The puzzle doesn't fit people,you must look for something else!!!

"Did the Transfiguration Fulfill Matthew 16:28?"
Copyright © 2004 by Michael A. Fenemore - Revised: 2004 Jul 24

Speaking to a "crowd…along with his disciples" (Mark 8:34, NIV throughout), Jesus said:

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 he has done. 28 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (Matt. 16:27-28)

For those Christians who don't believe that Jesus has already come in his kingdom, taking this prediction at face value presents a problem because those who were "standing" there have all died. Many believe the transfiguration account immediately following Matt. 16 provides an adequate solution (Matt. 17:1-9; Mark 9:2-10; Luke 9:28-36). This article presents a test of that interpretation.

The following is a synopsis of the transfiguration as recounted in Matt. 17:1-9:

1. Jesus takes three disciples up a high mountain;
2. Jesus is transfigured (his face shines and his clothes appear white);
3. Moses and Elijah appear;
4. A bright cloud envelopes the disciples;
5. A voice says, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!";
6. Moses and Elijah disappear;
7. Jesus says, "Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead."

What should the disciples have expected to see?

1. "the Son of Man coming in his Father's glory"
2. "angels"
3. Each person being rewarded for what he has done (the judgment)
4. "his kingdom"

At the transfiguration, the Son of Man was there and he was changed to a certain glorified state (Matt. 17:2; Mark 9:3; Luke 9:29). However, strictly speaking, he was not "coming" -- he was already there. Where would he have been coming from? There were no angels present, nor was there any sign of a judgment taking place. In fact, very little in the account could be reasonably related to "his kingdom." If Jesus was thinking of the coming transfiguration event when he made his prediction in Matt. 16:27-28, we must wonder why he painted a picture of his coming in glory in verse 27, listing dramatic details, and then in verse 28, predicted a preview of that event which he knew would lack the very key elements he had just described? What was the point of verse 27? It would be as though Jesus had said this:

1. Here's what it's going to look like when I come in my kingdom;
2. Some standing here will live to see it;
3. When they do, it won't look anything like the way I just said it will look.

Who could ever believe such a ridiculous scenario? Yet that's exactly what the popular explanation for Matt. 16:28 amounts to and millions of Christians have accepted it without question. What else might one have expected to see in connection with "the Son of Man coming in his kingdom?"

For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. (1 Thess. 4:16-17)

During the transfiguration, the Lord did not "come down from heaven." There was a command that came out of the cloud, but not necessarily a "loud" command (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:34-35). There was no trumpet sound, nor any sign of the dead rising or the rapture. The disciples were enveloped by a cloud, but they were not "caught up…in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air." There was much more missing from the transfiguration:

...See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones… (Jude 14b-15a); The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said: "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever." (Rev. 11:15)

There was no sign of the "thousands upon thousands of his holy ones" and the voice in the cloud said nothing about "the kingdom of the world" becoming "the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ." Also, only Moses and Elijah were present with Jesus, but they are never mentioned as having an especially prominent position when Jesus was to return in his kingdom, so we must wonder why the vision includes only them. What is the transfiguration all about? Why are just Moses and Elijah present? To answer these questions, it is necessary to begin at Mount Sinai:

When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet and saw the mountain in smoke, they trembled with fear. They stayed at a distance and said to Moses, "Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die." (Exod. 20:18-19)

From that day, God spoke to the Israelites through Moses, and the people said, "we will listen." However, Moses would not live forever and was not even allowed to enter the promised land. Before his life was over, he warned the Israelites about the danger of taking up the ways of the heathen nations they would encounter (Deut. 18:9-14) and then specified how he would be replaced:

The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him. (v. 15)

After Moses died, this prediction met an immediate fulfillment in Joshua:

Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the LORD had commanded Moses. (Deut. 34:9)

Moses and the Prophets spoke for God under the Old Covenant. It's difficult to imagine a more prestigious calling. Israel was to "listen" to them. The Law came through Moses, and for hundreds of years God spoke to his people through prophets. The high regard for "Moses and the Prophets" as the two great authorities in the history of Israel continued right down to the time of Jesus. The New Testament contains numerous references to "Moses and the Prophets" or "the Law and the Prophets." Moses and the Law were synonymous.
Elijah was arguably Israel's greatest prophet after Moses (Deut. 34:10-11), having raised the dead (I Kgs. 17:17-24), and his name was associated with the arrival of the Messiah (Mal. 4:5-6). At the transfiguration, we see Jesus standing with Moses, who is representing the Law, and with Elijah, who is representing the Prophets. The voice from the cloud says "Listen to him!" (Matt. 17:5b). Then, Moses and Elijah disappear leaving only Jesus. The transfiguration appears to have been a demonstration showing that Jesus was the successor to Moses and the Prophets. This is how the author of Hebrews understood Christ's role:

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. (Heb. 1:1-2)

The command "Listen to him!" clearly links Christ to Israel's prophets and the original prediction made by Moses.
Conclusion: The transfiguration appears to be quite unrelated to Christ's prediction in Matt. 16:28 since there is very little evidence to support interpreting the event as a preview of Christ's coming in judgment at the end of the age. The two events have practically nothing in common. The "coming" in verse 28 is inextricably linked to verse 27. It cannot be separated from the image of thousands of angels being present at the resurrection and judgment. The details of the transfiguration stand out as remarkably unlike descriptions of "the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" found in Matt. 16:27 and elsewhere in the New Testament. However, the transfiguration option appears to be the only choice for those who are looking for a future return of Christ.

Objection: You have stated that Joshua fulfilled Moses' prediction in Deut. 18:15, but in Acts 3:22-24, Peter says that's a prophecy about Jesus:

For Moses said, 'The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from among his people.' "Indeed, all the prophets from Samuel on, as many as have spoken, have foretold these days." (Acts 3:22-24)

When Moses said, "God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers," it's doubtful he was thinking about Jesus. If Moses was thinking ahead to Christ, it would have gone right over the people's heads. For Moses, the issue was providing a successor after his 40 years of leadership and the people would have understood it that way. Moses said, "You must listen to him." This was clearly fulfilled by Joshua: "So the Israelites listened to him." Of course, God could have inspired Moses to speak words that would later be reinterpreted by Peter. In Acts 3, Peter connects Jesus to Moses' prediction and the prophets that followed. In effect, every prophet would be another fulfillment with Christ being the last and greatest prophet. It's interesting to note that Peter said only "the prophets from Samuel on…foretold these days." That would mean Moses didn't foretell them and was not referring to Christ specifically.

Objection: In 2 Pet. 1:16-18, Peter refers to the transfiguration as the "coming of our Lord." The word "coming" in the Greek is Parousia. Isn't that referring to the second coming?

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

The "coming of our Lord" in this passage is carelessly assumed to be referring to the second coming as experienced through the transfiguration. If that's what Peter intended, it is by no means clear. It should be remembered that the word Parousia does not refer to the second coming exclusively in the New Testament. For instance, "the coming of the lawless one" in 2 Thess. 2:9 is also a Parousia. In other places, Parousia is translated "presence" or "arrived" and does not refer to Jesus at all. So Peter's use of Parousia here does not necessarily relate to the second coming, nor does it even necessarily refer to the transfiguration considering his wording. His reference to Christ's "coming" here is somewhat ambiguous. It's possible that he is actually referring to Christ's first coming and then using the transfiguration miracle to buttress his testimony regarding Christ's divinity. After his salutation in verses 1-2, Peter begins his message:

His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. (2 Pet. 1:3-4)

Peter reminds his audience that Christ's "divine power" is available to help them deal with "the corruption in the world caused by evil desires." Next, he encourages them to keep the faith and reminds them of their eternal reward (v. 10-11). Then, in verses 16-18, he endeavors to further establish Christ's credibility by recalling the miraculous transfiguration event. The subject is not the second coming. The first two chapters of 2 Peter are about avoiding sin and replacing it with "wholesome thinking" (3:1). In all of this, Peter never states or implies in the least that the transfiguration was intended to be a preview of the second coming. The problem is that people see the word "coming" in verse 16 and assume it must be referring to the second coming. Then they carelessly apply that interpretation to the transfiguration reference in verses 17 and 18. But even if the word "coming" does refer to the transfiguration, that event was still only a coming (a presence), not necessarily a preview of the coming, i.e. the second coming.

The issue boils down to this: When Jesus predicted that some would still be alive to witness "the Son of Man coming in his kingdom," was he referring to the transfiguration? There is nothing in 2 Pet. 1:16-18 to support that interpretation. Peter offers no hint whatsoever to indicate the transfiguration was intended to be a vision of "the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" as specified in Matt. 16:27-28. Evidence throughout the New Testament exposes that interpretation as being suspect to the point of being unbelievable since most of the key features are completely absent. Ultimately, those who prefer the fulfilled view of Bible prophecy can believe whatever they want to on this. The outcome of their eschatological system is not affected. It's only those still waiting for the second coming of Christ who have no alternative but to adopt this highly questionable interpretation for lack of anything more substantial.


Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved. The "NIV" and "New International Version" trademarks are registered in the United States Patent and Trademarks Office by International Bible Society. Use of either trademark requires the permission of International Bible Society.

Preterism-Eschatology---What are your thoughts on the matter?

Please fill in all fields marked with a *
Article
Did the Transfiguration Fulfill Matthew 16:28
Name*

Email Address*
Comments*