The Narrow Path Ministries

Matthew 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. 28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. KJV

This passage may have been discussed previously on the forum and I would be glad to read that thread if someone can direct me to it. My question is whether verse 28 refers specifically to the resurrection while verse 27 appears to possibly refer to the second coming. I question that because in 27b he mentions rewarding every man according to his works. By the way, this thread is not meant to discuss faith vs. works nor dispensational vs. preterist views of the second coming unless either of these topics must be discussed to understand these verses. Just a friendly little ground rule.

livingink

Hi livingink, I'll simply paste what I wrote in the Radio Topic section.

On Friday’s program a question was asked about Matthew 16:27-28. I have essentially the same view as you Steve with one minor variation (or perhaps you hold the same view but, due to time, didn’t elucidate). You stated that vs. 27 is about the second coming. You then gave a lucid explanation as to how vs. 28 could be referring to the transfiguration or Pentecost but ultimatly felt it was referring to AD70. I agree that vs. 27 is referring to the second coming. I also think that vs. 28 is referring ultimately to AD70 but here’s where I want to add something. I tend to think the transfiguration and Pentecost are involved somewhat in vs.28 with the culmination in AD70. Let me explain….

My thinking was steered in this direction from a combined reading of Matthew Henry and John Calvin’s commentaries. I took a little from each of them.

Up until the time before the transfiguration Jesus was seen as a man (from a human perspective anyway). Therefore when he made the statement about the second coming and the subsequent judgment it was certainly an incredible statement to make. In order to provide evidence and/or assurance that he could be taken at his word he made the promise of his soon coming kingdom. Here’re Calvin’s words:

VS. 27 In the glory of the Father, with his angels. These are mentioned to guard his disciples against judging of his kingdom from present appearances; for hitherto he was unknown and despised, being concealed under the form
and condition of a servant. He assures them that it will be far otherwise when he shall appear as the Judge of the world………….
28. Verily, I say to you. As the disciples might still hesitate and inquire when that day would be, our Lord animates them by the immediate assurance, that he will presently give them a proof of his future glory…………. To support his disciples in the meantime, our Lord holds out to them, for confirmation, an intermediate period; as much as to say, “If it seem too long to wait for the day of my coming, I will provide against this in good time; for before you come to die, you will see with your eyes that kingdom of God, of which I bid you entertain a confident hope.”

I have a tendency to think that the transfiguration was an early foretaste of that kingdom. Although it was not the ultimate fulfillment of vs.28, I see it as directly connected to the prophecy……..an unveiling of things to come.

Pentecost was also a “coming” of the kingdom. In a similar sense we all see the kingdom of God today. Here’re Matthew Henry’s words:


At the end of time, he shall come in his Father's glory; but now, in the fulness of time, he was to come in his own kingdom, his mediatorial kingdom. Some little specimen was given of his glory a few days after this, in his transfiguration (Mat_17:1); then he tried his robes. But this points at Christ's coming by the pouring out of his Spirit, the planting of the gospel church, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the taking away of the place and nation of the Jews, who were the most bitter enemies to Christianity. Here was the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Many then present lived to see it, particularly John, who lived till after the destruction of Jerusalem, and saw Christianity planted in the world

Vs.28 is incomplete without AD70..... but I see the growing culmination of the transfiguration, Pentecost and then ultimately AD70 as connected in some sense. If Jesus predicted his kingdom would come through his resurrection, Pentecost, and ultimately his destruction of the temple (Mat 16:28, 24:2) then we can take him at his word when he says he’s coming back with his angels to judge (Mat 16:27).

Not much different than what you said Steve but I wanted to through in my 2 cents.

SteveF,

While you were pasting this answer to livingink, I was writing this one:

I believe that verse 27 is about the future second coming, resurrection and judgment (as per 2 Tim.4:1).

Some, therefore, think me inconsistent in taking verse 28 as predicting AD 70.

Both verses speak of the Son of Man "coming." Why would one be reference to the second coming at the end of time, and the other, in the same context, be speaking of AD 70?

