Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Matthew 16:28 ¶ "Truly I say to you, 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." |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Matthew 16:28 ¶ "I assure you and most solemnly say to you, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." |
Bible Question:
BradK, I appreciate your timely response and your spirit of graciousness. However, I am still frustrated with the seeming lack of serious thought behind the opinions of those opposing preterism. I’m not speaking of you specifically but in more general terms (I’m in the process of reading as many futurist opinions supporting their theory, and opposing preterism, as possible). Most futurists I’ve read are content to quote commentaries or dismiss preterism as not possible because they see no evidence of the events being fulfilled in history. I think the best approach to pursuing truth is by comparing Scripture to Scripture. Not by referring back to commentaries, creeds or traditions (though they all have their place, they are clearly not inspired). Regarding the dating of Revelation, I have read the evidence that is most often quoted concerning Irenaeus. It is inconclusive at best. It is hardly enough to negate an earlier writing of Revelation and not enough to build an entire futurist doctrine on. The quote used by late-date supporters leaves plenty of room for an early-date theory. Some of the questions that remain regarding the late-date theory are: What events were impending “near” the proposed 95-96AD writing of Revelation, and what took place “soon” after? (Rev. 1:1-3, 3:10, 22:6,10) I have yet to run across anyone who believes Christ returned circa 100AD. The time-frame of Revelation, when considered along side audience-relevance and the internal evidence itself, makes no sense if John was writing in 95-96AD. On the other hand if John wrote in 65-66AD, the time-frame references make sense. It’s obvious that shortly after his writing (if 65-66AD), the events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem were unprecedented in regards to bringing about the “end of the age” and also catastrophic as far as the entire Jewish economy was concerned. (The temple, priesthood, sacrifices etc. would be done away with, never to return!) These events are usually downplayed by those who support a yet future return of Christ. Concerning your answer regarding the Matt. 16:28 passage. You wrote that you “believe” the passage refers to the transfiguration. However, you did not address my earlier statement regarding that position (though you did quote commentaries, I would like to know how you think through this issue). I agree that the transfiguration was a remarkable experience for the disciples. It may even be considered a glimpse of the future kingdom as some assert. But again, do you really think Jesus would make a prophecy that included the fact that some of those standing before him would not die in the next six days? If you do, please explain the significance. The six day time period is the part of this prophecy that is being ignored by the futurist. The preterist would see verse 28 referring back to verse 27. When seen in this context, do you think that Jesus “came in the glory of his father with his angels, and repayed every man according to his deeds” at the transfiguration? If he didn’t, why do you think he would use eschatological language (v.27) just prior to informing them of events that would take place only six days later (v. 28 and 17:1-13)? And, by using the words “some standing here” wasn’t he implying that most of them would die before his coming (which was true by 70AD, but not within the next six days)? I hope you sense my frustration and realize that I mean no disrespect to you personally. I hope you can understand that I am trying to reconcile Scripture and my preconceived ideas. I was raised a pre-trib, pre-mil, dispensationalist. When confronted with the issues I’m raising here it turned my thinking upside down. And, I’m still trying to eliminate preterism as a viable alternative and as yet I’ve been unsuccessful. I really am trying to work my way through this issue and I won’t be satisfied until I can resolve the time-frame references and the audience-relevance as understood by the original writers and hearers of the Word of God. That, I believe, is the key to putting it all into its proper context and thereby discovering the truth. Thanks again for hearing me out, Coper |
Bible Answer: Hi Coper, What do you make of this passage? Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; What are the "last days" spoken of here, and when did they occur? What relevance does your answer to this question have towards how we view "time frames" in Biblical writings? From a different direction, concerning the prophecies, do we see literal fulfillments, or do we need to understand certain prophecies as symbolic in order to see them as having been fulfilled? If you answer yes to the latter, then I ask you, does the text give us that authority to without reservation declare that such-and-such passage is not be be understood as the plain statement it makes, but should be understood as actually referring to something other than what it says? To me, this is critically important, since if we are to make the claim that while the Bible says one thing, but actually means something else, we need to have a rock solid Biblical foundation for that claim. Do you believe that any given passage of Scripture has one truth (though there may be several applications), and that this truth is knowable? I would assert the the preterist view as it is predominantly taught is dependant on interpreting passages of Scripture in ways that are not supported by Scripture itself, and that if one only interprets Scripture in the way that Scripture presents itself, then a futurist view of Jesus' coming in power and glory, and of the 1000 year reign is the only view allowed by Scripture. Love in Christ, Mark |