|
|
Post by didymus on Apr 9, 2010 5:57:04 GMT -5
There appears to be some preterists who think Matthew 16.28 is referring to the transfiguration, or the ascension. What do other preterists think?  |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Apr 9, 2010 7:16:25 GMT -5
I don't think it is the transfiguration but I have said before that I think it possible that He was referring to His ascension. I think at least two other places refer to Christ coming in His glory and are ascension language.
Daniel 7:13-14
Matthew 25:31
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Apr 9, 2010 8:27:21 GMT -5
Not the transfiguration... because there would be needed some kind of plague to wipe out most of those who were standing there.
IF the ascension...then this must have been the time every man was rewarded according to their works. And I don't think the word "reward" had anything to do with blessing - it is more like what is coming to them, or "require" (as in Deut 18:19).
IF the ascension...then He must have left with His angels.
So, if anyone can tell me how every man was "rewarded" according to their work and how He left with the angels AT THIS TIME, I would gladly reconsider this passage...
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Apr 9, 2010 10:32:35 GMT -5
Well, I'm inclined to be a little different yet again. I believe that it references when "God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ".
I don't know if that means it happened at Pentecost or if possibly earlier and the outpouring of the Spirit was the kingdom's first mass display. It could be argued that the kingdom was inaugurated at Christ's resurrection (discussed below).
But this is what I do find in Acts 1:3, "After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God."
Acts 1:4,5, "On one occasion [an occasion where Jesus spoke about the kingdom of God?], while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." I believe Jesus was still speaking about the kingdom here.
Acts 1:6, "So when they met together, they asked him,Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?" " This is where some people want me to believe that the disciples were stunned idiots. Jesus has been with them teaching them about the kingdom of God and told them what to expect, and yet I am told to believe that the disciples still expected an earthly, carnal kingdom! That makes no sense to me! Is it even possible that Jesus talked about the kingdom of God and the disciples not have a clue?!
Whatever Jesus spoke to them about got them excited! Verse 6 is similar to a child waiting for Christmas! "Is it now?! Is it today?!"
Then Acts 1:7,8, "He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
Again, there are people that desire me to think that these clueless disciples are then scolded for their enthusiasm. I don't believe that for a second. I see Jesus calming them down a tad and reminding them that it will be done in God's time, and you will receive this kingdom of power through the Holy Spirit, and this kingdom will expand to the ends of the earth.
When the Holy Spirit is poured out, Peter goes in length telling the people that Christ had ascended the throne of David!
[Side note: Dispies tell me that Pentecost and all its discussion of David's throne has no connection with Christ entering His kingdom!]
Now, as I briefly mentioned near the beginning, here is why it could be said that Christ ascended the throne of God's kingdom at His resurrection; "But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay." Acts 2:30,31.
I don't know about others, but I see;
- David spoke about God placing a descendant on his throne,
- he spoke this because he saw what was ahead,
- what was ahead was the resurrection of the Christ,
- therefore, David spoke of the Christ ascending his throne when the Christ was resurrected.
I have seen many interpretations of this passage but in my humble view every one of them is a twisting of scripture (to one degree or another) simply to support an eschatological system.
"God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord ["supreme in authority" which the King is] and Christ ["anointed" which the King also was]."
