The Son of Man Coming in his Kingdom: Wrestling with Matthew 16:27-28

We are often mistaken about the future. Our predictions about the weather, athletic competitions, and politics are never right all the time. What about Jesus? Was he ever wrong about the future? Consider Matthew 16:27-28:

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. 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. (NIV)

On the surface these verses contain a clear message:

• Jesus is speaking to his disciples (v. 24).
• Jesus, calling himself by his favorite title in the Gospels, the Son of Man, is predicting his coming. 
• Jesus’ coming sounds like a reference to his second coming to earth.
• Jesus will come “in his Father’s glory” accompanied by “his angels.” 
• Jesus’ arrival will be followed by universal judgment—  “then he will reward each person according to what they have done.” 
• In emphatic language, beginning with “Truly” or “Amen,” Jesus predicts that “some” of his disciples would not die “before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” 
• The “Son of Man coming in his kingdom” in verse 28 seems to correspond with the Son of Man coming “in his Father’s glory with his angels” in verse 27. If that is correct, both verses refer to the same event. Notice the parallel nature of these statements:

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.

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.

The Problem

All of this seems clear. I get it. The problem is that based on this reading, Jesus’ statement in verse 28 is a failed prediction. Jesus says that some of his disciples wouldn’t die before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom, but all of his disciples have been dead for centuries and the kingly Son of Man has still not appeared. 

To be more precise, assuming that verses 27 and 28 refer to the same event, Jesus predicted that some of his disciples would see him coming in his Father’s glory with his angels to dispense judgment on all based on their deeds. Did any of the first-century disciples see these things? If so, when? 

Was Jesus Wrong?

Could Jesus have been wrong about the timing of his return? He does admit ignorance about the day and hour of the end in Matthew 24:36, but could he also have been wrong? Many Bible scholars believe Jesus was wrong. And not just in this one place. Here are other references in Matthew that have been used to show that Jesus was mistaken about the future. (I’ve underlined the key phrases in each and inserted a comment into the second statement.)

• When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. (Matt. 10:23) 
• Immediately after the distress of those days [the “distress” primarily refers to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70] “the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.” Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. . .Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. (Matt. 24:29-35)
• But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven. (Matt. 26:63-64) 

A Common Assumption

The view that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic (end of the world) prophet goes back to critical studies of the Gospels written by Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694–1768), David Friedrich Strauss (1808–1874), Johannes Weiss (1863–1914), and Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965). Reimarus was not the first to turn a critical eye toward the Gospels because ancient writers, such as Celsus and Porphyry, had done so as far back as the 2nd and 3rd centuries. But Reimarus was the first to analyze the Gospels as historical documents that needed to be sifted for truth and error. He applied rational explanations to the miracle accounts and concluded that Jesus was attempting to establish a political kingdom in first-century Israel. According to Reimarus, however, Jesus’ hope was crushed. In summing up Reimarus’s view, Schweitzer writes, “Inasmuch as the non-fulfillment of its eschatology is not admitted, our Christianity rests upon a fraud” (Quest, 22). Eschatology refers to the biblical study of end time events. He continues, “The sole argument which could save the credit of Christianity would be a proof that the Parousia had really taken place at the time for which it was announced; and obviously no such proof can be produced” (22). Parousia is the Greek word for “presence” or “arrival” and it’s often used for Jesus’ future coming in glory. In Reimarus’s view echoed by Schweitzer, honesty requires us to admit this disappointed hope at the heart of the early Christian movement. 

Critical scholars of the past are not the only ones who have drawn attention to this issue. C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) made the following comment on Jesus’ words “this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened” in Matthew 24:34:

It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible. Yet how teasing, also, that within fourteen words of it should come the statement “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are In heaven, neither the Son, but the Father/’ The one exhibition of error and the one confession of ignorance grow side by side. (The World’s Last Night, 98).

Lewis calls Matthew 24:34, “the most embarrassing verse in the Bible” and an “exhibition of error,” but he softens this assessment by acknowledging Jesus’ “confession of ignorance.”

In addition, many contemporary scholars have concluded that Jesus was wrong. For example, Dale Allison, writes the following: 

he [Jesus] envisaged, as did many in his time and place, the advent, after suffering and persecution, of a great judgment, and after that a supernatural utopia, the kingdom of God, inhabited by the dead come back to life, to enjoy a world forever rid of evil and wholly ruled by God. Further, he thought that the night was far gone, the day at hand. . .

