Matthew 16:28 is a clear false prediction and it's impossible to have an argument about with a Christian because if they accept it is a failed prediction, then the whole religion is false.

[u/TheChosenOneProphecy]

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

This is a failed prediction. Every person standing there died, and everyone 2000 years later has died without Jesus' return.

Christians are unable to question it and have to come up with any reason why it's not what it says because it would mean their religion is false.

[u/AutoModerator]

COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/wizanda]

The problem with most people's comprehension of Matthew 16:28, is most haven't understood Yehoshua called Simon "petros" (a small pebble/stumbling stone) only once in the Synoptic Gospels, to fulfil Zechariah 3:9, Isaiah 8:14, as Simon was Pharisaic, and Yeshua knew he'd joined the Sanhedrin to make up Christianity.

When 'Satan Stands' against Yehoshua in Zechariah 3:1-2, he called Simon "Satan" for rebuking him, and when Matthew 16:28 says 'that some Standing here shall not taste death, until the coming of the Kingdom', it is about the Pharisaic Christian Church, that they created opposite to Yeshua's teachings.

So the prophecy was accurate to the letter, people just don't read very well, and Rabbis have rewritten much of the contexts, where scholarship then uses their lousy standards.

So for example Zechariah 3 according to them is about Yehoshua son of Yehozadek - when it doesn't mention his name there, it does in Zechariah 6, and they've assumed it is about after the Babylonian Exile, when the contexts doesn't match (as Zechariah 3:1-2 is to cut off Jerusalem). 🤔💗😇

[u/5tar_k1ll3r]

I see so many people bringing up the next chapter, and Jesus returned from death and ascending to heaven, as fulfilling this prophecy. Neither of these actually fulfill it, according to the majority scholarly belief. The majority scholarly belief is that the Bible has a number of unfulfilled prophecies, because of the nature of the future and the events. But as an atheist myself, this isn't evidence the religion is false, merely that the prophecies it features are not what we usually think of when we think "prophecy". They can be wrong, depending on actions that humans take.

[u/Shum4424]

Just read Matthew 17 bruh, it's literally the next chapter. Them 2 witnessed the transfiguration.

[u/TheChosenOneProphecy → u/Shum4424]

Who tasted death then?

[u/Zhayrgh → u/Shum4424]

So, who tasted death in between ?

[u/VicTnyc]

The Son of man, God in physical form, resurrected, and ascended to his kingdom. And , some of those whom Jesus spoke of, well they witnessed the Son of Man, ascending. Not sure exactly what the confusion is really.
But , wait , it’s not the prediction you may have issues with? Just say your lack of belief, it’s ok man, This great Jesus , is all about debate and argument and back and forth. Everything has an answer bro!

[u/TheChosenOneProphecy → u/VicTnyc]

You missed the point bro. "Some of you will not taste death" means some will taste death. So who died? No one died so it can't be about the transfiguration.

[u/SoyGoy5]

What does it mean to say “ son of man coming in His Kingdom “ ?

[u/Xpians → u/SoyGoy5]

…as detailed in Daniel 7

[u/ChristJesusisReal]

Christs second coming and the 1000 year reign already happened. Look into satans little season eschatology

[u/Fast-Commercial-7234 → u/ChristJesusisReal]

Satan, like the Red dude from Hebrew Mythology? You need to get a grip pal.

[u/JerbilSenior → u/ChristJesusisReal]

As per the Bible the order is this:

• Rapture: all true believers are taken to Heaven, leaving only nonbelievers and false believers on Earth. Saying it already happened means that no genuine Christians were left in Earth.

• Second Coming: Jesus comes down to Earth with the believers and Satan is imprisoned. Saying this happened already means that you should be able to point out the beginning of the 1000 year reign even if no written records where left of humanity's Lord coming down to Earth with an army of Angels.

• 1000 years reign: era of peace where the whole is ruled by the laws of the Bible. Saying this already happened means saying that all the world was ruled by Biblical law already, meaning that once you've made up your mind about when it was, every single religion and culture to exist during this time would be considered compatible with Christ's reign as Satan could not bring sin upon the world.

• Satan's release and the Battle of Armageddon: the end of the 1000 year reign is the end of Satan, the Battle of Armageddon. Saying it already happened means saying that The New Heaven and the New Earth were made and that this world we live in is already the result of God's total victory.

Saying it's happening right now means we are right before humanity's armies go to the actual mountain of Armageddon to fight God. Maybe give us a call when that happens.

[u/TheIdiotPrince]

Because for Christians, death is not death but a transition. "Oh death where is thy sting?" He's saying some of the people there will be saved. A lot weren't. Of the thousands who waved palm leaves and sang to Christ as He entered Jerusalem, only a small percentage stayed faithful.

[u/Altruistic_Town_8683]

They saw Jesus resurrected and ascending into heaven. They right there is enough to fulfill what  was spoken. 

Church history also never records the death of the apostle John.  There is always the possibility he is still in a cave somewhere being supernaturally sustained, praying intercession for the world. 

[u/Fast-Commercial-7234 → u/Altruistic_Town_8683]

So after that none of those men have tasted death, or are they all dead? Kinda sounds like you missed the point.

[u/Atlas177503]

The ones standing there were members of the elect. There are still members of the elect living on the earth today. Not all have died and gone to heaven. Jesus' statement was correct

[u/Fast-Commercial-7234 → u/Atlas177503]

Do you hear yourself? All in a vein attempt to play make believe with Hebrew Mythology. Insanity.

[u/Vitaldick → u/Atlas177503]

What does that even mean? Some standing there were human beings as well, and there’s still humans living on earth today. Not all humans have died. Jesus statement was correct…

[u/Justawatchertonight]

That could just mean God personally greeted them in heaven I mean he did say In His Kingdom so im pretty sure debunked your claim

[u/devBowman → u/Justawatchertonight]

How would they be in heaven before death? It's literally in the verse

[u/TheChosenOneProphecy → u/Justawatchertonight]

What? Makes no sense. Greated them when?

[u/hunderoring → u/Justawatchertonight]

That would mean that they have tasted death.

But obviously going to heaven is not the same as seeing "the Son of Man coming in His kingdom", the second coming.

[u/doofus_flaming0]

The apostle John saw Jesus' return and surrounding events before his death which is recounted in the book of Revelation.

[u/Atlas177503 → u/doofus_flaming0]

That was a prophetic vision that John had.

[u/Y09507H07H → u/doofus_flaming0]

Was that the second coming?

If it is you just debunked Christianity, if it isn't then it's still a false prophecy

[u/Fast-Commercial-7234 → u/Y09507H07H]

I mean the whole of Hebrew Mythology is make believe. I mean c'mon dude, we are talking about a book with dragons, giants and witches in it. We are all old enough to know the difference between real and fake.

[u/natedawg8886 → u/Y09507H07H]

John saw the second coming and the resurrection in Revelation, but it did not happen yet.

[u/Y09507H07H → u/natedawg8886]

So the son of man didn't come in his kingdom therefore the prophecy is false

[u/natedawg8886 → u/Y09507H07H]

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom”

P1: The prophecy is only mentions the act of seeing.

P2: John saw.

C: The prophecy is fulfilled.

[u/Kwahn → u/natedawg8886]

Is God generally this pedantic? Two can play this game.

Who else besides John saw?

[u/Y09507H07H → u/natedawg8886]

The natural reading of the statement is that some of the people physically standing there would live long enough to witness the son of man coming in his kingdom. You have to be dishonest and change it's clear meaning to even have a point.

It doesn't say “Some of you will not die before one of you has a vision of me coming in my kingdom.”

The clear satanic book of revelation itself debunks your argument as it distinguishes between John seeing a vision of the coming and the coming actually occurring.

John seeing a vision of the Second Coming isn't the same as John witnessing the Second Coming. Revelation 1:1 says John was being shown things that must take place, and 1:19 distinguishes between what John had seen, what was then occurring, and what would take place later. Revelation 1:7 says he is coming and that every eye will see him, while Revelation 22:20 still has Jesus saying I am coming soon. So John clearly could be shown a vision of a future event without that event having actually occurred. Your argument only works by changing Matthew 16:28 from some of you will live to witness the Son of Man coming' into some of you will live to see a vision depicting the Son of Man coming. Those are not the same claim.

[u/natedawg8886 → u/Y09507H07H]

The word I’m Matthew is “ἴδωσιν” which is means “to stare at” or “to discern clearly”. It doesn’t mean to actively be alive for the second coming, that’s not a distinction in the original text.

You are trying to change what Matthew 16:28 actually says to match your argument.

[u/Y09507H07H → u/natedawg8886]

Well there you go thank you for debunking your own argument.

Having a prophetic vision isn't clearly discerning something not is it staring at something.

[u/Substantial-Ad7383]

This argument rests on several unexamined assumptions, and the "Christians can't question this" framing is itself doing a lot of unearned work — it's built so that any interpretive response looks like special pleading before it's even been made. Pointing that out is itself a form of questioning it, which undercuts the claim.

First, you're assuming Matthew gives us a word-for-word transcript, likely from an early date. But the argument for a failed prediction doesn't actually need that assumption dropped for it to fail — even taking Matthew's text exactly as it stands, on its own terms, the reading below holds.