"This is what the LORD says: I anoint you king over Israel." 2 Kings 9:12
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Apr 9, 2010 11:03:37 GMT -5
I'm just going to flap my lips for a bit... I note that in Zechariah 9:9 that the "king is coming ... mounted on a donkey." If he is already king at this time, then he must have received the kingdom before that. This would point to the transfiguration rather than the ascension. On the other hand, it doesn't necessarily mean that he had received the kingdom from God at that point, since the Scripture says that he was born King of the Jews (Matthew 2:2). But this, I think, refers to his destiny to be King, not that he was actually reigning as king from the womb. Much like David was chosen by God, then later anointed by Samuel, before the kingdom was handed to him. Jesus told Pilate that he was a king and "for this I have been born" (John 18:37). But I think this is still probably in the sense of being on his way to be presented before the Ancient of Days. Appointed but not yet crowned. So this points to the ascension rather than the transfiguration. We know that Christ's dominion and kingdom lasts forever (Daniel 2:44, Daniel 7:14). We know that when he takes his throne, he begins to rule and judge (Matthew 25:31ff). Darn, I lost my train of thought again. Well, anyway, since his dominion lasts forever, I think so does his judgment. The nations are continually gathering before him (as people die) and he continually separates the sheep from the goats. I know that last bit kind of veered off topic, but as I said, I lost it. I heard my hubby waking up and my thoughts drifted to fixing him breakfast.  Edit: P.S. I didn't see Sheldon's post until after I posted mine. The resurrection view hadn't even crossed my mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Apr 9, 2010 11:22:54 GMT -5
Not the transfiguration... because there would be needed some kind of plague to wipe out most of those who were standing there. IF the ascension...then this must have been the time every man was rewarded according to their works. And I don't think the word "reward" had anything to do with blessing - it is more like what is coming to them, or " require" (as in Deut 18:19). IF the ascension...then He must have left with His angels. So, if anyone can tell me how every man was " rewarded" according to their work and how He left with the angels AT THIS TIME, I would gladly reconsider this passage... I have pondered that too, but I think we are not given the whole picture where time has passed. I think what this is saying, if the ascension is the view that is, is that jesus remains on His throne even by the time the rewarding according to works takes place. That time is the Day of the Lord spoken of in many places including 2nd Peter. So saying it again, I think it is the ascension that Jesus was referring to as the point in time when many would see it come before death but the event of the separating of the sheep and goats is further down the road from that but is the next event directly involving the Lord. |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Apr 9, 2010 12:13:40 GMT -5
Four people, four different views. I am with mellontes on this one. Now the question remains, why does Matthew 16.28 not refer to the coming of Christ in 70AD?
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Apr 9, 2010 12:47:18 GMT -5
Four people, four different views. I am with mellontes on this one. Now the question remains, why does Matthew 16.28 not refer to the coming of Christ in 70AD? From my point of view it is speaking of the kingdom of an enthroned king (Christ) He is the king eternal but the ceremony did not happen until He returned to the Father. This, to me was an event prior to the judgement of Israel, not at the time of the judgement. In order for Jesus to be the authority given to him by the Father the authority had to be upon Him prior to the time of judgement. |
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Apr 9, 2010 15:57:58 GMT -5
I don't think Matthew 16:28, is the transfiguration because it's connected to verse 27, which speaks of the Lord coming with angels to reward every man according to their works, which occur at the end of the age.
Sower~
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Apr 9, 2010 16:30:55 GMT -5
Darn, I lost my train of thought again. You know, I was going to say something really funny about this comment, but for the life of me, I just can't remember what it was... |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Apr 9, 2010 17:45:20 GMT -5
Darn, I lost my train of thought again. You know, I was going to say something really funny about this comment, but for the life of me, I just can't remember what it was... I know I have a fantastic memory! Can't think of anything I've forgotten! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Apr 13, 2010 21:59:24 GMT -5
Once Jesus has ascended, the next event is the sending of the Holy Spirit who gives gifts to men according to their ability. That is the 'reward'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Apr 14, 2010 9:23:48 GMT -5
Once Jesus has ascended, the next event is the sending of the Holy Spirit who gives gifts to men according to their ability. That is the 'reward'. Agreed. The giving of God's Spirit to all who believe that He finished the transgression / fulfilled the law and give Him Lordship over their lives is the greatest reward we receive. [Please note that I am not trying to be 'technical' here.] |
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Apr 14, 2010 12:37:59 GMT -5
Once Jesus has ascended, the next event is the sending of the Holy Spirit who gives gifts to men according to their ability. That is the 'reward'. Hi MoGrace, Are you saying the Holy Spirit is "the" reward spoken of in Matthew 16:28, or something different? The Sower~ |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Apr 14, 2010 13:13:10 GMT -5
I guess we'll have to bring in Matthew 16.27 since it is already being discussed. It reads as follows in the NKJV: "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."This does not say that each will be rewarded for his good works, but his works in general. This phrase, "reward each according to his works," is not like going to the Oscars and receiving an award, but rather it is receiving payment for the work you have done. And we know what the payment for sin is. Therefore, we must conclude that this not talking about the apostles receiving the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. I do not understand why preterists are fighting the obvious meaning here. Perhaps you're trying to appease your futurist buddies. At least that is what it seems to me.  |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Apr 14, 2010 13:39:37 GMT -5
This section begins in 16:13 with Jesus asking the disciples who do men say that I am? Men say many things according to their understanding of what the scriptures prophesied, but Peter by a revelation from God states that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. This is a profound declaration when you consider the confusion afoot about Jesus. Everything from whether He was working miracles by the power of Satan to questioning what authority He had. Yet the expectation of that day was for the appearance of Messiah - the Prophet Moses had spoken of or the one Malachi had said was coming first. They didn't know which prophet He might be - or if in fact He wasn't just another imposter as so many had been in recent times.
