Taking Christ At His Word
(Matthew 16:27-28)
Daniel E. Harden
The
Preterist key to understanding the message of the New Testament is really quite
simple and straightforward – accept the words said and written in their normal,
everyday understanding, unless there is some reason to interpret them
otherwise. After all, most of the New Testament was written as simple
letters and explanations to the common populous of a very young Christian
movement, not as shrouded prophecies cloaked in mysterious language.
The sole
exception in the entire New Testament is the book of Revelation, which was
written specifically as a prophetic book, and as such needs to be understood
within the hermeneutics of prophetic writings. While Revelation is not
the only prophecy in the New Testament, it does stand alone as the only book
that is strictly prophetic, and should therefore require special handling.
But
understanding the words of Christ, Paul, and the other New Testament writers should
not require such special handling unless they are specifically delving into
what we might term prophetic poetry. And despite what might be said about
such passages as the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24-25, Mark 13, Luke 21) and the
resurrection passages written by Paul in such passages as 1 Corinthians 15 and
1 Thess. 4, they were NOT uttered in the context of prophetic prose, such as we
find in the many Old Testament prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.
Neither
Christ in the gospels, nor Paul in his epistles employed such imagery as is
characteristic of prophetic prose. Both referred to prior prophecies, but
neither spoke in deliberately vague and symbolic ways. Neither sought to
be vague by giving generalities without knowing specifics. Christ certainly
spoke in parables, which are really nothing more than word illustrations, but
these parables were not prophetic visions so much as ways of depicting the
Truths of the Kingdom.
When not
telling parables, however, Christ was quite candid about what He meant.
And when Christ was specific about things that were going to happen, the
apostles took Him very literally at His word. And so should we.
For
example, is there any doubt about Christ’s words when He was prophesying about
what would happen to Him?
|
|
Matthew 17:22-23 Now while they were staying in |
|
Did “the
third day” mean three millennia? Did it mean three days after some
reassembled Jewish community? Did it mean three “days, as a day is to
God”, or some such convolution? Not at all. The cornerstone of the
Christian faith is that Christ said He would rise on the third day, and then
consequently He did it.
|
|
1 Corinthians 15:3-4 For I delivered to you first of all that
which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the
Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day
according to the Scriptures. |
|
Christ wasn’t
vague, but was quite clear. And the disciples took Him at his word -
|
|
Matthew 16:21-23 From that time Jesus began to show to His
disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the
elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the
third day. Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying,
"Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!'' But He
turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to
Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.'' |
|
The
question that needs to be asked, then, of each and every believer, is -
“Do you
take Christ at His word?” Of course one and all would say “Yes!”
Do you?
Are you sure?
Among many
of the things we find in the gospel of Matthew, where Christ is very specific,
are three passages which become a thorn in the side of any Christian who
believes they take Christ at His word and yet still looks for a future Second
Coming, one that rivals the political coming that the Jews of the first century
expected. How can the Christian condemn the Jew for not understanding
that the coming of the Messiah was not political, when they in fact are looking
for the exact same thing? And yet in the passages in the gospel of Matthew,
didn’t Christ put a clear time frame on His Coming?
Case 1:
Christ was sending out disciples to preach the good news of the Kingdom
in chapter 10. And part of His directive is this verse -
|
|
Matt.10:23 “But when they persecute you in this city, flee to
another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through
the cities of |
|
This was
spoken to a distinct group of people – those going forth. Unless one
believes that those men are still out there spreading the word, one must conclude
that this has already been fulfilled. Note this was a directive, not a
generalization. The target audience was those first century followers,
not any subsequent believers that came along. Either the Son of Man came,
or those groups of men are still out there somewhere.
Case 2:
Matthew 16:27-28.
|
|
"For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father
with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.
Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not
taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.'' |
|
Once again,
there is a specific group of people being addressed, as seen in verse 24 -
|
|
“Then Jesus said to His disciples…” |
So again we
have the inescapable conclusion that either the Son of Man has come in His
Kingdom, or some of these men are still alive today.
