Another one of the chief proof-texts which Hyper-Preterists often adduce in support of their teaching, is Matthew 16: 28: “Verily, I say unto you, There be some standing here which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” 

   The Hyper-Preterists claim that because Jesus said, ‘there be some standing here,’ etc., that His second advent must have occurred during the lifetime of His original audience; and they therefore look for an event (any event!) that fits the bill.  Come to the destruction of Jerusalem, and they quickly conclude that this is what Christ was referring to.  The idea fits in, of course, with the theory that A.D. 70 formed some great eschatological crisis.  Nevertheless, what saith the Word of God?

   Let’s look at Christ’s words more closely.  This saying of His, that some will not taste of death, until they see His coming  in His kingdom, is found in all three synoptic Gospels.  Therefore, a careful study of the context will help to draw out the true meaning. 

   Christ spoke these words in August A.D. 29, about a month after His feeding of the 4,000 (Matt. 15: 29-39; Mark 8: 1-9).  In Matthew’s Gospel, the prophetic statement of 16: 28 is preceded by Peter’s confession (16: 13-16) and Christ’s approval (16: 17), followed by our Lord’s promise that He would build His church on “this rock,” and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it (16: 18-19).  Then comes a warning to maintain silence until after His resurrection  (16: 20).  There ensues a brief prediction of His passion (16: 21), Peter’s rebuke (16: 22), and Christ’s counter-rebuke (16: 23).

  Now the accounts given by both Mark and Luke are, for all practical purposes, parallel to the course of events furnished by Matthew (see Mark 8: 27-33; Luke 9: 18-22).  However, Mark’s account is less detailed than Matthew’s, and Luke’s less detailed than Mark’s.  Also, Luke places these incidents after the feeding of the 5,000 (Luke 9: 12-17).

   After Christ rebukes Peter’s rejection of His passion, He then gives a brief hortatory admonition, that if anyone would be His disciple, he must take up his cross and follow Him.  Also, that the loss of life will result in a greater gain; but that the selfish  keeping of life will result in eternal loss.  The contents of this admonition are given in Matthew 16: 24-26; Mark 8: 34-38; Luke 9: 23-25.  This is the preceding context of Christ’s statement that:

 (Matthew 16: 28) “Verily, I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

(Mark 9: 1) “And He said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.” 

(Luke 9: 27) “But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.” 

  Then, in all three synoptic Gospels, the Holy Spirit follows this statement with an account of Christ’s transfiguration, which happened six days later (Matt. 17: 1-9; Mark 9: 2-9; Luke 9: 28-36).  Follows a brief commentary on the significance of John the Baptist’s ministry (Matt. 17: 10-13; Mark 9: 13; omitted by Luke),  and then the healing of the demoniac, which the disciples were unable to effect themselves (Matt. 17: 14-21; Mark 9: 14-29; Luke 9: 37-42). 

  In such brief manner have we fleshed out the surrounding context of Matthew 16: 28, that readers may see there is nothing that remotely implies the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies in A.D. 70.  The absolute silence on this score tells us that the Hyper-Preterist interpretation is not based on an actual exegesis of the text, but on some ”prior” conclusion imported into the text from without.  Therefore, when we weigh the existing evidence, it admits of a “reasonable doubt” whether the Hyper-Preterist view preserves the mind of Christ.

   Without being too prolix, let us simply ask if the Holy Spirit has provided His own interpretation of Christ’s affirmation.  As a matter of fact, He has.  For in each account of this momentous statement, that some shall not taste of death UNTIL they see the Son of Man, we are told that Christ took His disciples (Peter, James, and John) into a mountain, and was transfigured before them.  Thus, the Holy Spirit has already placed the transfiguration in justaposition with Matt. 16: 28, as if it were a commentary on Christ’s own words.

   Now I realize that Hyper-Preterists reject this interpretation, and chiefly for the following reason.  They say that because it happened only six days later, Christ’s promise would have had no practical significance.  In other words, it would not have made sense to say, “Some of you shall not taste of death until six days have passed.“  Obviously, viewed from this angle, our interpretation must be discarded.  However, the mistake becomes obvious when we see the premise on which such argument is based.  

  It is assumed that some then present would live to see the second advent.  Therefore, an event much longer than six days is required.  However, look closely.  Some of the disciples were not to taste of death UNTIL they saw the kingdom come with power.  The implication is that they would ”taste of death” afterwards.

  Here is where Hyper-Preterists play fast and loose with definitions.  For in holding their view that Matt. 16: 28 points to A.D. 70, they have to admit that “death” here means the separation of the body and soul.  That is, according to Hyper-Preterists, some of Christ’s original audience would not physically die until they saw the destruction of the temple.

  But if death is to be defeated at Christ’s second coming, and the second coming occurred in A.D. 70, those who remained to see the event should not have died afterwards.  Otherwise, how was death anulled at the second advent?  To get around this discrepancy, the Hyper-Preterists say that the “death” to be defeated in A.D. 70 was “covenantal,” and not physical.

  But there is a flat contradiction, not only in the above statement, but also in John 21: 23.  For after Christ told Peter (concerning John), “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” (John 21: 22); then “went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die.” 

   In other words, the disciples understood that to “tarry” until the Lord’s second advent was equivalent to not dying at all.  But this “death” could not have been deemed “covenantal,” for according to Hyper-Preterists, John (as all the disciples) had already “tasted” of covenantal death!  Therefore, when the saying went abroad that John would not die, it is clear that they believed John would not undergo physical death.

  Their conclusion was correct, of course.   But they mistook the meaning of our Lord’s words.  If Christ had made a statement that John should live until His return, they would have been on the right track.  But Christ merely asked a rhetorical question to rebuke Peter’s curiosity; as if, supposing some one asked me, “What are you going to make of yourself?” I might respond, “If I should become the president of the United States, what is that to you?”

  Notwithstanding their misapprehension of Christ’s response, however, their understanding of John’s “tarrying till Christ comes” being equivalent to not tasting physical death proves that Matt. 16: 28 does not pertain to the second advent, but rather to an anterior event, closely related thereto, which would occur during their lifetime.  That event was none other than the transfiguration. 

   But is this true?  As a matter of fact, it is.  For aside from the Holy Spirit’s own placement of the the transfiguration side by side with the statement of Matt. 16: 28, we have the inspired apostle Peter’s interpretation!  Here is where we find direct support for our view, which demonstrates it as being the correct one. 

   In his second epistle, Peter writes: “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power (dunamis) and coming (parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.  For He received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to Him from the excellent glory, saying, This is my beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased.  And the voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with Him in the Holy Mount” (2 Peter 1: 16-18).

  Notice how Peter uses the two words, dunamis and parousia, in describing what he saw on the Mount of Transfiguration (compare 2 Peter 1: 16 with Mark 9: 1).  According to his own account, the transfiguration was a foreglimpse of Christ’s parousia, by which He was able to “make known” to the church the manner of that event.  Its typological connection with the parousia makes it possible for Christ to refer to it as the event itself.  

    While it was not the event, however, it indicated how the Lord is to come in glory at the end of the present age.  It will not be an invisible, hypothetical coming to annul a “covenantal death,” but will be personal, visible, and glorious, and will result in the salvation of those who wait on Him.  Peter’s words alone disprove the Hyper-Preterist interpretation; and hence we need offer no additional support for our view that Matthew 16: 28 refers to the transfiguration, and not to the destruction of Jerusalem.  Anti-climactic, you say?  Well, that’s just the simplicity of the Gospel.