Introduction

Matthew 16:27–28 / Mark 8:38–9:1

“For the Son of Man will [or is “about to…” YLT] come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (Matt. 16:27–28).

“For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” 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 [‘already’ Rotherham    Translation] come with power” (Mark 8:38–9:1).

Before exegeting these key texts, it is important to note that many conservative interpreters rightly observe them as referring to Christ coming in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. These passages provide a framework for understanding Christ’s coming as apocalyptic and imminent, in keeping with the consistent New Testament emphasis on fulfillment within the first century.

Adam Clarke correctly connects the coming of Christ in glory of Matthew 16:27 with Daniel 7:13-14 to AD 70,

“This was the glorious Mediatorial kingdom which Jesus Christ was now about to set up, by the destruction of the Jewish nation and polity, and the diffusion of his Gospel through the whole world.”[1]

He also identifies the coming in the next verse to be referring to the judgment upon Jerusalem,

“This verse seems to confirm the above explanation, as our Lord evidently speaks of the establishment of the Christian Church after the day of pentecost, and its final triumph after the destruction of the Jewish polity; as if he had said, “Some of you, my disciples, shall continue to live until these things take place.” The destruction of Jerusalem, and the Jewish economy, which our Lord here predicts, took place about forty-three years after this: and some of the persons now with him doubtless survived that period, and witnessed the   extension of the Messiah’s kingdom; and our Lord told them these things before, that when they came to pass they might be confirmed in the faith, and expect an exact fulfillment of all the other promises and prophecies which concerned the extension and support of the kingdom of Christ.

To his kingdom, or in his kingdom…This makes the passage a little more conformable to the passage already quoted from Daniel; and it must appear, very clearly…of the destruction of the Jewish polity…”[2]

Reformed theologian and John Lightfoot agrees:

“In Matthew, it is the Son of man coming in his kingdom. The coming of Christ in his vengeance and power to destroy the unbelieving and most wicked nation of the Jews is expressed under these forms of speech.”

Lightfoot then outlines several descriptions tied to this coming:

1. “The great and terrible day of the Lord” (Acts 2:20; 2 Thess. 2:2–3)
2. “The end of the world” (Jer. 4:27; Matt. 24:29)
3. “The last times” (Isa. 2:2; Acts 2:17; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Pet. 3:3)—referring to the final days of that covenant age
4. The beginning of a “new world” (Isa. 65:17; 2 Pet. 3:13)
5. His “coming in the clouds” (Rev. 1:7), “in glory with the angels” (Matt. 24:30)
6. His enthronement and judgment with the apostles judging Israel (Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:30)

Lightfoot concludes:

“Our Savior had said, ‘Whoever is ashamed of Me and of My words in this adulterous and sinful generation…’ to warn that His coming in glory would occur during the lifetimes of some standing there.”^[3]

Keith Mathison interprets Christ coming in His glory of Matthew 16:27-28 to be a foundational text in understanding how the coming of Christ in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 was fulfilled in AD 70,

“There is a distinct parallel between the language of 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 and Matthew 16:27-28, which describes a coming of the Son of Man for judgment within the lifetime of some of His disciples.”[4]

Although Matthew 16:27-28 is another instance where Jesus promises to come in judgment within the lifetimes of some in the crowd standing before Him, drawing once again on Daniel 7:13-14 as He did in Matthew 10, many seek to separate verse 27 from verse 28. Some readily acknowledge that verse 27 refers to the second coming of Christ, but because they believe it cannot have been fulfilled in the lifetime of Jesus’ disciples, they interpret the coming of Christ in verse 28 as the ascension or transfiguration event. However, numerous exegetical arguments demonstrate a strong connection between these two verses.

(1) “For the Son of Man is about to come…” (Matt. 16:27, YLT)

The Young’s Literal Translation (YLT), along with Darby, Wuest, and Weymouth, correctly renders Jesus’ words as “about to come,” emphasizing the imminence conveyed by the Greek verb mellō. This translation aligns with mellō’s usage throughout Matthew and the New Testament, consistently indicating something imminent—not distant or indefinite.

