Some standing here will not taste death till they see the Kingdom coming

[TheForgiven]

Peter just rebuked Christ for telling them that He was going to die, and rise on the 3rd day. Christ in turn rebukes Peter because he did not understand God's purpose. Christ then explains that if they were to follow Him, then they must understand and accept that to follow Christ, may mean to take up the cross themselves. For there's no profit for a man who gains the entire world, yet forfeits his own soul. He also says, "What would you give in exchange for your soul"?

Now let's read this entire selection to put things into perspective. We're reading Matthew chapter 16:

24 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. 25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. 26 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 27 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. 28 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.”

Now Futurists will insist that this was fulfilled at the Transfiguration which happened six days later. But this would not seem astonishing at all because Jesus stated that "some" would not taste death until they saw Jesus coming in His kingdom. The Transfiguration happened 6 days later:

1 Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; 2 and He was transfigured before them.

This theory fails because none of them tasted death, so there would be nothing astonishing about Jesus statement. Some then say that this was fulfilled in Acts chapter 2, when they saw the Apostles being filled with tongues of fire. But even that doesn't fit because none of them tasted death. The first believer in Jesus who would die was Steven, who was stoned to death by the Jews. But that didn't happen until about 3.5 years after the resurrection of Jesus; at least we think, but that's a side note.

Now what did Jesus mean by "SOME of THEM would NOT taste death until they saw Jesus coming in His Kingdom"? The context is about them being encouraged to take up their cross, even to death, if they choose to follow Him and His example of steadfastness. Those who are patient, even unto death, would receive their reward when Jesus comes in the power of His kingdom, and to judge the inhabitants of the earth. We thus read:

27 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.

He just explained to them that taking up their own cross to follow Him was a must. But SOME of them, having taken up their cross, would not see Death until they saw Jesus coming in His kingdom, which happens after the judgment. Jesus said, "Immediately after the Tribulation of those days (Judgment upon the false Jews), the sun would be darkened and the moon fail to give its light, and they would see the sign of the Son of Man, coming in a cloud of power and great glory, and He will gather His elect from one end....to the next. He then concludes another astonishing statement, "This generation shall not pass until all of these things are fulfilled (Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21).

All of this ties into context my friends. There is no separation of Jesus coming in His kingdom. The transfiguration, the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit, and the miracles they performed are NOT the signs of Jesus coming in His Kingdom, for during those events, none of them were persecuted (taking up their cross) for their faith in Christ Jesus. He states to the Apostles in verse 26, "The Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father and His Angels..", thus indicating that was fulfilled when He came in the glory of His Father and His Angels (Josephus War of the Jews) to cast judgment upon the sinners of Jerusalem, and gather His Elect to be taken into heaven. This thus makes since because the majority of them who had taken up their cross to follow Jesus died from persecution. But SOME would not taste death until they witnesses the Parousia of Jesus coming in a cloud of power, His Father's glory, and His Angels which happens immediately after the Great Tribulation; the judgment upon Apostate Israel.

May the Grace and Mercies of God overshadow you all. God bless.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey there Joe,

I think you make some good points. I agree that it doesn't seem to make sense to say that some wouldn't die if he was talking about an event that would happen in just six days! But on the other hand, there is a strong correlation between Peter's record of the transfiguration and that passage:

Matthew 16:27 "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. 28 "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." 17:1 Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; 2 and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light.

2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

See that? Peter said they saw the "power and coming" of Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration, and he said that Jesus received glory from God the Father, just like Jesus predicted.

Therefore, I think that there is a very good case for this interpretation. The only challenge is that it doesn't make much sense for Jesus to say that some would "not taste death" before witnessing this. But it is possible that the Preterist is readin this as a time text when it was intended to imply only that something would happen in this life as opposed to the next life. I don't know ... I'd have to research it. But it seems that the evidence is in favor of the Transfiguration was intended. And I think this is confirmed by the fact that Matthew put the record of the Transfiguration immediately after Christ's prediction.

Great chatting!

