Has Bible Prophecy Already Been Fulfilled?-Part 4B

By: Dr. Thomas Ice; ©1999

Dr. Ice continues his series on preterism by examining three texts: Matthew 16:27,28; Mark 9:1; and Luke 9:27. Were these fulfilled by the Transfiguration, contrary to what preterists contend?

Contents

Has Bible Prophecy Already Been Fulfilled? Part IV-B

Three major passages from Matthew (Mt. 10:23; 16:28; and 24:34) have been put forward as part of the reason why R. C. Sproul and other preterists contend that most of Bible prophecy has been fulfilled in the first century A.D. In last month’s article I dealt with the first of the supposed trifecta in Matthew 10:23. Now I will take up the preterist’s mis­guided contention that Matthew 16:28 supports a past prophetic fulfillment.

The Preterist Contention

Matthew 16:27,28

“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and will then recompense every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

Dr. Sproul and other preterists teach that this passage contains another “time-text” indicator supporting their contention that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70 by the Romans fulfilled this prophecy in the past. Thus, coupled with a similar understanding of other so-called “time-texts,” almost all of Bible prophecy—like Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation—have already been fulfilled.

The expression “shall not taste death” clearly refers to dying, so we may render the text to mean that some who were hearing Jesus’ words on this occasion would not die before witnessing some kind of coming of Jesus. . . .

If Jesus had in mind a time-frame of roughly forty years, it could also be said that during this time-frame some of his disciples would not taste death. If the Olivet Discourse refers primarily to events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem and if the word generation refers to a forty-year period, then it is possible, if not probable, that Jesus’ reference to his coming in Matthew 16:28 refers to the same events, not to the transfiguration or other close-at-hand events.

Preterists believe that Matthew 16:28 and parallel passages (Mk. 9:1; Lk. 9:27) are a prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem accomplished through the Roman army in A.D. 70. I believe that Matthew 16:28 was fulfilled by events that took place on the Mount of Transfiguration.

The Mount of Transfiguration Fulfillment

In setting up a proper interpretation of this passage we should begin by observing the comparisons and contrasts of the three parallel statements.

Matthew 16:27-28: For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and will then recompense every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.

Mark 9:1 And He was saying to them, “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.”

Luke 9:26-27 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. But I say to you truthfully, there are some of those standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.

Since all three accounts are descriptive of the same event, it is interesting to note the vocabulary and contexts of each inspired writer.

Context

Matthew 16:27 is speaking of the future second coming, while verse 28 refers to the impending transfiguration. Why are these verses positioned in this way? Because earlier Christ reveals clearly His impending death to His disciples (see 16:21). Peter reacts to this suffering phase of Jesus’ career (16:22). Our Lord responses to Peter with His famous “Get behind Me, Satan!” statement (16:23). Then Jesus provides a lesson to His disciples on denial of self (16:24-26). Christ is teaching that the order for entrance into His kingdom, for both Himself and His follows, is the path of first the cross and then the crown. Suffering precedes glory! But the glory will one day come at Christ’s second advent, when each individual will be required to give an account of their actions during the time of suffering (16:27). In order to encourage His followers who have had to suffer the bitter pill of the double sorrow of the death of Jesus and their own suffering and eventual deaths for Christ’s sake, Jesus provides a word of the promised future glory in 16:28 about some who will “see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” “After Jesus predicted His own death, Peter and the other disciples needed reassurance that Jesus would ultimately triumph. His prediction that some of them would see the kingdom of God present with power must have alleviated their fears.”^[1] Thus, “verse twenty-seven looks at the establishment of the kingdom in the future, while a promise of seeing the Messiah in His glory is the thought of verse twenty-eight. They are two separate predictions separated by the words ‘truly I say to you.’”^[2]

