How do you fellows deal with Matthew 16 and Mark 13?

[MigKillerTwo]

Matthew 16:28 says "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom"

In Mark 13:26, Jesus says "At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory" after describing what sounds like what you call "The Tribulation"

Jesus said that the exact date is unknown, but he also says in Mark 14:62 to the Sanhedrin "“I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven'", the "you" being the sanhedrin

So these verses show, clearly, that Jesus thought that the "end times" (as you call them) were very close to his time, in fact some of his disciples would see these things happen.

So, rapture believers, how do you deal with these passages?

[mattfivefour]

Matthew 16:28 is speaking of the establishment of His church. As He prophesied, it began in power on the Day of Pentecost with the coming of the Holy Spirit to indwell those who are His. And, though these days many who claim to be part of the church are actually apostate, the chruch still exists in power ... not the power of man's efforts but the power of the Holy Spirit. And I will cite as evidence of this type of power the fact that many Muslims are coming to Christ without the intervention of men.

Mark 13:26 needs to be taken in its context of verses 24 to 27. The disciples had confused the his prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem with the end of the world. Here Jesus is setting them straight. He foretells the destruction of the earth and the heavens as man knows them, and reveals that the visible appearance of the Lord Jesus—the day of Christ's coming ... and with it the Day of Judgment—will be after that tribulation. That the Church is long gone by that point is revealed in the Book of Revelation.

[Sean Osborne]

Matthew 16:28 is identical to Mark 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.”

This is, as Mattfivefour stated, a prophecy which was fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost, it was manifest in the arrival of the Holy Spirit for the establishment of the spiritual kingdom of God in all its power.

The physical kingdom of God will arrive at the end of Daniel's 70th Week in Jesus' second coming to the earth.

The Harpazo of the Bride of Christ will occur at some unknown point prior to the start of Daniel's 70th Week.

[MigKillerTwo]

Hello again,

Two big problems I see with your fellows' interpretation of Mark 13 and Matthew 18

Clearly the various signs in Mark 13 are supposed to coincide with the coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven. They are harbingers, if you will, of the coming of the Son of Man.

Now, I guess strictly speaking if we decontextualize the coming of the son of man with the signs of the coming of the son of man, we could say that this was supposed to be the day of pentacost, 3 days after the ascension, but this will not do. The persecution of the christians did not start until well after pentacost and until well after the first christian missionaries went out into the world.

In fact, it didn't really heat up until the reign of Nero.

Now two reasons lead me to believe that the coming of the son of man, and the tribulation that was to accompany it (as rather clearly layed out in Mark 13),

first, these signs sound awfully similar to the persecution faced by christians after Nero's burning of Rome, and the events shortly before the Jewish revolt and Titus' quashing of said revolt in AD 70.

Second, as documented by N.T. Wright in "The New Testament and the People of God", the early christians did often say that the destruction of the temple was an ultimate vindication of Christ.

[Caelestis]

There's a rule when going about accepting a certain Biblical doctrine, and essentially it goes like this: if there's more scriptures in support of the doctrine than there are scriptures which seem to not support it, then one must adhere to the outnumbering scriptures in support of it.

So it's not wise to discredit the doctrine of the pre-trib rapture merely because of a couple verses you don't know how to make sense of, or that seem to not be cohesive with the numerous other scripture that are in favor of the doctrine.

And also, as one who went through the "quest for truth" regarding the rapture some time ago, I suggest you take this matter to God rather to men - even believers. Go to him in silence and ask him to reveal to you the truth about this, and if you do so, sincerely desiring this truth, he will do it, just like he has for many, many people.

Go to God my friend, and he'll reveal to you the truth.

[Thoughtspaz]

Another view is that Matt 16 was referring to the transfiguration in chap 17.

[Robert]

Hello again,

Two big problems I see with your fellows' interpretation of Mark 13 and Matthew 18

Clearly the various signs in Mark 13 are supposed to coincide with the coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven. They are harbingers, if you will, of the coming of the Son of Man.

If you compare Mark 13 to Matthew 24, you'll see that it is the same conversation; keep in mind who Jesus' audience was and why he was telling them what he was telling them. Jesus was not speaking of the rapture, but of the Tribulation in Mark 13.

Now, I guess strictly speaking if we decontextualize the coming of the son of man with the signs of the coming of the son of man, we could say that this was supposed to be the day of pentacost, 3 days after the ascension, but this will not do. The persecution of the christians did not start until well after pentacost and until well after the first christian missionaries went out into the world.

In fact, it didn't really heat up until the reign of Nero.

