Can Scripture misquote Jesus?

[PazzoGrande]

Matthew 16:27-28:

“For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth,* some who are standing here *will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

The implication here is that the Second Coming will take place when some of the people listening to Him then would still be alive. But that isn’t likely, because that was 2000 years ago; they’re all dead (though I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a legend that some of those people are still walking the earth, like the Wandering Jew legend).

Was Jesus misquoted in the Gospels?

I do believe in the literal inerrancy of the Gospels but this quote makes that a bit questionable.

 

[rcjones]

Matthew 16:27-28:

“For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth,* some who are standing here *will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

The implication here is that the Second Coming will take place when some of the people listening to Him then would still be alive. But that isn’t likely, because that was 2000 years ago; they’re all dead (though I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a legend that some of those people are still walking the earth, like the Wandering Jew legend).

Was Jesus misquoted in the Gospels?

I do believe in the literal inerrancy of the Gospels but this quote makes that a bit questionable.

The most logical answer is that his kingdom started with his resurrection. His bride came into existence from his death. And since there is no marriage in heaven, the marriage of the Lamb happened at the cross. But people reading it in the flesh have to impose their own eschatology upon it and deny that the kingdom is here, but that it is not of this world.

He comes now like a thief in the night taking one here or there, but in their experience they meet him in the air with a heavenly host in a timeless eternity. If the rapture happens at the moment of our death, then each generation is that generation which will see these things happen.

 

[CalCatholic]

The Navarre Bible commentary on Matthew 16:28 says; **"Here Jesus is referring not to his last coming (which he speaks about in the preceding verse) but to other events which will occur prior to that and which will be a sign of his glorification after death. The coming he speaks of here may refer firstly to his resurrection and his appearances thereafter; it could also refer to his transfiguration, which is itself a manifestation of his glory. This coming of Christ in his Kingdom might also be seen in the destruction of Jerusalem – a sign of the end of the ancient people of Israel as a form of the Kingdom of God and its substitution by the Church, the new Kingdom. **

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Matthew 16:27-28:

“For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth,* some who are standing here *will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

The implication here is that the Second Coming will take place when some of the people listening to Him then would still be alive. But that isn’t likely, because that was 2000 years ago; they’re all dead (though I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a legend that some of those people are still walking the earth, like the Wandering Jew legend).

Was Jesus misquoted in the Gospels?

I do believe in the literal inerrancy of the Gospels but this quote makes that a bit questionable.

he Gospels can never be understood as literally quoting Jesus. What the Gospels intended was to show the Faith of the Apostles according to what they saw, heard and felt.
It was not a tape-recorded message.

So, the first generation of Apostles and disciples, as they saw Christ going into Heaven, they thought He would come soon. They saw Him so many times that they thought He could come within that generation.

From that to confuse words said in another context is a short step. Jesus could even say those words but not with the meaning we see there.

 

[razredge]

Yes, the Gospels aren’t biographies in the modern sense. They present both the Jesus of history and the Christ of theology.

 

[TimothyH]

We must never forget that the Jews present knew scripture extremely well. They would have been intimately familiar with the Book of the prophet Daniel who coined the phrase “Son of Man” which Jesus uses to refer to himself. We must think like the first century Jews who were present. Whenever Jesus referred to himself as “Son of Man”, those present would have immediately thought of the Book of Daniel. That is what we must do as well.

As the visions during the night continued, I saw coming with the clouds of heaven
One like a son of man.
When he reached the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him,
He received dominion, splendor, and kingship;
all nations, peoples and tongues will serve him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
that shall not pass away,
his kingship, one that shall not be destroyed.
(Daniel 7:13-14)

Many saw Jesus’ reference to himself as Son of Man as claim to temporal authority in the likeness of David or Solomon but were later disappointed when Jesus was crucified. But Jesus prophecy that some who were present would not taste death until they saw “The Son of Man coming in his kingdom” came to pass.

Judas killed himself before Christ rose from the dead and ascended into heaven so some did not live long enough. But the rest saw Christ ascend into the coulds to be seated at the right hand of God the Father just as Daniel prophesied.

-Tim-

 

[LabRat]

Jesus

Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church

By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS

**"The Gospels were not meant to be a historical **or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God, risen and living now in his church and coming again to judge all men. Their authors did not deliberately invent or falsify facts about Jesus, but they were not primarily concerned with historical accuracy. They readily included material drawn from the Christian communities’ experience of the risen Jesus. Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him which, though not historical in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him. For this reason, scholars have come to make a **distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. **

 

[patg]

Jesus

Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church

By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS

**"The Gospels were not meant to be a historical **or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God, risen and living now in his church and coming again to judge all men. Their authors did not deliberately invent or falsify facts about Jesus, but they were not primarily concerned with historical accuracy. They readily included material drawn from the Christian communities’ experience of the risen Jesus. Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him which, though not historical in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him. For this reason, scholars have come to make a **distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. **

This is also pretty much the theme of the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels by the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI. You can read this online.

 

[The_Wizard]

This is an example of pulling a verse out of context. What happens in Chapter 17? It is the transfiguration. Here Jesus appears to some apostles as He appear in His Kingdom. Not all the apostles see him this way and will have to wait until their deaths. I wish I could explain it better but it makes sense to me.

 

[PJM]

=PazzoGrande;8353216]Matthew 16:27-28:

“For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth,* some who are standing here *will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

The implication here is that the Second Coming will take place when some of the people listening to Him then would still be alive. But that isn’t likely, because that was 2000 years ago; they’re all dead (though I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a legend that some of those people are still walking the earth, like the Wandering Jew legend).

