# "Some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God"



## Turtle

> _He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."
> 
> Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels. And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power." --- Mark 8:31 - 9:1, parallel passage in Matt 16:28 and Lk 9:27_



I long attempted to understand this passage by substituting the phrase “_will remain alive_” in place of the phrase “_will not taste death_.” 

Too many points at once.. confusing .. reattempt at post #10 below.


----------



## TaylorOtwell

I'm confused.

** edit *** - So, it's your contention that the thought behind what Jesus was saying is "Some of you will not take up your cross and follow me until you see the kingdom, etc."?


----------



## Turtle

No, actually the passage has three distinct types of death described. One regarding Christ, one regarding those who are His, and one regarding those who are not His. The meaning of the death in "Taste death" is understood by when they will experience it. It will be far too late for them to take up their cross once they taste of of this death. It will be the "second death" when they are cast into the lake of fire.


----------



## DonP

before they see the kingdom of God come with power." -

Couldn't that be the resurrection of Christ? or the transfiguration?


----------



## Turtle

PeaceMaker said:


> before they see the kingdom of God come with power." -
> 
> Couldn't that be the resurrection of Christ?



Good question!

The use of "Kingdom of God" does define the manner of death He is describing for those who do not take up their cross, so it is good that we zero in on how the "kingdom of God" defines the death they will taste. "Kingdom of God" is not the only descriptor of the death they will taste. There are some more words in text that give an understanding of the type of death these will taste. In Mk 8:34-36 Jesus is contrasting those who take up their cross with those who do not. Those who would consider not taking up their cross to follow Jesus are asked "What will it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and loose his soul?"

If the resurrection of Christ is the same time that these he is speaking to will see the kingdom of God, do these loose their soul at the resurrection of Christ?

Or instead do these loose their soul when they are cast into the lake of fire in Rev 20:14, the second death? (The time of the second death being within the kingdom of God). The second death is also described in Matt 10:28, soul and body cast into hell.

In other words, which understanding of the kingdom of God explains the type of death these will see?


----------



## DonP

Although in eternity from god's perspective there is no time as we know it. 
2 Cor 5:8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. 
NKJV


----------



## CubsIn07

I always thought Jesus was referring to his transfiguration in the passages you quoted. That event came right after Jesus' prediction.


----------



## Skyler

I assumed(and explained in debate) that this was fulfilled in John's prophetic vision of the end times as recorded in Revelation. I'm still not sure I follow your reasoning, but okay.


----------



## Davidius




----------



## Turtle

Some suppose the phrase "not taste of death" is really code words of assurance that some will remain alive until they see the kingdom. (I used to think so, but that replacement of words changes the message of the passage.)

This passage is an emphatic lesson about the mystery of death and life that is backward from our natural understanding, is it not? We must die in order to live. Peter rebuked Jesus for talking nonsense about dying on a cross. Jesus turned squarely at Peter and rebuked him saying, "Get behind me Satan. You desire the things of man and not God." Peter had it all wrong and was ignorant. Upon Peter's gross ignorance of the mystery of dying in order to live, Jesus begins His lesson for His disciples. 

Those who follow Christ must die now by taking up their cross, yet Christ will return in the glory of His Father with His angels and will reward them with eternal life. Those who take up their cross and loose all for Christ and the Gospel will save their life. (Peter had it backward and Jesus set Him straight. In effect, "Peter, you have to die, in order that you will live.")

Those who choose life now, by rejecting Jesus' call to take up the cross, will loose their soul when He comes back to give every man according to his works. Though they could even gain the whole world by separating from Jesus, they will loose their soul. (The unbelievers, thinking they will live, have it backward, and Jesus' warning puts it straight. In effect, "You will try to live now, and loose your soul later.") 

Even though Jesus has explained the mystery of death and life, there are some standing there who will yet not hear. They will taste of death when they loose their soul.


_His Claim:_
"If a man will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross, and follow me (as I deny myself and take up my cross)."

_The reason to take up our cross:_
"For whoever will save his life will loose it, but whoever will loose his life for my sake shall save it."

_More reason to take up our cross:_
"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world?"

_Evidence to prove that His reasons support His claim to take up our cross:_
The Son of Man shall come with His holy angels and He shall reward every man according to their works... those who lost their life for Christ shall find it, and those who ignored Christ will loose their soul.

