Preterism Is Dangerous

[John Reece]

The context would have to include the whole passage and that is pretty much the whole chapter.

Here is an outline of verses 4-35 of the chapter, provided by R. T. France on page 900 of his NICOT commentary The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007):

Verses 4-8..... Preliminary events, not to be taken as signs of the end:
.....verse 6.......... It is not yet the end
.....verse 8.......... This is only the beginning of labor pains

Verses 9-14..... Persecution and discouragement during that period,* but stand firm until ...
.....verse 14.......... Then the end will come

Verses 15-28..... Description of the beginning of the end (the siege of Jerusalem)
.....verse 15.......... But when you see ...
.....verse 16.......... Then ...
.....verse 19.......... ................ in those days
.....verse 21.......... Then ...
.....verse 22.......... ............. ... those days; those days
.....verse 23.......... Then ...
......................[verses 27-28 Do not confuse "those days" with the parousia]

Verses 29-31..... The climax of the sequence which began at verse 15
.....verse 29.......... Immediately after the distress of "those days" (echoing verses 19, 22)
.....verse 30.......... And then ...; and then ...

Verses 32-35..... Summary of the answer to the question, "When?"
.....verses 32-33....... When you see (echoing verse 15) ... it is near (a parable about temporal sequence)
.....verse 34......... ..... All these things (echoing verse 3) will happen within this generation
.....verse 35............... You can trust my prediction

*In common with most interpreters, I take the τότε ['then'] which introduces verse 9 not as marking a following period but rather as introducing another aspect of the period described in verses 5-8. The τότε ['then'] which introduces verse 10 then continues with that same period, though there is probably a causal rather than temporal sequence in that the stumbling of the many results from the persecution and universal hatred of verse 9. See page 916, note 71, for the similar use of τότε ['then'] in verses 16, 21, and 23 resumptively for the period already under discussion rather than as the marker of a new phase.

[MegaHertz]

Here is an outline of verses 4-35 of the chapter, provided by R. T. France on page 900 of his NICOT commentary The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007):

If you came to have a disagreement with some other aspect of his commentary that you were in disagreement with how would you react to the accuracy of this passage. (say he was pre-trib rapture and you were post trib rapture) This post sums up the preterist view of the chapter and my previous post explains my version of it relating to a future event where Satan already has control of Jerusalem and he will be ‘doing things' that result in him being worshiped as being God, barring that the person not willing to do that will be put to death. God would certainly call that an abomination even if men can be tricked into believing it really is God. God allows the time for that to be a matter of days rather than for the 3 1/2 years that Satan's Beast is given. Being put in the lake is the end of that block of time. When the fallen angel that is the Beast from the Pit is sent to the lake the earth belongs to the Kingdom of God and the first act is to sweep the threshing floor (the earth) clean of all chaff (that being also kept) and it is time to bring in the wheat (the elect that have life at the end of the sweeping stage)

If this passage is referencing 70AD then what does this author have to say about the armies in Luke 21:20? That long passage covers ‘a specific generation' who is the Apostles (or any Christian or anybody from the 12 tribes that heard about the ‘warning') and the armies are Roman and the time is 70AD. The only other time prior to that date for Christians to be under tribulation was when Stephen was killed and other Christians fled Jerusalem and Judea. The Apostles are said to have stayed in Jerusalem at the time of Saul's persecution of them.

[indent]Verses 4-8..... Preliminary events, not to be taken as signs of the end:
.....verse 6.......... It is not yet the end
.....verse 8.......... This is only the beginning of labor pains

Having a clear definition of what the ‘end' is would be helpful. The end of persecution does not happen until the end of the 7 trumps of Revelation. That last trumps starts Christ's wrath against all sinners on earth. Not being in Jerusalem means you aren't first on the list.

Rather than sum it up into two words (Preliminary events) the expanded verse give the actual list that has to happen within 40 years for 70AD to be a reference

M't:24:4:
And Jesus answered and said unto them,
Take heed that no man deceive you.
M't:24:5:
For many shall come in my name,
saying,
I am Christ;
and shall deceive many.
M't:24:6:
And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars:
see that ye be not troubled:
for all these things must come to pass,
but the end is not yet.

