The Kingdom of God

[ViaCrucis]

This is an excellently written reply. I will be one of the first to admit, as opposed to many on this website, who are stubborn and argue their point to exhaustion, that this reply helped my understanding a lot. However, I still have one major objection.

That is that Yeshua implied that some of those who were standing there would taste death before the kingdom of God came with power, i.e. the transfiguration, as a single, unique event that happened once, and if that kingdom of God was the transfiguration, then nobody died before it occurred. At least, it wasn't recorded. See what I'm saying? This issue hasn't been addressed yet.

If Jesus was referring to His Parousia, then we have a much bigger problem. Everyone who heard Jesus' words that day are no longer with us--they all tasted death. Each and every last of Jesus' hearers is long since dead and gone. So if Jesus was referring to His return at the end of the age in glory--His Parousia--then that would make Jesus wrong.

I don't think the Evangelists were trying to tell us that Jesus was wrong. Nor do I think Jesus was wrong.

So somehow there were some who heard Jesus' words who experienced what He was referring to. I would also disagree with the conclusion that Jesus was saying there are those who would die before this happened; the meaning is that there would be those alive who would see it; not that anyone would die before it happened.

"Some of us should visit Borneo before we die" doesn't mean anyone is going to die before visiting Borneo, only that the trip to Borneo happens during the lifetimes of those present.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FireDragon76]

That's great, but the word Mark explicitly used was "power," not "glory," as in "the kingdom of God when it has come with power (Mrk. 9:1)."

Those two concepts wouldn't be completely separate. Healings, theophanies, those would have all been understood by early Christians as manifestation of divine power.

 

[FireDragon76]

If Jesus was referring to His Parousia, then we have a much bigger problem. Everyone who heard Jesus' words that day are no longer with us--they all tasted death. Each and every last of Jesus' hearers is long since dead and gone. So if Jesus was referring to His return at the end of the age in glory--His Parousia--then that would make Jesus wrong.

I don't think the Evangelists were trying to tell us that Jesus was wrong. Nor do I think Jesus was wrong.

So somehow there were some who heard Jesus' words who experienced what He was referring to. I would also disagree with the conclusion that Jesus was saying there are those who would die before this happened; the meaning is that there would be those alive who would see it; not that anyone would die before it happened.

"Some of us should visit Borneo before we die" doesn't mean anyone is going to die before visiting Borneo, only that the trip to Borneo happens during the lifetimes of those present.

-CryptoLutheran

Early Christians had an inaugurated eschatology, where the future age to come was always breaking into the present. They didn't view time as rigidly linear as we do today. Both modern fundamentalist Evangelicals and 19th-20th century historical critics miss that aspect of early Christianity, and so they misunderstand much of the prophetic nature of the Gospels or early Christian imagination.

In early Christianity, Jesus was always both "already here" and "not yet here", and the ambiguity of what that meant was part of what made that experience alive and not something that could be pinned down to systematic theology, the kind of clarity that Western modernity would hold up as the only valid way of knowing.

 

[WhoIsLikeGod?]

If Jesus was referring to His Parousia, then we have a much bigger problem. Everyone who heard Jesus' words that day are no longer with us--they all tasted death. Each and every last of Jesus' hearers is long since dead and gone. So if Jesus was referring to His return at the end of the age in glory--His Parousia--then that would make Jesus wrong.

I don't think the Evangelists were trying to tell us that Jesus was wrong. Nor do I think Jesus was wrong.

So somehow there were some who heard Jesus' words who experienced what He was referring to. I would also disagree with the conclusion that Jesus was saying there are those who would die before this happened; the meaning is that there would be those alive who would see it; not that anyone would die before it happened.

"Some of us should visit Borneo before we die" doesn't mean anyone is going to die before visiting Borneo, only that the trip to Borneo happens during the lifetimes of those present.

-CryptoLutheran

Okay. I'm working with you now, rather than against you. Just looked this up: in logic, the term "some" is a quantifier that indicates the existence of at least one element within a set that satisfies a specific condition. It does not necessarily imply the condition is not true for all elements, meaning "some" does not inherently mean "not all." That means that at least one of the twelve disciples, but maybe all twelve, would not die before they saw the kingdom of God when it came with power, i.e. the transfiguration.

