Thanks Gabe. It is very challenging to rethink long-held interpretations. I’ve done a little, very little, research into finding any literature that explains what the Jews would have thought was recorded in the “book of life”. Was it “people” or “works” that is recorded there? The immediate litterary context can be interpreted either way.
To me, the perspective that lines up with the character of God (love, justice, mercy, holiness, etc.) and the greater context of scripture (especially the 1 Cor. 13 passage) is interpreting “tis” as “whatever”, implying that it is evil works that are cast into the Dead Sea (the lake of the fire and the brimstone) where everything dead in the Jordon River Valley ends up. The Dead Sea is where any trash or dead bodies burned up in Hinnom Valley (Gehennna) end up washing into.
The other perspective, to me, is almost as good though “if” one takes into consideration the fuller picture of what happens with the nations and kings in Revelation. “IF” “tis” was meant by John to reference evil “people” whose “names” are not written in the book of life, then one must assume that all the anti-Christ nations and kings would be cast into the Dead Sea, and then journey into the New Jerusalem where the leaves of the trees are for the healing of the nations and the kings bring their wealth to worship God in the city where abide Jesus and the Bride (the church).
I think the “whatever” interpretation of “tis” is best. All people are judged according to their “works”. If one interpets this passage as separating the saved from the unsaved, then salvation is based on “works”, not on the sacrifice of Christ. And thus it is only “good” people who will be saved, apparently those whose good works outweigh their bad works. In this scenario where does faith, grace, mercy come in? It doesn’t. And salvation is not based on the grace of God, but on the goodness of your life. And frankly, if that’s the case I don’t know that my name is written in that book.
Considering the literary context and the character of God, the “whatever” interpretation of things, dead works, being cast into the Dead Sea (lake of fire) is the best. All people are judged according to how they live their lives, how they treat others, what they did with the blessings and opportunities given them, how they overcome the challenges, etc. etc. etc. And that which is evil, doesn’t meet the mark, is cast into the Dead Sea, forever forgotten, nothing but that which is good is left, and all evil is done away with. People are delivered from evil, not locked into evil for eternity. Jesus truly is savior of all and truly conquers all.
Again Pilgrim, the point I’m making is that between the two alternatives your “amongst this Jewish people” fits perfectly and logically to the specific people Jesus was addressing, i.e., his audience. “Generation” ALWAYS references a timeframe, your generation, your parent’s generation, their parent’s parents etc, etc; it’s called audience relevance. “Generation” is NOT referring to a particular type or “race” of people thousands of years hence ad infinitum.
It is also worth noting in the context of judgement and the audience to whom Jesus speaks he says…
Mt 16:27-28For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. “Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
Jesus is emphatic… some of his then listening audience would witness the parousia BEFORE they died! In line with this consider Jesus’ words to the High Priest Mt 26:64. You actually have to deal with this, it cannot be casually swept under the carpet and dismissed. IF the parousia is still yet to happen as you contend then there are “some” miraculously OLD people STILL living on this earth TODAY some two + millennia post Jesus’ proclamation… really??
The best I can do here to show you how such fulfilment fits in with “the then known world” is allow scripture testify unto itself…
Five Greek words show the “Great Commission” – into all the world – as given by Jesus to his disciples was, according to the Scriptures, fulfilled within Jesus’ “this generation” time-frame AD30-70 and was thus the fulfilling precursor to the AD70 Parousia of Christ.
Oikoumene (οικουμενη) – meaning: the inhabited earth e.g., Lk 2:1… Mt 24:14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world – oikoumene (οικουμενη) as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.
Rom 10:18But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed: “Their sound has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world – oikoumene (οικουμενη).”
Gē (γη) – meaning: earth or land: Rom 10:18But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed: "Their sound has gone out to all the earth – gē (γη), and their words to the ends of the world.
Act 1:8But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth – gē (γη).”