_Acknowledgment to those who disagree with His claim that we must take up our cross:_
There are some standing here who will not listen to take up their cross, they will seek to save their life, and maybe even gain the whole world for a period.

_His Response:_
Those who choose their life to be free of the cross for now will delay their taste of death until His coming, and loose their soul.


If we suppose the phrase "will not taste of death" is Jesus' code words for "some will remain alive", then it changes His last point and dumps His response to those who persist in the belief that they can have life apart from the cross. 

It is inescapable. Those who refuse His saying will taste of death. But of those that keep His sayings, "they shall never see death." Jn 8:51


----------



## Turtle

CubsIn07 said:


> I always thought Jesus was referring to his transfiguration in the passages you quoted. That event came right after Jesus' prediction.






> 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. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. 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? 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. 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.



Cubs,

If we were to say this is predicting the transfiguration, then don't we also have to conclude that the Son of Man also rewarded every man according to his works at the transfiguration?


----------



## Wannabee

Bryan,

Why must this final sentence be sequential? Could it not be emphatic, set apart by "truly/verily/amen"?

The resurrection could be a viable option as well, could it not?

I'm not convinced that it's the transfiguration, but lean in that direction. I don't see how it can be dismissed, though there might be a better alternative.


----------



## toddpedlar

Who are those who interpret "will not taste death" in this way? I'm not the most widely read guy in the world, but I have never once read any commentator who sees those words in this (what seems to me quite novel) way. Why is "will not taste death" simply equated to "will not physically die"? Doesn't that seem most natural and sensible? What would be wrong with that interpretation?

I'm also not sure why the transfiguration is the event pointed to, other than its proximity. I'm much more familiar with the interpretation of the coming in power of the kingdom as being linked to what Christ speaks of post resurrection to the assembled disciples, when he promises power to them, to spread the Kingdom of God - and Pentecost being the realization of that promise (and this).


----------



## E Nomine

The partial preterist view is that the text means what it says. Some (e.g. John) would still be alive when Christ returned in judgment (the judgment manifest in the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D). 

See Hank Hannegraaf, Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, et. al.


----------



## OPC'n

Matt 16:28


> Matt 16:28 *will not taste death until.* Although this statement has been interpreted as referring to the Transfiguration (17:1,2), the language implies a period longer than a week. Another possibility is the destruction of Jerusalem (10:23 note), but the context here is not specifically related to the judgment of Israel. The "coming" of the Son of Man more likely here relates to the entire process by which Jesus receives dominion, especially His resurrection, ascension, and sending of the Spirit. All these things happened during the lifetime of the disciples. The Transfiguration could also be the initial event in this process witnessed by the disciples


 R.C. Sproul The Reformation Study Bible


----------



## Iconoclast

E Nomine said:


> The partial preterist view is that the text means what it says. Some (e.g. John) would still be alive when Christ returned in judgment (the judgment manifest in the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D).
> 
> See Hank Hannegraaf, Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, et. al.



Yes, they see it as a coming in judgment upon that wicked generation,
not the second coming- but a coming in the clouds as many old testament passages speak of God's judgment in this way.


----------



## Turtle

> "..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. 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." Mtt 16:27-28



I appreciate the considered, thoughtful, and provoking questions, as well as the proposals regarding this verse. I believe an interpretation does exist that we can all find agreeable; however, I think there remains (charitable) disagreement in our understanding of the text. For now there is disagreement, but I am hopeful! 

This paragraph is a summary of my observations. Each of us sees a textual conflict in the verse and we seek to resolve it by obtaining a proper understanding of the meaning of “the coming of the Son of Man.” At first reading of the text, most of us probably thought the “coming” is the second coming but we soon realized the second coming didn’t happen in the disciple’s lifetime, so we have a conflict in the text. Various attempts to resolve the verse have been put forward. I propose that the coming of the Son of Man refers to the second coming and the cause of textual conflict is not in the "coming" phrase but is instead caused by our adoption of an incorrect definition for the idiomatic phrase “taste of death.” If we suppose “physical death” is the meaning of the idiomatic phrase “taste of death,” that definition causes the conflict in the verse, forcing us to seek a resolution by various meanings of the “coming”. But if instead we understood “taste of death” to mean the “second death” (when the body and soul are cast into hell fire) then, in my opinion, the passage is properly understood, and the text is harmonized. What follows is a lengthy justification. I covet your identification of the errors.