His dream, however, has remained a dream. It is not just that, as Matt. 24:36 = Mark 13:32 says, the Son had no knowledge of precisely when the end would come. It is rather that the Son expected and encouraged others to expect that all would wrap up soon, and yet run-of-the-mill history remains with us: Satan still goes to and fro upon the earth. (Historical Christ, Kindle, 1267-75)

Now that we have placed this challenge in its broader context, let’s return to the particular prediction we began with, starting with its placement in the Synoptic Gospels. 

Synoptic Gospels

Together with Mark and Luke, Matthew is one of the three Synoptic Gospels. Synoptic means “common view” so these Gospels have a similar structure and many identical stories. And this Son of Man prediction is found in all three Gospels. Compare the three below:

• “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.” (Matt. 16:27-28)
• “If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.” And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.” (Mk. 8:38-9:1)
• “Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.” (Lk. 9:26-27)

The literary context of each statement is the same. After Peter confesses that Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus predicts his own suffering, execution, and resurrection. In response, Peter rebukes Jesus because he cannot imagine a suffering Messiah. But Jesus is certain that his mission involves suffering and death so he reprimands Peter sharply, saying, “Get behind me, Satan!” Then Jesus turns his attention to his disciples and those in the crowd and explains what it means to follow him: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me” (Matt. 16:24). Since Jesus will suffer, following him means accepting hardship. Jesus’ prediction of coming in glory, then, is preceded by another prediction—his impending suffering and death.

The setting shows that Jesus’ prediction was meant to motivate his listeners to follow him. In other words, Jesus is saying, “If you want to follow me, be prepared to suffer like me. But suffering is not the end for me. I will come in my Father’s glory with angels and render judgment. In fact, some of you will even see my kingly rule before you die.”

The next story begins with a time marker:

• “After six days” (Matt. 17:1)
• “After six days” (Mk. 9:2)
• “About eight days later” (Lk. 9:28)

This temporal phrase is immediately followed by the transfiguration scene in all three Gospels, where Jesus’ face shines like the sun, his clothes become “as white as the light,” a bright cloud appears, and a voice speaks from the cloud, “This is my Son . . . Listen to him” (Matt. 17:2-5).

Comparing the Synoptic Gospels

What can we conclude by comparing the prediction statements above?

• Jesus’ prophecy is connected to his transfiguration by its literary placement. In all three accounts, the transfiguration immediately follows the prediction. This is significant because while the Synoptics often narrate the same stories, they don’t always place them in the same literary or chronological setting. In this case, however, each author made sure to keep the prediction in the same context.
• Jesus’ prophecy is connected to his transfiguration by time markers. The explicit chronology in all three—”after six days” or “about eight days later”—serves as a bridge between Jesus’ prediction and transfiguration. And that type of bridge is also uncommon in the Synoptic Gospels. 
• They all refer to the Son of Man coming in his Father’s glory with his angels.
• They all have these identical words: “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see.” “Will not taste death before . . .” being the key temporal phrase.
• While judgment is implied in Mark and Luke, Matthew contains the most explicit reference to judgment:
  • “then he will reward each person according to what they have done” (Matthew)
  • “If anyone is ashamed of me and my words . . . the Son of Man will be ashamed of them” (Mark)
  • “Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them” (Luke)
• The final phrase has variations:
  • “before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” (Matthew)
  • “before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power” (Mark)
  • “before they see the kingdom of God” (Luke)

The Primary Challenge

Based on the comparison above, I believe Matthew 16:28 contains the most challenging version of Jesus’ words because the phrase, “The Son of Man coming in his kingdom,” creates the closest connection with the previous statement: “For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels . . .” In other words, Matthew has the tightest literary link between the two statements. 

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. 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. 

Time Period

In looking for the fulfillment, we must focus on a specific time period because Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” So in order for this to be accurate, it must have been fulfilled while “some” of his listeners were still alive.

Who was Jesus’ audience? All three Gospels agree that he was speaking to his disciples. (Mark 8:34 also mentions that “a crowd” was present.) According to tradition, the disciple who lived the longest was John, who died around AD 100. Since Jesus spoke these words around AD 30, if the prediction was fulfilled, “the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” must have occurred within the next 70 years or between AD 30-100. 