Case 3:
Olivet Discourse
|
|
Matt.24:34 “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no
means pass away till all these things are fulfilled.” |
|
This
necessarily includes the words that came before it,
|
|
Matt.24:29-31 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days
the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars
will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the
tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on
the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His
angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His
elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” |
|
Either the
Son of Man came, or that generation must still be with us today!
Much has
been written about verse 34, and many have tried to transfer it to some future
generation. But there is absolutely no sound hermeneutics that permits
that. This statement by Christ is nothing more than a reiteration of the
comment He made that actually prompted the apostles’ question -
|
|
Matt.23:34-36 “Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men,
and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you
will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you
may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of
righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered
between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these
things will come upon this generation.” |
|
The entire
Olivet Discourse is nothing more than a further elucidation of this point,
because the apostles asked for more information -
|
|
Matt.24:2-3 And Jesus said to them, "Do you not see all
these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here
upon another, that shall not be thrown down.'' Now as He sat on the |
|
One
topic! The
apostles were not switching topics or adding to what Christ said. They
were asking for more details, because it was very troubling to them. One
must remember that
And Christ
was very clear in His explanation – along with the events that brought about
the destruction of the temple was the unmistakable fact of His Coming in power,
His Parousia (Gr. Parousia -coming, presence).
Suddenly
taking Christ at His word becomes a problem. Some try to solve this by
taking the entire Discourse and relegating it to the end of the world.
And yet, this is very improper because it doesn’t address their concerns
at all. Remember, the disciples were very upset about the loss of their
temple. To relegate Christ’s words to something that has nothing to do
with the destruction of the temple, which Christ had already said would occur
in their lifetime, would be extremely dishonest. Christ always addressed
the concerns of His disciples, and this was a biggie! Just how disturbing
the idea of the loss of the temple was to the disciples should never be lost
sight of!
Each and
every case listed above ultimately demands a first century fulfillment.
While there
have been many rationalizations put forth for each case, none can escape the
clear time references given by Christ. Why rationalize, when each and
every verse in question, when allowed to be read in its normal, everyday
context, attests to a first century fulfillment? Our purpose here is to
look at one of these cases in particular, and address the possibilities put
forth, and then to again ask – Do you take Christ at His word?
______________________
|
|
"For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with
His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.
Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not
taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.'' |
|
The passage
above, Matthew 16:27-28, is perhaps the most indicative, yet has yielded such a
wide variety of rationalizations. Let’s take a look at six main possible
interpretations that have been put forth -
|
|
1) Christ was referring to the transfiguration that, in
your Bible, occurs immediately after this passage. |
|
|
2) Christ was referring to the events of Pentecost. |
|
|
3) Christ was referring to the end of history. |
|
|
4) Christ was referring to two separate events. |
|
|
5) Christ wasn’t sure what He was referring to, only that
He would come in His Kingdom. |
|
|
6) Christ was referring to the events surrounding the
destruction of |
Before we
look at each of these, let's first examine some key points of the passage -
A) The phrase “Son of Man will come in the glory of His
Father with His angels” does have prophetic language implications. The
language refers directly to Daniel 7:13 which show a risen Messiah ascending up
on high.
But here the passage is not in itself of prophetic style, but only a
reference to a prior prophecy to which the audience was well versed. It
is done so in a direct way with a direct, straightforward timeframe for
fulfillment.
B) Also noteworthy in this passage is the idea that those in
the audience would receive a reward in conjunction with the Coming of Christ.
This is a micro-image of what we find in the Olivet Discourse.
C) There are several words that must be stressed. The
first is the Greek word <tis> found in the phrase <eisin
tines toon hoode hestootoon> of verse 28, which translates literally to
“there are some of you here standing”. The conjunction of the words <tis>
and <ho>, shown here as <tines toon>, is quite
common, and means “any/some of these/those” – it can be found in Matthew 9:3
and 12:38; and in slightly different tenses in such places as 27:47 and 28:11,
to name a few. When used together, the clear reference is to a
“portion of a group”, but by no means a majority, which would be indicated
by <pleistos>, as in 21:8, or perhaps a sister word like <pleion>
as in Acts 19:32.
D) The second set of words are the Greek words that
appear together <ou me> which is actually a double negative.