I hope we can agree that “taste of death” is an idiomatic phrase, rather than literal. Does death have a flavor? If we can agree that it is idiomatic, I can agree that my first thought of its meaning is “die, or experience a physical death.” However, I observe a conflict caused in the verse by this definition. We can prove grammatically that a conflict exists, if we parse out the sentence into its parts and modifiers. But I think it is much easier to just point out that each of us already inherently admits that there is a conflict that begs for resolution. Why else do we seek for a proper understanding of the phrase “coming of the Son of Man?” In this short thread we have already witnessed proposals that it, in this context, might properly be interpreted as 1) the transfiguration, 2) the resurrection, 3) the day of Pentecost, and 4) the judgment of destruction upon the temple in 70 AD. We have proposed four different meanings. I acknowledge these four events happened within the lifetime of some of the disciples, which is necessary if we accept that “taste of death” means “die a physical death.” However, in my opinion, these proposals don’t resolve the conflict in the text. 

I’ll explain why I find these proposals to be unsuitable to explain the text. First, I think we can agree that this saying of Christ seems prophetic in nature; after all, we are fielding proposals for its fulfillment. If we are going to conclude a past event is the fulfillment of this foretelling of Jesus, then I think we first must agree about the issue which He was foretelling. Was the foretelling about 1) the coming of the Son of Man, or was it about 2) the death that some standing there would taste? I think the grammar requires the latter--- it was about the death that some would taste. However, for discussion’s sake I am willing to twist my understanding of the grammar and consider that He was perhaps prophesying about the “coming of the Son of Man.” First, I maintain we must fully identify the observable attributes associated with the prophesied event from the text, in order to test if the textual attributes correlate succinctly to the attributes of any proposed fulfillment. If they don’t correlate, how can we accept it?

What attributes of the “coming of the Son of Man” are found in the text immediately surrounding Christ’s use of the phrase? From the three parallel passages, these attributes are: He is coming in His glory (Lk 9:26), in His Father’s glory (Lk 9:26, Mk 8:38, Mtt 16:27), with His holy angels (Lk 9:26, Mk 8:38, Mtt 16:27), to then give to every man according to his works (Mtt 16:27). Do any of the proposed fulfillments correlate succinctly with all the attributes from the text describing His coming? I find that each of the four proposals has some, but not all, of the attributes. If only some of the attributes seem to correlate (and even if most do) I am still left without a full resolution to the conflict. I must then either accept a modicum of conflict or I must revisit the text to pursue full resolution and harmony. I ask myself, “Have I properly understood the terms, the context, and the grammar?”

Rather than seeking a different meaning for the “coming of the Son of Man,” why don’t we consider that we perhaps supplied an inaccurate definition for the idiomatic phrase, “taste of death?” I propose that the proper understanding of this passage fully rests upon a proper understanding of the idiomatic phrase, “taste of death.” Rather than “physical death,” in my opinion, the idiom is properly understood as a reference to the “second death.” To evaluate this proposal, we have to ask is there Biblical warrant for a definition of the “second death”, is there Biblical warrant to supply this definition into the idiomatic phrase “taste of death”, and does it harmonize the text? 

What are the attributes of the “second death?” Whosoever is not written in the book of life are among the dead who are raised to life and cast into the lake of fire. “This is the second death” (Rev 20:14). It is the lake of fire that torments day and night for ever and ever (Rev 20:10). The “second death” appears to be expressed in the gospel of Matthew as well. “Fear not them which kill the body (first death), but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (second death)” (Mtt 10:28). This punishment is also evident in Mark 9, “If thy hand offend thee, cut it off… if thy foot offend thee, cut if off… and if thy eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” (Mrk 9:43-48). 

Who experiences the “second death?” Most obviously those who are not written in the book of life, who are cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20:15). Also, those who are not “faithful unto death” and those who do not “overcome” (Rev 2:11). As well as “the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars” who “shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone: which is the second death” (Rev 21:8). If we accept that Mtt 10:28 is expressive of the second death, it can be argued Jesus identified candidates for the second death to be those who “love father and mother more than Me, or love son or daughter more than Me” (Mtt 10:37). Additionally, it is those who “deny Me before men” (Mtt10:33), and it is those who “findeth their life” that “shall loose it” (Mtt 10:39). And finally, the candidate for the second death is “He that taketh not his cross, and followeth not after Me” who “is not worthy of Me” (Mtt10:38). 

