In this passage it seems likely or at least plausible that the reference is 70 AD – something within a lifetime – but not immediate. Crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and Pentecost all occur in the short term, making the statement “some who are standing here” seem out of place in reference to these ? at least in English.
On the other hand, I really don’t see why the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem and the temple would be such a pivotal event in God’s history ? so pivotal that it would be preeminent over the events directly enacted by Jesus himself (crucifixion, resurrection, ascension) or the coming of the Spirit (Pentecost) as the manifestation of “the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” Is there any chance that “some who are standing here” is an appropriate expression in Aramaic or Greek for a pivotal near term event? Failing that ? why is 70 AD the pivotal event for the Son of Man coming into God’s glory and into his kingdom?

If we are bought with a price than we are no longer our own. Christ coming into His Kingdom without coming into us would be a cruel joke. To see Him as He is doesn’t mean we don’t see Him as He was since we know that He is changeless Love.
God’s restoration (purpose) means being at home in us (John 3:16)and you are right Scot that is Huge.
One of the huge experiences Stephen had was in Act 7:55 – But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
Losing with Jesus is wining with God.

Another very common interpretation of the event foretold is the transfiguration. That’s bothered me because the transfiguration happens hard on the heels of this and makes the choice of phrasing seem very odd. On the other hand, the Messiah coming into his power and glory in Christian thought is associated with the crucifixion and resurrection. So it’s hard to see how the destruction of Jerusalem fits into that picture.

I agree with Scott M – how does the destruction of Jerusalem fit in this picture – in particular as a vindication of Jesus? That sounds like the Temple was destroyed b/c Jesus was rejected and crucified – but that’s uncomfortable theology for me. And I thought Jesus’ comments about the destruction and rebuilding of the Temple referred to his crucifixion and resurrection? One thing’s clear to me – in my biblical studies classes, not much was made of the events of 70 AD. More and more, that’s looking like a glaring oversight.