, however, it is a vague, distant future that
has yet to occur. There is no other reason to do this other than “Paul did not
expect the resurrection in his own time, therefore, we must translate this as
“will come” instead of “about to come.”
In
the verses quoted at the beginning of this issue, the “son of man is about to
come” is a possible translation, equally assuming a particular view
(that he came again before that generation “tasted death” entirely). However,
there is one decided advantage for our case: In most of the instances of the
109 occurrences of this verb, the near future is obvious to all. The NIV
translates “mello” 22 times as “about to,” 18 times as “going to” and 17 times
as “will”. In the first two options, every context is the immediate future. In
the final option (“will”) most are clearly the immediate future, I say “most”
because “will” is used with “resurrection” and judgment and is left as a vague,
distant, yet to occur future. I think in every case
the verb has behind it something that is “about to occur” and that the
Scriptures can faithfully prove this.
Thus,
we set out to show that the phrase “the son of man is about to come” has a
strong possibility of being something in the near future to occur. And we are
not finished. The context sharpens the idea further. How? Well, we have noticed
that the verb has “nearness” as its primal meaning. Now, in verse 28, the
meaning is sharpened: “I tell you the truth, some of you standing here shall
not taste death until you see the son of man coming in his kingdom!” Jesus is,
then, saying, “The son of man is about to come in the near future.. .in fact, I truly say to you, that this coming is so near
that some of you standing here are going to see it!” No one can deny the nearness
of the fact that “some standing” before Jesus would “see” the coming kingdom
themselves. Then why deny the primal meaning of the verb “mello' in the very
same context? Further, “mello” connects verse 27 to verse 28, for
they both speak of a near future event: the “coming.”
In
the NT usage of the verb, in contexts of eschatology, it becomes clear why this
verb was used. Jesus promised that their generation would not pass until these
things were accomplished, so “the age,” “the resurrection,” “the wars and
rumors of wars,” the “judgment” and the “wrath” are all used with this verb
throughout the NT. Why? Did they hear Jesus correctly? Did they think that some
of the “living” would be around to “see these things?” I have, then,
demonstrated that this first phrase certainly fits within the time of 70 AD.
All exegetical burdens have been traced and found to be in accordance with our
premise: Christ came a second time within their generation, in AD 70.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
More on Matthew 16:27,
28
(Part Four on Matthew
16:27-28)
by Sam Frost
____________________________________________________
Matt
This
study has, in the last three issues, made these points about Matthew 16:27,28:
1.
The context is decidedly referring to the second appearance (Hebrews
2.
These verses refer to one ‘coming,* rather than two.
3.
The time factor of verse 27 is the same as verse 28. That is, the coming
was to take place within that generation. Finally, the apostles themselves
fully expected the Lord to return within their lifetime on the basis of what He
said here.
Before
moving on, however, I want to quote the venerable A.T. Robertson (1879-1934).
He is regarded as one of the finest scholars of Greek across denominational
lines. His work speaks for itself. In perhaps his most popular work, Word
Pictures in the New Testament, he had this to say about our text in
Matthew. “Does Jesus refer to the Transfiguration, the Resurrection of Jesus,
the Great Day of Pentecost, the Destruction of Jerusalem, the Second Coming and
Judgment? We do not know, only that Jesus was certain of his final
victory which would be symbolized in various ways” (emphasis mine). I will let
this speak for itself, for it shows that without having the proper time frame
of those then living, then one is left with skepticism regarding many passages
of the New Testament.
We
studied the Greek word “mello” (Strong’s 3195) in the last issue,
denoting its meaning as “about to.” We translated accordingly, “For the Son of
Man is about to come,” meaning, within their lifetime; the “some
standing here.” Now we move on to consider the more descriptive elements of
that coming. “For the Son of Man is about to come in His
Father*s glory.” The Greek word here, doxa
(Strong’s 1391), appears a great deal in the New Testament (166 times).
Are
there any contexts in which the nearness of this glory is alluded to in the
later epistles? Yes. Peter, who stood before Jesus and is now writing nearly 30
years after these words were uttered, wrote, “The elders which are among you I
exhort, who am also a fellow-elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and
the sharer of the glory which is about to be revealed” (1 Peter
5:1). Here is our friend “mello” again in the same context with the
“glory” that is “revealed.” The Greek word for “revealed” here is “apokalupto,” (Strong’s 601) from which we get
“apocalypse.”
Peter
spoke of the salvation to his audience in the first century as “ready to
be revealed in the last time” (1:5). The same Greek word “apokalupto” is used, referring to the same event of
5:1 quoted above. Also, “of which salvation the prophets have enquired. . .who prophesied the grace which is for you.” For who? For them, and also for us, but it was revealed to
them in the first century. Further, these prophets were “searching for what, or
what sort of time. . .of Christ, when the
Spirit testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories
after.”