When does the second death occur? “I saw a great white throne and Him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them..” “I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God and the books were opened..” “and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works..” “and whosoever was not written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire” (Rev 20:11-12). 

I think we have warrant for a definition of the second death, but do we have warrant to use it (or at least test its use) as a definition for our idiom “taste of death?" The most direct support for testing "second death" as a possible explanation for our idiom is the fact that it is a death. Aside from the obvious fact that “second death” is a death, there are several strong thematic similarities in Matthew 10 with our three subject parallel passages (Mtt 16:21-28, Mrk 8:31-9:1, and Lk 9:22-27). Some common themes we find in these passages are: the theme of Christ being rejected, of His followers being rejected, of the necessity to deny ourselves and to take up our cross, of the admonition to confess Christ before men, and of the consequence if we deny Him, the fact of those who seek their life and loose it, of those who loose their soul, and of those who loose their life for Christ's sake and yet save it. 

In Mtt 10 we also find two verses that appear to rely on the notion of the "second death." In Mtt 10:28 we are admonished to fear Him that can cast body and soul into hell. And in Mtt 10:22 we are given hope that though we be hated of all men, even to death, “he that endures to the end shall be saved.” (This causes a recollection of Rev 2:10-11… He that is faithful unto death and overcomes, he will receive a crown of life and “the second death will not hurt him.”). If all these passages share strong thematic similarities, then is it not conceivable that our three subject parallel passages might also include the notion of the second death as part of their arguments?

Even if we have warrant for the definition of “second death” and warrant to at least consider that it might be an accurate definition for the idiomatic phrase, we still have to demonstrate that it fits the context and harmonizes the text in order to accept it as adequate. How does it fit? 

_“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. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. 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? 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. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not [experience the second death], till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”_ (Mtt 16:24-28)

The “Son of Man coming” in the glory of His Father, with His angels, to reward every man according to his works would appear to be the second coming. Can we agree there is no conflict that those standing there have already died the first death, a physical death, before they saw the Son of Man coming, the second coming? Will they not be resurrected to see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom? And some of them will experience the second death, but not until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. 

In addition to harmonizing this verse, the understanding of “second death” also provides a climax to the argument that we must take up our cross, which began as an object lesson precipitated by Peter who rebuked Jesus for announcing His own death on the cross. (Mtt 16:22). 

In summary, “taste of death” appears to be an idiomatic phrase. If we supply “physical death” as its meaning we are left with the necessity to find a tortured understanding of the “coming of the Son of Man” during the lifetime of the disciples, but we stipulate that he cannot really have come in the manner we expect in His second coming. This in spite of observable attributes in this text that appear a lot like the second coming described in other texts. If instead we find sufficient warrant to supply the notion of the “second death” then the verse is in harmony and there is no necessity to find the “coming of the Son of Man” to be any other than His second coming. “For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angles; and then He shall reward every man according to his works.” (Mtt 16:27)

 “When the Son of Man shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory: and before Him shall be gathered all nations: and He shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats” …and some will go into everlasting punishment and some into life eternal.  (Mtt 25:31-46) 

The Ancient of days did sit…ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. (Dan 7:9-10)


----------



## Anton Bruckner

CubsIn07 said:


> I always thought Jesus was referring to his transfiguration in the passages you quoted. That event came right after Jesus' prediction.


so Jesus was basically saying that some standing here shall not die in 3 days? The answer is obvious. Jesus was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and the official end of the Old Covenant.


----------



## Turtle

_
“There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."  Mtt 16:28

“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.” Mk 9:1

"There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God." Lk 9:27_

It is evident that different views exist about the verse and some commentators limit the coming of the "kingdom" or the Son of Man "coming" to the life of the disciples. It appears to me that we diverge at the grammar even before we look at the meaning of some of the phrases. To the degree we diverge in our bounds of the grammar, so too will we diverge in our conclusion. Perhaps a look at the grammatical structure would be useful. 

It seems “some standing here” is the subject and the rest of the verse forms the predicate that explains what “some” will not do and until what point "some" will not do it. The only explicit modifier regarding time is the preposition “until.” It begins the adverbial clause that modifies the verb “taste." 

It seems that “coming” and “kingdom” are objects in subordinate clauses without a predicate or a modifier limiting their time.