Ethné (εθνη) – from which “ethnic” is derived: Mt 28:19Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations – ethné (εθνη), baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…
Rom 16:26…but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations – ethné (εθνη), according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith—
Kosmos (κοσμος) – meaning: the aggregate of humanity. Rom 1:8First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world – kosmos (κοσμος).
Col 1:6…has come to you, as it has also in all the world – kosmos (κοσμος), and is bringing forth fruit, as it is also among you since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth.
Ktisei (κτισει) – meaning: the human creation: Mk 16:15And He said to them, "Go into all the world – kosmos (κοσμος) and preach the gospel to every creature – ktisei (κτισει).
Col 1:23…if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature – ktisei (κτισει) under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.
Now you can ignore the above testimony of scripture, but I see it as absolutely NO “strain to have to insert ‘the then known world’ here” BECAUSE this is what the inspired texts say.
I think your so-called “strain” is further unstrung WHEN you consider the passage context, which is self-explanatory, as opposed to just isolating a text and hitching an interpretive assumption to it; consider the following…
Another good verse making the case for what I’m saying… who exactly are “all the tribes of the land” wailing? – none other than the tribes of Israel under the final judgement of Ad70. Not only this but the Greek structure of the text best reflected in the KJV actually to bares this out… “and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven”. WHAT was “the sign” that the Son of man was in heaven? – the prophesied calamities as stated in the previous verse; followed then by the tribes “wailing” at the Coming of the Lord. It ALL fits together!
Hi Davo - thanks for your reply, I don’t have a lot of time at the mo so I’ll probably give a fuller consideration later.
Just at the mo:
I’m not sure what you are saying here and would appreciate some clarification. What I mean is that I agree the English word ‘generation’ refers to a time frame, but are you disagreeing with Paidions point that the Greek word can just as easily mean ‘stock of people’ (living at any time throughout history)? If so, then I understand your point but I would like to know on what grounds you reject the Greek lexicon’s information.
Firstly note the quote is way back in Mt 16 NOT the Matt 23,24,25 discourse. But more importantly I agree that Jesus is emphatic… some of his then listening audience would witness the Son of Man coming in His kingdom BEFORE they died!
But read on. Why stop there? What happens in the NEXT TWO VERSES:
Mat 17:1 And after six days, Jesus took Peter and James, and his brother John, and brought them up into a high mountain privately.
Mat 17:2 And He was transfigured before them, and His face shone like the sun, and His clothing became white as the light.
I don’t know why some people disassociate Jesus’ promise from what happens in the next two verses - they see him coming in His Kingdom.
That would be a very silly and unnecessary interpretation - certainly not mine nor anyone I know who is ‘non-preterist’.
Interestingly enough, I had already mentioned that the Jewish perspective of prophecy was not ‘preterist’ nor ‘futurist’ etc but was ALL of them because they believed in a repeating pattern of fulfilment of prophecy until the final absolute fulfilment.
Well, a few verses later the text actually emphasises JUST THIS VIEW of prophecy:
Mat 17:10 And His disciples asked Him, saying, Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?
Mat 17:11 And answering, Jesus said to them,** Elijah indeed comes first and shall **restore all things.
Mat 17:12 But I say to you, Elijah already came, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they desired. So also the Son of Man is about to suffer by them.
Mat 17:13 Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them about John the Baptist.
I must go now but I will have a good read of the rest of your posts asap
Yes, according to the definition you have given here, the Greek means ‘the inhabited earth’ - that must include Australia and America etc. I agree with what the scripture says here.
Now here, Paul is quoting Psalm 19v4 which says:
Psa 19:4 Their measuring line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world; in them He has set up a dwelling-place for the sun,
Paul (and the Psalmist) is talking about the message of creation NOT the parousia. Surely there can be no doubt about that because, according to the Psalmist who says Psa 19:1 To the chief musician. A Psalm of David. The heavens are recounting the glory of God, and the expanse proclaiming His handiwork. According to David this had alreadyt happened in HIS day WELL before Jesus’ incarnation so you cannot use this to support your perspective (can you??).