Finally,
it was revealed that the prophets spoke not of their own times, but of the
first century, “that not of themselves, but to you which now were
announced to you through the ones who evangelized you” (
Two
things: Paul repeats the same idea in Acts 26:22. There, Paul said, “That
Christ should suffer, that he should rise from the dead, and should show light
to His people and the Gentiles.” This “showing light” is akin to “revealing”
the “glories to come.” The second consideration is that both Paul and Peter
claim that the “glories to follow” are rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures, namely,
the Prophets. With the words of the apostles I want to add the words of Jesus
Himself. “Then he said to them, ‘Foolish and slow of heart to believe on all
things which spoke the prophets: ought not Christ to suffer these
things and enter into His glory?” And beginning at Moses and all
the prophets, he explained to them in all the Scriptures concerning
Himself (Luke 24:25,26). Now, that would have been a
true seminary course on the prophets! Imagine!
In
the Old Testament, as it is unfortunately called, we find a wealth of passages
concerning the glory of the Lord. We may assume, then, that the Prophets
“foretold” the “times” of the first century world concerning the congregations
of Peter and Paul, as they clearly and without question stated above.
Therefore, in following sound logical principles, we may look at any of the
prophets to see exactly what the nature of this “glory” is.
Since
the prophets are unquestionably alluded to, we may refer to Daniel the prophet.
Daniel 7 shows us that during the reign of the fourth beast, the “son of man”
would “come on the clouds of heaven” and “receive all power, glory and honor”
when he approaches the Ancient of Days (7:9-14). It can be attested throughout
church history that
What
is also reported in Daniel, by the inspiration of the Spirit, is that during
that time the “saints” (
In
Daniel, the verb is future. In the days of the fourth beast, near the end of
national
So,
from this, we can see that the “glories” to follow included the glorification
of Christ with the Father, and His receiving glory from the Father. But, Jesus
is not only saying in Matthew 16:27 that he would come “into” glory, but would
come “in” glory. There is no doubt of the relationship between the reception of
glory and the coming in glory. And we must not separate the sharing of this
glory with the saints. The “glories” (plural) are all connected together in the
glory of Christ and the “coming on the clouds of heaven in power and great
glory” (Matthew 24:30) in 70 AD.
This
last quoted passage is from Jesus* Olivet Discourse or Minor Apocalypse,
because the material therein is in response to the question: “...when is the
end of the age?” (24:3) The disciples had been
marveling over the temple and the buildings, and Jesus, seeing this, said,
“...not one stone will be left upon another...” In 70 AD, within that
generation (24:34), the ”stones” were broken down by
the Romans. This historical event is seen by Jesus as his “coming on the clouds
of the sky, with power and great glory.” The parallel to Matthew 16:27,28 is too noticeable to miss.
Instead
of taking the time to go through all of chapter 24, I will let the history of
the church speak on this matter. In Origen (185-254
AD) we find the “gospel of Jesus Christ preached in the whole world under
heaven.” Also, “while
Augustine
(354-430 AD), in the Harmony of the Gospels relates Matthew 24 to the
“destruction of the temple” [2]. Finally, of that early period (and much, much
more can be said), John Chrysostom (347-407) wrote Homilies
of the Gospel of Saint Matthew. There, he wrote, “Did all the vengeance
come upon that generation? It is quite plain that it was so,
and no man gainsays it” [3].
I
want to move on, however, to modern, evangelical exegetes. Jay E. Adams, for
example, sees all of Matthew 24:1-35 as fulfilled. Kenneth Gentry, Marcellus J.
Kik, George Grant, R.C. Sproul, Sr., and many other respected
men do as well. In this, however, they disagree with the “fathers.”
Augustine does not go the whole way these men do, nor does Chrysostom.
He stops just short of verse 28. Then he wrote, “having finished what concerned
John
Lightfoot (1602-1675), who participated in the assembly as a Divine for the
Westminster Confession of Faith, interpreted 24:30 as referring to
Let
it be said that careful exegesis can show that Matthew 24:30 and
[1] Ante-Nicene Fathers, 4.
[2] Nicene Fathers, 6.
[3] Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 10.
[4] ibid.
[5] Commentary on the New Testament from the
Talmud and Hebraica.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
More on Matthew 16:27,
28
(Part Five on Matthew
16:27-28)
by Sam Frost
____________________________________________________
Matt
Let
it be said that I am convinced by conscience and Scripture that in Matthew
16:27,28 Jesus is unequivocally stating that he would
“come in glory” within the life span of that generation “standing before him. I
have seen no Scriptural reasons to reject this. I also stress that I am willing
to debate anyone on this matter. If you, the reader, have found that I am
twisting the Scriptures of God, or that I am abusing those words to mean
something that they do not, then your only recourse is to ‘correct” this brother
in light of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16). Luther stated what
was the foundation of the Reformation of the 16th century, “My conscience is
bound by God's words. Retract anything whatsoever I neither can nor
will. For to act against one's conscience is neither safe nor
honorable.”
Luther was aware that he was “going against the grain” in both method of interpreting Scripture (grammatico-historical method, which means paying attention to the original context of audience and author), and doctrine (“justification by faith”). He stated, “If anyone of the saintly fathers can show that his interpretation is based on Scripture, and if Scripture proves that this is the way it should be interpreted,