It has been awhile since I diagramed sentences and I am sure some of the Greek experts could comment on the nuances of what modifies what, based in Greek. Please do.

Is there an explicit grammatical warrant to limit the "coming" of the kingdom?


----------



## DonP

Turtle said:


> Cubs,
> 
> If we were to say this is predicting the transfiguration, then don't we also have to conclude that the Son of Man also rewarded every man according to his works at the transfiguration?



No 

Prophets often spoke of things not in chronological order. 
And I do not see these things tied close to ether in time at all in his speech. 

Jesus spoke in strange ways at times that even the disciples weren't clear on and they had to wait until later to understand them.

I don't see it has to be his 2nd coming because I don't see these have to be at the same time. 
Just separate things that will be coming. 

In fact He speaks of the one and then changes the subject and says, 

If you think this is something, I will tell you another astonishing thing and that is some here will not taste of death until they see some special power of the Kingdom


----------



## ekklesia

*Ding, ding ding, you win the prize sir.*



Skyler said:


> I assumed(and explained in debate) that this was fulfilled in John's prophetic vision of the end times as recorded in Revelation. I'm still not sure I follow your reasoning, but okay.



Although I believe that He is referring to those who will see the coming of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD not the end of the world. End of days does not necessarily mean end of the world. I understand it to mean end of an age or epoch i.e. the end of the Jewish age and beginning of the Church age. Who has thoughts on this? I'm quite surprised to see so many varying views on this one, on a reformed board wow!


----------



## Turtle

PeaceMaker said:


> Turtle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cubs,
> 
> If we were to say this is predicting the transfiguration, then don't we also have to conclude that the Son of Man also rewarded every man according to his works at the transfiguration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No
> 
> Prophets often spoke of things not in chronological order.
> And I do not see these things tied close to ether in time at all in his speech.
> 
> Jesus spoke in strange ways at times that even the disciples weren't clear on and they had to wait until later to understand them.
> 
> I don't see it has to be his 2nd coming because I don't see these have to be at the same time.
> Just separate things that will be coming.
> 
> In fact He speaks of the one and then changes the subject and says,
> 
> If you think this is something, I will tell you another astonishing thing and that is some here will not taste of death until they see some special power of the Kingdom
Click to expand...


I appreciate your proposal of a change in subject. I have to ask if the grammar supports it. As I mentioned before, the divergence of our opinions is rooted in the grammar before we even consider the meaning of the phrases. 

If Jesus changed the subject to the kingdom (and how soon it should arrive), then wouldn't "kingdom" be the subject of the sentence rather than an object in a subordinate clause? "Kingdom," being place where it grammatically is, is grossly obscured if it was meant to be the new subject of the teaching to His disciples. 

In addition to actually placing "kingdom" as the subject (if He intended to denote how soon it would come) wouldn't "kingdom" have a predicate that explains the time it would come and wouldn't "kingdom" have an explicit modifier to designate its time?

The grammatically correct way to designate that the Kingdom would come within the life of the disciples would be:

"The kingdom of God will come before some standing here die." If we rewrite the verse this way "kingdom" becomes the subject, it has a predicate, and it has an explicit modifier designating its time. But that is a complete rewrite which eliminates the subject and the predicate found in the verse. 

The topic of death is very clear throughout the passage beginning with Jesus telling of His coming death on the cross, the necessity for His followers to take up their cross, and of those who won't follow that will loose their soul. The subject of death and taking up the cross is deeply embedded into the passage. If we are to accept that a dramatic shift in topic occurs then the grammar would have to support it.


----------



## puritan lad

E Nomine said:


> The partial preterist view is that the text means what it says. Some (e.g. John) would still be alive when Christ returned in judgment (the judgment manifest in the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D).
> 
> See Hank Hannegraaf, Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, et. al.



This is correct, along with these other passages.

Matthew 10:23 – “You (my disciples) shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.”

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.”

Romans 13:11-12 - "You know what hour it is, how it is full time now for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed; the night is far gone, the day is at hand."

1 Corianthians 7:29-31 - "Brethren, the appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the form of this world is passing away."

1 Corinthians 10:11 - "On [us] the ends of the ages have come."

Philippians 4:5 - "The Lord is at hand."

James 5:8-9 - "The coming of the Lord is at hand. ... Behold, the Judge is standing at the door."