Scripture records persecution of the Christians almost immediately after Pentecost, with Peter and John being arrested after preaching on the Porch of Solomon at the temple in Acts 4 and Stephen's Martyrdom in Acts 7. Whether persecuted by the Pharisees and Scribes or by Rome, persecution is persecution.

Now two reasons lead me to believe that the coming of the son of man, and the tribulation that was to accompany it (as rather clearly layed out in Mark 13),

first, these signs sound awfully similar to the persecution faced by christians after Nero's burning of Rome, and the events shortly before the Jewish revolt and Titus' quashing of said revolt in AD 70.

Second, as documented by N.T. Wright in "The New Testament and the People of God", the early christians did often say that the destruction of the temple was an ultimate vindication of Christ.

The problem with this is that the Old testament prophets, Jesus and the book of Revelation all make it clear that the Tribulation will end with the rescue of Israel and the destruction of the enemy armies. The exact reverse happened in AD 70; Israel was crushed and Rome was victorious.

“Behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that causes reeling to all the peoples around; and when the siege is against Jerusalem, it will also be against Judah. It will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be severely injured. And all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it. In that day,” declares the LORD, "I will strike every horse with bewilderment and his rider with madness. But I will watch over the house of Judah, while I strike every horse of the peoples with blindness. Then the clans of Judah will say in their hearts, ‘A strong support for us are the inhabitants of Jerusalem through the LORD of hosts, their God. In that day I will make the clans of Judah like a firepot among pieces of wood and a flaming torch among sheaves, so they will consume on the right hand and on the left all the surrounding peoples, while the inhabitants of Jerusalem again dwell on their own sites in Jerusalem. The LORD also will save the tents of Judah first, so that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem will not be magnified above Judah. In that day the LORD will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the one who is feeble among them in that day will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of the LORD before them. And in that day I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn." (Zechariah 12:2-10, NASB, emphasis mine)

“And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. " (Matthew 24:30, NASB, emphasis mine)

"And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice, saying to all the birds which fly in midheaven, “Come, assemble for the great supper of God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of commanders and the flesh of mighty men and the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them and the flesh of all men, both free men and slaves, and small and great. And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies assembled to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone. And the rest were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse, and all the birds were filled with their flesh." (Revelation 19:11-16, NASB, emphasis mine)

Second: God makes it clear in Revelation 20 that all accounts will be settled at the Great White Throne judgment. We base what we believe on scripture, not what anyone, early christian or otherwise, were saying. While the destruction of the temple was a vindication, it was not the final judgment.

[mattfivefour]

Certainly at first glance it may seem possible that Matthew 17 refers to the Transfiguration; however that stands up neither to close examination nor other Scripture. Why would Jesus have said "some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" if He were referring to an event only six days away (Matthew 17:1)? Jesus never spoke in hyperbolic terms. I think it clear He was referring to the establishment of His Church and the coming of the Holy Spirit to indwell every member of it. But, yet, the full coming of the Kingdom will be a literal Kingdom that is yet to come, one in which Christ rules the entire earth. It certainly did not come at the Transfiguration. Nor did it come at Pentecost. Paul and the other apostles spoke of it as yet future. (1 Timothy 24:1, for example.) It refers, clearly, to a future time when He would judge the world.

MM2, I agree that 70 AD demonstrated a fulfillment of some of the prophecy contained in Mark 13. But it is not the ultimate fulfillment. Nor did it fulfill all of what Christ said. He said that "those days will be a time of tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will." (Mark 13:19) The murder of the Jews by Titus was no worse than that by Nebuchadnezzar; nor was it worse than the murder of the Jews by Hitler. Nor was "the gospel must FIRST be published among ALL nations" (Mark 13:10) fulfilled at that time. Further, "in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven" (Mark 13:24-27) clearly did not occur at that time. Nor have we seen it yet.

The study of Scripture demonstrates over and over that prophecies can—and frequently do—have near and far fulfillments. In fact some prophecies have had three fulfillments, each greater than the one before. This is a special characteristic of Bible prophecy. God not only tells but shows in small measure what will ultimately come in full measure. Clearly, when taken together with all Jesus said about the coming of His Kingdom, as recorded in the gospels, all has not yet happened. What happened under Titus and Hitler will be nothing compared to what will happen in the day of the Lord's great wrath! Sadly, the preterists think it has all happened and thus are not preparing for what IS to come.

MM2, I would caution you that this is a pre-Trib board. The preterist view that you are hinting around is not valid and is specifically against our rules.

[Sean Osborne]

Hello again,

Two big problems I see with your fellows' interpretation of... (Yada, yada, yada) ...

Ok, so you're a preterist. That makes your question an argument concerning doctrine derived from Scripture.