Preterist Objections

Preterists and some other interpreters say that the phrase from Matthew 16:28, “there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death,” cannot be fulfilled by the immediately following transfiguration event. “But the transfiguration cannot be its fulfill­ment,” insists Gary DeMar, “since Jesus indicated that some who were standing with Him would still be alive when He came but most would be dead.”^[3] DeMar misses the point of the passage in his attempt to prove too much, as noted by commentator William Lane who counters such a view by noting:

. . . it is not said that death will exclude some of those present from seeing the announced event. All that is required by Jesus’ statement is that “some” will see a further irruption of the power and sovereignty of God before they experience the suffering foreseen in Ch. 8:34-35.^[4]

Some opposing the transfiguration interpretation say that a week is too short of a time frame to make proper sense of the statement. Ken Gentry says, “It was not powerfully to evidence itself immediately, for many of His disciples would die before it acted in power.”^[5] George N. H. Peters quotes a Dr. Kendrick who says that the disputed phrase “refer not to length of life, but to privilege; some shall have the privilege of beholding Him in His glory even before they die.”^[6] When we consider the force of the preceding context leading up to our Lord’s statement, our view makes the best sense. Randolph Yeager explains, “That Jesus should have suggested that some who had been standing there might die within the next week is in line with what He had been saying about taking up the cross, denying oneself, losing one’s life, etc.”^[7] Peters continues his explanation as follows:

The indistinct allusion to the three disciples who should witness this Coming of the Son of man—the manner of specifying it without mentioning the names of the parties who should see it—binds this passage in the strongest possible manner to the following transfiguration, because the disciples thus favored were expressly charged to keep it a secret until after Christ’s resurrection. Hence, this very Coming to be seen being intended as a strictly private or secret matter, explains the indefinite language of Jesus both in reference to the persons and the time, to avoid the questionings that would assuredly take place, had He been more specific.^[8]

A further problem with the preterist view is that our Lord said “some of those standing here. . .” It is clear that the term “some” would have to include at least two or more indi­viduals within the scope of its meaning, since “some” is plural and coupled with a plural verb, “to be”. The word “some” nicely fits the three disciples, Peter, James, and John (Mt. 17:1) who were the participants with our Lord at the transfiguration. On the other hand, Peters notes that “John only survived”^[9] till the destruction of Jerusalem among the 12 disciples.

Further Support

In all three instances of this parallel passage (Mt. 16:28; Mk. 9:1; Lk. 9:27) they are immediately followed by the account of the transfiguration. This contextual relationship by itself is a strong reason to favor our interpretation and shifts the burden of proof on those opposing this view. In other words, Jesus made a prediction about a future event and in each instance, Matthew, Mark, and Luke record the fulfillment of that prediction in the passage that follows. The contextual fact is supported by the grammatical construction that connects these passages. Alva J. McClain notes that “the conjunction with which chapter 17 begins clearly establishes the unbroken continuity of thought between 16:28 and 17:1, as also in the accounts of Mark and Luke where no chapter division occurs.”^[10]

All three accounts of the prophesied event speak of seeing and the kingdom. Matthew says they will see “the Son of Man coming in His kingdom,” emphasizing the person of the Son of Man coming. Mark says, “they see the kingdom of God” and he adds that it will come “with power.” Luke simply says that “they see the kingdom of God.” The transfigura­tion fits all aspects of the various emphases found in each of the three precise predictions.

Matthew’s stress upon the actual, physical presence of the Son of Man is clearly met in the transfiguration because Jesus was personally and visibly present. Matthew says, “He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light” (17:2). The preterist interpretation does not meet Matthew’s criteria, since Jesus was not personally present in the later destruction of Jerusalem.

Mark’s emphasis upon a display of the kingdom with “power” was certainly fulfilled by the transfiguration. No one could doubt that the transfiguration certainly fit the definition of a “power encounter” for the disciples. That Jesus appears dressed in the Shekinah glory of God upon the Mount (Mk. 9:3) is further evidence to the disciples that He was God and acted with His power.