((Has anybody actually supplied the verses that show this was fulfilled at some point in the NT that describes conditions in the area where the Gospel was first preached. If the Jews were trying to suppress the acceptance of Jesus being the Messiah then they would not have been coming in his name. The Apostles and any they taught would have been teaching the true Gospel. IIThess:2 mentions that the antichrist was already at work but a later book, Revelation, has them becoming 10 kingdoms that align themselves with the Beast from the Pit. In the 40 years a few might have been doing that but not many as the NT was still being written during those days. Not only does the above have to take place but the list in the verses just below also have to manifest into realities, all within that 40 years. If Israel was given 400 years to build a Temple then time is not all that critical when prophecy is being given and fulfilled especially when you consider the events that come after are the judgment of the Gentiles and on a worldwide scale 1/3 of the population worldwide would not every heard of God let alone had time to accept Jesus as being the true Messiah.))

M't:24:7:
For nation shall rise against nation,
and kingdom against kingdom:
and there shall be famines,
and pestilences,
and earthquakes,
in divers places.
M't:24:8:
All these are the beginning of sorrows.

Verses 9-14..... Persecution and discouragement during that period,* but stand firm until ...
.....verse 14.......... Then the end will come

Just like the above events this would also have to happen in that 40 years and it is true that Peter was killed and Paul and others were put into prison occasionally, it is not like they hunted down by Rome as enemies of the state. (that was a later implementation of a partnership between the Church and the State that didn’t work out all that well for ‘lower classes’. The NT does not support the Apostles and Disciple as being hated by the citizens of Rome let alone by many Nations.

M't:24:9:
Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted,
and shall kill you:
and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
M't:24:10:
And then shall many be offended,
and shall betray one another,
and shall hate one another.
M't:24:11:
And many false prophets shall rise,
and shall deceive many.
M't:24:12:
And because iniquity shall abound,
the love of many shall wax cold.
M't:24:13:
But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

If that is only to 70AD then the prophecies that are geared to the Messiah as King should be applied to the 2nd appearance of Jesus coming back to Jerusalem in the same manner He left. That didn’t happen in those years after the Temple was torn down. The promises made in the NT about the Shepherd and the sheep remain unfulfilled. Should that verse have not already happened to both of them, Martha should also be alive if the ‘last day’ was already here.

Joh:11:23:
Jesus saith unto her,
Thy brother shall rise again.
Joh:11:24:
Martha saith unto him,
I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

[TyRockwell]

With the third trumpet, a star falls from heaven, burning like a lamp."And the name of the star was Wormwod"

Wormwood means "bitterness." Bitter waters making people die is an allegorical reverse of "springs of living water, springing up into everlasting life."

It makes the springs of waters bitter. How can that NOT be allegory? The original quote from Jesus is allegory!

John 7:37-38, "Anyone who is thirsty, come to Me and drink, He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water" (pointing to the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer).

It is just wrong interpretation of prophecy to try to make that star into an asteriod comet causing pollution.

In prophetic scriptures, stars are men or angels. People dying from bitter waters is, here, an allegory of their bitter, poisonous words, lies.

8 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the image of God.
10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.
11 Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? (that is, Rev. 8:11's Wormwood, Bitterness, bitter springs of water)
12 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.
James 3:8-12 (KJV)

The first trumpet was Jesus,

10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, 11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. 12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks (lampstands, the churches); 13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the breast with a golden girdle ...
Rev 1:10-13 (KJV)

the second [trumpet, voices], apostles, the third prophets.The progression of the trumpets is, Jesus, apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Eph. 4:10-12

They are trumpets one through six. The trumpet-voice of the Lord continued through the apostles' trumpet-voices, then through prophets' trumpet-voices, the evangelists' trumpet-voices, the pastors' trumpet-voices, and teachers' trumpet-voices.

At the top is the unique Word, the voice of Jesus, and each successive ministry gift is a wider layer under the one before, so that teachers are the broad base, like a pyramid, that covers all of the expanding church.

Fallen stars, prophetically, are men or angels. They are prophets with poisonous, "bitter waters" words, prophesying [forth-telling] deadly lies over a two thousand year (1/3 of 6000) period of time, A THIRD OF THE EARTH.

