Procedural Register in the Olivet Discourse 477 tion which could be inferred for “you will see”, in he trial scene is completely absent in vv. 24-27, a fact noted by many (67). The third person plural o[yontai is more likely an instance of the impersonal plural in place of a passive form, a feature long recognized as characte- ristic of Markan redactional style (68). Interestingly, France shares this interpretation, and is thus forced to suggest that what is seen by humans on earth are the “consequences” of the Son of Man’s heavenly enthronement (69). As expected with other examples of the impersonal plural subject in Mark, Matthew supplies the explicit subject in his parallel passage by inserting pa'sai aiJ fulai; th'" gh'" in 24,30. In order to understand Mark’s usage of o[yontai we must take into account the thematic importance of verbs of seeing in the gospel as a whole, and in the Olivet Discourse in particular. Geddert’s work brought to scholarly attention the consistent, “technical” use of blevpw in Mark, every usage of which “appears intended by the author to contribute to a carefully devised call for discernment ...” (70). Unfortunately, Geddert fails to include oJravw in his analysis, and only makes a passing reference to it in his brief discussion of 13,26. In fact, of the 15 instances of blevpw in Mark, none are future forms, and future words of warning are motivated by Peter’s refusal to accept the way of the cross. Thus Peter is in fact part of “this sinful and adulterous generation”. Rather than conflating the three Markan references to the coming of the Son of Man to argue a uniform meaning for all of them (judgment), taking each in its own context seems more productive and less likely to result in strained interpretations. TAYLOR (The Gospel, 569) suggests that in 14,62, the combination of Psalm 110,1 and Daniel 7,13 shows that “the emphasis lies on enthronement”. I would argue that in chapter 8 Mark suggests a separate “snapshot” of the same event, taken from the angle of judgment, while in 13,26 what is highlighted is salvation and vindication of those same disciples who were told to experience suffering in their near future. (67) BEASLEY-MURRAY (Last Days, 430) notes that theophany can involve judgment or salvation, but “By accident or design, however, the discourse is silent on the latter aspect”. Thus also YARBRO COLLINS, Mark, 614. Characteristically, GEDDERT (Watchwords, 227) believes judgment is neither unambiguously excluded nor unambiguously included, and — for him — Mark has made the speech intentionally ambiguous. (68) See C.H. TURNER, “Markan Usage: Notes, Critical and Exegetical on the Secong Gospel”, The Language and Style of he Gospel of Mark. An Edition of C. H. Turner’s ‘Notes on Marcan Usage’ together with Other Comparable Studies (ed. J.K. ELLIOTT) (NTS 71; Leiden 1993) 4; TAYLOR, The Gospel, 47. FRANCE (The Gospel, 535) also believes this to be an instance of Mark’s impersonal plural usage. (69) FRANCE, The Gospel, 535. (70) GEDDERT, Watchwords, 60.