Bible Questions and Thoughtful Answers

My Message to God 

God, how often are we like the disciples, misunderstanding your words? How often do we hearing you say, “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees” and then we go and worry about bread or yeast in bread, all the while missing your intended message (Matthew 16:1-12 NIV 2011)?  Please Holy Spirit give us understanding and discernment, we love you and need your guidance.

Today’s Q&A

Matthew 16:28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” (NIV 2011).  The question posed to us: at what point in time did Jesus return with his kingdom?  Jesus said that some of the disciples standing there would see it happen before they die.

All of Jesus disciples have died that He was speaking to (right?), now what?

Did this already happen?  Are there still disciples that are hiding who are over a thousand years old?  Is Jesus speaking in allegory/figurative language?  Does a contradiction exists or not exist with Jesus’ words?  Are we reading Jesus words correctly?

What is the proper literary context of Matthew 16:28?

All the translations surveyed group verse 28 with Matthew 16:21-28 which is what we will use (the ASV, BBE, Douay-Rheims Bible, ESV, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, and WEB all group verse 28 this way).  An additional note: In reading R.T. France he noted that Craig S. Keener suggested that verse 28 should be added to Matthew chapter 17, but France felt this was an unusually far push to deviate from the traditional numbering (as do many Bible translators), but I mention it for your awareness.[1]

How many disciples did Jesus have?

Did you just think to yourself and say twelve?  You would be mistaken friend.  At a bare minimum Jesus had eighty-four male disciples and many women disciples as well. You might think eighty-four?  Where in the world would you get that number from?  We both agree (I hope) that Jesus selected twelve male disciples as his leadership team, we call these individuals Apostles (they are the chosen twelve by Jesus himself, see Mark 3:13-19).  We know that Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus and he was replaced by Matthias (Acts 1:23-26). Jesus also commissioned seventy-two others (Luke 10:1-24).  Traditionally it’s accepted that these were pairs of men, because Jesus selected twelve men for leadership due to the culture of the day.  One should note, Scripture does not specifically state the seventy-two are all men, so keep an open mind.  We know many women played vital roles in supporting Jesus ministry (Luke 8:1-3).  I want to be clear, I am not claiming women were a part of the selected seventy-two, I am just stating, the possibility exists due to the absence of gender specifics in Luke 10:1-24.

Authorship of Matthew

 Matthew is a part of the synoptic gospels (meaning: presenting or taking the same common view[2]) which means that many scholars have invested many (many) hours of researching to discern the, “relationship of this Gospel to Q [an unknown source document(s) hypothesis], to Mark, to Luke, and sometimes to other possible sources.”[3]  We will not be digging into the synoptic debate, nor will we cover F.P. Viljoen’s work in Matthew's sitz im leben and the emphasis on the torah.[4]  I mention these for your awareness as a general statement.

You might be surprised, but scholars are divided on who wrote Matthew.   As we know Matthew was a tax collector by profession (Matthew 9:9-12).  The populace in ancient times greatly disliked the profession of tax collector, just like we do today!   “[Assignment] of this gospel to Matthew the apostle goes back to our earliest surviving… testimonies, and there is no evidence that any other author was ever proposed.  As far back as we can trace it, and from the earliest manuscript [assignments] that have survived, it is always the Gospel kata Matthaion.”[5]  Church tradition has always attributed authorship to Matthew, which can be drawn from comments made by early church leaders such as Papias, Eusebius and Origen.[6]   Just for arguments sake, if early church leadership got the gospel author wrong, what value does a different author add to the nature, content and application of the gospel? 

I really like T.D. Alexander’s comment, “Traditional biblical scholarship has spent most of its efforts in disassembling the works of a complicated watch before our amazed eyes without apparently realizing that similar efforts by and large have not succeeded in putting the parts back together again in a significant or meaningful way.”[7]  Essentially, he is saying scholars have spent so much effort in tearing apart the gospel that their efforts have not produced any meaningful understandings of the gospel. I recommend following tradition and naming Matthew as the author.

The Church of Matthew – The Community

R.T. France makes very interesting observations about the dynamics of the book of Matthew, which I will summarize here.  He rejects that Jewish Christians were just cut-off from attending the Jewish synagogue. We know that Matthew was strongly written for messianic Jews (Ethnic Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah) and based on R.T. Frances observations, it appears that Matthew’s church congregation also consisted of Gentile believers and it appears that Biblical scholars have not really paid attention to the challenges Matthew wrote about addressing a mixed congregation.[8]  This is evident from topics Matthew covers that would not be of interest to a Gentile converting to Christian faith.  Topics like: The genealogy of Jesus, Joseph accepts his son; the Magi visit the Messiah, the escape from Egypt, the return to Nazareth etc.  Yet, Matthew contains stories for Gentiles as well like the faith of the centurion; Jesus restores two demon possessed men; woe to unrepentant towns Tyre, Sidon, Sodom; Jesus heals demon possessed boy; Jesus feeds five-thousand; and faith of the Canaanite woman etc.  I included this information for your consideration if you do any deeper research on Matthew.