Although, why wouldn't Yeshua have just said, "All of you standing here...?"

 

[RandyPNW]

But which of the disciples died before the transfiguration?

None of them that I know of. Some would not die before they saw this. This was not all of the Disciples--just some. And those few "did not have to die" in order to see it.

 

[WhoIsLikeGod?]

None of them that I know of. Some would not die before they saw this. This was not all of the Disciples--just some. And those few "did not have to die" in order to see it.

Originally, I was thinking that because some of the disciples would not die before they saw it, some of them would die. But this is not the case. In logic, the term "some" is a quantifier that indicates the existence of at least one element within a set that satisfies a specific condition. It does not necessarily imply the condition is not true for all elements, meaning "some" does not inherently mean "not all."

But even so, why didn't Yeshua simply say, "All of you standing here will not taste death until...?"

 

[RandyPNW]

Originally, I was thinking that because some of the disciples would not die before they saw it, some of them would die. But this is not the case. In logic, the term "some" is a quantifier that indicates the existence of at least one element within a set that satisfies a specific condition. It does not necessarily imply the condition is not true for all elements, meaning "some" does not inherently mean "not all."

But even so, why didn't Yeshua simply say, "All of you standing here will not taste death until...?"

Yes, "some will not die" does not mean *any* will die. It's just that it is assumed some may have to die to see the Kingdom of God.

Jesus is denying this. And he is selecting only some for this experience of the Kingdom of God, eliminating all of the other Disciples as irrelevant as to whether they have to die or not.

It is just these select few Disciples who will not have to die to have this experience.

So, whether all of the Disciples have to die or not is irrelevant. What Jesus is focusing on are the few who will have this experience of the Kingdom of God.

And the point is that these few will not have to die, since the assumption by them appears to be that they would have to die to have that experience. This raises the question as to why the Disciples would think they have to die to have this experience? I'm not answering that here.

 

[trophy33]

"Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes."
Mt 10:23

"Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."
Mt 24:34

"Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door. This generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. "
Mk 13:30

"Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near. This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. "
Lk 21:31

"Behold, I shew you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed..."
1 Cor. 15:51

"...and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. "
1 The 5:23

The end of all things is at hand.
1 Pt 4:7

But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe.
Heb 1:2

Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy...because the time is near.
Rev 1:3

"God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must come to pass soon."
Rev 22:6


I hope this helps to demonstrate that we do not have just the three isolated verses in the OP, but it is a broader issue mentioned and implied throughout the New Testament, from gospels to Revelation. The immanency of the kingdom of God and the Lord coming in their life times.

Therefore, the explanations like the transfiguration obviously do not work.

 

[RandyPNW]

"Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes."
Mt 10:23

"Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."
Mt 24:34

"Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door. This generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. "
Mk 13:30

"Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near. This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. "
Lk 21:31

"Behold, I shew you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed..."
1 Cor. 15:51

"...and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. "
1 The 5:23

The end of all things is at hand.
1 Pt 4:7

But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe.
Heb 1:2

Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy...because the time is near.
Rev 1:3

"God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must come to pass soon."
Rev 22:6


I hope this helps to demonstrate that we do not have just the three isolated verses in the OP, but it is a broader issue mentioned and implied throughout the New Testament, from gospels to Revelation. The immanency of the kingdom of God and the Lord coming in their life times.

Therefore, the explanations like the transfiguration obviously do not work.

I don't think it is a broader issue. I think it has to do with seeing a preview of the inception of the Kingdom, and seeing Jesus actually obtaining his Kingdom in full view, even before it comes to earth in the eschatological sense.

I know some make a lot out of whether the Kingdom arrived with Jesus' 1st coming, cross, and ascension. My own view is that Jesus did obtain the Kingdom, but not in the eschatological sense. At his cross he obtained the Kingdom on our behalf so that we can be reassured right now that we already *have* Eternal Life.

So Jesus has the Kingdom now, but is in heaven until the time set by the Father to send him back. Each of the verses you cite must be treated *in context.* They are not all saying the same thing.