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Hey there Joe,

I think you make some good points. I agree that it doesn't seem to make sense to say that some wouldn't die if he was talking about an event that would happen in just six days! But on the other hand, there is a strong correlation between Peter's record of the transfiguration and that passage:

Matthew 16:27 "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. 28 "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." 17:1 Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; 2 and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light.

2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father Honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

See that? Peter said they saw the "power and coming" of Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration, and he said that Jesus received glory from God the Father, just like Jesus predicted.

Therefore, I think that there is a very good case for this interpretation. The only challenge is that it doesn't make much sense for Jesus to say that some would "not taste death" before witnessing this. But it is possible that the Preterist is Reading this as a time text when it was intended to imply only that something would happen in this life as opposed to the next life. I don't know ... I'd have to research it. But it seems that the evidence is in favor of the Transfiguration was intended. And I think this is confirmed by the fact that Matthew put the record of the Transfiguration immediately after Christ's prediction.

Great chatting!

Richard

Good point, but the context is about them giving up their life even to death, for the sake of following him. He refers to this as "taking up your cross". During the transfiguration, did any of them have to "take up their cross" or "suffer persecution" 6 days after His initial statement. No, so then using the Transfiguration contradicts His Statement, "some standing here shall not taste death". What He should have said is "all standing here will not taste death". Or better yet, why even bother to use the phrase "taste death" if none of them were going to die anyways?

Another point often missed by those who advocate the Transfiguration theory is that Christ stated He would come in judgment to reward those according to their deeds, especially to those who "took up their cross". Did He come to reward everyone according to their deeds at the Transfiguration, or even on Pentecost? You and I both know that the answer to this is "no".

This same truth applies to the book of Acts chapter 2; none of them were persecuted, therefore none of them died. Thus even on Pentecost, all of them were alive to see the spiritual kingdom of Christ "being built".

Good point Richard, but remember, you and I think logically, not mythologically.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good point, but the context is about them giving up their life even to death, for the sake of following him. He refers to this as "taking up your cross". During the transfiguration, did any of them have to "take up their cross" or "suffer persecution" 6 days after His initial statement. No, so then using the Transfiguration contradicts His Statement, "some standing here shall not taste death". What He should have said is "all standing here will not taste death". Or better yet, why even bother to use the phrase "taste death" if none of them were going to die anyways?

Hey there Joe,

I have to agree that there are some seemingly weak spots in the idea that Jesus was referring to his Transfiguration. But I don't think your position is definitive. Your interpretation of "some standing here will not taste death before they see" puts the emphasis on "death" whereas it looks like the emphasis should be on "some." Your alternative, that Jesus "should" have said ""all standing here will not taste death" if he was referring to the Transfiguration is obviously false, because most did not see Jesus in his transfigured glory until after death. Only a few of those standing there (Peter, James, and John) had the privilege of see Jesus transformed before they died. This seems to account for both the reference to both "some" and to "before death" with no reference to the idea of "martyrdom" as you would have it.

So this actually looks like a more likely solution now that I see what Jesus could have been meaning. And Peter plainly states that the Transfiguration was a revelation of the "coming of the Son of Man." You will have to deal with this fact if you want your interpretation to work.

Another point often missed by those who advocate the Transfiguration theory is that Christ stated He would come in judgment to reward those according to their deeds, especially to those who "took up their cross". Did He come to reward everyone according to their deeds at the Transfiguration, or even on Pentecost? You and I both know that the answer to this is "no".

This same truth applies to the book of Acts chapter 2; none of them were persecuted, therefore none of them died. Thus even on Pentecost, all of them were alive to see the spiritual kingdom of Christ "being built".

Good point Richard, but remember, you and I think logically, not mythologically.

Joe

You may be making a false assumption here. It may be that the Christ's words consist of a prophecy of a future coming and a promise that some standing there would be given a divine vision of it in the Mount of Transfiguration:

Prophecy of Future Coming:
Matt 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.

Promise that some would see it in the Transfiguration:
Matt 16:28 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.