I believe this would be quite consistent with the way the prophets of the Old Testament mixed their motifs. Very commonly, they would be talking about an action of God (say, a deliverance of His people) in the near term, and would, without warning, begin talking about the salvation of believers through the Messiah—which was to be fulfilled centuries later.

This is, I think, because the saving (and the judging) activity of God found expression in many short-term events (e.g., the exodus, the Babylonian exile and return, etc.), all of which were mere samplings or tokens of an ultimate saving (or judgment) event of the distant future.

Jesus predicts, in Matthew 16:27, an ultimate event of judgment that will encompass all of humanity at the end of the age—the ultimate "coming" of the Son of Man. He then tells the disciples that a token of that ultimate phenomenon will be seen even in their own lifetimes—a short-term "coming" of the Son of Man to judge His enemies in Jerusalem. This "coming" joins with all the previous "comings" in the Old Testament, when God "came" in judgment upon nations like Canaan (Lev.18:25), Egypt (Isa.19:1), other heathen nations (Ps.59:5*), Jerusalem, in 586 BC (Jer.5:9, 29; 6:15; 9:9*), Edom (Jer.49:8*), Babylon (Jer.50:31*), etc. He threatened similar short-term judgment-comings against Ephesus (Rev.2:5), Pergamos (Rev.2:16), and Sardis (Rev.3:3).

In other words, the principle of God or Christ "coming" in judgment is seen repeatably in history, having its ultimate manifestation at the end of time. To speak of that ultimate judgment, and also of a short-term one, in the same breath, is not particularly bizarre or unprecedented.

It might be a bit like a case in which deceased parents left to their son an inheritance of ten-million dollars, to be awarded in increments of ten-thousand dollars each month until his twenty-first birthday, after which he receives the whole balance. When first informing the boy of this arrangement, the attorney might say, "At the end of your childhood, you are going to receive over ten-million dollars from your parents' estate, which will guarantee your financial security permanently. In fact, even before your next birthday, you will see the benefits of the inheritance they left you."

This is why I have not found the difficulty that others have found in making these two verses predictive of two different events.

Blessings!

Steve


*In these verses, the reference to God's "visiting" is obscured by the paraphrastic practice of the NKJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV and NLT of substituting the word "punish" for the word "visit" (more accurate in the older KJV and the ASV).

steve wrote:
I believe that verse 27 is about the future second coming, resurrection and judgment (as per 2 Tim.4:1).

I am glad you brought in the Timothy reference conncecting the kingdom and appearing. Many refer to Matthew 16:27 as JUST referring to His kingdom and I believe it to be in error.

steve wrote:Some, therefore, think me inconsistent in taking verse 28 as predicting AD 70.

Actually, both your statements are quite correct! I think the use of "Verily" in verse 28 is conjunctive to Jesus' thoughts just moments before in the previous verse. How would His disciples realize the change of subjects, if there were two different topics? If I were there, it would have been a natural course of conversation to believe the topic had not changed. What exactly do you believe signals the change of topic (if there were two) so that the disciples could understand? This same kind of "analysis" is purported into Matthew 24. And best of all, there is no change of subjects. Both verses point to the same event. But this thinking is not usually welcome because it interferes with our paradigms. I think it is about time that we allow Scripture to establish our paradigms and not reinterpret Scripture to match our paradigms. A harsh statement to be sure, but I think a very truthful one. My paradigms didn't match and I had to change accordingly. We are a stubborn and proud people - myself at the top of that list.

steve wrote:Both verses speak of the Son of Man "coming." Why would one be reference to the second coming at the end of time, and the other, in the same context, be speaking of AD 70?

I believe this would be quite consistent with the way the prophets of the Old Testament mixed their motifs. Very commonly, they would be talking about an action of God (say, a deliverance of His people) in the near term, and would, without warning, begin talking about the salvation of believers through the Messiah—which was to be fulfilled centuries later.

This is, I think, because the saving (and the judging) activity of God found expression in many short-term events (e.g., the exodus, the Babylonian exile and return, etc.), all of which were mere samplings or tokens of an ultimate saving (or judgment) event of the distant future.

