Meditations in Matthew Sixteen: An Atheist Looks at Jesus’s Prophecy

One atheist used Matthew 16:27–28 to explain his rejection of Christianity. Speaking to the South London Branch of the National Secular Society in 1927, Bertrand Russell said,

I do not believe that one can grant either the superlative wisdom or the superlative goodness of Christ as depicted in the Gospels; and here . . . I am concerned with Christ as He appears in the Gospels, taking the Gospel narrative as it stands, and there one does find some things that do not seem to be very wise. For one thing, he certainly thought that His second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time. There are a great many texts that prove that. He says, for instance, “Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come.”¹ Then he says, “There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom”²; and there are a lot of places where it is quite clear that He believed that His second coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living. That was the belief of His earlier followers, and it was the basis of a good deal of His moral teaching. When He said, “Take no thought for the morrow,” and things of that sort, it was very largely because He thought that the second coming was going to be very soon, and that all ordinary mundane affairs did not count. . . . The early Christians . . . did accept from Christ the belief that the second coming was imminent. In that respect, clearly He was not so wise as some other people have been, and He was certainly not superlatively wise.³

Russell believed Jesus made a prophetic mistake. So, he was not the Messiah.

Christians often overlook passages that teach Jesus would return in his generation. R. C. Sproul warns of the consequences of this behavior:

It is my fear that evangelicals today tend to underplay the significance of the problems inherent in Russell’s assumptions. Too often we take a facile approach to the problem that reveals our failure to feel the weight of such objections. This becomes particularly acute when we realize the extent to which these problems have contributed to the entire modern controversy over the inspiration of Scripture and the person and work of Christ.⁴ 

Our failure to provide clear interpretations of these passages weakens our witness to unbelievers.

In our Meditations in Matthew series, we have come to one passage Russell cited. Jesus said,

The Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. (Matt 16:27–28)

We must explain this passage without compromising its clear time stamp.⁵ The events Jesus predicted would occur within the lifetime of some who heard him speak.

Our exposition must fit Matthew’s context. It must explain “the signs of the times” the Pharisees and Sadducees had missed (Matt 16:1–4). The contrast between their doctrine and Jesus’s teaching should be obvious (Matt 16:5–12). Our explanation must emphasize Jesus’s building of his church and ruling over it as his kingdom (Matt 16:13–20). What we say must also accommodate the transfiguration in the following context (Matt 17:1–13).

This post will show the deficiencies of several proposed explanations. It will also show how inmillennialism, our prophetic model, explains this passage.

Something Other Than the Second Coming

Most Christian writers attempt to evade Russell’s logic and conclusion. One way they do this is to deny Jesus was referring to his second coming in Matt 16:27–28. Some writers say he meant his transfiguration. Warren Wiersbe, for example, says, “This statement would be fulfilled within a week on the Mount of Transfiguration, described in the next chapter.”⁶ “Others take this to refer to the Resurrection or to Pentecost.”⁷

These are unsatisfactory explanations. Jesus could not have meant the transfiguration because of the elements in his prophecy. He foretold historical events—his second coming and the judgment. But the transfiguration was a vision (Matt 17:9). It said some powerful things about the events soon to happen (cp. 2 Pet 1:16–18), as we shall see below. But we should not confuse a vision about certain events with the events themselves. 

Jesus was prophesying about events in Matt 16:27–28. The parallel passage in Mark emphasizes this point: “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’” (Mark 9:1–2 NKJV; emphasis added). They would see more than a vision. They would live to see events that made the kingdom an established reality.

The timing of these proposed solutions argues against them fulfilling this prophecy. Jesus’s language implies most of his hearers would die before the events occurred. Only some would live to see them. But, the transfiguration occurred just six days after he spoke (Matt 17:1). Jesus’s resurrection and Pentecost happened within a year. “These events are not far enough off to warrant the phrasing ‘some standing here who will not taste death.’”⁸

Statements made after these events show they did not fulfill Jesus’s prophecy. After the transfiguration, Jesus still spoke of the second coming and judgment as future events (Matt 24:30; 25:31–46). After the resurrection and Pentecost, the apostles also spoke of Jesus’s coming and the judgment as still future (e.g., 1 Thess 4:16; 2 Thess 1:7–10).

These events—the transfiguration, the resurrection, and Pentecost—were not what Jesus had in mind in Matt 16:27–28.

A Mistake About the Second Coming

Some professed Christian writers have joined Bertrand Russell. They say Jesus was speaking about his second coming and the judgment but made a mistake about their timing. Sherman E. Johnson, for example, wrote an influential commentary on Matthew. Speaking of Matt. 16:28, he said:

The prediction was not fulfilled, and later Christians found it necessary to explain that it was metaphorical and had been fulfilled at Pentecost. John 21:22–23 deals with a similar promise that the “beloved disciple” would not die, and tries to explain it as a misunderstanding. It would not be strange if Jesus believed that within a generation the kingdom would be manifested in full glory, for certainly most early Christians and many Jews thought so. The thought-forms of the day were what we call “eschatological”⁹; God had created the world as we know it, and he would bring it to an end. Yet we possess equally well-attested sayings of Jesus which warn against calculating “times and seasons” (e.g., Luke 17: 20–22). We cannot decide with certainty exactly what Jesus thought would happen in the future.¹⁰

This author made similar observations on Matthew 24:34:

Matthew cannot have thought of this generation as lasting only thirty or forty years after the Crucifixion. He probably believed, however, that the end would come before all of Jesus’ hearers had died (cp. Matt 16:28). The saying may be essentially genuine but its exact force is uncertain.¹¹

Edwin Freed provides another example. He said, “The early church, in fact, found much of his teaching that applied to the present useful even after time had proven Jesus wrong about the nearness of the End.”¹²

These scholars charge Jesus with an error because his statements do not fit their prophetic models. They prefer to make Jesus fallible rather than change their assumptions about his second coming.