1 Peter 4:7 - "The end of all things is at hand."

1 John 2:18 - "It is the last hour ... we know that it is the last hour."


----------



## DonP

Turtle said:


> I appreciate your proposal of a change in subject. I have to ask if the grammar supports it. As I mentioned before, the divergence of our opinions is rooted in the grammar before we even consider the meaning of the phrases.



That is assuming these fishermen and tax collector had better grammar than me. or should that be, I 

We can not with absolute finality appeal to our precise exacting understanding of their grammar, Greek, Aramaic or whatever language it was written in. 

The Gospel authors may not have used perfect sentence construction when writing their letters.

Careful....


----------



## Turtle

PeaceMaker said:


> Turtle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate your proposal of a change in subject. I have to ask if the grammar supports it. As I mentioned before, the divergence of our opinions is rooted in the grammar before we even consider the meaning of the phrases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is assuming these fishermen and tax collector had better grammar than me. or should that be, I
> 
> We can not with absolute finality appeal to our precise exacting understanding of their grammar, Greek, Aramaic or whatever language it was written in.
> 
> The Gospel authors may not have used perfect sentence construction when writing their letters.
> 
> Careful....
Click to expand...



I appreciate the encouragement to be careful!

I am not sure what you are trying to say about the necessity or reliability of the grammar in the scripture. Never the less, I hope we can agree that without the fetters of grammar many a presupposition can flourish.


----------



## DonP

Some theological students get excited when they learn something new and think they have it all now. Obviously they don't since many ministers equally trained still disagree. 

If all we needed was to know Greek or to know grammar or to know Aramaic or to know Josephus or the culture and early writings, or know Hebrew then we could get the "right" answer for sure, we would all agree. 

They each add information, but none alone make the case. 

We have no assurance they used proper grammar. 
The may have written it improperly so to force a proper grammar on the sentence could corrupt the meaning. 

Now this may be more of an exception than a rule, but it shouldn't be seen as an absolute. 

Besides that I have seen good scholars argue over the proper grammar in a phrase.


----------



## Turtle

sjonee said:


> Matt 16:28
> 
> 
> 
> Matt 16:28 *will not taste death until.* Although this statement has been interpreted as referring to the Transfiguration (17:1,2), the language implies a period longer than a week. Another possibility is the destruction of Jerusalem (10:23 note), but the context here is not specifically related to the judgment of Israel. *The "coming" of the Son of Man more likely here relates to the entire process by which Jesus receives dominion, especially His resurrection, ascension, and sending of the Spirit.* All these things happened during the lifetime of the disciples. The Transfiguration could also be the initial event in this process witnessed by the disciples
> 
> 
> 
> R.C. Sproul The Reformation Study Bible
Click to expand...



I appreciate that Sproul’s commentary on the verse has been posted. Thank you, Sarah. I think his conclusion is slightly different than other commentators but its basic premise is not uncommon. He contends that the “coming” of the Son of Man happened within the lifetime of the disciples.

Please allow me to make some observations about this commentary. Sproul used the word “coming” as a noun. It forms the noun phrase “coming of the Son of Man” and serves as the subject of his sentence. He then forms the rest of his sentence as the predicate* that explains something about the presumed subject, “coming.”

Can we agree how the author of the verse used the word “Coming?” In the verse, “coming” is a participle that begins the participle phrase “coming in His kingdom.” The participle phrase acts as an adjective to modify the Son of man. “coming in His kingdom” is not the subject of the verse (it is not even a noun). Additionally, in the verse, “coming” has no predicate.

If we pull out a participle from a verse and speak about it as though it is the subject by forming a predicate for it, yet do not comment about the subject and predicate which is in the verse, then what have we commented on?


* _Every complete sentence contains two parts: a subject and a predicate. The subject is what (or whom) the sentence is about, while the predicate tells something about the subject._


----------



## PastorSBC

E Nomine said:


> The partial preterist view is that the text means what it says. Some (e.g. John) would still be alive when Christ returned in judgment (the judgment manifest in the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D).
> 
> See Hank Hannegraaf, Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, et. al.



Seems simple enough.


----------



## Turtle

PastorSBC said:


> E Nomine said:
> 
> 
> 
> The partial preterist view is that the text means what it says. Some (e.g. John) would still be alive when Christ returned in judgment (the judgment manifest in the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D).
> 
> See Hank Hannegraaf, Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, et. al.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems simple enough.
Click to expand...