I agree but I cannot see your point with this scripture reference.
et al
I may be mistaken as to why these support your position but, if I understand you right (please forgive if not) your point is that because not every man, woman and child had heard the gospel and yet St Paul uses the sort of phraseology shown then it is ok to believe that the term ‘world’ ‘kosmos’ etc was used loosely by St Paul. I agree but I really don’t see how that necessitates preterism.
Why do you say ‘ignore the testimony of scripture’ as if one would have to do that? What we can both be very confident of is that even if the text meant ‘the then known world’, then St Paul was STILL using hyperbola because it is certain that not every man, woman and child had heard the gospel preached even in the then known world. So surely the safest thing is to accept what our lexicons say the Greek means rather than something else. The Greek either means the entire planet or it means ‘the inhabited lands’ which is not ‘the then known world’ (whatever that phrase may mean because it was well known that the earth was a sphere at that time).
Davo replied:
I wish I could follow you here Davo but I cannot understand what you are saying.
Are you saying that the 70AD tribulation was greater than the WW2 holocaust?
When you say
Where have you established this idea that Matthew says the GT takes place in the middle of History? I know that is YOUR position but just stating it as fact does not make it so. I am looking for evidence.
I repeat, is it your belief that the 70AD troubles were greater than the WW2 holocaust?
What is your basis for saying this? The first Temple was destroyed with carnage, the second Temple was likewise and if a third is built I dare say it is likely to be destroyed with even greater carnage (possibly nuclear next time)
But that is NOT what the verse says.
The verse does not say that ‘he sign that the son of man was in heaven was/is the calamities’ as you say,
what the scripture says is:
“tey will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and much glory”
Every translation I have examined says the same thing - that they will SEE THE SON OF MAN COMING.
Are you saying that the people of 70AD saw Jesus coming? How so?
Thank you once again for the replies you have given Davo. I am wondering why you did not reply to the other 3 verses:
Mat 25:30 And throw the worthless slave out into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of the teeth.
Mat 25:31 But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.
Mat 25:32 And before Him shall be gathered all the nations; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
The chapter divisions are a much later addition to the text and Jesus’ address continues smoothly into Ch25. Do you believe these verses were also fulfilled in 70AD or are they a future event(s)? Do you thing my bolded is not the same ‘see him coming in power and great glory’ as in Ch24v30?
Davo, you sound absolutely certain about your belief that “this generation” needs to refer to the people to whom He was speaking, presumably the Jews of that day, whereas we accursed futurists are out to lunch.
But let me ask you why should the blood of all the prophets from the beginning of the world have been required of of the Jews in THAT generation? Why would it not be required by the Jews of subsequent generations also? What made the Jews of that generation any more guilty of the blood of the prophets prior to their lifetime, than the Jews of subsequent generations, or the Jews of previous generations who were directly responsible for the death of these prophets?
Paidion- good question. I believe the generation Jesus was speaking to was ‘uniquely’ guilty and suffered God’s judgment (in 70AD), because unlike previous generations that had killed God’s spokespersons/prophets, that generation killed God’s own Son. Jesus demonstrated His Sonship to them by His miracles and what He taught and even God’s power did not move their hearts (sinning against the Holy Spirit??). It makes sense then that that generation Jesus was speaking to, was who Jesus was referring to , when He spoke about the blood of all the prophets etc.
I guess if Darth Vader must go for a reconciled Anakin to emerge, would not the ‘old man’, the Vader be destroyed by that process of making all things new? The lake of fire I’d think does destroy the old, just as death itself will be destroyed, having been part of that old order.
If someone’s name is not in the book of life at a particular moment of it being read, is there anything precluding names from being added later? Just because all are predestined to be in it wouldn’t mean that a particular snapshot of it at the passing of one age into the next would be the whole story – or would it?
If someone’s name is not in the book of life at a particular moment of it being read, is there anything precluding names from being added later? Just because all are predestined to be in it wouldn’t mean that a particular snapshot of it at the passing of one age into the next would be the whole story – or would it?