Now granted, if this is true, Jesus was not speaking with the greatest of clarity, but what else is new? Why do you think Christians have been arguing over the meaning of his words for 2000 years and have invented 10,000 mutually contradictory interpretations?

Great chatting!

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Good points Richard, but again, it must fit with the context. Subject relevance is the key. Let's look at the verses again without the subtitles you've added:


Matt 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.

What's the subject? The prior verses explains Jesus rebuking Peter for rejecting the Messiah's eventual death. He thus explains that anyone who would choose to follow Him, and face death, would be saving his/her soul. Those who choose to follow the world, even if they gained the whole world, would lose their soul. So the Son of Man would come in His Kingdom to judge the inhabitants of the earth, based on the deeds they did, be it following Jesus to death if necessary, or following the world and thus forfeiting their soul. He thus points out an astonishing fact. No matter how much suffering they would have to endure, SOME of them would get to witness His coming in judgment, His kingdom, and in the Glory of His Father, without even tasting death (carrying a cross). The cross is the key.

If Jesus were talking about the transfiguration 6 days later, no persecution existed then, therefore His statement would be an unsupported and irrelevant. Sure we can zoom in on the word "some", but then that destroy the rest of the context. "Some" of them would not taste death (carry the cross) until they see the Son of man coming in His Kingdom. Up to the Transfiguration, none of them carried any form of cross (figuratively speaking). Persecution of the Church by the Jews didn't start until after Pentecost.

Thanks for keeping me on my feet.

Joe

[CWH]

Matt 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

.

There is nothing difficult in this passage from the Futurist's point of view. When did Jesus came in His kingdom? Preterist thought that it was in AD 70. No, it was way before that and immediately after His resurrection. There are several passages that suggest this. Sitting at the right hand of God is synonimous with being God's right hand man entrusted with power and glory. Coming in His kingdom means coming to spread the Gospels worldwide because the Gospel represents the Kingdom of Heaven; remember the verse, "Repent, the Kingdom of heaven is at hand". Coming with power and glory means coming with authoritative power to spread the gospel and make judgement:

During Pontius Pilate trial:
Matthew 26: 64 'You have said so,' Jesus replied. 'But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.

Acts 2:33
Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.

Acts 5:31
God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might bring Israel to repentance and forgive their sins.

Acts 7:55
But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.

Acts 7:56
'Look,' he said, 'I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.'

Romans 8:34
Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.

Colossians 3:1
[ Living as Those Made Alive in Christ ] Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.

Hebrews 1:3
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

Hebrews 1:13
To which of the angels did God ever say, 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet' ?

Hebrews 10:12
But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,

Hebrews 12:2
fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

1 Peter 3:22
who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.


See some commentaries:

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
And he said unto them,.... Both to his disciples, and the multitude,
verily I say unto you, there be some of them that stand here; that were then living, and upon the spot,
which shall not taste of death, or die,
till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

When Jesus was declared both Lord and Christ, by the wonderful effusion of the Holy Spirit; the Gospel spread in the world both among Jews and Gentiles, in spite of all opposition, under the power and influence of the grace of God, to the conversion of thousands of souls; and that branch of Christ's regal power exerted in the destruction of the Jewish nation; See Gill on Matthew 16:28. This verse properly belongs to the foregoing chapter, to which it is placed in the Vulgate Latin version; and so it concludes one in Matthew, and ought not to begin a new chapter.

Geneva Study Bible
And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the {a} kingdom of God come with power.
(a) When he will begin his kingdom through the preaching of the gospel: that is to say, after the resurrection.

May God Bless our souls.

