The Transfiguration Revisited

I know the problem lies with me but I do not understand your point in your explanation of point #1...

I just re-read what I wrote in point #1 and it is a bit confusing! In fact, my point could work in favor of the transfiguration being something wholly different.

"there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death" implies a general witness, whereas

"Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John his brother" is clearly a selective witness.

Hmmm.

So, wait a minute. I don't think Matthew 25:31-46 and Matthew 16:27 describe Jesus coming into his kingdom. They describe an already-sitting king coming in judgment of his people. The kingdom is already his at this point.

If we want to get right down to it, Jesus called it a vision, so neither Moses, Elijah, nor their angels were physically present.

Well, there you go - accepting what is written. I am grateful. But, what kind of vision was it. A physical vision, meaning did they actually see Christ being transfigured? Or was it a spiritual vision. Seeing what they saw only in their minds. Right now I am seeing a vision of the Phillies playing the Pirates. It is actually happening as I am watching this vision, and I am able to see it even though I am 300 miles away from where the game is being played. It's called television.

So, what kind of vision was it? Is it said anywhere that Peter, James and John was in the Spirit? Or did they literally go with Jesus to a high mountain? I personally believe it was a literal physical vision. So, then, wasn't Jesus then telling them to not tell anyone what they saw?

The Greek word, "horama," simply means "somthing that is seen, or gazed at."

Amen, Robin!

I'm working from Hebrews 9 which is about 2 appearances that Jesus makes before the Father. The first to offer His blood for our sins and to consecrate the heavenly holy of holies; and the second to deliver salvation to the resurrected saints bringing them into the presence of God.

Everybody wants to make His 2nd appearance some visible manifestation in the earth, but I don't see that a physical manifestation other than the incarnate appearance of Christ is foretold anywhere. Which of course includes His resurrected appearance to the apostles since that is part of the gospel.

Note, however, that it was also the Holy Spirit who was interceding for us, not only Christ. And yet the Holy Spirit didn't shed any blood or 'sprinkle' any blood.

Romans 8:26,34
"Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered... It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us."

It is my opinion that tying the end of intercession to the sprinkling of blood to be a little on the artificial side. There is no indication that these intercessions were to be temporary. Furthermore;

Hebrews 7:20-25
"And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him:
“The LORD has sworn And will not relent, ‘You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek’”),
by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant. Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing. But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them."

One of the main points of this passage is to reassure the reader that, because Christ lives forever (unlike all those who died as priests before), He will forever intercede for us. This priesthood is forever, permanent, and unchangeable. If intercession was for merely 40 years, an earthly priest could have fulfilled that role, theoretically at least, simply because it could be possible for him to live that long.

No, this is a reassurance that our priest intercedes forever because He lives forever and there is no end to His priesthood. It lasts as long as that 'better covenant' lasts.

Christ did not have to 'deal' with sin (which isn't what the verse says anyway) when He appears again ("To those who eagerly wait for Him") because He had already dealt with it, once (a singular time), and for all (anybody).

Romans 6:6,7
"knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin."

Christ 'dealt' with sin at His death, burial, and resurrection. That is why the gospel is about this. Judgment came later, and Christ came to execute that judgment on that occasion, but that isn't the gospel.

The freedom isn't from the struggle or from choices. The freedom is from sin. I believe that scripture speaks of this struggle, such that even if we do stumble, we are still free from sin. For where there is no law there is no sin, and there is no imputation of sin.

This is our freedom, not from trials or struggles or temptations, but from the sin that should be imparted onto us because of them. The danger inherent in this freedom is abuse. Thus Paul asks "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" and of course the answer is no.

Here's one of the reasons why (IMHO). Willingly submitting to sin (making sin your master, even if only for a brief moment) dulls the conscience and hardens the heart. That makes it 'easier', so to speak, to submit to sin again. Just as the opposite is also true.

The ultimate 'test' is submitting our will to God, especially in the good times. This is exactly what the Lord said to the Israelites when they entered into covenant with Him to do what He commanded (keep their hearts toward God and observe His law).

Deuteronomy 29:18,19 [must be read in its fuller context though]
"so that there may not be among you man or woman or family or tribe, whose heart turns away today from the LORD our God, to go and serve the gods of these nations, and that there may not be among you a root bearing bitterness or wormwood; and so it may not happen, when he hears the words of this curse, that he blesses himself in his heart, saying, ‘I shall have peace, even though I follow the dictates of my heart’—as though the drunkard could be included with the sober."