We are now ready to examine six interpretive options. 

1. Jesus was wrong. 

As we saw above, many scholars believe Jesus was mistaken about the future. Regarding Matthew 16:27-28, Reimarus writes:

No speech in this world can more distinctly fix the time of the visible glorious return of Christ to a certain period and within the bounds of a not very distant one. Some of those persons who then stood upon the same spot around Jesus were not to die before his return, but were to see him come into his kingdom. (Fragments, 54)

Strengths

• It is a straightforward interpretation that looks correct on the surface.
• If Jesus was fully human, wouldn’t that mean his knowledge was limited? Luke 2:52 says he “grew in wisdom,” so he learned as he progressed through life.

Weaknesses

• Matthew was not embarrassed by these words. If he thought this was a false prediction, he would not have included it in his Gospel nor would he have even bothered to write a Gospel of Christ. Matthew’s Gospel gives the greatest emphasis on the Hebrew Scriptures, which means he knew what they said about prophets. According to Deuteronomy, prophets should be tested by whether their words came true and those who failed the test should be put to death (18:14-22). As I see it, three possibilities exist for Matthew at the time of his writing:

1. 1. He believed the prediction would be fulfilled in the future.
   2. He believed the prediction had already been fulfilled.
   3. He didn’t think this prediction should be interpreted literally.

The problem is that we don’t know exactly when any of the Gospels were written. Many scholars believe Matthew was written around AD 70-75. Jonathan Bernier, however, has recently made a strong case for viewing the Synoptic Gospels as predating AD 70 with Matthew composed around 45-59. Even if we date Matthew to as early as AD 50, the disciples would have been significantly older, putting pressure on this prediction. Some standing there had to see the Son of Man’s glorious return but at the time Matthew was writing these “some” were significantly older. If they all died before Christ’s return, this would be catastrophic for Matthew’s presentation of Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God. In other words, if this is what Matthew thought at the time he was composing his Gospel, he was a daring writer indeed. He included a high risk prediction, knowing subsequent events could completely undermine his entire Gospel. This leads me to conclude that either Matthew believed the prediction had already been fulfilled and/or he didn’t think it should be interpreted literally. In support of a non-literal interpretation, both Mark and Luke do not have an explicit reference to the Son of Man’s coming. Mark says, “before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power” and Luke says, “before they see the kingdom of God.” In any case, there is absolutely no way Matthew thought these words were a false prediction when he decided to include them in his Gospel. 

• Christians in subsequent centuries were not embarrassed by these words. Ancient manuscripts do not show major changes in the wording of this passage, which means Christian copyists did not feel the need to alter or exclude these words. Nor do we find early Christian commentators showing a high level of concern about this passage in their writings by attempting to offer various explanations. Why not? Many believed the fulfillment of this prediction is found in the next chapter of Matthew.
• Verse 27 is not identical with verse 28. Although there appears to be a linguistic connection between verses 27 and 28, they don’t necessarily refer to the same event(s). This is a key observation to my conclusion below.

2. Jesus’ prediction was contingent.

Jesus was predicting his glorious return in the first century, but that prediction was contingent on other events, which didn’t happen, so the prediction could not be fulfilled. This view highlights the contingent nature of many biblical prophecies. For example, Jonah announced God’s judgment to Nineveh: “Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown” (Jon. 3:4). While that seems like a straightforward statement, it didn’t happen. Why not? There was an unstated contingency built into that prediction. Judgment would only come if the people refused to repent, but they did repent. In response, God decided not to “bring on them the destruction he had threatened” (3:10). Likewise, God’s message to Jeremiah at the potter’s house shows that when divine judgment is threatened, conditions apply (ch. 18). For more detail on this view of biblical prophecy see Richard Pratt’s article on OT prophecy. A book-length treatment is found in When the Son of Man Didn’t Come.

Strengths

• Contingency is part of many biblical prophecies, meaning conditions applied even when not stated.
• The author of John’s Gospel corrects a similar misunderstanding at the end of his book. 

Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”

Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?” (21:20-23)

In this vignette, the author is addressing an ancient rumor based on a misunderstanding of Jesus’ words. People in the community were spreading a report that one of the disciples wouldn’t die before Jesus returned. And the phrase “the rumor spread among the believers” shows that this must have been a significant misunderstanding among first century believers. Imagine these ancient people gossiping with each other about one of Jesus’ followers—”He’s not going to die. He will be alive when Jesus returns.” But the author corrects this rumor. Contrary to community buzz, Jesus’ actual statement was contingent: “If I want him to remain alive until I return.” They had missed the conditional nature of Jesus’ words. 