It does seem simple enough, but I observe some grammatical inconsistencies (at least in English) that make it difficult for me to accept. Some may object to a careful look at the grammar (and I normally don't pull out my grammar books to evaluate a verse) but in this case I believe we have made an assumption about the verse that has an overbearing impact to the verse's meaning. The assumption changes the grammar. We should at least attempt to understand the impact our assumption has. 

The brief, proposed meaning of the verse above starts out well by identifying the subject “some” but it seems to go off the rails when it changes the predicate. 

The predicate is made up of the verb, along with its objects and modifiers. It explains what the subject “some” will do and employs an explicit modifier of time, the preposition “until.” “Until” establishes a firm relationship of sequence. The effect of “until” is that “some” will not perform the action of the verb “until” a certain point. The main verb “taste” appears to be a transitive verb with a direct object, “of death.” It is interesting to note that the verb “die” is normally intransitive, i.e. it has no object. As in, “Mr. Smith died.” The transitive use of “taste” might suggest an idiomatic use, but at the very least it sets apart “of death” as the direct object. 

The brief explanation inherently suggests that we should accept a change to the verb, the direct object, and the preposition (a wholesale change to the predicate). Rather than sticking with the topic of death (that exists prior to and in the verse) it is suggested we accept that the verse actually infers a modifier of time based upon the duration of life. This appears to be based on the assumption that the direct object, “of death,” means the death of the body (the first death), rather than the death of the soul (the second death, mentioned just two verses earlier in verse 26). 

There appear to be at least two significant changes to the verse if we accept the changes to the predicate. The first, if we assume “some” will still be alive when the Son of Man comes in His kingdom we then introduce a very strongly implied modifier of time. Someone could respond, “Who can deny that the verse does say “some” will “see” the Son of Man coming?” It is easy to assume "some" must see Him coming in this life, but should we exclude the notion that resurrected people see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom? This newly introduced implied modifier of time is in contrast to the only explicit modifier of time, the preposition “until.” The explicit modifier “until” ensured we understood that “some” would not taste of death until they saw the Son of Man coming---it established the sequence and nature of their “taste of death.” If we accept the assumed and implied modifier, it now overpowers the explicit modifier and ensures that we understand the Son of Man will come while “some” are _still_ alive, presumably in this life. 

The second thing I think we have to acknowledge with this proposal is that our new, implied modifier of time has perhaps become so strong that it seems to elevate an object within the predicate to be the subject and to demote the subject to essentially be the predicate. 

A fixation on the necessity of some sort of “coming” within the life of the disciples also induces us to discount the clear attributes associated with the "Son of Man coming" found in the verse immediately before. Should we seek another explanation for explicit attributes associated with "Him coming" based upon an implied time restraint which itself was based on an assumption regarding the meaning of “taste of death”? 

I suggest that if we accept the direct object “of death” is the death of the soul spoken of in v. 26, then there is no conflict in the grammar. The explicit time modifier is left in tact, and the predicate explains the manner and time at which the subject “some” will taste it, when "some" see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. 

Of course I could be completely all wrong and I am sure there are some professional grammarians on PB that can comment about the subject, predicate, and the modifiers of this verse, both in English and Greek.


----------



## Spinningplates2

Brothers and sisters in Christ. It be time to get thyself to a Dr. Kenneth Gentry conference so you can may put all questions about Revelation behind thee.


----------



## chbrooking

Turtle said:


> I appreciate your proposal of a change in subject. I have to ask if the grammar supports it. As I mentioned before, the divergence of our opinions is rooted in the grammar before we even consider the meaning of the phrases.
> 
> If Jesus changed the subject to the kingdom (and how soon it should arrive), then wouldn't "kingdom" be the subject of the sentence rather than an object in a subordinate clause? "Kingdom," being place where it grammatically is, is grossly obscured if it was meant to be the new subject of the teaching to His disciples.
> 
> In addition to actually placing "kingdom" as the subject (if He intended to denote how soon it would come) wouldn't "kingdom" have a predicate that explains the time it would come and wouldn't "kingdom" have an explicit modifier to designate its time?
> 
> The grammatically correct way to designate that the Kingdom would come within the life of the disciples would be:
> 
> "The kingdom of God will come before some standing here die." If we rewrite the verse this way "kingdom" becomes the subject, it has a predicate, and it has an explicit modifier designating its time. But that is a complete rewrite which eliminates the subject and the predicate found in the verse.