Would you be willing to provide me with 2 definite OT examples and the references that clearly express your above thought? The reason I ask is simply because I have heard that kind of analysis for years, yet I could never seem to find the support in the Scriptures themselves. To me, and I speak concerning other's views here (nothing personal at all) is that this kind of talk merely "protects" a present paradigm. For example, in Isaiah 13, Charles Ryrie believes that the demise of Babylon is a "type" of His future coming because he can not accept the figurative language expressed in that chapter. I speak expressly of Isaiah 13:10. His own Bible notes point to Matthew 24:29 as being indicative of this "proof." But, what he and many others do not understand is the figurative language of those celestial commotions is common in judgment and is even reversed in blessing (Isaiah 30:26). Ryrie (and others) incorporate a different (physical, literal) hermeneutic into the NT than that of the OT, which I find very surprising because during Christ's personal ministry there only was the OT Scriptures. And of course, Ryries typology varies. Does he believe the demise of Egypt at the hand of the Babylonians is also a "type" of the second coming? If he does, then he has "typed" both Babylon as judge and victim. To me, that is inconsistent typology.

steve wrote:Jesus predicts, in Matthew 16:27, an ultimate event of judgment that will encompass all of humanity at the end of the age—the ultimate "coming" of the Son of Man. He then tells the disciples that a token of that ultimate phenomenon will be seen even in their own lifetimes—a short-term "coming" of the Son of Man to judge His enemies in Jerusalem. This "coming" joins with all the previous "comings" in the Old Testament, when God "came" in judgment upon nations like Canaan (Lev.18:25), Egypt (Isa.19:1), other heathen nations (Ps.59:5*), Jerusalem, in 586 BC (Jer.5:9, 29; 6:15; 9:9*), Edom (Jer.49:8*), Babylon (Jer.50:31*), etc.

Could you explain from the Scripture how it is that Jesus presents just a "token" of that judgment is to be seen by his disciples and how you would differentiate between a short-term coming and the "real" coming? Where does Jesus tell His disciples that he is now talking about a different "coming"? I was under the impression that there are only two comings - 1st advent and 2nd advent. Dispensationalists have three for sure.

steve wrote: He threatened similar short-term judgment-comings against Ephesus (Rev.2:5), Pergamos (Rev.2:16), and Sardis (Rev.3:3).

Could it be that these short-term comings was the actual coming? Is not what John said in Rev 1:1 and Rev 1:3 concerning the timing of these events of any use? Why would John again repeat those same two time statements in Rev 22:6 and Rev 22:10? I find that most people would rather prefer to ignore what John said under inspiration simply because it disagrees with their own paradigm.

steve wrote:In other words, the principle of God or Christ "coming" in judgment is seen repeatably in history, having its ultimate manifestation at the end of time. To speak of that ultimate judgment, and also of a short-term one, in the same breath, is not particularly bizarre or unprecedented.

I am not sure why you would use the phrase "end of time" because it is not something used anywhere. Daniel speak of the "time of the end" in four different places, but never the "end of time." It is a misnomer. I would agree that God's coming in judgment throughout the OT is a definite pattern for the final Parousia coming. To me, when Jesus said His coming would be "in the glory of his Father," it is indicative of the way He also would come. And God always used either men or other natural means to bring about His judgment. Can you give me a example from Scripture that speaks of "that ultimate judgment, and also of a short-term one, in the same breath," because these are very important statements you bring up?

As for the transfiguration being representative (a glimpse) of His final coming, I couldn't agree more. The trouble is, how would his disciples know whether this example is of the final judgment or the "token" judgment? Jesus Christ never tells them which one. And the reason that is, to me, is that there is only one consistent theme all along. Other themes are brought into the equation just to protect paradigms...