Luke’s simple statement about some who will “see the kingdom of God” is vindicated also by his account (9:28-36). Twice Luke records our Lord describing the transfiguration with the term “glory” (9:31,32). “Why exclude the reference to Jerusalem’s destruction? Because Luke does not associate the kingdom’s power with this event. . . . Also, Jesus is not associated with Jerusalem’s destruction directly, so it is not in view.”^[11]

Peter’s Support

The transfiguration made such an impression upon John and Peter that both contain a description of the glorified Christ in later writings (Rev. 1:12-20; 2 Pet. 1:16-21). Both describe the risen and glorified Christ in relation to His second advent (Rev. 1:7; 2 Pet. 1:16). No one doubts that Peter has in mind the transfiguration in 2 Peter 1:16-18. I be­lieve that Peter restates in his final epistle the same pattern established by our Lord in the passages we have been discussing above (Mt. 16:28; Mk. 9:1; Lk. 9:27). When encourag­ing believers to remain faithful to the faith (2 Pet. 1:12ff), Peter, like our Lord, reminds his readers of “the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:16). Peter follows Jesus’ pattern of supporting the future Second Advent by citing the past transfiguration (2 Pet. 1:16-18). In this way, Peter’s second epistle supports the futurist understanding of Matthew 16:28, etc.

George Peters says that 2 Peter 1:16-18 “is unquestionably, then, linking it with the still future Advent as a striking exhibition of the glory that shall be revealed—which is confirmed by Peter introducing this allusion to prove that Christ would thus again come.” William Lane further explains that “Peter made known to his churches the power that was to be revealed at Jesus’ coming in terms of the glory which had been revealed in the transfigura­tion. This expresses precisely the relationship between Ch. 8:38 (parousia) and Ch. 9:1 (transfiguration). The transfiguration was a momentary, but real (and witnessed) manifes­tation of Jesus’ sovereign power which pointed beyond itself to the parousia, when he will come ‘with power and glory’ (Ch. 13:26).’”

Conclusion

The preterist contention that our Lord’s prophecy in Matthew 16:28 predicts the de­struction of the Temple in the first century has been proven to be off base. Instead, we have found that Matthew 16:27 refers to a yet future second coming of Christ, while 16:28 was fulfilled only a week after the prophecy was uttered by our Lord through His transfigu­ration before Peter, James, and John. “The immediate sequel to Jesus’ solemn promise is the account of the transfiguration (Ch. 9:2-8),” explains Lane. “This indicates that Mark understood Jesus’ statement to refer to this moment of transcendent glory conceived as an enthronement and an anticipation of the glory which is to come. . . . The fulfillment of Jesus’ promise a short time later (Ch. 9:2) provided encouragement to the harassed Christians in Rome and elsewhere that their commitment to Jesus and the gospel was valid. The parousia is an absolute certainty. The transfiguration constituted a warning to all others that the ambiguity which permits the humiliation of Jesus and of those faithful to him will be resolved in the decisive intervention of God promised in Ch. 8:38).” Maranatha!

Notes

1. ↑ The Nelson Study Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997), p. 1659.
2. ↑ Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold The King: A Study of Matthew (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1980), p. 209.
3. ↑ Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church (Atlanta: American Vision, Inc., 3rd edition, 1997), p. 34.
4. ↑ William L. Lane, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), p. 313.
5. ↑ Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology (Tyler, Tex.: 1992), p. 216.
6. ↑ George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, 3 Vols., (Grand Rapids: Kregel, [1884],1978), II:555.
7. ↑ Randolph O. Yeager, The Renaissance New Testament, 18 Vols., (Bowling Green, Ken.: Renaissance Press, 1977), II: 569.
8. ↑ Peters, Theocratic Kingdom, II: 555.
9. ↑ Peters, Theocratic Kingdom, II: 562.
10. ↑ Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of The Kingdom (Winona Lake, Ind.: B.M.H. Books, 1959), p. 336.
11. ↑ Darrell L. Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), pp. 859-60.

R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998),

Peters, Theocratic Kingdom, II:560.

Lane, Mark, p. 314.

Lane, Mark, pp. 313-14.

 

Contents
Read Part 5