With the confirmation that God had revealed this to Peter, Jesus then promises that upon this confession of faith in Him, the disciples will be given the keys to the kingdom, whereby they will permit or forbid in the earth the remission of sins - according to the will of the Father. It is from this time that Jesus begins to speak of His death at Jerusalem, suffering at the hands of the elders, chief priests and scribes. This is when Peter rebukes Jesus - denying the very thing for which Christ was sent into this earth to do.
Here is where discernment is gained for those who must follow Christ by taking the same road to the cross that He is on. One does not save his life except by spending it for the kingdom of God. The earthly things the devil incites men to lust after are of no profit for the man who hopes to have eternal life.
And this is what Jesus is telling them about the glory of the Father He is about to enter into thru His own death. And it is only if He goes on to die that He can enter glory. And when He has, that is when they will be given those keys He promised, the power and the gifts of God to do the work they must do if they are to enter in as well. And all of them - except one, would live to see it.
That one being of course Judas, who was ordained to be recompensed for the betrayal he would do because his heart was covetous for the things of this life only.
The works of God for which the others would be recompensed, was to believe on the One the Father had sent.
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Apr 14, 2010 15:57:38 GMT -5
Perhaps you're trying to appease your futurist buddies. At least that is what it seems to me. What kind of comment is that?! Perhaps you would be better off posting on another site that likes to bring innuendo, assumptions, and the guessing of motives. May I suggest CARM? If you knew anything about her (or us), you would not have DARED to mention such ignorant crap. What is wrong with you? You have got a chip on your shoulder the size of a lumber mill. Get rid of it and then come back with an apology... |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Apr 14, 2010 16:28:15 GMT -5
Perhaps you're trying to appease your futurist buddies. At least that is what it seems to me. What kind of comment is that?! Perhaps you would be better off posting on another site that likes to bring innuendo, assumptions, and the guessing of motives. May I suggest CARM? If you knew anything about her (or us), you would not have DARED to mention such ignorant crap. What is wrong with you? You have got a chip on your shoulder the size of a lumber mill. Get rid of it and then come back with an apology... Didy's full comment was (my emphasis): "I do not understand why preterists are fighting the obvious meaning here. Perhaps you're trying to appease your futurist buddies. At least that is what it seems to me." I did not see it as being directed to any one person, but to preterists in general who hold that particular interpretation. The comment about "appeasing futurist buddies" was certainly not necessary, but again I don't think it was directed toward a single individual. However, the insinuation by use of the word "appease" is that some truth is being intentionally glossed over so that the feathers of the "futurist buddies" are not ruffled. I highly doubt that is the case and such an accusation is not conducive to a sincere discussion. So, if Robin or anyone does feel particularly targeted by the remark, then Tom might want to apologize. But I saw it as a more general remark. Let's not accuse one another of covert motives behind our beliefs. I don't believe any of us here are so devious-minded as to conceive and follow through with anything like that. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Apr 14, 2010 18:10:05 GMT -5
Didy's full comment was (my emphasis): "I do not understand why preterists are fighting the obvious meaning here. Perhaps you're trying to appease your futurist buddies. At least that is what it seems to me." I did not see it as being directed to any one person, but to preterists in general who hold that particular interpretation. The comment about "appeasing futurist buddies" was certainly not necessary, but again I don't think it was directed toward a single individual. However, the insinuation by use of the word "appease" is that some truth is being intentionally glossed over so that the feathers of the "futurist buddies" are not ruffled. I highly doubt that is the case and such an accusation is not conducive to a sincere discussion. So, if Robin or anyone does feel particularly targeted by the remark, then Tom might want to apologize. But I saw it as a more general remark. Let's not accuse one another of covert motives behind our beliefs. I don't believe any of us here are so devious-minded as to conceive and follow through with anything like that. Let's examine that quote of Didy's... "I do not understand why preterists are fighting the obvious meaning here. Perhaps you're trying to appease your futurist buddies. At least that is what it seems to me."" I am a preterist and I am not fighting the obvious meaning. He is not addressing me, he is addressing those on this thread who oppose his view. So, firstly, it is personal at least at the thread level. But it goes much further than this! Did you notice that contraction "you're"? It means "YOU ARE" and was addressed to a singular individual. If his intent was to address preterists (plural) in general, he would have used "they're" or "they are," but he didn't. I honestly have no time to give to people who use such flagrant innuendo. I am quite sure everyone here has not developed their beliefs to "appease their futurist buddies." Perhaps he is projecting himself unto this board for that conclusion to be drawn. This remark is inflammatory, unnecessary, rude and improper. A SINCERE apology "should" be forthcoming. Whether it will or not, is another matter completely... We have enough enemies without attacking our own...sheesh! |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Apr 14, 2010 20:01:06 GMT -5
I'm not sure how this all started but I can relate to it with regard to my conflict with PaulT. So with the guilt I carry concerning the unnecessary battering back and forth I do at CARM I have little room to talk - But I will anyway. Lets think before we speak so as not to offend and so as not to return tit for tat. Our two moderators have the final say as to whether to apply warnings or not but I truly think that nothing is required if we each simply moderate ourself.