The most direct reading is the one Matthew himself supplies. He places the Transfiguration immediately after this saying — six days later, by his own count (Matthew 17:1–8). Peter, James, and John see Jesus's glory unveiled on the mountain, a preview of "the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." That's not an argument imported from another gospel; it's the very next paragraph in the same author's narrative. Read this way, the prediction isn't about the Second Coming at all, and it isn't a failed prophecy — some listeners saw exactly what was promised, days later.

Second, you're assuming "not taste death" must mean biological death in the flattest sense. In John 11:26, Jesus tells Martha "whoever believes in me shall never die" — which, read with the same wooden literalism, is a far worse failed prediction, since every believer since has died. John himself shows this isn't meant literally: in John 21:22–23, Jesus tells Peter "what is it to you if he remains until I come?" — and John explicitly clarifies that this did not mean the disciple wouldn't die, correcting a rumor that had spread to that effect. The Johannine tradition is plainly comfortable with "death" language that isn't tracking physical mortality in a flat sense.

Third, you're assuming Jesus, as God, must have known the timing and couldn't be mistaken about it. But in Mark 13:32, Jesus states directly that he doesn't know the day or hour of his return — only the Father does. Whatever one makes of the two-natures question, the text itself gives explicit warrant for the incarnate Christ having limited knowledge on timing specifically, without that touching the resurrection, the atonement, or anything load-bearing for the faith. "God can't be mistaken" isn't the operative premise here — the text carves out this exception itself.

So the "failed prediction" only works if all three assumptions are granted simultaneously. Drop any one and the objection doesn't land.

[u/No_Confusion5295 → u/Substantial-Ad7383]

Another AI generated apologist. If you are a man paste a prompt you used. I am pretty sure it does not contain words like: objective, unbiased, critical, historical context etc....

This guy is really dishonest and intellectually lazy person

[u/Substantial-Ad7383 → u/No_Confusion5295]

Full disclosure: I use AI as a sparring partner — to strip out anything unnecessary from my own replies, including ad hominem, and to pressure-test arguments against sidetracks. There's no single prompt to paste, since the process is a long, genuinely conversational back-and-forth rather than a template — closer to talking a position through with a sharp editor than typing in a question and copying out an answer. I hope that makes my case clearer, not muddier. For what it's worth, I don't think it's fair to demand an "unbiased" argument from anyone, human or AI — bias is a ubiquitous feature of mankind, and no training set escapes it either.

[u/No_Confusion5295 → u/Substantial-Ad7383]

bias is a ubiquitous feature of mankind, and no training set escapes it either

that is exactly why you need to include those words, if you do not include them, llm model will just catalog out things. And since christian bs is all over the place, to find truth you must know how to use AI. If you do not understand this, then it will just confirm your view, whatever it is... if you are a muslim - it will confirm islam

to strip out anything unnecessary from my own replies, including ad hominem, and to pressure-test arguments against sidetracks

you are BS-ing, if you did analyze one of your AI response to fallacies, you would see its full of it. Do you want me to show and cite every single one of them from comment from other thread? I can If you will continue to BS. You are just using AI to confirm what you already believe.

You are so dishonest, it makes me sick. And yet here you are copy pasting AI generated responses to reddit comments...

[u/Purgii → u/Substantial-Ad7383]

Ask your AI how it reconciles it with Matthew 10:23.

[u/hunderoring → u/Substantial-Ad7383]

Peter, James, and John see Jesus's glory unveiled on the mountain, a preview of "the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

He stood on a hill and his clothes looked super white? That's glory unveiled?

And he also said that ""Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before this time next week"? How dramatic.

But what does the previous verse say?

"“For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done. ²⁸ Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”"

Did Jesus repay everyone for what has been done?

[u/Substantial-Ad7383 → u/hunderoring]

Good question, and it deserves a direct answer.

Verse 27 and verse 28 aren't describing the same event on the same timeline. Verse 27 is universal in scope — everyone, judged by angels, in the Father's glory. Verse 28 is deliberately narrower — some who were standing there would see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. A partial disclosure to specific witnesses isn't the same claim as a final, universal reckoning, regardless of how tightly "and then" links their sequence. So no, the Transfiguration doesn't satisfy verse 27 — it was never claiming to.

Start with what "kingdom coming" actually means. Several Psalms already declare "the Lord reigns" as a standing fact, not a future acquisition (Psalm 93, 145). So the kingdom "coming" was never about God gaining ground he didn't already have — it's that reign becoming evident to eyes that couldn't see it yet. Matthew places the Transfiguration deliberately, immediately after this saying — six days later, by his own count (17:1–8). Peter, James, and John see Jesus's glory unveiled. Peter himself, decades later, calls this a preview: he describes witnessing Christ's "power and coming" on the mountain as an eyewitness of majesty (2 Peter 1:16–18). That's the man who was there telling you how he understood it.

I acknowledge that the Transfiguration itself contains no judgment imagery — no angels repaying anyone, no reckoning of deeds. It's a scene about who Jesus is, not what anyone has done. That absence is exactly what you'd expect if verse 28 was never claiming to fulfill verse 27's promise of repayment — the two were describing different events from the start.

Now to repayment. Scripture treats the verdict on a person as already settled in one sense: John 3:18 says whoever does not believe "stands condemned already" — present tense, not future. Unatoned sin is its own repayment, already resting on the one who carries it. The saved have that same debt paid by someone else, at the cross — decided from eternity ("the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," Revelation 13:8) and made historically evident at a specific point in time. So the status of repayment isn't something final judgment decides. It's something final judgment discloses and carries out.

One consistent pattern, not three unrelated events forced together: the Transfiguration is partial disclosure, to three witnesses. The cross is decisive disclosure, of a debt already paid. The final judgment is total disclosure, to everyone, of a verdict already true being carried out. Verses 27 and 28 sit at different points on that arc — which is exactly why one happened within a week and the other hasn't happened yet. They were never the same claim.

Worth noting too: even granting this objection in full, it only touches one of the three assumptions the original "failed prediction" argument needs. The reading of "not taste death" as flat biological death, and the claim that Jesus couldn't have limited knowledge on timing, haven't been addressed here at all — and the original argument needs all three to stand for the "religion is false" conclusion to follow.

[u/Kwahn → u/Substantial-Ad7383]

So your argument is that God was talking about a past repaid atonement at a present time while prophesying the future, and it was just really bad at keeping its tenses straight?

Is God the author of confusion?

[u/Proud-Attempt-7113]

You’re carrying an assumption that you correctly understand the verse. Look at the context—it’s about Jesus preparing his disciples for martyrdom.

Some of them will still be living when they are permitted to see an anticipatory manifestation of the Son of Man’s kingdom-glory (His transfiguration) which was just 6 days later.

He gave them a vision of the coming kingdom during His transfiguration.

[u/EccentricFeather]

Also, how was King Arthur not some form of the second coming? How was the knights Templar not some form of it?

Basically, the entire narrative is a trap

[u/Mountain-Value-8255]

When he ascended into heaven, he now sits at the right hand of the father.

Happy to explain the ascension.

[u/Atlas177503 → u/Mountain-Value-8255]

I guess that one debunks the Trinity doctrine....Jesus sitting next to his father.

[u/No_Celery_269 → u/Mountain-Value-8255]

Then demonstrate that from the text instead of simply assigning the ascension to it.

Jesus says some standing there would not die until they saw the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. The ascension has Jesus leaving the disciples and going to heaven, not “coming” to them.

And Matthew itself gives us a pretty good clue what “coming” means. Just a few verses earlier:
Matthew 16:27: “For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.”

Then immediately:
Matthew 16:28: “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
You don’t get to separate v.28 from v.27, replace coming with his angels and judgment with ascending into heaven and call that an explanation. That’s an interpretation that needs defending.

[u/GaryWNY → u/No_Celery_269]

I hear these types of responses on the atheist call in shows on YouTube. When they don't agree with what the bible states, they twist and turn the words into pretzels. It's actually kinda funny. Words don't mean words. Until they want them to.

[u/No_Celery_269 → u/GaryWNY]

Which words did I twist? Be specific.

I quoted Matthew 16:27 and 16:28 back to back and asked how the ascension fulfills what Jesus actually describes.

Verse 27 says the Son of Man will come in his Father’s glory, with his angels, and repay people according to their deeds.

Verse 28 immediately says some standing there won’t taste death before seeing the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Someone else claimed this refers to the ascension. I asked them to demonstrate that connection from the text.

So where exactly is my pretzel? What word did I change? What sentence did I distort?

Because ironically, words mean words is precisely my point. If “coming in his kingdom” actually means Jesus ascending away from them into heaven, there needs to be an argument for why those words should be understood that way.

Saying atheists twist words instead of identifying a single word I twisted is ironically you twisting words… weird how that works.

So forget the YouTube atheists. I’m right here. Show me exactly what I twisted 👍

[u/Mountain-Value-8255 → u/No_Celery_269]

I did demonstrate it from the text. He made the prediction and the ascension is the confirmation.

Are you upset because it wasn’t confirmed one verse later?

You’ve got better prophecies to complain about in the Old Testament, and id understand the confusion if that’s what you were talking about.

This prophecy felt self evident within the Gospel of Matthew.

Do you want to read resources on the topic? Happy to share some.

Im not sure if this is a place to complain or a genuine attempt to understand.