In verse 28 it appears as <ou mee geusoontai thanatou>,
which literally translates to “absolutely not will taste the death of the
body”. The double negative in Greek serves to stress a point, not to
negate it. We find such stressing by doubling in other forms, such as in
Hebrews 10:37, where the word <hosos> (in the form of <hoson>)
is used to stress the shortness of the word that comes before it, <micros>
(in the form of <micros>) – literally “a very short time” (The
clear indication is that the writer to the Hebrews, saw Christ as coming in the
immediate future - “in a very short time, He who is coming will come and will
not tarry.”)
E) The third word appears at the beginning of verse
27. The Greek word <mello> in the phrase <Mellei gar
ho huios tou anthroopou erchesthai>, literally means “Is about
for the Son of Man to come…”, or in more common English, “For the Son of Man is
about to come…” The word is used primarily to indicate the nearness of an
event, and means, “to be about to be”. As a matter of fact, earlier we
saw this exact same form of mello (mello in Matthew
Let us now
look at five of the given possibilities in this light -
1)
The coming indicated by Christ was a foreshadowing of the
transfiguration, which took place in Scripture immediately after this proclamation.
The NIV Study Bible favors this idea -
|
|
It is a prediction of the transfiguration, which happened a week
later (17:1), and which demonstrated that Jesus will return in His Father’s
glory ( |
|
The
transfiguration did take place about a week after Christ uttered these words.
This explanation seeks to do justice to the time stress put on the
passage by “some of you standing here shall not taste death”. This is
certainly commendable. However, by doing so, it goes too far. Christ did
not say that all of His audience would still be living, or that even the
majority of them would be. To use such language in speaking of an event
barely a week away would be overkill, to say the least. The entire reason
for using such a phrase as “some of you standing here shall not taste death”
would be to indicate that the event in question would happen before they all
died. To say that some of them would be alive in a week is poor
hyperbole, at best. There would be no reason to say such a thing at all.
And the fact that the word for “some” was used indicates the idea that
some, evens many, of those present would in fact not be included in the
group that didn’t taste death, meaning simply that many of them would in fact
die before that event takes place. By its very nature, the language
employed by Christ invalidates this possibility.
It is also
highly questionable that the transfiguration was in any way Christ coming in
the glory of His father, with His angels, in His kingdom – especially in light
of Luke 21:31, which states that the Kingdom of God would not arrive until after
the Great Tribulation - "So you, likewise, when you see these things
happening [the signs of the Great Tribulation, D.E.H.], know that the kingdom
of God is near.”
2) The
coming indicated by Christ was a foreshadowing of Pentecost.
This view
is admirable in that it attempts to distance the time enough to allow for the
deaths of some of His audience. After all, didn’t Judas die before
Pentecost?
The view is
also admirable in that it holds to the passage leading up to these two verses,
as well as the parallel passage in Mark -
|
|
Matt.16:24-26 Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone
desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and
follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, and
whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what is a man
profited if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a
man give in exchange for his soul?” |
|
|
|
Mk 9:1 And He said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you
that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the
kingdom of God present with power.'' |
|
The NIV
Study Bible does mention this as a second possibility -
|
|
It refers to the day of Pentecost and the rapid spread of the
gospel described in the book of Acts. |
|
The Barclay
Daily Study Bible also holds to this interpretation, and cites the parallel
passage in Mark -
|
|
But we see the real meaning of what Jesus said when we turn to
Mark's record of it.…It is of the mighty working of his Kingdom that Jesus is
speaking; and what he said came most divinely true. There were those
standing there who saw the coming of Jesus in the coming, of the Spirit at
the day of Pentecost. There were those who were to see Gentile and Jew
swept into the Kingdom; they were to see the tide of the Christian message
sweep across |
|
Noble
attempt, however, for several reasons this view doesn’t go far enough.
The time factor is still insufficient to warrant the language used by
Christ. The time between when Christ said these words and Pentecost was
still far and away too small to allow for such language. In fact, it
would have been in all probability much less than a year between when He made
this statement and Pentecost. The idea that only some would still be
alive is still extended hyperbole - “Later this year, some of you will still be
alive” – Wow, that’s good to know! No, the language is such to warrant
still greater time to pass between what Christ said and when it would have to
be fulfilled.