I will take the lead by performing better where others see my otherwise worst side.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Apr 15, 2010 9:24:29 GMT -5
Verse 27 speaks of reward. Verse 28 speaks of the Kingdom.
People may see a different 'obvious', but what I believe is obvious is that the reward IS the kingdom. That kingdom is the nation of God's sons and daughters, those in whom God has placed His indwelling Spirit.
The kingdom is that which the King owns and rules over; that is those who call Him Lord.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Apr 15, 2010 11:09:10 GMT -5
Verse 27 speaks of reward. Verse 28 speaks of the Kingdom. People may see a different 'obvious', but what I believe is obvious is that the reward IS the kingdom. Hi Morris, The reward given every man according to their works (Matthew 16:27) is not the kingdom, because the kingdom cannot be earned (the same goes for the Holy Spirit). The rewards pertain to works/labors done after salvation: 1 Corinthians 3:8 NOW he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his OWN "reward" according to his OWN labor. 13 And every man's WORK shall be made manifest: for "the day" shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work 'of' what sort it is. 14 If any man's WORK abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a "reward." 15 If any man's WORK shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: BUT he 'himself' shall be SAVED; yet so as by fire. The nation of God's sons and daughters in whom he had placed his indwelling Spirit were translated into the kingdom at salvation... Colossians 1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which HATH made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in lights: 13 Who "hath" delivered us from the power of darkness, and "hath" TRANSLATED un into the kingdom of his dear Son. Sower~ |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Apr 15, 2010 12:11:11 GMT -5
When exactly did Jesus come into the kingdom to take the rule of it?
1. Incarnation & earthly ministry.
2. Ascension to glory after His resurrection to sit on the throne of His Father.
3. 2nd coming to raise the dead and bring judgment.
Obviously I have bolded the right answer to help make it easier to select. It seems to me that Jesus speaks of 1st things first. The spiritual kingdom He announced had come with His incarnation still needed the cross and resurrection to accomplish bringing that to men in the fullest sense. That it had arrived with His earthly presence was evidenced in the miracles He did. But these were a testimony to WHO He was - and in His earthly visit, He did not have any plans to take an earthly throne at all!
So if we are to think 'coming in glory' here is some sort of return to the earth, then when exactly did HE have that glory??? And why is this passage NOT speaking of that?
|
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Apr 15, 2010 12:53:02 GMT -5
I really didn't expect a firestorm over what I said. And, I was not targeting anyone in particular. I have encountered the same thing in other venues. Here's the thing. I have been a preterist for over 20 years. And in all that time, until now, the only people who I have heard say that Matthew 16.28 referred to the transfiguration or the ascension, or some other event other that the coming of Christ were futurists. What am I suppose to think now that I hear and read that preterists saying the same thing. What am I supposed to think? It was written in this forum: "And this is what Jesus is telling them about the glory of the Father He is about to enter into thru His own death. And it is only if He goes on to die that He can enter glory. And when He has, that is when they will be given those keys He promised, the power and the gifts of God to do the work they must do if they are to enter in as well. And all of them - except one, would live to see it. " That's a statement right out of the futurist playbook. I've been hearing futurists say that for 20 years. But that is not what Jesus said. He said "some" not "all except one" would see it. Back when I was first studying fulfilled prophecy, "The Parousia," by J. Stuart Russell, was considered the definitive work on the subject. I'd like to share what he says on theese verses and it's paralells. "This remarkable declaration is of the greatest importance in this discussion, and may be regarded as the key to the right interpretation of the New Testament doctrine of the Parousia Though it cannot be said that there are any special difficulties the language, it has greatly perplexed the commentators, who are much divided in their explanations. It is surely unnecessary to ask what is the coming of the Son of man here predicted. To suppose that it refers merely to the glorious manifestation of Jesus on the mount of transfiguration, though a hypothesis which has great names to support it, it is palpably inadequate as an interpretation that it scarcely requires refutation."We now pick up on his conclusion, as this explanation goes on for pages. "We conclude then:
1. That the coming here spoken of is the Parousia, the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.
2. That the manner of His coming was to be glorious- 'in his own glory;' 'in the glory of his Father;' with the holy angels.'
3. That the object of His coming was to judge that 'wicked and adulterous generation' - Mark 8.38 - , and 'to reward every man according to his works.'
4. That His coming would be the consummation of 'the kingdom of God;' the close of the aeon; 'the coming of the kingdom of God with power.'
5. That this coming was expressly declared by our Saviour to be near. Lange justly remarks that the words - Greek words -are emphatically placed at the beginning of the sentence; not a simple future, but meaning, The event is impending that He shall come; He is about to come.
6. That some of those who heard our Lord utter this prediction were to live to witness the event of which He spoke, viz., His coming in glory.
The inference therefore is that the Parousia, or glorious coming of Christ, was declared by Himself to fall within the limits of the then existing generation, - a conclusion which we shall find in the sequel to be abundantly justified."Russell, whom I've heard be called, "The father of modern preterism," would probably turn over in his grave if he knew that future students of his would dare agree with futurists on the meaning of Matthew 16.27&28 and the parallel passages. Yet this is what I find today. These are key verses in understanding the Parousia. They are the verses that convinced me that the Parousia was in 70AD. Now preterists, not futurists, come along and tell me that what I was taught over 20 years ago and have believed for all that time is in error. Now do you see my confusion? And why it seems to me that there are some preterists today wanting to appease their preterists friends. I have not only saw it written here, but I have also heard it discussed on AD70.net. So. apparently this idea is gaining support across the preterist movement. But, why? What has changed over the past 20 years? I hope you will now understand my comments, and hope this explanation is sufficient to clear up any misunderstandings. Those statements were made out of confusion. Didy  |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Apr 15, 2010 14:25:09 GMT -5
Hi Morris, The reward given every man according to their works (Matthew 16:27) is not the kingdom, because the kingdom cannot be earned (the same goes for the Holy Spirit). The rewards pertain to works/labors done after salvation: 1 Corinthians 3:8 NOW he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his OWN "reward" according to his OWN labor. 13 And every man's WORK shall be made manifest: for "the day" shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work 'of' what sort it is. 14 If any man's WORK abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a "reward." 15 If any man's WORK shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: BUT he 'himself' shall be SAVED; yet so as by fire. Let me share some verses before I comment on these works; John 6:28,29, " Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." " Hebrews 11:6, " And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." Ephesians 2:8-10, " For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." and Philippians 2:13, " for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose." Now, what is my point with these verses (and many that I have not included)? Simply put, I don't believe that 'our' good works are truly 'ours'. We have a free will but that will, of its own nature, desires to do what is best for us first; basically, it is selfish. Thus Jesus states, " No one is good—except God alone". Notice what is said in these verses; our work is to believe, yet the good works we do come from Him. Furthermore, it is said that we are the work of God (we are His product) when we believe in Christ, and as such what we do in Christ is the result of God's work. This is hit home in Philippians when it says that it is God who actually gives us the very will to do His works. Is this not in the Lord's prayer? " Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come. May your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." The kingdom and God's will being done go hand in hand. Notice also that the reward comes to those who seek Him. Look at Matthew 6:33, " But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well ". Again, the kingdom and being in Christ (having His spirit) are intertwined.
Regarding the Son of Man coming in the glory of the Father, also consider John 11:40, "Then Jesus said, "Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?" "
So now I comment on that passage surrounding 1 Corinthians 3:8. Let's place it in the context of the verses before and the one after;
"I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building."