Here are several examples of mellō in Matthew’s Gospel:

• Matthew 2:13 (WEY): Herod is “about to” seek Jesus’ life, prompting Joseph and Mary to flee. Mellō expresses an imminent threat, not a vague or far-off danger.
• Matthew 3:7 (GNT): John warns the Pharisees of the “wrath about to come.”  The urgency is supported by the context—John’s message of a kingdom “at hand” (v. 2), with judgment imagery: the ax already “at the root of the trees” (v. 10), and the winnowing fork “in His hand” (v. 12). This wrath and kingdom were not distant; they were looming over that generation. Jesus later ties this judgment and harvest to the end of the Old Covenant age (cf. Matt. 13:39–43; 24:3, 31–34).
• Mathew 17:10–13: Mello appears twice. First, Elijah is “about to” come—a sign of immediate expectation. Jesus identifies John the Baptist as the fulfillment, confirming Elijah had already come. Yet many premillennialists still expect a future Elijah, despite Jesus’ clear teaching. Second, mellō refers to Jesus’ own suffering, which was also imminent, not far off.
• Matthew 24:6 (WEY): The disciples would “before long” begin hearing of wars and rumors of wars. While these were early signs, Jesus clarifies “the end” was not yet. The decisive signs of the end—worldwide gospel proclamation (Matt. 24:14) and armies surrounding Jerusalem (Luke 21:20)—would signal that His coming was truly near. that Christ’s second coming was indeed near.

In summary, the “about to” coming in Matthew 16:27 coheres with the promise in verse 28—that some standing there would live to see the kingdom come in power. After generations of longing for the Messiah, the long-awaited kingdom was, at last, about to arrive.

(2) “Verily I say unto you…” (Matt. 16:28)

The phrase “Verily,” or “Truly I say to you,” appears nearly 100 times in the Gospels. It always functions to emphasize or affirm what was just stated—not to introduce a new, unrelated subject. The meaning is strong: “truly,” “indeed,” or “may it be fulfilled.”

Despite this, Thomas Ice, a dispensational premillennialist, claims:

“…verse twenty-seven looks at the establishment of the kingdom in the future, while a promise of seeing the Messiah in His glory is the thought of verse twenty-eight. They are two separate predictions separated by the words ‘truly I say to you.’”^[5]

However, Ice does not provide a single instance where “Truly I say unto you” is used to introduce a new subject. Without any supporting evidence, his point is, at the very least, unscholarly and, at worst, irresponsible.

At an Evangelical Theological Society session, I once heard a premillennial speaker make the same claim. During the Q&A, I asked, “Can you provide just one example in Jesus’ teachings where the phrase ‘Truly I say to you’ begins a new subject?” After a long silence, he admitted, “No.” I replied, “Then it’s unwise to repeat arguments from other scholars who haven’t done their research. I’ve examined every use of the phrase, and in every case, it reinforces the previous point—which is exactly how it functions in Matthew 16:27–28.”

Christ had just declared He was “about to come” to reward each person (v. 27), and He doubled down on that point in v. 28: some of His listeners would live to see it. Far from shifting topics, His “truly” emphasizes the nearness and certainty of what He just said.

(3) “Some standing here shall not taste of death” and “the kingdom of God” (Matt. 16:28)

Jesus’ statement that “some standing here shall not taste of death” refers to a specific prophetic sequence: persecution in the apostolic generation followed by the arrival of the kingdom in judgment. This is not a vague prediction that a few disciples would live into old age; it is anchored in Jesus’ consistent teaching that links persecution with His return (cf. Matt. 10:16–23; Luke 21:16–32; Matt. 23:31–36; John 21:19–22; Rev. 6:10–11; 16:6, 15; 18:5, 20). The only unrelated death mentioned in the Gospels is that of Judas.

Jesus’ teaching echoes the book of Daniel:

• The kingdom would be established during the Roman Empire (cf. Dan. 2 & 7).
• Persecution of the saints would precede the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds, followed by their receiving of the kingdom (Dan. 7:13–22).

Premillennialist Thomas Ice offers a weak rebuttal to the preterist interpretation. He writes:

“A further problem with the preterist view is that our Lord said ‘some of those standing here…’ It is clear that the term ‘some’ would have to include at least two or more individuals… Peter notes that ‘John only survived among the 12 disciples till the destruction of Jerusalem.’”^[6]

This argument is flawed on two fronts. First, it wrongly assumes Jesus was speaking only to the Twelve. However, Mark’s parallel makes it explicit: “Then He called the crowd to Him along with His disciples and said…” (Mark 8:34–9:1). Jesus was addressing a broader group, not just the apostles.