[u/No_Celery_269 → u/Mountain-Value-8255]

No. You didn’t demonstrate it from the text. You declared the ascension to be the confirmation. Those aren’t the same thing.

And no, I’m not upset that it wasn’t confirmed one verse later.. I’m pointing out that you’re skipping the verse immediately BEFORE the prediction, which tells us what Matthew has Jesus talking about:

Matthew 16:27: “The Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.”

Matthew 16:28: “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
Now demonstrate how the ascension fulfills that description.

At the ascension Jesus goes away from the disciples toward heaven. Where is the Son of Man coming in his Father’s glory? Where are the angels accompanying his coming? Where does he reward each person according to their deeds?

Simply saying then the ascension happened, therefore prophecy confirmed doesn’t answer any of that.

And calling your interpretation self evident’s especially strange considering Christians themselves have proposed the Transfiguration, resurrection, ascension, Pentecost, destruction of Jerusalem, and Second Coming as interpretations of this passage.

I’m perfectly happy to read resources but resources aren’t a substitute for answering the question:

What in Matthew 16:27–28 identifies the ascension as the fulfillment?

That’s not complaining… It’s asking you to support your interpretation instead of assuming it.

[u/Atlas177503 → u/No_Celery_269]

You are bringing up some good points. Too many Christians are not deep thinkers and just accept what they are told. For example: Why does has the most important event in Christianity been named after the pagan goddess Ishtar? 🤔

[u/No_Celery_269 → u/Atlas177503]

Yes. If you read the Bible critically- something many aren’t able to do - you will come to see that it’s all a big croc of 💩

[u/Mountain-Value-8255 → u/No_Celery_269]

Like I said, I can provide you with materials if you’d like to read, but it sounds like you don’t think the obvious answer is obvious, so idk what to tell you.

The Transfiguration was the preview, Pentecost was the inauguration, and AD 70 was the public vindication, all within the lifetime of those standing there, exactly as Jesus said.

Some interpretations view a possibility as the destruction of Jerusalem as the judgement that confirmed the Messiah’s kingly authority.

Some view it as Pentecost and establishment of the church.

Some view it as the transfiguration.

Those interpretations don’t conflict with each other.

What presupposition and cultural lens are you using to approach the text? Have you tried approaching it from the ancient near east perspective to grasp the meaning in other ways? I find that helpful.

But if you’re not seeking truth and you just want an argument to fit the box you’ve provided, then I can’t help you.

[u/No_Celery_269 → u/Mountain-Value-8255]

Wait a second….

You started by saying the answer was obvious: the ascension is the confirmation..

I asked you to demonstrate from Matthew 16:27–28 that the ascension fulfills what Jesus describes. Instead of doing that you’ve now given me:

Transfiguration = preview
Pentecost = inauguration
AD 70 = public vindication
Ascension = apparently still the confirmation
That’s not demonstrating your original claim.

That’s expanding one alleged fulfillment into a collection of events until something can be made to fit.

And saying these interpretations don’t conflict doesn’t solve anything. They absolutely represent different answers to the question “What event did Jesus mean when he said some standing here would see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom?”

You can construct a theology in which they’re stages of one larger process but you need to demonstrate that Matthew intended that, not merely announce it.

More importantly you still haven’t addressed the actual context:

Matthew 16:27: Son of Man comes in his Father’s glory, with his angels, and repays everyone according to their deeds.

Matthew 16:28: some standing there won’t die before seeing the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

So which of your events fulfills that description?

The Transfiguration? No judgment of everyone according to deeds.

Pentecost? Jesus doesn’t visibly come with angels and judge everyone.

Ascension? Jesus departs from the disciples rather than coming to them, and there’s no judgment according to deeds.

AD 70? Then demonstrate from Matthew 16:27–28 that Jesus’ “coming with his angels” and recompensing everyone means Rome destroying Jerusalem roughly forty years later.

Asking about my presuppositions and cultural lens doesn’t answer any of those questions, amigo… Neither does questioning whether I’m seeking truth… That’s just shifting the discussion from your interpretation to my motives.

I’m asking a ridiculously simple question:

You claimed the ascension is the obvious fulfillment. What in the text establishes that?

If the answer requires the Transfiguration, ascension, Pentecost and AD 70 to explain why the obvious answer is obvious, perhaps it wasn’t quite as self evident as advertised…

[u/Mountain-Value-8255 → u/No_Celery_269]

All this “you need” language. How about you need to demonstrate that you’ve done the work to understand it.

Read the ancient near east perspective. Read systematic theology. Read the whole Bible.

Or…just do internet goblin things

[u/No_Celery_269 → u/Mountain-Value-8255]

And there it is… We’ve gone from the ascension is obviously the fulfillment to go read systematic theology and the whole Bible until you understand why I’m right. That’s not an argument.

You made the claim. I asked you a specific textual question: What in Matthew 16:27–28 establishes the ascension as the fulfillment?
You still haven’t answered it.

Instead, your position has gone from the ascension, to the Transfiguration, Pentecost and AD 70, and now to questioning whether I’ve “done the work.”

Also, “read the ancient Near East perspective” is impressively vague. Matthew is a first-century Jewish/Greco-Roman text, written in Greek… not an ancient Near Eastern text in the normal scholarly sense. If there’s a particular Second Temple Jewish background, Danielic allusion, or scholarly argument you think resolves this, present it.

And systematic theology doesn’t determine what Matthew meant. Systematic theology attempts to synthesize theological claims across texts. Exegesis comes first. Otherwise you’re interpreting a difficult passage according to the theological system you already believe it must fit.

I’m not asking you to prove that you’ve read enough books. I’m asking you to defend your claim.

Matthew 16:27: coming in the Father’s glory, with angels, recompensing people according to their deeds.

Matthew 16:28: some standing there won’t die before seeing the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

You said this “obviously” means the ascension.
Show me.

Calling me an internet goblin is funny I’ll give you that, but unfortunately goblins can still notice when a question hasn’t been answered.

[u/Mountain-Value-8255 → u/No_Celery_269]

It’s obvious to me but not to you.

It’s not a negative thing to do your research to understand 2,000 year old text. I spent a very long time doing it because the Bible bothered me.

[u/Proud-Attempt-7113 → u/Mountain-Value-8255]

I think the fulfillment is in the transfiguration, not the ascension. The audience of the ascension isn’t “some”, but “all.”

“Some” saw the transfiguration where Jesus gave them a vision of His kingdom glory to come, and it was just 6 days later after Matthew 16:28

[u/No_Celery_269 → u/Mountain-Value-8255]

I completely agree that understanding a 2,000-year old text requires research. I haven’t criticized you for researching it. I’m criticizing the argument you’re making from that research.

It’s obvious to you isn’t evidence that your interpretation is correct…

You originally said the ascension fulfills Matthew 16:28. I asked what in the text establishes that. Since then you’ve mentioned the Transfiguration, ascension, Pentecost and AD 70, and told me to read the ANE perspective, systematic theology and the whole Bible… But you still haven’t answered the actual question.

If you’ve spent a very long time researching this, great… you should be in an excellent position to explain it:

Why does Matthew 16:27 describe the Son of Man coming in his Father’s glory, with his angels, recompensing people according to their deeds, and why should I understand 16:28’s “Son of Man coming in his kingdom” as the ascension?

I’m genuinely open to the argument. Make the argument.

Telling someone to do their research when they’re asking you to explain the conclusion your research supposedly supports isn’t an explanation.

And there’s an important distinction here: “I’ve studied this extensively and this interpretation became obvious to me” is a statement about your confidence. It isn’t evidence for the interpretation.

I’m interested in the evidence. What is it?

[u/Saint_121645of144000]

No, you are simply misunderstanding Jesus' statement and making assumptions about what it means.
Do you know the difference between the first death and the second death?

[u/TheChosenOneProphecy → u/Saint_121645of144000]

Ok let's take your idea and say Jesus meant that some will go to heaven. Which disciples went to hell? Maybe Judas but that's not "some", that's one person.

[u/Saint_121645of144000 → u/TheChosenOneProphecy]

No, Jesus NEVER taught that people will go to heaven. He and the apostles clearly taught about the inheritance of the coming kingdom on earth for the saints. And Jesus NEVER taught that people will go to hell, either. Remember, about 1,700 years ago, apostate man changed both the first death (hades, the grave) and the second death (gehenna, the lake of fire) to a new added word "hell." The first death and the second death are NOT the same as one another. We saints do not trust man's changes OR their modern publications. We are aware of the changes and myths. The tares (the majority of believers) are unaware. Use your interlinears.

[u/No_Celery_269 → u/Saint_121645of144000]

Cool. Show me where Matthew 16:28 says “second death.”

“Will not taste death before…” is ordinary language saying some of the people currently standing there would remain alive until the predicted event occurred.

And there’s an even bigger problem with your interpretation: if Jesus meant the “second death,” why say “some” standing there wouldn’t experience it before seeing his coming? Under Christian theology, plenty of believers standing there supposedly never experience the second death at all.

You’re importing terminology from Revelation into Matthew to rescue a sentence that never mentions it.

So don’t ask me whether I know what the second death is. Show me from this passage why “death” suddenly means “second death.”

