this is information sake only, not to argue over or attempt to disprove you can believe or disbelieve, or not even read - your choice, but those intersted enough to do so thr reward will be worth the time i believe.


he Parousia—By James Stuart Russell

PREFACE

No Attentive reader of the New Testament can fail to be struck with the prominence given by the evangelists and the apostles to the PAROUSIA, or ‘coming of the Lord.’ That event is the great theme of New Testament prophecy. There is scarcely a single book, from the Gospel of St. Matthew to the Apocalypse of St. John, in which it is not set forth as the glorious promise of God and the blessed hope of the church. It was frequently and solemnly predicted by our Lord; it was incessantly kept before the eyes of the early Christians by the apostles; and it was firmly believed and eagerly expected by the churches of the primitive age.

It cannot be denied that there is a remarkable difference between the attitude of the first Christians in relation to the Parousia and that of Christians now. That glorious hope, to which all eyes and hearts in the apostolic age were eagerly turned, has almost disappeared from the view of modern believers. Whatever may be the theoretical opinions expressed in symbols and creeds, it must in candour be admitted that the ‘second coming of Christ’ has all but ceased to be a living and practical belief.

Various causes may be assigned in explanation of this state of things. The rash vaticinations of those who have too confidently undertaken to be interpreters of prophecy, and the discredit consequent on the failure of their predictions, have no doubt deterred reverent and soberminded men from entering upon the investigation of ‘unfulfilled prophecy.’ On the other hand, there is reason to think that rationalistic criticism has engendered doubts whether the predictions of the New Testament were ever intended to have a literal or historical fulfilment.

Between rationalism on the one hand, and irrationalism on the other, there has come to be a widely prevailing state of uncertainty and confusion of thought in regard to New Testament prophecy, which to some extent explains, though it may not justify, the consigning of the whole subject to the region of hopelessly obscure and insoluble problems.

This, however, is only a partial explanation. It deserves consideration whether there may not be a fundamental difference between the relation of the church of the apostolic age to the predicted Parousia and the relation to that event sustained by subsequent ages. The first Christians undoubtedly believed themselves to be standing on the verge of a great catastrophe, and we know what intensity and enthusiasm the expectation of the almost immediate coming of the Lord inspired; but if it cannot be shown that Christians now are similarly placed, there would be a want of truth and reality in affecting the eager anticipation and hope of the primitive church. The same event cannot be imminent at two different periods separated by nearly two thousand years. There must, therefore, be some grave misconception on the part of those who maintain that the Christian church of to-day occupies precisely the same relation, and should maintain the same attitude, towards the ‘coming of the Lord’ as the church in the days of St. Paul.

The present volume is an attempt, in a candid and reverent spirit, to clear up this misconception, and to ascertain the true meaning of the Word of God on a subject which holds so conspicuous a place in the teaching of our Lord and His apostles. It is the fruit of many years of patient investigation, and the Author has spared no pains to test to the utmost the validity of his conclusions. It has been his single aim to ascertain what saith the Scripture, and his one desire to be governed by a loyal submission to its authority. The ideal of Biblical interpretation which he has kept before him is that so well expressed by a German theologian—‘ Explicatio plana non tortuosa, facilis non violenta, eademque et exegeticce et Chistanae conscientium pariter arridens.’ {1}

Although the nature of the inquiry necessitates a somewhat frequent reference to the original of the New Testament, and to the laws of grammatical construction and interpretation, it has been the object of the Author to render this work as popular as possible, and such as any man of ordinary education and intelligence may read with ease and interest. The Bible is a book for every man, and the Author has not written for scholars and critics only, but for the many who are deeply interested in Biblical interpretation, and who think, with Locke, ‘an impartial search into the true meaning of the sacred Scripture the best employment of all the time they have.’ {2} It will be a sufficient recompense of his labour if he succeeds in elucidating in any degree those teachings of divine revelation which have been obscured by traditional prejudices, or misinterpreted by an erroneous exegesis.

1878.

{1} Donier’s tractate, De Oratione Christi Eschatologica, p. 1.


HE LAST WORDS OF OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECY

THE BOOK OF MALACHI

THE canon of the Old Testament Scriptures closes in a very different manner from what might have been expected after the splendid future revealed to the covenant nation in the visions of Isaiah. None of the prophets is the bearer of a heavier burden than the last. Malachi is the prophet of doom. It would seem that the nation, by its incorrigible obstinacy and disobedience, had forfeited the divine favour, and proved itself not only unworthy, but incapable, of the promised glories. The departure of the prophetic spirit was full of evil omen, and seemed to intimate that the Lord was about to forsake the land. Accordingly, the light of Old Testament prophecy goes out amidst clouds and thick darkness. The Book of Malachi is one long and terrible impeachment of the nation. The Lord Himself is the accuser, and sustains every charge against the guilty people by the clearest proof. The long indictment includes sacrilege, hypocrisy, contempt of God, conjugal infidelity, perjury, apostasy, blasphemy; while, on the other hand, the people have the effrontery to repudiate the accusation, and to plead ‘not guilty’ to every charge. They appear to have reached that stage of moral insensibility when men call evil good, and good evil, and are fast ripening for judgment.

Accordingly, coming judgment is ‘the burden of the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi.’

#Mal 3:5: ‘I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the Lord of hosts.’

#Mal 4:1: ‘For, behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven [furnace]: and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.’

That this is no vague and unmeaning threat is evident from the distinct and definite terms in which it is announced. Everything points to an approaching crisis in the history of the nation, when God would inflict judgment upon His rebellious people. ‘The day’ was coming—‘ the day that shall burn as a furnace;’ ‘the great and terrible day of the Lord.’ That this ‘day’ refers to a certain period, and a specific event, does not admit of question. It had already been foretold in precisely the same words by the Prophet Joel: {#Joe 2:31} ‘The great and terrible day of the Lord;’ and we shall meet with a distinct reference to it in the address of the Apostle Peter on the Day of Pentecost. {#Ac 2:20} But the period is further more precisely defined by the remarkable statement of Malachi in: {#Mal 4:5} ‘Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord.’ The explicit declaration of our Lord that the predicted Elijah was no other than His own forerunner, John the Baptist, {#Mt 11:14} enables us to determine the time and the event referred to as ‘the great and terrible day of the Lord., It must be sought at no great distance from the period of John the Baptist. That is to say, the allusion is to the judgment of the Jewish nation, when their city and temple were destroyed, and the entire fabric of the Mosaic polity was dissolved.

It deserves to be noticed, that both Isaiah and Malachi predict the appearance of John the Baptist as the forerunner of our Lord, but in very different terms. Isaiah represents him as the herald of the coming Saviour:‘ The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God’. {#Isa 40:3} Malachi represents John as the precursor of the coming Judge:‘ Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me; and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts’. {#Mal 4:1}

That this is a coming to judgment, is manifest from the words which immediately follow, describing the alarm and dismay caused by His appearing: ‘But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth?’ {#Mal 3:2}

It cannot be said that this language is appropriate to the first coming of Christ; but it is highly appropriate to His second coming. There is a distinct allusion to this passage in #Re 6:17, where ‘the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains,’ etc., are represented as ‘hiding from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, and saying, The great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?’. Nothing can be more clear than that the ‘day of his coming’, in #Mal 3:1 is the same as ‘the great and dreadful day of the Lord’ in #Mal 4:5, and that both answer to ‘the great day of his wrath’ in #Re 6:17. We conclude, therefore, that the prophet Malachi speaks, not of the first advent of our Lord, but of the second.

This is further proved by the significant fact, that, in #Mal 3:1, the Lord is represented as ‘suddenly coming to his temple.’ To understand this as referring to the presentation of the infant Saviour in the temple by His parents, or to His preaching in the courts of the temple, or to His expulsion of the buyers and sellers from the sacred edifice, is surely a most inadequate explanation. Those were not occasions of terror and dismay, such as is implied in the second verse, ‘But who may abide the day of his coming?’ The expression is, however, vividly suggestive of His final and judicial visitation of His Father’s house, when it was to be ‘left desolate,’ according to His prediction. The temple was the centre of the nation’s life, the visible symbol of the covenant between God and His people; it was the spot where ‘judgment must begin,’ and which was to be overtaken by ‘sudden destruction.’ Taking, then, all these particulars into account, the ‘sudden coming of the Lord to his temple,’ the dismay attending ‘the day of his coming,’ His coming as ‘a refiner’s fire,’ His coming ‘near to them to judgment,’ ‘the day coming that shall burn as a furnace,’ ‘burning up the wicked root and branch,’ and the appearing of John the Baptist, the second Elijah, previous to the arrival of ‘the great and dreadful day of the Lord,’ it is impossible to resist the conclusion that the prophet here foretells that great national catastrophe in which the temple, the city, and the nation, perished together; and that this is designated, ‘the day of his coming.’

However strange, therefore, it may seem, it is undoubtedly the fact that the first coming of our Lord is not alluded to by Malachi. This is distinctly acknowledged by Hengstenberg, who observes: ‘Malachi passes by the first coming of Christ in humiliation altogether and leaves the interval between his forerunner end the judgment of Jerusalem a perfect blank.’ {1} This is to be accounted for by the fact, that the main object of the prophecy is to predict national destruction and not national deliverance.

At the same time, while judgment and wrath are the predominant elements of the prophecy, features of a different character are not wholly absent. The day of wrath is also a day of redemption. There is a faithful remnant, even among the apostate nation: there are gold and silver to be refined and jewels to be gathered, as well as dross to be rejected, and stubble to be burned. There are sons to be spared, as well as enemies to be destroyed; and the day which brought dismay and darkness to the wicked, would see ‘the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings’ on the faithful. Even Malachi intimates that the door of mercy is not yet shut. If the nation would return unto God, He would return unto them. If they would make restitution of that which they had sacrilegiously withheld from the service of the temple, He would repay them with blessings more than they could receive. They might even yet be a ‘delightsome land,’ the envy of all nations. At the eleventh hour, if the mission of the second Elijah should succeed in winning the hearts of the people, the impending catastrophe might after all be averted. {#Mal 3:3,16-18 4:2,3,5,6}

Nevertheless, there is a foregone conclusion that expostulation and threatening will be unavailing. The last words sound like the knell of doom: {#Mal 4:6} ‘Lest I come and smite the land with a curse!’

The full import of this ominous declaration is not at once apparent. To the Hebrew mind. it suggested the most terrible fate that could befall a city or a people. The ‘curse’ was the anathema, or cherem which denoted that the person or thing on which the malediction was laid was given over to utter destruction. We have an example of the cherem, or ban, in the curse pronounced upon Jericho; {#Jos 6:17} and a more particular statement of the ruin which it involved, in the Book of Deuteronomy. {#De 13:12-18} The city was to be smitten with the edge of the sword, every living thing in it to be put to death, the spoil was not to be touched, all was accursed and unclean, it was to be wholly consumed with fire, and the place given up to perpetual desolation. Hengstenberg remarks: ‘All the things that can possibly be thought of are included in this one word;’ {2} and he quotes the comment of Vitringa on this passage: ‘There can be no doubt that God intended to say, that He would give up to certain destruction, both the obstinate transgressors of the law and also their city, and that they should suffer the extreme penalty of His justice, as heads devoted to God, without any hope of favour or forgiveness.’

Such is the fearful malediction suspended over the land of Israel by the prophetic Spirit, in the moment of taking its departure, and becoming silent for ages. It is important to observe, that all this has a distinct and specific reference to the land of Israel. The message of the prophet is to Israel; the sins which are reprobated are the sins of Israel; the coming of the Lord is to His temple in Israel; the land threatened with the curse is the land of Israel. {3} All this manifestly points to a specific local and national catastrophe, of which the land of Israel was to be the scene and its guilty inhabitants the victims. History records the fulfilment of the prophecy, in exact correspondence of time, place, and circumstance, in the ruin which overwhelmed the Jewish nation at the period of the destruction of Jerusalem.

{1} See Hengst. Nature of Prophecy. Christ. vol. iv. p. 418.
{2} Hengst. Christology, vol. iv. p 227.
{3} The meaning of this passage #Mal 4:6 is obscured by the unfortunate translation earth instead of land. The Hebrew h, a, like the Greek gh, is very frequently employed in a restricted sense. The allusion in the text plainly is to the land of Israel.—See Hengst.


E INTERVAL BETWEEN MALACHI AND JOHN THE BAPTIST

The four centuries which intervene between the conclusion of the Old Testament and the commencement of the New are a blank in Scripture history. We know, however, from the Books of the Maccabees and the writings of Josephus, that it was an eventful period in the Jewish annals. Judea was by turns the vassal of the great monarchies by which it was surrounded—Persia, Greece, Egypt, Syria, and Rome, —with an interval of independence under the Maccabean princes. But though the nation during this period passed through great suffering, and produced some illustrious examples of patriotism and of piety, we look in vain for any divine oracle, or any inspired messenger, to declare the word of the Lord. Israel might truly say: ‘We see not our signs, there is no more any prophet: neither is there among us any that knoweth how long’. {#Ps 74:9} Yet those four centuries were not without a powerful influence on the character of the nation. During this period, synagogues were established throughout the land, and the knowledge of the Scriptures was widely extended. The great religious schools of the Pharisees and Sadducees arose, both professing to be expounders and defenders of the law of Moses. Vast numbers of Jews settled in the great cities of Egypt, Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy, carrying with them everywhere the worship of the synagogue and the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. Above all, the nation cherished in its inmost heart the hope of a coming deliverer, a scion of the royal house of David, who should be the theocratic king, the liberator of Israel from Gentile domination, whose reign was to be so happy and glorious that it might deserve to be called ‘the kingdom of heaven.’ But, for the most part, the popular conception of the coming king was earthly and carnal. There had not in four hundred years been any improvement in the moral condition of the people, and, between the formalism of the Pharisees and the scepticism of the Sadducees, true religion had sunk to its lowest ebb. There was still, however, a faithful remnant who had truer conceptions of the kingdom of heaven, and ‘who looked for redemption in Israel.’ As the time drew near, there were indications of the return of the prophetic


spirit, and premonitions that the promised deliverer was at hand. Simeon received assurance that before his death ho should see ‘the Lord’s anointed;’ a like intimation appears to have been made to the aged prophetess Anna. Such revelations, it is reasonable to suppose, must have awakened eager expectation in the hearts of many, and prepared them for the cry which soon after was heard in the wilderness of Judea: ‘Repent; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!’ A prophet had again risen up in Israel, and ‘the Lord had visited His people.



THE PAROUSIA PREDICTED BY JOHN THE BAPTIST

THERE is nothing more distinctly affirmed in the New Testament than the identity of John the Baptist with the wilderness-herald of Isaiah and the Elijah of Malachi. How well the description of John agrees with that of Elijah is evident at a glance. Each was austere and ascetic in his manner of life; each was a zealous reformer of religion; each was a stern reprover of sin. The times in which they lived were singularly alike. The nation at both periods was degenerate and corrupt. Elijah had his Ahab, John his Herod. It is no objection to this identification of John as the predicted Elijah, that the Baptist himself disclaimed the name when the priests and Levites from Jerusalem demanded: ‘Art thou Elias?’ {#Joh 1:21} The Jews expected the reappearance of the literal Elijah, and John’s reply was addressed to that mistaken opinion. But his true claim to the designation is expressly affirmed in the announcement made by the angel to his father Zacharias: ‘He shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias’; {#Lu 1:17} as well as by the declarations of our Lord: ‘If ye will receive it, this is Elias which was for to come’; {#Mt 11:14} ‘I say unto you that Elias is come already, and they knew him not.... Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist’. {#Mt 17:10-13} John was the second Elias, and exhaustively fulfilled the predictions of Isaiah and Malachi concerning him. To dream of an ‘Elijah of the future,’ therefore, is virtually to discredit the express statement of the word of God, and rests upon no Scripture warrant whatever.

We have already adverted to the twofold aspect of the mission of John presented by the prophets Isaiah and Malachi. The same diversity is seen in the New Testament descriptions of the second Elias. The benignant aspect of his mission which is presented by Isaiah, is also recognized in the words of the angel by whom his birth was foretold, as already quoted; and in the inspired utterance of his father Zacharias: ‘Thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest, for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways, to give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, {#Lu 1:76,77}. We find the same gracious aspect in the opening verses of the Gospel of St. John: ‘The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe, {#Joh 1:7}.

But the other aspect of his mission is no less distinctly recognized in the Gospels. He is represented, not only as the herald of the coming Saviour, but of the coming Judge. Indeed, his own recorded utterances speak far more of wrath than of salvation, and are conceived more in the spirit of the Elijah of Malachi than of the wilderness-herald of Isaiah. He warns the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the multitudes that crowded to his baptism, to ‘flee from the coming wrath.’ He tells them that ‘the axe is laid unto the root of the trees.’ He announces the coming of One mightier than himself, ‘whose fan is in his hand, and who will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner, but who will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire’. {#Mt 3:12}

It is impossible not to be struck with the correspondence between the language of the Baptist and that of Malachi. As Hengstenberg observes: "The prophecy of Malachi is throughout the text upon which John comments." {1} In both, the coming of the Lord is described as a day of wrath; both speak of His coming with fire to purify and try, with fire to burn and consume. Both speak of a time of discrimination and separation between the righteous and the wicked, the gold and the dross, the wheat and the chaff; and both speak of the utter destruction of the chaff, or stubble, with unquenchable fire. These are not fortuitous resemblances: the two predictions are the counterpart one of the other, and can only refer to the self-same event, the same ‘day of the Lord,’ the same coming judgment.

