Skeptics: "Failed Prophecy" of second coming

[nwink]

Matthew 16:27-28 (ESV) "For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

I have heard skeptics argue that this passage most clearly shows that when Jesus was saying that some who he was speaking to would "not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom"...that it was referring to him coming back "with his angels in the glory of his Father....(to) repay each person according to what he has done."

How are we to correctly understand this passage? Is Christ speaking of two separate (but related) things here? Is Christ's "coming in his kingdom" not referring to the final judgment day when each person's works will be judged?

Thank you for your thoughts!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

It might not have been completely clear to the hearers, that what sounds like a "second coming" display in v27 is distinguishable from the living-witnessing promised in v28. But, it certainly was made evident through the subsequent events.

The real issue for the skeptics is whether Jesus knew that these two things were conceptually distinct. This they are keen to deny. If he isn't the Son of God, and keeping his full intentions to himself until all is in readiness for a complete revelation in his Resurrection; then he's just another charismatic wanderer with a bunch of wishful followers. He might even believe his own pretensions, which they are confident were dashed in the real world.

This promise of Christ should not be severed from the context. The vv immediately prior are warnings against falling away, come what may. If we compare with Lk.9:26-27, we can see Christ's warnings not to be "ashamed" of him. The language "ashamed" is also present in Matthew, but in another passage connected to warning the faithful to stay true to Christ, Mt.11:6 (cf. Lk.7:23). Jesus sends word to John the Baptist in prison, encouraging him not to despair. The issue is, whether or not the kingdom is coming according to expectation or not.

The eschatological aspect of judgment is fully apparent in Mt.16:27. But is v28 also referring to that glorious coming (both vv use the term "come") in judgment? That v says, "coming in his kingdom," different terms, so how are they related?

One solution has to do with the following portion, the Transfiguration. The "some" may refer to Peter, James, and John, who alone went up right afterward, and experienced a foretaste of that glory to be revealed in the last Day.

Or, fully compatible with that more limited application, Jesus might still be speaking to the audience more generally. But his reference to his kingdom's full manifestation may be a simple reference to his Resurrection. In the next few months, a great sifting of Jesus' followers was about to come. And some would fall away. But for those who persevered in the darkness, they would see their Lord in full possession of his rights as king. Jesus words imply that it was so short a time until that should take place, that the intensity of any persecution should be no deterrent from holding fast to faith in him. Some would definitely be alive to experience the cheer of it.

The kingdom that he comes in through the Resurrection is not a different kingdom from the kingdom in which he brings his judgment--whether the final end; or in its harbingers. (Yet another interpretation of vv27-28 treats Jesus' words as having special reference to the events of AD70, and the stunning demolition of the relics of the Mosaic administration, i.e. the end of the Temple).

Naturally, the skeptic is not going to be impressed with any kingdom that he cannot see with his physical eyes. He does not think Jesus ever took his father David's throne. To him, all the rest of the NT interpretation of Jesus life and death is nothing more than a coping mechanism--one that was improbably and wildly successful; the fairy tale that beat the odds and became a religion. Jesus' (few surviving) statements have been embedded into a narrative construction of Gospel that is a century or more separated from the actual man and his brief time in the spotlight (that ended horribly).

 

[Turtle]

The Skeptics don't go far enough!! ... they should also declare to us another verse that "fails" in its prophecy.. in the exact same way, so to speak. (I speak as a fool).

(I argue below in italics, repeating their slight of hand to expose their error)

"Sure the failure of the Matthew prophecy is a good point, but consider an additional prophecy that fails in the same promise that some will "remain alive" until Christ comes again. Paul wrote to the saints and promised "We shall not all sleep (i.e. die), but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump. (1 Cor. 15:51)"... That is another failure of prophecy! Its clear, Paul said some will remain alive until the coming of the Lord. Surely, no one who heard Jesus speak remains alive to this day, and to the same point, no one to whom Paul wrote remains alive to this day (i.e. all of them are asleep). The prophecies in Matthew and 1 Corinthians are both important verses that the Christian must admit.

The Christian has a dilemma. If Jesus did in fact already return during the life of those generations, to whom Jesus spoke and Paul wrote, then it was not very notable), or in the alternative, if Jesus yet has a magnificent return in the future, then it cannot be in the timing promised." ... so might say the skeptic..

In my humble opinion, the skeptic is the one who has the dilemma. The skeptic abuses the grammar, having wittingly or unwittingly "discovered" a prophecy that is not there. Jesus does not promise some will "remain alive" and Paul does not promise some will "remain alive". It simply is not there. Jesus speaks of a promised death when He returns, and Paul speaks to a promised life when Jesus returns. The proclamation of each passage has nothing to do with the timing of Christ's return deduced from the life of the listeners, but instead has everything to do with what is certain, when Jesus does come. Both passages culminate with "what" happens, not "when" it happens. The premise that "timing" is the point of the passage makes for a lot of unsatisfactory explanations, and happy skeptics who divert the attention from the "what".


In 1 Cor. Paul declares the new life that the brethren will have when Christ comes, a life that we do not fully appreciate yet.. he said earlier, "Eye has not seen and ear has not heard". This promised hope of a new life, changed to incorruption and immortality, spurs the reader on, regardless of how long it takes to be fulfilled. "Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord." The hope of the life to come spurs the Christian to labor.

So also Jesus, in Matthew 16, called His disciples to labor, to take up their cross, and to lose their life for His sake. He finished it off with a comparison to spur them on. He commanded his disciples to "take up their cross", to "lose their life for his sake".. to die now, but promised that they who lose their life will find it. On the other hand, He acknowledged that some would refuse to take up their cross and die now. Some would try to save their life, but lose it. These would "not taste death till the Son of Man comes". The future death they taste at His return will be far worse than the death the disciples will experience when they take up their cross now.

In my humble opinion, Both passages constrain the Christian to labor with hope, because of what is promised to happen when He returns. Paul in Cor. 15 speaks of the resurrection and makes the application as an inducement to labor. Jesus in Matt. commands His disciples to take up their cross and die now, with the comparison that the death now is much less burdensome than the death to come for those who seek to save their life and refuse to taste death now. Neither passage speaks of timing.

Spurgeon did a helpful sermon on Matthew 16:28, and covers many of the common explanations. http://www.spurgeongems.org/vols10-12/chs594.pdf