[u/Saint_121645of144000 → u/No_Celery_269]

I understand your concern, but you have to put it all together. You can't get all of Jesus' message from one passage. He constantly talked about how to defeat death. Clearly that does not refer only to the first death. Most who experience the first death will also experience the second death and there is no hope for them once they reach the first death. Study ALL of the Bible. I can help you drill it down if needed.

[u/No_Celery_269 → u/Saint_121645of144000]

Put it all together doesn’t answer the question. I’m not claiming we should never use the rest of the Bible to interpret a passage, I’m asking what justifies importing the specific concept of the “second death” into this particular sentence.

Matthew 16:28 doesn’t say “second death.” Matthew never uses the phrase “second death” anywhere.

More importantly, look at the grammar of what Jesus actually says:

“Some who are standing here will not taste death before they see…”

The entire force of that statement is that some members of the group will remain alive long enough to witness an event. “Before” establishes a temporal relationship between their deaths and what they will see.

Your interpretation makes that wording bizarre. If “taste death” means the second death, then faithful disciples supposedly never taste it at all. So why tell them they won’t taste it “before” witnessing his coming?

And “Jesus talked about defeating death” doesn’t establish that every occurrence of the word “death” therefore means the second death. Context determines meaning.

You also said Most who experience the first death will also experience the second death.. Okay… but that actually acknowledges that the two are distinct concepts. So what textual reason do we have for choosing the second one here rather than the ordinary death these people could actually experience within their lifetimes?

Study ALL of the Bible isn’t the missing argument. I’m asking you for the argument.
Drill it down for me. Show me linguistically or contextually why “will not taste death before” in Matthew 16:28 means “will not experience the second death before,” rather than ordinary physical death. Further, actually reading the Bible is what turns many into atheists for obvious reasons..

That’s the claim you made. Establish it from the text.

[u/Saint_121645of144000 → u/No_Celery_269]

It answers the question, unless you want your own answer.

Again, whenever Jesus talked about death, He was referring to the second death.

The first death cannot be avoided. The second death can.

Most people are destined to receive the future second death when they reach the first death. At that point there is no turning back.

Some will not taste the second death at the first death, but most will.

The two deaths are tied together in a way that you clearly cannot comprehend yet.

Don't take the Passage out of context. Read surrounding Passages and learn the message Jesus was actually giving. The "Life" that He kept referring to was the exact opposite of the second death. Not of only the first death.

Whenever Jesus talked about Life, He was NOT referring to this life you and I have at this moment.

The first death does not indicate lack of eternal life. Jesus never taught any way to resist the first death.

So read the Passage in context. It is beautiful Passage for the saints; but like the Parables and the rest of the NT, it's for ONLY the saints.

[u/No_Celery_269 → u/Saint_121645of144000]

No.. you’ve just repeated the claim more forcefully. “Whenever Jesus talked about death, he meant the second death” is exactly the thing you need to demonstrate because Jesus plainly speaks about ordinary physical death in the Gospels.

In Matthew 9:24, he says of Jairus’s daughter, “the girl is not dead but sleeping.” That’s obviously about physical death.

In Matthew 17:22–23, Jesus says the Son of Man will be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him… Again, physical death.
In Matthew 20:18–19, he predicts that he will be condemned, mocked, flogged, crucified, and raised. Physical death.

So the statement “whenever Jesus talked about death, he meant the second death” is false on its face.

And that means you still have to show why Matthew 16:28 is an exception. The wording is still:

“Some who are standing here will not taste death before they see…” That’s a time statement about people currently alive.

Your reading turns it into “Some of you will not experience the second death before you see this event.”

But under your own theology the saints never experience the second death at all. So “before” becomes nearly meaningless.

If Peter, James, and John are saints who will never taste the second death, then saying they won’t taste it before seeing the kingdom tells us nothing about when the kingdom event happens.

That destroys the whole force of some standing here…

And saying the two deaths are tied together in a way you cannot comprehend yet isn’t exegesis. That’s just condescension standing in for an argument.

You keep saying read the context so let’s read it…

Matthew 16:27: Son of Man comes in glory, with angels, and repays people according to deeds.
Matthew 16:28: some standing there won’t taste death before seeing the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Show me where that context says second death…

Not Revelation. Not your systematic theology.
Not “Jesus talked about eternal life elsewhere.”
This passage… Because right now you’re not reading second death out of Matthew 16:28… You’re reading it into it.

[u/Saint_121645of144000 → u/No_Celery_269]

Jesus talked about the second death over and over and over. Even in the Passage you hijacked, He had to explain that this was not what the people thought it was. Like you, they made assumptions.

Jesus told the saints about how to receive LIFE. This exactly means avoiding the SECOND death. Not the first death.

We saints know when the kingdom will come.

If you are not chosen, your beliefs will be all over the board.

Read the four Gospels several times slowly and carefully. Your answers will not be found in one verse.

[u/No_Celery_269 → u/Saint_121645of144000]

You keep repeating that Jesus meant the second death but repetition isn’t demonstration.

You also just shifted the argument again. Now the reason I supposedly don’t see your interpretation is that I may not be “chosen.”

That’s not evidence it’s a theological immunity shield:

If I agree with you, I understand.

If I disagree with you, I’m not chosen.

That setup guarantees your interpretation can never be challenged.

And you still haven’t dealt with the plain problem:

Jesus absolutely does speak about ordinary physical death in the Gospels. So your earlier claim that “whenever Jesus talked about death, he meant the second death” is simply false which means Matthew 16:28 still has to be interpreted from its actual wording and context.
“Some standing here will not taste death before they see…”

That naturally refers to some of the people standing there remaining alive until an event occurs.

Your reading turns it into “some of you will not experience the second death before this event,” even though you also say saints avoid the second death altogether.

So again: what does “before” accomplish in your interpretation?

And read ling the Gospels several times still isn’t an argument. If those repeated readings produce a clear answer, then explain the answer.

You say I’m making assumptions. Fine. Identify the assumption and show why it’s wrong from the text. Otherwise this has become:

“I’m right because saints understand it, and if you don’t understand it, you’re not a saint.”

That may protect the belief but it doesn’t establish the interpretation.

[u/Saint_121645of144000 → u/No_Celery_269]

It is what it is. I didn't design it, so don't blame me if it's not laid out the way you expect. Jesus didn't speak the way He spoke so that He was clear to anyone. He spoke that way so that he would NOT be clear to almost everyone.

[u/No_Celery_269 → u/Saint_121645of144000]

Then you’ve abandoned the textual argument.

Your position is now that Jesus intentionally spoke in a way that almost nobody could understand and therefore the lack of clarity is itself evidence that your interpretation is correct.

But that makes the claim impossible to test.
If the passage appears to mean ordinary physical death you can say that appearance is deliberate misdirection.

If someone asks for textual evidence for “second death,” you can say the real meaning is hidden.

If someone disagrees, you can say they weren’t meant to understand.

At that point there’s no possible reading of the text that could count against your interpretation and that’s exactly why this is no longer an argument from Matthew 16:28 it’s an argument from a theological framework that tells you in advance that the plain reading cannot be trusted.

Also, “Jesus was intentionally unclear to almost everyone” creates a much bigger problem for your original claim that the meaning here is obvious.

Which is it? Is Matthew 16:28 obvious or did Jesus intentionally obscure his meaning from almost everyone?

Those two defenses don’t sit together very well.
I’m still happy to discuss the passage. But “the text doesn’t clearly say what I claim because Jesus didn’t want most people to understand it” isn’t evidence for your claim… it’s just a way of making the claim unfalsifiable.

[u/marklandry1966]

They watched him ride into his kingdom on a mule and waved palm branches and hailed him as king.

[u/No_Celery_269 → u/marklandry1966]

That doesn’t even fit Matthew’s chronology.

The triumphal entry happens in Matthew 21. Matthew 16:28 happens before it.

So apparently Jesus dramatically predicted that “some standing here will not taste death” before an event that happened only a relatively short time later during the same journey toward Jerusalem.

More importantly, read the sentence immediately before it:

“The Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.” — Matthew 16:27

Then: “some standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Where exactly were the angels, Father’s glory, and judgment according to deeds when Jesus rode a donkey into Jerusalem?
Palm branches don’t magically turn Matthew 21 into Matthew 16:27.

[u/DebateReligion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 10.

You may not use Generative AI for any purpose on this subreddit. This includes everything from using ChatGPT to write arguments for you down to using Grammarly to rewrite your paragraphs. We are here to debate other people, not bots.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please send us a modmail with a link to the removed content.

[u/woodsywoods → u/[deleted]]

Very cool thanks that makes sense. Never knew that about the Daniel reference. What religion do you follow and why do they use Yahawashai instead of Jesus?

[u/Kingswaykid]

"Whoever Lives and Believes in Him Shall Not Die But Have Eternal Life" According to this statement some of the People there that were Believers did not Die and either appeared in his Kingdom after they left their Mortal Shell Behind or became Reincarnted in his Kingdom after death. It is not a failed prediction so much as it is a failed interpretation on your part.

[u/Low-Respond3510 → u/Kingswaykid]

your interpretation is that they ....didnt die?

[u/Kingswaykid → u/Low-Respond3510]

They had Eternal Life because they truly believed. They may have left a body behind but that invisible aspect of them their blueprint for their next form and incarnation went on to live and possibly see this prediction come true. Some people do Die as People because as a Soul and Person the Universe does not deem them worthy of co-existing in the Universe amoung others and other aspects of creation properly.