But what more especially deserves remark is the evident nearness of the crisis which John predicts. ‘The wrath to come’ is a very inadequate rendering of the language of the prophet. {2} It should be ‘the coming wrath;’ that is, not merely future, but impending. ‘The wrath to come’ may be indefinitely distant, but ‘the coming wrath’ is imminent. As Alford justly remarks: ‘John is now speaking in the true character of a prophet foretelling the wrath soon to be poured on the Jewish nation.’ {3} So with the other representations in the address of the Baptist; all is indicative of the swift approach of destruction. ‘Already the axe was lying at the root of the trees.’ The ‘winnowing shovel’ was actually in the hands of the Husbandman; the sifting process was about to begin. These warnings of John the Baptist are not the vague and indefinite exhortations to repentance, addressed to men in all ages, which they are sometimes assumed to be; they are urgent, burning words, having a specific and present bearing upon the then existing generation, the living men to whom he brought the message of God. The Jewish nation was now upon its last trial; the second Elijah had come as the precursor of ‘the great and dreadful day of the Lord:’ if they rejected his warnings, the doom predicted by Malachi would surely and speedily follow; ‘I will come and smite the land with the curse.’ Nothing can be more obvious than that the catastrophe to which John alludes is particular, national, local, and imminent, and history tells us that within the period of the generation that listened to his warning cry, ‘the wrath came upon them to the uttermost.’

{1} Christol. vol. iv. p. 232.
{2} th melloush orgh

THE TEACHING OF OUR LORD CONCERNING THE PAROUSIA, IN THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS

The close of John the Baptist’s ministry, in consequence of his imprisonment by Herod Antipas, marks a new departure in the ministry of our Lord. Previous to that time, indeed, He had taught the people, wrought miracles, gained adherents, and obtained a wide popularity; but after that event, which may be regarded as indicating the failure of John’s mission, our Lord retired into Galilee, and there entered upon a new phase of His public ministry. We are told that ‘from that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’. {#Mt 4:17} These are the precise terms in which the preaching of John the Baptist is described. {#Mt 3:2} Both our Lord and His forerunner called ‘the nation to repentance,’ and announced the approach of the ‘kingdom of heaven.’ It follows that John could not mean by the phrase, ‘the kingdom of heaven is at hand,’ merely that the Messiah was about to appear, for when Christ did appear, He made the same announcement. ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ In like manner, when the twelve disciples were sent forth on their first evangelistic mission, they were commanded to preach, not that the kingdom of heaven was come, but that it was at hand. {#Mt 10:7} Moreover, that the kingdom did not come in our Lord’s time, nor at the day of Pentecost, is evident from the fact that in His prophetic discourse on the Mount of Olives our Lord gave His disciples certain tokens by which they might know that the kingdom of God was nigh at hand. {#Lu 21:31}

We find, therefore, the following conclusions plainly deducible from our Lord’s teaching:

1. That a great crisis, or consummation, called ‘the kingdom of heaven, or of God,’ was proclaimed by Him to be nigh.

2. That this consummation, though near, was not to take place in His own lifetime, nor yet for some years after His death.

3. That His disciples, or at least some of them, might expect to witness its arrival.

But the whole subject of ‘the kingdom of heaven’ must be reserved for fuller discussion at a future period.

PREDICTION OF COMING WRATH UPON THAT GENERATION.

There is another point of resemblance between the preaching of our Lord and that of John the Baptist. Both gave the clearest intimations of the near approach of a time of judgment which should overtake the existing generation, on account of their rejection of the warnings and invitations of divine mercy. As the Baptist spoke of ‘the coming wrath,’ so our Lord with equal distinctness forewarned the people of ‘coming judgment.’ He upbraided ‘the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not,’ and predicted that a heavier woe would overtake them than had fallen upon Tyre and Sidon, Sodom and Gomorrha. {#Mt 11:20-24} That all this points to a catastrophe which was not remote, but near, and which would actually overtake the existing generation, appears evident from the express statements of Jesus.

#Mt 12:38-46: {compare #Lu 11:16,24-36} ‘Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign: and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall rise in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonas and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with generation, and condemn it, for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here. When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.’

This passage is of great importance in ascertaining the true meaning of the phrase ‘this generation’ [h genea auth]. It can only refer, in this place, to the people of Israel then living—the existing generation. No commentator has ever proposed to call ‘genea’ here the Jewish race in all ages. Our Lord was accustomed to speak of His contemporaries as this generation:

Whereunto shall I liken this generation?—‘ that is, the men of that day who would listen neither to His forerunner nor to Himself’. {#Mt 11:16 Lu 7:31} Even commentators like Stier, who contend for the rendering of ‘genea’ by race or lineage in other passages, admit that the reference in these words is ‘to the generation living in that then extant and most important age.’ {1} So in the passage before us there can be no controversy respecting the application of the words exclusively to the then existing generation, the contemporaries of Christ. Of the aggravated and enormous wickedness of that period our Lord here testifies. The generation has just before been addressed by Him in the very words of the Baptist—‘ O brood of vipers’ {#Mt 12:34}. Its guilt is declared to surpass that of the heathen; it is likened to a demoniac, from whom the unclean spirit had departed for a while, but returned in greater force than before, accompanied by seven other spirits more wicked than himself, so that ‘the last state of that man is worse than that first.’ We have in the testimony of Josephus a striking confirmation of our Lord’s description of the moral condition of that generation. ‘As it were impossible to relate their enormities in detail, I shall briefly state that no other city ever endured similar calamities, and no generation ever existed more prolific in crime. They confessed themselves to be, what they were—slaves, and the very dregs of society, the spurious and polluted spawn of the nation.’ {2} ‘And here I cannot refrain from expressing what my feelings suggest. I am of opinion, that had the Romans deferred the punishment of these wretches, either the earth would have opened and swallowed up the city, or it would have been swept away by a deluge, or have shared the shun. defaults of the land of Sodom. For it produced a race far more ungodly than those who were thus visited. For through the desperate madness of these men the whole nation was involved in their ruin.’ {3} ‘That period had somehow become so prolific in iniquity of every description amongst the Jews, that no work of evil was left unperpetrated; ... so universal was the contagion, both in public and private, and such the emulation to surpass each other in acts of impiety towards God, and of injustice towards their neighbours.’ {4}

Such was the fearful condition to which the nation was hastening when our Lord uttered these prophetic words. The climax had not yet been reached, but it was full in view. The unclean spirit had not yet returned to his house, but he was on the way. As Stier remarks, ‘In the period between the ascension of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem, especially towards the end of it, this nation shows itself, one might say, as if possessed by seven thousand devils.’ {5} 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? What presence is there for supposing a further and future fulfilment of His words? Is it not a virtual discrediting of the prophecy to seek any other than the plain and obvious sense which points so distinctly to an approaching catastrophe about to befall that generation? Surely we show most reverence to the Word of God when we accept implicitly its obvious teaching, and refuse the unwarranted and merely human speculations which critics and theologians have drawn from their own fancy. We conclude, then, 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.

{1} Reden Jesu, in loc.
{2} Jewish War, bk v. c. x sec. 5. Traill’s translation.
{3} Ibid. G. Xiii. sec. 6.
{4} Ibid. bk. vii. c. viii. sec. I.



HE TEACHING OF OUR LORD CONCERNING THE PAROUSIA, IN THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS

The close of John the Baptist’s ministry, in consequence of his imprisonment by Herod Antipas, marks a new departure in the ministry of our Lord. Previous to that time, indeed, He had taught the people, wrought miracles, gained adherents, and obtained a wide popularity; but after that event, which may be regarded as indicating the failure of John’s mission, our Lord retired into Galilee, and there entered upon a new phase of His public ministry. We are told that ‘from that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’. {#Mt 4:17} These are the precise terms in which the preaching of John the Baptist is described. {#Mt 3:2} Both our Lord and His forerunner called ‘the nation to repentance,’ and announced the approach of the ‘kingdom of heaven.’ It follows that John could not mean by the phrase, ‘the kingdom of heaven is at hand,’ merely that the Messiah was about to appear, for when Christ did appear, He made the same announcement. ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ In like manner, when the twelve disciples were sent forth on their first evangelistic mission, they were commanded to preach, not that the kingdom of heaven was come, but that it was at hand. {#Mt 10:7} Moreover, that the kingdom did not come in our Lord’s time, nor at the day of Pentecost, is evident from the fact that in His prophetic discourse on the Mount of Olives our Lord gave His disciples certain tokens by which they might know that the kingdom of God was nigh at hand. {#Lu 21:31}

We find, therefore, the following conclusions plainly deducible from our Lord’s teaching:

1. That a great crisis, or consummation, called ‘the kingdom of heaven, or of God,’ was proclaimed by Him to be nigh.

2. That this consummation, though near, was not to take place in His own lifetime, nor yet for some years after His death.

3. That His disciples, or at least some of them, might expect to witness its arrival.

But the whole subject of ‘the kingdom of heaven’ must be reserved for fuller discussion at a future period.

PREDICTION OF COMING WRATH UPON THAT GENERATION.

There is another point of resemblance between the preaching of our Lord and that of John the Baptist. Both gave the clearest intimations of the near approach of a time of judgment which should overtake the existing generation, on account of their rejection of the warnings and invitations of divine mercy. As the Baptist spoke of ‘the coming wrath,’ so our Lord with equal distinctness forewarned the people of ‘coming judgment.’ He upbraided ‘the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not,’ and predicted that a heavier woe would overtake them than had fallen upon Tyre and Sidon, Sodom and Gomorrha. {#Mt 11:20-24} That all this points to a catastrophe which was not remote, but near, and which would actually overtake the existing generation, appears evident from the express statements of Jesus.

#Mt 12:38-46: {compare #Lu 11:16,24-36} ‘Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign: and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall rise in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonas and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with generation, and condemn it, for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here. When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.’

This passage is of great importance in ascertaining the true meaning of the phrase ‘this generation’ [h genea auth]. It can only refer, in this place, to the people of Israel then living—the existing generation. No commentator has ever proposed to call ‘genea’ here the Jewish race in all ages. Our Lord was accustomed to speak of His contemporaries as this generation:

Whereunto shall I liken this generation?—‘ that is, the men of that day who would listen neither to His forerunner nor to Himself’. {#Mt 11:16 Lu 7:31} Even commentators like Stier, who contend for the rendering of ‘genea’ by race or lineage in other passages, admit that the reference in these words is ‘to the generation living in that then extant and most important age.’ {1} So in the passage before us there can be no controversy respecting the application of the words exclusively to the then existing generation, the contemporaries of Christ. Of the aggravated and enormous wickedness of that period our Lord here testifies. The generation has just before been addressed by Him in the very words of the Baptist—‘ O brood of vipers’ {#Mt 12:34}. Its guilt is declared to surpass that of the heathen; it is likened to a demoniac, from whom the unclean spirit had departed for a while, but returned in greater force than before, accompanied by seven other spirits more wicked than himself, so that ‘the last state of that man is worse than that first.’ We have in the testimony of Josephus a striking confirmation of our Lord’s description of the moral condition of that generation. ‘As it were impossible to relate their enormities in detail, I shall briefly state that no other city ever endured similar calamities, and no generation ever existed more prolific in crime. They confessed themselves to be, what they were—slaves, and the very dregs of society, the spurious and polluted spawn of the nation.’ {2} ‘And here I cannot refrain from expressing what my feelings suggest. I am of opinion, that had the Romans deferred the punishment of these wretches, either the earth would have opened and swallowed up the city, or it would have been swept away by a deluge, or have shared the shun. defaults of the land of Sodom. For it produced a race far more ungodly than those who were thus visited. For through the desperate madness of these men the whole nation was involved in their ruin.’ {3} ‘That period had somehow become so prolific in iniquity of every description amongst the Jews, that no work of evil was left unperpetrated; ... so universal was the contagion, both in public and private, and such the emulation to surpass each other in acts of impiety towards God, and of injustice towards their neighbours.’ {4}

Such was the fearful condition to which the nation was hastening when our Lord uttered these prophetic words. The climax had not yet been reached, but it was full in view. The unclean spirit had not yet returned to his house, but he was on the way. As Stier remarks, ‘In the period between the ascension of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem, especially towards the end of it, this nation shows itself, one might say, as if possessed by seven thousand devils.’ {5} 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? What presence is there for supposing a further and future fulfilment of His words? Is it not a virtual discrediting of the prophecy to seek any other than the plain and obvious sense which points so distinctly to an approaching catastrophe about to befall that generation? Surely we show most reverence to the Word of God when we accept implicitly its obvious teaching, and refuse the unwarranted and merely human speculations which critics and theologians have drawn from their own fancy. We conclude, then, 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.

{1} Reden Jesu, in loc.
{2} Jewish War, bk v. c. x sec. 5. Traill’s translation.
{3} Ibid. G. Xiii. sec. 6.
{4} Ibid. bk. vii. c. viii. sec. I.



FURTHER ALLUSIONS TO THE COMING WRATH.

#Lu 13:1-9: ‘There were present at that season some that told him of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.’

How vividly our Lord apprehended the approaching calamities of the nation, and how clear and distinct His warnings were, may be inferred from this passage. The massacre of some Galileans who had gone up to Jerusalem to the feast of the Passover, either by the command, or with the connivance of the Roman governor; and the sudden destruction of eighteen persons by the fall of a tower near the pool of Siloam, were incidents which formed the topics of conversation among the people at the time. Our Lord declares that the victims of these calamities were not exceptionally wicked, but that a like fate would overtake the very persons now talking about them, unless they repented. The point of His observation, which is often overlooked, lies in the similarity of the threatened destruction. It is not ‘ye also shall all perish,’ but, ‘ye shall all perish in the same manner’ wsautwv. That our Lord had in view the final ruin, which was about to overwhelm Jerusalem and the nation, can hardly be doubted. The analogy between the cases is real and striking. It was at the feast of the Passover that the population of Judea had crowded into Jerusalem, and were there cooped in by the legions of Titus. Josephus tells us how, in the final agony of the siege, the blood of the officiating priests was shed at the altar of sacrifice. The Roman soldiers were the executioners of the divine judgment; and as temple and tower fell to the ground, they buried in their ruins many a hapless victim of impenitence and unbelief. It is satisfactory to find both Alford and Stier recognising the historical allusion in this passage. The former remarks: the force of which is lost in the English version "likewise," should be rendered "in like manner," as indeed the Jewish people did perish by the sword of the Romans.’ {1}

{1} Greek Test. in loc.


IMPENDING FATE OF THE JEWISH NATION.

The Parable of the Barren Fig-tree.

#Lu 13:6-9: ‘He spake also this parable: A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard: and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he to the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this figtree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: and if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down.’

The same prophetic significance is manifest in this parable, which is almost the counterpart of that in #Isa 5., both in form and meaning. The true interpretation is so obvious as to render explanation scarcely necessary. Its bearing on the people of Israel is most distinct and direct, more especially when viewed in connection with the preceding warnings. Israel is the fruitless tree, long cultivated, but yielding no return to the owner. It was now on its last trial: the axe, as John the Baptist had declared, was laid to the root of the tree; but the fatal blow was delayed at the intercession of mercy. The Saviour was even then at His gracious work of nurture and culture; a little longer, and the decree would go forth—‘ Cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?’

No doubt there are general principles in this, as in other parables, applicable to all nations and all ages; but we must not lose sight of its original and primary reference to the Jewish people. Stier and Alford seem to lose themselves in searching for recondite and mystical meanings in the minor details of the imagery; but Neander gives a luminous explanation of its true import: ‘As the fruitless tree, failing to realize the aim of its being, was destroyed, so the theocratic nation, for the same reason, was to be overtaken, after long forbearance, by the judgments of God, and shut out from His kingdom.’ {1}

{1} Life of Christ, sec. 245.


THE END OF THE AGE, OR CLOSE OF THE JEWISH DISPENSATION.

Parables of the Tares, and of the Drag-net.

#Mt 13:36-47: ‘Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; the field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; the enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world [age]; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be at the end of this world [age]. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a [the] furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. ‘Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear... Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was east into the sea, and gathered of every kind: which, when it was full, they drew to the shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. So shall it be at the end of the world [age]: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.’

We find in the passages here quoted an example of one of those erroneous renderings which have done much to confuse and mislead the ordinary readers of our English version. It is probable, that ninety-nine in every hundred understand by the phrase, ‘the end of the world,’ the close of human history, and the destruction of the material earth. They would not imagine that the ‘world’ in #Mt 13:38 and the ‘world’ in #Mt 13:39 40, are totally different words, with totally different meanings. Yet such is the fact. kosmov in #Mt 13:38 is rightly translated world, and refers to the world of men, but aeon in #Mt 13:39,40, refers to a period of time, and should be rendered age or epoch. Lange translates it aeon. It is of the greatest importance to understand correctly the two meaning of this word, and of the phrase ‘the end of the aeon, or age.’ Aiwn is, as we have said, a period of time, or an age. It is exactly equivalent to the Latin word aevum, which is merely aion in a Latin dress; and the phrase, (Greek-coming), translated in our English version, ‘the end of the world,’ should be, ‘the close of the age.’ Tittman observes: Sunteleia tou aiwnov, as it occurs in the New Testament, does not denote the end, but rather the consummation, of the aiwn, which is to be followed by a new age. So in #Mt 13:39,40,49 24:3; which last passage, it is to be feared, may be misunderstood in applying it to the destruction of the world.’ {1} It was the belief of the Jews that the Messiah would introduce a new aeon: and this new aeon, or age, they called ‘the kingdom of heaven.’ The existing aeon: therefore, was the Jewish dispensation, which was now drawing to its close; and how it would terminate our Lord impressively shows in these parables. It is indeed surprising that expositors should have failed to recognize in these solemn predictions the reproduction and reiteration of the words of Malachi and of John the Baptist. Here we find the same final separation between the righteous and the wicked; the same purging of the floor; the same gathering of the wheat into the garner; the same burning of the chaff [tares, stubble] in the fire. Can there be a doubt that it is to the same act of judgment, the same period of time, the same historical event, that Malachi, John, and our Lord refer?