What I'd like to point out here is that our work is nothing (by extension, since it says we ourselves are nothing), only God's work matters. I think we've seen that above. We are God's fellow workers, God's work is done through us, not by us.
It says that we are God's field, meaning that when we come to Christ, setting aside our will for His, we literally become "cultivable"; God works in us and through us. Acts speaks numerous
times of what "God had done through them".
Are we to expect some wonderful thing for doing something that God did through us? Paul talks of a reward for preaching the gospel in 1 Corinthians 9:17,18, "If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it." I doubt we picture this as a reward.
This brings me back to 1 Corinthians 3. Look at what is said after all this talk of reward in verses 21-23, "So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God."
If all things are ours, what is left as a reward? Hebrews 1:2 says, "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.",
and in Romans 8:17, "Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.", and yet again,
Ephesians 1:3, "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ."
Jesus sums it up in Luke 17:7-10, "Suppose one of you had a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Would he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, 'Come along now and sit down to eat'? Would he not rather say, 'Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink'? Would he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do? So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.' "
Finally, as a slight side note, all credit goes to God. It is by Him that it can be said "Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him" in Romans 4:8. And on the flip side, all glory, all credit, for everything that is good, goes back to God "so that God may be all in all" and "every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father".
I'm not sure how that goes against what I was saying. In fact, I think it agrees. It is God's spirit, our adoption, which makes us a nation and which places us into His kingdom. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Apr 15, 2010 14:35:47 GMT -5
And all of them - except one, would live to see it. " That's a statement right out of the futurist playbook. I've been hearing futurists say that for 20 years. But that is not what Jesus said. He said "some" not "all except one" would see it. "Some" may be the English word but the Greek means "some or any person or object" according to Strong's. Now, I can only assume that this is accurate and not a biased definition, and it doesn't precluded a 'more than one' meaning, but I can certainly see Jesus saying this with Judas in mind. It reminds me of a parent looking at a child and saying "somebody's going to get a spanking if they don't start behaving". |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Apr 15, 2010 15:14:01 GMT -5
I really didn't expect a firestorm over what I said. And, I was not targeting anyone in particular. I have encountered the same thing in other venues. Here's the thing. I have been a preterist for over 20 years. And in all that time, until now, the only people who I have heard say that Matthew 16.28 referred to the transfiguration or the ascension, or some other event other that the coming of Christ were futurists. What am I suppose to think now that I hear and read that preterists saying the same thing. What am I supposed to think? It was written in this forum: "And this is what Jesus is telling them about the glory of the Father He is about to enter into thru His own death. And it is only if He goes on to die that He can enter glory. And when He has, that is when they will be given those keys He promised, the power and the gifts of God to do the work they must do if they are to enter in as well. And all of them - except one, would live to see it. " That's a statement right out of the futurist playbook. I've been hearing futurists say that for 20 years. But that is not what Jesus said. He said "some" not "all except one" would see it. Back when I was first studying fulfilled prophecy, "The Parousia," by J. Stuart Russell, was considered the definitive work on the subject. I'd like to share what he says on theese verses and it's paralells. "This remarkable declaration is of the greatest importance in this discussion, and may be regarded as the key to the right interpretation of the New Testament doctrine of the Parousia Though it cannot be said that there are any special difficulties the language, it has greatly perplexed the commentators, who are much divided in their explanations. It is surely unnecessary to ask what is the coming of the Son of man here predicted. To suppose that it refers merely to the glorious manifestation of Jesus on the mount of transfiguration, though a hypothesis which has great names to support it, it is palpably inadequate as an interpretation that it scarcely requires refutation."We now pick up on his conclusion, as this explanation goes on for pages. "We conclude then:
1. That the coming here spoken of is the Parousia, the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.
2. That the manner of His coming was to be glorious- 'in his own glory;' 'in the glory of his Father;' with the holy angels.'
3. That the object of His coming was to judge that 'wicked and adulterous generation' - Mark 8.38 - , and 'to reward every man according to his works.'
4. That His coming would be the consummation of 'the kingdom of God;' the close of the aeon; 'the coming of the kingdom of God with power.'
5. That this coming was expressly declared by our Saviour to be near. Lange justly remarks that the words - Greek words -are emphatically placed at the beginning of the sentence; not a simple future, but meaning, The event is impending that He shall come; He is about to come.
6. That some of those who heard our Lord utter this prediction were to live to witness the event of which He spoke, viz., His coming in glory.