[TheForgiven]

There is nothing difficult in this passage from the Futurist's point of view. When did Jesus came in His kingdom? Preterist thought that it was in AD 70. No, it was way before that and immediately after His resurrection. There are several passages that suggest this. Sitting at the right hand of God is synonymous with being God's right hand man entrusted with power and glory. Coming in His kingdom means coming to spread the Gospels worldwide because the Gospel represents the Kingdom of Heaven; remember the verse, "Repent, the Kingdom of heaven is at hand". Coming with power and glory means coming with authoritative power to spread the gospel and make judgment:

Aaaaaa! Wrong answer again. Remember this phrase, "taste death" and "carry your cross"? Jesus was telling them that some of them would not taste death (carrying the cross) until they saw the son of man coming in His kingdom, with and in the glory of His Father and of His Angels, to reward everyone according to their deeds; that is, those who gave up their lives (carrying the cross) for His Name sake would be rewarded when He came in His Kingdom; those who chose to follow the world, and refused to carry the cross, would not receive a reward. THEN He says, "Some standing here would not taste death until they saw Jesus coming in His kingdom to reward each accordingly.

We can't use the Transfiguration because none of them died at that time, so the phrase "some standing here won't taste death" makes no sense because all of them standing there did not taste death during the transfiguration. We also can't use the book of Acts chapter 2 because again, none of them would taste death for decades even after that. The first one to be stoned was Steven, but he wasn't one of the "ones standing here". The first Apostle to be killed was St. James, and that was the late 50's to early 60's AD.

Therefore, the correct understanding is from the Preterist; only a few who were standing with Christ in Matthew 17, would carry their cross, having given up their very lives for the name of Jesus, would not taste death until they saw Jesus coming in His kingdom to reward the faithful ones.

This is confirmed in Revelation, "I come quickly, and I will render to each one according to their deeds".

Joe

[David M]

Hello Richard and Joseph

Richard, I am bringing the discussion we have started in your other thread to to this thread which is more appropriate than starting a new thread and builds on what Joseph has started.

I will begin another post dealing with the expression "coming in his kingdom with power" so as to keep the point separate. For now, I want to say that having read the posts in this thread, I am more in agreement with Richard. These are the points I want to add to the discussion.

Before we come on to the point about "some standing here" let's recall the verses preceding.
Matthew 16
24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
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.

I see this as Jesus talking about mens' work in general and split into two camps. Those doing the Lord's work, spreading the Gospel etc which involves denying self and doing work for God. This is what I consider Jesus is alluding to when he talks about "take up his cross". If Jesus is talking about the cross he would have to carry, knowing that criminals who were going to be crucified were made to carry their cross to Golgotha, the place where the executions took place, then this is talking about making the ultimate sacrifice of one's life in the service of the Lord God. We must remember that Jesus is talking about something he would have to go through and and had not yet done of which his disciples did not understand the importance of what Jesus was saying. They could not imagine at this time Jesus being put to death in the service of God. That realization did not sink in until later.

The other camp, who do not sacrifice their lives "daily" giving up "self" in order to do the work of the Lord, are selfish and are doing work for their own reward and gain. Verse 26 is reminiscent of the parable of the successful businessman who wanted to pull down his barns to build bigger and better barns for his expanding business. His plans were self-centred. You will know what Jesus went on to say; [COLOR="#FF0000"]["thou fool...this night, thy soul is required of thee"/COLOR] and so it was the man in the story died that night (probably of a heart attack). Up to this point Jesus has focused on the two types of mens' work; the first being for the Lord and the second being for self and that ultimately both types of work end in death and it is this point that leads Jesus into talking about some standing here who would not experience (taste) death until.... they had witnessed something. That something would happen shortly, not some long period into the future.

In the context of death, it is after death that the reward will come. To me this is speaking in general of the future time described as the Day of Judgment and all who are eligible for judgment will be raised to life again to be judged by Jesus. This is definitely at the time when Jesus will return as described; "coming in clouds with great power". This is not referring to what the few disciples would witness six days hence. The few disciples were witnesses to a glimpse of the future when Jesus would come into his glory fully. That would only happen after Jesus had died and been raised from the dead and given his incorruptible body. That is when the body of Jesus is made perfect and it is the same body his disciples would receive at their death and resurrection. This is why they were shown a glimpse of the future and were charged not to tell anyone of this until Jesus had been raised from the dead. Jesus did not want word of this to get out. Who knows what damage that could have done and the course of action God would have had to take if word had got out. Timing was everything in order to fulfill God's prophecies to the letter.