The bible does say our name could be blotted out of the book of life (listening Calvinists?) therefore it would seem a name could be blotted in too.
I’m basically affirming your “I agree the English word ‘generation’ refers to a time frame” and contending that was likewise how Jesus was using it in-kind with his own period. I’m not arguing against lexical variants, the likes Paidion identifies, but disagreeing with the futurist conclusion he was drawing from that, i.e., “He may have been referring to the Jewish people. And Jewish people are still with us.” – meaning “this race shall not pass away until all these things are fulfilled” thus pushing said prophecy out into the never, never 2000+ yrs and counting. I think I’ve showed adequately Jesus was speaking directly to biblical Israel there and THEN, i.e., “t/his generation”.
And that means what…?? The context of the passage tells plainly it is a parousaic passage in-kind with what Jesus simply expands on later.
And I’m not sure why you would disassociate the ONE verse directly preceding (vs27) which again lays the concrete context of the coming judgement and attendant rewards… “For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.”
The ‘transfiguration’ of Mt 17:1-2 HAD nothing to do with Christ’s ‘rewarding each according to his works’ – something CLEARLY in league with “the end”. The ‘transfiguration’ on the other hand was but a mere 6 days hence with no great persecutions or tribulations predicted or otherwise, and most definitely NO THREATS of imminent death… that was YET to come starting with Saul. Thus to try and equate the two is more than well and truly forced, IMO.
Well, unless you are going to hold stubbornly onto your (IMO) “very silly and unnecessary interpretation” ‘transfiguration’ argument, how then do you deal with “there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom”? It will not go away.
No, not “Australia and America etc” but “the inhabited earth” AS THEY KNEW IT. Just like that Lk 2:1 reference indicated… I was hoping you’d read and realised the gist. “And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.” = Oikoumene (οικουμενη).
Earlier with regards to Mt 24:14 and the parousia you said: “-It would be a strain to have to insert ‘the then known world’ here.” I was simply pointing out the biblical fact that the gospel had indeed gone globalAS THEY KNEW IT as per and according to ALL those texts I provided, that say it had.
I am post evangelical. Evangelicalism says Christ cannot “return” until all people groups etc have been borne witness of the gospel… pantelism agrees with prêterism that the parousia is indeed a past event BECAUSE “all the world” i.e., the KNOWN world of that day at least according to those texts as given heard the gospel. So THAT was the point of those 5 Greek words…
Absolutely agree.
I won’t worry about commenting further on David Chilton’s ‘Paradise Restored’ quote as it said well my thoughts, but here’s the pdf LINK. He wrote this as a firmly entrenched partial prêterist/futurist.
In terms of Jesus’ prophetic word… absolutely NO contest! Jesus was NOT talking about “WW2 holocaust”, he was speaking to the calamity on THEIR immediate horizon… that which was “ABOUT TO” take place.
??.. I said: “WHAT was “the sign” that the Son of man was in heaven? – the prophesied calamities as stated in the previous verse; followed then by the tribes “wailing” at the Coming of the Lord.”
The previous verse states these concurrent events “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.” By “calamities” I was referring to “the tribulation of those days”. That “these things” (Mt 24:33; Lk 21:7, 9, 28, 31. 36) were happening was indicative or “the sign” that the Son of man was in deed in Heaven and ready to come in Judgement.
Jesus’ coming was in the same vein as Yahweh’s other OT comings, ‘on the clouds’. Such judgements were “days of clouds” and calamities… “For the day is near, even the day of the Lord is near; It will be a day of clouds, the time of the Gentiles.” Ezek 30:3cfZeph 1:14-18; Isa 19:1; Mt 26:64. Note also the phrase “the time of the Gentiles.”
They all saw, even those who pierced him, but only those of “understanding” truly perceived and believing Jesus’ words got out (Lk 21:21) and were duly “saved” Mt 24:13.
Lol… so many questions, so little time.