The preterist arugment falls flat on its unSpiritual face because it's satanically deceived mortal human proponents alter the Word of God as found in The Revelation of Jesus Christ from being future events to events of the past. As a theology preterism is an abject failure and denial of the literal Word of God concerning the future.

Know what's inherently and incredibly wrong and dangerous about doing such a thing?

Revelation 22:18-19

For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Being a preterist is being decieved by the father of all lies and deceptions.

A very bad situation to be in while living, even worse when dead.

[arapahoepark]

This is from Darby's commentary who seems it's the transfiguration that Matthew 16 is referring to:

In each Gospel that speaks of it, the transfiguration immediately follows the promise of not tasting death before seeing the kingdom of the Son of man. And not only so, but Peter (in his second Epistle, 2 Peter 1:16), when speaking of this scene, declares that it was a manifestation of the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He says that the word of prophecy was confirmed to them by the view of His majesty; so that they knew that whereof they spoke, in making known to them the power and the coming of Christ, having beheld His majesty. In fact it is precisely in this sense that the Lord speaks of it here, as we have seen. It was a sample of the glory in which He would hereafter come, given to confirm the faith of His disciples in the prospect of His death which He had just announced to them.

[BuzzardHut]

Matthew 16:28 says "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom"

In Mark 13:26, Jesus says "At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory" after describing what sounds like what you call "The Tribulation"

Jesus said that the exact date is unknown, but he also says in Mark 14:62 to the Sanhedrin "“I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven'", the "you" being the sanhedrin

So these verses show, clearly, that Jesus thought that the "end times" (as you call them) were very close to his time, in fact some of his disciples would see these things happen.

So, rapture believers, how do you deal with these passages?

Isolating verses will always FAIL

[mattfivefour]

Isolating verses will always FAIL

Absolutely spot on, as usual, Buzz! It is only by isolating verses that preterists or any other erroneous group can support their views. The bible is of one cloth and we must take ALL of the threads of which it is made not just pick a couple of colors which we might like. The Bible should shape our views, not vice versa.

[paul&katie]

Matthew 16:28 says "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom"

Please take the words of Jesus literally, was not John alive when he saw the second coming and rapture during the dictation of the book of revelation from Jesus himself??? Jesus said one would be alive to see the event not to necessarily experience it! BIG difference.

[mattfivefour]

This is from Darby's commentary who seems it's the transfiguration that Matthew 16 is referring to:

In each Gospel that speaks of it, the transfiguration immediately follows the promise of not tasting death before seeing the kingdom of the Son of man. And not only so, but Peter (in his second Epistle, 2 Peter 1:16), when speaking of this scene, declares that it was a manifestation of the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He says that the word of prophecy was confirmed to them by the view of His majesty; so that they knew that whereof they spoke, in making known to them the power and the coming of Christ, having beheld His majesty. In fact it is precisely in this sense that the Lord speaks of it here, as we have seen. It was a sample of the glory in which He would hereafter come, given to confirm the faith of His disciples in the prospect of His death which He had just announced to them.

Hi bro! I respectfully disagree with Darby on this, for the following reasons.

First it makes no sense for Jesus to say "there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" as a reference to the coming transfiguration when the tranfiguration came just 6 days later! (Matthew 17:1) Jesus never spoke in hyperbole.

Second, I think Darby applying 2 Peter 1:16 is a case of eisegesis. Yeds, in the passage Peter is speaking of the Transfiguration, and it was with power and glory. But it was not the Kingdom. The Kingdom was more than showing them He had power and glory. The revelation did not extend to others until the Day of Pentecost. Until the Ressurection, people were still not 100% convinced that He was the Messiah. Not even Peter himself who., despite having witnessed the Transfiguration, subsequently out of fear denied he even knew Christ.

No, I think it is clear that in the verse in question Jesus was assuring those who listened to Him that even though things would happen that He knew would make them think that He was not the Messiah (ie: He would be arrested, tried, crucified, die and be buried—notwithstanding He would then be resurrected and ascend into Heaven) nonetheless they could be assured that well within the lifespan of those listening to Him they would see the coming of His Kingdom in power.