But we have seen that John the Baptist predicted a judgment which was then impending—a catastrophe so near that already the axe was lying at the root of the trees, —in accordance with the prophecy of Malachi, that ‘the great and dreadful day of the Lord’ was to follow on the coming of the second Elijah. We are therefore brought to the conclusion, that this discrimination between the righteous and the wicked, this gathering of the wheat into the garner, and burning of the tares in the furnace of fire, refer to the same catastrophe, viz., the wrath which came upon that very generation, when Jerusalem became literally ‘a furnace of fire,’ and the aeon of Judaism came to a close in ‘the great and dreadful day of the Lord.’

This conclusion is supported by the fact, that there is a close connection between this great judicial epoch and the coming of ‘the kingdom of heaven.’ Our Lord represents the separation of the righteous and the wicked as the characteristic of the great consummation which is called ‘the kingdom of God.’ But the kingdom was declared to be at hand. It follows, therefore, that the parables before us relate, not to a remote event still in the future, but to one which in our Saviour’s time was near.

An additional argument in favour of this view is derived from the consideration that our Lord, in His explanation of the parable of the tares, speaks of Himself as the sower of the good seed: ‘He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man.’ It is to His own personal ministry and its results that He refers, and we must therefore regard the parable as having a special bearing upon His contemporaries. It is in perfect harmony with His solemn warning in #Lu 13:26, where He describes the condemnation of those who were privileged to enjoy His personal presence and ministrations, the pretenders to discipleship, who were tares and not wheat. ‘Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God; and you yourselves thrust out.’ However applicable to men in general under the gospel such language may be, it is plain that it had a direct and specific bearing upon the contemporaries of our Lord—the generation that witnessed His miracles and heard His parables; and that it has a relation to them such as it can have to none else.

We find at the conclusion of the parable of the tares an impressive nota bene, drawing special attention to the instruction therein contained: ‘Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.’ We may take occasion from this to make a remark on the vast importance of a true conception of the period at which our Lord and His apostles taught. This is indispensable to the correct understanding of the New Testament doctrine respecting the ‘kingdom of God,’ the ‘end of the age,’ and the ‘coming aeon,’ or ‘world to come’ [aiwn o mellwn]. That period was near the close of the Jewish dispensation. The Mosaic economy, as it is called—the system of laws and institutions given to the nation by God Himself, and which had existed for more than forty generations, -was about to be superseded and to pass away. Already the last generation that was to possess the land was upon the scene, —the last and also the worst, —the child and heir of its predecessors. The long period, during which Jehovah had exhausted all the methods which divine wisdom and love could devise for the culture and reformation of Israel, was about to come to an end. It was to close disastrously. The wrath, long pent up and restrained, was to burst forth and overwhelm that generation. Its ‘last day’ was to be a dies irae ‘the great and terrible day of the Lord.’ This is the sunteleia tou aiwnov, ‘the end of the age,’ so often referred to by our Lord, and constantly predicted by His apostles. Already they stood within the penumbra of that tremendous crisis, which was every day advancing nearer and nearer, and which was at last to come suddenly, ‘as a thief in the night.’ This is the true explanation of those constant exhortations to vigilance, patience, and hope, which abound in the apostolic epistles. They lived expecting a consummation which was to arrive in their own time, and which they might witness with their own eyes. This fact lies on the very face of the New Testament writings; it is the key to the interpretation of much that would otherwise be obscure and unintelligible, and we shall see in the progress of this investigation how consistently this view is supported by the whole tenor of the New Testament Scriptures.

THE COMING OF THE SON OF MAN (THE PAROUSIA) IN THE LIFETIME OF THE APOSTLES.

#Mt 10:23: ‘But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.’

In this passage we find the earliest distinct mention of that great event which we shall find so frequently alluded to henceforth by our Lord and His apostles, viz., His coming again, or the Parousia. It may indeed be a question, as we shall presently see, whether this passage properly belongs to this portion of the gospel history. {1} But waiving for the moment this question, let us inquire what the coming here spoken of is. Can it mean, as Lange suggests, that Jesus was to follow so quickly on the heels of His messengers in their evangelistic circuit as to overtake them before it was completed? Or does it refer, as Stier and Alford think, to two different comings, separated from each other by thousands of years: the one comparatively near, the other indefinitely remote? Or shall we, with Michaelis and Meyer, accept the plain and obvious meaning which the words themselves suggest? The interpretation of Lange is surely inadmissible. Who can doubt that ‘the coming of the Son of man’ is here, what it is everywhere else, the formula by which the Parousia, the second coming of Christ, is expressed? This phrase has a definite and constant signification, as much as His crucifixion, or His resurrection, and admits of no other interpretation in this place. But may it not have a double reference: first, to the impending judgment of Jerusalem; and, secondly, to the final destruction of the world, —the former being regarded as symbolical of the latter? Alford contends for the double meaning, and is severe upon those who hesitate to accept it. He tells us what He thinks Christ meant; but on the other hand we have to consider what He said. Are the advocates of a double sense sure that He meant more than He said? Look at His words. Can anything be more specific and definite as to persons, place, time, and circumstance, than this prediction of our Lord? It is to the twelve that he speaks; it is the cities of Israel which they are to evangelize; the subject is His own speedy coming; and the time so near, that before their work is complete His coming will take place. But if we are to be told that this is not the meaning, nor the half of it, and that it includes another coming, to other evangelists, in other ages, and in other lands—a coming which, after eighteen centuries, is still future, and perhaps remote, —then the question arises: What may not Scripture mean? The grammatical sense of words no longer suffices for interpretation; Scripture is a conundrum to be guessed—an oracle that utters ambiguous responses; and no man can be sure, without a special revelation, that he understands what he reads. We are disposed, therefore, to agree with Meyer, that this twofold reference is ‘nothing but a forced and unnatural evasion,’ and the words simply mean what they say—that before the apostles completed their life-work of evangelizing the land of Israel, the coming of the Lord should take place.

This is the view of the passage which is taken by Dr. E. Robinson. {2} ‘The coming alluded to is the destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jewish nation; and the meaning is, that the apostles would barely have time, before the catastrophe came, to go over the land warning the people to save themselves from the doom of an untoward generation; so that they could not well afford to tarry in any locality after its inhabitants had heard and rejected the message.’

{1} There is a real difficulty in this passage which ought not to be overlooked. It seems unaccountable that our Lord, on an occasion like this, when He was sending forth the twelve on a short mission, apparently within a limited district, and from which they were to return to Him in a short time, should speak of His coming as overtaking them before the completion of their task. It seems scarcely appropriate to the particular period, and to belong more properly to a subsequent charge, viz., that recorded in the discourse spoken on the Mount of Olives. #Mt 24$; Mr 13$; #Lu 21$ Indeed, a comparison of these passages will go far to satisfy any candid mind that the whole paragraph #Mt 10:16-23 is transposed from its original connection, and inserted in our Lord’s first charge to His disciples We find the very words relating to the persecution of the apostles, their being delivered up to the councils, their being scourged in the synagogues, brought before governors and kings, etc., which are recorded in the tenth chapter of St. Matthew, assigned by St. Mark and St. Luke to a subsequent period, viz., the discourse on the Mount of Olives. There is no evidence that the disciples met with such treatment on their first evangelistic tour There is therefore as strong evidence as the nature of the case will admit, that ver. 23 and its context belong to the discourse on the Mount of Olives. This would remove the difficulty which the passage presents in the connection in which we here find it, and give a coherence and consistency to the language, which, as it stands, it is not easy to discover. It is an admitted fact that even the Synoptical Gospels do not relate all events in precisely the same order; there must therefore be greater chronological accuracy in one than in another. Stier says: ‘Matthew is careless of chronology in details’ (Reden Jesu, vol. iii. p. US). Neander, speaking on this very charge, says: ‘Matthew evidently connects many things with the instructions given to the apostles in view of their first journey, which chronologically belong later;’ (Life of Christ, —174, note b); and again, speaking of the charge given to the seventy, as recorded by St. Luke: ‘he says, ‘The entire and characteristic coherency of everything spoken by Christ, according to Luke, with the circumstances (so superior to the collocation of Matthew),’ etc. (Life of Christ, —204, note 1). Dr. Blaikie observes: ‘It is generally understood that Matthew arranged his narrative more by subjects and places than by chronology’ (Bible History, p. 372). There seems, therefore, abundant warrant for assigning the important prediction contained in #Mt 10:23 to the discourse delivered on the Mount of Olives.

{2} See note In Harmony of the Four Gospels.



THE PAROUSIA TO TAKE PLACE WITHIN THE LIFETIME OF SOME OF THE DISCIPLES.

#Mt 16:27,28

‘For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.’

‘Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.’

#Mr 8:38 9:1

‘Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.’

‘And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.’

#Lu 9:26,27

‘For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels.’

‘But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.’

This remarkable declaration is of the greatest importance in this discussion, and may be regarded as the key to the right interpretation of the New Testament doctrine of the Parousia. Though it cannot be said that there are any special difficulties in the language, it has greatly perplexed the commentators, who are much divided in their explanations. It is surely unnecessary to ask what is the coming of the Son of man here predicted. To suppose that it refers merely to the glorious manifestation of Jesus on the mount of transfiguration, though an hypothesis which has great names to support it, {1} is so palpably inadequate as an interpretation that it scarcely requires refutation. The same remark will apply to the comments of Dr. Lange, who supposes it to have been partially fulfilled by the resurrection of Christ. His exegesis is so curious an illustration of the shifts to which the advocates of a double-sense theory of interpretation are compelled to resort to, as to deserve quotation. ‘In our opinion,’ he says, ‘it is necessary to distinguish between the advent of Christ in the glory of His kingdom within the circle of His disciples, and that same advent as applying to the world generally and for judgment. The latter is what is generally understood by the second advent: the former took place when the Saviour rose from the dead and revealed Himself in the midst of His disciples. Hence the meaning of the words of Jesus is: the moment is close at hand when your hearts shall be set at rest by the manifestation of My glory; nor will it be the lot of all who stand here to die during the interval. The Lord might have said that only two of that circle would die till then, viz., Himself and Judas. But in His wisdom He chose the expression, "Some standing here shall not taste of death," to give them exactly that measure of hope and earnest expectation which they needed.’ {2}

It is enough to say that such an interpretation of our Saviour’s words could never have entered into the minds of those who heard them. It is so far-fetched, intricate, and artificial, that it is discredited by its very ingenuity. But neither does the interpretation satisfy the requirements of the language. How could the resurrection of Christ be called His coming in the glory of His Father, with the holy angels, in His kingdom, and to judgment? Or how can we suppose that Christ, speaking of an event which was to take place in about twelve months, would say, ‘Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see’ it? The very form of the expression shows that the event spoken of could not be within the space of a few months, or even a few years: it is a mode of speech which suggests that not all present will live to see the event spoken of; that not many will do so; but that some will. It is exactly such a way of speaking as would suit an interval of thirty or forty years, when the majority of the persons then present would have passed away, but some would survive and witness the event referred to.

Alford {3} and Stier more reasonably understand the passage as referring ‘to the destruction of Jerusalem and the full manifestation of the kingdom of Christ by the annihilation of the Jewish polity,’ though both embarrass and confuse their interpretation by the hypothesis of an occult and ulterior allusion to another ‘final coming,’ of which the destruction of Jerusalem was the ‘type and earnest.’ Of this, however, no hint nor intimation is given either by Christ Himself, or by the evangelists. It cannot, indeed, be denied that occasionally our Lord uttered ambiguous language. He said to the Jews: ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up’; {#Joh 2:19} but the evangelist is careful to add: ‘But he spake of the temple of his body.’ So when Jesus spoke of ‘rivers of living water flowing from the heart of the believer,’ St. John adds an explanatory note: ‘This spake he of the spirit,’ etc. {#Joh 7:36} Again, when the Lord alluded to the manner of His own death, ‘I, if I be lifted up from the earth,’ etc., the evangelist adds: ‘This he said, signifying what death he should die’. {#Joh 12:33} It is reasonable to suppose, therefore that had the evangelists known of a deeper and hidden meaning in the predictions of Christ, they would have given some intimation to that effect; but they say nothing to lead us to infer that their apparent meaning is not their full and true meaning. There is, in fact; no ambiguity whatever as to the coming referred to in the passage now under consideration. It is not one of several possible comings; but the one, sole, supreme event, so frequently predicted by our Lord, so constantly expected by His disciples. It is His coming in glory; His coming to judgment; His coming in His kingdom; the coming of the kingdom of God. It is not a process, but an act. It is not the same thing as ‘the destruction of Jerusalem,’—that is another event related and contemporaneous; but the two are not to be confounded. The New Testament knows of only one Parousia, one coming in glory of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is altogether an abuse of language to speak of several senses in which Christ may be said to come, —as at His own resurrection; at the day of Pentecost; at the destruction of Jerusalem; at the death of a believer; and at various providential epochs. This is not the usage of the New Testament, nor is it accurate language in any point of view. This passage alone contains so much important truth respecting the Parousia, that it may be said to cover the whole ground; and, rightly used, will be found to be a key to the true interpretation of the New Testament doctrine on this subject.

We conclude then:

1. That the coming here spoken of is the Parousia, the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.

2. That the manner of His coming was to be glorious—‘ in his own glory; "in the glory of his Father;" with the holy angels.’

3. That the object of His coming was to judge that ‘wicked and adulterous generation’, {#Mr 8:38} and ‘to reward every man according to his works.’

4. That His coming would be the consummation of ‘the kingdom of God;’ the close of the aeon; ‘the coming of the kingdom of God with power.’

5. That this coming was expressly declared by our Saviour to be near. Lange justly remarks that the words, mellei gar, are ‘emphatically placed at the beginning of the sentence; not a simple future, but meaning, The event is impending that He shall come; He is about to come.’ {4}

6. That some of those who heard our Lord utter this prediction were to live to witness the event of which He spoke, viz., His coming in glory.

The inference therefore is, that the Parousia, or glorious coming of Christ, was declared by Himself to fall within the limits of the then existing generation, —a conclusion which we shall find in the sequel to be abundantly justified.

{1} The training of the Twelve, p. 117
{2} Large, Comm. on St. Matthew in loc.
{3} Alford, Greek Test. in loc.
{4} See Lange in loc.



THE COMING OF THE SON OF MAN CERTAIN AND SPEEDY.

Parable of the Importunate Widow.

#Lu 18:1-8: ‘And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray and not to faint; saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man: and there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man; get because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me. And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith. And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth’ [in the land]?

The intensely practical and present-day character, if we may so call it, of our Lord’s discourses, is a feature of His teaching which, though often overlooked, requires to be steadily kept in view. He spoke to His own people, and to His own times. He was God’s messenger to Israel; and, while it is most true that His words are for all men and for all time, yet their primary and direct bearing was upon His own generation. For want of attention to this fact, many expositors have wholly missed the point of the parable before us. It becomes in their hands a vague and indefinite prediction of a vindication of the righteous, in some period more or less remote, but having no special relation to the people and time of our Lord Himself. Assuredly, whatever the parable may be to us or to future ages, it had a close and special bearing upon the disciples to whom it was originally spoken. The Lord was about to leave His disciples ‘as sheep in the midst of wolves;’ they were to be persecuted and afflicted, hated of all men for their Master’s sake; and it might well be that their courage would fail them, and their hearts would faint. In this parable the Saviour encourages them ‘to pray always, and not to faint,’ by the example of what persevering prayer can do even with man. If the importunity of a poor widow could constrain an unprincipled judge to do her right, how much more would God, the righteous Judge, be moved by the prayers of His own children to redress their wrongs. Without allegorizing all the details of the parable, after the manner of some expositors, it is enough to mark its great moral. It is this. The persecuted children of God would he surely and speedily avenged. God will vindicate them, and that speedily. But when? The point of time is not left indefinite. It is ‘when the Son of man cometh.’ The Parousia was to be the hour of redress and deliverance to the suffering people of God.

