Area of Faithlife Study Bible that is very weak

I was reading Matt 16:24-28, a very powerful part of the Gospel. Here is what FSB has on that section:

16:24 to come after me Be my Disciple.

let him deny himself Or, consider him or herself as nothing; forget about one’s self.

take up his cross See 10:38 and note.

16:25 whoever wants to save his life See 10:39 and note.

16:27 the Son of Man is going to come See 13:37–43.

according to what he has done Referring to v. 25. See also Psa 62:12.

16:28 some of those standing here Among the disciples (see vv. 5, 13, 21, 24).

until they see the Son of Man Probably a reference to the transfiguration in the next chapter (see 17:1–13).

=======================

IMHO I think this is way too brief, way to shallow to foster any reasonable discussion.  There is so much that could be said abut this section! Just as one example, I love the WBC in this area, but there are other ideas as well, and I recognize that to some it's too academic. I offe it here only to show there's a lot to talk about!

Could FSB be beefed up in this area, I don't really think this is good quality at all.  What WBC says just in the Comment section, other sections not withstanding, in contrast:

27 As a third reason for the commitment of full discipleship (again, γάρ, “for”), building on the preceding material, Matthew has placed special emphasis on the reality of the coming of the Son of Man and human accountability at that time. This emphasis is fully in keeping with the common use of eschatology in the NT as a motivation for ethics. Given the preceding announcement of the imminent suffering and death of Jesus, the reference here to the Son of Man coming ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων αὐτοῦ, “in the glory of his Father with his angels,” must refer to what will follow those announced events. The μέλλει, “is about to,” is indeterminate but suggests something in the not distant future (cf. the use of the same verb in the second passion prediction; 17:22; cf. 17:12; 20:22). The time reference is, however, made more specific in the verse that follows. The Son of Man who must suffer and die (v. 21) is also destined to return ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, “in the glory of his Father” (cf. Rom 6:4). The glorious coming of the Son of Man is referred to again in 24:30 (μετὰ δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης πολλῆς, “with power and great glory”; cf. the reference to the Son of Man’s “throne of glory” in 19:28) and in 25:31 (ἐν τῇ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ, “in his glory”). The latter passage also includes a reference to πάντες οἱ ἄγγελοι μετ͂ αὐτοῦ, “all his angels with him.” The αὐτοῦ, “him,” in the present reference to angels probably refers to the Son of Man (e.g., 13:41; 24:31, 2 Thess 1:7; so too perhaps 25:31; for OT background, cf. Zech 14:5). At this point Matthew inserts the further apocalyptic motif of the coming judgment by the use of explicit OT language: καὶ τότε ἀποδώσει ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὴν πρᾶξιν αὐτοῦ, “and then he will render to each person according to what he or she has done.” These words, which are cited elsewhere in the NT (Rom 2:6; cf. allusions in 2 Cor 11:15; 2 Tim 4:14; 1 Peter 1:17; Rev 2:23, 18:6; 20:12–13; 22:12), are in nearly verbatim agreement with Ps 61:13(LXX), where only the number of the verb (second person) differs and the final phrase is κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ, “according to his [her] works.” The identical words, however, are also found in Prov 24:12 (but where the verb is in the present tense, ἀποδίδωσιν, “renders”; cf. too Sir 35:22 [LXX], where the last phrase is found nearly verbatim, κατὰ τὰς πράξεις [plural] αὐτοῦ, “according to his [her] deeds,” but where the first part is somewhat differently put). The concept is a common one in the OT (cf. Jer 17:10) and had by the NT era (as the above references show) become nearly proverbial in character. Matthew’s singular τὴν πρᾶξιν, lit. “the deed,” is a summarizing noun. His point is clear. After his death and resurrection, Jesus will return in glorious manner as the apocalyptic Judge of humanity (cf. 7:22–23; 13:41–42; cf. 25:31–46). In light of this, one’s decisions about one’s ψυχή, “very being,” become not only crucially important but also urgent.
28 In a saying that is given grave importance by the introductory ἀμήν, “truly,” Jesus assures his disciples (although Mark’s inclusion of the crowd [Mark 8:34] makes more sense here) that some of those hearing his words at that time, τινες τὧν ὧδε ἑστώτων, “some standing here,” would still be alive to see τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ, “the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” This is the meaning of οὐ μὴ γεύσωνται θανάτου, lit. “by no means taste death,” i.e., not die (for the same expression, see John 8:52; Heb 2:9; 2 Esdr 6:26; rabbinic references: Gen. Rab. 9.2; b. Yoma 78b). For a look at the problem raised by a similar verse, see the discussion of 10:23. By far the most natural understanding of this verse, given especially the context of the preceding verse to which Matthew has closely attached it, is that the consummation of the present age and the coming of the eschaton proper with its concomitant blessing and judgment would be experienced within not many decades through the triumphant return of the Son of Man. (Understanding the verse as referring to the parousia proper are Grundmann, Gundry, Luz, Gnilka, Sabourin.) Thus the length of the interim period between the death of the Son of Man and his glorious return would be limited, so that the latter would occur within the lifetime of some standing there at that moment. (The ἕως, “before” or “until,” does not require the conclusion that these persons will die after seeing the coming of the Son of Man in power and that therefore the parousia cannot be meant since it will usher in the final age.) As we have noted in the discussion of 10:23, such a conclusion, which from our later perspective must be judged as chronologically incorrect, is not out of keeping with the theological unity of eschatology (i.e., wherein the first and second coming of Jesus are part of one eschatological process, with the former anticipating and guaranteeing the reality of the latter) as well as with Jesus’ own self-confessed ignorance of the actual time of his return (24:36). Of key importance in deciding the interpretation of this verse is the necessity of giving full heed to the statement that some would still be alive to see the coming of the Son of Man in power. The idea that ἑστώτων, “standing,” could be taken in the sense of faithfulness in the midst of persecution (thus “very tentatively” Davies-Allison; cf. Strecker, Weg, 43) is hardly convincing without more evidence from the immediate context.