[u/Saint_121645of144000 → u/Low-Respond3510]

You simply don't know which death Jesus was discussing.

[u/TheChosenOneProphecy → u/Saint_121645of144000]

There's a word for this, what you're doing, I can't recall it but it's when something doesn't line up, maybe the outcome from the prediction doesn't quite align, or there's a contradiction, or something is missing, and instead of acknowledging it, the person turns it into symbolism and says "oh it meant this actually, but it's symbolic, not literal". U can turn anything into symbolism if you want it to work.

[u/Kingswaykid → u/TheChosenOneProphecy]

You know those people that Jesus was talking to that day? Maybe it is true and they became immortal here and Jesus trapped them in hell thusfar and they are awaiting his return.

[u/Saint_121645of144000 → u/TheChosenOneProphecy]

The Bible with its stories and parables is not written so that everyone will understand, but so everyone but the saints will NOT understand. Only the saints are chosen by God and have the Holy Spirit and are allowed to understand. Due to the lack of the possession of the Holy Spirit, all others will assume the wrong information and will thereby insist on receiving the second death.

[u/Kingswaykid → u/Saint_121645of144000]

Yes when a Holy Spirit dwells in a person the Spirit gives them Faith and an outlook to understand.

[u/Saint_121645of144000 → u/Kingswaykid]

Absolutely.

[u/TheChosenOneProphecy → u/Saint_121645of144000]

This is complete apologetics wish wash. Please come with actual arguments and not just repeating blind faith Bible says so it's true arguments.

[u/Saint_121645of144000 → u/TheChosenOneProphecy]

Jesus is not wish wash. He said,

"This is why I teach this way, because reading they cannot see, and hearing they cannot understand (Matthew 13:13, Mark 4:12).

You need to be chosen and receive the Holy Spirit to have understanding. Jesus stated that He doesn't know most believers.

Most believers will cling to additions, changes, and myths. There are MANY more tares than wheat. This is by design.

Isaiah’s prophecy is fulfilled in these Passages, which says: You will listen and listen, but never understand; you will look and look, but never perceive.

The message of the coming kingdom on earth is written for the saints. Not for anyone else.

[u/Astreja → u/Saint_121645of144000]

The Bible is a claim. It is not evidence for its own contents; that would be circular reasoning.

As secular contemporaneous records for Jesus do not exist, and all we have is hearsay from decades later, we don't even know if the words in the Gospels were even spoken by Jesus.

[u/Saint_121645of144000 → u/Astreja]

You don't, because you have not been chosen by God and do not have the Holy Spirit. It is impossible for you to understand His Word.

[u/Astreja → u/Saint_121645of144000]

I do not believe in your god, I think the Holy Spirit is fictional, and I don't think that any gods were involved in the writing of the Bible.

[u/Kingswaykid → u/TheChosenOneProphecy]

This is just interpreting statements for people who may be younger souls in the world and may not have as much experience in matters related to the afterlife and what is possible for someone after they die.

[u/asjtj → u/Kingswaykid]

Your physical body has to die in order to go to the next life. How did they not taste death when their physical body died?

[u/Kingswaykid → u/asjtj]

Once you die you can not taste yourself.

[u/asjtj → u/Kingswaykid]

Who said anything about tasting yourself? Read what is written....TASTE DEATH. It is not an actual tasting like you do food.

[u/Kingswaykid → u/asjtj]

You were the one interpreting everything in the literal context. I was just poking fun at you. Taste Death hahaha what does that even mean? Eat Jesus and absorb his powers. Hahaha

[u/asjtj → u/Kingswaykid]

Taste Death hahaha what does that even mean? Eat Jesus and absorb his powers. Hahaha

The ironic think about your statement is that those words were spoken by Jesus Christ Himself, so ....... you are not poking fun at me, you are poking fun at Christ and His words.

Anyway you look at it, every person that was alive on the planet when He spoke those words is dead today and He has yet to return.

ps. As a troll, you are not well thoughtout.

[u/Kingswaykid → u/asjtj]

How can you gobble yourself up?

[u/Kingswaykid → u/Kingswaykid]

Consciousness is a very unique experience and for those who have an older one or experienced countinuity in their cousciousness from a previous life it can be hard for young souls to relate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_Returns#/media/File:Superman_Returns.jpg

[u/Training_Extent_4737]

It’s talking about the transfiguration. Peter even confirms this when he says in 2 Peter 16-18. “16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son,9 with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on fthe holy mountain.” So Peter literally says that he and others were eye witnesses to the power and coming of our Lord Jesus which Jesus claims. And in matthew, mark , and Luke’s writings, the transfiguration occurs right after Jesus makes this claim

[u/ArmenianThunderGod → u/Training_Extent_4737]

Peter didn't write 2 Peter. Peter wasn't even alive during 2 Peter's composition.

[u/EmpiricalPierce → u/Training_Extent_4737]

The transfiguration? You mean the event described in Matthew 17, which happened a mere 6 days after the Matthew 16:28 prophecy "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom"? Do you understand how ridiculous that makes this prophecy sound?

"Truly I tell you, some are standing here who will not taste death within the next 6 days". Wow, what a prophecy! Who could have guessed that in a crowd of people, at least some of them would live for a week longer?

This also blatantly ignores the verse immediately prior, Matthew 16:27: "For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done." Did Jesus come with angels to reward each person according to what they had done during the transfiguration? No? Then again, the prophecy is obviously not about the transfiguration less than a week later.

Trying to claim the Matthew 16:28 prophecy was about an event not even a full week later is farcical, and is a transparent attempt to save a blatantly failed prophecy.

[u/DBold11 → u/EmpiricalPierce]

Good point

[u/tsap007]

This was fulfilled on the mount of transfiguration when Peter and John saw the divine life break through the “shell” of Jesus humanity and His body, as the Son of Man, was momentarily glorified. The kingdom is just the divine life being expressed in full within humanity, which it was in that moment.

This is not a difficult concept to grasp if you understand that the kingdom of God is the Lord Jesus, sown as a seed into the believers, that develops into a realm over which God can rule in the divine life. This seed develops through the process of regeneration, sanctification, transformation, confirmation, and ultimately glorification. Therefore for the Son of Man to express the divine life through a momentary glimpse of glory, means the kingdom had come in that moment.

Edit: and the verse before this talks about His return at the end of this age, while this verse shows the momentary glimpse of the kingdom of God within humanity. There is absolutely no reason why both cant be true since both events serve a unique purpose.

[u/EmpiricalPierce → u/tsap007]

The transfiguration? You mean the event described in Matthew 17, which happened a mere 6 days after the Matthew 16:28 prophecy "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom"? Do you understand how ridiculous that makes this prophecy sound?

"Truly I tell you, some are standing here who will not taste death within the next 6 days". Wow, what a prophecy! Who could have guessed that in a crowd of people, at least some of them would live for a week longer?

This also blatantly ignores the verse immediately prior, Matthew 16:27: "For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done." Did Jesus come with angels to reward each person according to what they had done during the transfiguration? No? Then again, the prophecy is obviously not about the transfiguration less than a week later.

Trying to claim the Matthew 16:28 prophecy was about an event not even a full week later is farcical, and is a transparent attempt to save a blatantly failed prophecy.

[u/tsap007 → u/EmpiricalPierce]

Jesus spoke about the future return at the end of this age in v27

Then He spoke about transfiguration in v28 as a prefigure of the coming kingdom

Two truths in two verses. It’s really that simple.

Regarding the timing, your point about 6 days is moot. There is no fixed time period that needs to pass. What you think the verse would be valid if it was 6 months later or 6 years later but not 6 days? The emphasis is on the fact that during their life they would see Jesus in glory, the divine life momentarily released from the shell of His humanity. That is the son of man coming in His kingdom.

[u/EmpiricalPierce → u/tsap007]

There is no good reason to think verses 27 and 28 are referring to different events. "For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." These two verses are plainly referring to the same event, with 27 describing what it will be like, and 28 describing the time frame of when it will happen.

The verses are directly connected, one immediately following the other in the same speech, with no indication of a change in topic. Both make reference to the coming of the son of man, with shared terminology again making it plain both verses are referring to the same event. There is no sensible reading that splits these two adjacent verses with shared terminology apart.

And as mentioned before, the transfiguration, aside from it being utterly bizarre to describe the timeline of an event less than a week later in terms of "some will not die before it happens", did not include Jesus coming in glory with angels, nor did it include Jesus rewarding each person according to what they have done.

Furthermore, regarding the timing, the phrasing "some will not die before it happens" implies that there are people who were hearing the prophecy who *did* die before it happened. So if this verse, against all reason, is actually referring to the transfiguration 6 days later, then who all died in that timeframe, in contrast to the "some" who didn't die?

Trying to split verse 28 off from verse 27 and claiming they refer to different events is a nonsensical reading of the text, motivated not by any sort of logically coherent interpretation, but purely by an unwillingness to admit the Bible is false.

[u/OMKensey → u/tsap007]

So the Son of Man is Jesus and the kingdom is Jesus and God (His) is Jesus so Jesus predicted Jesus coming Jesus's Jesus?

[u/Mountain-Value-8255 → u/OMKensey]

🤣 it read like that sometimes. The trinity is not something we can even fathom.