I don't see how this requires a change in subject. Might not the kingdom come in installments. I see at least three -- 1) the King incarnate, 2) Pentecost, 3) Consummation.

Also, Jesus' sacrifice would not have been sufficient without bodily death. While at first glance, Heb 2:9 might support your idiomatic reading, I think a little reflection will show that it includes physical death.

I haven't had a chance to examine the grammar -- I just gave the post a cursory reading. But I am struck by the fact that the grammatical arguments seem to be based on the English. Shouldn't appeal be made to the Greek?

-----Added 4/19/2009 at 09:17:37 EST-----



Turtle said:


> This passage is an emphatic lesson about the mystery of death and life that is backward from our natural understanding, is it not? We must die in order to live. Peter rebuked Jesus for talking nonsense about dying on a cross. Jesus turned squarely at Peter and rebuked him saying, "Get behind me Satan. You desire the things of man and not God." Peter had it all wrong and was ignorant. Upon Peter's gross ignorance of the mystery of dying in order to live, Jesus begins His lesson for His disciples.



Pardon me for the piece-meal responses. I'm new to this extensive thread.

I don't think you've dealt adequately with Jesus calling Peter "Satan" here. Jesus clearly took Peter's response to be something akin to what he experienced in the wilderness after his baptism. How would your reading of Peter's words and Jesus' correction square with that?


----------



## chbrooking

I'm not much of a blogger. I have only two posts in forever. But I believe we ought to see this passage as referring to Pentecost. If you want to see the argumentation, feel free to read it at 

Clark H. Brooking: The Significance of Pentecost


----------



## JonathanHunt

chbrooking said:


> I'm not much of a blogger. I have only two posts in forever. But I believe we ought to see this passage as referring to Pentecost. If you want to see the argumentation, feel free to read it at
> 
> Clark H. Brooking: The Significance of Pentecost



That has been my view too, Clark. I was suprised no-one mentioned it till now!


----------



## Turtle

chbrooking said:


> I'm not much of a blogger. I have only two posts in forever. But I believe we ought to see this passage as referring to Pentecost. If you want to see the argumentation, feel free to read it at
> 
> Clark H. Brooking: The Significance of Pentecost



Thank you Pastor for posting. There have been several propositions about the meaning of the verse that effectively require we consider that the kingdom is the subject.

What should we observe about the main verb "taste"? And what function does it grammatically serve?


> "..some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Mtt 16:27-28


----------



## Turtle

*C.H. Spurgeon Preached on Matt 16:28*

Many commentators propose Mtt 16:28 teaches us of the kingdom and when it shall come, but I have been troubled that "kingdom" is not the grammatical subject and has no predicate. I set out to see if there was a commentator who was faithful to the grammar. 

Today I read a sermon by C. H. Spurgeon on Matthew 16:28. He too had been puzzled by the many "_good commentators [whom] had invented explanations and offered suggestions widely different one from another, but all equally obscure and improbable."_ Spurgeon explained he had been reading a sermon by Bishop Horseley. He continued, _"I have met with a view altogether new of the passage which I firmly believe to be the correct one." _

An excerpt from his sermon on Matthew 16:28:

_"This tasting of death here may be explained and I believe it is to be explained by a reference to the second death, which men will not taste of till the Lord comes. And what a dreadful sentence that was, when the Savior said—perhaps singling out Judas as He spoke—“Assuredly I say unto you, there are some standing here who shall never know what that dreadful word ‘death’ means, till the Lord shall come. You think that if you save your lives, you escape from death. Ah, you do not know what death means! The demise of the body is but a prelude to the perdition of the soul. The grave is but the porch of death—you will never understand the meaning of that terrible word till the Lord comes.”

….If this is the meaning and I hold that it is in keeping with the context, it explains the verse, sets forth the reason why Christ bespoke breathless attention with the word “assuredly,” answers both the grammar and the rhetoric and is not by any argument that I have ever heard of to be repudiated. If this is so, what thrilling denunciations are contained in my text! O, may the Holy Spirit deeply affect our hearts and cause our souls to thrill with its solemnity!"_ C. H. Spurgeon

You can find his entire sermon on Matthew 16:28 at the link below.

http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols10-12/chs594.pdf


----------