Right About the Second Coming

Inmillennialism suggests we take the opposite approach. We should change our prophetic assumptions to avoid charging Jesus with an error in Matt 16:27–28.

The justification for this prophetic framework is here. It says Jesus was speaking of his coming to destroy Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70. These events would bring an end to the Mosaic age. They would finish the transition to the messianic age. Then God would have “set up” his kingdom (e.g., Dan 2:44).

This view agrees with what Jesus had said before about his “coming.” It would occur before the disciples finished their mission to Israel (Matt 10:23). It also agrees with what John the Baptist had said about Israel’s judgment. He spoke of “the wrath about to break at any moment” (Matt 3:7).¹³

It also agrees with what Jesus said later in the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24–25; Mark 13; Luke 21:5–38). There he mentions his “coming” (Matt 24:27, 30, 37, et al.).¹⁴ He also mentions God’s judgment of apostate Israel (Matt 24:21; 25:31–46). Jesus linked this judgment to the final judgment after the resurrection. This is protensive language.¹⁵ The first judgment of the messianic age represents the last which is sure to come. It would occur in Jesus’s generation (Matt 24:34).

This view accounts for the nature of Jesus’s prophecy. He spoke of actual historical events. It fits his timing for these events. They would occur before some in that generation died. And, it explains later statements made after the transfiguration, the resurrection, and Pentecost.

This perspective also fits Matthew’s preceding context. The Jews missed the signs that showed their destruction was coming (Matt 16:1–4). They taught people to cling to the Temple and the law of Moses instead of entering the kingdom (Matt 16:5–12). It fits in the context of Jesus building his church and transferring the keys of his kingdom (Matt 16:13–20).

Inmillennialism also fits Matthew’s following context. As we said above, the transfiguration makes a powerful statement. It foreshadows the events Jesus had in mind. In it, Moses and Elijah—representatives of the law and the prophets—at first appear with Christ. In the vision, they disappear leaving only Christ (Matt 17:8). This showed the passing away of the Mosaic age and the permanence of the messianic age. 

So, the transfiguration reinforces our view of Matt 16:27–28. The destruction of the Temple ended the Mosaic age and established the messianic age (Matt 24:1–3 NKJV). The transfiguration was a vision about the events Jesus foretold.

Literal translations of the Greek text also support inmillennialism. They do so by recognizing a word (mellō) most versions omit. Young’s Literal Translation, for example, says, “The Son of Man is about to come in the glory of his Father” (Matt 16:27 YLT). The coming of which Jesus spoke was not an event in the distant future.

Several standard writers agree with this view. For example, John A. Broadus said it is necessary to understand that this “coming . . . took place at the destruction of Jerusalem, which made Christianity completely and manifestly distinct from Judaism, and established the Messianic kingdom in its permanent present state.”¹⁶ John Gill says this passage “seems chiefly to have regard to his coming, to shew his regal power and authority in the destruction of the Jews; when those his enemies that would not he should reign over them, were ordered to be brought and slain before him; and this the Apostle John, for one, lived to be a witness of.”¹⁷

Conclusion

Inmillennialism provides a simple explanation of Jesus’s prophecy in Matt 16:27–28. This account fits the immediate context, both before and after the prediction.

We need not cringe when atheists charge Jesus with an error. And there is no need for us to join them. We need not ignore or explain away Jesus’s clear statements. 

Jesus predicted his coming in his kingdom before some in his audience died. He told the truth. He came to judge Israel and end the Mosaic age in his generation. We need to adjust our thinking to match his teaching.

1. For our explanation of this verse (Matt 10:23), see Meditations in Matthew Ten: The Jewish Mission.
2. Matt 16:28, the subject of this post.
3. Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects, ed. Paul Edwards (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957), 17-18.
4. R. C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 17.
5. The image in this post is The Sermon on the Mount by Carl Heinrich Bloch (1834–90). This file (here) is in the public domain (PD-US).
6. Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, 2 vols. (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1996), 1:60.
7. D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in Matthew, Mark, Luke, vol. 8 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 380. Emphasis added.
8. Carson, “EBC,” 380.
9. Eschatology is, technically, the study of last things but is commonly expanded to include other subjects. We prefer the broader term “prophecy” which includes eschatology proper.
10. Sherman E. Johnson, “The Gospel According to St. Matthew,” in The Interpreter’s Bible, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (Nashville: Abingdon, 1951), 7:457. Emphasis added.
11. Johnson, “Matthew,” 7:551.
12. Edwin D. Freed, The New Testament: A Critical Introduction (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1986), 82. Emphasis added.
13. Kenneth S. Wuest, Expanded Translation of the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 6.
14. This list does not distinguish between two Greek words for “coming,” erchomai and parousia.
15. We have discussed the protensive view of events here and here.
16. John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, An American Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Alvah Hovey (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1886), 479.
17. John Gill, An Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, 9 vols. (1809–1810; repr., Paris, AR: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1989), 7:190.