Dean Alford (1868)
(This refers) "to the destruction of Jerusalem and the full manifestation of the kingdom of Christ by the annihilation of the Jewish polity." (in loc.)

Oswald T. Allis (1945)
"Here there is no room for doubt as to the meaning of the expression which describes those who are to witness the coming. It concerns some of those alive and present when the words were uttered. They are to witness the coming. Consequently, we may say with positiveness, that this coming must have taken place during the lifetime of the apostle John. The claim that these words of Jesus referred to the transfiguration is plainly inadequate. That event was too near at hand (about a week distant) to make the fact that some of Jesus' immediate followers would live to see it a sufficiently important matter to mention. The coming referred to seems most likely to be the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, at which time there was so far as we know no visible appearance of Christ." (Prophecy and the Church, p. 177).

Ken Gentry (1989)
"In Mark 9:1 Jesus promises that some of his hearers would not "taste of death" before witnessing the "coming of the kingdom with power." This almost certainly refers to the destruction of the temple at the behest of Christ..." (Before Jerusalem Fell, p. lii)

Henry Hammond (1634)
"V.28. Coming in his kingdome. The nearness of this to the story of Christ's Transfiguration, makes it probable to many, that this coming of Christ is that Transfiguration of his, but that cannot be, because the 27th ver. of the Son of mans coming in his glory with his Angels to reward, &c. (to which this verse clearly connects) cannot be applied to that; And there is another place, Joh. 21.23 (which may help to the understanding of this) which speaks of a real coming, and one principall person (agreeable to what is here said of some standing here) that should tarry, or not die, till that coming of his. And that surely was fulfilled in Johns seeing the pauoleoria, or famous destruction of the Jewes, which was to fall in that generation, Matt. 24. that is, in the life-time of some there present, and is called the kingdome of God, and the coming of Christ, and by consequence here most probably the son of mans coming in his kingdome, (see the Notes on Mat. 3:2, and ch. 24:3.b.) that is, his coming in the exervise of his Kingly office, to work vengeance on his enemies, and discriminate the faithfull believers from them." (in loc.)

G.R. Beasley-Murray (1954)
"we can now understand what Jesus meant when he spoke of his parousia as of an event which some of his contemporaries would experience (Matthew 10:23, 16:28, John 21:22): he was referring on these occasions to the fall of Jerusalem." (Quoting T. Zahn, Jesus and the Future, p. 130).

Adam Clarke (1837)
"[Isaiah 65 refers] to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish polity; which in the Gospel is called the coming of Christ and the days of vengeance, Matthew 16:28; Luke 21:22." (Isaiah 65, p. 513)

Johann Peter Lange (1857)
'emphatically placed at the beginning of the sentence; not a simple future, but meaning, The event is impending that He shall come; He is about to come.' (in loc.)

N. Nisbett (1787)
"While this work was in the press, a friend of mine put the sermons lately preached at Bapton's Lectures, by Ralph Churton, M. A. into my hands. I have been only able to run my eye over them in a very cursory manner; but he does not seem to interfere with my plan; except in applying Matt. xvi, 29, to his transfiguration; which I have referred to the time when the Jewish economy was to cease."

"His argument, that the ancients are unanimously on his side, has as little weight with me, as with the best commentators in modern times; for as Mr. Dodwell long ago observed; they fell far short of the solidity of the moderns, who excel them, not only in philosophy and learning, but in the knowledge of antiquity, and even of their own languages. The principal argument used by Mr. Churton, is the close connection of Matthew xvi, 28, and the parallel chapters of Mark and Luke, with the account of the transfiguration. But, with due submission, I think the connection is evidently, not with the transfiguration, but with the preceding context. We need only go back to the 27th verse, to perceive this, "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels, and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, there will be some standing here, who shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." -The coming of the Son of Man in the former, and his coming in his kingdom, in the latter of these verses, clearly determines the connection between the two; for in the account of the transfiguration, which immediately follows, there is not a word said of his coming. Besides, to foretel that the disciples would not die till an event took place which was to happen but six days after, this, as Bishop Newcome observes, would be a prophecy unworthy of Christ. I have only to add, that the same connection is observable in mark ix, 2, and in Luke ix, 28." (An Attempt to Illustrate..)

Theodore Robinson
"..it is clear that for some reason or other the first generation of Christians did expect his speedy return, and if this impression was not based on his own language, whence could it have come?" (The Gospel of Matthew, p. 195).

James Stuart Russell (1878)
"This remarkable declaration is of the greatest importance in this discussion, and may be regarded as the key to the right interpretation of the New Testament doctrine of the Parousia. Though it cannot be said that there are any special difficulties in the language, it has greatly perplexed the commentators, who are much divided in their explanations. It is surely unnecessary to ask what is the coming of the Son of man here predicted. To suppose that it refers merely to the glorious manifestation of Jesus on the mount of transfiguration, though an hypothesis which has great names to support it, is so palpably inadequate as an interpretation that it scarcely requires refutation.

"It is reasonable to suppose, therefore that had the evangelists known of a deeper and hidden meaning in the predictions of Christ, they would have given some intimation to that effect; but they say nothing to lead us to infer that their apparent meaning is not their full and true meaning. There is, in fact; no ambiguity whatever as to the coming referred to in the passage now under consideration. It is not one of several possible comings; but the one, sole, supreme event, so frequently predicted by our Lord, so constantly expected by His disciples. It is His coming in glory; His coming to judgment; His coming in His kingdom; the coming of the kingdom of God. It is not a process, but an act. It is not the same thing as 'the destruction of Jerusalem,'- that is another event related and contemporaneous; but the two are not to be confounded. The New Testament knows of only one Parousia, one coming in glory of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is altogether an abuse of language to speak of several senses in which Christ may be said to come, -- as at His own resurrection; at the day of Pentecost; at the destruction of Jerusalem; at the death of a believer; and at various providential epochs. This is not the usage of the New Testament, nor is it accurate language in any point of view. This passage alone contains so much important truth respecting the Parousia, that it may be said to cover the whole ground; and, rightly used, will be found to be a key to the true interpretation of the New Testament doctrine on this subject.

"The inference therefore is, that the Parousia, or glorious coming of Christ, was declared by Himself to fall within the limits of the then existing generation,- a conclusion which we shall find in the sequel to be abundantly justified." (The Parousia)

Planetpreterist.com

Copyright © by Planet Preterist - (453 Reads)