Second, Ice’s assumption that only John survived until AD 70 is speculative and irrelevant. “Some” could easily apply to members of the broader crowd Jesus addressed—even if only a few survived the predicted judgment.

Taken together with his earlier claim that “Verily I say unto you” introduces a new topic (which it never does), this reflects a pattern of misinterpretation. Such oversights are surprising from someone regarded as a prophecy expert and public debater.

(4) “…in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him, when he cometh…” (Mark 8:38).

Jesus is not accusing His audience of physical adultery, but of spiritual and covenantal unfaithfulness. By calling them an “adulterous generation,” He is identifying Israel as the unfaithful bride who rejected her Messiah—the Groom standing before them. Though Mark 8:38 doesn’t explicitly mention Jerusalem’s divorce and remarriage, it alludes to them through the language of shame and covenant judgment. The coming of the Son of Man “with His reward” evokes wedding imagery from Isaiah 62:4–5, 11, linking judgment with the eschatological marriage feast.

Under the old covenant, God was “married” to Israel (cf. Exod. 19–24). This relationship was depicted as monogamous, and later—after the kingdom split—as polygamous. In this analogy, God took two “sisters” as wives:

• Israel (Aholah/Samaria, capital of the northern kingdom)
• Judah (Aholibah/Jerusalem, capital of the southern kingdom) (cf. Jer. 31:31–32; Ezek. 1:1–4; 1 Kings 11:9–13).

Both “wives” committed spiritual adultery. Israel was divorced and judged through the Assyrian captivity. Judah, though judged by Babylon, remained under covenant—because from her line would come the Messiah.

The prophet Hosea dramatizes Israel’s divorce and burial among the Gentiles, while anticipating Judah’s future judgment and a restored marriage in the “wilderness” (Hos. 2). This renewed covenant, fulfilled in Christ, would be a remarriage—a new bride formed from both Jews and Gentiles.

Under old covenant law, an adulterous wife was to be stoned, and a priest’s wife burned. Revelation 19 portrays Jerusalem—the unfaithful harlot—as judged accordingly. She is stripped and left “ashamed” (cf. Rev. 17:16). In contrast, the church—Christ’s new bride—is clothed in righteousness, the “New Jerusalem” from above (cf. Matt. 22:1–14; Rev. 3:18; 19:8; 21:2; 2 Cor. 5:1–21).

Thus, when Jesus says He will be “ashamed” of that generation at His coming, He is invoking a prophetic tradition of marital judgment and covenant transition. The unfaithful wife would be exposed; the faithful bride would be glorified.

These marriage and judgment motifs will reappear later in this chapter—in Jesus’ parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1–12) and in Revelation 17–21, where the full picture of Jerusalem’s divorce and the Church’s betrothal is fully revealed.

(5) “…There are certain of those here standing, who shall in nowise taste of death, until they see the kingdom of God, already come in power” (Mark 9:1, Rotherham Translation).

Mark’s version of this prophecy adds a key detail: some standing in the crowd would live to see Christ’s kingdom already come in power. Unlike Matthew, who uses the future tense (“will see”), Mark uses the perfect participle, indicating a completed action—they would witness that it had already arrived. Kenneth Gentry, citing J.A. Alexander, clarifies this point:

“Here “come” is “not, as the English words may seem to mean, in the act of coming (till they see it come), but actually or already come, the only sense that can be put upon the perfect participle here employed.”[12] Thus, His disciples were to expect its exhibition in power. It was not powerfully to evidence itself immediately, for many of His disciples would die before it acted in power. Yet it was to be within the lifetimes of others, for “some” standing there would witness it. This seems clearly to refer to the A.D. 70 destruction of the temple and removal of the Old Testament means of worship (cf. Heb. 12:25–28; Rev.1:1, 3, 9). This occurred as a direct result of Jesus’ prophecies (John 4:21–23; Mt. 21:33ff.; 23:31–34:34).^[7]

In other words, Jesus wasn’t merely predicting a future event—He was assuring His disciples that some of them would look backand recognize that the kingdom had already arrived in power. This was fulfilled in the AD 70 destruction of the temple and the end of the Old Covenant system—events Jesus had explicitly predicted (cf. John 4:21–23; Matt. 21:33ff.; 23:31–24:34).