• Peter appears to condition Christ’s return on Israel’s repentance: “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus” (Acts 3:19-20).

Weaknesses

• Jesus’ statement seems emphatic: “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
• Jesus doesn’t specify any conditions so this is an argument from silence.
• If it’s contingent, what specific conditions apply?

3. Jesus was referring to his transfiguration.

The fulfillment of Jesus’ words occurred about a week later when he was transfigured. While on the mountain with Peter, James, and John, Jesus’ appearance was transformed—his clothes became dazzlingly white and his face was changed while Moses and Elijah talked with him. Then a cloud appeared and a voice came from the cloud, announcing that Jesus was his Son and commanding the disciples to listen to Jesus.

Strengths

• All three Synoptic Gospels place the transfiguration story immediately after Jesus’ prediction of coming in his Father’s glory with his angels so, at the very least, there is a literary connection between his prediction and transfiguration.
• The prediction is connected to the transfiguration with a time marker as noted above.
• Jesus predicted that “some” of his disciples would see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom and some of them, namely Peter, James, and John, were present at his transfiguration. These disciples saw him in glory—in dazzling white clothing with his face shining—and heard the heavenly voice.
• Second Peter 1:16–18 seems to connect Jesus’ transfiguration with his coming in glory. 

For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 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. (2 Pet. 1:16–18)

• Many early church fathers interpreted this prediction as a reference to Christ’s transfiguration (Gundry). 

Weaknesses

• The prediction says that the Son of Man would come “in his Father’s glory with his angels,” but angels are not mentioned in the transfiguration scene. 
• The prediction says “then he will reward each person according to what they have done,” but after his transfiguration Christ doesn’t render judgment on anyone. 
• The transfiguration occurs only one week after the prediction so the fulfillment appears to be too close to the statement that “some would not taste death before . . .” In other words, as many have noted, “some won’t die before next week” is a strange prediction. 

4. Jesus was referring to his resurrection.

Strengths

• The resurrection occurred a few weeks later.
• The resurrection revealed Jesus’ glory in defeating death.
• Angels are included in the resurrection accounts.
• “Some” saw appearances of the risen Christ.

Weaknesses

• It occurred only a few weeks later, but the prediction says, “some . . . here will not taste death before . . . ” In other words, as with the transfiguration, the timeframe appears to be too short.
• Christ doesn’t render judgment on anyone after his resurrection.
• There is no explicit connection in the New Testament between the resurrection and “the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

5. Jesus was referring to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

The Son of Man “coming in his kingdom” and rendering judgment on everyone is a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, which occurred in AD 70. These catastrophic events are significant because Jesus predicted they would happen in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24; Mk. 13; Lk. 21) so this was on his mind when he thought about the future. While leaving the temple, he said, “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down” (Matt. 24:2). Since Jesus predicted Jerusalem’s downfall and the temple’s end, when it happened, he was proven to be a true prophet, thus receiving his heavenly vindication or his “coming in his kingdom.”

Note: New Testament prophecies or predictions about the future often contain time details (e.g. “I am coming soon, “this generation,” etc.). Those who interpret the time elements most literally are known as preterists. Full preterists believe all NT prophecies have been fulfilled, including Christ’s return, which they identify with the events of AD 70. Partial preterists believe many NT prophecies have been fulfilled, but there are still things to come, such as the resurrection of the dead, final judgment, and a new heaven and new earth. Both full and partial preterists, however, agree that AD 70 holds special significance for NT prophecy.

Strengths

• It places the fulfillment forty years in the future so the idea that some would die in that time period makes sense.
• AD 70 was a world-shattering year for the Jewish nation and it was perceived as divine judgment.
• Literal interpretations are not always correct. For example, a few verses after Matthew 16:27-28, Jesus interprets Elijah’s “coming” in a non-literal manner: “To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished” (17:11-12). Was Jesus referring to Elijah’s physical return? No, he was actually talking about someone else—”Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist” (v. 13). Moreover, directly preceding Jesus’ prediction that all people would see the Son of Man coming on the clouds with power and glory in Matthew 24:30, many believe he used non-literal language:

Immediately after the distress of those days

“the sun will be darkened,
    and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.” (Matt. 24:29)

Verse 29 is a quote from Isaiah that many interpret as a reference to intense political upheaval not literal cosmic chaos. If that interpretation is correct, perhaps we should also interpret verse 30 symbolically—“Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.” 