Date of Matthew

Prepare to be shocked; scholars disagree on when Matthew was written!  I will recommend doing more research if you feel a definitive date is needed for your research; we are going to just say it could be any time in between AD 70 to AD 85.

An Outline of Matthew 16:21-28

I. Jesus Predicts His Death (16:21)

II. Peter Rebukes Jesus (16:22)

III. Jesus Rebukes Peter (16:23)

IV. Cost of Discipleship (16:24-27)

                i. Disciples must take up their cross (16:24)

                ii. Lose your life for Jesus, to save it (16:25)

                iii. Gain the whole world, but forfeit your soul (16:26)

                iv. Son of Man coming in Father’s Glory & will reward each (16:27)           

V. Some will not taste death before the Son of Man coming in His kingdom (16:28) 

There are seven interpretations for 16:28?

What are the differing views proposed by Alfred Plummer?  He lists seven principle ways of understanding the passage, they are listed below.[9]

1. The transfiguration of Jesus (Matthew 17:1-13; Mark 9:1-9; Luke 9:28-36).

2. The resurrection & ascension of Jesus (Res. Luke 24:1-12; Asc. Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:9-11). 

3. Pentecost (Acts 2:1-47).

4. The spread of Christianity.

5. The internal development of the gospel.

6. The destruction of Jerusalem (Matthew 24:1-2; Rome destroyed the temple in A.D. 70).

7. The Second Advent (there are well over 200+ verses describing Jesus’ second return).

Really focus on Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:24-28.

Jesus is clearly using a parallel contrasting parable.

A. 24. “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves…”

B. “…and take up their cross and follow me.” 

[Note: Jesus’ prediction of the manner of His death.]

A. 25. “For whoever wants to save their life will lose it…”

                B. “…but whoever loses their life for me will find it.”

A. 26. “What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world…”

                B. “yet forfeit their soul?”

                                C. “Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?” (NIV 2011).

With these comments of Jesus in mind, really focus and read several translations of what Jesus says in verse 27, “For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done” (NIV 2011).

Many readers take verse 27, this forward looking prophecy, and read “is going to come” on to verse 28.  But stop and really look at what Jesus said in verse 28.  Also note that Jesus contrasting stopped at verse 26.

Verse 28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man “coming in” his kingdom” (NIV 2011).

Let’s really focus in on the difference between verse 27 “is going to come” verses 28 “coming in.”

Here is the Greek with a crude English translation of verse 28:

“τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ.”

“The Son of Man coming in Kingdom His.”

To be clear the Greek only says “coming in his kingdom”, but verse 28 clearly, does not say “coming with his kingdom.”  Many people read verse 27, which is forward looking prophecy and they read that correct interpretation in to and upon verse 28 which is an incorrect interpretation.

Facts that many scholars agree with

Many scholars agree that the disciples standing there have all died, and many scholars agree that Jesus did not come back with his angels in power and the glory of his kingdom during those disciples’ lives. Given these facts we have to look for a better interpretation of verse 28 than trying to group it with verse 27.

My best guess trying to harmonize the facts with the body of evidence

What I put forward is my best guess, as it seems to fit with the body of evidence to make sense of the verse.  I suggested for your consideration, Jesus could have meant, “Coming into his kingdom?”  I would say we have bodies of evidence that fulfill this interpretation very accurately. Before you jump onto this explanation please see my comments about the Greek below.

A comment about the Greek – Honest Transparency

I suggested for your consideration that Jesus could have meant verse 28 to mean, “Coming into his kingdom,” this interpretation has problems. The biggest problem with this interpretation is the fact that the Greek does not clearly indicate “into.”  The Greek only says “in.”  What I am saying is the oldest and best Greek says “ἐν” which translates to “in” in English.  If Matthew or Jesus wanted to say “into” the Greek would read “εἰς” and it does not.  It is important for us to recognize that many translators do not translate this as “into,” because that is not what the Greek says.  Remember all language is imprecise and it is important for us to recognize this fact, it is also equally important for us to not make words say things they do not actually communicate.  Matthew recorded Jesus words as “The Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”  Before you discard an “into” interpretation, closely examine the bodies of evidence and really review the evidence for what best fits Jesus words in verse 28, “The Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”  Also as you review the bodies of evidence keep in mind the facts that many scholars agree with.

What is the body of evidence that would support the “into” his kingdom interpretation?

Evidence 1 - The stoning of Stephen (Acts 6:8-8:1), Stephen sees Jesus in His Kingdom (Acts 7:56).

Evidence 2 – John sees Jesus in His kingdom (Revelation 1:9-20; 19:10-16; Cpt. 21 & 22).

Evidence 3 – The Transfiguration, it is not Jesus in his Kingdom, rather in kingly glory (Matthew 17:1-13).

Thoughtful reflections on Stephen

When I read the Apostle Paul’s writings, I am amazed.  I often see Paul as an astounding debater for the gospel and dare I say it, no one could beat the Apostle Paul’s arguments, reasoning and use of the Scriptures… Except for Stephen![10]  I had never realized the full accounting of Stephen, until I went back and read the account more closely. 