God's purposes are eternal and they do not change. He wants our hearts to be toward Him and He wants us to surrender to His will that His goodness can be poured on us.

In the old testament we see the requirements for righteousness as an external 'visual aid', teaching us about sin. What it teaches is that no one can be righteous of their own accord and that the only way to be right with God is for Him to hold back the sin that should be imputed onto us. The 'problem' is that God's law, derived from His very nature, is that death is mandatory for sin. That was the dilemma of the old covenant; the sacrifices could only 'put off' the sentence, not remove it.

Christ came to be that perfect sacrifice, whereby a perfectly submitted will [the very definition of a sinless person] was offered to God. When we are buried with Him we participate in His sacrifice, and the sentence of death on our lives is carried out. It is in this manner that we no longer live; it is our will that no longer lives since we are raised with Christ to participate in His life, His will.

The problem here is that even though we are created anew, and the sentence of death has been satisfied, one sin places us right back where we started, and we are still in flesh and are weak. But thank God, this is why it is said that we are dead to sin - in our participation of Christ's death, we are no longer under any law whose transgression pronounces sin upon us. It is a law of liberty - a law that frees us to live in God.

I believe this why Hebrews tells us that Christ cannot be crucified again; the sacrifice being once only, and sufficient for my entire life. Should I stumble, it is to my shame, not Christ's. For He shows the Father the blood He shed, and intercedes for me, telling Him that I am dead, 'here is the blood as evidence' and that sin cannot be placed on me. I am hid with Christ in God.

This is basically the same as in the old testament, except that was merely a picture of what Jesus would do. There, the sin was "passed over" until the time Christ would come and demonstrate God's righteousness (Romans 3:25,26). But now in Christ these sins are not merely passed over in a temporary state, they are not merely forgiven leaving us open to a future sin, they are non-existent.

This is what 'justification' is all about. God's righteousness doesn't end with forgiveness. It says there is no sin; "You are innocent of the charge". This is so powerful!

Hebrews 8:12
"For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more".

We are unrighteous but God's righteousness is merciful toward us. better stop here.

Yes, I think that is possible. Other verses that may support the concept:

(1 Peter 3:19 NASB) in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,

(Ephesians 4:8 NASB) Therefore it says, "WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH, HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES, AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN."

Can you be more specific? Actually, I was going to quote the entire surrounding passage, then comment on it. But the more I read it, the more I felt I had to quote here. Before I knew it, I had almost the entire chapter! I didn't think you all were up to reading one of my chapter long commentaries (even though my commentary portion is usually scant).

So if you can explain what you mean regarding the two verses, maybe we can build upon it from there.

OK. I don't have any problems with that. So my next question is: Why did you make that point?

"Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." - Matt 16:28

Compare with:

"Asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus said in reply, “The coming of the kingdom of God cannot be observed, and no one will announce, ‘Look, here it is,’ or, ‘There it is.’ For behold, the kingdom of God is among you.”

Then He said to His disciples, “The days will come when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. There will be those who will say to you, ‘Look, there he is,’ or ‘Look, here he is.’ Do not go off, do not run in pursuit. For just as lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Man be in His day. But first He must suffer greatly and be rejected by this generation.”" - Luke 17:20-25

These verses don't actually conflict. The coming of the kingdom was not supposed to be observable. Matt 16 could be restated like this: "some of you will be awake on your watch when the son of man comes" - they may only see a proverbial 'flash of lightning' but the point was that they were going to be alive when it happened.

The coming of the Lord into His kingdom is given to us in several contexts. There is the incarnation of the coming of the Son of Man into our world in which He said the kingdom of God had come in their midst by His very physical presence among them - evidenced by the miracles. There was also the coming of the Lord into the glory of heaven to receive His kingdom as Daniel 7:13-14 speaks of related to His ascension. It was at that point that the promise of the Holy Spirit would be sent by Him and gifts given to men. And then of course there is the coming of the Lord in His parousia at which time the dead would be raised and given their rewards at the time the nation of Israel would also be judged for their rejection of Him. So to assume that each and every case of His 'coming kingdom' is speaking always in the same way each time has to depart from the context the writer gives us. And that is because there are two parallel worlds which exist and some things relate to one or the other - or both - depending upon where the Lord is and what He is about doing. Add to that that there are things which are to pertain to the dead as well as things which pertain to the living and you can see why it is not such a simple matter to make each and every instance an all inclusive meaning for 'the 2nd coming' when the cross had still not happened yet.