Was Jesus misquoted in the Gospels?

I do believe in the literal inerrancy of the Gospels but this quote makes that a bit questionable.

Ya did GOOD by asking before doubting:thumbsup:

This is a prophsey by Christ that speaks of His soon to be Passion, Death and Ressurection…

It is the Resurrection with all of its Glorious implications of the Heavenly kingdom that are being spoken of… And indeed many did see this event unfold before tasting death. THE BIBLE IS AND MUST BE TRUE EVEN IF IT IS NOT ALWAYS ACCURATE.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Lisa44]

Without giving it much thought, but off the top of my head I would have to say that Jesus is talking about those who will recognize him.

I don’t think it is refering to a second coming. Rather, it is an esoteric explanation of God, “in his Father’s glory with his angels”, who will reward people, and for whom some people can expect to experience in their lifetimes. (Ie: “some who are standing here”).
And also remember that in Jesus’s lifetime believers were rewarded on the spot. Some with their sight or health returned to them…etc…or demons cast out…

I think we can trust that the bible records the actual words of Jesus except in areas where there are obvious textual issues and I don’t think this is one of them.

Did you look in the other gospels to see if they recornd this statement or a similar one?

Matthew 16:27-28:

“For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth,* some who are standing here *will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

The implication here is that the Second Coming will take place when some of the people listening to Him then would still be alive. But that isn’t likely, because that was 2000 years ago; they’re all dead (though I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a legend that some of those people are still walking the earth, like the Wandering Jew legend).

Was Jesus misquoted in the Gospels?

I do believe in the literal inerrancy of the Gospels but this quote makes that a bit questionable.

 

[Nate13]

The preterist view of the book of Revelation would approach this verse as a prefiguring the destruction of Jerusalem in 70A.D. It is undeniable that Jesus believed he would come back within a generation and his apostles also believed this. A generation is equal to 40 years which is approximately the amount of time that passed between when Jesus would have prophesied his coming, and he destruction of the temple. There is lots of other strong evidence within the book of Revelation that points to this and it also shows that Jesus and his apostles knew exactly what they were talking about. It is also a widely held belief that no Christians were in Jerusalem when it was destroyed but had already fled from the city well ahead of time because they were warned of the coming destruction prophesied in John’s book of Revelation as well as from Jesus’ own words. Saying that Jesus was there during the destruction of Jerusalem does not mean that a final judgement at the end of times is not in the future but rather is a microcosm of what is to come. For the Jewish people the temple was a microcosm of the Universe and its destruction prefigures the end of all things and the final judgement. The destruction of the temple was the last step in doing away with the Old Covenant and making way for the New Covenant.

 

[LabRat]

This is also pretty much the theme of the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels by the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI. You can read this online.

RESPONSE:

Yes. Note especially:

**"Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him **which, though **not historical **in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him.

In short, the gospels aren’t really what Jesus said or taught. They may be accurately described as legends.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

RESPONSE:

Yes. Note especially:

**"Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him **which, though **not historical **in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him.

In short, the gospels aren’t really what Jesus said or taught. They may be accurately described as legends.

Balderdash.

Read Pope Benedict’s “Jesus of Nazareth” paying particular attention to the beginning chapters where he deals with the historical-critical method and its SHORTCOMINGS by attempting to create a ‘Christ of history’ and "Christ of Faith’ as if the two are two ‘separate beings.’

Pope Benedict uses the historical-critical method CORRECTLY by noting and CORRECTING SUCH INSTANCES WHERE it leads to words such as the above which are MISINTERPRETED to imply that the gospels are ‘not what Jesus said or taught’. On that path lies madness. . .

 

[perdido1144]

Matthew 16:27-28:

“For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth,* some who are standing here *will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

I do believe in the literal inerrancy of the Gospels but this quote makes that a bit questionable.

In my opinion, the key to this seeming contradiction lies in what we mean by the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven. In no way does it exactly equate to the parousia, the final coming of Jesus at the end of time. Even when Jesus was alive, he proclaimed the Kingdom as being at hand, the inference being that it was there in His own person. As the CCC states in paragraph 2816:

“The Kingdom of God lies ahead of us. It is brought near in the Word incarnate, it is proclaimed throughout the whole Gospel, and it has come in Christ’s death and Resurrection. The Kingdom of God has been coming since the Last Supper and, in the Eucharist, it is in our midst. The kingdom will come in glory when Christ hands it over to his Father: It may even be . . . that the Kingdom of God means Christ himself, whom we daily desire to come, and whose coming we wish to be manifested quickly to us. For as he is our resurrection, since in him we rise, so he can also be understood as the Kingdom of God, for in him we shall reign.”

So, while the Kingdom will come in its fullness at the end of time, that should not blind us to the fact that it is here, now, And accessible to us in the presence of Jesus Christ, most fully in the Eucharist. The “Son of Man coming in his kingdom” is available to us, through the redemptive act of His death and His ongoing presence in the sacraments of His Church.

 

[lisahiku]

sadly, versions of scripture changes, even among the catholic church.
It used to be the only translation was Douay-Rheims. Now there are different ones and some of the language has been modernized and can interpreted differently.

 

[patrick457]

sadly, versions of scripture changes, even among the catholic church.
It used to be the only translation was Douay-Rheims. Now there are different ones and some of the language has been modernized and can interpreted differently.

Not exactly, unless you’re trying to imply that all Catholics in the world spoke English.