The reflection of our Lord in the close of the eighth verse deserves particular attention. ‘Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?’ We must here revert to the facts already stated with respect to the ministry of John the Baptist. We have seen how dark and ominous was the outlook of the prophet who preached repentance to Israel. He was the precursor of ‘the great and terrible day of the Lord;’ he was the second Elijah sent to proclaim the coming of Him who would ‘smite the land with a curse.’ The reflection of our Lord suggests that He foresaw that the repentance which could alone avert the doom of the nation was not to be looked for. There would be no faith in God, in His promises, or in His threatenings. The day of His therefore, would be the ‘day of vengeance. {#Lu 21:22}

Doddridge has well apprehended the scope of this parable, and paraphrases the opening verse as follows: ‘Thus our Lord discoursed with His disciples of the approaching destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans; and for their encouragement under those hardships which they might in the meantime expect, from their unbelieving countrymen or others, He spake a parable, to them, which was intended to inculcate upon them this great truth, that how distressed soever their circumstances might be, they ought always to pray with faith and perseverance, and not to faint under their trials.’ {1}

The following is his paraphrase of #Lu 18:8: ‘Yes I say unto you, He will certainly vindicate them; and when He once undertakes it, He will do it speedily too; and this generation of men shall see and feel it to their terror. Nevertheless, when the Son of man, having been put ill possession of His glorious kingdom, comes to appear for this important purpose, will He find faith in the land?’ {2}

{1} Family Expos. on #Lu 18:1-8
{2} Doddridge has the following note on ‘Will he find faith in the land?’ ‘It is evident the word often signifies not the earth in general, but some particular land or country; as in #Ac 7:3,4,11, and in numberless other places. And the context here limits it to the less extensive signification. The believing Hebrews were evidently in great danger of being wearied out with their persecutions and distresses. Comp. #Heb 3:12-14 10:23-39 12:1-4 Jas 1:1-4 2:6.’ The interpretation given by the judicious Campbell adds confirmation, if it were needed, needed, to this view of the passage. ‘There is a close connection in all that our Lord says on any topic of conversation, which rarely escapes an attentive reader. If in this, as is very probable, He refers to the destruction impending over the Jewish nation, as the judgment of Heaven for their rebellious against God, in rejecting and murdering the Messiah. and in persecuting His adherents, (the Greek) must be understood to mean "this belief," or the belief of the particular truth He had been inculcating, namely, that God will in due time avenge His elect, and signally punish their oppressors; and (the Greek) must mean "the land,," to wit, of Judea. The words may be translated either way—earth or land; but the latter evidently gives them a more definite meaning, and unites them more closely with those which preceded, (Campbell on the Gospels, vol. ii. p. 384). The teaching of this instructive parable is by no means exhausted; and we shall find it throw an unexpected light on a very obscure passage, at a future stage of this investigation. Meantime we may refer to #2Th 1:4-10, as furnishing a striking commentary on the whole parable, and showing the connection between the Parousia and the avenging of the elect.



THE REWARD OF THE DISCIPLES IN THE COMING ÆON, i.e. AT THE PAROUSIA

#Mt 19:27-30.

‘Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?’

‘And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall site in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.’

#Mr 10:28-30.

‘Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.’

‘And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, of father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s, but he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.’

#Lu 18:28-30.

‘Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee.’

‘And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.’

To what period are we to assign the event or state here called by our Lord the ‘regeneration’? It is evidently contemporaneous with ‘the Son of man sitting on the throne of his glory;’ nor can there be any question that the two phrases, ‘The Son of man coming in his kingdom,’ and, ‘The Son of man sitting on the throne of his glory,’ both refer to the same thing, and to the same time. That is to say, it is to the Parousia that both these expressions point.

We have another note of time, and another point of coincidence between the ‘regeneration’ and the Parousia, in the reference made by our Lord to the ‘coming age or aeon’ as the period when His faithful disciples were to receive their recompense. {#Mr 10:30 Lu 18:30} But the ‘coming age’ [aiwn o mellwn or ercomenov] was, as we have already seen, to succeed the existing age or aeon, that is to say, the period of the Jewish dispensation, the end of which our Lord declared to be at hand. We conclude, therefore, that the ‘regeneration,’ the ‘coming age,’ and the ‘Parousia,’ are virtually synonymous, or, at all events, contemporaneous. The coming of the Son of man in His kingdom, or in His glory, is distinctly affirmed to be a coming to judgment—‘ to reward every man according to his works; {#Mt 16:27} and His sitting on the throne of His glory, in the regeneration, is as evidently a sitting in judgment. In this judgment the apostles were to have the honour of being assessors with the Lord, according to His declaration— {#Lu 22:29,30} ‘I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.’ But this glorious coming to judgment is expressly affirmed by our Lord to fall within the limits of the generation then living: ‘There be some standing here which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom’. {#Mt 16:28} It was therefore no long-deferred and distant hope which Jesus held out to His disciples. It was not a prospect that is still seen afar off in the dim perspective of an indefinite futurity. St. Peter and his fellow-disciples were fully aware that ‘the kingdom of heaven’ was at hand. They had learned it from their first teacher in the wilderness; they had been reassured of it by their Lord and Master; they had gone through Galilee proclaiming the truth to their countrymen.

When the Lord, therefore, promised, that in the coming aeon His apostles should sit upon thrones, is it conceivable that He could mean that ages upon ages, centuries upon centuries, and even millennium upon millennium must slowly roll away before they should reap their promised honours? Are the inheritance of ‘everlasting life’ and the ‘sitting upon twelve thrones’ still among ‘the things hoped for but not seen’ by the disciples? Surely such a hypothesis refutes itself. The promise would have sounded like mockery to the disciples had they been told that the performance would be so long delayed. On the other hand, if we conceive of the ‘regeneration’ as contemporaneous with the Parousia, and the Parousia, with the close of the Jewish age and the destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem, we have a definite point of time, not far distant, but almost within the sight of living men, when the predicted judgment of the enemies of Christ,

. -The Interrogatory of the Disciples

#Mt 24:1-3.

‘And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple’

‘And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down.’

‘And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world [age]?’

#Mr 13:1-4.

‘And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, what manner of stones and what buildings are here!’

‘And Jesus answering said unto them, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.’

‘And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?’

#Lu 21:5-7.

‘And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones, and gifts, he said,’

‘As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.’

‘And they asked Him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?’

We may conceive the surprise and consternation felt by the disciples when Jesus announced to them the utter destruction which was coming upon the temple of God, the beauty and splendour of which had excited their admiration. it is no marvel that four of their number, who seem to have been admitted to more intimate familiarity than the rest, sought for fuller information On a subject so intensely interesting. The only point that requires elucidation here refers to the extent of their interrogatory. St. Mark and St. Luke represent it as having reference to the time of the predicted catastrophe and the sign of its fulfilment coming to pass. St. Matthew varies the form of the question, but evidently gives the same sense, —‘ Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?’ Here again it is the time and the sign which form the subject of inquiry. There is no reason whatever to suppose that they regarded in their own minds the destruction of the temple, the coming of the Lord, and the end of the age, as three distinct or widely separated events; but, on the contrary, it is most natural to suppose that they regarded them as coincident and contemporaneous. What precise ideas they entertained respecting the end of the age and the events therewith connected, we do not know; but we do know that they had been accustomed to hear their Master speak of His coming again in His kingdom, coming in His glory, and that within the lifetime of some among themselves. They had also heard Him speak of the ‘end of the age;’ and they evidently connected His ‘coming’ with the end of the age. The three points embraced in the form of their question, as given by St. Matthew, were therefore in their view contemporaneous; and thus we find no practical difference in the terms of the question of the disciples as recorded by the three Synoptists.


II.—Our Lord’s Answer to the Disciples.

(a) Events which more remotely were to precede the consummation.

#Mt 24:4-14

‘And Jesus answered and said unto the, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. 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. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. 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. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray on another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.’

#Mr 13:5-13

And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows. But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them. And the gospel must first be published among all nations. But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.

Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

#Lu 21:8-19

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. But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by. Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven. But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name’s sake. And it shall turn to you for a testimony. Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer: For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist. And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake. But there shall not an hair of your head perish. In your patience possess ye your souls.

It is impossible to read this section and fail to perceive its distinct reference to the period between our Lord’s crucifixion and the destruction of Jerusalem. Every word is spoken to the disciples, and to them alone. To imagine that the ‘ye’ and ‘you’ in this address apply, not to the disciples to whom Christ wits speaking, but to some unknown and yet non-existent persons in it far distant age, is so preposterous a supposition is not to deserve serious notice.

That our Lord’s words were fully verified during the interval, between His crucifixion and the end of the age, we have the most ample testimony. False Christs and false prophets began to make their appearance at a very early period of the Christian era, and continued to infest the land down to the very close of Jewish history. In the procuratorship of Pilate (A. D. 36), one such appeared in Samaria, and deluded great multitudes. There was another in the procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus (A. D. 45). During the government of Felix (53-60), Josephus tells us ‘the country was full of robbers, magicians, false prophets, false Messiahs, and impostors, who deluded the People with promises of great events.’ {1} The same authority informs us that civil commotions and international feuds, were rife in those days, especially between the Jews and their neighbours. In Alexandria, in Selucia, in Syria, in Babylonia, there were violent tumults between the Jews and the Greeks, the Jews and the Syrians, inhabiting the same cities. ‘Every city was divided,’ says Josephus, ‘into two camps.’ In the reign of Caligula great apprehensions were entertained in Judea of war with the Romans, in consequence of that tyrant’s proposal to place his statue in the temple. In the reign of the Emperor Claudis (A. D. 41-54), there were four seasons of great scarcity. In the fourth year of his reign the famine in Judea was so severe, that the price of food became enormous and great numbers perished. Earthquakes occurred in each of the reigns of Caligula and Claudius. {2}

Such calamities, the Lord gave His disciples to understand, would precede the ‘end.’ But they were not its immediate antecedents. They were the ‘beginning of the end;’ but ‘the end is not yet.’

At this point, {#Mt 24:9-13} our Lord passes from the general to the particular; from the public to the personal; from the fortunes of nations and kingdoms to the fortunes of the disciples themselves. While these events were proceeding, the apostles were to become objects of suspicion to the ruling powers. They were to be brought before councils, rulers, and kings, imprisoned, beaten in the synagogues, and hated of all men for Jesus’ sake,

How exactly all this was verified in the personal experience of the disciples we may read in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles of St. Paul. Yet the divine promise of protection in the hour of peril was remarkably fulfilled. With the single exception of ‘James the brother of John,’ no apostle seems to have fallen a victim to the malignant persecution of their enemies tip to the close of the apostolic history, as recorded in the Acts (A.D. 63).

One other sign was to precede and usher in the consummation. ‘The gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world [oikoumenh] for a witness unto all nations and then shall the end come.’ We have already adverted to the fulfilment of this prediction within the apostolic age. We have the authority of St. Paul for such a universal diffusion Of the gospel in his days as to verify the saying of Our Lord. {See #Col 1:6,23} But for this explicit testimony ‘from all apostle it would have been impossible to persuade some expositors that our Lord’s words had been in any sense fulfilled previous to the destruction of Jerusalem, it would have been regarded as mere extravagance, and rodomontade. Now, however, the objection cannot reasonably be urged.

Here it may be proper to call to mind the note of time, given on a previous occasion to the disciples as indicative of our Lord’s coming: ‘Verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come’. {#Mt 10:23} Comparing this declaration with the prediction before us, {#Mt 24:14} we may see the perfect consistency of the two statements, and also the ‘terminus ad quem’ in both. In the one case it is the evangelisation of the land of Israel, in the other, the evangelisation of the Roman empire that is referred to as the precursor of the Parousia. Both statements are true. It might well occupy the space of a generation to carry the glad tidings into every city in the land of Israel. The apostles had not too much time for their home mission, though they had upon their hands so vast a foreign mission. Obviously, we must take the language employed by Paul, as well as by our Lord in a popular sense and it would be unfair to press it to the extremity of the letter. The wide diffusion of the gospel both in the land of Israel and throughout the Roman empire, is sufficient to justify the prediction of our Lord.

Thus far then we have one continuous discourse, relating to a particular event, and spoken of and to particular persons. We find four signs, or sets of signs, which were to portend the approach of the great catastrophe.

1. The appearance of false Christs and false prophets.

2. Great social disturbances and natural calamities and convulsions.

3. Persecution of the disciples and apostasy of professed believers.

4. The general publication of the gospel throughout the Roman empire.

This last sign especially betokened the near approach of the ‘end.’

{1} Jos. Antiq. bk. xx. x. xiii. sec. 5, 6.
{2} Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epist. of St. Paul, c. iv.


II.—Our Lord’s Answer to the Disciples.

(a) Events which more remotely were to precede the consummation.

#Mt 24:4-14

‘And Jesus answered and said unto the, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. 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. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. 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. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray on another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.’

#Mr 13:5-13

And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows. But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them. And the gospel must first be published among all nations. But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.

Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

#Lu 21:8-19

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. But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by. Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: And great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs shall there be from heaven. But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name’s sake. And it shall turn to you for a testimony. Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer: For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist. And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake. But there shall not an hair of your head perish. In your patience possess ye your souls.

It is impossible to read this section and fail to perceive its distinct reference to the period between our Lord’s crucifixion and the destruction of Jerusalem. Every word is spoken to the disciples, and to them alone. To imagine that the ‘ye’ and ‘you’ in this address apply, not to the disciples to whom Christ wits speaking, but to some unknown and yet non-existent persons in it far distant age, is so preposterous a supposition is not to deserve serious notice.

That our Lord’s words were fully verified during the interval, between His crucifixion and the end of the age, we have the most ample testimony. False Christs and false prophets began to make their appearance at a very early period of the Christian era, and continued to infest the land down to the very close of Jewish history. In the procuratorship of Pilate (A. D. 36), one such appeared in Samaria, and deluded great multitudes. There was another in the procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus (A. D. 45). During the government of Felix (53-60), Josephus tells us ‘the country was full of robbers, magicians, false prophets, false Messiahs, and impostors, who deluded the People with promises of great events.’ {1} The same authority informs us that civil commotions and international feuds, were rife in those days, especially between the Jews and their neighbours. In Alexandria, in Selucia, in Syria, in Babylonia, there were violent tumults between the Jews and the Greeks, the Jews and the Syrians, inhabiting the same cities. ‘Every city was divided,’ says Josephus, ‘into two camps.’ In the reign of Caligula great apprehensions were entertained in Judea of war with the Romans, in consequence of that tyrant’s proposal to place his statue in the temple. In the reign of the Emperor Claudis (A. D. 41-54), there were four seasons of great scarcity. In the fourth year of his reign the famine in Judea was so severe, that the price of food became enormous and great numbers perished. Earthquakes occurred in each of the reigns of Caligula and Claudius. {2}

Such calamities, the Lord gave His disciples to understand, would precede the ‘end.’ But they were not its immediate antecedents. They were the ‘beginning of the end;’ but ‘the end is not yet.’

At this point, {#Mt 24:9-13} our Lord passes from the general to the particular; from the public to the personal; from the fortunes of nations and kingdoms to the fortunes of the disciples themselves. While these events were proceeding, the apostles were to become objects of suspicion to the ruling powers. They were to be brought before councils, rulers, and kings, imprisoned, beaten in the synagogues, and hated of all men for Jesus’ sake,

How exactly all this was verified in the personal experience of the disciples we may read in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles of St. Paul. Yet the divine promise of protection in the hour of peril was remarkably fulfilled. With the single exception of ‘James the brother of John,’ no apostle seems to have fallen a victim to the malignant persecution of their enemies tip to the close of the apostolic history, as recorded in the Acts (A.D. 63).

One other sign was to precede and usher in the consummation. ‘The gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world [oikoumenh] for a witness unto all nations and then shall the end come.’ We have already adverted to the fulfilment of this prediction within the apostolic age. We have the authority of St. Paul for such a universal diffusion Of the gospel in his days as to verify the saying of Our Lord. {See #Col 1:6,23} But for this explicit testimony ‘from all apostle it would have been impossible to persuade some expositors that our Lord’s words had been in any sense fulfilled previous to the destruction of Jerusalem, it would have been regarded as mere extravagance, and rodomontade. Now, however, the objection cannot reasonably be urged.

Here it may be proper to call to mind the note of time, given on a previous occasion to the disciples as indicative of our Lord’s coming: ‘Verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come’. {#Mt 10:23} Comparing this declaration with the prediction before us, {#Mt 24:14} we may see the perfect consistency of the two statements, and also the ‘terminus ad quem’ in both. In the one case it is the evangelisation of the land of Israel, in the other, the evangelisation of the Roman empire that is referred to as the precursor of the Parousia. Both statements are true. It might well occupy the space of a generation to carry the glad tidings into every city in the land of Israel. The apostles had not too much time for their home mission, though they had upon their hands so vast a foreign mission. Obviously, we must take the language employed by Paul, as well as by our Lord in a popular sense and it would be unfair to press it to the extremity of the letter. The wide diffusion of the gospel both in the land of Israel and throughout the Roman empire, is sufficient to justify the prediction of our Lord.

Thus far then we have one continuous discourse, relating to a particular event, and spoken of and to particular persons. We find four signs, or sets of signs, which were to portend the approach of the great catastrophe.

1. The appearance of false Christs and false prophets.

2. Great social disturbances and natural calamities and convulsions.

3. Persecution of the disciples and apostasy of professed believers.

4. The general publication of the gospel throughout the Roman empire.

This last sign especially betokened the near approach of the ‘end.’

{1} Jos. Antiq. bk. xx. x. xiii. sec. 5, 6.
{2} Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epist. of St. Paul, c. iv.

(b) Further indications of the approaching doom of Jerusalem

#Mt 24:15-22

‘When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.’

‘And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.’

#Mr 13:14-20

‘But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house: And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment.’

‘But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter. For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect’s sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.’

#Lu 21:20-22

‘And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.’

‘Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.’

‘But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.’

