What do those verses about being taken away and left behind really teach? The answer may shock many people who have been taught only one viewpoint. I also briefly look at Matthew’s version.
Matt. 16:28, Mark 9:1, and Luke 9:27 say that some standing there with Jesus would not experience death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. How can that be true, when the Second Coming has not happened in the past two thousand years (and counting)? The answer will surprise you because it goes beyond the “standard” one.
At his “hearing” or “trial,” Jesus said that Caiaphas (the high priest) and the Sanhedrin (the highest council and court in Judaism) would see him coming in the clouds of heaven. How could they see his Second Coming, which has not happened in the past two thousand years (and counting)? Or does it refer to some other kind of coming?
Some scholars say they are irreconcilable, while others say reconciling them is not so difficult. I favor plausible harmonization, since the scholars in this post seem to have cracked the “codes.” Plausibility is found in the cultural context. It’s all in the family. Bonus: see the American family “the Roosevelts” in a chart for parallels.
Luke 16:16 has baffled many Bible interpreters. What does it mean in its own historical and textual context?
Many claim that the birth narratives in the Gospels–here the third Gospel–were merely reshaped copies of Greco-Roman myths. True?
These chapters are on Jesus’s discourse about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (AD 70) and then the Second Coming, which has not happened yet, 2000 years later (and counting). Looking at the chapters side by side clarifies what he really taught.
Let’s look at the key verses in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and 1 Corinthians. It is a review for my own introductory education. Call it “Divorce and Remarriage 101.”
This is quick reference guide to religious and political Jewish groups who appear in the Gospels and the Book of Acts.
Those verses in Luke are compared with Matt. 26:26-28 and 36-44, which are about the Second Coming. This post also looks at Luke 21:34-36 and Mark 13:32-37, which are also about the Second Coming.
By far, Luke 21:5-33 clearly demonstrate that these verses, which parallel Matt. 24:4-35 and Mark 13:5-31, are an extended prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and not the Second Coming. It is best to read those verses in their own context and in light of Old Testament apocalyptic passages. Then we can have clarity. Please view the photos of the Arch of Titus and the Jewish Menorah, at the end.
Things are not so clear-cut as I had thought they were. Please be sure to check out my photos of the Arch of Titus at the end; they show rhe Romans stomped all over the Jerusalem temple.
It is the major technique of Jesus’s teaching, right up there with his direct teaching. So how do we define it?
The Fathers quoted here lived in the first to third centuries. They are unanimous that Luke wrote the third Gospel, and it was authoritative for them–so it should be for us too.
Luke researched those who knew Jesus from the “beginning,” his key criterion.