[u/Atlas177503 → u/Mountain-Value-8255]

People are told that the Trinity is a "mystery"... blah blah,lll because it's a manmade false teaching that makes no sense . Jesus is God's Son and the Holy Spirit is an energy that God gives to whom he chooses... His Son firstly. The Holy Spirit is not a person, but an energy. If it were a person it would have a proper name. Jesus and His Father (Yahweh/Jehovah) both have proper names. Don't let anyone convince you that the Trinity is unfathomable, but the manmade "Trinity Doctrine" is the unfathomable one that people cannot wrap their brain around.

[u/azrolator → u/OMKensey]

If you don't understand this, you aren't doing enough drugs. Wait! I mean if you don't understand this, you just didn't believe hard enough. Something like that lol.

[u/tsap007 → u/OMKensey]

Yes, Jesus is everything

[u/house-of-J → u/OMKensey]

Please attempt to criticize mine, Christians are foolish in their Greco-Roman worldview, but even still teasap007 was able to grasp loosely the truth but presented it poorly.

[u/OMKensey → u/house-of-J]

We may disagree about how much work loosely is doing here.

[u/quantumqabalist → u/tsap007]

So two characters in the story fulfilled the prophecy of the story. How convenient.

[u/WWWis666isVavVavVav]

This scripture was given to the generation it was meant for.

[u/TheChosenOneProphecy → u/WWWis666isVavVavVav]

Doesn't answer what I said

[u/Such_Bed841]

All verse 28 is saying is the disciples would see a powerful preview or snippet if you like of Jesus in glory before they passed away and this absolutely happened in the biblical narrative. Therefore, no false prophesy to be found

[u/edpsy77 → u/Such_Bed841]

Perhaps, but the text could be read straight forward. The Bible is far from a clear communicator. That is why people ask other people for correct interpretations.

[u/Such_Bed841 → u/edpsy77]

You’re right some parts do require more work to understand but the gospel message itself is so simple. Jesus died for your sins and rose again to grant you forgiveness and salvation. If you take anything away from this please take that message away from it

[u/edpsy77 → u/Such_Bed841]

Many Christians disagree with penal substitution atonement.

[u/Such_Bed841 → u/edpsy77]

Jesus Himself said He has come to be a ransom for many. A ransom involves paying something or someone in order to release a captive. In other words, Jesus died for our sins and gave His life as a ransom so we could be forgiven. People who reject penal substitutionary atonement have to reject quite a lot of the New Testament

[u/Such_Bed841 → u/edpsy77]

That’s another group I’d disagree with it. The Bible says “God made Him who knew no sin to become sin so we could be counted as righteous”. In other words, penal substitutionary atonement. The arguments I’ve heard against it are more based on feelings than the Bible I’d argue.

[u/spectral_theoretic → u/Such_Bed841]

I guess when you're ready to use a radically idiomatic reading of the text, it can mean anything you want.

[u/Such_Bed841 → u/spectral_theoretic]

You just don’t like that there’s an explanation that can make it not a false prophesy

[u/spectral_theoretic → u/Such_Bed841]

Actually what it means, and I say this with the same amount of justification that you provided, is that all this prediction here is saying is that /u/Such_Bed841 is going to idiomatically read the text without justification, which is a true prophecy and hence OP is wrong!

[u/Such_Bed841 → u/spectral_theoretic]

The answer is actually simple. Verse 28 is saying the disciples or more accurately some of them would be alive to see a glimpse of Jesus Christ in glory in His kingdom. The transfiguration is literally Jesus in glorified form with Moses and Elijah and some of the disciples were there to witness it. Or we can take the resurrection where every single disciple or at the very least most of them saw Jesus Christ in resurrected glorified form, which reflects Him in His kingdom. Therefore, Matthew 16:28 prophesy holds true

[u/spectral_theoretic → u/Such_Bed841]

glimpse of Jesus Christ in glory in His kingdom

Why would anyone interpret Jesus COMING in his kingdom as being a glimpse of Jesus ALREADY in his kingdom?

The transfiguration is literally Jesus in glorified form with Moses and Elijah and some of the disciples were there to witness it.

You realize the transfiguration happened before the prophecy in Matthew, right? This makes absolutely no sense if you think the prophecy is retroactive to the transfiguration, which happened before.

Or we can take the resurrection where every single disciple or at the very least most of them saw Jesus Christ in resurrected glorified form, which reflects Him in His kingdom. Therefore, Matthew 16:28 prophesy holds true

So Jesus came into the kingdom when he resurrected, which is supposed to be the final coming. Are you a preterist, now?

[u/Such_Bed841 → u/spectral_theoretic]

I think you’ve missed what I was saying you are making it more complicated than it actually is. First of all we are discussing Matthew 16, the Transfiguration takes place in Matthew 17. You also missed what I said when I said the disciples would experience Jesus’ kingdom which can have a spiritual meaning to it (which the link outlined for you as well) which also fits the resurrection they literally experienced Jesus , God in flesh in a glorified body that is in heaven right now- so they had a taste of the kingdom before they died. Fulfilling the prophesy.

Also could you repeat the paragraph “why would anyone” I’m not really sure what you’re saying

[u/spectral_theoretic → u/Such_Bed841]

Just to be clear, you're saying that the transfiguration also included the clouds of heaven, the rewarding of works, and the angels of god as well? (matthew 16:27)

You also missed what I said when I said the disciples would experience Jesus’ kingdom which can have a spiritual meaning to it

it's not clear what you mean when they 'experienced' jesus's kingdom, which could mean anything. It's fine for the bible to state they witnessed a resurrection, but that wouldn't be the coming of jesus since he would have to return from heaven and not the grave, so the resurrection can't be a fulfilment.

[u/Such_Bed841 → u/spectral_theoretic]

Read the scholarly work I’ve provided an explanation you don’t like it and because you want Jesus to be wrong you’ll say it’s a crazy reading and excuse it all.

[u/spectral_theoretic → u/Such_Bed841]

Where did you provide it, and why can't you explicate it?

[u/Such_Bed841 → u/spectral_theoretic]

Here’s another one:

https://www.logos.com/grow/witw-did-jesus-falsely-predict-his-return/

[u/spectral_theoretic → u/Such_Bed841]

That's a podcast, can you distill this into an argument with citations please and thanks.

[u/Such_Bed841 → u/spectral_theoretic]

This is all exactly what I was saying to you people want to falsely limit it only to the second coming but the reality is it’s not the case.

[u/spectral_theoretic → u/Such_Bed841]

I guess if you read it that loosely, I am the second coming of jesus into my kingdom, or something. It's dialecticaly unacceptable to do such violence to language to make an otherwise clear prophecy completely opaque.

[u/Such_Bed841 → u/spectral_theoretic]

DA Carson (Expositors Bible commentary) RT France Craig S Keener

Are to name a few scholars who relate Matthew 16:28 to the Transfiguration outlined in the subsequent chapter.

NT Wright Leon Morris

Don’t miss this - they argue “coming in His kingdom” can refer to Jesus ascending to the Father in glory not just coming down to earth. This is massive because the Ascension was something I missed , every disciple was there to witness it and it has scholarly backing.

John Calvin who you probably know he likened Pentecost to the kingdom coming with power. The Holy Spirit gave power to otherwise cowardly apostles . Every apostle bar Judas saw and experienced this again another interpretation with scholarly backing

[u/Such_Bed841 → u/spectral_theoretic]

I’ve told you it coherently but you basically said it’s a false interpretation 😂. The message where I said “all verse 28 is saying”

Here’s one link detailing the explanation in more detail:

https://www.followintruth.com/matthew-1627-28-what-it-really-means

[u/spectral_theoretic → u/Such_Bed841]

This person sites almost no scholarly work, so why don't you make their argument?

[u/Such_Bed841 → u/spectral_theoretic]

It’s a commentator with a scholar making their points. Read the second one I sent you. Their argument is the same as mine but you aren’t understanding it which is fine I’ll explain again:

Matthew 16:28 is talking about the disciples would experience or not taste death until they see Jesus in His kingdom. This kingdom isn’t limited to the second coming solely therefore this verse is very much open to the disciples experiencing the glory of Jesus such as the Transfiguration, such as the resurrection, such as Pentecost therefore it’s not accurate to conclude it’s a false prophesy. That’s one argument the scholar is making in that article I sent you and I agree with it.

Notice Jesus never says “you will be alive for my second coming” That’s what people in this thread are trying to wriggle into verse 28 when it’s not there

[u/spectral_theoretic → u/Such_Bed841]

This kingdom isn’t limited to the second coming solely therefore this verse is very much open to the disciples experiencing the glory of Jesus such as the Transfiguration

This requires an idiosyncratic reading of a kingdom. Right before, in 16:27, the coming of Jesus involved the clouds of heaven, angels, and repayment of deeds for EVERYONE. Guess what parts of that were involved in the Transfiguration? None!

Here are the alternatives you suggested: the Transfiguration, the Resurrection, and the Pentecost. At the Transfiguration, Jesus is visibly glorified. At the Resurrection, Jesus rises from death. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit descends upon the disciples. If any of these count, then the prediction becomes extremely loose. It amounts to something like:

“Some of you will still be alive when something significant concerning my kingdom occurs.”

That loose of a prophecy is entirely useless.

