I’m calm, brother. I’m not upset with you at all. I’m just answering from conviction, not emotion. And yes — I have considered the transfiguration view for Matthew 16:28. It’s one of the most common interpretations, and I understand why people hold it.
That's all I was asking was if you have considered it. Thanks for answering the question.
But here’s why I don’t believe the transfiguration fulfills what Jesus said:
• Jesus said “some standing here will not taste death until…”
In the transfiguration, it was only six days later (Matthew 17:1). No one died in those six days, so the statement loses its meaning if applied there.
That isn't necessarily the case. Jesus knew that most likely all of His disciples would die before He came again in glory (many believe they were all martyred, which is very possible), but He wanted to give some of them a glimpse of that before they died.
(
• Jesus said they would see “the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (Matthew 16:28).
In Mark 9, it's worded like this...
Mark 9:1 And He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that
there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.” 2 Now after six days Jesus took
Peter, James, and John, and led them up on a high mountain apart by themselves; and He was transfigured before them. 3
His clothes became shining, exceedingly white, like snow, such as no launderer on earth can whiten them.
I would say the way Jesus is described in Mark 9:3 qualifies for the kingdom of God being present with power.
At the transfiguration, Jesus was glorified, yes — but He did not come in His kingdom, judge anyone, or reward every man according to his works (Matthew 16:27).
I don't think it's necessary to assume that Jesus, in verse 28, was talking about what the fulfillment of what He mentioned in verse 27. I think He wanted to give some of His disciples a preview, so to speak, of what it would be like when Matthew 16:27 is fulfilled by showing Himself to them in glory. When He comes in the future He will appear in glory.
• Peter, who was at the transfiguration, later says the transfiguration was a preview, not the fulfillment:
“We were eyewitnesses of His majesty…” (2 Peter 1:16–18).
Right. I don't believe Jesus intended to refer to anything but that in Matthew 16:28. I believe He was intending to say that He was going to give some of them standing there a preview of His coming in glory.
He never equates it with the coming Jesus promised.
• Jesus ties the “coming of the Son of Man” to the destruction of Jerusalem in that generation (Matthew 24:27–34).
That’s the same timeframe He referenced in Matthew 16:28.
That can't be true because Jesus said that the coming of the Son of Man will result in heaven and earth passing away and all unbelievers being killed just as was the case in the flood in Noah's day (Matthew 24:35-39 - compare to 2 Peter 3:6-7,10-12).
So yes — I’ve considered the transfiguration view carefully. I just don’t think it fits the details Jesus Himself gives.
I think there's some details that you maybe haven't considered, which I've shared above, but you have to decide for yourself what to believe, of course.
I’m not trying to win an argument. I’m simply following the text where it leads me. If we’re going to talk about it, I’m happy to do that respectfully.
I can do that and am trying to, but I do have a disdain for full preterism. But, I can see that you do believe you will be with Christ when you die and you are trying to be respectful, so I will honor that.