The inference therefore is that the Parousia, or glorious coming of Christ, was declared by Himself to fall within the limits of the then existing generation, - a conclusion which we shall find in the sequel to be abundantly justified."Russell, whom I've heard be called, "The father of modern preterism," would probably turn over in his grave if he knew that future students of his would dare agree with futurists on the meaning of Matthew 16.27&28 and the parallel passages. Yet this is what I find today. These are key verses in understanding the Parousia. They are the verses that convinced me that the Parousia was in 70AD. Now preterists, not futurists, come along and tell me that what I was taught over 20 years ago and have believed for all that time is in error. Now do you see my confusion? And why it seems to me that there are some preterists today wanting to appease their preterists friends. I have not only saw it written here, but I have also heard it discussed on AD70.net. So. apparently this idea is gaining support across the preterist movement. But, why? What has changed over the past 20 years? I hope you will now understand my comments, and hope this explanation is sufficient to clear up any misunderstandings. Those statements were made out of confusion. Didy I have never had one problem with your comments on this thread. By now I understand your writing personality so I am not concerned that you are targeting this person or that. So lets put that aside now. With regards to the topic, where I do respect Russell and his emence study of the Bible and latter day events I do not feel obligated to agree with him where I find reason to disagree. This is just such an area of disagreement I have with him. What I think Russell is missing here in properly defining the chapter is that it fails to match up with the other places that more exact on what the event is and the direction of it. Pretty much everybody is in agreement that Matthew 24:30 is the dipiction of the Parousia of Christ but yet it differs substantially from that of Matthew 16:28 in several ways. We see in Matthew 24 of that verse that the Son of Man will appear in heaven and then He comes on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. This not what we see in Matthew 16:28. Instead we see an opposite starting point. We see actually a going from the earth to join up with the kingdom which is a heavenly throne and a heavenly residence. Jesus has said in His teaching that His Kingdom is not of this world and citizens of the kingdom are not an outward sign from the believers but something unseen and in the heart. The only sign that Jesus said that would be given proving that the kingdom had come was the casting out of demons. The discription of what the kingdom does is certainly given in that it fills the whole earth but its residence is of a spiritual nature. It is my opinion that Jesus ascended to heaven to sit on His throne to rule that spiritual nature of the kingdom. Thus Matthew 16:28 depicts this coming to His throne as seen by those who were with Him at the time He returned to the Father. Verse 27 is probably where some get tripped up in thinking this is a Parousia passage and not an ascension passage because is mentions that He will reward each according to his works. Notice, however that Jesus is simply showing the order of events that must take place prior to the resurrection. First Jesus must take hold of His kingdom and this can only be done when He sits on His throne at the right hand of the Father. Verse 27 and 28 is almost exactly word for word where it is said again in Matthew 25:31 where Jesus says: 31 “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. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. This was the view from the persective of the Disciples who witnessed the ascension until He was out of their sight. But in Daniel 7 we see the ascension from the heavenly perspective where Jesus is also coming in the clouds with the holy angels to the Father. It is Daniel who in a vision was able to see it from that perspective. Both chapter 25 of Matthew and Daniel 7 contain the same elements of the nations being gathered before Him but not until He has been enthroned in His Kingdom. In our way of thinking nearly 40 years had passed before the nations were gathered and separated, but in the predictiong of the event Jesus simply showed the order of the events with no indication of the timing. So in conclusion we see two events being spoken of in at least three different locations in the Bible. The first is found in Daniel 7:13-14 which show the ascension and the acquiring of His Kingdom. 13 “ I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. 14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed. Next is the found in Matthew 16:27 which Jesus tells of His ascension to acquire His Kingdom and then the time of the judgment at some ungiven time after that. And then verse 28 of Matthew 16 in which Jesus remphasizes the first half of verse 27 by saying and with encouragement that "there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” Next we have Jesus' own words in the conclusion of the Olivet Discourse where Jesus once again shows the almost immediate next event (we know of taking place after His Resurrection) where Jesus speaks of His ascension to the throne in Heaven and then the declaration that after inheriting the kingdom that the judgment would come. (Matthew 25:31-46) This is how I have put it all together but am willing to be corrected. |
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Apr 15, 2010 16:32:41 GMT -5