The key for interpreting Revelation, is finding the references in the Bible, and understanding the application by revelation of the Holy Spirit. Slow down, stop and ask God to reveal to you the interpretation.

[TyRockwell]

John Reece,

I in no way defend MegaHertz, but R.T. France's commentary is only his opinion. And it is not better than mine.

[TolkienFan]

John Reece,

I in no way defend MegaHertz, but R.T. France's commentary is only his opinion. And it is not better than mine.

The only response this non-response deserves is:

[John Reece]

John Reece,

I in no way defend MegaHertz, but R.T. France's commentary is only his opinion. And it is not better than mine.

The only response this non-response deserves is:

[John Reece]

Comment on this is here.

[seanD]

I see a generation as 38 years. When Moses was in the desert for 40 years 38 of that was to allow a new generation to take over and the old one to die off. And again in 32 AD until 70 AD Jesus declared a generation in Luke, so again 38 years.

My issue with the generation in Luke and Matthew is they are not the same generation or they are. It depends on how you apply the term generation to the text. In Luke the the generation appears to mean the generation that He is addressing. But in Matthew it could mean one of two different generations or both. The generation could be the one which witnesses the signs so it would be future. Or it could be the one which sees the destruction of Jerusalem so it could be the present generation. In that case the events of the future would not take place before their eyes, but the wars and rumors of wars would. So depending on the signs and if you allow the generation to see them or not then both generations are described.

In Matthew

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Mat 24:25 Behold, I have told you before.

So Christ is referring to another conversation that has already taken place. That would be Luke 21.

Luk 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

Now the conversation recorded by Luke took place by the Temple.

Then:

Mat 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, ...

So using Luke as a stand alone statement about the destruction of the Temple it contrast the end times. But Christ had started to talk about the events around the time that the time of the gentiles be fulfilled. Matthew's account describes the expansion of the detail around the end times.

I honestly don't see the big deal with the "this generation" debate. Iver Larsen argues that the word “this” (houtos) used with the word “generation” (genea) is anaphoric, and should instead be translated “that generation” or “this kind of people" in the context of the dialogue. It's the same criteria with Mark 8:12, because we know Jesus did in fact perform signs to his generation. Instead of identifying his particular generation, he was using a faithless generation as a condition of being the "this generation" or "this kind of people" he was talking about. IOW, any generation that asks for signs, instead of faith, will be the generation that sees no signs, since faith is necessary for signs. The only sign not necessary of their faith is the resurrection. We have a similar way of speaking today. It’s like someone asking me: “When will America change for the better,” and I respond: “There will come a time that the government policies will go too far, then there will be a collective opposition against these policies --- This generation will see true change in America.” Though it sounds like I’m declaring the present generation, I’m associating the generation to prior conditional events, and the generation that experiences those events will be the "this" generation that sees change. Jesus was saying that there will be a time that ALL the signs are fulfilled at once, thus will be the "this" generation that will not pass away until all this happens, including his return (parousia).

[Littlejoe]

You know, in answer to the OP..."Preterism is Dangerous" a similar case can be made for Futurism. When I was a teenager, I read Hal Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth. By this time, I had pretty much decided that God wasn't any more real than the easter bunny or Santa Claus. But I distinctly remember thinking..."if any of this stuff starts happening, then I'll know God is real and I can become a christian then...until then, I won't worry about it..." What if between then and when I became a christian, I had died? So futurism has a false sense of having a second chance during the tribulation of accepting Christ. I was a futurist for many years after coming to Christ, but so many things simply create issues in the view that I had to seriously consider it's truth. It's why I am no longer a futurist. I honestly am not 100% sold on Preterism, but so far, it has made the most sense to me.

LJ

[John Reece]

Iver Larsen argues that the word “this” (houtos) used with the word “generation” (genea) is anaphoric, and should instead be translated “that generation” or “this kind of people" in the context of the dialogue.

Iver Larsen is wrong, because his concept of γενεά ― in terms of biblical usage ― is wrong.

Here is his concept of γενεά : "Rather, genea means ‘a class of people bound together through a common origin or with a common bond.’" He is right that that is the primary meaning of γενεά in non-biblical Greek usage as well as in terms of the history/etymology of the word.

