Not Within but With: Reexamining Matthew 12:41–42

This past Sunday in church, our New Testament reading was Matthew 12. Later that day, I found myself dwelling on Matthew 12:38–42; a passage where Jesus rebukes the scribes and Pharisees for seeking a sign, offers “the sign of Jonah,” and speaks of the men of Nineveh and the Queen of the South rising in judgment. I recalled that hyper-preterists – those who claim all biblical prophecy was fulfilled by 70 AD – often invoke this passage to argue that a judgment, even a resurrection, took place in AD 70 with the fall of Jerusalem. In their view, Jesus’ words about “this generation” and impending judgment were exhaustively fulfilled in the first century, with no future fulfillment remaining.

One prominent example of this interpretation comes from J. Stuart Russell, a 19th-century preacher whose book The Parousia (1878) is influential in preterist circles. Russell categorizes Matthew 12:38–45 as Jesus’ first proof in the synoptical Gospels of an upcoming wrath upon “that generation.” He notes that Jesus, like John the Baptist, warned of coming judgment on “the existing generation” of Israel for rejecting God’s message. Russell explicitly insists that the phrase “this generation” (ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη) in Matthew 12:41–42 “can only refer, in this place, to the people of Israel then living – the existing generation.”¹ On that point, he is absolutely right. Jesus was indeed speaking of His contemporaries, “the men of that day,” as Russell says.

Where Russell goes further, however, is in arguing that Jesus’ prophecy in 12:38–45 was fully and finally fulfilled in the events leading up to Jerusalem’s destruction in AD 70. He paints a vivid picture of that generation’s unparalleled wickedness – even quoting Josephus on the unspeakable crimes and horrors of the Jewish War period – and sees the nation’s collapse under Rome as the promised judgment. After describing how the Jews of that era became “as if possessed by seven thousand devils,” alluding to Jesus’ parable of the unclean spirit in 12:43–45, Russell asks, “Is not this an adequate and complete fulfilment of our Saviour’s prediction? Have we the slightest warrant or need for saying that it means something else, or something more, than this?” He concludes emphatically that “in the notorious profligacy of that age, and the signal calamities which before its close overwhelmed the Jewish people, we have the historical attestation of the exhaustive fulfilment of this prophecy.”² In other words, according to Russell, nothing in Matthew 12:38–45 remains for the future. Jesus was only foretelling the near-term catastrophe upon that generation, which indeed came to pass about forty years later.

Hyper-preterist Don Preston, in his article “The Judgment of the Living and the Dead – Resurrection Fulfilled!”, also appeals to Matthew 12:41–42 to support his claim that “we thus have the judgment of the living and the dead and the statement that it would occur in that generation.”

It is worth noting, however, that J. Stuart Russell did not address the “rising” element in his discussion of this passage. His focus rested entirely on the judgment that would fall upon that generation. I have no issue affirming that a judgment indeed took place in AD 70. The question is whether that is the judgment Jesus had in mind, or if He was referring to the final judgment at the end of the age.

Although Russell did not comment directly on the “rising,” his assertion that “we have the historical attestation of the exhaustive fulfilment of this prophecy” necessarily implies that he viewed the entire passage, including the “rising” of the Ninevites and the Queen of the South, as fulfilled in the events of AD 70. Thus, both Russell and Preston locate the judgment of Matthew 12 within the first century and, by extension, must treat the “rising” as a kind of realized resurrection bound up with that same historical moment.

Both Preston and Russell centered their interpretation on the phrase “this generation” to argue that everything Jesus described was fulfilled in the first century. But is that what Jesus actually said?

What Did Jesus Actually Say?

First, consider exactly what Jesus says in Matthew 12:41–42 (and its parallel in Luke 11:31–32). In response to that “evil and adulterous generation” seeking a miraculous sign, Jesus warns that previous generations of Gentiles – the Ninevites of Jonah’s day and the Queen of Sheba (“Queen of the South”) from Solomon’s day – will stand up at the judgment with the very generation Jesus is addressing and will condemn them.