Hi Morris, The reward given every man according to their works (Matthew 16:27) is not the kingdom, because the kingdom cannot be earned (the same goes for the Holy Spirit). The rewards pertain to works/labors done after salvation: 1 Corinthians 3:8 NOW he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his OWN "reward" according to his OWN labor. 13 And every man's WORK shall be made manifest: for "the day" shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work 'of' what sort it is. 14 If any man's WORK abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a "reward." 15 If any man's WORK shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: BUT he 'himself' shall be SAVED; yet so as by fire. Let me share some verses before I comment on these works; By all means! It also say..."Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Philippians 2:12 Morris, my point was the reward was not the kingdom, because they were already in the kingdom! Sower~ |
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Apr 15, 2010 18:13:06 GMT -5
I really didn't expect a firestorm over what I said. And, I was not targeting anyone in particular. I have encountered the same thing in other venues. Here's the thing. I have been a preterist for over 20 years. And in all that time, until now, the only people who I have heard say that Matthew 16.28 referred to the transfiguration or the ascension, or some other event other that the coming of Christ were futurists. What am I suppose to think now that I hear and read that preterists saying the same thing. What am I supposed to think? It was written in this forum: "And this is what Jesus is telling them about the glory of the Father He is about to enter into thru His own death. And it is only if He goes on to die that He can enter glory. And when He has, that is when they will be given those keys He promised, the power and the gifts of God to do the work they must do if they are to enter in as well. And all of them - except one, would live to see it. " That's a statement right out of the futurist playbook. I've been hearing futurists say that for 20 years. But that is not what Jesus said. He said "some" not "all except one" would see it. Back when I was first studying fulfilled prophecy, "The Parousia," by J. Stuart Russell, was considered the definitive work on the subject. I'd like to share what he says on theese verses and it's paralells. "This remarkable declaration is of the greatest importance in this discussion, and may be regarded as the key to the right interpretation of the New Testament doctrine of the Parousia Though it cannot be said that there are any special difficulties the language, it has greatly perplexed the commentators, who are much divided in their explanations. It is surely unnecessary to ask what is the coming of the Son of man here predicted. To suppose that it refers merely to the glorious manifestation of Jesus on the mount of transfiguration, though a hypothesis which has great names to support it, it is palpably inadequate as an interpretation that it scarcely requires refutation."We now pick up on his conclusion, as this explanation goes on for pages. "We conclude then:
1. That the coming here spoken of is the Parousia, the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.
2. That the manner of His coming was to be glorious- 'in his own glory;' 'in the glory of his Father;' with the holy angels.'
3. That the object of His coming was to judge that 'wicked and adulterous generation' - Mark 8.38 - , and 'to reward every man according to his works.'
4. That His coming would be the consummation of 'the kingdom of God;' the close of the aeon; 'the coming of the kingdom of God with power.'
5. That this coming was expressly declared by our Saviour to be near. Lange justly remarks that the words - Greek words -are emphatically placed at the beginning of the sentence; not a simple future, but meaning, The event is impending that He shall come; He is about to come.
6. That some of those who heard our Lord utter this prediction were to live to witness the event of which He spoke, viz., His coming in glory.
The inference therefore is that the Parousia, or glorious coming of Christ, was declared by Himself to fall within the limits of the then existing generation, - a conclusion which we shall find in the sequel to be abundantly justified."Russell, whom I've heard be called, "The father of modern preterism," would probably turn over in his grave if he knew that future students of his would dare agree with futurists on the meaning of Matthew 16.27&28 and the parallel passages. Yet this is what I find today. These are key verses in understanding the Parousia. They are the verses that convinced me that the Parousia was in 70AD. Now preterists, not futurists, come along and tell me that what I was taught over 20 years ago and have believed for all that time is in error. Now do you see my confusion? And why it seems to me that there are some preterists today wanting to appease their preterists friends. I have not only saw it written here, but I have also heard it discussed on AD70.net. So. apparently this idea is gaining support across the preterist movement. But, why? What has changed over the past 20 years? I hope you will now understand my comments, and hope this explanation is sufficient to clear up any misunderstandings. Those statements were made out of confusion. Didy Hi Didymus, I was convinced that Matthew 16:27,28 referred to the glorious coming/parousia of Jesus long before I ever heard of J. Stuart Russell's "the Parousia," and I remain convinced. The Sower~ |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Apr 15, 2010 20:27:16 GMT -5
Sower wrote:Thanks Sower. It seem we're the only ones in here. 
|
|