However, the usage of γενεά in the Greek Bible is quite different; that is, it is a rendering of the Hebrew word ‏‏דּוֹר (dōr), which has a totally different history/etymology from the Greek word γενεά.

‏דּוֹר‏

1. singular : cycle, lifetime, descent, generation, (all the people who have grown up in the period from the birth of a man until the birth of his first son; Noth Überl. St. 21; a period with particular events and people, Ped. Isr. 1–2:490): ‏הַדּוֹר הַזֶּה‎ Gn 71 ‏דּ׳ רְבִעִי‎ 1516, ‏לְאֶלֶף דּ׳‎ as long as a thousand generations Dt 79, ‏הַדּ׳ הָאַחֲרוֹן‎ 2921, ‏הָרִאשׁוֹן‎ Jb 88; with ‏עִקֵּשׁ‎ Dt 325, with ‏צַדִּיק‎ Ps 145; with ‏אֲבֹתָיו‎ 4920, with ‏בָּנֶיךָ‎ 7315, with ‏עֶבְרָתוֹ‎ Jr 729 etc.; ‏דֹּר דֹּר‎ Ex 315 and ‏דֹּר וָדֹר‎ Dt 327 (29 x; Ug. drdr, ana dūrim, ana dāri dūri and simil., for ever, (PRU 3:218) Akk. dūr dāri, simil. in Mnd.) and ‏דּוֹר לְד׳‎ Ps 1454 generation after generation, ‏דּוֹר דּוֹרִים‎ Ps 10225, cj. ‏לְכָל־דּ׳ יָבוֹא‎ Ps 7118; group ‏דּ׳ דֹּרְשָׁיו‎ Ps 246; Is 538 ? fate (Arb. dāʾirat), alt. his contemporaries, cj. ‏רִיבוֹ‎; —2. plural : generations (in Greek originally counted as forty years, from the time of Herodotus as thirty-three and a third years, Meyer Gesch. 3/2:207): ‏אַרְבָּעָה דֹּרֹת‎ Jb 4216, ‏דֹּרֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂ׳‎ Ju 32, ‏דֹּרוֹתֵינוּ אַחֲרֵינוּ‎ future generations descended from us Jos 2227f; ‏דּ׳ עוֹלָמִים‎ generations in times past Is 519; ‏תֵיכָם‎/‏תָם‎/‏לְדֹרֹתָיו‎ according to his (their, your) generations = generation after generation descended from him (them, you) Lv 2530 Gn 177.12; ‏בְּדֹּרֹתָיו‎ among his contemporaries Gn 69, Sir 441 (alt.: in his turn); —Ju 32 dl. (dittogr., Seeligmann VT 11:2142); Jr 221 ?, prp. ‏וְלֹא יְרֵאתֶם‎ Sept., Latina; Is 414 rd. ‏הַקֹּרוֹת‎ (→ v.22).

[Littlejoe]

Everyone thinks their interpretations are correct and everyone one else is interpreting it wrong. Nothing new. You're not unique in this regard Mega. I tend to ignore those who are adamant about their pet interpretations. The only thing I'm adamant about is how false much of preterism is, because the more I understand it, the more it's so obviously a fallacy that it's just silly. As far as interpretations, that's up for grabs.

I don't know how you can read the Bible literally, and come away with this summary dismissal of Preterism. One thing that is obvious to those who are really honestly (and literally) reading Scripture, you HAVE to see how Jesus indicates he is returning upon this generation...and what is also seemingly obvious is that many of the NT writers thought so too. For instance, it is obvious from the Bible that Peter, James, John and Paul all thought the end times were: here, soon, at hand etc....hmmm...I wonder if they got the idea from Jesus...
Jesus:
1) Matthew 10:21-23
2) Matthew 16:27-28

Peter:
1) Acts 2:14-21 (After Pentecost Peter is seen preaching the soon coming of Jesus Christ, saying we are living in the last days.)
2) Acts 2:37-47 (If these new Christians did not believe that Jesus was coming very soon, then why do we see them selling all of their possessions...etc?)
3) 1 Peter 1:18-20 (pay attention to vss 5, 9 and 20)