No argument is required to prove the strict and exclusive reference of this section to Jerusalem and Judea. Here we can detect no trace of it double meaning, of primary and ulterior fulfilments, of underlying and typical senses. Everything is national, local, and near:—‘ the land’ is the land of Judea, —‘ this people’ is the people of Israel, -and the ‘time’ the lifetime of the disciples, —‘ When YE therefore Shall See.’

Most expositors find an allusion to the standards of the Roman legions in the expression, ‘the abomination of desolation’ and the explanation is highly probable. The eagles were the objects of religious worship to the soldiers; and the parallel passage in St. Luke is all but conclusive evidence that this is the true meaning. We know from Josephus that the attempt of a Roman general (Vitellius), in the reign of Tiberius, to march his troops through Judea, was resisted by the Jewish authorities, on the ground that the idolatrous images on their ensigns would be a profanation of the law. {1} How much greater the profanation when those idolatrous emblems were displayed in full view of the temple and the Holy City! This was the last token which portended that the hour of doom for Jerusalem had come. Its appearance was to be the signal to all in Judea to escape beyond the mountains [epi ta orh] for then would ensue a period of misery and horror without a parallel in the annals of time.

That the ‘great tribulation’ [yliqiv megalh] {#Mt 24:21} has express reference to the dreadful calamities attending the siege of Jerusalem, which bore With such peculiar severity on the female sex, is too evident to be questioned. That those calamities were literally unparalleled, can easily be believed by all who have read the ghastly narrative in the pages of Josephus. It is remarkable that the historian begins his account of the Jewish war with the affirmation, ‘that the aggregate of human woes from the beginning of the world, would, in his opinion, be light in comparison with those of the Jews.’ {2}

The following graphic description introduces the tragic story of the wretched mother, whose horrible repast may have been in our Saviour’s thoughts when he uttered the words recorded in #Mt 24:19:

‘Incalculable was the multitude of those who perished in famine in the city, and beyond description the sufferings they endured. In every house, if anywhere there appeared but the shadow of food, a conflict ensued; those united by the tenderest ties fiercely contending, and snatching from one another the miserable supports of life. Nor were even the dying allowed the credit of being in want; nay, even those who were just expiring the brigands would search, lest, any, with food concealed under a fold of his garment, should feign death. Gaping with hunger, as maddened dogs, they went staggering to and fro and prowling about assailing the doors like drunken men, and in bewilderment rushing into the same house twice, or thrice in one hour. The cravings of nature led them to gnaw anything, and what would be rejected by the Very filthiest or the brute creation they were fain to collect and eat. Even from their belts and shoes they were at length unable to refrain, and they tore off and chewed the very leather of their shields. To some, wisps of old hay served for food; for the fibres were gathered, and the smallest quantities sold for four Attic pieces.’

‘But why speak of the famine as despising restraint in the use of inanimate, When I am about to state an instance of it to which, in the history of Greeks or Barbarians, no parallel is to be found, and which is horrible to relate, and is incredible to hear? Gladly, indeed would I have omitted to mention the occurrence, lest I Should be thought by future generations to deal in the marvellous, had I not innumerable witnesses among my contemporaries. I should, besides, pay my country but a cold compliment, were I to suppress the narration of the woes which she actually suffered.’ {3}

That our Lord had in view the horrors which were to befall the Jews in the siege, and not any subsequent events it the end of time, is perfectly clear from the closing words of ver. 21—‘ No, nor ever shall be.’

{1} Jos. Antiq. bk. xviii. c. v, sec. 3.
{2} Traill’s Jos. Jewish War, pref. sec. 4
{3} Traill’s Jos. Jewish War, bk. vi. c. v. sec. 3


(c) The disciples warned against false prophets.

#Mt 24:23-28

‘Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.’

#Mr 13:21-23

‘And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not: For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect. But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.’

As yet we have found no break in the continuity of the discourse, — not the faintest indication that any transition has taken place to any other subject or any other period. The narrative is perfectly homogeneous and consecutive, and flows on without diverging to the right hand or to the left.

The same is equally true with respect to the section now before us. The very first word is indicative of continuity—‘ Then’ [tote] and every succeeding word is plainly addressed to the disciples themselves, for their personal warning and guidance. It is clear that our Lord gives them intimation of what would shortly come to pass, or at least what they might live to witness with their own eyes. It is a vivid representation of what actually occurred in the last days of the Jewish commonwealth. The unhappy Jews, and especially the people of Jerusalem, were buoyed up with false hopes by the specious impostors who infested the land and brought ruin upon their miserable dupes. Such was the infatuation produced by the boasting pretensions of these impostors, that, as we learn from Josephus, when the temple was actually in flames a vast multitude of the deluded people fell victims to their credulity. The Jewish historian states:

‘Of so great a multitude, not one escaped. Their destruction Was caused by a false prophet, who had on that day proclaimed to those remaining in the city, that "God commanded them to go up to the temple, there to receive the signs of their deliverance." There were at this time many prophets suborned by the tyrants to delude the people, by bidding them wait for help from God, in order that there might be less desertion, and that those who were above fear and control might be encouraged by hope. Under calamities man readily yields to persuasion but when the deceiver pictures to him deliverance from pressing evils, then the sufferer is wholly influenced by hope. Thus it was that the impostors and pretended messengers of heaven at that time beguiled the wretched people.’ {1}

Our Lord forewarns His disciples that His coming to that judgment-scene would be conspicuous and sudden as the lightning-flash, which reveals itself and seems to be everywhere at the, same moment. ‘For,’ He adds, ‘wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together;’ that is, wherever the guilty and devoted children of Israel were found, there the destroying ministers of wrath, the Roman legions, —would overwhelm them.

{1} Traill’s Jos. Jewish War, bk. vi. c. v. sec. 2


(d) The arrival of the ‘end,’ or the catastrophe of Jerusalem.

#Mt 24:29-31

‘Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:’

‘And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.’

#Mr 13:24-27

‘But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.’

‘And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.’

‘And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.’

#Lu 21:25-28

‘And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.’

‘And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.’

Here also the phraseology absolutely forbids the idea of any transition from the subject in hand to another. There is nothing to indicate that the scene has shifted, or a new topic been introduced. The section before us connects itself most distinctly with the ‘great tribulation’ spoken of in #Mt 24:21, and it is inadmissible to suppose any interval of time in the face of the adverb ‘immediately’( euyewv de) But the scene of the ‘great tribulation’ is undeniably Jerusalem and Judea, {#Mt 24:15,16} so that no break in the subject of the discourse is allowable. Again, in #Mt 24:30, we read that ‘all the tribes of the land [pasai ai fulai thv ghv] shall mourn,’ referring evidently to the population of the land of Judea; and nothing can be more forced and unnatural than to make it include, as Lange does, ‘all the races and peoples’ of the globe. The restricted sense of the word gh [land] in the New Testament is common; and when connected, as it is here, with the word ‘tribes’[ fulai], its limitation to the land of Israel is obvious. This is the view adopted by Dr. Campbell and Moses Stuart, and it is indeed self-evident. We find a similar expression in #Zec 12:12—‘ All the families [tribes] of the land,’—where its restricted sense is obvious and undisputed. The two passages are in fact exactly parallel, and nothing could be more misleading than to understand the phrase as including ‘all the races of the earth.’

The structure of the discourse, then, inflexibly resists the supposition of a change of subject. Time, place, circumstances, all continue the same. It is therefore with unfeigned wonder that we find Dean Alford commenting in the following fashion: All the difficulty which this word [immediately— euyewv] has been supposed to involve has arisen from confounding, the partial fulfilment of the prophecy with it’s ultimate one. The important insertion #Lu 21:23,24 shows us that the ‘tribulation’ [yliqiv] includes orgh en tw law toutw (wrath upon this people), which is yet being inflicted, and the treading down of Jerusalem by the Gentiles, still going on; and immediately after that tribulation, which shall happen when the cup of Gentile iniquity is full, and when the gospel shall have been preached it all the world for a witness, and rejected by the Gentiles, shall the coming of the, Lord Himself happen... (The expression in Mark is equally indicative of a considerable interval—in those days after that tribulation.) The fact of His coming and its attendant circumstances being known to Him, but the exact time unknown, He speaks without regard to the interval, which would be, employed in His waiting till all things are put under His feet,’ etc. {1}

It may be said that in this comment there are almost as many errors as words. Indeed, it is not the explanation of a prophecy so much as an independent prophecy of the commentator himself. First, there is the groundless hypothesis of it’s double sense, it’s partial and an ultimate fulfilment, for which there is no foundation in the text, but which is a mere arbitrary and gratuitous supposition. Next, we have it ‘tribulation,’ not ‘shortened,’ as the Lord declares, but protracted so as be ‘still going on’ in the present day. Then the word ‘immediately’ is made to refer to a period not yet come, so that between #Lu 21:28-29, where the unassisted eye can perceive no trace of any line of transition, the critic intercalates an immense period of more than eighteen centuries, with the possibility of an indefinite duration in addition. Still further we have an implied contradiction of St. Paul’s statement that the gospel was preached ‘in all the world’, {#Col 1:6} and the assumption that the gospel is to be rejected by the Gentiles. Then the commentator finds that St. Mark suggests a ‘considerable interval,’ whereas he expressly says In those very days after that ‘tribulation’ [en ekeinaiv taiv hmeraiv meta thn yliqin ekeinhn]—precluding the possibility of any interval at all, and lastly we have what appears like an apology for the veracity of the prediction, on the ground that our Lord, not, knowing the exact time when His coming would take place, ‘speaks without regard to the interval,’ etc.

It is obvious, that if this is the way in which Scripture is to be interpreted, the ordinary laws of exegesis must be thrown aside as useless. He is the best interpreter who is the boldest guesser. Is there any ancient book which a grammarian would treat after this fashion? Would it not be pronounced intolerable and uncritical if such liberties were taken with Homer or Plato? Would it not have been a mockery to propound such riddles to the disciples as an answer to their question, ‘When shall these things be?

How could they know of partial and ultimate fulfilments, and double senses? and what effect could be produced in their minds, but bitter perplexity and bewilderment? We cannot help protesting against such treatment of the words of Scripture, as not only unscholarly and uncritical, but in the highest degree presumptuous and irreverent.

But, it is answered, the character of our Lord’s language in this passage necessitates its application to a grand and awful catastrophe which is still future, and can be properly understood of nothing less than the total dissolution of the fabric of the universe, and the end of all things. How can any one pretend it is said, that the sun has been darkened, that the moon has withdrawn her light, that the stars have fallen from heaven, that the Son of man has been seen coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory? Did such phenomena occur at the destruction of Jerusalem, or can they apply to anything else than the final consummation of all things?

To argue in this strain is to lose sight of the very nature and genius of prophecy. Symbol and metaphor belong to the grammar of prophecy, as every reader of the Old Testament prophets must know. Is it not reasonable that the doom of Jerusalem should be depicted in language as glowing and rhetorical as the destruction of Babylon, or Bozrah, or Tyre? How then does the prophet Isaiah describe the downfall of Babylon?

‘Behold the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.... I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place’ {#Isa 13:9,10,13}

It will at once be seen that the imagery employed in this passage is almost identical with that of our Lord. If these symbols therefore were proper to represent the fall of Babylon why should they be improper to set forth a still greater catastrophe—the destruction of Jerusalem?

Take another example. The prophet Isaiah announces the desolation of Bozrah, the capital of Edom, in the following language:

‘The mountains shall be melted with the blood of the slain... All the host of heaven shall be dissolved and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from my vine, and as a falling fig from the fig-tree. For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold it shall come down upon Idumea, ’ etc. {#Isa 34:4,5}

Here again we have the very imagery used by our Lord in His prophetic discourse; And if the fate of Bozrah might properly be described in language so lofty, why should it be thought extravagant to employ similar terms in describing the fate of Jerusalem?

Again, the prophet Micah speaks of a ‘coming of the Lord’ to judge and punish Samaria and Jerusalem—a coming to judgment which had unquestionably taken place long before our Saviour’s time, —and in what magnificent diction does he represent this scene!

‘Behold, the Lord cometh forth out of his place, and will come down, and tread upon the high Oar, of the earth. And the mountains shall be molten under him, and the valleys shall be as wax before the fire, and as Me waters that arc poured down a steep place’ {#Mic 1:3,4}

It would be easy to multiply examples of this characteristic quality of prophetic diction. Prophecy is of the nature of poetry, and depicts events, not in the prosaic style of the historian, but in the glowing imagery of the poet. Add to this that the Bible does not speak with the cold logical correctness of the Western peoples, but with the tropical fervour of the, gorgeous East. Yet it would be improper to call such language extravagant or overcharged. The moral grandeur of the events which such symbols represent may be most fitly set forth by convulsion; and cataclysms in the natural world. Nor is it necessary to construct a grammar of symbolology and find an analogue for every sacred hieroglyphic, by which to translate each particular metaphor into its proper equivalent, for this would be to turn prophecy into allegory. The following observations on the figurative language of Scripture are judicious. What is grand in nature is used to express what is dignified and important among men, —the heavenly bodies, mountains, stately trees, kingdoms or those in authority... Political changes are represented by earthquakes, tempests, eclipses, the turning of waters and seas into blood.’ {2}

The conclusion then to which we are irresistibly led, is, that the imagery employed by our lord in His prophetic discourse is not inappropriate to the dissolution of the Jewish state and polity which took place at the destruction of Jerusalem. It is appropriate, both as it is in keeping with the acknowledged style of the ancient prophets, and also because the moral grandeur of the event is such as to justify the use of such language in this particular case.

But we may go further than this, and affirm that it is not only appropriate as applied to the destruction of Jerusalem, but that this is its true and exclusive application. We find no vestige of an intimation that our Lord had any ulterior and occult signification in view. But we do find that there is scarcely a feature in this sublime and awful description which He Himself had not already anticipated, and fixed in its application to a particular event and a particular time. Let the reader carefully compare the description in the passage before us, of ‘the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory’ {#Mt 24:30} {3} with our Lord’s declaration—‘ For {#Mt 16:27} the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels,’—an event which He expressly affirms would be witnessed by some of His disciples then living. Again, the sending forth of His angels to gather together His elect, corresponds exactly with the representation of what would take place in the ‘harvest,’ at the end of the aeon, as described in the parables of the tares and the dragnet—‘ The {#Mt 12:41-50} Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity.’ ‘So shall it be at the end of the age [aeon]: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire.’ Here the prophecy and the parable represent the self- same scene, the self-same period: they alike speak of the close of the aeon or age, not of the end of the world, or material universe; and they alike speak of that great judicial epoch as at hand. How plainly does St. Luke, in his record of the prophecy on the Mount of Olives, represent the great catastrophe as falling within the lifetime of the disciples: ‘And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh’. {#Lu 21:28} Were not these words spoken to the disciples, who listened to the discourse? Did they not apply to them? Is there anywhere even a suspicion that they were meant for another audience, thousands of years distant, and not for the eager group who drank in the words of Jesus? Surely such a hypothesis carries its own refutation in its very front.

But, as if to preclude even the possibility of misconception or mistake, our Lord in the next paragraph draws around His prophecy a line so plain and palpable, shutting it wholly within a limit so definite and distinct, that it ought to be decisive of the whole question.

{1} See Alford Gr. Test, #Mt 24:29.
{2} Angus’s Bible Handbook p. 20 sec. i.
{3} The phenomena described by our Lord as accompanying the Parousia, {#Mt 24:29} cannot be explained by the portents slid prodigies alleged by Josephus to have preceded the capture of Jerusalem (Jewish War, bk. vi. c. v. sec. 3). That some at least of those portents actually appeared there seems no reason to doubt, and they serve to verify the prediction in #Lu 21:11, —‘ Fearful

(e) The Parousia to take place before the passing away of the existing generation

#Mt 24:32-34

Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

#Mr 13:28-30

Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near: So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

#Lu 21:29-32

And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

Words have no meaning if this language, uttered on so solemn an occasion, and so precise and express in its import, does not affirm the near approach of the great event which occupies the whole discourse of our Lord. First, the parable of the fig-tree intimates that as the buds on the trees betoken the near approach of summer, so the signs which He had just specified would betoken that the predicted consummation was at hand. They, the disciples to whom He was speaking, were to see them, and when they saw them to recognise that the end was ‘near, even at the doors.’ Next, our Lord sums up with an affirmation calculated to remove every vestige of doubt or uncertainty, —

‘VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, THIS GENERATION SHALL NOT PASS, TILL ALL THESE THINGS BE FULFILLED.’

One would reasonably suppose that after a note of time so clear and express there could not be room for controversy. Our Lord Himself has settled the question. Ninety-nine persons in every hundred would undoubtedly understand His words as meaning that the predicted catastrophe would fall within the limits of the lifetime of the existing generation. Not that all would probably live to witness it, but that most or many would. There can be no question that this would be the interpretation which the disciples would place upon the words. Unless, therefore, our Lord intended to mystify His disciples, He gave them plainly to understand that His coming, the judgment of the Jewish nation, and the close of the age, would come to pass before the existing generation had wholly passed away, and within the limits of their own lifetime. This, as we have already seen, was no new idea, but one which on several occasions He had previously expressed.

Far, however, from accepting this decision of our Lord as final, the commentators have violently resisted that which seems the natural and common-sense meaning of His words. They have insisted that because the events predicted did not so come, to pass in that generation, therefore the word generation (genea) cannot possibly mean, what it is usually understood to mean, the people of that particular age or period, the contemporaries of our Lord. To affirm that these things did not come to pass is to beg the question, and something more. But we submit that it is the business of grammarians not to be apprehensive of possible consequences, but to settle the true meaning of words. Our Lord’s predictions may be safely left to take care of themselves; it is for us to try to understand them.

