Mt 16:27f – “The Son of Man will come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.  I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not experience death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Mk 8:38-9:1 – “If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.  I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not experience death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.”

Lk 9:26f – “Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of that person when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. I tell you most certainly, there are some standing here who will not experience death before they see the kingdom of God“

The very difficulty of this saying argues for its authenticity.

Some think that Jesus is referring to:

1. The coming of the kingdom at that very time, in Jesus’ ministry of word and action

This is the view of Evans and Dodd.

Schnabel asks why, in this case, Jesus would make any reference to the deaths of some of those present.

2. The transfiguration

This is probably the majority view, and is adopted by Taylor, Cranfield, Lane, Witherington, Stein, Blomberg, Brooks and Schnabel, amongst others.

Blomberg (NAC) thinks that the reference is to the Transfiguration, which is in all the Synoptics the next-mentioned event and is the foretaste of the Resurrection.  2 Pet 1:16-16 would seem to support this interpretation.

One problem here is that it is difficult to see why Jesus would talk about ‘some’ of those present not ‘seeing death’ until they had witnessed an event that was just six days away:

‘But recall the urgency with which Jesus is calling for response to his mission. Even his closest followers have tried to hinder him under the influence of Satan (16:23), and Judas will betray him under the possession of Satan (26:21-25, 47-50; cf. John 13:27). Taking up the cross in discipleship is not something that a person can put off, because death or the coming of the Son of Man will bring with it certain accountability and judgment. Jesus is saying, now to the Twelve, that they must weigh carefully whether or not they have truly taken up their cross, because judgment is sooner than they think.’

(Wilkins, Holman Apologetics Commentary)

Mark Strauss regards this is the most widely-held, and most likely, interpretation.  This seems to be what Mark means,

‘since he follows the saying immediately with the transfiguration account and connects the two with the specific time reference, “After six days …” (Mk 9:2).’

ReEturning to the question: But if Jesus was speaking of an event less that one week into the future, why would he say that only some would witness it before they died?

Strauss refers to Cranfield’s reponse to this question:

‘The “some … who will not die” is meant to contrast the three disciples who would experience the glory of the kingdom in this life (i.e., at the transfiguration) with the others who would not experience that glory until the final resurrection. This also helps to explain Jesus’ reference to the kingdom coming “in power” (ἐν δυνάμει). While all the disciples were presently experiencing the presence and the power of the kingdom in Jesus’ words and deeds, Peter, James, and John would have a unique experience of its glory (“in power”) on the mountain.’

Schnabel argues along similar lines:

‘The close link between 9:1 and 9:2 (‘after six days’) suggests that in the present context, the most natural explanation of 9:1 is a reference to the transfiguration as a preview of the glory of the kingdom of God that will be revealed on the day of Jesus’ return. Some of those present—Peter, Jacob (James) and John (9:2)—experience ‘already now’ a foretaste of the ‘not yet’ of the future consummation of the kingdom of God at the parousia of the Son of Man. The objection that the phrase some who are standing here will not taste death is ludicrous if it refers to an event that takes place a week later misses the significance of the word some: only three of the disciples were with Jesus on the mountain, while the rest would indeed taste death without seeing anything comparable.’

3. His triumph on the cross, confirmed by the resurrection

Bird thinks that these words refer to the crucifixion; Garland and Edwards to the cross and resurrection jointly.

This would be reflected in Col 2:15.  Edwards (Pillar, Mark) notes that the context of this saying is not the parousia, but the death and resurrection of Christ, Mk 8:31, which did take place within the lifetime of those present.  ‘The coming of the kingdom with power’ then refers specifically to the resurrection, which is anticipated in the story of the transfiguration which follows.

For Calvin, the reference is to a cluster of events that were ushered in by the resurrection:

‘By the coming of the kingdom of God we are to understand the manifestation of heavenly glory, which Christ began to make at his resurrection, and which he afterwards made more fully by sending the Holy Spirit, and by the performance of miracles; for by those beginnings he gave his people a taste of the newness of the heavenly life, when they perceived, by certain and undoubted proofs, that he was sitting at the right hand of the Father.’

In his commentary on Luke, Edwards notes that

‘The placement of this logion in all three Synoptics between Jesus’ teaching on discipleship and the transfiguration (v. 27; Matt 16:28; Mark 9:1) relates it to suffering and exaltation, both of which are more analogous to Jesus’ death and resurrection than to his second coming.’

F.F. Bruce (Hard Sayings of the Bible) suggests that the following understanding is at least consistent with the words of Jesus (if not actually required by them):

‘With the death and exaltation of Jesus and the coming of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost following, some of those who were witnesses of his mighty works in Galilee and elsewhere saw the power of the kingdom of God manifested on a scale unmatched during his ministry. Within a few weeks, the number of his followers multiplied tenfold; his kingdom was visibly on the march.’

The Transfiguration, soon to follow, would anticipate this coming of the kingdom ‘with power’.  Note that, according to Mk 9:9, Jesus instructed the disciples not to speak of what they had seen until after the resurrection.

Hurtado thinks that Jesus is referring to his resurrection.  Therefore the phrase means that:

‘the event mentioned will surely take place and that Jesus’ hearers would live to see it.’

Schnabel comments that, since Jesus has mentioned directly his death and resurrection in Mk 8:31, it is difficult to see why he would refer to them in such obscure terms here.

4. His ascension

France sees a clear connection between this saying and Daniel 7.

