You took that completely out of context. In the SAME discourse in Matt 16, Jesus said that the Son of man would come with His fathers angels and render each man according to his works. (Paraphrase). Why would Christ speak to His disciples about living for Christ and the reward they would recieve for doing so and then change the subject for just 1 sentance???!! It does not follow even basic communication skills nor Christ's pattern. He always followed His prophecies (come with the angels) with a time statement (some here will not taste death). Matt 23 and 24 follow this SAME pattern.
Also Peter was just giving them confidence that his word was good in the matters of Christ and His return in glory, because he himself witnessed Christ's majesty on the mount.
He was using his presence on the mount as being proof he is a credible witness.
He, in no way, said that the transfiguration itself was a "parousia" of the kingdom.
YOU add that.
And to any coherent reader of Matt 16, the WHOLE CONTEXT, you are the one who complicates it.
You confuse a demonstration of Majesty with the coming of His kingdom? Doesn't it make more sense to say that the "reward" verse 27 is more consistant with a coming in the kingdom?
God Bless,
Nate
You took that completely out of context. In the SAME discourse in Matt 16, Jesus said that the Son of man would come with His fathers angels and render each man according to his works. (Paraphrase). Why would Christ speak to His disciples about living for Christ and the reward they would recieve for doing so and then change the subject for just 1 sentance???!!
Mt 16:27 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.
So your saying Christ came in glory with His angels and EVERY man was rewarded according to their works in 70AD, and no one saw it or heard about it? Boy, was the return of Christ over played. How many times was this great day prophesied, and written about, just to silently slip past the whole world.
Matthew 16:27, and 28, are two separate accounts of time. V-27 is when the Father chooses to end the age, and verse 28 is a preview of what this Jesus who everyone saw as a nice passive meek man, and what He would look like when He comes in his power at that time.
Have you found a way to spin around the fact that John wrote his books after 70AD, and he saw nothing significant enough about the return of Christ to bother mentioning it?
JH