I want to pick up on a quoted comment from the post of CWH. It was said that Jesus was "talking to the disciples and the multitude". I disagree; verse 21 and verse 24 specifically states that Jesus was talking to his disciples; (21) From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. It is this context that sets the scene for what Jesus is talking about, it was about his own service to God that would result in him going to the grave and having to carry his own cross (literally).

So now we know that Jesus is talking about the end of all mens' work, whether it be for self or for the Lord and leading to death, and we know that Jesus is only talking to his disciples, the point is clear that when Jesus says; some standing here could only mean a few of the disciples and not all. Jesus is simply saying that they will witness something before they die. What they witness will be the point of my next post (to carry on our discussion Richard).


All the best,

David

[David M]

Good morning Richard

I now want to deal with the phrase in Mark 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. For comparison I will post Matthew 16:28 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.

In one verse we have "with power" and in one verse we do not. Before I continue to try and explain this, I want to make a general comment based on what I picked up from your reply to me in the other thread.

Your explanation doesn't work because of the parallel passage in Mark that mentions the kingdom coming in power:
Mark 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
This exemplifies why I the hair-splitting style of your argument is unconvincing. We can't parse the words of the Bible that closely because the Bible is not sufficiently consistent to support such arguments. But I don't want to get sidetracked into this verse in this thread. If you'd like to pursue this discussion, we should start a new thread.

I do not consider I am "hair-splitting". All I am doing is presenting an alternative way of looking at what is written; in the same way as Joseph is doing in this thread. All I say is ; at least consider all possible explanations before choosing the best fit. This is the problem I see; you are claiming the word of God is contradictory and full of mistakes and I understand that you will put forward verses that support your case and in so doing are avoiding explanations that would contradict your claim. I am doing the opposite and starting from the point that God's word is not full of mistakes and is not contradictory. That is why I will look for explanations to support my view. What we both have to do is examine all the evidence that is available before we make a judgment. If I put forward an explanation (you consider is hair-splitting), it must not be ruled out until all the evidence is in.

I must admit, I replied only to what I read in Matthew before reading Mark's account, which you have pointed out to me. This might look to you to have won your case and I have to admit that on first appearances, I might have lost my case. However, this has made it necessary for me to look at this whole episode again and deal with the challenge. Either one or other both of the passages is incorrect and you win the argument that the world of God is contradictory or cannot be relied on. Or both of the passages are not translated as the writers intended them to be. I have only one other source I can refer to that might give us a better insight to harmonizing the two verses. If I am able to do so in this case, I would hope this might go (once again) to show you that you are incorrect with the premise you start from with saying that the word of God is "full of errors and contradictory". If you truly have an open mind and looking for truth and have an unbiased search for truth, you will begin to take the approach of dropping your currently held premise.

I just want to pick up on one more point in your reply before looking into an explanation of these verses.

But that brings us to the heart of the matter - your faith is not based on facts. It is based on belief and so it is nothing but a matter of personal opinion. That doesn't mean you are wrong, of course. Opinions can be true even if they can't be proven. It's just that they cannot be argued because you cannot give a reason they should be believed.

First of all, the Bible presents facts that have been proven by archeology. Bible skeptics have tried to disprove the Bible by saying that stories in the Bible are not true because there is no evidence. Then years later, evidence is uncovered which proves the Bible is correct. Babylon is one such example; there have been the doubters that Babylon ever existed until it was found buried below the sand. I am basing my arguments on fact where I can. First of all, I want to base my arguments on reasoning from the Word of God. I do not have to present historical facts to make my case. I want to show that God's word is harmonious and coherent. That is the foremost fact that must be established. We are having these discussions/arguments because of our difference; I see coherence and you do not. Historical and secular facts can be brought in as necessary. However, there is nothing that can be produced to prove God and there is only way He can be proved as God has said. I consider it fact that the nation of Israel (the Jews) are witnesses to God in how God is using that nation in His plan and purpose. The nation of Israel do not recognize this, but Bible students can see this and can cite examples like that found in Isaiah talking of God's chosen people; Isaiah 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

This is as clear as it can be can be and it is just as clear that Jesus will return to earth as his disciples witnessed his ascending into the heavens. This is clearly a future event. I will knock down the walls you create and I will not ignore any verse and I will not shy away from the verses you present to try and win your case. Now to to move on to dealing with the two verses from Matthew's and Mark's records.