‘To speak of “the Son of Man coming” echoes the language of Dan 7:13–14 (as it did in 10:23), and here the added themes of glory, angels, judgment and seeing confirm that the words are to be interpreted in terms of Daniel’s vision. This is, then, a prediction of the vindication and enthronement of the Son of Man after his suffering and death, and that prediction is here given an even more explicit and emphatic time-limitation: it will be while some of those present are still alive. This time-limit is a remarkably persistent element in the allusions to Dan 7:13–14 in this gospel: in 10:23 this “coming” will be before the disciples have gone through all the towns of Israel; here it will be before some of them die; in 24:30,34 it will be before the present generation is over; in 26:64 it will be seen by those who are Jesus’ judges; and in 28:18 it is, after the resurrection, already a fait accompli. All this weighs heavily against the traditional Christian view that such language is meant to refer to the parousia. Indeed, we shall see in ch. 24 that when the parousia is explicitly spoken of it will be in clear distinction from the events described as the “coming of the Son of Man.” The “coming” is, as in Dan 7, a coming to God to receive power and glory, not a coming to earth.’

5. The coming of the Spirit at Pentecost

This was the view of Swete.

Archer (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties) favours this interpretation.  He cites Jn 14:18, where Jesus reassures his troubled disciples that he will ‘come’ to them.  Archer notes that this promise comes just after he has spoken of the bestowal of the Holy Spirit.  This would be consistent with the ‘coming’ of Christ referred to in Rev 3:20.

Ian Paul favours a combination of the above two interpretations.

6. The dramatic expansion of the church after the Resurrection

This is the view of Carson.

7. The destruction of Jerusalem in AD70

This is the view of Wright.

According to Morris, this interpretation was also favoured by Plummer.  But it is difficult to see how this event, momentous though it was, could rightly be described as ‘a coming of the Son of Man in his kingdom’.  So Schnabel.

8. The Parousia

According to this view, Jesus is here affirming that the parousia would take place within the life-times of those present.  This is the view of Manson, Nineham, Collins and others.

This interpretation is supported by what immediately precedes this saying, which in all three Synoptic Gospels refers to the Son of Man coming in glory with his angels in judgment.

It is pointed out that such an expectation seems to have been widespread in the early church (see 2 Pet 3:4, and also Jn 21:23 as a counter to this expectation).

Of course, however, the parousia did not happen, and so we would have to conclude that Jesus was mistaken in his prediction.  Manson (cited by Strauss) writes:

‘Jesus expected the consummation of the Kingdom to take place at some time in the immediate future, and that this expectation was not realized.’

According to atheist John Loftus,

‘no amount of theological gerrymandering can escape the conclusion that Jesus was wrong’ (God or Godless, p135).

Hooker (on Mark) inclines towards this view:

‘Christians have often been reluctant on doctrinal grounds to come to such a conclusion, though this reluctance could be seen as a failure to grasp the doctrine of incarnation and the limits of human knowledge which that implies. But this problem of the non-arrival of the Kingdom in power has tended to obscure the fact that the saying is not so much a prediction of a particular event as a confident declaration of the final establishment of God’s purposes. Although the affirmation that the Kingdom will arrive within the lifetime of some of Jesus’ hearers is repeated in Mark 13:30, both these promises lack any precise dating and contain none of the elusive references to future dating which are found in apocalyptic writings: the Kingdom is expected in the foreseeable future, but not on any particular day. Even if we conclude that Jesus was in some sense wrong, we may well wish to affirm also that he was in some sense right: the vindication he confidently expected took place—in the resurrection—but the final ‘coming’ of the Kingdom and of the Son of man still belong to the future.’

Hooker’s appeal to the doctrine of incarnation is unsatisfactory.  It is one thing to assert that our Lord’s knowledge was limited (as he himself confessed that it was, on this very subject), and quite another to accuse him of being mistaken.

Morris (on Matthew) notes that Jesus:

‘consistently refused to set dates, and in any case he said explicitly that he did not know when the End would come (Mt 24:36).’

Hurtado says that one problem with this interpretation is that:

‘it appears unlikely that Mark saw it this way, for he probably wrote his Gospel some forty years or more after Jesus’ crucifixion, almost at the end of the time frame described…and would have realized that no such complete transformation of the world had happened yet.’

8. A combination of several of the above

Given that Scripture often ‘telescopes’ future events, there is wisdom in the comment of Morris:

‘The Son of man comes in many ways. There is a good deal to be said for a reference to the events linked by the death and resurrection of Jesus and the coming of the Spirit that led on to the preaching of the gospel and the growth of the church.’

Morris cites Ridderbos as holding that

‘“coming in his kingdom” is a compressed way of referring to the whole exaltation and that it was not until after the resurrection that the disciples would see that there were two parts to the coming in of the kingdom. They would see the early manifestation in the resurrection and what followed immediately, though the final fulfilment of the words is yet future. Some such understanding of Jesus’ words is surely required.’

Hendriksen:

‘The reference is in all probability to Christ’s glorious resurrection, his return in the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and in close connection with that event his position, with great power and influence, at the Father’s right hand. Changes so vast would then begin to take place on earth that, as outsiders were going to remark, the world would be “turned upside down” (Acts 17:6). Momentous events would occur: the becoming “of age” of the church, its extension among the Gentiles, the conversion of people by the thousands, the presence and exercise of many charismatic gifts, etc. Jesus predicts that all this will begin to take place during the lifetime of some of those whom he is now addressing.’

Ian Paul invites us to note Mark’s addition (‘with power’) and Matthew’s use of the phrase ‘the Son of Man coming in his kingdom’ .  This, comments Paul

‘is the erchomenos language of Matt 24 referring to the Son of Man coming to the Ancient of Days, not the parousia language of Jesus’ return at the End, so we can see that all three understand Jesus’ comment as a reference to his exaltation and ascension, and the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost followed by the preaching of the gospel.’