No matter how we wish to interpret Matthew 16:27-28, we are bound by Daniel 7, which is the fountain from which Matthew 16 arises, to place its fulfillment during the days of the Roman Empire. Moreover, the Greek particle gar (G1063) grammatically connects Matthew 16:27 with the previous verses, making Jesus coming in the glory of the Father a judgment that vindicates not only his own persecution and death at the hands of the Jewish authorities, but also the sufferings and deaths of Jesus disciples. Verse-27 is offered them as hope for what Jesus has called them to endure. To place Jesus’ coming 2000 years into the future is to deny both the grammar and the context of Matthew 16.
Moreover, one of the most common errors of interpreting Matthew 16:28 is to make its fulfillment come in Jesus’ Transfiguration, which occurred only six days later, according to Matthew 17:1. While the Transfiguration is indeed a vision of Jesus in glory, it was not his coming, and Jesus did claim that some folks listening to him that day (verse-28) would live to see his coming in his Kingdom, not a vision of his glory. Interestingly, Mark’s version shows us that there was a large crowed of people with the disciples, listening to Jesus (Mark 8:34). So, it would seem to me to be disingenuous to say some listening to him that day would live to see Jesus coming in his Kingdom, if the Transfiguration is meant. After six days there is good reason to believe all of the people were still alive, certainly all of the disciples were alive. Yet, Jesus’ use of the word some (G5100) implies that the vast majority would not survive, including Jesus’ disciples.
To be sure, Matthew 17:1 begins with the conjunction and (kai – G2532), as does Mark 9:2, and the conjunction does, indeed, connect Jesus’ Transfiguration with his claim in Matthew 16:27 (Mark 9:1). Why do the Gospel writers do that, if the Transfiguration should be understood as the fulfillment of Jesus coming in the Kingdom in that generation?
Peter was one of the three apostles who witnessed Jesus’ Transfiguration, and he does mention it in his second epistle, but even he does not say it was the fulfillment of Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:28 (Mark 9:1). Scoffers had arisen who were denying and mocking the coming of Christ (2Peter 3:3), so Peter wrote his second epistle to defend what he had written in his first epistle (2Peter 3:1-3) about the nearness of Jesus’ coming (cf. 1Peter 1:5-7, 10-12, 20; 4:5, 7, 17).
Therefore, in 2Peter 1:16 Peter tells his readers that he and the other writers of the New Testament had not given them cunningly devised myths, as the Jews were apt to do (cf. Titus 1:14; 2Timothy 4:4). Rather, Peter claimed to be an eyewitness of Jesus’ glory (2Peter 1:16-17), which he saw in the ‘holy mount’ (2Peter 1:18), and all this served, not as its fulfillment, but as evidence for the more sure word of prophecy (2Peter 1:19).
Now consider what Peter saw. He claimed to see Jesus in glory and this was evidence he could use against the scoffers who were denying Jesus coming. Remember, if Jesus was predicting his coming 2000 years into the future, the scoffers’ argument would be illogical, because they were asking where was the promise of Jesus’ coming in the first century AD (2Peter 3:3). This question makes sense only if Peter was preaching that Jesus’ coming was near.
What did Peter see? He saw a vision of Jesus in glory with Moses and Elijah. Why Moses and Elijah? Because, they represent the Old Covenant—the Law and the Prophets. Peter misunderstood the vision and asked if he should make three tabernacles—one for Jesus and the others for Moses and Elijah. Then Peter heard the voice of God saying, ‘This is my beloved Son, him hear!” (Matthew 17:5; 2Peter 1:17-18). At that moment, both Elijah and Moses faded away—i.e. the Old Covenant faded away, and Jesus was left alone (Matthew 17:8; Mark 9:8; Luke 9:36).
Those who wish to place the fulfillment of Jesus’ words about some seeing Jesus coming in his Kingdom (Matthew 16:28) at the Transfiguration, also put Jesus actual coming in his Kingdom 2000 years later. Those who do this do two things. First, they keep the Old Covenant valid until the still future Second Coming, and, secondly, they end the Gospel age (the New Covenant age) with Jesus’ coming. So the Gospel (New Testament) ends when the Old Testament ends (according to the futurists). This is the logical end of their argument, but it is an illogical premise. How can they deny it?
Smoodock's Blog 
8 responses to “What Does the Transfiguration Tell Us?”
Greetings Donald, and thank you for reading my study and for your encouraging remark. Lord bless you.
Eddie, I guess the main point is that many of those alive with Jesus did live to see the Kingdom. In fact, many of them were saved and became part of the Kingdom of Christ [ 3000 at Pentecost ]. While I can agree that the Transfiguration, by itself, really isn’t a direct fulfillment of Matthew 16:28, the prophecy was fulfilled long before 70 AD when the temple was destroyed, the Kingdom did come and is coming, within us.
Of course, this is one of two verses that Full Preterism rests upon, so if you allow for alternate interpretations then the whole concept starts to collapse. My main concern is that honest, bible believing Christians, all led by the same Spirit, all searching and asking for answers, really can arrive at so many completely divergent conclusions.
And, while I haven’t seen it on this site, many folks are pushing these divisions to the point of heresy, and have been for a really long time. We really have ended up with a Church that simply cannot get along, constantly trying to push one another out of the tree. It’s hard for me to believe that God intended it to be this way, but it’s also hard to deny the fact that the body of Christ is a real mess.
Keep up the good search,
-Gary
Greetings Gary and once again, thank you for reading and for your comment.
I cannot justify the fulfillment of Matthew 16:28 before 70 AD. Jesus said he would come in the glory of his Father with his mighty angels and judge everyone according to his works (verse-27). He went into the far country, there to receive a Kingdom and return. The disciples were commanded to watch, and the implication was that he would take longer than they might expect, but it would be in their generation (Matthew 16:27; 23:35-36).
I can “allow” for any number of interpretations, provided those interpretations are logical and fit well into the word of God. I cannot condone mutilating the word of God so that it would fit into some tradition of man. This is the very thing Jesus condemned the Pharisees for doing. Why would I allow it, when Jesus didn’t?
As far as the differences between denominations, I am fairly certain we would all be willing to die for the same reasons in Christ. It has been my experience that friendships exist across denominational boundaries. As a church body we have a number of times helped a new church in the community celebrate its opening by many of us attending its worship service. Just a gesture of friendship to show we aren’t enemies.
I don’t see the the “real mess” you speak of, Gary. While I wouldn’t say the Holy Spirit is responsible for our differences, I really believe we are all guided by the Spirit of God into the various ministries we do in and for each community. I believe the Lord is pleased overall with his bride.
Lord bless you, Gary.