First of all in order to see if I can find harmony to these verses, I looked at the Emphatic Diaglott. I am unable to copy and paste from the scanned pdf so I have prepared the following pictures. I know you have better understanding of Greek and so I wll let you argue with others on the interpretation and understanding of the Greek language and words. I will base my remarks on what is cleary written in the Diaglott.



In Matthew you will see it says; "SON of MAN coming in his ROYAL MAJESTY" and in Mark it says; "God's ROYAL MAJESTY having come with power" In both these cases it does not convey the idea of Jesus coming with the power to rule as will be the case when he returns and sets up the kingdom with his throne in Jerusalem. The disciples did not witness the power of Jesus' rulership that will be revealed when he returns to the earth. The fact is that the Emphatic Diaglott is using different words to describe the events witnessed. The Emphatic Diaglott shows more harmony than does the two passages from Matthew and Mark. Even so, in the knowledge of Jesus coming again to earth in the future, I would not have taken the words of Mark as translated in the KJV to mean that the disciples were to be witnesses of the actual time Jesus would come again; instead, I treat this as them having a glimpse of the future that meant they had the evidence that Jesus would come with power. We must remember that it was after this event and as mentioned in Matt 24:3; Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? From this is obvious that the disciples had not witnessed Jesus coming with the power that he will eventually show when he returns. We know from what Jesus said to Pilate that this was not the time for Jesus' kingdom to be established in which he will rule on earth in righteousness. John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. The kingdom to come on earth with Jesus ruling is still future.

I expect you not to agree with this but this is how I read into these verses which I find in harmony with other scriptures. To use a slightly rephrased line in the song from the Pink Floyd album; 'The Wall', I hope this shows I have taken; Another Brick (Out Of) The Wall (Richard's wall).

All the best,

David

[Beck]

If find the arguments come down to 'tasting death' 'some' and 'this adulterous and sinful generation'. That there be some standng there which shall not taste death until they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom with power.

To determine what death is in view here it relates back to Jesus tellling his disciples of his own death and this 'take up his cross' would show that Jesus was revealing to them that if a man was to deny himself and follow after Christ that the cost needed to be counted for it could cost them their life. For if a man would attemp to save his own life without Chirst that man would lose it: and if a man would lose his life for my name sake he shall find it. (paraphrasing)

So the question that one needs to address if from among his disciples that hear these words that day which of them died and didn't see the Son of man coming in his kingdom with power?

As for Richard's given 2 Peter 1:16 in support of the Transfiguration as the coming of the Son of man. I would think what Peter is addressing is that they have spoken the truth, but there are those that teach fables and even denying the Lord. Peter said that they were eyewitnesses of Christ majesty. Here Peter refers back to the transfiguration where they saw a vision of Christ on high showing them his glory.

But Peter continues to speak that of a day of the coming of the Lord that they were awaiting saying that th elord was not slack in his promise and that day would come as a thief in the night in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise...

So then taking every thing into account the Son of man coming in clouds of heaven (matthew 24:30) then would be parallel to how Jeremiah 4:13 spoke in figurative language about Babylon coming upon Judah as a storm as a whirlwind to carry them away. This same langauge is being employed by Matthew to related to the judgment upon that wicked generation which can be clearly the reason Jesus told Caiaphas, chief priest and elders that they would see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven. This again can be applied to Stephen after looking up to heaven and seeing the heavens open and saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God in glory (Acts 7:51-59). He was saying that Jesus whom they killed was standing on the right side of God having been given all authority and that they would one day be rewarded for their wickedness. Which came to pass in 70AD! Thus I'm in agreement with Joe.

My argument of neither: Argument against Transfiguration / Pentecost fulfillment of Matt.16:27-28