For example, when Jesus said his disciples would not finish going through the towns of his country before he comes he is indicating that not everyone will be able to experience full preparation before he visits each area. There is an urgency here given on behalf of future ministries to reach out to a world that has urgent needs because they cannot all be met.

When Jesus spoke of the closeness of his coming in judgment upon Israel he was speaking of the 70 AD event. But when he speaks of the relative nearness of his eschatological Coming he is referring to the fact that now is the time of Salvation--he has already died for our sins and it is encumbent upon us *now* to accept Christ for Eternal Life, well before he comes back in world judgment.

When Jesus spoke of our need to "watch" for his Coming, he was not speaking of imminent expectation, but rather, of aiming towards his Kingdom with the need to prepare for it now. We are to focus on what the Kingdom will mean, with its righteousness and with its exclusion of the wicked.

That way we know we must learn to be righteous now, and to be ready always, not in an imminent expectation but rather in the need to simply always be righteous and free of God's anger. We could be judged at any time.

 

[trophy33]

For example, when Jesus said his disciples would not finish going through the towns of his country before he comes he is indicating that not everyone will be able to experience full preparation before he visits each area. There is an urgency here given on behalf of future ministries to reach out to a world that has urgent needs because they cannot all be met.

I do not even know from which end should I begin with this explanation. Jesus was talking to His disciples who were around Him. And the chance to go through the cities was only till 70 AD. After that, the situation for his disciples changed, Jews were expelled from the country.

Your explanation does not seem to be about the verse at all. What full preparation, what future ministries, what world? I have no idea where you see all this in the verse.

 

[RandyPNW]

I do not even know from which end should I begin with this explanation. Jesus was talking to His disciples who were around Him. And the chance to go through the cities was only till 70 AD. After that, the situation for his disciples changed, Jews were expelled from the country.

Your explanation does not seem to be about the verse at all. What full preparation, what future ministries, what world? I have no idea where you see all this in the verse.

I said that Jesus' itinerant ministry was to be preceded and prepared for in advance by his Disciples, who were sent out two by two. They carried the Gospel of the Kingdom in preparation for Jesus' arrival in each town, who would present himself as Messiah--the way, the truth, and the life.

Jesus was saying that they should "get going" because his ministry would be short, and they would not have time to reach every town before he would visit there.

This, in principle, teaches ministry in the Church that their evangelical ministry has need of urgency because time is of the essence. There are many hindrances to the Gospel, and many people need to be reached with the Gospel message. Not all could be reached before the doors would close time after time.

I don't believe Jesus was talking about his 2nd Coming. Rather, he was talking about his appearance in each town, which was to be prepared for in advance by his Disciples.

 

[CoreyD]

This is an excellently written reply. I will be one of the first to admit, as opposed to many on this website, who are stubborn and argue their point to exhaustion, that this reply helped my understanding a lot.

However, I still have one major objection.

That is that Yeshua implied that some of those who were standing there would taste death before the kingdom of God came with power, i.e. the transfiguration, as a single, unique event that happened once, and if that kingdom of God was the transfiguration, then nobody died before it occurred. At least, it wasn't recorded. See what I'm saying? This issue hasn't been addressed yet.

It's good you said implied, because that means, that's what you assume, and not what was saying.
Why do you assume Jesus was referring to seeing in one way only? Why could Jesus not be referring to seeing either way - by vision, and in reality?

 

[hedrick]

There seem to be two requirements:
* The thing about not tasting death implies a sigificant time passing.
* It has to be a visible event showing the coming of the Kingdom

The first rules out the transfiguration and probably the resurrection. The second seems to rule out the fall of Jerusalem. I'd love to say Pentecost, but I think that's too close as well. The Fall of Jerusalem doesn't seem like a coming of the Kingdom.

According to Davies and Allison commentary on Matthew, the Fathers thought it was the Transfiguration. He thinks that was Mark's understanding; Calvin thought it was the Resurrection; a few have suggested Pentecost (though that has the problem that Matthew doesn't mention it); Gregory the Great and some current Catholics have said it was the triumph of the Church; some have suggested the destruction of Jerusalem; a majority of modern commentators see it as the Second Coming.