• According to Jospehus (AD 37-100), a prolific Jewish author, a series of unusual events in Jerusalem occurred around the time of the Roman conquest, including “a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city” and an extraordinary scene in the clouds:

Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. (The Wars of the Jews, Book 6, Ch. 5, Sect. 3)

Was that incredible scene the Son of Man coming on the clouds?

Weaknesses

• It conflates two events that are distinct in Matthew’s account—the destruction of Jerusalem and the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. Rather than asserting that the Son of Man came when Jerusalem was destroyed, Matthew writes, “Immediately after the distress of those days . . . Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven” (24:29–30). The distress will come first followed by the sign of the Son of Man. 
• It lacks contextual clues. While Jesus refers to the destruction of the temple in Matthew 24, there are no clues for that interpretation in Matthew 16. 
• It limits Christ’s judgment to those living in Jerusalem in the first century.
• A case can be made for interpreting the warnings about cosmic upheaval literally. (See Edward Adams’ book, The Stars Will Fall From Heaven.)
• Paul’s teaching about the Lord’s return sounds similar to what Jesus says in Matthew 24:30-31:

Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. d

Paul writes: 

According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 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. Therefore encourage one another with these words. (1 Thess. 4:15-18)

Notice the overlapping details:

• • Son of Man appearing/the Lord coming down from heaven
  • angels/archangel
  • sound of trumpet
  • glory
  • clouds
  • God’s people gathered

What’s the point? Paul’s teaching about the “coming of the Lord” was based on the “Lord’s word” and that “word” appears to be something identical or similar to Matthew 24:30-31. Most importantly, Paul interprets that “word” as referring to the Lord’s literal return. How does that help with Matthew 16:27-28? Jesus’ language in Matthew 24:30-31 sounds like 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.” Again:

• • Son of Man coming
  • glory
  • angels
  • gathering/judgment

6. Jesus was referring to a combination of events.

Several combinations of events have been proposed. For example, Karl Barth (1886-1968) links these three events: Christ’s resurrection, the coming of the Spirit, and Christ’s return. Since each is a manifestation of Christ’s presence (parousia), he calls them one event or “the threefold coming again of Jesus Christ.” Thus, “His coming did really begin in that generation as the Easter event and in which the two remaining forms are plainly delineated and intimated.” Barth continues by agreeing with this statement: “The resurrection . . . is the parousia” (Church Dogmatics: A Selection with Introduction, 236-45). So here are the three events Barth proposes, which he views as one bundle:

1. Christ’s resurrection (past)
2. The coming of the Spirit (present)
3. Christ’s return (future)

Strengths

• Barth appeals to Jesus’ last discourses in John 13-17, where the events above seem to merge, making it difficult to determine the precise referent.
• It highlights how Christ’s presence serves as the unifier of the three “forms.”

Weaknesses

• In the New Testament parousia is not used in reference to the Spirit or the resurrection.
• It lacks a reference to the transfiguration. (However, Barth calls the transfiguration “an anticipation of the resurrection” in another place.)
• The context of Matthew 16:27-28 lacks a reference to the coming of the Spirit.

Craig Keener offers another combination of events. He writes, “Probably the transfiguration proleptically introduces the whole eschatological sphere, which Jesus’ resurrection inaugurates and his return consummates” (The Gospel of Matthew, Kindle, 12728). So Keener’s proposal includes the following three events, along with the idea that the first item introduces the other two:

1. Christ’s transfiguration
2. Christ’s resurrection
3. Christ’s return

There are other possible combinations so if you go with this option you must decide which is correct.

Overview 

Here are the interpretive options for verse 28:

1. Jesus’ literal and glorious return in the first century, but he was wrong.
2. Jesus’ literal and glorious return in the first century, but his words were contingent on other events, which did not occur, so his prediction could not be fulfilled.
3. Jesus’ transfiguration
4. Jesus’ resurrection
5. The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple
6. A combination of events, such as his transfiguration, resurrection, and return

Essentially it comes down to this:

• Jesus was wrong.
• Jesus was right.