[u/Civil_You_1818]

The OP probably does not even believe God created the world in 7 days, yet chooses to be literal on those specific verses. Double standards

[u/TheChosenOneProphecy → u/Civil_You_1818]

Whether U take this literally or not it doesn't work either way.

Literally, taking it as in they won't die, well they all died.

Symbolically meaning, you could say well Jesus was talking about Heaven and Hell, and some will go to Heaven, and not taste death(eternal damnation). Well which disciples then tasted "death" and went to Hell? Maybe Judas, even then that's not "some".

Either way U wanna spin it it doesn't work.

Jesus makes a prophecy about his own transfiguration.... Which happens 6 days later. That's barely a prophecy. That's clearly not what it's talking about. Just about any scholar on Earth agrees with this.

[u/Civil_You_1818 → u/TheChosenOneProphecy]

Yes, I know it’s kind of hard to interpret it that way. It’s only 6 days.

But fortunately we also have 2 Peter 1:16-18, Mark 9:6 and even Luke who supports this view (the view that you don’t like).

Peter even used the same greek word for coming “parousia”

Mark 9:6 supports the transfiguration fulfillment and confirms that it was indeed the right interpretation.
He emphasizes this on Mark 9:1 using the “pow3r” component

So we have 2 Peter snd Mark confirming Matthew 17 which confrimed 16.
3 Scriptures confirming scripture which confirms another scripture.

Pretty awesome from a Christians persepctive.

Even Luke gets in on the action on 9:27, but he makes it 8 days insteadnof 6 since he also counts the day of the mountain climb and the speech.

[u/spectral_theoretic → u/Civil_You_1818]

That's a classic ad hominem. It doesn't matter what standards the speaker has on the soundness or strength of their argument.

[u/Civil_You_1818 → u/spectral_theoretic]

Am calling out double standards on the speaker refusing to be literal on Genesis 1, yet switches to literal interpretations on Matthew 16:28.

[u/spectral_theoretic → u/Civil_You_1818]

They didn't mention anything about Genesis in the OP.

[u/Civil_You_1818 → u/spectral_theoretic]

Oh so you admit to the OP butcheringnup verses and cherrypicking them out of context?

[u/spectral_theoretic → u/Civil_You_1818]

You just said the OP is using a double standard, with regards to Genesis. They never speak on Genesis, hence they cannot be having a double standard since there is no other instance in the OP in which they apply more than one standard. Why are you trying to change the subject from an alleged failed prediction to some nebulous ad hominem?

[u/Civil_You_1818 → u/spectral_theoretic]

So the OP has only read one verse/ Matthew 16:28, and does not know the previous ones (like Genesis)?
Aren’t we supposed to let scripture interpret scripture?
Yet you’d rather isolate one without using other verses to interpret it?

[u/spectral_theoretic → u/Civil_You_1818]

So the OP has only read one verse/ Matthew 16:28, and does not know the previous ones (like Genesis)?

Why would you even assume that?

Yet you’d rather isolate one without using other verses to interpret it?

If you have an interpretation of the text that doesn't follow from the obvious meaning, you can share it. But short of redefining everything, and ignoring the scholarly work in translation, it's going to be a silly argument.

[u/Civil_You_1818 → u/spectral_theoretic]

There is double standards; he is viewing 16 as historically real or literal - e.g. the physical world will end and stuff.

Then we go to 17, which is supposed to be the fulfillment of it and he will treat it as non-literal, not historic. - e.g. God speaking, dead prophets speaking, literal booms in heaven, Jesus in his divine form and in the kingdom of God.

Notice the double standards? Reading 16 as literal, then changes to hyperbolic on 17?

[u/spectral_theoretic → u/Civil_You_1818]

Then we go to 17, which is supposed to be the fulfillment of it and he will treat it as non-literal, not historic.

he will

so you're just predicting the OP will use a double standard? Also, if 16 is not a literal prophecy, then I have no idea what it could mean because almost all scholarship corroborates it being an actual prophecy.

[u/AppropriateSea5746]

Strange coming into a debate forum saying that arguing is impossible

[u/TheChosenOneProphecy → u/AppropriateSea5746]

I didn't mean arguing is impossible, I meant that it's literally impossible for Christians to take this stance because it would mean that Christianity is false. Which is true.

So they can't really analyse this without bias. Agreeing with this view means that they accept Christianity is actually a false religion and Jesus failed.

[u/HamboJankins → u/AppropriateSea5746]

It's how I feel when christians claim god has written his existence on everyone's hearts and everyone secretly believes in him. How are you supposed to argue against that??

[u/AppropriateSea5746 → u/HamboJankins]

Idk you could say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does this too and challenge the underlying assumption by stating that because this claim could apply to anything then there’s no way to distinguish it?

Idk maybe you can’t argue. So maybe don’t put it in a debate sub.

[u/HamboJankins → u/AppropriateSea5746]

You took what I said too seriously. Lmao of course you can argue against it. You can argue against anything, but a Christian making those arguments already have their mind made up and no need to be a jerk. Arent you supposed to be a christian? Lmao

[u/Usual_Charity8561]

A proper understanding of the Kingdom is needed and a proper understanding of death. People are picturing the end times as if it is some future time. The end times is now, and every moment after Jesus's resurrection. There is a future kingdom which is after the general ressurection that will be more perfect, but the kingdom of God is present on earth at this exact moment. That kingdom is the Christian Church.

As for death, death is not merely a bodily state, but a state of the soul. If one dies as a saint, then they do not taste death.

This does not negate everyone else's answers here, because Christ often said things that were true in multiple ways at once. Eusebius record the sacking of Jerusalem as fulfilling the end times prophecies, but acknowledges that those same prophecies will continue to have symbolic fulfillment throughout the ages.

[u/spectral_theoretic → u/Usual_Charity8561]

So God has two different kingdoms? If so, which are they?

Also if tasting death isn't a euphemism for dying, what does it mean?

[u/Usual_Charity8561 → u/spectral_theoretic]

Only one kingdom, but in multiple sense 1) Christ is the king of heaven and earth. All things therein are in his kingdom at this very moment, but it is presently awaiting future judgement. 2) Christ remains the king of the new heaven and new earth following the general resurrection. 3) The Church is the prefiguring of his future post-ressurection kingdom 4) The Kingdom of God is in every human heart, and it is our job to soften our hearts and individually become "subjects" to that kingdom

There are probably other sense I'm missing. All of these are the same kingdom though. I hope that simultaneously clarifies and confuses!

[u/spectral_theoretic → u/Usual_Charity8561]

So the kingdom you're referring to is a kingdom where only christians think christ is king, and not even a real king but a spiritual king? The stretching of the meaning of 'kingdom' is highly alien to the old testament, but that seems to imply that one must redefine kingdom, which the bible in the OT takes to be a political object or physical domain, and make it purely spiritual.

You also didn't explain the 'tasting death' part.

[u/Usual_Charity8561 → u/spectral_theoretic]

No, it's like an actual real kingdom where Jesus is a real human king. Christians are his earthly servants. That's quite in line with OT thought about the future kingdom of God. Just read Isaiah 9, Daniel 7.

The tasting death part refers to death both as bodily death (which all who are not assumed into heaven experience) and as spiritual death in the afterlife (which saints do not experience). So one sense is that the apostles mostly survived to see Christ's kingdom established with his ressurection, Pentecost, and the ascension. The other sense is that the saints (including some apostles) persist in heavenly life until the day of Christ's second coming, and the establishment of the full visible manifestation of the kingdom.

[u/DeltaBlues82 → u/Usual_Charity8561]

What is the standard for what’s proper?

[u/Usual_Charity8561 → u/DeltaBlues82]

Orthodox Church interpretation

[u/DeltaBlues82 → u/Usual_Charity8561]

And thats a pretty universally agreed upon standard?

[u/Usual_Charity8561 → u/DeltaBlues82]

Certainly amongst the Orthodox. To their credit, almost every major denomination agrees the Orthodox Christians are saved (even Catholics acknowledge the validity of their sacraments).

[u/DeltaBlues82 → u/Usual_Charity8561]

Okay, so it’s not a very agreed-upon standard. And it’s just your opinion that it’s the proper standard.

[u/Usual_Charity8561 → u/DeltaBlues82]

It is the proper standard amongst Orthodox, who are the only ones qualified to have a proper standard. But that would take discernment and an understanding of church history on your part.

[u/DeltaBlues82 → u/Usual_Charity8561]

Who has determined who are the ones who are qualified to have a proper standard?

[u/Usual_Charity8561 → u/DeltaBlues82]

Jesus Christ handed it down to the apostles, who handed it down to the various bishops, who have since that time passed that down through the ages. These bishops comprise the Orthodox Church, who meet in councils guided by the Holy Spirit to determine matters of faith according to holy tradition.

[u/DeltaBlues82 → u/Usual_Charity8561]

So Jesus Christ himself handed these specific standards down? Where can I review that account and the corresponding standards?

[u/JusticeUmmmmm → u/Usual_Charity8561]

That kingdom is the Christian Church.

Which one?

[u/Usual_Charity8561 → u/JusticeUmmmmm]

Eastern Orthodox which is the historical Catholic Church

[u/supersoundwave]

“Christians are unable to question it and have to come up with any reason why it's not what it says because it would mean their religion is false.”

You’ve already decided that there can be no answer so what are Christians supposed to say?