Jesus also says they would “see” His coming. The Greek word eidō implies more than physical sight—it includes spiritual perception or understanding. Some in His audience would both witness the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and grasp that this was the fulfillment of His promise: the kingdom had come “with power” and was now present “within” (Luke 17:21).

This reading aligns Mark 8:38–9:1 with Luke 17:20–37 and affirms that Jesus’ coming was not a visible removal of believers from the earth, but a covenantal transition. It rebuts futurist “rapture” interpretations and supports the view that survivors remained to spread the good news in the renewed new covenant creation—just as Isaiah foresaw (cf. Isa. 65–66).

(6) Matthew 16:27–28 and the Olivet Discourse—The Analogy of Faith (Jesus Interprets Jesus)

Earlier we saw that Matthew 10:17–23 previews themes expanded in the Olivet Discourse. Likewise, Matthew 16:27–28 condenses Jesus’ teaching on His coming in glory, judgment, and power—later unpacked in greater detail in Matthew 24–25.

Matthew 16:27-28 & Parallels	Olivet Discourse
(1)  Christ comes in glory (Luke 9:26)	(1)  Christ comes in glory (Matt. 24:30)
(2)  Christ comes with angels (Matt. 16:27)	(2)  Christ comes with angels (Matt. 24:31)
(3)  Christ comes in judgment (Matt. 16:27)	(3)  Christ comes in judgment (Matt. 24:28–31; 25:31–34)
(4)  Christ and the kingdom come in power (Mark 8:38)	(4)  Christ and the kingdom come in power (Luke 21:27–32)
(5)  Some disciples would live (Matt. 16:28)	(5)  Some disciples would live (Luke 21:16–18)
(6)  Some disciples would die (Matt. 16:28)	(6)  Some disciples would die (Luke 21:16)
(7)  Christ would be ashamed of some in His “this adulterous generation”(Mark 8:38)	(7)  All would occur in His “this generation” (Matt. 24:34)

Premillennial Zionists like Thomas Ice argue that verse 28 refers to the transfiguration, not the second coming. To support this, Ice claims that “verily I say unto you” introduces a new topic.^[8] But this phrase never introduces new material—it always links and emphasizes what came before.

The Greek conjunction kai (“and”) does mark narrative progression: “And after six days Jesus…” (Matt. 17:1). Yet the transfiguration is not the fulfillment—it is a preview of Christ’s glory and His new covenant authority.

At the transfiguration, Peter wants to preserve the visible glory of Moses and Elijah. But God removes them, leaving only Christ’s glory and the command to “hear Him” (Matt. 17:5–8). This symbolizes the passing away of the old covenant and the supremacy of the new (cf. Matt. 24:35).

Peter later clarifies this in 2 Peter 1:16–19, where he defends the second coming against critics. He appeals not to speculation but to the vision on the mount as confirmation from God. Though Peter doesn’t use metamorphoō(“transfigured”), he invokes the same imagery: “until the Day dawns and the Morning Star rises in your hearts”—a reference to the “last day” of John’s Gospel and the “in that day” of Luke 17 and Matthew 24–25.

The verb metamorphoō appears only two other times: in Romans 12:2 and 2 Corinthians 3:18. In both, it signifies a spiritual, covenantal transformation, not a biological one. In Romans, this transformation culminates in the fullness of Jew and Gentile salvation (Rom. 11:25–36), and is tied to the imminent arrival of final redemption (Rom. 13:11–12). In 2 Corinthians, believers are “being transformed” as the veil of the old covenant lifts, reflecting Christ’s glory with unveiled faces.

The fading glory of Moses—and of Moses and Elijah at the transfiguration—illustrates the end of the old covenant. The new covenant brings unfading, eternal light, allowing the church to behold Christ’s glory forever (2 Cor. 4:6; Rev. 22:4).

The Transfiguration as a Preview of the Parousia  

Sam Waldron interprets Matthew 16:27 as the second coming event but Christ coming in His kingdom of verse 28 as having,

“…language of Christ coming in His kingdom would appear, then, to be a reference to his transfiguration on the mount which was a kind of precursor of His second coming in glory.”[9]

If the transfiguration is a foreshadowing of the Futurists concept of the second coming or parousia, we should ask: where in that vision do we see the planet earth burning, Christ descending on a literal cloud, or corpses flying out of tombs to reunite with their spirits?