But of what "kingdom" was He speaking? Other than the kingdom of God being among them (which had to be a future Kingdom and not the Kingdom Jesus was speaking of when He said the Kingdom was already among them since clearly in Matthew 16:28 He is speaking of a yet future Kingdom not one that was already there) but other than that "kingdom" there are only two other Kingdoms possible. One is the true Kingdom of God in power on earth when Jesus will rule the earth from Jerusalem for 1000 years. But that has not yet come; therefore it cannot be the one He meant because He was saying that some who heard Him would not taste death. The only other way He could have meant His 1000 year reign is if He was referring to the second death, not the first. I find that hard to believe. So there had to be another coming of a Kingdom of Christ and it had to come with power. The establishment of Christ's Church on earth, individually indwelt by His Holy Spirit, the coming of which was seen in great power on the Day of Pentecost and on other occasions, to me is the only possible explanation. We are a kingdom of priests (Revelation 5:10) and a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9). Thus His Kingdom is indeed here. Christ indwells it. (2 Corinthians 13:5a) And it indeed came with great power. (Acts 1:8; 2:1-4; 8:18-19; 1 Thessalonians 1:5) Is there any other event within the lifespan of those who were listening to Jesus that matches the requirement, other than the founding of His Church?

Does this help?

Matt

[LivnForChrist]

It happened just as Jesus said...there were some there that didn't die until they saw.
John saw a whole lot in visions. That's how he wrote the whole book of Revelations.
He saw the rapture, the tribulation, and second coming and like MattFiveFour says, they saw the kingdom
itself come at Pentecost.

[Twinklingofaneye]

Please take the words of Jesus literally, was not John alive when he saw the second coming and rapture during the dictation of the book of revelation from Jesus himself??? Jesus said one would be alive to see the event not to necessarily experience it! BIG difference.

It happened just as Jesus said...there were some there that didn't die until they saw.
John saw a whole lot in visions. That's how he wrote the whole book of Revelations.
He saw the rapture, the tribulation, and second coming and like MattFiveFour says, they saw the kingdom
itself come at Pentecost.

[Meg]

Thank you Matt and Robert for such solid teaching. And Buzz, can I quote this:

Isolating verses will always FAIL

Well said with few words. Love it!

[arapahoepark]

Hi bro! I respectfully disagree with Darby on this, for the following reasons.

First it makes no sense for Jesus to say "there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" as a reference to the coming transfiguration when the tranfiguration came just 6 days later! (Matthew 17:1) Jesus never spoke in hyperbole.

Second, I think Darby applying 2 Peter 1:16 is a case of eisegesis. Yeds, in the passage Peter is speaking of the Transfiguration, and it was with power and glory. But it was not the Kingdom. The Kingdom was more than showing them He had power and glory. The revelation did not extend to others until the Day of Pentecost. Until the Ressurection, people were still not 100% convinced that He was the Messiah. Not even Peter himself who., despite having witnessed the Transfiguration, subsequently out of fear denied he even knew Christ.

No, I think it is clear that in the verse in question Jesus was assuring those who listened to Him that even though things would happen that He knew would make them think that He was not the Messiah (ie: He would be arrested, tried, crucified, die and be buried—notwithstanding He would then be resurrected and ascend into Heaven) nonetheless they could be assured that well within the lifespan of those listening to Him they would see the coming of His Kingdom in power.

But of what "kingdom" was He speaking? Other than the kingdom of God being among them (which had to be a future Kingdom and not the Kingdom Jesus was speaking of when He said the Kingdom was already among them since clearly in Matthew 16:28 He is speaking of a yet future Kingdom not one that was already there) but other than that "kingdom" there are only two other Kingdoms possible. One is the true Kingdom of God in power on earth when Jesus will rule the earth from Jerusalem for 1000 years. But that has not yet come; therefore it cannot be the one He meant because He was saying that some who heard Him would not taste death. The only other way He could have meant His 1000 year reign is if He was referring to the second death, not the first. I find that hard to believe. So there had to be another coming of a Kingdom of Christ and it had to come with power. The establishment of Christ's Church on earth, individually indwelt by His Holy Spirit, the coming of which was seen in great power on the Day of Pentecost and on other occasions, to me is the only possible explanation. We are a kingdom of priests (Revelation 5:10) and a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9). Thus His Kingdom is indeed here. Christ indwells it. (2 Corinthians 13:5a) And it indeed came with great power. (Acts 1:8; 2:1-4; 8:18-19; 1 Thessalonians 1:5) Is there any other event within the lifespan of those who were listening to Jesus that matches the requirement, other than the founding of His Church?

Does this help?

Matt

So would he be referring to like the kingdom parable of the mustard seed? Where it grows to include gentiles?

[Dunamis]

I havent studied this deeply enohlugh to have a solid answer but, i do know that john saw it on the isle of patmos when he wrote revelations.

[GlennO]

I was late into the conversation, but my instant thought in answer to the OP, was not the Revelation to the Beloved Disciple a literal answer.

Paul & Katie expressed my thought exactly, but since I've not pondered the question before, is there a consensus in merit of the answer?