At the beginning the religious leadership wants to see a sign. Jesus says, in essence, "You can read weather signs just fine; why can't you see what's going on around you?" (Matt 16:1-4) This is interesting in light of the numbers of people these days who argue that faith and reason are separate, that you believe not because you have reasons to, but on mere credulity. Jesus argues here that we are wise to read the evidence and reason from it. It is wise to see that the sky is red in the evening and proper to decide from that that the weather will be fine tomorrow. Reasoning, for the believer, is good despite the Archie Bunker definition of faith that says, "It ain't supposed to make sense; it's faith. Faith is something that you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe." Funny how so many take Archie's definition over Jesus's version.
There's the whole section on confusion over Jesus's warning "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" (Matt 16:5-12). They're thinking "bread" and Jesus says, "What are you thinking??? Didn't you see me feed 5,000 on scraps and 4,000 on less? What could be going on in your brains? Where is your faith?"
Next up Jesus asks His disciples, "Who do people say I am?" After their answers, He asks, "Who do you say I am?" Peter responds unequivocally, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." To which Jesus says, "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven" and goes on to speak about the keys of the kingdom and building His church on this rock (Matt 16:13-20). I found this interesting because most of us are quite sure that it is by careful reasoning, the proper message, the right words, and/or a good Apologetic that we can reason people into the kingdom, so to speak. You make converts by using the right methods. Jesus said the opposite. It doesn't come that way. The Father reveals it.
Note how this might appear to contradict what I just observed about the use of reason alongside faith. Let's not have a problem with this. The Bible is abundantly clear that we have good reasons to believe. Paul tells us that what can be known about God, for instance, is easily recognized in nature (Rom 1:19-20). It doesn't take a genius, as an example, to see design; it takes a rebel not to see it. Faith is reasonable. Still, Natural Man is hostile to God (Rom 8:7) and blinded by Satan (2 Cor 4:4), so he won't see this on his own (1 Cor 2:14). It takes the gift of God -- a revealing by the Father.
Interesting that Jesus ends this conversation with charging them to tell no one He was the Christ. I wonder why that would be?
The chapter ends with the exchange where Jesus tells His disciples He will be crucified and Peter rebukes Him (Matt 16:21-28). Peter's problem was that he was setting his mind on the things of man, not the things of God (Matt 16:23). I am quite confident that 1) this is a favorite tool of Satan and that 2) we all suffer from this problem. But Jesus told them that they need to deny themselves. Someday the Son of Man would return and repay each according what he had done. So we need to keep that in mind.
His final statement in the chapter, though, is a puzzle.
"Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom" (Matt 16:28).Now what is that all about? Some hold that He is talking about His Second Coming. He can't be saying that some will still be alive at the Second Coming because He hasn't come yet and none of them are still alive. "That's okay," they argue, "because John saw it on the Isle of Patmos." So what Jesus meant was "One of you will not taste death." The most popular position appears to be that He was referring to the Transfiguration -- that they would see Him in His glory there. That seems silly since that's the next thing that happens in Matthew (6 days later). "Here's a news flash for you, guys. Some of you will live another week." Not saying much. Others say it refers to His Resurrection, but that's only a little longer than the Transfiguration, so that also seems doubtful. "Okay, okay, here's some news, then. You'll live another year or so. But not you, Judas." So to what is Jesus referring when He speaks of "the Son of Man coming in His kingdom"? It's not the Second Coming or He'd have been wrong, and it's not in His earthly lifetime or He'd have been moot. What occurs between His Resurrection and the death of the last Apostle that could be called "the Son of Man coming in His kingdom"?
There are those that contend that it refers to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. In simple language ("some of you will not taste death"), that seems okay. Some died before that and others lived to see it. But Mark's version refers to His coming with power (Mark 9:1), and while there is real significance to the destruction of the Temple, there is a question about that being "with power".
I think it is something else. In Matthew 28 Jesus, before His Ascension, tells His disciples, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me" (Matt 28:18). Now, what is a kingdom, but the the realm or domain of a king? And here Jesus tells His disciples, "I have all authority." That, it seems to me, is a statement of His kingdom. Having conquered death and ended Satan's rule, there was nothing left but to wait for the clock to run out. His kingdom had begun. It was shortly thereafter that they saw His Ascension (Acts 1:1-9) followed almost immediately by Pentecost and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2). I think that's clearly "with power".
I think, then, that the fulfillment of this promise occurred first 6 days later when a few got to see Christ in His Transfigured glory, then further when they witnessed Him in His Resurrected glory and His assumption of all authority, then further when He ascended to the Father and sent His Holy Spirit to empower them. His final coming has not yet occurred, but the texts seem to indicate that the event is not the start of His kingdom, but the culmination. That is, I think the problem with interpretation here is because most are right to some degree. "Is it referring to the Transfiguration?" Yes, I think it is. "What about the Resurrection?" Yes, that, too. "Pentecost?" Certainly. "The destruction of the Temple?" As a symbol of the end of the Jewish age, yes.
But, then, that's just how I see it. You're always free to draw your own conclusions.
No comments:
Post a Comment