On top of
that, it wasn’t Christ who came at Pentecost, but the Holy Spirit!
In John 14, the coming of Christ in verse 3 and the coming of the Holy
Spirit in verse 16 are two distinctly different comings. In fact, the
coming of the Holy Spirit in verse 16 was to help them while they waited for
the fulfillment of Christ’s coming of verses 1-3! So it cannot be said
that Pentecost represented a coming of Christ Himself.
Dismissing
part of the passage is insufficient in order to explain the whole. The
entire passage, along with the parallel passage in Mark, not only hints
but clearly states that these events, the Coming of Christ in Glory, His
Coming in the Kingdom, and the Power of the Kingdom coming in Power were all
part of the same event!
3) Christ
was referring to the end of history, either entirely or at least in the
ultimate sense.
This is a
common view among many Dispensationalists. The argument goes something
like this - “Obviously Christ hasn’t come yet, so this verse cannot be
fulfilled.” The Barclay Daily Study Bible makes a similar
statement -
|
|
As Matthew records this phrase, it reads as if Jesus spoke as if
he expected his own visible return in the lifetime of some of those who were
listening to him. If Jesus said that he was mistaken. |
|
But such
oversimplification ultimately ignores all the clear time references in the
passage. In fact, it does worse than that. For this passage gives a
clear either/or, when determining its fulfillment. Christ has fulfilled
this passage and His Coming has occurred, else some of that initial audience is
still alive. There is no escaping this in the language used.
Anybody familiar with logic or programming knows that when an “if
statement” is encountered, it indicates a split passageway, in which one and
only one of the results can be followed. The passageway splits, and the
way is indicated by the result of the “if statement”. In this case – if
Christ has not come, then some of the audience must still be alive
physically. And conversely – if the entire audience has physically
died, then Christ has to have fulfilled this verse and come in glory!
If Christ was true to His word, there is no other alternative here!
There can be no splitting of the pieces and parts of the fulfillment.
It is all or nothing.
There is a
thought that tries to mitigate this. For example, in the commentary by
Jamieson, Faucet, and Brown, this idea is put forth -
|
|
The reference, beyond doubt, is to the firm establishment and
victorious progress, in the lifetime of some then present, of that new
kingdom of Christ, which was destined to work the greatest of all changes on
this earth, and be the grand pledge of His final coming in glory. |
|
This is a
different sort of rationalization, an attempt to marry the time statements with
the idea that Christ hasn’t yet come in His “final coming”. It does
recognize the language as ultimate, as referencing the Parousia of the Son of
Man in Dan. 7 and Matt. 24. However, it totally waters-down the idea that
the Coming would occur within the lifetime of the audience. It only views
a "firm establishment and victorious progress" of the Kingdom.
And yet the passage clearly says, not once but twice, that it is the ultimate
coming itself that was to occur while some of the audience was still living!
4) Christ
was referring to two separate events.
Some
contend that verse 27 does in fact relate to a yet future, end-of-history
coming of Christ, while verse 28 refers to either the transfiguration or to
Pentecost. This view has become more popular with those that see the
language of imminence in verse 28, and seek to reconcile the idea that there
was an event in the lifetime of Christ’s audience, yet who are unwilling to
consider the idea that the events of verse 27 could also have happened within
that same lifetime. Again, I applaud those who at least seek to maintain
the integrity of Scripture when it makes statements that are obviously and
clearly time-related. But is it really valid to take these two verses,
lift them out of context, and separate them? They were spoken by Christ
as one thought, with no explanation whatsoever regarding any distinction of
different or multiple “comings”. In fact, if Christ were referring to two
separate events, He was being duplicitous and misleading, for nowhere do we see
any kind of clarification so as to distinguish between the different events. In
fact, nowhere in the entire New Testament do we find this type of
clarification given so as to explain the different “comings” or to clarify
which “coming” was in view at any given time. If Christ was speaking here
of two separate events, then such a clarification would have been necessary for
anyone's understanding. Also, according to this interpretation, Christ
would speak of these events out of chronological order! - The end of the world
first (v.27), then the transfiguration, Pentecost or whatever else next (v.28)?