[u/Rational-Angel-73 → u/supersoundwave]

Even if you think OP is not willing to hear an explanation, let's go through this particular verse has a contradiction, or at least a prophesy that did not come true.

A frequent apologetic response is that a contradiction requires that one verse must state precisely P and then another verse must state precisely ¬P, in the exact same context and same way. That's just defining contradictions away. Another is to say if there is any even remotely possible way to harmonize the verses, then we apply some imagined scenario, for which there is no evidence, and say there is no contradiction.

Instead, let's talk about what is most likely based on the text of the Bible and the data we have. Let's not talk about what is not impossible, no matter how remote it is. Let's talk about what is most likely. Any argument about what is "not impossible" is, to my view, an admission that the argument involves something that is not the most likely explanation.

First, I want to make sure we know what the Bible says. Something like this exact quote appears later too. In addition to the verse in the OP, we have:

Immediately after the suffering 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 heaven will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see ‘the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven’ with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.

Matthew 24:29-34

Now, some apologetics say that when Jesus takes Peter, James, and John up a high mountain where he is transformed and radiates divine glory (the Transfiguration). This ignores the immediately prior verse, Matthew 16:27, which says more specifically what will happen. "For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done." There are not angels or repayment for what has been done in the Matthew 17 transfiguration. This is not the fulfillment of the prophesy.

Also, saying someone will not "taste death" before an even that is a week away would be a very odd thing to day, wouldn't it? Why would Jesus be so dramatic about saying, "some of you will live until next Monday"?

Very few scholars thing the transfiguration fits this description. It is not the most likely explanation. In fact, it is almost certainly not the correct one.

The transfiguration explanation also has no explanatory power regarding when Jesus later makes the same promise in Matthew 24. By the time he makes the Matthew 24 prophesy, the transfiguration has already happened. This verse also mentions when a fig tree bears fruit in the summer.

It appears that the promises Jesus made in Matthew 16 and 24 were either lies or just plain wrong.

[u/Braves_Knights → u/Rational-Angel-73]

There’s a clear shift across Matthew 24.

If the first half is read as the temple destruction and second half read as the second coming it flows quite well.

[u/ThistleTinsel → u/Rational-Angel-73]

Stephen the first Martyr in Acts 7.

[u/supersoundwave → u/Rational-Angel-73]

Thanks for the reply.

I think you're setting the bar too high for the Christian interpretation while treating the skeptical interpretation as obvious.

The Transfiguration doesn't have to fulfill every detail of Matthew 16:27 to be a legitimate preview of Christ's coming in glory. Actually, Peter later describes the Transfiguration in exactly those terms. And Matthew 24 is a separate passage where the "this generation" issue has to be dealt with on its own.

So I agree that we shouldn't, accept a harmonization just because it's possible. But you still have to show that Jesus' failed-prediction interpretation is actually the best reading of the text. That's not really shown simply by saying the alternative isn't the most obvious one.

[u/Rational-Angel-73 → u/supersoundwave]

The text says a thing will happen before some of the people present when Jesus spoke die. All of those people have since died. So, either the promised event happened or it didn't.

The only thing you have proffered as possibly the even is the transfiguration, which you admit is not the thing Jesus was most likely talking about.

So then did the promised event happen or not? If you claim that it did, then it is up to you to show that. I don't have to show anything at all.

The most likely explanation is that Jesus's promise in Matthew 16 and 24 was either a lie or wrong.

[u/supersoundwave → u/Rational-Angel-73]

Sure, if Jesus meant “I’m coming back in glory before some of you die,” then yeah, that would be a failed prophecy. But that’s exactly what you’re assuming.

The question is what “coming in his kingdom” means in context. The Transfiguration is a reasonable candidate because it happens immediately afterward and displays Jesus in glory. It doesn't have to reproduce every detail of verse 27 to work as a preview of that coming.

So I’m not saying “it’s technically possible, therefore it’s true.” I’m saying you haven't shown that the failed-prediction reading is the only or even clearly best reading of the text.

[u/Rational-Angel-73 → u/supersoundwave]

But that’s exactly what you’re assuming.

Again, and I don't like having to keep saying the same things over again, I am going by what is the most likely explanation. I have demonstrated what is most likely, and as OP predicted, you are making excuses to support your dogma.

The Transfiguration is a reasonable candidate

I already explained in detail why it is not. "It doesn't have to follow what verse 27 says" is just plain wrong. He said what would happen, and then it didn't happen. If it doesn't reproduce every detail, then it was a lie.

I’m not saying “it’s technically possible, therefore it’s true.”

Unfortunately, that is precisely what you are doing. You are doing what I said apologists do and what OP predicted you would do. You are taking an unreasonable reading of the verses and saying "you have to prove this is not possible."

That's not how it works.

[u/supersoundwave → u/Rational-Angel-73]

"If it doesn't reproduce every detail, then it was a lie" Why? That's quite the claim.

And just because "that's what apologists do", that doesn;t automatically make ti wrong.

[u/Rational-Angel-73 → u/supersoundwave]

Is the Bible says, "Jesus says X will happen within Y years," and then X does not happen within Y years, the possibilities seem to be: (1) Jesus lacked the knowledge to know if the promise would be true and he turned out to be wrong (this is not a common trait christians ascribe to god); (2) the author of the Matthew gospel, whoever he or she was, misattributed that quote to Jesus (which would call into question everything in the gospels); or (3) Jesus lied.

Which do you think it was?

Also, what makes you wrong is not because apologists do it, it is because it is wrong.

[u/Natural-Cost5494]

“The Son of Man coming in his Kingdom” is a reference to Jesus’s resurrection and exaltation according to the Gospels. That has already happened. The Kingdom of God is not what many people think it is:

“Once Jesus was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, and he answered, “The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you.” Then he said to the disciples, “The days are coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it. They will say to you, ‘Look there!’ or ‘Look here!’ Do not go; do not set off in pursuit. For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day.”
‭‭(Luke‬ ‭17‬:‭20‬-‭24‬)

[u/mfrunyan → u/Natural-Cost5494]

So he's making a dramatic declaration that some of the people standing there will still be alive in six months or so when he resurrects? Seems like a redundant statement.

[u/brvheart → u/mfrunyan]

Seems like a pretty major event to predict, even if it’s only 6 days later.

[u/azrolator → u/mfrunyan]

Also, when I look up at the sky at night, the stars are still there, not laying on the ground. But it makes perfect sense if we realize that by stars, Jesus meant some salt he was going to knock off the table at dinner later.

It's all just word games. Just pretend the words mean something else until it sounds like something that could have happened.

[u/Natural-Cost5494 → u/mfrunyan]

He says that the people he preaches to will witness his resurrection from the dead.

[u/HDYHT11 → u/Natural-Cost5494]

If we go with this interpretation, then Jesus did actually know when the second coming was happening (he knew when he was dying and resurrecting), contradicting the infamous "only the Father knows the day."

[u/AllIsVanity → u/Natural-Cost5494]

Nope. You appealed to Luke who removes all the original imminence. This is not a valid way to interpret Matthew's gospel. 

Matthew 16:27-28:

"For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Notice the crucial connections:

• Immediate Succession: These verses are directly connected within the same speech of Jesus. There's no indication of a topic shift or a change in referent. To separate and assign them to completely different events is to impose an artificial division on the text.
• Shared Imagery: Both passages describe the Son of Man coming "in glory" and "with his angels." This is classic apocalyptic imagery associated with the final judgment.
• Universal Judgment: The context of judging "each person according to what they have done" (Matthew 16:27) implies a universal, eschatological event, not a limited, localized occurrence like the Temple's destruction or a private vision like the Transfiguration.
• Terminological Overlap & Matthew’s Theological Precision: Matthew 16:28’s "Son of Man coming (ἐρχόμενον) in his kingdom" is deliberately tied to the Parousia described in 16:27 ("the Son of Man will come [ἔρχεσθαι] with angels to judge"). This is not coincidence - it’s a consistent pattern pointing exclusively to the Second Coming, the language rooted in Daniel 7:13 (LXX), where the Son of Man is seen "coming" (ἐρχόμενος) on clouds to receive eternal dominion (βασιλεία αἰώνια) from God. This is cosmic enthronement - the eschatological climax.  

  Matthew uses the identical Greek participle (ἐρχόμενον) in all key Parousia               texts:      > Matthew 24:30:     > "The Son of Man coming (ἐρχόμενον) on the clouds... in power and glory"     > (Context: Final judgment at history’s end)  

  > Matthew 26:64:     > "The Son of Man coming (ἐρχόμενον) on the clouds"     > (Context: Jesus declares His future return as Judge)  

  > Matthew 16:28:     > "The Son of Man coming (ἐρχόμενον) in his kingdom"     > (Context: Directly follows 16:27’s angelic-judgment Parousia)  

  For Matthew, "seeing the Son of Man ἐρχόμενον" means witnessing the   Parousia. Every instance where "Son of Man" is paired with ἔρχομαι ("to come")   refers only to the Parousia without exception.  https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1jckxav/mark_91_and_mattthew_1628_were_not_referring_to/ 

[u/Shoddy_Childhood8702 → u/Natural-Cost5494]

” “The Son of Man coming in his Kingdom” is a reference to Jesus’s resurrection”

So who died between him saying that line and the ressurection?