None of these popular images appear. Instead, the transfiguration reveals the theological essence of the parousia: the passing glory of the old covenant, represented by Moses (law) and Elijah (prophets) giving way to the abiding glory of the new covenant, fully established by AD 70.

Waldron also tries to make a distinction or “contrast” between Christ “coming in glory” (v. 27) verses Him “coming in His kingdom” in (v. 28) as being two separate comings separated by thousands of years.  But once again Mr. Waldron does not go back to Jesus’ OT source of Daniel 7:13-14 which connects Him coming upon the clouds in glory with His kingdom.  Nor is there any discussion of how Christ both comes in His glory and the kingdom within His generation in the Olivet discourse (cf. Luke 21:27-32).  Therefore, Paul under inspiration connected Christ’s coming and His kingdom as “about to” arrive together anticipating the events of AD 70,

“I fully testify, then, before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who is about to judge the living and dead at His appearing and His kingdom (2 Tim. 4:1 LSV/SLT/YLT/BLT).

The first two major teachings on the coming of the Son of Man—Matthew 10:17–23 and Matthew 16:27–28 (paralleled in Mark 8:38–9:1)—serve as condensed previews of the fuller exposition Jesus gives in the Olivet Discourse:

Matthew 10:17–23 / 16:27–28 & Parallels	Olivet Discourse
(1) Delivered up to councils and synagogues (Matt. 10:17)	(1) Delivered up to local councils and synagogues (Mark 13:9)
(2) Brought before governors and kings to be witnesses to the Gentiles(Matt. 10:18)	(2) Brought before governors and kings to be witnesses to the Gentiles(Mark 13:9)
(3) Holy Spirit would speak through them (Matt. 10:19–20)	(3) Holy Spirit would speak through them (Mark 13:11)
(4) Betrayal and persecution; stand firm to the end (Matt. 10:22)	(4) Betrayal and persecution; stand firm to the end (Mark 13:12–13)
(5) Disciples would not exhaust cities of refuge before the Son of Man’s coming (Matt. 10:23)	(5) Disciples (and later Paul) would preach the gospel to the then known world before “the end” (of the OC age) and the coming of the Son of Man(Matt. 24:14; Mark 13:10)
(6) Christ comes in glory (Luke 9:26)	(6) Christ comes in glory (Matt. 24:30)
(7) Christ comes with angels (Matt. 16:27)	(7) Christ comes with angels (Matt. 24:31)
(8) Christ comes in judgment  (Matt. 16:27)	(8) Christ comes in judgment (Matt. 24:28–31; 25:31–34)
(9) Christ and the kingdom come in power (Mark 8:38)	(9) Christ and the kingdom come in power (Luke 21:27–32)
(10) Some in the crowd would live to witness the second coming  (Matt. 16:28)	(10) Some in the crowd would livetowitness the second coming (Luke 21:16–18)
(11) Some in the crowd would diebefore the second coming (Matt. 16:28)	(11) Some in the crowd would diebefore the second coming (Luke 21:16)
(12) Christ would come soon and be ashamed of His generation (Matt. 16:27, YLT; Mark 8:38)	(12) All fulfilled in His “this generation” (Matt. 24:33–34; Luke 21:27–32)

Before closing, as we did in Matthew 10, I will demonstrate that Jesus once again has Daniel’s prophetic material at the forefront of his mind:

Daniel 7; 9; & 12	Matthew 16:27-28 & Parallels
1).  The Son of Man / Messiah comes during the time of the 4th or Roman Empire on the clouds “as” or “like” “the Ancient of Days” (Dan. 7:13 (OG) LXX)	1).  Jesus was living in the time of the Roman Empire and was “about to come” “in his glory and the glory of His Father” within the lifetime of those standing in the crowd (Luke 9:26-27)
2).  This is when Christ rules in His kingdom & the saints inherit His kingdom            (Dan. 7:14, 27)	2).  Christ and His kingdom come in power and glory at this time (Matt. 16:27-28)
3).  This would be when the Ancient of Days would “open the books” in the Great White Throne judgment (Dan. 7:10) *  This is not the ascension, but the Second Coming at the end of the millennium when the “book(s) are opened” and the dead are raised and judged – 7:10-13; 9:24-27; 12:1-2	3).  This would be when Jesus would judge or “repay each person according to what they had done” (Matt. 16:27) *  Jesus is invoking the context and fulfillment of Dan. 7; 9; and 12 when Messiah was understood to come to judge and raise the dead – cf. 11QMelch.