James:
1) James 5:1-9 (James, the brother of Jesus speaks of the nearness of the end and the fact that all the possessions of the wicked will amount to nothing in the [soon to be] end)

John: We all know John wrote several passages about how close the end was
1) 1 John 2:18-28 (John exhorts the children of God to remain faithful in the end times that are at hand)
3) Revelation 1:1-3 (John believes the time is near and short.)
4) Rev 1:4 (what time is near? For every eye to see Him......"even those who pierced him..."
5) Rev 1:9 (John says he is a fellow sufferer in the tribulation)
Paul:
1) Romans 13:11-14 (It is very interesting how Paul puts it: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. Maybe some of them were growingtired of waiting, and Paul wanted themall to again realize the nearness of His return.)
2) 1 Corinthians 7:25-31 (we see that Paul even recommends that it is not good to even marry)
3) 1 Corinthians 10:6-12 (Paul instruct the people to be careful because they were living in the last days)
4) 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 (Paul confirms how close it is...""not all of us will sleep".)
5) 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 (Notice the phrase: "we which are alive and remain". Paul thought that the time was extremely near)


These are but a few of the problems in timing that echo throughout the NT for the futurist. I came to the conclusion that if I were to continue to believe in the veracity of Scripture, I had to abandon futurist eschatology....but that's just me...maybe you see something else here.

LJ

[seanD]

Iver Larsen is wrong, because his concept of γενεά ― in terms of biblical usage ― is wrong.

Here is his concept of γενεά : "Rather, genea means ‘a class of people bound together through a common origin or with a common bond.’" He is right that that is the primary meaning of γενεά in non-biblical Greek usage as well as in terms of the history/etymology of the word.

However, the usage of γενεά in the Greek Bible is quite different; that is, it is a rendering of the Hebrew word ‏‏דּוֹר (dōr), which has a totally different history/etymology from the Greek word γενεά.

‏דּוֹר‏

1. singular : cycle, lifetime, descent, generation, (all the people who have grown up in the period from the birth of a man until the birth of his first son; Noth Überl. St. 21; a period with particular events and people, Ped. Isr. 1–2:490): ‏הַדּוֹר הַזֶּה‎ Gn 71 ‏דּ׳ רְבִעִי‎ 1516, ‏לְאֶלֶף דּ׳‎ as long as a thousand generations Dt 79, ‏הַדּ׳ הָאַחֲרוֹן‎ 2921, ‏הָרִאשׁוֹן‎ Jb 88; with ‏עִקֵּשׁ‎ Dt 325, with ‏צַדִּיק‎ Ps 145; with ‏אֲבֹתָיו‎ 4920, with ‏בָּנֶיךָ‎ 7315, with ‏עֶבְרָתוֹ‎ Jr 729 etc.; ‏דֹּר דֹּר‎ Ex 315 and ‏דֹּר וָדֹר‎ Dt 327 (29 x; Ug. drdr, ana dūrim, ana dāri dūri and simil., for ever, (PRU 3:218) Akk. dūr dāri, simil. in Mnd.) and ‏דּוֹר לְד׳‎ Ps 1454 generation after generation, ‏דּוֹר דּוֹרִים‎ Ps 10225, cj. ‏לְכָל־דּ׳ יָבוֹא‎ Ps 7118; group ‏דּ׳ דֹּרְשָׁיו‎ Ps 246; Is 538 ? fate (Arb. dāʾirat), alt. his contemporaries, cj. ‏רִיבוֹ‎; —2. plural : generations (in Greek originally counted as forty years, from the time of Herodotus as thirty-three and a third years, Meyer Gesch. 3/2:207): ‏אַרְבָּעָה דֹּרֹת‎ Jb 4216, ‏דֹּרֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂ׳‎ Ju 32, ‏דֹּרוֹתֵינוּ אַחֲרֵינוּ‎ future generations descended from us Jos 2227f; ‏דּ׳ עוֹלָמִים‎ generations in times past Is 519; ‏תֵיכָם‎/‏תָם‎/‏לְדֹרֹתָיו‎ according to his (their, your) generations = generation after generation descended from him (them, you) Lv 2530 Gn 177.12; ‏בְּדֹּרֹתָיו‎ among his contemporaries Gn 69, Sir 441 (alt.: in his turn); —Ju 32 dl. (dittogr., Seeligmann VT 11:2142); Jr 221 ?, prp. ‏וְלֹא יְרֵאתֶם‎ Sept., Latina; Is 414 rd. ‏הַקֹּרוֹת‎ (→ v.22).