Have you ever considered the transfiguration in these terms? First of all, we know the new covenant had been inaugurated at the cross. The old covenant was made old or of no efffect, but it was still in practice by all those unbelieving Jews. (Hebrews 10:9) The old covenant was going to be completely wiped out at the Parousia giving total credibility and manifestation of the one kingdom in Christ. (Hebrews 8:13) It was going to vanish away and the time that Paul wrote this was roughly in the mid 60s. So, we are going to have an exchange of covenants once and for all. There would be no more going back to OT worship because there would be no more temple, no more genealogies, no more anything. The place got levelled. Now lets go back to the transfiguration event.

In the beginning, there was Moses and Elijah with Jesus and I believe this provides reference to Moses and the prophets as Paul and Jesus often spoke of (Luke 16:29, 31; 24:27, 44; John 1:45; Acts 26:22; 28:23) To me, this represents old covenant typology. And then at the end, it was Jesus alone. Does this not indicate the vanishing away and the manifestation of the one new covenant in Christ in very simplified terms? Does it not also blend well into the conversation about Elijah having come already in the next verses following?

But what about the two other parallel passages?

Mark 8:38-Mark 9:1 - Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Luke 9:26-27 - For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels. 27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

If there is only one kingdom of God and I would agree with that statement although dispenstionalists wouldn't, how is that there would be SOME alive in EACH account to witness the kingdom of God in power. Obviously, MOST would be alive to witness the transfiguration account. Because only some would be alive we are talking of a later time frame but still within their generation, consistent with Matthew 24:34 and many other verses.

Notice also that Christ referred to THIS adulterous and sinful generation which is elaborated all through the NT Scriptures. It was that generation who crucify the Lord Jesus, and persecuted His apostles and His church. Who else should pay? Some unknown group of people thousands of years removed from the context? I don't think so. Just imagine that the year is now 3945. Imagine also that the German and Japanese inhabitants are now being held accountable for what transpired in World War 2. Believe it or not, but this is exactly what most theologies believe!

steve wrote:It might be a bit like a case in which deceased parents left to their son an inheritance of ten-million dollars, to be awarded in increments of ten-thousand dollars each month until his twenty-first birthday, after which he receives the whole balance. When first informing the boy of this arrangement, the attorney might say, "At the end of your childhood, you are going to receive over ten-million dollars from your parents' estate, which will guarantee your financial security permanently. In fact, even before your next birthday, you will see the benefits of the inheritance they left you."

I would have to equate this allegory more or less along the lines of Hebrews 6:5.
Hopefully this post will contribute additional thoughts of benefit and won't be considered a "preterist" post and just written off. I believe I ask some very pertinent questions that no one seems to want to answer from the Scriptural record. I glady wait for repspones. Like I said in another post, "There is no one trying to disprove my position harder than myself." Blessings to one and all...

steve wrote: Blessings!

Steve

Steve wrote:*In these verses, the reference to God's "visiting" is obscured by the paraphrastic practice of the NKJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV and NLT of substituting the word "punish" for the word "visit" (more accurate in the older KJV and the ASV).

Thank you for this nugget of information, Steve. I checked the Septuagint and found that the Hebrew was translated into the Greek word "ἐπισκεπτομαι" [Strong's 1980]. This word in the New Testament could never be paraphrased as "punish". It literally means "look upon", "look", being in the sense of "observe". Thus the word in some contexts could be "inspect". Even in English, if we are going to visit someone, we often say that we are going to "look in on" that person.

In the following passages, the word is usually translated as "visit":

Matthew 25:36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited <1980> Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’
Matthew 25:43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit <1980> Me.’
Luke 7:16 Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, "A great prophet has arisen among us!" and, "God has visited <1980> His people!"
Acts 15:36 After some days Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us return and visit <1980> the brethren in every city in which we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are."
James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit <1980> orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

Sometimes "visit" will not do, and we must choose a different word to make good English:

Acts 6:3 Brothers, choose <1980> seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them. NIV

However, a more literal translation of Acts 6:3 would read "Look upon seven men, etc."

Mellontes,
Your responses were very well stated and I look forward to Steve's reply. Steve is a reasonable man and does like to have an intelligent discussion and not just statements otherwise unsupported, so, with confidence that it will happen, I look forward to a rewarding interaction between the 2 of you.