This passage is nothing more than a short explanation to the disciples.
There is no sound hermeneutical warrant for any separation.
5)
There is another thought that indicates that while Christ was alive on
the earth, He had the same vantage point as any of the prophets before Him –
that is, He knew what was going to happen, but did not know
exactly when it would happen. In fact it goes a step further -
With regards to the Olivet Discourse, for example, the idea is that Christ was
answering the disciples’ question, but in such a way to conjoin the destruction
of Jerusalem and the ultimate Coming, because "He Himself couldn’t clearly
separate them." This can also be seen in some of the Messianic
prophecies of Isaiah, which had immediate fulfillments in Isaiah’s day as well
as ultimate fulfillments in Christ’s day. The problem is this brings
Christ Himself up short of divinity! This leaves Christ much less than
divine while in His fleshly form. Ultimately, there is no difference
between these passages and other prophetic statements by Christ with time
indicators - “…and the third day He will be raised up”. Did He know this
for a fact? Absolutely. Any idea that Christ only had the view that
any prophet had, with no clear way of differentiating between types of comings,
is patently unwarranted and even strikes right at the heart of Christ’s very
divine nature.
In a
similar vein, others have suggested that Christ certainly knew what He
was talking about, but had no notion of when it would really occur. But
while it may be true that He reserved the actual Day for the Father (Matt.
24:36), what is glossed over is the fact that this is delivered in the same
breath as the general time statement, that His Coming would be within that
generation. He said He knew the generation, but not the day or hour; only
the Father knew this. To suggest that He missed His ultimate coming by
1,930 years (and counting) is even more damaging to His divine nature. He
didn’t give the exact day or hour, but He certainly gave the time frame.
It has also
been suggested that Christ couldn’t separate or distinguish between different
comings and events, having only the understanding of a prophet. But is
there any reason, any hint in this passage that Christ was speaking of multiple
comings, multiple events? Not at all! In fact, the exact opposite
is true. By specifying that some would still be alive when the event in
question occurred is one of a certainty that one and only one event is
in view. Any view that attempts to insert multiple comings in this simple
two-verse passage is doing so out of self-imposing expectations, not out of a
true, simple, honest reading of the passage.
I seriously
question the validity of any view that paints a picture of Christ as anything
less than knowledgeable regarding the events that were going to unfold.
And basically it boils down to saying this - WE know more about those
events than Christ did.
6)
Christ was referring to the events surrounding the destruction of
At last we
come to the Preterist viewpoint. This is the only answer that
satisfies all the conditions in this passage.
A)
The coming in question is in fact the ultimate Coming with the Kingdom.
This still seems odd to some, but this verse absolutely demands it! It is
only for us to understand how this is so!
B)
The reward was in fact received at that time. The Kingdom itself
was the crown jewel, and the New Jerusalem came in fullness with the passing of
the old Jewish age. The transitional New Testament time between the
resurrection of Christ, when the New was introduced, and the end of the Old age
was consummated; and the Kingdom took hold in power once and for all, thanks to
the redeeming work of Christ.
C)
The Parousia occurred as indicated in the Olivet Discourse, with the
destruction of
D) As
opposed to some future end of history, it gives the fulfillment within the normal
sense of a generation, before some had “tasted death”.
E) It
fits perfectly with the idea that the events were “about to" happen.
According to Old Testament conditions, which the New Testament writers
and their audience were certainly still under, a generation was roughly 40
years. And when referring to a transferring of a Kingdom that has been
under the natural control of the Jews for 2,000 years, one generation is
certainly “near”, “at hand”, and “about to be”. 40 years is near; 2,000+
years is not.
The only
way to explain Matthew 16:27-28 in the context given, the only way to give an
ultimate Coming within the lifetime of the audience is to recognize Christ's
Parousia as having occurred at the destruction of
These
phrases are stated just as simply and straightforwardly as when He said He
would rise on the third day.
So the
question is still – Do you take Christ at His word?