The commentary says Matthew's view is most likely either the Resurrection or the triumph of the Church. In views expressed much later than the commentary, Allison personally thinks the original meaning was the second coming, which seems like the most straightforward reading. Before saying that it's a false prophecy, however, he notes that there are a number of suggestions in the Gospels that Jesus hoped for the second coming, but thought it depended upon widespread repentance of Israel. One of the major goals of his ministry was calling for that. That the End might await national repentance was actually a fairly common ancient Jewish viewpoint. So he thinks this statement was qualified by a condition stated elsewhere.

 

[hedrick]

Allison's proposal could provide an interesting alternative to Jesus' sayings about the Romans. Perhaps saying that Israel should love the Romans wasn't the end of his message about Israel's situation. Perhaps Mark 9:1 was saying: If you want a few years, God will take care of the Romans and establish his Kingdom. But, although not stated there, not if you try to do it yourself with force.

 

[FireDragon76]

There seem to be two requirements:
* The thing about not tasting death implies a sigificant time passing.
* It has to be a visible event showing the coming of the Kingdom

The first rules out the transfiguration and probably the resurrection. The second seems to rule out the fall of Jerusalem. I'd love to say Pentecost, but I think that's too close as well. The Fall of Jerusalem doesn't seem like a coming of the Kingdom.

I don't think "not tasting death" necessarily implies a long time period. In first century Palestine, life expectancy was relatively low, most adults died in their 50's.

One thing to keep in mind is the parabolic nature of Jesus' teaching about the Kingdom: nonlinear logic and multivalent, even "fractal" symbolism. For instance, the parable of the leaven or the mustard seed. It may be that this saying is meant to be multivalent also, not refering to one specific incident, but multiple events at once. It may be serving as a different kind of speech act than what we are used to, as well, not one that is strictly descriptive, since Jesus often uses speech acts that are meant to be declarative rather than strictly descriptive.

Chatgpt o4-mini summarises this discussion with this:

Conclusion


Jesus’ saying likely isn’t meant as a riddle to be solved with one answer, but a doorway into the reality that the Kingdom of God is “at hand” and always arriving. Some saw it in a mountain vision. Others in an empty tomb. Others at Pentecost or in martyrdom or in the slow, holy work of the Church.



The question isn't whether Jesus’ words were wrong. The better question might be: are we among the “some” who see the Kingdom coming with power?


Jesus’ words here may be less like a calendar entry and more like thunder: a rumble that signals a storm already breaking into the world, even if we don’t yet see the downpour.


If we try to interpret it like a press release, we risk missing the deeply existential and spiritually confrontational force of it. He's not just telling the disciples what will happen. He’s summoning them into readiness for it.

 

[RandyPNW]

Yes, "some will not die" does not mean *any* will die. It's just that it is assumed some may have to die to see the Kingdom of God.

Jesus is denying this. And he is selecting only some for this experience of the Kingdom of God, eliminating all of the other Disciples as irrelevant as to whether they have to die or not.

It is just these select few Disciples who will not have to die to have this experience.

So, whether all of the Disciples have to die or not is irrelevant. What Jesus is focusing on are the few who will have this experience of the Kingdom of God.

And the point is that these few will not have to die, since the assumption by them appears to be that they would have to die to have that experience. This raises the question as to why the Disciples would think they have to die to have this experience? I'm not answering that here.

I will answer here why Jesus assumed that his Disciples thought righteous men had to die to see the Kingdom come. Dan 12 indicated that the glory of the righteous would come in their resurrection.

Dan 12.2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.

But Jesus is here (Matt 16.28) speaking of a preliminary verification that in some sense the Kingdom would come at his 1st Coming, and not just at the resurrection. He had his power from God during his earthly ministry, and it would finish its work *for us* at the Cross.

So Jesus showed a few of his Disciples that he was already receiving his power and Kingdom, having brought the Kingdom "near" in his person. And he displayed that power on the Mt. of Transfiguration. Peter attested to this:

2 Pet 1.16 For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.