As I understand it they are all one, yet differing aspects of ‘the Day of the Lord’. The nations being judged was primarily Israel (Gen 17:4-6, 16; 35:11). Once she was judged and redeemed reconciliation flowed to all beyond.
Pantelism (NOT prêterism) views the Cross—Parousia event as establishing the restorative grace of God from time immemorial on into perpetuity “world without end”.
Hey, never “accursed”… it just that an historical reading makes the most logical, linguistic and natural of reading of the text, IMO. IOW, IF no other thought/agenda/presupposition is brought to the text no other airy fairy conclusions would be drawn… they his audience would be hearing and come to either accept or reject his words to them – both had consequences.
Unlike EVERY other generation they actually had ‘the Lord of Glory’, their Messiah. All that their story had been running towards was being fulfilled in THEIR day… it was THEIR ‘day of visitation’ (Lk 19:41-44) and they were blind to it. Their day or “time” of salvation would also be their day or “time” of judgement (Acts 2:16-21)… the accumulative effect of all that had gone before would have its purposed ending.
Now in line with this it was very much the case of “to whom much is given much is required” – they had ‘the living oracles of God’ (Acts 7:38; Rom 3:1-2), theirs was ‘the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises’ (Rom 9:4). Like their forebears they had turned all these into ends in themselves as opposed to being the means to an end… “the light of the world”. Jesus and hid firstfruit saints finally changed all that.
The implications of this question really need thinking about…
Now I know you would in NO WAY impugn the Jewish people of modern times, BUT this is exactly the rationale the Nazis followed as justifying their collective crime of WWII. The reality is, IF God’s RECONCILIATION of humanity means anything then Israel’s REDEMPTION must mean the end of “the curse of the Law”. That end IMO came in the Cross—Parousia event of AD30-70… 40yrs, a biblical generation, the “this generation” where the outworking of God’s redemptive purposes finally found their goal.
Even though ALL ISRAEL, the good, the bad and the ugly were redeemed fully out of Egypt (bondage), ONLY those of faith went on into experience the fullness of life in the ‘Land of Promise’. Emulating the 40yr pattern of trials and tribulations… with Christ having redeemed ALL ISRAEL only those of faith went on into LIFE in the “coming new age” surviving into the post Ad70 world. Paul could see the coming crisis and wanted as many of his brethren to be “saved” from it as possible.
That’s another way of saying… NT “salvation” was a whole lot more than just “getting to heaven”.
Hi Davo
Thank you once again for the time you have taken to reply to my thoughts.
If I consider a wish list then let me say that within that list would be the truth of UR, and the truth of either Preterism or Pantelism.
When I wish for something to be true I try to look long and hard in scripture in order that I might collect enough evidence to push me that way.
I don’t know who (in their right mind) would wish for a great tribulation yet to come, but unfortunately I cannot see the evidence as you see it.
I am glad to say that from scripture I CAN be a very hopeful universalist, and even moreso from logic and examination/experience of the character of God.
I also acknowledge that any eschatological view has some problematic texts. Let me try to list where I am at the moment:
Jesus only once uses the phrase ‘some standing here who shall not taste death…’ (recorded in Luke 9 and in Matt 16)
Both accounts are immediately followed by the transfiguration. They DID at this point** SEE **Jesus in His Glory as He will be at His second coming and this was all Jesus promised.
I think that either interpretation is very reasonable. I take your point about the preceding verses and I hope you take my point about the following verses. Jesus did not say that they would see the whole array of events surrounding His second coming, but as I say IMO both interpretations are very possible WITHOUT STRAINING.
Re. ‘this generation’: Obviously this is quite a different turn of phrase and I find it noteworthy that Jesus refrained from His previous turn of phrase ‘some standing here’ in preference for ‘this generation’. Three possible interpretations are:
a) It means the people listening to Jesus’ discourse
b) It means the generation He is referring to WITHIN His discourse (ie the ‘blossoming fig-tree’ generation He had alluded to)
c) It means ‘this gene-pool’ ie the Jewish people at any time in history.