Matthew 12:41 – Ἄνδρες Νινευεῖται ἀναστήσονται ἐν τῇ κρίσει μετὰ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης καὶ κατακρινοῦσιν αὐτήν, ὅτι μετενόησαν εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰωνᾶ· καὶ ἰδοὺ πλεῖον Ἰωνᾶ ὧδε.

Matthew 12:42 – Βασίλισσα Νότου ἐγερθήσεται ἐν τῇ κρίσει μετὰ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης καὶ κατακρινεῖ αὐτήν, ὅτι ἦλθεν ἐκ τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς ἀκοῦσαι τὴν σοφίαν Σολομῶνος· καὶ ἰδοὺ πλεῖον Σολομῶνος ὧδε.

Even if you do not read Greek, a few grammatical details are crucial. Jesus does speak in the future tense: the men of Nineveh “will rise” (ἀναστήσονται) and the Queen of the South “will be raised” (ἐγερθήσεται) at the judgment. This is a forward-looking prophecy about a coming event of rising up in judgment.

Jesus specifies the setting of this rising: it is ἐν τῇ κρίσει, literally “in the judgment.” The definite article – “the judgment” – indicates a known, definitive time of judgment. In Matthew’s Gospel, this phrase parallels expressions like “on the day of judgment” in 11:22–24 and 12:36. Just a few verses earlier, Jesus said people will give account for every idle word “on the day of judgment,” clearly referring to the ultimate day of divine accountability. The same concept appears here. “The judgment” is the final judgment in God’s court, not a local crisis in Judea.

The crucial phrase in this passage is μετὰ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης—“with this generation.” Hyper-preterists claim that this phrase proves the judgment and resurrection must have occurred during the lifetime of Jesus’ contemporaries, treating it as a “time text.” But that’s not what Jesus said.

If there is any genuine timing indicator in the passage, it is found not in “with this generation,” but in the words ἐν τῇ κρίσει. The preposition ἐν with the dative case marks the setting or occasion of the event, showing when the rising and condemning will take place; “at the judgment” itself.

By contrast, the preposition μετά governs the genitive case here, which expresses association or accompaniment, not time or sequence. When μετά takes the accusative, it means “after.” When it takes the genitive, it means “with” or “together with.” In this verse, it is followed by the genitive τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης—“of this generation.” The construction therefore cannot mean “after this generation” or “during this generation.” It denotes company, not chronology.

Jesus is describing who will appear together at the judgment, not when the judgment will occur. The men of Nineveh and the Queen of the South will stand with the men of “this generation” in the judgment scene. Both groups, long-separated in history, will be present before God at the same time. The point is moral and eschatological: those ancient Gentiles who responded to God’s lesser revelation will rise to condemn the unbelief of those who rejected the greater revelation in Christ.

Hyper-preterists turn “with” into “within,” converting a statement of participation into one of timing. But Jesus never said that this judgment would occur within that generation; He said that “this generation” would be present in the judgment with the men of Nineveh and the Queen of the South.

This fits perfectly with the historic Christian doctrine that all humanity will rise together to face judgment. Scripture consistently affirms a single, universal resurrection followed by a final, public reckoning before Christ; the righteous to eternal life and the wicked to eternal condemnation (John 5:28–29; Acts 17:31; Revelation 20:12–13). Jesus’ words in Matthew 12 harmonize with this expectation: the people of His own generation will stand with the repentant Gentiles of the past, side by side, before the throne of the Son of Man. The emphasis is not on a past, localized judgment, but on the great day when all generations, from Nineveh to Jerusalem and beyond, will rise together and be judged in the presence of the risen Lord.

1. James Stuart Russell, The Parousia: A Critical Inquiry into the New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord’s Second Coming(London: Daldy, Isbister & Co., 1878), 18.

2. Ibid., 19–20.