I have been involved in a study of Matthew 16:27-28, which records Jesus saying he would come in the glory of the Father to reward each man according to his works, and that some of those standing by and listening would live to see him coming in his Kingdom. I have been showing how Jesus’ statement is founded upon Old Testament prophecies, such a s Isaiah 40, 62 and Daniel 7 and 9. I have also been showing that Matthew 16:27 cannot be separated from verse-28, which must be done, if the futurists’ eschatology is to be maintained. Moreover, I have proved why Matthew 16:28 could not be fulfilled in the Transfiguration or on the day of Pentecost. The only possible meaning for verse-28 is that it was fulfilled cir. 70 AD at the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, which I have said was also the fulfillment of Matthew 16:27.
One of the false arguments used against saying that Jesus spoke of the same events in both verses is: if Jesus told his listeners some of them would live to see his coming, then Jesus couldn’t possibly be speaking of his Second Coming. Why? False presumptions are immediately brought to the table, such as: “verse-27 is speaking of the end of time or the end of the Gospel age. Therefore verse-27 couldn’t be saying the same thing as verse-28, because (a) time did not end in the first century AD, and (b) the Gospel age didn’t end at that time either. In other words, Matthew 16:27 is speaking of the end of time, but the Bible **never** says anything about the end of time, so that argument is false, it is eisegesis not exegesis. Furthermore, the Bible never speaks of the “end of the Gospel age”. In fact, the scriptures conclude it is an age without end (cf. Daniel 2:44), so this, too, is a false argument (eisegesis).
What I would like to do in this study is to show how Matthew 16:27-28 is a single, united prophecy by comparing it with another one of Jesus’ prophecies, specifically, Matthew 25:31-46. Notice, first the scripture (Matthew 25:31) and then the chart below:
When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: (Matthew 25:31)
| Matthew 16:27-28 | Matthew 25:31f |
| Coming of the Son of Man (v. 27-28) | Coming of the Son of Man (v. 31) |
| Coming in Glory (v. 27) | Coming in Glory (v. 31) |
| With the angels (v. 27) | With the angels (v. 31) |
| Coming in judgment / reward (v. 27) | Judgment / reward (v. 32-46) |
| Coming in the Kingdom (v. 28) | Then shall he sit on the throne (v. 31) |
| There are some standing here that shall not taste of death until they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom (v.28) |
Both Matthew 16:27-28 and Matthew 25:31 speak of the coming of the Son of Man (Jesus). Both speak of Jesus coming in glory and with his angels. While Matthew 16:27 merely mentions Jesus coming to reward each man according to his works, Matthew 25:32-46 describes that judgment in greater detail. However, the key point in this study is to say Matthew 16:28 mentions that Jesus would come in his Kingdom, and its parallel scripture, Mark 9:1 says that coming is in power. Now notice Matthew 25:31. There, we are told that when Jesus comes in glory then he will sit on his throne.
Under what rule of logic, or what rule of grammar or context should we separate Matthew 16:27 from verse-28? Certainly, Matthew 25 is not two comings or two judgments. Matthew 25:31-46 is one, united discourse. It says the same things as Matthew 16:27-28. Why should we separate the coming of the Lord in Matthew 16:27 from his coming in verse-28 and not do the same in Matthew 25:31?
Smoodock's Blog 