Again, I can understand how an unbiased reader might consider any of those three interpretations to be reasonably possible without straining.
.
The greatest tribulation ever:
I have visited a concentration camp. I don’t know if you have. Six million Jews, experimentation on children of the most obscene type etc.
I couldn’t really see an answer to my question as to whether you thought the 70ad trib was worse than the WW2 trib. Perhaps that is my own fault but regardless of that, the only conclusion I can come to is that if 70AD was the event Jesus was referring to, then He was wrong, as history has shown.
4. Jesus clearly said they would see** HIM(Jesus)** coming. They did NOT see Him coming.
I think you have given me plenty of your precious time Davo and there will be no further benefit to either of us in continuing this discussion so I wish you God’s richest blessings and His Peace.
Cheers.
Jesus only once uses the phrase ‘some standing here who shall not taste death…’ (recorded in Luke 9 and in Matt 16)
Both accounts are immediately followed by the transfiguration. They DID at this point SEE Jesus in His Glory as He will be at His second coming and this was all Jesus promised.
I think that either interpretation is very reasonable.
The problem is it’s followed to soon by the transfigeration, i believe 6 days which makes Jesus statement problematic. I think it’s his ascension as described by Dan 7.13.
**In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matt 3:1,2 ESV)
From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matt 4:17 ESV)**
Both John the Baptizer and Jesus proclaimed the same message. The verb translated “is at hand” is a perfect active indicative, and would better be translated “has drawn near”. A kingdom consists of a king and his subjects. At this point, Jesus had not yet called his disciples to follow Him. He began to do so in the very next verse. Once He had called his disciples, wasn’t the Kingdom of Heaven, or the Kingdom of God?
Then we have the following sentence in Luke:
But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.” (Luke 9:27 ESV)
And then in chapter 17:
Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” (Luke 17:20,21 ESV)
So at this point, the Kingdom of God had arrived. For there in the midst of the Pharisees stood King Jesus and his subjects (his disciples).
I am struggling to understand all this. I would like to say that not only some, but all of the disciples saw the Kingdom of God, for together with Jesus they FORMED the Kingdom of God as indicated by Jesus in the Luke 17 passage above. But then Jesus was alone with his disciples in the Luke 9 passage. Why was that not the Kingdom of God at that point? Does anyone have any suggestions to help me to understand?
The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” (Luke 17:20,21 ESV)
Here in luke 17 it seems that the kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed but in Luke 9 Jesus refers to seeing the kingdom of God therefore it may be a different manifestation of the kingdom of God later on.
As I understand it… “the kingdom of God” aka “kingdom of heaven” (one and the same Mt 19:23-24) being “near” or “at hand” was Jesus’ way of proclaiming to Israel her year or time of liberty under “the reign of God” is here i.e., the RETURN of Yahweh to Zion… this was another way of saying “your exile (covenant death) is over”. This was Israel’s GOSPEL, “the good news” (εὐαγγέλιον euangélion), elsewhere described in terms of “the consolation of Israel” (Lk 2:25, 38; 23:51; 24:21; Mk 15:43; Acts 1:6; Ezek 37:11-12) – restoration/redemption/resurrection etc…
Isa 52:7How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who proclaims peace, who brings glad tidings of good things, who proclaims salvation, who says to Zion, “Your God reigns!” cfIsa 61:1-3; Lk 4:18-19
IOW… the kingdom or reign of God was now present “in the midst of you” in Jesus… and to as many as grasped this (him) reality to them was conferred “authority” in said kingdom/reign (Jn 1:12; Lk 12:32, 22:29; Mt 21:43)
Now when Jesus said “The kingdom of God does not come with observation” he meant “the kingdom of God is not of this world” in terms of a geo-political reign; whereas that is exactly what the Israelites were waiting for, a Messiah to rout the enemy, in this case Rome… this is why “they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king”, Jesus however flees from this, Jn 6:15.
