In at least two previous studies I mentioned that Jesus couldn’t possibly have come in power and in his Kingdom on Pentecost, but I would like to look at this proposition a little closer. It is the amillennial understanding that the millennium should not be understood literally, and I agree. However, I do not agree with what they conclude about the millennium. They say that it began at Pentecost and continues until Jesus returns and judges mankind at some unknown time in the future. Interestingly, and more pertinent to my study of Matthew 16:27-28, the amillennialists believe verse-28 reflects Jesus’ coming on Pentecost, and verse-27 points to his future coming and judgment. What can we say of these things?
Earlier I had made the point that only Judas is known to have died between Jesus’ statement in Matthew 16:28 and Pentecost (Acts 2), so Jesus’ mention of some living to see his coming in the Kingdom is somewhat misleading, if Pentecost was in view. Therefore, Pentecost, at least, probably shouldn’t be considered for this reason alone. However, I also made a more significant point by saying it was the Holy Spirit, not Jesus, who came on Pentecost. So, how could Pentecost be a candidate for the coming of the Son of Man in his Kingdom (Matthew 16:28)?
Consider what Jesus, himself, said concerning the coming of the Holy Spirit (called the Comforter in John 14:26): “It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.” If the Holy Spirit represents the time Jesus is away, how could his coming represent Jesus’ coming in his Kingdom? The whole premise simply isn’t logical.
However, the amillennialists are forced to take this point of view, namely, that Jesus’ coming in his Kingdom (Matthew 16:28) was on the day of Pentecost, because Matthew 16:27 predicts his coming in judgment, and no one could ever conclude that Pentecost was Jesus coming in judgment. Yet, Jesus must have come in some manner in the first century AD, if some standing with him would live to see him usher in the Kingdom of God. Therefore, Pentecost is the only option without using 70, AD which points to judgment, and once folks begin to use Jesus’ coming in judgment in 70 AD, why not say this is him coming in the glory of the Father (Matthew 16:27)? So, Pentecost is the only option, like it or not, to separate Matthew 16:27 from verse-28.
Nevertheless, in an earlier study, I had proved that Matthew 16:27 cannot be divided from verse 28 from a literary standpoint. The phrase Verily I say unto you (amen lego humin) is a phrase used to introduce a statement that emphasizes the previous statement. That is, what Jesus claimed in Matthew 16:28 was to emphasize what he said in Matthew 16:27. This phrase is used 52 times in the Synoptic Gospels, all by Jesus, and it is never used to divide a clause or introduce a new thought. It is always used to emphasize Jesus’ point. Therefore, if Matthew 16:27-28 cannot be separated, the “judgment” is an issue one must deal with in the coming of the Lord.
Moreover, I have previously shown that Jesus’ judgment in Matthew 16:27 was in vindication of both his suffering (Matthew 16:21) and that of his disciples (Matthew 16:24-25). I used Daniel 7 to show that the little horn, the persecuting authority during the days of the Roman Empire, would be judged and destroyed at the coming of the Son of man. None of these things, by the way, fit the context of the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost.
Therefore, it seems to me that no matter how one looks at Pentecost, it cannot be used for the coming of the Lord. It was the coming of the Holy Spirit, demonstrating the absence of the Lord. Furthermore, Matthew 16:27 and 28 cannot be divided for literary reasons, so the judgment of verse-27 shows the incongruity of Christ coming in glory of the Father in Acts 2.
Smoodock's Blog 