A Response to Dr. Sam Waldron (Part 2)—by Travis Drum
Matthew 16 and Waldron’s Threefold Case
In the previous installment we finished up our examination of Dr. Sam Waldron’s arguments against hyper-preterism as it pertains to the Olivet Discourse. We’ll continue answering him here by looking at his arguments against preterism in Matthew 16:27-28.
Dr. Waldron writes on page 383, “First, it is not necessary to avoid the extremes of hyper-preterism to maintain that all references to ‘the coming of the Son of Man’ must refer to His final coming at the end of the age. We have already seen that Matthew 16:28 in all likelihood refers to the transfiguration.” He offers the following three reasons for why Matthew 16:28 is fulfilled in the transfiguration account:
- In all three parallel texts, Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, and Luke 9:27, the mount of transfiguration event occurs chronologically, immediately after Christ’s words are spoken.
- The reference to ‘some standing here’ is a clear reference to Peter, James, and John who were with Him on the Mount of transfiguration.
- There is a contrast of two comings between Matthew 16:27 and 28.
He writes, “Far from identifying the two comings, verses 27 and 28 are intended to contrast them by calling the one a coming ‘in the glory of His Father’ and the other a ‘coming in His kingdom.’” Please note that he does not offer another option, for how this text could be fulfilled outside of the mount of transfiguration, so let’s deal with his three reasons in reverse order. First, the contrast between verses 27 and 28.
A Tale of Two Comings?
According to Dr. Waldron, whenever we read Jesus coming “in the glory of his Father” in verse 27, that’s a reference to the second coming, but when we read “coming in His kingdom” that’s the transfiguration. The first question to ask is this: What contextual reason does he have for assuming Jesus is differentiating between two different comings in this text?—The obvious answer is zero. The only way anyone would espouse that view is by first inserting it into the text. As a matter of fact, the usage of the phrase “truly, I say to you” only works to enforce the view that these texts are connected. A careful reading through the gospels will show that the phrase “truly, I say to you” only ever works to affirm something previously stated, or to mark emphasis. In other words, the phrase is declarative and not adversative.
When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” Matthew 10:23
As a reminder, Dr. Waldron sees this text as fulfilled in A.D. 70. What’s clear then, is that the “truly I say to you” connects the persecution the disciples would face, to them not going through all the towns of Israel before Christ’s coming. It isn’t disconnecting or contrasting these two events, nor is it anywhere else in all of Scripture. It’s also worth noting that a mountain of scholarship has connected the coming of the son of man in Matthew 16:27-28 with Daniel 7.
9 “As I looked, thrones were placed, and the Ancient of Days took his seat; his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames; its wheels were burning fire. 10 A stream of fire issued and came out from before him; a thousand thousands served him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him; the court sat in judgement, and the book were opened. Daniel 7:9-10
In Daniel 7:9-10 we find a judgment scene directly connected to the son of man being given his kingdom. With the coming of the kingdom comes judgment. If Daniel 7 is fulfilled at the time of Matthew 16:28 (the coming of the Son of Man) then we need to be consistent and say so was the judgment scene of Matthew 16:27. These texts work together, so not only is there no contrast in the phrase “truly, I say to you” but Daniel 7 forces us to tether Matthew 16:27-28 together as well. They’re like peanut butter and jelly—good together, but messy if you try to split them. Suffice it to say there is no Scriptural basis whatsoever to insert a contrast between verses 27 and 28. This is describing one coming and the events that correspond to that coming.
But Did You Die?
Dr. Waldron’s second point in Matthew 16:27-28 being the transfiguration is that the “some standing here” who would not taste death is talking about Peter, James, and John who were with him at the mount of transfiguration. The glaringly obvious question to ask is which one of those disciples died between chapter 16 and chapter 17? When Jesus says “there are some standing here who will not taste death” does that not imply that there were some standing there who would? Why else would Jesus say that? I agree with Dr. Waldron that these specific disciples were within the scope of His prophecy, but I disagree that it was fulfilled six days later at the mount of transfiguration.—nobody had died yet. Unless you count Peter’s ego after being called “Satan” a few verses prior.
Jesus used similar language toward the end of his ministry. In John 20:15-19 we find a prophecy of Peter’s death, and then we read this about the disciple Jesus loved, who many take to be John.
21 So Peter seeing him said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?” 22 Jesus said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me! 23 Therefore this saying went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?” John 20:21-23
What we find here is a prediction that John would not die until Jesus came. In other words, “There are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming…” but on the flip side, there were some standing here that would, including Peter. We find this exact same thing in the Olivet Discourse.
“Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. Matthew 24:9
But the one who endures to the end will be saved. Matthew 24:13
What was Jesus prophesying here? Some of them would die before His coming, but others would endure. Let us be reminded once again of who Christ’s audience was hearing these words.
And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asking him privately. Mark 13:3
I don’t find it coincidental that Peter and John are included in this conversation as well. Both John 20 and the Olivet Discourse teach the exact same thing at Matthew 16:27-28 and there is perfect harmony in all three. If Matthew 16:28 is fulfilled at the transfiguration, how can Dr. Waldron also believe Matthew 24:9-13 is still yet to be fulfilled in our future? Where is the harmony in that? Clearly the transfiguration account doesn’t work in this regard, but Dr. Waldron still has one point left. We’re down to his final stand—cue the dramatic music.
Will the Real Kingdom Please Stand Up?
