Does Mark 9:1 Indicate the First-Century Generation?

Some modern renderings of Mk 9:1 are basically the same as the KJV’s, while others differ. But I don’t see that either rendering means Jesus necessarily had the first-century generation in mind.

If the KJV and similar versions’ rendering is correct – then the wording of the text allows the meaning that Jesus meant the generation which shall be alive when the kingdom comes, not necessarily the first-century generation.

And in that case, it makes it more a statement of the nature of the kingdom than of its timing. It makes it a statement that the kingdom shall one day be so literally present that people alive at the time will not need to die first in order to see it.

That makes sense, since Jesus said no-one knows the timing (I believe). It also makes sense seeing the nature of the kingdom was a disputed topic.

If on the other hand, the alternative renderings of Mark 9:1 are correct – and the wording of the text addressed the first-century generation directly in the first person – it still doesn’t mean it literally came to pass that way.

As an example of this non-literal use of the first person by Jesus, consider the Olivet discourse itself. Jesus spoke to four of His disciples directly, addressing them in the first person, as if they would be alive to see Jerusalem besieged by armies and to respond when it happened. But we know James was not alive to see it – for he had been martyred by Herod. We don’t know whether any of the others were present to see it either. Jesus spoke to His four disciples in the first person – but He didn’t have them personally in mind when He spoke what He spoke. Instead, he had in mind things beyond their lifetime – things which related directly not to them but to others even after their lifetime. This style is used more than once in the Olivet discourse.

Similarly therefore, Jesus’ statement in Mk 9:1 may have a future generation in mind even though it addresses a first century audience in the first person (assuming the KJV’s rendering is incorrect). If this literary style or hermeneutic is good enough for the Olivet discourse, it should be good enough for Mark 9:1 as well!

But as I said, the KJV’s rendering, if it’s correct, doesn’t necessitate the use of that hermeneutic – because the wording of the text itself allows that Jesus may have had a future generation in mind.

This is the problem I encountered with preterism after studying it for seven years. I found preterism does an excellent job of explaining that we needn’t expect a future fulfillment of the destruction of the Temple. The time-indicators for that event were clear, both in the Olivet discourse and in Daniel. But full-preterism also brings you into conflict with what I consider to be clear themes elsewhere in Scripture – such as the theme of the future, general, physical resurrection of all the dead on the day of His coming. I never found preterism’s explaining-away of these themes adequate.

So I went back and re-studied preterism’s claimed time-indicating clauses in Scripture - and I'm beginning to see that preterism leans too much weight on the so-called time-indicating clauses. I feel preterism doesn't allow for such clauses to have a different scope and meaning than theirs, even though the plain text, let alone literary rules and hermeneutics, allows it. I’m beginning to see that some of these clauses are in fact not after all such literal, unmistakable time-indicating clauses after all. While in some verses they are.