Matt 16;27-28

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

it does appear he was speaking to the 12 disciples, so some would not pick up the cross?

Good question. Would it be only the 12? Or many others included as disciples?

[Lafon]

*bump*

I believe this issue is deserving of further exploration ......

Are there any who would choose to join with me in an objective, non-biased dialogue about the matter, allowing the pure word of God to be the final Arbitrator in determining the truth? After all, will that not be what Christ Jesus uses as the basis for judging us at the last day?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Matt 16:27-28

27 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.

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.
KJV



Some say verses 27 is one thing while verse 28 is the day of pentecost.

I think both verses are refering to same event. what thinketh thou?

Brother, it (IS)verse 28, the invisible kingdom of God as Jesus referred to in John 3, if not, we are wasting our time here and Jesus was wrong!!! Especially now, the listeners have been dead over 2000 years now.

Verse 27 is speaking of a different event(2nd coming or end of the world), than verse 28. Remember there is sometimes randomness(addressing more than 1 event in the same passage) in the Gospels and sometimes(many times) Jesus even quoted O.T. verses out of context to make a point.

[Lafon]

Originally Posted by Sean

Brother, it (IS)verse 28, the invisible kingdom of God as Jesus referred to in John 3, if not, we are wasting our time here and Jesus was wrong!!! Especially now, the listeners have been dead over 2000 years now.

Verse 27 is speaking of a different event(2nd coming or end of the world), than verse 28. Remember there is sometimes randomness(addressing more than 1 event in the same passage) in the Gospels and sometimes(many times) Jesus even quoted O.T. verses out of context to make a point.

Bro Sean, there is one thing about Irvin Baxter's post-trib teachings that I believe is commendable: I've noted he always "prefaces" (qualifies) that which he teaches with this phrase- "In my opinion." I construe those words to imply that he's not seeking to impose his understanding/interpretation upon that which a particular scriptural passage asserts as truth, only that what he publishes concerning it to be his "private interpretation." I try to remember that and endeavor to do the same, but as noted above, you fail to do that, only putting your words forth (publicly) as if the reader must accept them as truth. Do you grasp what I'm saying?

[mfblume]

I used to think there was randomness in Christ's words, until I sought to see if what He said actually flowed into what he already stated, and I was mistaken. I realized He did not use anything random. We just miss the point He made.

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I mentioned this once before on this forum, but if we read before these verses, Jesus was speaking about taking up the cross, denying ourselves and following Him. Tasting death is taking up the cross. He said if we do not taste death now, we will taste death later, and we will never live again. But if we taste death now we will live again unto eternal life. It was simply SELF DENIAL he was talking about. So it hit me that when he said some will not taste death til they see the son of man coming, he meant some would not deny themselves then, but would have their lives taken later and never regained! Ands their lives in deed were later taken to never return to them again!

Originally Posted by mfblume

I used to think there was randomness in Christ's words, until I sought to see if what He said actually flowed into what he already stated, and I was mistaken. I realized He did not use anything random. We just miss the point He made.

So how does your interpretation take into account the fact that Jesus said in verse 27 that at his coming, he would reward every man??

Matt 16
27 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.

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.

[Sean]

For clarification, for instance,,,, Nicodemus comes to Jesus and said......Jesus brought up something else. John 3

(My "random" statement) Nicodemus was on one subject , but Jesus was on another.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

So how does your interpretation take into account the fact that Jesus said in verse 27 that at his coming, he would reward every man??

Matt 16
27 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.

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.

I believe it meant that everyone was going to get their just rewards. It is not speaking about every man who ever lived from Adam onward. Every one who would experience that event in the lifetimes of those people. I believe this falls in line with Matt 21:40 in reference to the only coming mentioned in Matthew -- judgment on Israel. This is required because the next verse says those standing there would not taste death before that happened.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Sean

For clarification, for instance,,,, Nicodemus comes to Jesus and said......Jesus brought up something else. John 3

(My "random" statement) Nicodemus was on one subject , but Jesus was on another.

Not really, I think. Jesus redirected him.

Brother, I would not reject an interpretation that falls more in line with saying Jesus spoke of the same issue but in possibly a complicated way that we might initially miss, than say He spoke of something off the subject. It's like me talking to Him about blue cars, and He says, "Yeah, Sundays in winter are terrible in Israel."

[Sean]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Not really, I think. Jesus redirected him.

Brother, I would not reject an interpretation that falls more in line with saying Jesus spoke of the same issue but in possibly a complicated way that we might initially miss, than say He spoke of something off the subject. It's like me talking to Him about blue cars, and He says, "Yeah, Sundays in winter are terrible in Israel."

"Off the subject" is the better phrase I am looking for...Thanks