Far be it from me to go up against a linguistics expert who I'm way out of league on this issue. But I don’t think it’s so much a word issue than it is a context issue. You would agree that Jesus wasn’t specifically talking about his generation in Mark 8:12, because we know for a fact Jesus did do many signs and miracles for his generation. Instead he was focusing on the “type” of generation rather than a specific generational timeline. This “type” of generation, a faithless (adulterous) one will not see signs. Since Mat 24 is in the same context as the parousia (coming), then this would also make sense of “this generation” in Mat 24. The generation that sees all the signs fulfilled will be the generation that sees the parousia (destruction, coming, gathering, end of the age). The only two alternatives is to either re-interpret Mat 24, including Mat 24:30-31 as a judgment only, which is just nonsense to me, or admit that Jesus was mistaken (which I don’t at all believe, but really isn’t that big of a deal to me based on the circumstances of Israel’s unexpected rejection).

[RBerman]

You would agree that Jesus wasn’t specifically talking about his generation in Mark 8:12, because we know for a fact Jesus did do many signs and miracles for his generation. Instead he was focusing on the “type” of generation rather than a specific generational timeline. This “type” of generation, a faithless (adulterous) one will not see signs.

That would still make his generation one that fits the bill for "this generation." That aside, he really was talking about that current generation which saw him in the grave for three days.

[Darfius]

Given the aspect of double fulfillment, it would be more than probable that Christ intended for "this generation" to be a double entendre. Not a few Biblical prophecies are of this nature, given God's righteous habit of 'veiling' the truth from those who do not have 'eyes to see.' This would mean that preterists are missing the forest (double fulfillment) for the trees (past fulfillment). Here is another example:

John 2:19

Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

Now we know that 'this temple' referred not only to the building Christ was standing in, but also to His own body. Double entendre.

And it appears this was a fortunate (or something better than fortune) selection, since the parallels that can be drawn serve to underscore the point.

"This temple" referred to the building He was standing in and His body.
"This generation" referred to the people He was standing among and also His people.

Both temples were destroyed. One was taken up again (Our Lord) and the other may be--even on the "third day."

Both generations saw or will see the signs spoken of by Christ.

What do I mean by the temple building being 'resurrected' on the third day? Well if the nation is to be 'resurrected' on the third day, will not the temple be also?

Hosea 6:1-3, 11; 7:1

"Come, let us return to the LORD.
He has torn us to pieces
but he will heal us;
he has injured us
but he will bind up our wounds.
After two days he will revive us;
on the third day he will restore us,
that we may live in his presence.

Let us acknowledge the LORD;
let us press on to acknowledge him.
As surely as the sun rises,
he will appear;
he will come to us like the winter rains,
like the spring rains that water the earth."

"Also for you, Judah,
a harvest is appointed.
"Whenever I would restore the fortunes of my people,
whenever I would heal Israel,
the sins of Ephraim are exposed
and the crimes of Samaria revealed."

And as we all well know:

2 Peter 3:8

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

Final point:

Mark 8:38

If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."

Anyone here brave enough to argue that Christ was speaking only of those within hearing distance?

[John Reece]

Far be it from me to go up against a linguistics expert who I'm way out of league on this issue. But I don’t think it’s so much a word issue than it is a context issue. You would agree that Jesus wasn’t specifically talking about his generation in Mark 8:12, because we know for a fact Jesus did do many signs and miracles for his generation. Instead he was focusing on the “type” of generation rather than a specific generational timeline. This “type” of generation, a faithless (adulterous) one will not see signs.

No I would not agree about Mark 8:12. The occurrence of γενεά in 8:38 is not limited to the Pharisees. The 'unfaithful generation' in 9:19 includes the disciples along with the surrounding crowd.