His third argument is that the mount of transfiguration happens chronologically right after this prophecy is given in all three gospels. Given what we’ve just discussed, that point is already null and void, but it’s also worth pointing out that the parallel text in Mark 9:1.
And he said to them, “truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.” Mark 9:1
Dr. Waldron dedicates six chapters of his book to the nature of the kingdom, including its inauguration and its consummation. He writes on page 111 “Alongside of the perspective of the future coming of the kingdom, the New Testament teaches that the kingdom has come in Jesus Christ. The following lines of evidence plainly show this: (1) The defeat of Satan means the presence of the kingdom (Matt. 12:28-28); (2) The preaching of the kingdom means the presence of the kingdom (Matt. 11:11-14; Luke 16:16)…” He applies two passages in Matthew’s gospel which occurred prior to the mount of transfiguration, to make the point that the kingdom had already come. If that’s the case, how could Mark 9:1 and “the kingdom of God coming in power” have been fulfilled at the transfiguration? Dr. Waldron believes the kingdom was already on the scene, so this view makes no sense. He can’t have his inaugurated cake and eat it with future fulfillment too. What is Mark 9:1 actually talking about then? In Mark 9:1 the coming of the kingdom of God in power can only be a referent to the second coming where the kingdom is consummated, when Christ comes in the glory of His father and brings the judgment of Matthew 16:27.
This clearly wasn’t fulfilled at the transfiguration, which creates insurmountable trouble for his argument, because if Mark 9:1 wasn’t fulfilled at the transfiguration then neither was Matthew 16:27-28 or Luke 9:27. This forces one to draw one of two conclusions. Either we ignore the inconsistencies in Dr. Waldron’s reasoning and still uphold the transfiguration view regarding these texts, or concede that they were fulfilled after the mount of transfiguration but before all of them tasted death. Only one historical event aligns with all these texts. These prophecies were fulfilled at Christ’s parousia in the events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70. One final point regarding this argument. Notice these three texts side by side:
“For the Son of Man is going to come (erchomai) with his angels (angelos) in the glory (doxa) of his Father…” Matthew 16:27
“Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming (erchomai) on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (doxa). And he will send out his angels (angelos) with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” Matthew 24:30-31
“When the Son of Man comes (erchomai) in his glory (doxa), and all the angels (angelos) with him…” Matthew 25:31
This isn’t just déjà vu—it’s prophetic copy-paste with divine intentionality. As a reminder, Matthew 24:30-31 precedes verse 34 and the “all these things” their generation would see, which makes it A.D. 70. Why then would the other two texts that use identical language not also have an A.D. 70 fulfillment? The only logical and consistent answer is that they do, thus, preterism prevails.
Thinking this through
I believe it’s clear that all three of his “defenses” have been shown to be fulfilled in A.D. 70, which means the parousia of Christ must be fulfilled then. On page 66 Dr. Waldron has four bullet points of reasons why the resurrection of the dead occurs at the parousia of Christ. I agree with him, but if the parousia of Christ occurred in A.D. 70, this necessitates that so did the resurrection. On page 91 he posits that the judgment of Matthew 25:31-46 happens at the parousia and he equates this on page 93 with the judgment of Matthew 16:27. Again, I agree, but we’ve already solidified the fact that both texts are A.D. 70 which means the judgment was fulfilled in A.D. 70. Where am I going with this?
On page 18 Dr. Waldron writes, “These important arguments still occur among Christians, and differences over them are no reason in themselves to questions someone’s faith. However, some prophetic issues lie at the core of the Christian faith. The second coming, judgement, and the resurrection are at the heart of biblical prophesy and are essential to the Christian faith.”
Here he says too much. To phrase what he’s saying another way, it is a deviation from the “orthodox” view of the second coming, judgment, and resurrection that deems one to be outside of the Christian faith. This is a majorly disappointing viewpoint to propagate given the defense for “orthodox” eschatology he has laid out in this book. It’s like losing a debate because your notes started arguing with themselves, but instead of correcting your notes, you condemn everyone else. So far, he hasn’t refuted a single point of hyper preterism and has only worked to trap himself in his own words, exposing the inconsistencies and unbiblical nature of his views.
Conclusion
In this installment, we’ve walked carefully—and sometimes sarcastically—through Dr. Waldron’s attempt to link Matthew 16:28 to the Mount of Transfiguration. Each of his three defenses crumbles under the weight of biblical context, prophetic consistency, and basic logic. The timing doesn’t work. The language doesn’t match. And the theological consequences—when fully followed—actually support the hyper-preterist position he’s trying so hard to avoid.
If Matthew 16:27–28 speaks of a coming in judgment, in glory, with angels, in power, and in the kingdom—all of which Jesus promised would happen within the lifetime of some of his disciples—then the only consistent and honest reading is that it did. In A.D. 70, the Son of Man came just as he said he would, and the implications of that fulfillment reach deep into how we understand the second coming, the resurrection, and the judgment.
Dr. Waldron’s approach is not just inconsistent; it’s self-defeating. Every time he grants partial fulfillment to A.D. 70, he undercuts the futurist framework he’s trying to preserve. What remains is a theological position held together by tradition rather than text.
So where does that leave us? Not with fear, not with heresy, but with a call to reexamine Scripture not through the lens of dogma, but through the lens of fulfilled promises. Christ did what He said He would do—on time, to the right audience, with prophetic precision. And in doing so, He didn’t undermine the faith. He confirmed it.