That's a much later interpretation. His words - with multiple attestations - is that the son of man would be arriving to issue in the new kingdom within one generation.
He literally says the meek will inherit the earth. You're having to twist his words away from their literal meaning to arrive at your conclusions. He says the meek shall inherit the earth in the same breath he speaks of the coming kingdom of god - within a generation. He wasn't speaking in code, your twisting his words to fit your expectations of what you think he should have believed.
What is the literal meaning of the "meek inheriting the earth"? The entire thing is either a figure of speech, or it literally means that land should be owned by the submissive and quiet.
The meek inhireting the earth seems to mean that the most submissive child will inherit the land in the modern world, or it may be a figure of speech, or that the poorer child will get the parent's land, or something along those lines. I have no idea how to interpret this phrase, other than to possibly indicate that hard work, trustworthyness, or reliability, isn't as important as being submissive or poor when it comes to an inheritence. Reviewing Psalm 37:9 supports that. Psalm 37:34 seems into indicate that YHWH would faciliate justice for the righteous. As for Psalm 25:12, it indicates that those feareth YHWH end up in prosperity.
With this, I have no choice but to consider these as the expressions of the writers, and while inspired, they are not literally "rules" for the world-system. Lots of people have studied, and feared YHWH and done things that they thought were in his way based upon what they learned or knew, and yet they have no land. The meek inheriting the land can't really be a prosperity statement, since you can't take care of your parents if you are meek, and parents give land to children that take care of them (in some cases).
The kingdom being within his followers was a specific thing he said. He also said that the kingdom would not be found "here" or "there" when it did come, as its not a boundary-identifiable place. I don't find textual support for the assertion that Jesus claimed the son of man would return in a generation and usher in the "kingdom of god". The Kingdom refers to his majesty, his right to rule, his authority over men. He was saying, that some of these people, still living, would see his power, dominion, and right to rule (after his death). I am not twisting anyone's words. I am saying the words he spoke were true.
It is common to say that while in the flesh, Jesus claimed spiritual meanings to his words, with a later physical fullfillment. It is useful to think of it the other way, and think of an immediate physicial fullfilment of his words with a later spiritual fullfillment.
For example, one needed believe any Jewish history to consider him the messiah, an appointed king who would have authority and unite people. The Romans created client-kings in many territories. The "joke" on the sanhedren could have very well been that their scheming made him legally fit the criteria of the messiah, because he was officially designed their king. And it's very clear that he united the people for centuries afterwards. So, perhaps with Jesus, exactly the things he said would happen, did happen, and he meant physically then and spiritually (and the attendant effects, such as spreading of churches, culture changes the world over) following.
Thinking of it this way, precludes one from imagining a paradise afterlife on the faulty premise that Jesus was using hyperbole or metaphor. Instead, if one takes exactly what he said, as how he said it, then the his kingdom returned right after he died, those people alive witnessed it, and it took the world by storm abolishing blood sacrifices in every culture the over the entire planet, among other things.
As I age, I run into troubles even accepting what words mean anymore. For example, who is a peacemaker? Is it the disagreeable one who "lays down a law" to avoid further conflicts? Is it someone who negotiates constantly to assuage some very angry person's constant issues?
Because of this, I must base my faith on the messiah, and his person, him being who he said he was, and that means his king came when he said it would, and that precludes it being a delightful abode for people who struggle along in this life while leaning on God to get through. That doesn't mean we should not lean upon God to get through, but in those times leaning upon God to get through - that is life in the kingdom. Not a paradise that awaits later.
I may be wrong on everything. All my study may be pointless, because I have no land, and I don't plan on 'inheriting' any, and prosperity has eluded me despite working so rediculously hard my entire life. I probably wasn't meek enough, but what does that mean? Promise employers or others that I won't talk or offend anyone? How meek must one get for prosperity? I don't understand this, so I must just trust in the person of Jesus, as Jesus, and the truth of what he said.