Eschatology Questions
Tuesday, May 1, 2007 at 06:05PM 
Jason asks: Kim, I have read your book, `A Case for Amillenialism' and greatly enjoyed it, and have read over and over your section on the olivet discourse, however having that paradigm in view, I'm still not sure what to make of Matthew 16:28. I have read commentaries which explain this to be speaking of the transfiguration which follows in all the gospels, however I dont think this is what Christ had in mind, because it was merely six days later, and doesnt make sense in light of his implication that some WOULD die before this "coming of the Son of Man". I am interested in what your take on this verse is.
Thanks, Jason.
Jason:
Your question gives me a chance to remind my readers that a number of questions on eschatology have been asked and answered. These are posted under the heading (Answers to Questions About Eschatology--Archives). Here's my reply to a similar question
In Luke’s Gospel, the context for the saying, “But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God," is the cost of taking up one’s cross and following Jesus. The same is true in the gospel parallels–Mark (8:34-9:1 and Matthew 16:24-28). In this saying, Jesus states that some (not all) of Jesus’ disciples would die before the kingdom of God comes (or as we read in Matthew 16:28, “his kingdom”). The point is that this group (the some) will see something (the kingdom coming in power) before they die. I’m not sure how much more we want to read into this.
While it is not incidental that this saying occurs immediately before the transfiguration, it cannot be fulfilled by the transfiguration, since Jesus speaks of the likelihood that some (but not all) of those to whom he is speaking would die before his words come pass. The transfiguration does not fit with this. That being said, the transfiguration is one of the first glimpses of what it means for the kingdom to come in power as Jesus appears in glory.
There can be no doubt then that Jesus is speaking of things yet to come, i.e., the resurrection and Pentecost, things which amount to his own vindication–i.e. as his own suffering will give way to his vindication, so too will the suffering of all those who follow him. Cf. I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke: New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1983), 377-379.
As Carson points out, it is vital that we understand that the kingdom comes in stages–D. A. Carson, “Matthew” in Expositors Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 252. Thus the solution to the question raised by preterists may be a simple as the fact that the transfiguration is the first of a number of events which occur in the lifetime of the twelve which reveal the power of the kingdom and God’s judgment (in the form of covenant curses) upon disobedient Israel. This would include the cosmic signs which accompanied our Lord’s death (including the temple veil being torn from top to bottom), the resurrection, the ascension, and then Pentecost, along with the rapid growth of the church and the gospel spreading among the Gentiles (cf. Carson, Matthew, 382).
While the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70 is surely an indication that a time of desolation has come upon Israel and is a manifestation of God’s glory and judgment, this event points ahead to the final judgment at the end of the age, just as Jesus follows his prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, with cosmic signs which announce that just as it was in the days of Noah, judgment will come upon the whole world (Matthew 24:28-44).
Reader Comments (2)
Thanks as always for clarifying eschatological issues. Your website and books have been invaluable to me, especially as I teach the Gospels to Freshmen in High School and am just about to overview the book of Revelation with Juniors. It is so nice to be able to cover these vital issues without complicated End Times charts (although I do, for fun, like to show the original Thief in the Night film).
Blessings.
Matt Holst
i am almost finished with a case for amill'ism. great stuff. i don't have a question about content but about titling. the sub-title is understanding the *end times*. how deliberate was that? was that meant maybe to catch the eye of your typical dispy who uses such nomenclature? in all my other exposure to reformed eschatology the phrase is the doctrine of *last things*, which i like much better personally.
zrim