Mellontes wrote:

Could you explain from the Scripture how it is that Jesus presents just a "token" of that judgment is to be seen by his disciples and how you would differentiate between a short-term coming and the "real" coming? Where does Jesus tell His disciples that he is now talking about a different "coming"? I was under the impression that there are only two comings - 1st advent and 2nd advent. Dispensationalists have three for sure.

Mellontes, it seems to me the disciples were in fact able to make a distinction between various "comings". Peter referred to what happened on Mt Transfiguration as a part of His coming:

2Pe 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2Pe 1:17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,"
2Pe 1:18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.

It seems apparent to me that when Jesus made the incredible statement about him judging in the end with his angels, he wanted to provide assurance to back up what he said. Hence, he said "Verily I say to you ....till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom"

We take the words of Jesus for granted when he spoke of judging all mens works (vs 27). The disciples, at that time, hadn't seen the ressurection, nor Pentecost, nor Mt Transfiguration, nor 70AD. Therefore when Jesus made his comments about judging everyone (vs 27) I merely think he was saying (in vs 28) something like, "You're soon going to see ample evidence that I can be taken at my word...you will soon see my kingdom in action"

Hi Steve F. May I ask one clarifying question before I attempt to answer? Well, actually two, if you count the one I am really interested in

Which advent do you suppose Peter meant by the phrase "the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" in 2 Peter 1:16?

I probably won't be able to respond by today, but I'll try. Definitely by noon tomorrow.

Blessings!

Mellontes,

You asked for examples of the phenomenon of the prophets mixing short-term events with long-term events in the same oracles. Here are a very few of the numerous examples that are found in the prophets:

Isaiah 10:24—11:16
The chapter divisions, of course, are man-made. Chapter 10:24 introduces the promise that God will not allow Judah to fall (along with Samaria) to the Assyrian invaders. God will deliver Zion (Jerusalem) from this invasion. Before you know it, it is no longer the salvation of Jerusalem from Assyria, but the coming of the Messiah to save and restore (ch.11). There is no indication of a change in time of fulfillment, though the gap is one of seven centuries.

Isaiah 40—46
Throughout these chapters we find one, sustained prophecy of hope for the people of God, sometimes referring specifically to Cyrus (e.g., 41:2; 44:28; 45:1-4; 46:11) and the rescue from Babylon (43:14), intermixed with predictions about the coming of John the Baptist (e.g., 40:3-5) of Jesus (42:1-4), and of numerous developments that the New Testament writers apply to the new covenant era (e.g., 43:5-6; 44:3; 45:17, 23).

Jeremiah 31
A chapter beginning and ending with predictions of the restoration of Judah from Babylon, but containing (without notice of a change of subject) promises of the new covenant (e.g. vv.31-34) which was not established until 500 years later than that earlier restoration.

Ezekiel 36:16-36
Similar to the above. The best way to understand vv.25-27 is of the new covenant, though the verses just before and after this paragraph speak of restoring Judah from Babylon.

Zechariah 9
The chapter begins with the conquests of Alexander the Great, and progresses to the Macabbean war between Judah and the "sons of Greece"(v.13). In the midst of this discussion of events (that all occurred in pre-christian times), there is the prediction of God's sparing Jerusalem from Alexander's ravages (v.8). This is immediately followed by a glimpse forward to Christ's entering Jerusalem on a donkey, bringing salvation (v.9). Then, without notice, the view returns to the events post-Alexander, but pre-Christ.

This kind of mixing is a commonplace of prophetic writings. When a near-term event prefigures or agrees in principle with a more important far-term event, both seem to get discussed together.