It is contended by many that in this place the word genea should be rendered ‘race, or nation;’ and that our Lord’s words mean no more than that the Jewish race or nation Should not pass away, or perish, until the predictions which He had just uttered had come to pass. This is the meaning which Lange, Stier, Alford, and many other expositors attach to the word, and it is maintained with conspicuous ability and copious learning by Dorner in his tractate, ‘De Oratione Christi Eschatologica.’ It is true, no doubt, that the word genea, like most others, has different shades of meaning, and that sometimes, in the Septuagint and in classic authors it may refer to a nation or a race. But we think that it is demonstrable without any shadow of doubt that the expression ‘this generation,’ so often employed by our Lord, always refers solely and exclusively to His contemporaries, the Jewish people of His own period. It might safely be left to the candid judgment of every reader, whether a Greek Scholar or not, whether this is not so: but as the point is one of great importance, it may be desirable to adduce the proofs of this assertion.

1. In our Lord’s final address to the people, delivered on the same day as this discourse on the Mount of Olives, He declared, ‘All these things shall come upon this generation’. {#Mt 23:36} No commentator has ever proposed to understand this as referring to any other than the existing generation.

2. ‘Whereunto shall I liken this generation?’ {#Mt 11:16} Here it is admitted by Lange and Stier that the word refers to ‘the then existing last generation of Israel’( Lange, in loc. Stier, vol ii. 98).

3. ‘An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign.’ ‘The men of Nineveh shall rise up in the judgment with this generation.’ ‘The Queen of the South shall rise up in the judgment with this generation.’ ‘Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation’. {#Mt 12:39,41,42,45}

In these four passages Dorner endeavours to make out That our Lord is not speaking of His contemporaries, the men of His own period, ‘For,’ be says, ‘the Gentiles’ (the Ninevites and the Queen of the South) ‘are opposed to the Jews; therefore "this generation"’[ h genea auth] ‘must signify the nation or race of the Jews’ (Dorner, Orat. Chr. Esch., p. 81). His argument, however, is not convincing. Surely the generation which sought after a sign was the then existing generation; and can it be supposed that it was against any other generation than that which had resisted such preaching as that of John the Baptist and of Christ that the Gentiles were to rise up in the judgment? There is only one interpretation of our Lord’s language possible, and it is that which refers His words to His own perverse and unbelieving contemporaries.

4. ‘That the blood of all the prophets... may be required of this generation.’ ‘It shall be required of this generation’ {#Lu 11:50,51}

Here Dorner himself admits that it is of the existing generation (hoc ipsum hominum avum) that these words are spoken (p. 41).

5. ‘Whosoever shall be ashamed of me in this adulterous and sinful generation’. {#Mr 8:38}

6. ‘The Son of man must be rejected of this generation. {#Lu 17:25} It is only necessary to quote these passages in order to determine their sole reference to the particular generation that rejected the Messiah.

These are all the examples in which the expression ‘this generation’ occurs in the sayings of our Lord, and they establish beyond all reasonable question the reference of the words in the important declaration now before us. But suppose that we were to adopt the rendering proposed, and take genea as meaning a race, what point or significance would there be in the prediction then? Can any one believe that the assertion so solemnly made by our Lord, ‘Verily I say unto you,’ etc., amounts to no more than this, ‘The Hebrew race shall not become extinct till all these things be fulfilled’? Imagine a prophet in our own times predicting a great catastrophe in which London would be destroyed, St. Paul’s and the Houses of Parliament levelled with the ground, and a fearful slaughter of the inhabitants be perpetrated; and that when asked, ‘When shall these things come to pass?’ he should reply, ‘The Anglo-Saxon race shall not become extinct till all these things be fulfilled’! Would this be a satisfactory answer? Would not such an answer be considered derogatory to the prophet, and an affront to his hearers? Would they not have reason to say, ‘It is safe prophesying when the event is placed at an interminable distance!’ But the bare supposition of such a sense in our Lord’s prediction shows itself to be a reductio ad absurdum. Was it for this that the disciples were to wait and watch? Was this the lesson that the budding fig-tree taught? Was it not until the Jewish race was about to become extinct that they were to ‘look up, and lift up their heads’? Such a hypothesis is its own refutation.

We fall back, therefore, upon the only tenable and possible interpretation, and understand our Lord to mean, what in so many words He says, that the events specified in His prediction would assuredly come to pass before the existing generation had wholly passed away. This is the only interpretation which the words will bear; every other involves a wresting of language, and a violence to the understanding. Besides, it is in harmony with the uniform teaching of our Saviour. He had long before assured His disciples that some of them should live to witness His return in glory. {#Mt 16:27,28}

He had told them that before they had completed their apostolic mission to the cities of Israel the Son of man should come. {#Mt 10:23} He had declared that all the blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zacharias, should be required of that generation. {#Mt 23:35,36} It was, therefore, of that generation that He spoke. It should never be forgotten that there was a specialty about that generation. It was the last and worst of all the generations of Israel, inheriting the guilt of all its predecessors, and was about to be visited with signal and un-paralleled judgments. Whether the predicted catastrophe came to pass is another question, which will come to be considered in its proper place. {1}

Other interpretations which have been suggested, as ‘the human race,’ ‘the generation of the righteous,’ and ‘the generation of the wicked,’ do not require consideration.

A word or two may be needful respecting the length of time covered by a generation. Of course, it is not an exact measure of time, like a decade or a century, but has a certain indefiniteness or elasticity, yet within certain limits, say between thirty and forty years. In the book of Numbers we find that the generation which provoked the Lord to exclude them from the land of Canaan, and were doomed to fall in the wilderness, were to die out in the space of forty years. In the ninety-fifth psalm we read, ‘Forty years long was I grieved with this generation.’ In the genealogical table given by St. Matthew we have data for estimating the length of a generation. We there find that ‘from the carrying’ away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations’. {#Mt 1 17} Now the date of the captivity, in the reign of Zedekiah, is said to be circa B. C. 586, which, divided by fourteen, gives forty-one years and a fraction as the average length of each generation. The Jewish war under Nero broke Out A. D. 66, and assuming our Lord to have been about thirty-three years of age at the time of His crucifixion, this would give a space of about thirty-three years when the signs betokening the approach of ‘the end’ would ‘begin to come to pass.’ The destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem took place in September A. D. 70, that is, about thirty-seven years after the prophecy of the Mount of Olives, a space of time that amply satisfies the requirements of the case. It is neither so short as to make it inappropriate to say, ‘This generation shall not pass away,’ etc., nor so long as to throw it beyond the lifetime of many who might have seen and heard the Saviour, or of the disciples themselves.

‘That generation’ would indeed be then passing away, but it would not have wholly passed.

{1} The note in Robinson’s Harmony of the Four Gospels, part vii. sec. 128, is excellent. ‘This generation,’ etc. These words (genea) cannot be understood (as some have explained them) of the Jewish nation or the human race. The meaning is, that the men of that age should not all die (See #Mt 16:28, in sec. 74) before the prophecy would be accomplished, which began to come to pass thirty-seven years after its utterance in the destruction of Jerusalem, etc.


(f) Certainty of the consummation, yet uncertainty of its precise date

#Mt 24:35,36

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

#Mr 13:31,32

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

#Lu 21:33

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Although our Lord has defined the limits of the time within which the predicted consummation would take place, yet a certain amount of indefiniteness remains respecting the moment of its arrival. He does not specify the exact date, the ‘hour, or the day,’ or even the month or the year. This does not mean that the whole question of time is left unsettled: it refers merely to the precise date. The consummation was to fall within the term of the existing generation, but the particular hour when the knell of doom should sound was not revealed to man, nor angel, nor (what is stranger still) to the Son of man Himself. It was the secret which the Father kept ‘in His own power.’ There were doubtless sufficient reasons for this reserve. To have specified ‘the day and the hour’—to have said, ‘In the seven and-thirtieth year, in the sixth month and the eighth day of the month, the city shall be taken and the temple burnt with fire ‘would not only have been inconsistent with the manner of prophecy, but would have taken away one of the strongest inducements to constant watchfulness and prayer—the uncertainty of the precise time.


(g) Suddenness of the Parousia, and calls to watchfulness

#Mt 24:37-42

But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

#Lu 17:26-37

And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed. In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back. Remember Lot’s wife. Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it. I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.

#Mt 24:42

‘Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.’

#Mr 13:33,35-37

‘Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is. Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you, I say unto all, Watch.’

#Lu 21:34-36

‘And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.’ [land].

‘Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.’

All the representations given by our Lord of the coming catastrophe and its concomitant events imply that it would take men by surprise. As the deluge came suddenly upon the antediluvians, and the storm of fire and brimstone on the cities of the plain, so the final catastrophe would overtake Jerusalem and Judea at an unexpected hour, when the business and the pleasure of life occupied men’s hands and hearts. In #Lu 17. we have the fullest record of our Lord’s discourse on this point. Whether the passage in St. Luke has been transposed by him from its original connection, or whether our Lord uttered the same words on separate occasions, does not particularly concern us here. Neander is of opinion that ‘Luke gives the natural connection of these words,’ and that in St. Matthew ‘they are placed with many other similar passages referring to the last crisis.’ {1} We doubt this; but, waiving this question, one thing is indubitable, viz., that both St. Matthew and St. Luke describe the same thing, the self-same period, the self-same catastrophe. It is surprising to find Alford asserting, in regard to the passage in St. Luke, ‘There is not a word in all this of the destruction of Jerusalem.’ It would be more correct to say, ‘Every word here is of the destruction of Jerusalem.’ Observe the note of time so distinctly marked by our Lord: ‘But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation’. {#Lu 17:25} What other catastrophe belongs to the period of that generation which could fitly be compared with the destruction of the antediluvian world by a flood of water, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha by a deluge of fire?

From the certainty and suddenness of the approaching consummation our Lord draws the lesson which He impresses on His disciples, —the necessity for vigilance. Here He first utters the admonition which from that time never ceased to be the watchword of His disciples throughout the apostolic age, ‘Watch and pray!’ We shall find how constantly and urgently this call was addressed by the Apostles to the faithful in their day, and how it is continually repeated, down to the latest moment that we catch the sound of an apostolic voice. This watchfulness was essential to the safety of the followers of Christ, for so sudden would be the catastrophe that it would overtake the unready and unwary, as birds that are caught in a net. ‘For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole land (pashv thv ghv)—words which plainly intimate the local character of the event.

We have a striking commentary on this passage in the history of Josephus. Accounting for the prodigious numbers slaughtered in the siege of Jerusalem, —one million one hundred thousand, —he says, ‘Of these the greater proportion were of Jewish blood, though not natives of the place. Having assembled from the whole country for the feast of unleavened bread, they were suddenly hemmed in by the war. On this occasion the whole nation had been shut up as in a prison, by fate; and the war encircled the city when it was crowded with men.’ {2} A more exact verification of our Lord’s prediction {#Lu 21:35} it is impossible to conceive.

In all this we observe the continuation of that direct personal address which proves that our Lord was speaking to His disciples of that in which they were personally concerned. There is not the faintest hint that there was an undercurrent of meaning in His words, and that when He said ‘Jerusalem,’ and ‘this generation,’ and ‘ye,’ He meant ‘the world,’ and ‘distant ages,’ and ‘disciples yet unborn.’

At this point St. Mark and St. Luke close their record of the prophecy on the Mount of Olives, and it cannot be denied that their ending here is natural and appropriate. We have in the Gospel of St. Matthew, however, a series of parables appended to our Lord’s discourse, such as He was accustomed to employ in teaching the people. It strikes us as somewhat singular that our Lord should speak in parables to His disciples, especially on such an occasion; and there is not a little to be said for the opinion of Neander, that it was peculiar to the editor of our Greek Matthew to arrange together congenial sayings of Christ, though uttered at different times and in different relations. We need not therefore wonder if we find it impossible to draw the lines of distinction in this discourse with entire accuracy; nor need such result lead us to forced interpretations, inconsistent with truth, and with the love of truth. It is much easier to make such distinctions in Luke’s account, {#Lu 21} though even that is not without its difficulties. In comparing Matthew and Luke together, however, we can trace the origin of most of these difficulties to the blending of different portions together, when the discourses of Christ were arranged in collections.’ {3}

But without discussing this question, it is very evident that the parables recorded by St. Matthew in connection with this discourse, even if not originally spoken on this particular occasion, are strictly germane to the subject; while, if this be their true place in the narrative, their bearing on the matter in hand is still more close and intimate.

We now proceed to consider the parables and parabolic sayings of our Lord recorded in connection with this prophecy, chiefly by St. Matthew.

{1} Life of Christ, c. xii. sec. 214, note.
{2} Traill’s Josephus, Jewish War, b. -vi. ch. ix. sec. 3, 4.
{3} Life of Christ, sec. 254, Note.


(h) The disciples warned of the suddenness of the Parousia

Parable of the Goodman of the House.

#Mt 24:43-51

‘But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh. Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.’

‘But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

#Mr 13:34-37

‘For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch. ‘Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.’

#Lu 12:39-46

‘And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through. Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not. Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all? And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath. But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.’

It will be seen that this parabolic saying of our Lord is recorded in quite different connections by St. Matthew and St. Luke. The verbal resemblance, however, is too exact to render it probable that it was spoken on two different occasions. The slightest attention will satisfy the reader that St. Luke’s report is the more full and circumstantial, and that he assigns to it its true chronological position. This appears from the fact that the question of St. Peter, recorded only by St. Luke, gave rise to the concluding remarks of our Lord, which, as given by St. Matthew without this connecting link, seem somewhat incoherent and abrupt. Besides, we can scarcely suppose that St. Peter, conversing in private with only three other disciples in company with the Lord, would ask, ‘Speakest thou this parable to us, or even to all?’—a question which was most natural when, as St. Luke tells us, Jesus was speaking to His disciples in the presence of a great multitude. {#Lu 12:1} It is worthy of notice also that in #Mr 13:34-37, where we can detect evident traces of this parable, the question of St. Peter is distinctly answered, ‘What I say unto you, I say unto all, Watch;’ a statement which would be out of place when our Lord was speaking to four persons, but quite appropriate when speaking to a multitude.

There is no impropriety, therefore, in supposing that St. Matthew, perceiving the words of Jesus, spoken on another occasion, to be admirably illustrative of the necessity for watchfulness in view of the Lord’s coming, inserted them in this eschatological discourse. Stier suggests that St. Mark ‘gives a short abridgment of #Mt 24:43, with the two parables of the servant, #Mt 24:45-51,25:14, and even with a slight echo of the parable of the virgins.’ {1} We have no more reason to require strict chronological arrangement in the Evangelists than strictly verbatim reports: neither the one nor the other entered into their plan.

But what is chiefly important for us is the bearing of this parable, if it may be so called, of the goodman of the house watching against the midnight thief, on the preceding discourse of our Lord. Nothing can be more evident than that it is wrought into the very warp and woof of that discourse. There is no introduction of a new topic at the forty-third verse of the twenty-fourth chapter of St. Matthew: {#Mt 24:43} no transition to another catastrophe, or another coming different from those of which He had all along been speaking. There is no hiatus, no break, in the continuity of the discourse; no indication of passing away from the grand event which engrossed the thoughts of the disciples to another in the far distant futurity. It seems incredible that any critical judgment should select #Mt 24:43 as the commencement of a new subject of discourse. Yet this is done by Dr. Ed. Robinson, who says, ‘Our Lord here makes a transition, and proceeds to speak of his final coming at the day of judgment. This appears from the fact that the matter of these sections is added by Matthew after Mark and Luke have ended their parallel reports relative to the Jewish catastrophe; and Matthew here commences, with ver. 43, the discourse which Luke has given on another occasion, #Lu 12:39, &c. {2} But there is not the faintest shadow of any transition. The finest instrument cannot draw a dividing line between the parts of the discourse, and assign one portion to the judgment of the Jewish nation and another to the judgment of the human race. There is not transition, but continuation, at ver. 43. Nothing can be more consecutive and concatenated. ‘Watch therefore,’ says our Lord to His disciples in ver. 42, ‘for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.’ ‘Therefore, be ye also ready,’ He says in ver. 44, ‘for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.’ The suggestion that a new topic, having reference to a totally different event, in a far distant age of time, is introduced here, is altogether arbitrary and groundless.

{1} Reden Jesu, vol. iii. p. 304.
{2} Harmony of the Four Gospels, sec. 129.

(i) The Parousia a time of judgment alike to the friends and the enemies of Christ

Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins

#Mt 25:1-13 ‘Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise, and five were foolish. They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them: but the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps. While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept. And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him. Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out. But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage; and the door was shut. Afterwards came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not. Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour’ [wherein the Son of man cometh].

Almost all expositors suppose that Jerusalem and Israel now disappear wholly from the scene, and that our Lord refers exclusively to the final consummation of all things and the judgment of the human race. This supposed transition is rendered more easy to the English reader by a new chapter commencing at this point.