Now with regards to Lk 9:27 Mark expands with more clarity on this saying…
Mk 9:1And He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.” [NKJV] marginal note reads: having come.
What needs to be pointed out here is that Mark sees some of the disciples living to see Christ’s return and kingdom coming by using the perfect participle while Matthew sees it in the future. In other words Mark is saying that some of the disciples would live to be able to look back on this event knowing that the coming of the Lord and His kingdom had already come:
Mk 9:1And Jesus was saying to them, "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."
[NASB]
Mk 9:1And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.”
[ESV]
Mk 9:1 Verily, say unto you–There, are, certain of those here standing, who shall in nowise taste of death, until they see the kingdom of God, already come in power. [ROTHERHAM]
Mk 9:1And he said to them, `Verily I say to you, That there are certain of those standing here, who may not taste of death till they see the reign of God having come in power.’
[YOUNG’S LITERAL TRANSLATION]
Mk 9:1Then he added, "Believe me, there are some of you standing here who will know nothing of death until you have seen the kingdom of God already come in power!"
[J.B. PHILLIPS]
Mk 9:1And he said to them, Truly I say to you that there are men standing here who shall not taste death till they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.
[LAMSA’S PESHITTA]
Mk 9:1He went on to say, "In solemn truth I tell you that some of those who are standing here will certainly not taste death till they have seen the Kingdom of God already come in power.
[R.F. WEYMOUTH]
R.F. WEYMOUTH, footnote:
Already come] Or ‘already arrived;’ the perfect participle. The imperfect act ‘coming’ is mentioned in Matt. xvi. 28, the completed act of ‘having come’ is mentioned here.
In power] Some suppose that the reference is to a spiritual and judicial Coming of Christ at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., just within the lifetime of His earthly contemporaries.
Thank you, Davo! I have agreed for some time with all that you wrote above about the Kingdom of God (aka the Kingdom of Heaven).
My problem was with Mark 9:1, which seemed to indicate (according to the translations I had been reading) that the coming of Kingdom of God was yet future to the disciples. I had not noticed the Greek verb ἐληλυθιαν in particular, and thus had not noticed that it was a perfect participle. This puts a whole different meaning to the sentence, namely that there were some standing there who would not die until they perceived or understood that the Kingdom of God had already come! My thanks again, Davo!
I am still puzzled, however. Wasn’t it the case that the only ones standing there were his disciples? Did this mean that some of them did not understand that the Kingdom had come? Indeed, did they not understand that they themselves were part of the Kingdom, since they were the disciples or the subjects of King Jesus?
And why did He say there are SOME standing here who will not die until they understand that the Kingdom of God has come with power?
Why did He not say there are NONE standing here who will not die until they understand the Kingdom of God has come with power?
Did most of them die without this understanding?
Hi Paidion… in a real sense “the coming” spoken of was indeed future to them… primarily or ultimately in terms of the Ad70 parousia as it was “with power”. The “with power” fits best with the Ad70 scenario as opposed for example, the outpouring of Pentecost, simply because the previous verse (8:38) clearly puts it in the parousaic context of the glory of the Father and the attendant angels etc.
But you are right, there was also the factor of the burgeoning revelation of the reality of the kingdom’s presence then and there… I tend to see this in terms of what some call the “already not yet” – again something my position holds to as being relative to the Ad30-70 40yr overlapping or transitional period of old to new covenants.
No… 8:34 indicates “the people” being present, as well as “the disciples”.
This is likely because Jesus knew SOME would indeed pay with their lives in martyrdom… following their Lord as they did (Mt 10:38-39) before the coming parousia. Jesus’ “whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die” was a generic statement and ONLY poses a problem when forced into a wooden literalism. SOME did in fact die for the cause but were to be summarily rewarded in kind in the parousia.
That Jesus said as he did makes it fairly obvious that “death” and particular in terms of the disciples “martyrdom” (Mk 10:38-39), was more the likely scenario… just not for all – hence also the rumour about John (Jn 21:20-23), which Patmos “might” suggest was indeed the case.