I believe, as I have said, that Jesus is doing the same thing, in Matthew 16:27-28. I acknowledge that you have a good point in comparing the parallel in Mark 9, which mentions "this...generation." I would find it both convincing and unobjectionable, too. The main problem I have is the verbal similarities between Matthew 16:27 ans Matthew 25:31. The former speaks of Jesus coming in His Father's glory, with his holy angels, while the latter speaks of Christ coming in His own glory, and all the holy angels with Him. The language is nearly identical, suggesting identy of subject matter. My problem is that I can not bring myself to see the "sheep and the goats" judgment as applying to AD 70, at this point in my understanding (I do not see how the fate of the rebels in AD 70 subjected them to eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels). Perhaps I may someday change my mind. I suppose one might say that, in AD 70, Jesus came in His Father's glory, but, at the end of history, He will come in His own glory—which would allow your view of Matthew 16:27-28 and my view of Matthew 25:31...but that seems like a stretch to me, at this point.

You ask, if Matthew 16:27-28 has two different events in view, how were the disciples to know that these were two separate events? I suppose by the same means that Old Testament readers were to recognize two separate events in Zechariah 9, etc.: Either a) the Holy Spirit was to make it known to them, or, b) more likely, they were to learn simply by the outworking of history. They would already know well enough that "coming" was a word having generic application to God's judgments. If they expected that AD70 would result in the judgment of the whole world (as per v.27), then they would discover otherwise in due time, just as the Jews learned that the Messiah did not appear at the time of God sparing Jerusalem from Alexander's attacks. Jesus knew that many of His predictions would not be understood or fully appreciated prior to their fulfillments (John 13:19; 14:29; 16:4). We are assured that there were times when the disciples did not understand, prior to their fulfillment, Jesus' more cryptic predictions (e.g., John 2:21-22) or even some of His unvailed, plain predictions (e.g., Mark 9:31-32). Why should this be different?

While I accept that many references to Christ's "coming" are references to AD70, it seems a great stretch to say that He referred to AD70 and the destruction of Jerusalem in His references to His "coming" to Ephesus, Pergamos and Sardis. In what sense did He "come," at that time, to these cities? There was no judgment on those cities at the time of Jerusalem's destruction. Each of them met its end in its own time, though considerably later than AD70.

You are very concerned that we not allow ourselves to force scripture into a pre-accepted paradigm. Well, there are correct and incorrect paradigms. Those that arise from a faithful synthesis of the whole counsel of scripture provide a reliable framework by which to determine the correct interpretations of individual, unclear passages. Our paradigm itself must be capable of modification from new insights that various passages may provide in our future studies.

Every Bible student does this, as you yourself also do, whether inadvertently or consciously. Your paradigm seems to be: "It all happened in AD70." You appear to feel a compulsion to force even the most unpromising interpretations on certain passages in order to remain true to this pre-fabricated assumption.

I actually strive not to do that. I do not possess an a priori commitment to futurism, to preterism or to historicism. I actually do not have a position that I am interested in seeing proven. My own partial preterism is not a paradigm that I adopted, and then looked for ways to make obstinate passages conform to it. Partial preterism is simply a description of the position that I have tentatively reached as a result of my exegetical pursuit of the meaning of each passage. I would have no objection to learning that partial preterism is an incorrect synthesis, but such will require a more reasonable approach to hermeneutics than that which has been presented to me, to date, by full-preterists.

Hi Steve F. May I ask one clarifying question before I attempt to answer? Well, actually two, if you count the one I am really interested in

Which advent do you suppose Peter meant by the phrase "the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" in 2 Peter 1:16?

I probably won't be able to respond by today, but I'll try. Definitely by noon tomorrow.

Blessings!

Hi Mellontes, I think the coming is referring to Peter's personal earthly encounter with him. This would fall under the first advent.

What I'm specifically pointing to is Peter seemed to point to Mt Transfiguration as a specific manifistation(I'm trying to think of a better word than manifistation but can't come up with one right now) of his "coming in His kingdom" statement. The fact that the Transfiguration happend days after Christ's promise also seems to indicate this was a part of his "coming in the kingdom" promise. I think it was ultimately fulfilled/manifested (there's that word again...if you can think of a better one let me know) in 70AD. That's my present understand of how these two verses relate to each other.

I realize what I'm trying to say is nuanced but I'm hoping you can pick up on what I 'm attempting to articulate. I may not have made it entirely clear.

SteveF

PS...no hurries getting back, take care of the important things first! Relatively speaking....