But has our Lord really dropped the subject with which He and His disciples had been hitherto occupied? Has He passed from the near and imminent to a far distant era, separated from His own time by hundreds and thousands of years? If it were so, we might surely expect some very distinct indication of the change of subject. But there is absolutely none. On the contrary, the supposition of a new theme being introduced by this parable is entirely forbidden by the express terms in which the parable opens and closes. it opens with a very explicit note of time, —[ tote] then, at that time. There is no hiatus between the end of #Mt 24 and the commencement of #Mt 25. The connecting link ‘then’ carries forward the discourse, and knits it into close connection as regards theme, time, and the persons addressed. This is further confirmed by the fact that the moral of the parable of the ten virgins is precisely the same as that of the good man of the house in the preceding chapter, viz. the necessity of watchfulness. The closing words, —‘ Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour,’—so evidently addressed to the disciples, are the very same which our Lord had already spoken in #Mt 24:42; so that in both passages the reference must be to the self-same event.

It does not come within our province to give a detailed exposition of this parable. There are theologians who find a mystery in every word: in the number ten, in the number five, in virginity, in lamps, in oil, etc. {1} As Calvin sarcastically observes, ‘Multum se torquent quidam, in lucernis, in vasis, in oleo.’ Suffice it here to note the great lesson of the parable. It is the necessity for constant readiness and watchfulness for the sudden and speedy return of the Son of man. Unwatchfulness and unreadiness would involve the penalty which befell the foolish virgins, viz. exclusion from the marriage supper of the Lamb.

We find therefore in this parable an organic connection with the whole previous discourse of our Lord. It is still the same great theme of which He is speaking, —the consummation which was to take place within the limits of the existing generation, —and concerning which the disciples expressed so natural an anxiety.

{1} See Lange in loc.


(k) The Parousia a time of judgment

Parable of the Talents

#Mt 25:14-30.—‘ For [the kingdom of heaven is] as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two. But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money. After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I Will make thee ruler over many things; enter thou into the joy of thy lord. He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them. His lord said unto him, Well clone, good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I win make thee ruler over many things; enter thou into the joy of thy lord. Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: and I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed; thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

In this parable we find an evident continuation of the same subject, though presented in a somewhat different aspect. The moral of the preceding parable was vigilance; that of the present is diligence. It can hardly be said that a new element is introduced in this parable, for the representation of the coming of Christ as a time of judgment runs through the whole prophetic discourse of our Lord. It is this fact which gives point and urgency to the oft-reiterated call to watchfulness. Not only was it to be a time of judgment for Jerusalem and Israel, but even for the disciples of Christ themselves. They too were ‘to stand before the Son of man.’ There was danger lest ‘that day’ should come upon them unprepared and unaware. This association of judgment with the Parousia comes out in the parable of the good man of the house, and still more in that of the good and the evil servants. It is yet more vividly expressed in the parable of the wise and foolish virgins, has greater prominence still in the parable of the talents; but it reaches the climax in the concluding parable, if it may be so called, of the sheep and the goats.

It is not necessary to enter into the details of the parable of the talents. Its leading features are simple and obvious. It contains a solemn warning to the servants of Christ to be faithful and diligent in the absence of their Lord. It points to a day when He would return and reckon with them. It sets forth the abundant recompense of the good and faithful, and the punishment of the unfaithful servant.

The point, however, which chiefly concerns us in this investigation is the relation of this parable to the preceding discourse. What can be more plain than the intimate connection between the one and the other? The connective particle ‘for’ in #Mt 25:14 distinctly marks the continuation of the discourse. The theme is the same, the time is the same, the catastrophe is the same. Up to this point, therefore, we find no break, no change, no introduction of a different topic; all is continuous, homogeneous, one. Never for a moment has the discourse swerved from the great, all absorbing theme, —the approaching doom of the guilty city and nation, with the solemn events attendant thereon, all to take place within the period of that generation, and which the disciples, or some of them, would live to witness.


1) The Parousia a time of judgment

The Sheep and the Goats

#Mt 25:31-46—‘ When the Son of man shall come in his glory and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered all [the] nations; and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats; and he shalt set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left’

‘Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.’

‘Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.’

Up to this point we have found the discourse of Jesus on the Mount of Olives one connected and continuous prophecy, having sole reference to the great catastrophe impending over the Jewish nation, and which was to take place, according, to our Lord’s prediction, before the existing generation should pass away. Now, however, we encounter a passage which, in the opinion of almost all commentators, cannot be understood as referring to Jerusalem or Israel, but to the whole human race and the consummation of all things. If the consensus of expositors can establish an interpretation, no doubt this passage must be regarded as wholly quitting the subject of the disciples’ interrogatory, and describing the last scene of all in this world’s history.

It may be freely admitted that this parable, or parabolic description, has many points of difference from the preceding portion of our Lord’s discourse. It seems to stand separate and distinct from the rest, without the connecting links which we have found in other sections. Still more, it seems to take a wider range than Jerusalem and Israel; it reads like the judgment, not of a nation, but of all nations; not of a city or a country, but of a world; not a passing crisis, but final consummation.

It is therefore with a deep sense of the difficulty of the task that we venture to impugn the interpretation of so many wise and good men, and to contend that the passage is not only an integral part of the prophecy, but also belongs wholly to the subject of our Lord’s discourse, —the judgment of Israel and the end of the [Jewish] age.

1. This parable, though in our English version standing apart and unconnected with the context, is really connected by a very sufficient link with what goes before. This is apparent in the Greek, where we find the particle de, the force of which is to indicate transition and connection, —transition to a new illustration, and connection with the foregoing context. Alford, in his revised New Testament, preserves the continuative particle—‘ But when the Son of man shall have come in his glory,’ etc. It might with equal propriety be rendered— And when, etc.

2. This ‘coming of the Son of man’ has already been predicted by our Lord, {#Mt 24:30} and parallel passages, and the time expressly defined, being included in the comprehensive declaration, ‘Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled’. {#Mt 24:34}

3. It deserves particular notice that the description of the ‘coming of the Son of man in his glory’ given in this parable tallies in all points with that in #Mt 16:27,28, of which it is expressly affirmed that it would be witnessed by some then present when the prediction was made.

It may be well to compare the two descriptions:

#Mt 16:27,28.—‘ For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. ‘Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.’

#Mt 25:31-33.—‘ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations’, etc.

Here the reader will note—

(a) That in both passages the subject referred to is the same, viz. the coming of the Son of man—the Parousia.

(b) In both passages He is described as coming in glory.

(c) In both He is attended by the holy angels.

(d) In both He comes as a King. ‘Coming in his kingdom;’ ‘He shall sit upon his throne’; ‘ Then shall the King,’ etc.

(e) In both He comes to judgment.

(f) In both the judgment is represented as in some sense universal. ‘He shall reward every man’‘ Before him shall be gathered all the nations.’

(g) In #Mt 16:28 it is expressly stated that this coming in glory, etc., was to take place in the lifetime of some then present. This fixes the occurrence of the Parousia within the limit of a human life, thus being in perfect accord with the period defined by our Lord in His prophetic discourse. ‘This generation shall not pass,’ etc.

We are fully warranted, therefore, in regarding the coming of the Son of man in #Mt 25 as identical with that referred to in #Mt 16, which some of the disciples were to live to witness.

Thus, notwithstanding the words ‘all the nations’ in #Mt 25:32, we are brought to the conclusion that it is not the ‘final consummation of all things’ which is there spoken of, but the judgment of Israel at the close of the [Jewish] aeon or age.

4. But it will still be objected that a very formidable difficulty remains in the expression ‘all the nations.’ The difficulty, however, is more apparent than real; for—

(1) It is not at all uncommon to find in Scripture universal propositions which must be understood in a qualified or restricted sense.

There is a case in point in this very discourse of our Lord. In #Mt 24:22, speaking of the ‘great tribulation,’ He Says, ‘Except those days should be shortened there should no flesh be saved.’ Now it is evident that this ‘great tribulation’ was limited to Jerusalem, or, at all events, to Judea, and yet we have an expression used in regard to the inhabitants of a city or country which is wide enough to include the whole human race, in which sense Lange and Alford actually understand it.

(2) There is great probability in the opinion that the phrase ‘all the nations’ is equivalent to ‘all the tribes of the land’. {#Mt 24:30} There is no impropriety in designating the tribes as nations. The promise of God to Abraham was that he should be the father of many nations. {#Ge 17:5 Ro 4:17,18}

In our Lord’s time it was usual to speak of the inhabitants of Palestine as consisting of several nations. Josephus speaks of ‘the nation of the Samaritans,’ ‘the nation of the Batanaeans,’ ‘the nation of the Galileans,’—using the very word (eynov) which we find in the passage before us. Judea was a distinct nation, often with a king of its own; so also was Samaria; and so with Idumea, Galilee, Paraea, Batanea, Trachonitis, Ituraea, Abilene, —all of which had at different times princes with the title of Ethnarch, a name which signifies the ruler of a nation. It is doing no violence, then, to the language to understand (panta ta eynh) as referring, to ‘all the nations’ of Palestine, or ‘all the tribes of the land.’

(3) This view receives strong confirmation from the fact that the same phrase in the apostolic commission, {#Mt 28:19} ‘Go and teach all the nations,’ does not seem to have been understood by the disciples as referring to the whole population of the globe, or to any nations beyond Palestine. It is commonly supposed that the apostles knew that they had received a charge to evangelise the world. If they did know it, they were culpably remiss in not acting upon it. But it is presumable that the words of our Lord did not convey any such idea to their mind. The learned Professor Burton observes: ‘It was not until fourteen years after our Lord’s ascension that St. Paul travelled for the first time, and preached the gospel to the Gentiles. Nor is there any evidence that during that period the other apostles passed the confines of Judea.’ {1}

The fact seems to be that the language of the apostolic commission did not convey to the minds of the apostles any such ecumenical ideas. Nothing more astonished them than the discovery that ‘God had granted to the Gentiles also repentance unto life’. {#Ac 11:18} When St. Peter was challenged for going in ‘to men uncircumcised, and eating with them,’ it does not appear that he vindicated his conduct by an appeal to the terms of the apostolic commission. If the phrase ‘all the nations’ had been understood by the disciples in its literal and most comprehensive sense, it is difficult to imagine how they could have failed to recognise it once the universal character of the gospel, and their commission to preach it alike to Jew and Gentile. It required a distinct revelation from heaven to overcome the Jewish prejudices of the apostles, and to make known to them the mystery ‘that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ by the gospel’. {#Eph 3:6}

In view of these considerations we hold it reasonable and warrantable to give the phrase ‘all the nations’ a restricted signification, and to limit it to the nations of Palestine. In this sense it harmonises well with the words of our Lord, ‘Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of man be come’. {#Mt 10:23}

5. Once more, the peculiar test of character which is applied by the Judge in this parabolic description is strongly opposed to the notion that this scene represents the final judgment of the whole human race. It will be observed that the destiny of the righteous and the wicked is made to turn on the treatment which they respectively offered to the suffering disciples of Christ. All moral qualities, all virtuous conduct, all true faith, are apparently thrown out of the reckoning, and acts of charity and beneficence to distressed disciples are alone taken into account. It is not surprising that this circumstance should have occasioned much perplexity both to theologians and general readers. Is this the doctrine of St. Paul? Is this the ground of justification before God set forth in the New Testament? Are we to conclude that the everlasting destiny of the whole human race, from Adam to the last man, will finally turn on their charity and sympathy towards the persecuted and suffering disciples of Christ?

The difficulty is a grave one, on the supposition that we have here a description of ‘the general judgment at the last day,’ and ought not to be slurred over, as commonly it is. How could the nations which existed before the time of Christ be tried by such a standard? How could the nations which never heard of Christ, —or those which flourished in the ages when Christianity was prosperous and powerful, be tried by such a standard? It is manifestly inappropriate and inapplicable. But the difficulty is easily and completely solved if we regard this judicial transaction as the judgment of Israel at the close of the Jewish aeon. It is the rejected King of Israel who is the judge: it is the hostile and unbelieving generation, the last and worst of the nation, that is arraigned before His tribunal. Their treatment of His disciples, especially of His apostles, might most fitly and justly be made the criterion of character in ‘discerning between the righteous and the wicked.’ Such a test would be most appropriate in an age when Christianity was a persecuted faith, and this is evidently supposed by the very terms of the King’s address:—‘ I was hungry, thirsty, a stranger, was naked, sick, and in prison.’ The persons designated as ‘these my brethren,’ and who are taken as the representatives of Christ Himself, are evidently the apostles of our Lord, in whom He hungered, and thirsted, was naked, sick, and in prison. All this is in perfect harmony with the words of Christ to His disciples, when He sent them forth to preach—‘ He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a righteous man’s reward. And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward’. {#Mt 10:40-42}

We are thus brought to the conclusion, the only one which in all respects suits the tenor of the entire discourse, that we have here, not the final judgment of the whole human race, but that of the guilty nation or nations of Palestine, who rejected their King, despitefully treated and slew His messengers, {#Mt 22:1-14} and whose day of doom was now near at hand.

This being so, the entire prophecy on the Mount of Olives is seen to be one homogeneous and connected whole: ‘simplex duntaxat et unum.’ It is no longer a confused and unintelligible medley, baffling all interpretation, seeming to speak with two voices, and pointing in different directions at the same time. It is a clear, consecutive, and historically truthful representation of the judgment of the Theocratic nation at the close of the age, or Jewish period. The theory of interpretation which regards this discourse as typical of the final judgment of the human race, and of a world-wide catastrophe attendant upon that event, —really finds no countenance in the prediction itself, while it involves inextricable perplexity and confusion. If, on the one hand, it could be shown that the prophecy, as a whole, is in every part equally applicable to two different and widely separated events; or, on the other hand, that at a certain point it quits the one subject, and takes up the other, then the double sense, or twofold reference, would stand upon some intelligible basis. But we have found no dividing line in the prophecy between the near and the remote, and all attempts to draw such a line are unsatisfactory and arbitrary in the extreme. Still more untenable is the hypothesis of a double meaning running through the whole; a hypothesis which supposes a ‘verifying faculty’ in the expositor or reader, and gives so large a discretionary power to the ingenious critic that it seems utterly incompatible with the reverence due to the Word of God.

The perplexity which the double-sense theory involves is placed in a strong light by the confession of Dean Alford, who, at the close of his comments on this prophecy, honestly expresses his dissatisfaction with the views which he had propounded. ‘I think it proper,’ he says, ‘to state, in this third edition, that, having now entered upon the deeper study of the prophetic portions of the New Testament, I do not feel by any means that full confidence which I once did in the exegesis, quoad prophetical interpretation, here given of the three portions of this #Mt 25. But I have no other system to substitute, and some of the points here dwelt on seem to me as weighty as ever. I very much question whether the thorough study of Scripture prophecy will not make me more and more distrustful of all human systematising, and less willing to hazard strong assertion on any portion of the subject.’ (July 1855.) In the fourth edition Alford adds, ‘Endorsed, October 1858.’ This is candour highly honourable to the critic, but it suggests the reflection, —if, with all the light and experience of eighteen centuries, the prophecy on the Mount of Olives still remains an unsolved enigma, bow could it have been intelligible to the disciples who eagerly listened to it as it fell from the lips of the Master? Can we suppose that at such a moment he would speak to them in inexplicable riddles—that when they asked for bread He would give them a stone? Impossible. There is no reason for believing that the disciples were unable to comprehend the words of Jesus, and if these words have been misapprehended in subsequent times, it is because a false and unnatural method of interpretation has obscured and distorted what in itself is luminous and simple enough. It is matter for just surprise that such disregard should have been shown by expositors to the express limitations of time laid down by our Lord; that forced and unnatural meanings should have given to such words as aiwn genea enyewv, &c.; that arbitrary lines of division should have been drawn in the discourse where none exist, —and generally that the prophecy should have been subjected to a treatment which would not be tolerated in the criticism of any Greek or Latin classic. Only let the language of Scripture be treated with common fairness, and interpreted by the principles of grammar and common sense, and much obscurity and misapprehension will be removed, and the very form and substance of the truth will come forth to view. {2}

Before passing away from this deeply interesting prophecy it may be proper to advert to the marvellously minute fulfilment which it received, as testified by an unexceptionable witness, —the Jewish historian Josephus. It is a fact of singular interest and importance that there should have been preserved to posterity a full and authentic record of the times and transactions referred to in our Lord’s prophecy; and that this record should be from the pen of a Jewish statesman, soldier, priest, and man of letters, not only having access to the best sources of information, but himself an eye-witness of many of the events which he relates. It gives additional weight to this testimony that it does not come from a Christian, who might have been suspected of partisanship, but from a Jew, indifferent, if not hostile, to the cause of Jesus.

So striking is the coincidence between the prophecy and the history that the old objection of Porphyry against the Book of Daniel, that it must have been written after the event, might be plausibly alleged, were there the slightest pretence for such an insinuation.

Though the Jewish people were at all times restless and uneasy under the yoke of Rome, there were no urgent symptoms of disaffection at the time when our Lord delivered this prediction of the approaching destruction of the temple, the city, and the nation. The higher classes were profuse in their professions of loyalty to the Imperial government: ‘We have no king but Caesar’ was their cry. It was the policy of Rome to grant the free exercise of their own religion to the subject provinces. There was, therefore, no apparent reason why the new and splendid temple of Jerusalem should not stand for centuries, and Judea enjoy a greater tranquillity and prosperity under the aegis of Caesar than she had ever known under her native princes. Yet before the generation which rejected and crucified the Son of David had wholly passed away, the Jewish nationality was extinguished: Jerusalem was a desolation; ‘the holy and beautiful house’ on Mount Zion was razed to the ground; and the unhappy people, who knew not the time of their visitation, were overwhelmed by calamities without a parallel in the annals of the world.

