Decypher

Everything in Matthew 16:27 connects with the Olivet Discourse. Everything in Matthew 16:28 connects with the Olivet Discourse. Not just the reference to the kingdom of God.

The Transfiguration stories don't mention the kingdom.

And you are just making the assertion that "it is intentionally chronologically linked". You haven't given any argument for that.

As I said, everything in Matthew 16:27-28 fits with the Olivet Discourse. Because everything fits, it is very likely to be talking about the same event.

Decypher

And please note: you will not find anything else in the NT that it fits with, in such a strong way.

sschlichter

well, the transfiguration fits in a strong way, but I expect we are just going to disagree unless you have another point.

enjoyed the discussion.

~Steve

apatura_iris

Mt 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Jesus is referring to the Aharit Ha-Yamin ("End of Times") which in Jewish eschatology will usher in the Olam Haba ("World to Come" i.e. the messianic age), a paradisaical age when Torah statutes will no longer be in effect (i.e. "not one jot or tittle" (Mt 5:18) of the Torah statues will be changed until then-- jot/ tittle meaning letter strokes in the Torah.)

Jesus was not convinced that the End of Days was at hand, but I believe he thought he could possibly force it into occurrence. He would not be the last Jewish "mystic" to try to force the Messianic age-- there are a few others who attempted like Josef de la Reina and Sabbatai Zvi.

The reason I say Jesus was not convinced is because he expressed doubt and even rage, at points, that Israel was not ready for the messiah. If you remember when he curses the fig tree (a long standing Jewish metaphor for Israel), he curses it because it was not "ripe;" i.e., not "ripe" for the messianic age. Notice the Mt 24 passage you cite is preceded by a parable of a fig tree-- "When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh--" summer being the messianic age.

It was also understood at the time that if the nation was deserving, the messiah would appear "riding the clouds" (Dan 7:13) but if it is not worthy the messiah would appear riding a donkey (Zech 9:9-- behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.)

From Sanhedrin 98a:

R. Joshua opposed two verses: it is written, And behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven whilst it is written, lowly, and riding upon an ass! — if they are meritorious, with the clouds of heaven; if not, lowly and riding upon an ass.

While Jesus says that he will appear riding the clouds of heaven, he in fact ends up entering Jerusalem upon a donkey. So he seems to have understood that the messianic age likely would not occur, despite his efforts.

I have no idea how a Christian would interpret that or try to justify it, but one thing is clear: we are not currently living in a messianic age by any definition. In fact one could argue that Jesus' mission eventually brought untold suffering to Jews, while one would expect Jews to benefit from their messiah, obviously.

apatura_iris

The fig tree is definitely a metaphor for Israel and the Torah in Jewish tradition. I'm not sure what the fig tree is thought to signify in mainstream Christianity.

from (Talmud) Eiruvin 54a/b (brackets added):

R. Hiyya b. Abba in the name of R. Johanan expounded: With reference to the Scriptural text [Pr 27:18]: Whoso keepeth the fig tree shall eat the fruit thereof, why were the words of the Torah compared to the ‘fig tree’? As with the fig tree the more one searches it the more figs one finds in it so it is with the words of the Torah; the more one studies them the more relish he finds in them.

judge

Well I expect christians would look for both parts of the Hebrew Bible to be fulfilled in one person, rather than taking the particular apologetic approach of the rabbi you mention.

But if the NT is true then there really are no more jews any more. As Paul said "there is neither jew nor greek".
There are just people who have been indoctrinated to believe they are jews, that there is some divine purpose to them being jews.
But we are all just people, who get indoctrinated to think we are different or separate.

Quite a radical thing really for Paul (a pharisee) to come and preach .."there is neither jew nor gentile".

sschlichter

I beleive you are proof-texting a little. He also said in the same passage there is neither male nor female, slave nor free. He was referring to equality of everyone in the Body of Christ. He was not saying that there is no such thing as Jews.

~Steve

judge

Maybe. I tend to take a very universalist approach to the NT.

But if the NT be true then there are other reasons. The obvious one being that if the old covenant has passed away then there can be no group defined by that covenant. They can't exist in the terms outlined in the Hebrew bible itself.
Abraham and his 318 fighting men , we are told, became covenant people by being circumcised not by being a particular ethnicity.

apatura_iris

It is not just the opinion of a rabbi, it is from the Talmud, so it's considered "rabbinic tradition" (the tradition from which Jesus arose-- the so-called rabbinic "golden age" spanning roughly 100 BCE to 200 CE) authoritative within Judaism at least and not necessarily just an opinion (to a believer, that is).

Then we have to deal with the can of worms of the glaring contradictions between Paul and Jesus. Only Paul repudiated the Torah and its statutes, not Jesus.

sschlichter

I agree that ethnicity was certainly not the focus. It is interesting that the author of Genesis makes sure we know there are prostitutes and Moabites in the line. (not a common practice). I think ethnicity was simply a way to communicate. Ie. the seed of Abraham was an ethnic line, but the purpose was to bless all nations (Gen 12:1-6), not just be blessed as a people.

but actually, not by being circumcised but by beleiving God (Gen 15:6) in the promise of the covenant thru a son. This was before circumcision, which as only a sign of the covenant. The covenant was first outlined in Gen 12, which included God blessing all nations thru Arbraham.

Paul's argument might have sounded similar to yours.