Partial Preterism and Matthew 16:27-28

While many partial preterists agree with us that Matthew 16:27–28 form a unified declaration by Christ foretelling His AD 70 coming to judge, reward, and establish His kingdom, others—such as Kenneth Gentry—disagree. In an article on this passage, Gentry seeks to redefine what constitutes “orthodox preterism” on this critical text. He claims that anyone who sees verses 27 and 28 as referring to the same AD 70 event is veering into “liberalism” or advocating “hyper-preterism.”

Gentry’s position is that verse 27 refers to the Second Coming of Christ at the end of world history, when all men are rewarded, whereas verse 28 pertains to Christ’s coming to manifest His kingdom in the fall of Jerusalem.

However, this sharply contradicts the views of other prominent partial preterists such as Gary DeMar, who swiftly responded to Gentry, pointing out that many respected commentators throughout church history have interpreted Matthew 16:27 as a reference to Christ’s coming in judgment in AD 70. These include Adam Clarke, Henry Hammond, and—ironically—Gentry’s own favored “orthodox preterist,” John Lightfoot. Ouch.[10]

We must also mention Gentry’s contemporary, Keith Mathison, who likewise interprets both Matthew 16:27–28 as referring to Christ’s judgment upon Jerusalem. Mathison even uses this passage as a foundational support for his view that Christ came in flaming fire to bring relief to the persecuted Thessalonian Church and wrath upon their persecutors in AD 70 (2 Thess. 1:7–9). This is particularly noteworthy since many “orthodox preterists” consider that fiery coming in 2 Thessalonians 1 to be the Second Coming event that ends the millennium (cf. Rev. 20:5–15). Will Gentry now accuse Mathison—his own co-author and editor of When Shall These Things Be?—of advancing a “hyper-preterist” or “liberal” interpretation of Matthew 16:27–28 and 2 Thessalonians 1:7–9? Gentry’s appeal to “orthodox preterism” quickly collapses under the weight of his own theological allies, including Lightfoot and Mathison.

Gentry offers two primary arguments for why Matthew 16:27–28 must refer to two entirely separate comings of Christ, separated by thousands of years.

First Argument: Alleged Universal End of Time Judgment in Matthew 16:27

Gentry argues that verse 27 refers to a final judgment of all mankind because Jesus says He will “repay every man”:

“In v. 27 we see the universal nature of His coming: He ‘will then repay every man.’ Thus, all men will be involved in His judgment.”

This is deeply ironic, considering Gentry admits elsewhere that Revelation 22:10–12—where Christ says He is coming soon to repay each person according to what he has done—was fulfilled in AD 70[11]:

“Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done” (Rev. 22:12).

Let us respond directly to Gentry’s first point:

• Matthew 16:27 (YLT) clearly states that the Son of Man was “about to come” (Gr. mellō) to judge and reward all men. Revelation 22:12 uses nearly identical language, affirming Christ’s soon coming to bring recompense to each person. The time-frame and substance match perfectly.
• Both passages draw directly from Daniel 7:10–13, where the Son of Man comes in judgment during the Roman Empire, the books are opened, and all are judged. This judgment scene not only matches Matthew 16:27 and Revelation 22:12 but also forms the same judgment after the millennium in Revelation 20:12–13.
• Revelation 22:10 declares that the “appointed time” for the vision isnear and should not be sealed, in contrast to Daniel 12:4, 9, where the vision is not near and thus sealed. Daniel 12:2–7 describes “the appointed time” for the resurrection and judgment occurring at the time of the tribulation, during the final three-and-a-half years when Jerusalem would be “completely shattered” (Dan. 12:7)—i.e., AD 67–70. Thus, Matthew 16:27 and Revelation 22:10–12 are speaking of the same near and imminent judgment, rooted in Daniel’s vision of the coming of the Son of Man to open the books and judge all men (Dan. 7:10–13; Rev. 20:12–13 = Rev. 22:10–12).