Conclusion

Matthew 16:27-28 is one of the most challenging passages in the New Testament. I can see why some see Jesus’ statement as a failed prediction. Since these verses are placed together and each mentions the coming of the Son of Man it’s easy to interpret both as referring to the same thing. Here’s the passage one last time:

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. 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. (NIV)

What is your conclusion?

After a long struggle, here’s my view: Matthew 16:27 is referring to a different event than Matthew 16:28. In particular, Matthew 16:27 refers to Christ’s future appearance in glory (or his “second coming”), which has yet to occur, whereas Matthew 16:28 primarily refers to Christ’s transfiguration and secondarily to his resurrection, which culminates in his ascension.

• Matthew 16:27 = second coming
• Matthew 16:28 = transfiguration then resurrection

The proof that Christ’s second coming will occur is Christ’s transfiguration and resurrection. And some present when Christ spoke these words witnessed his transfiguration and resurrection.

As we have seen, Matthew 16:27 is almost identical with Paul’s description of Christ’s return in 1 Thessalonians 4. Hence, if we use Paul as our interpretive key, the “coming” in verse 27 is a downward movement of Christ with his angels. 

How does interpreting verse 28 as a reference to Christ’s transfiguration and resurrection solve the problem? It makes sense of the following details: 

• The first-century time period, required by the phrase “some who are standing here.”
• The literary context—the transfiguration immediately follows Jesus’ prediction and the next chapter explicitly links the transfiguration with the resurrection in all three Gospels. 
• Matthew’s willingness to include this prediction along with the lack of embarrassment by Christian copyists and church fathers.

What about the weaknesses noted above with viewing Matthew 16:27-28 as referring to the transfiguration? By making a distinction between verses 27 and 28, this view maintains that Christ’s return in glory with his angels to dispense judgment is still a future event so it cannot be claimed as a false prophecy.

What about the objection that the transfiguration is only a week later so it is too close in time for this prediction to make sense? Robert Gundry counters that this objection assumes Jesus knew he would be transfigured about a week later. What if Jesus simply went up the mountain to pray as it says, not knowing that his glory would be revealed at that time (see pg. 63)? In other words, he knew some would see his glory, but he didn’t know exactly when they would do so. So the fact that they saw Christ’s glory only one week later is irrelevant. 

Why should we link the transfiguration with the resurrection? Here is what happens immediately after the transfiguration: “As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, ‘Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead’” (Matt. 17:9). Jesus didn’t want Peter, James, and John to talk about what they had seen and heard on the mountain. Notice, however, that they only had to keep this secret for a certain period of time— “until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.” Although Jesus’ transfiguration occurred before his resurrection, he only wanted it to be revealed after his resurrection. The resurrection, then, released the transfiguration secret. After the resurrection, Peter, James, and John were free to talk about what they had seen on the mountain. So according to Matthew there is a revelatory connection between the two miracles. 

The transfiguration is like a boxing announcer who kicks off the evening with the undercard, but everyone knows the main event is on the way. And the main event is Christ’s resurrection. While that analogy captures the relationship between the two events, it fails in this regard—at the time of the transfiguration no one was expecting the main event.  

In sum, the literary context of Jesus’ prediction in Matthew, Mark, and Luke highlights the transfiguration as the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction. But the transfiguration was only a momentary display of the permanent glory that would be revealed in the resurrection. 

Combining the two verses gives us this: Jesus announced his glorious return in verse 27 then announced a preview of that event in verse 28. In essence he was saying, “I am going to return in glory with my angels and reward everyone for what they have done. In fact, some of you here will even see a preview of this event.” And that preview is his transfiguration followed by his resurrection. 

Although we have considered different events, it is important to emphasize their fundamental unity: the same person appearing in glory—Christ’s transfiguration, Christ’s resurrection, Christ’s ascension, and Christ’s return. The glory of Christ is the golden thread connecting these events.

Finally, the key to this interpretation of Matthew 16:27-28 is to see a window of light between verses 27 and 28. Admittedly, many are not inclined to use this key. Nevertheless, it should be apparent that while Jesus’ statements in these verses are similar, they are not identical.

—————————————————————————–

*Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are taken from the NIV (2011).

**I am grateful to Dale Allison and Richard Bauckham for providing insightful and consistent feedback. The conclusion is my own.