Acts 6:8 "Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people. 9 Opposition arose, however, from members of the Synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called)—Jews of Cyrenea and Alexandria as well as the provinces of Cilicia [Saul of Tarsus was from here] and Asia—who began to argue with Stephen. 10 But they could not stand up against the wisdom the Spirit gave him as he spoke" (NIV 2011).

Did you know the Apostle Paul was originally known as Saul?  Did you notice in the full account that even Saul/Paul as a Pharisee (Acts 23:6; Paul is from Tarsus in Cilicia Acts 22:2-5) and even Saul as a young man without the Holy Spirit was unable to out debate Stephen.  At the end of the account we find Saul standing there watching over the cloaks of the men stoning Stephen and approving of Stephen’s death (Acts 7:58; 8:1).

Just take a minute and reflect on all that the Apostle Paul has accomplished for the Gospel.  Allow yourself to day-dream a little and imagine if Stephen had not been killed, but continued in ministry.  Imagine what Stephen might have written if he had the opportunity. When we arrive in heaven seek out Stephen for a chat.

Talking into consideration Matthew’s Gospel arrangement

Also, let us pay carefully attention to the arrangement of Matthew’s Gospel, after all, he was actually chosen by Jesus.  We have to consider his account of the transfiguration and that it directly follows Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:27-28.  Matthew provides the transfiguration account right after that portion of scripture (Matthew 17:1-13).  It is highly possible that Matthew saw this as a direct fulfillment of Jesus’ words and we do not need to dig any deeper.

You might be wondering why Matthew never mentions Stephen or John’s accounts, I offer for your consideration it is possible that either Matthew was written before the events or Matthew was not aware of those events during his writing of the book of Matthew.

Strongest interpretations

If you are a stickler for English grammar then you will read verse 28 as “Jesus coming in His kingdom.”  If you read verse 27 “Jesus coming with His kingdom” and project that image onto verse 28, then that creates some real challenges to make all of the body of evidence fit.  I have clearly stated this is not a consistent manner to interpret verse 28. Hopefully, after reading this blog you will look at Craig S. Keener suggestion that verse 28 should be added to Matthew chapter 17 and have a better understanding of why he made the suggestion.  It basically follows that verse 27 is communicating something completely different “coming with” as opposed to verse 28 “coming in.”  With that said, I agree with R. T. France, it is too far of a push to suggest verse 28 be grouped with Matthew 17, because by doing so, we force the only interpretation of verse 28 to be in light of the Transfiguration.

If you hold strictly to Matthew’s account, then it is a sound and a reasonable conclusion that in verse 28 Jesus is describing the Transfiguration as a fulfillment of His words.

If you look to all of the body of evidence and the strict English grammar of what Jesus said, then it is sound and reasonable to conclude verse 28 is fulfilled in the accounts of Stephen and John.

If you look at all the body of evidence and take a more generalized approach you might see all three events fulfill Jesus’ words in different manners and all accounts validate verse 28 as fulfilled.

Why didn’t we cover the ascension of Jesus?

The honest reason I didn’t cover this in detail is because I am a stickler for English grammar, verse 28 clearly says, “Jesus coming in His kingdom.”  So when I read the ascension accounts none of them show Jesus coming in or coming into His kingdom, they all show Jesus “going to” His kingdom.  This is why I did not spend any research time here.

One thing is for certain

We serve an awesome God; we have a heritage of outstanding godly examples of Christian men and women that have gone before us.  We have rich stories of truth and salvation to help us grow and understand God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit more deeply.  It should be pleasing to us that when we approach the Scriptures we are always learning something new and being reminded of things learned.  These things deepen our walk with God; they test us; and sometimes we might not find the answer we desire.

Which answer is the correct answer?

For those that still want to know… What is the correct answer?  Continue to read the Scriptures, pray and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance, pray for wisdom and after you have done these things, ask yourself this question, why do you need a single correct answer (is life always singularly simple)? -Blessings

______________

[1] R. T. France, The New International Commentary on The New Testament: The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007), 641 (see footnote 13).

[2] Merriam-Webster, definition of synoptic, accessed on 07/03/2024, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synoptic#:~:text=s%C9%99%2D%CB%88n%C3%A4p%2Dti%2Dk%C9%99l,comprehensiveness%20or%20breadth%20of%20view).

[3] Leon Morris, The Pillar New Testament Commentary The Gospel according to Matthew (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1992), Preface.

[4] F.P. Viljoen 2012 work, Matthew's sitz im leben and the emphasis on the torah, accessed on 07/03/2024, https://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1015-87582012000200015.

[5] R. T. France, The New International Commentary on The New Testament: The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007), 15.

[6] Leon Morris, The Pillar New Testament Commentary The Gospel according to Matthew (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1992), 11.

[7] T.D. Alexander cited in The Evangelical Quarterly, LXI (1989), p. 5.

[8] R. T. France, The New International Commentary on The New Testament: The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007), 17-18.

[9]  Alfred Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Matthew (London, 1910).

[10]  Herbert Lockyer, Sr. Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), 1202.