Second Argument: Supposed Difference Between Christ’s “Coming in Glory” and “Coming in the Kingdom”

Gentry claims that the “coming in glory” in verse 27 is distinct from the “coming in His kingdom” in verse 28. But this argument collapses upon closer biblical inspection.

As demonstrated elsewhere, Jesus consistently links His coming in glory, power, judgment, and the arrival of His kingdom in texts such as Matthew 24:30–31, Mark 13:26–30, Luke 17:20–37, and Luke 21:27–32. There is no disjunction between His “coming” and the arrival of the “kingdom”—they are concurrent events.

Paul also affirms this in 2 Timothy 4:1 (YLT), where Christ’s about to be (mellō) coming or appearance brings both the kingdom and the judgment of the living and the dead—a clear reference to the same AD 70 event.

In short, Gentry has no legitimate exegetical basis for separating Matthew 16:27–28. His own admission that Revelation 22:10-12 was fulfilled in AD 70 refutes his insistence that Matthew 16:27 must be a future, world-ending event. And his attempt to redefine “orthodox preterism” not only contradicts biblical context but alienates his theological heroes and peers.

Major Premise:

The coming of the Son of Man in judgment, glory, and power to recompense described in Matthew 16:27 / Mark 8:38-9:1 is the same event as the coming of the kingdom in power described in Matthew 16:28, and both are tied to the AD 70 judgment on Jerusalem—as affirmed by intertextual parallels with Daniel 7:10–13; 12:2–7, Revelation 22:10–12, Revelation 20:12–13, 2 Thessalonians 1:7–9, and Jesus’ own teaching in Matthew 24:30–31, Mark 13:26–30, Luke 17:20–37, and Luke 21:27–32.

Minor Premise:

All these texts (Matthew 16:27–28; Revelation 22:12; Daniel 7:10–13; Revelation 20:12–13; 2 Thess. 1:7–9; etc.) describe one unified judgment-coming of Christ:

• That was“about to” (Gr. mellō) or “soon” (Rev. 22:10–12),
• That bringsjudgment and reward,
• That occurswithin the lifetimes of Jesus’ first-century audience (Matt. 16:28),
• And that is consistently connected to thedestruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Old Covenant age (Dan. 12:2-7; Luke 21:27–32; Matt. 24:3–34).

Conclusion:

Therefore, Matthew 16:27–28 refers to the same first-century, AD 70 coming of Christ in judgment and kingdom / glory / power and cannot be divided into two separate comings thousands of years apart. Kenneth Gentry’s attempt to divide the verses is exegetically, contextually, and theologically untenable.

Conclusion

Matthew 16:27–28, paralleled in Mark 8:38–9:1, stands as a pivotal teaching on the imminent coming of the Son of Man in His glory and kingdom, fulfilled in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Old Covenant age. Jesus’ declaration that “some standing here shall not taste death” until they see the kingdom come in power (Matt. 16:28; Mark 9:1) underscores the first-century timeframe, reinforced by the Greek mellō (“about to”) and the consistent use of “this generation” across His teachings. Drawing on Daniel 7:13–14, Jesus connects His coming with judgment, reward, and the establishment of His mediatorial kingdom, themes echoed in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24–25). The transfiguration, often misread as the fulfillment, serves instead as a preview of this eschatological event, symbolizing the transition from the fading glory of the Old Covenant to the eternal light of the New Covenant.

Exegetical arguments—such as the continuity affirmed by “verily I say unto you,” the covenantal imagery of an “adulterous generation,” and the spiritual perception implied by “see”—refute futurist attempts to separate verses 27 and 28 or project the coming to a distant future. Dispensationalist claims, like those of Thomas Ice, lack textual support and misinterpret key phrases, while the preterist view aligns with historical evidence (Jerusalem’s fall) and New Testament imminence (e.g., 2 Tim. 4:1). By framing His coming as a covenantal judgment and marital transition, Jesus fulfills Old Testament prophecies (Isa. 62; Hos. 2) and establishes the Church as His new bride. Matthew 16:27–28 thus lays a foundation for the Olivet Discourse, affirming that Christ’s Parousia in AD 70 was a transformative event, bringing judgment on the unfaithful and glory to the faithful, with the kingdom now present in the hearts of believers (Luke 17:21) and proclaimed in the new covenant age.