Some have tried to ease the problem by understanding “death” as referring to some kind of “second death” or eschatological punishment, but this explanation goes against the natural meaning of to “taste death” and creates as many of its own problems as it solves. There is, alternatively, as we have also seen above (on 10:23), the possibility of a range of meanings for the expression “the coming of the Son of Man in his kingdom.” Some encouragement to ponder these comes from the parallel expressions in Mark and Luke, namely, “the kingdom of God come in power” and simply “the kingdom of God,” respectively. It is obvious that whereas Matthew has made Mark’s clause more specific (perhaps over-specific), Luke has made it more general. If we look for an event within the lifetime of at least some who were present, which could correspond to the powerful coming of the kingdom, and perhaps even of Matthew’s coming of the Son of Man, the following options are conceivable. (1) Since in all three Synoptics this statement is followed by the transfiguration of Jesus (a revelation of his glorious identity), it has been argued that this is what is intended. This view was held already by the early Fathers (cf. Harrington [tentatively]; Blomberg). But an event that was to occur in a mere six days is hardly compatible with the strange statement that some would live to see it. (2) Another candidate is the resurrection of Jesus (cf. Rom 1:4) and/or the subsequent ascension of Jesus and the experience of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost fifty days later (thus among others, Luther, Calvin, McNeile, Albright-Mann, Tasker, and Meier, who speaks of the resurrection as “an anticipated parousia”). Although an easier interpretation than the transfiguration, the time interval (probably less than a year) again seems too short for the language used. (3) A further possibility sometimes considered is the gentile mission and the rapid expansion of the church, or simply Christ’s role in the church (thus Hill, Green, France). Without doubt, these involve a realization of the kingdom in power. They fit Mark and Luke better, however, than Matthew’s reference to the coming Son of Man who comes in powerful judgment (cf. v. 27). It is of course possible to opt for a combination of these. Thus Carson opts for a combination of (2) and (3). Davies-Allison opt for a combination of the resurrection and the second coming, regarding the one as a foreshadowing of the other. Bruner sees truth in each of the options (cf. too Morris). (4) A fourth possibility and one that fits particularly well with the time interval (with the lapse of about forty years) is the destruction of Jerusalem (already J. J. Wettstein [Ἡ Καινὴ Διαθήκη, 2 vol(s). (Amsterdam, 1751–52)] in 1752; among other authors: H. Alford [The Greek New Testament, 2 vol(s). (Chicago: Moody, 1968)]; Morison [Gospel according to St. Matthew (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1895)]; so too Lagrange, Benoit, Gaechter). Because the coming of the kingdom by definition means not only blessing but judgment and because the destruction of Jerusalem can be conceived of as the judgment of God upon national Israel for her unbelief, this event can be thought of itself as a form of the coming of the kingdom of the Son of Man in power. Matt 24, as we will see, associates the destruction of Jerusalem with the eschatological judgment of the end time (Luke’s version of the eschatological discourse of Jesus also gives special place to the destruction of Jerusalem [cf. Luke 21:20–24]). See further the Comment on 24:34. The interpretation of this logion as anticipating thedestruction of Jerusalem fits Matthew’s language concerning the returning of the Son of Man as Judge. In this way, thejudgment upon Jerusalem can be seen as paradigmatic of the final, eschatological judgment itself (rightly Alford: “a type and earnest of the final comingof Christ” [1:177]).

This typology is apparent in chap. 24, but there in the examination of 24:29–30 we will see that it is nevertheless the case, if the eschatological discourse intends any chronology, that Matthew conceives of the Son of Man as gloriously returning in connection with, i.e., immediately after, the destruction of Jerusalem. As we will argue there, probably Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem within that generation—an event the disciples could not imagine without the end of the age and the parousia of the Son of Man. Then what may easily have happened was that the imminence became associated with the coming of the Son of Man in power. Although Matthew in the present instance regarded the glorious parousia of the Son of Man as occurring within the lifetime of some who were standing there, what Jesus may have referred to was the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. From our perspective, because of the typological interconnection, the latter may be regarded as an anticipation of the final judgment. Given the unity of eschatology, the theological point remains justifiable; i.e., to see the destruction of Jerusalem was in a sense to see the coming of the Son of Man in his kingdom. What Jesus had already brought and accomplished pointed dramatically to the coming eschaton.