Major Premise:
Daniel 7:13–14 foretells the Son of Man coming with the clouds during the Roman Empire to receive dominion, glory, and a kingdom, accompanied by judgment, the opening of the books, and the vindication of the saints—events tied to “the end” (Dan. 7:10–27; 12:1–2).

Minor Premise:
In Matthew 16:27–28, Jesus draws directly from Daniel’s prophecy, declaring He was about to come in the glory of His Father with His angels to reward each person. He also promises that some standing there would live to see His kingdom come with power—mirroring His earlier teaching in Matthew 10:23 and later exposition in Matthew 24:27–34, where the same coming, judgment, and kingdom arrival occur within “this generation.”

Conclusion:
Therefore, Matthew 16:27–28 describes the same coming of the Son of Man as in Matthew 10:23 and Matthew 24:27–34—a unified eschatological event fulfilled in AD 70, when Christ came in judgment upon apostate Israel, ended the Old Covenant age, and established His kingdom in power, all in perfect fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecies.

Study Questions for Matthew 16:27-28:

1. How does the phrase “about to come” (Greekmellō) in Matthew 16:27 influence your understanding of the timing of Christ’s return in this passage?
2. Why is it significant that Jesus links the promise of His coming in glory (v. 27) directly with a promise that some of His audience would live to see it (v. 28)? How does this challenge futurist interpretations?
3. What role does Daniel 7:9-13, 12:2-4 play in shaping Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 16:27–28, and how does this Old Testament background reinforce a preterist view?
4. What exegetical evidence undermines the claim (by Thomas Ice and others) that Matthew 16:27 and 16:28 refer to two separate events?
5. Why is the phrase “Truly I say unto you” (amēn legō humin) important in arguing for the unity of verses 27 and 28? How is it used elsewhere in the Gospels?
6. In what ways does the transfiguration serve as a preview, rather than a fulfillment, of the Parousia? What theological themes are symbolized in the fading of Moses and Elijah and the sole exaltation of Christ?
7. How does Mark 9:1’s use of the perfect participle (“already come with power”) contribute to the case for a first-century fulfillment of the kingdom’s arrival?
8. What is the covenantal significance of Jesus calling His generation “adulterous,” and how does this shape our understanding of His coming in judgment?
9. How do Paul’s words in 2 Timothy 4:1 (YLT) (about Christ being “about to judge” at His appearing and His kingdom) harmonize with Matthew 16:27–28 and support an AD 70 fulfillment?
10. Why do some partial preterists (like Kenneth Gentry) divide these verses into two different comings, and how does that compare to the unified approach held by figures like Adam Clarke, John Lightfoot, and Keith Mathison? Whose reading do you find more compelling—and why?
11. Does Gentry’s argument for dividing Matthew 16:27–28 hold up, given that he also takes Revelation 22:10–12 and Daniel 12:2 as fulfilled in AD 70? Is he not creating an artificial distinction between two comings of Jesus in order to later justify the same division in Matthew 24–25?Does Gentry desperately need a future to us coming of Jesus to remain creedal and do you think this is the main reason for his eisegesis of Matthew 16:27-28?

Books by Michael Sullivan: https://fullpreterism.com/product-category/books/

Website: fullpreterism.com

Patreon.com/MikeJSullivan

YouTube teaching videos: @michaelsullivan6868

X: @Preteristesch

 

[1] Adam Clarke, StudyLight.org Matthew 16:27

[2] Ibid.

[3] John Lightfoot, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Vol. 2 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1979), 422.

[4] Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ:  P&R Publishing, 1999), 228

[5] Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, End Times Controversy: The Second Coming Under Attack (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), 87.

[6] Ibid., 88.

[7] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., He Shall Have Dominion, 219–220.

[8] Ice, End Times Controversy, 88.

[9] Waldron, Ibid. 382

[10] Gary DeMar, How Commentators Interpret Matthew16:27 https://americanvision.org/posts/how-commentators-interpret-matthew-16-27/?fbclid=IwY2xjawEWUWdleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHfy7eL-ioS_c-VtPJ-hBZEKCECb9t8OV_k4wVY2S-s3cbqKrbttycQM9kg_aem_D9hGO8_vbMh0Uv-mxr7JUw

[11] Kenneth Gentry and contributors, FOUR VIEWS ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), 41