All this is undeniable; and yet it would be too much, to expect that this will be regarded as an adequate fulfilment of our Saviour’s words by many whom prejudice or traditional interpretations have taught to see more in the prophecy than ever inspiration included in it. The language, it is said, is too magnificent, the transactions too stupendous to be satisfied by so inadequate an event as the judgment of Israel and the destruction of Jerusalem. We have already endeavoured to point out the real significance and grandeur of that event. But the one sufficient answer to all such objections is the express declaration of our Lord, which covers the whole ground of this prophetic discourse, ‘Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass till all these things are fulfilled.’ No doubt there are some portions of this prediction which are capable of verification by human testimony. Does any one expect Tacitus, or Suetonius, or Josephus, or any other historian, to relate that ‘the Son of man was seen coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory; that He summoned the nations to his tribunal, and rewarded every man according to his works’?

There is a region into which witnesses and reporters may not enter; flesh and blood may not gaze upon the mysteries of the spiritual and immaterial. But there is also a large portion of the prophecy which is capable of verification, and which has been amply verified. Even an assailant of Christianity, who impugns the supernatural knowledge of Christ, is compelled to admit that ‘the portion relating to the destruction of the city is singularly definite, and corresponds very closely with the actual event.’ {4} The punctual fulfilment of that part of the prophecy which comes within the field of human observation is the guarantee for the truth of the remainder, which does not fall within that sphere. We shall find in the sequel of this discussion that the events which now appear to many incredible were the confident expectation and hope of the apostolic age, and that the early Christians were fully persuaded of their reality and nearness. We are placed, therefore, in this dilemma—either the words of Jesus have failed, and the hopes of His disciples have been falsified; or else those words and hopes have been fulfilled, and the prophecy in all its parts has been fully accomplished. One thing is certain, the veracity of our Lord is committed to the assertion that the whole and every part of the events contained in this prophecy were to take place before the close of the existing generation. If any language may claim to be precise and definite, it is that which our Lord employs to mark the limits of the time within which all His words were to be fulfilled. Whatever other catastrophes, of other nations, in other ages, there may be in the future, concerning them our Lord is silent. He speaks of His own guilty nation, and of His judicial coming at the close of the age, as had been often and clearly foretold by Malachi, by John the Baptist, and by Himself. {5} For this His words are to be held responsible; but beyond this all is mere human speculation, the hypothesis of theologians, grounded upon no warranty of Scripture.

We have thus endeavoured to rescue this great prophecy from the loose and uncritical method of interpretation by which it has been so much obscured and perplexed; to let it speak the same distinct and definite meaning to us as it did to the disciples. Reverence for the Word of God, and due regard to the principles of interpretation, forbid us to impose non-natural constructions and double senses, which in effect would be ‘to add to the words of this prophecy.’ We dare not play fast and loose with the express and precise statements of Christ. We find but one Parousia; one end of the age; one impending catastrophe; one terminus ad quem, —‘ this generation.’ We protest against the exegesis which handles the Word of God in such free fashion as commends itself to many. ‘The Lord,’ it is said, ‘is always coming to those who look for His appearing.’ We see His coming on a large scale in every crisis of the great human story. In revolutions, in reformations, and in the crises of our individual history. For each one of us there is an advent of the Lord, as often as new and larger views of truth are presented to us, or we are called to enter on new and perchance more laborious and exciting duties.’ {6} In this way it might be difficult to say what is not a ‘coming of the Lord.’ But by making it anything and everything we make it nothing. It is evacuated of all precision and reality. There is no reason why the incarnation, the crucifixion, and the resurrection should not similarly become common and everyday transactions as well as the Parousia. It is one thing to say that the principles of the divine government are eternal and immutable, and therefore what God does to one people, or to one age, He will do in similar circumstances to other nations and other ages; and it is quite another thing to say that this prophecy has two meanings: one for Jerusalem and Israel, and another for the world and the final consummation of all things. We hold, with Neander, that ‘the words of Christ, like His works, contain within them the germ of an infinite development, reserved for future ages to unfold.’ {7} But this does not imply that prophecy is anything that an ingenious fancy can devise, or has occult and ulterior senses underlying the apparent and natural signification of the language. The duty of the interpreter and student of Scripture is not to try what Scripture may be made to say, but to submit his understanding to ‘the true sayings of God,’ which are usually as simple as they are profound. {8}

{1} Professor Burton’s Bampton Lecture, p. 20.
{2} The following extract is taken from an excellent article in the first volume of the Bibliotheca Sacra (1843), by Dr. E. Robinson, entitled ‘The coming of Christ.’ Up to #Mt 24:42, Dr. Robinson maintains the exclusive reference of the prediction to Jerusalem, and thus notices the interpretations which refer it to the ‘end of the world:’ ‘The question now arises whether, under these limitations of time, a reference of our Lord’s language to the day of judgment and the end of the world, in our sense of these terms, is possible. Those who maintain this view attempt to dispose of the difficulties arising from these limitations in different ways. Some assign to enyewv the meaning suddenly, as it is employed by the LXX in #Job 5:3, for the Hebrew. oatp But even in this passage the purpose of the writer is simply to mark an immediate sequence—to intimate that another and consequent event happens forthwith. Nor would anything be gained even could the word enyewv be thus disposed of, so long as the subsequent limitation to ‘this generation’ remained. And in this again others have tried to refer genea to the race of the Jews, or to the disciples of Christ, not only without the slightest ground, but contrary to all usage and all analogy. All these attempts to apply force to the meaning of the language are in vain, and are now abandoned by most commentators of note.’ After so luminous an exposition it is disappointing to find Dr. Robinson failing to carry out the principles with which he started consistently to the end. Embarrassed by the foregone conclusion that the ‘final judgment’ and ‘the end of the world’ are somewhere to be found in the prophecy, and unable to see where the theme of Jerusalem ends, and the other and greater theme of the world’s catastrophe begins, he adopts the following method. Starting with the assumption that the parable of the sheep and the goats must describe the latter event, he feels his way backwards to the preceding parable of the talents, in which he finds the same subject, the doctrine of final retribution. Going still further back, to the parable of the tell virgins, he finds the object of that parable to be the inculcation of the same important truth. The twenty-fifth chapter of St. Matthew must therefore, he concludes, refer wholly to the transactions of the last great day. ‘But,’ he continues, ‘the latter portion of #Mt 24., viz. from ver. 43 to 51, is intimately connected with the opening parable of #Mt 25,’ which seems to furnish a sufficient ground for regarding this passage also as referring to the future judgment. At #Mt 24:43, therefore, Dr. Robinson conceive that our Lord leaves the subject of Jerusalem altogether and takes up a new topic, the judgment of the world. It will at once be apparent that the whole of this reasoning is vitiated by the false premise with which it starts, viz., the assumption that the parable of the sheep and the goats refers to the judgment of the human race. We have already shown that there is no new departure at #Mt 24:48.
{4} Contemporary Review, Nov. 1876. See Note B, Part I.
{5} Jonathan Edwards says, referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, —‘ Thus there was a final end to the Old Testament world: all was finished with a kind of day of judgment, in which the people of God were saved, and His enemies terribly destroyed.’—History story of Redemption, vol. i. p. 445.
{6} Evang. Meg. Feb. 1877, p. 69.
{7} Life of Christ, 165.
{8} See Note A, Part I.

Our Lord’s declaration before the High Priest

#Mt 26:64—‘ Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.’

#Mr 14:62—‘ And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.’

#Lu 22:69.—‘ Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.’

The reply of our Saviour to the solemn adjuration of the high priest is the almost verbatim repetition of what He had declared to the disciples on the Mount of Olives, —‘ They shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory’. {#Mt 24:30} It is evidently the same event and the same period that are referred to. The language implies that the persons addressed, or some of them, would witness the event predicted. The expression ‘Ye shall see’ would not be proper if spoken of something which the hearers would none of them live to witness, and which would not take place for thousands of years. Our Lord therefore told His judges that they, or some of them, would live to see Him coming to judgment, or coming in His kingdom.

This declaration is in harmony with what our Saviour said to His disciples, —‘ The Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels.... Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man in his kingdom’. {#Mt 16:27,28} Some of His disciples, and some of His judges, would live long enough to witness that great consummation, less than forty years distant, when the Son of man would come in His kingdom, to execute the judgments of God on the guilty nation. This is precisely what the prophecy on the Mount of Olives asserts: ‘This generation shall not pass,’ etc. Here again we have neither obscurity nor ambiguity. But can as much be said for the interpretation which makes our Lord’s words refer to a time still future, and an event which has not yet taken place? Can as much be said for the interpretation which finds in this scene, which the Jewish Sanhedrim were to witness, no one distinct and particular event, but a prolonged and continuous process, which began at the resurrection of Christ, is still going on, and will continue to go on to the end of the world?

This strange interpretation, which is that of Lange and Alford, is based partly on the assumption that our Lord’s prediction has never yet been fulfilled, and partly on the word ‘henceforth,’ which is held to indicate a continuous process. {1} But is such an explanation credible, or even conceivable? Is it true that the high priest and the Sanhedrim began from that time to see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven? etc. How could such an apparition be a continuous process?

Plainly, the words can only refer to a definite and specific event; and we can be at no loss to determine what that event is. It can be no other than the Parousia, so often predicted before. That was not a protracted process, but a summary act, —sudden, swift, conspicuous as the lightning.

The sense is well expressed by the editors of the ‘Critical English Testament:’ The meaning cannot be, that immediately after the moment of His answer He should so come, and they so see Him; but rather that He would now depart from them, and that when they next saw Him, after His rejection by them, it would be at His coming in glory, as foretold by the prophet Daniel.’ {2}

We find, then, in this declaration of our Lord an additional confirmation of His previous statements that His coming again would take place within the period of the existing generation. Some of His judges, as well as some of His disciples, were to witness it; and there would be no meaning in such an assertion if it did not imply that they were to witness it ‘in the flesh.’

{1} (arti) in later Greek came to signify ‘soon’ ‘presently:’ see Liddell and Scott; and thus our translators, correctly, ‘Here-after,’ which leaves the actual time of the event future, but not necessarily immediate.—Critical English Test. vol. iii. P. 860, note.
{2} Critical English Test. vol. iii. p. 860, note.


Prediction of the Woes coming on Jerusalem

#Lu 23:27-31.—‘ And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him. But Jesus turning unto them, said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. For, behold, the days are coming in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us. For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?’

Here we have a statement so clear, so definite in every point that can fix its reference, —time, place, persons, circumstances, —that no room is left for uncertainty. It points to a time which was not far distant, but at hand—‘ the days are coming;’—a time which the persons addressed and their children would live to see; —a time of great tribulation, which would fall with peculiar severity upon womanhood and childhood; —a time when, in the agony of their terror, despairing multitudes would cry to the mountains and the hills to fall on them and cover them.

Those memorable details will be found most valuable in the elucidation of Scripture prophecy at a subsequent stage of this investigation. Meanwhile it is clear that this pathetic description can refer only to the catastrophe of Jerusalem in the last days of her history. We have only to turn to the pages of Josephus for the facts which illustrate and confirm our Saviour’s language. The horrors of that tragic history culminate in the episode of Mary of Peraea, whose Thyestean banquet horrified even the merciless banditti who prowled like famished wolves through the city. It is in the light of an incident like this that we see the full meaning of the words, ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare.’

It is with a movement of something like impatience that we listen to Stier, beguiled by the ignis fatuus of a double sense, insisting on a hidden meaning in our Saviour’s words: "He spoke expressly and primarily of the judgment of Jerusalem and Israel, yet He contemplated and refers to that which was shadowed out in this historical type, —the judgment of all the impenitent, and of all unbelievers in common, down to the last." {1} So also Alford, following Stier. It is only in the imagination of the expositor, however, that this ulterior reference exists: there is no suggestion of it in the text; and it is with a degree of wonder that we find a scholarly critic so far forgetting his true vocation as to pronounce ‘the historical and actual specific fulfilment’ to be ‘the least thing: the meaning of the word reaches much further.’ If ever there was a case in which double meanings and typical fulfilments are not to be thought of, surely it is here. At such an hour of anguish, there could be but one thought present to the heart of Jesus. He saw the gathering storm of wrath in which the devoted city was soon to be enveloped, and which would burst with such violence on the tender and delicate, the children and the mothers of Jerusalem., and He reciprocated the pity which He received from those compassionate hearts, —more touched in that moment by their anticipated woes, than by His own. What need is there to go beyond that tragical catastrophe, and seek for another concerning which the context is altogether silent?

{1} Reden Jesu, vol. vii. p. 426.


The Prayer of the Penitent Thief

#Lu 23:42—‘ And He said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom.’

The single point which concerns us in this memorable incident is the reference made by the malefactor to our Lord’s ‘coming in his kingdom.’ In whatever way he had come by the knowledge, He recognised in the rejected Prophet by his side the King of Israel, the Son of God. He believed that, notwithstanding His rejection and crucifixion by Israel, He would one day ‘come again in his kingdom.’ Marvellous faith in such a man and at such a moment! If the thief on the cross had listened to the testimony of Jesus before the high priest, or if he had known what He said to the disciples, that ‘some of them should not taste of death till they had seen the Son of man coming in his kingdom,’ we could better account for his faith and his prayer. At any rate, there could not have been more intelligence and precision in the language of a disciple than in the words of this ‘brand plucked out of the fire.’ What notion the malefactor entertained respecting the time of that coming, —whether he conceived it to be near or distant, we have no means of knowing; but it is presumable that he thought of it as near. A dying man would scarcely pray to be remembered in some distant age, after centuries and millenniums had rolled away. In such a crisis it could only be the imminent, or the immediate, that could be in his thoughts. One thing seems certain: the most incredible of all interpretations is that which would represent his prayer as still unanswered, and the ‘coming’ of which he spoke as still among the events of an unknown futurity.


The Apostolic Commission

#Mt 28:19,20—‘ Go ye therefore, and teach all [the] nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the age.’

#Mr 16:15,20—‘ And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.’

‘And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following.’

#Lu 24:47—‘ And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all [the] nations, beginning at Jerusalem.’

It is usual to regard this commission as if it were addressed to the whole Christian Church in all ages. No doubt it is allowable to infer from these words the perpetual obligation resting upon all Christians in all times, to propagate the Gospel among all nations; but it is important to consider the words in their proper and original reference. It is Christ’s commission to His chosen messengers, designating them to their evangelistic work, and assuring them of His constant presence and protection. It has a special application to the apostles which it cannot have to any others. We have already adverted to the fact that the disciples, to whom this charge was given, do not seem to have understood it as directing them to extend their evangelistic labours beyond the bounds of Palestine, or to preach the Gospel to Jews and Gentiles indiscriminately. It is certain that they did not immediately, nor yet for years, act upon this commission in its largest sense; nor does it seem probable that they would ever have done so without an express revelation. As Dr. Burton has shown, no less than fifteen years elapsed between the conversion of St. Paul and his first apostolic journey to preach among the Gentiles. "Nor is there any evidence that during that period the other apostles passed the confines of Judaea." {1} There is much probability therefore in the opinion that the language of the apostolic commission did not convey to their minds the same idea that it does to us, and that, as we have already seen, the phrase ‘all the nations’ [panta ta eynh] is really equivalent to ‘all the tribes of the land.’[ pasai ai fulai thv ghv]

But what especially deserves notice is the remarkable limitation of time, the ‘terminus ad quem,’ here specified by our Saviour. ‘Lo, I am with you always [all the days], even to the close of the age’. [sunteleiav tou aiwnov] Nothing can be more misleading to the English reader than the rendering ‘the end of the world;’ which inevitably suggests the close of human history, the end of time, and the destruction of the earth, —a meaning which the words will not bear. Lange, though far from apprehending the true significance of the phrase, rightly gives the sense, ‘the consummation of the secular won, or the period of time which comes to an end with the Parousia.’ What can be more evident than that the promise of Christ to be with His disciples to the close of the age, implies that they were to live to the close of the age? That great consummation Was not far off; the Lord had often spoken of it, and always as an approaching event, one which some of them would live to see. It was the winding up of the Mosaic dispensation; the end of the long probation of the Theocratic nation; when the whole frame and fabric of the Jewish polity were to be swept away, and ‘the kingdom of God to come with power.’ This great event, our Lord had declared, was to fall within the limit of the existing generation. The ‘close of the age’ coincided with the Parousia, and the outward and visible sign by which it is distinguished is the destruction of Jerusalem. This is the terminus by which in the New Testament the field is bounded. To Israel it was ‘the end,’ ‘the end of all things,’ ‘the passing away of heaven and earth,’ the abrogation of the old order, the inauguration of the new. Of this great providential epoch, history tells us much, but prophecy more. History shows us the predicted signs coming to pass; the premonitory symptoms of the approaching catastrophe—the false Christs, the wars and rumours of wars, the insurrections and commotions, the earthquakes, famines, and pestilences; the persecutions and tribulations; the invading legions of Rome; the besieged and captured city; the burning temple; the slaughtered myriads; the extinguished nation. But history cannot lift the veil which hangs over the spirit world; it leads us up to the very border, and bids us guess the rest. But we have a more sure word of prophecy which, instead of conjecture, gives us assurance. It reveals ‘the Son of man coming in his glory;’ the King seated on the throne; the judgment seat, and the books opened. It reveals the sheep and the goats separated the one from the other; the righteous entering into everlasting life; the wicked sent away into everlasting punishment. If we have not the historical verification of the unseen and spiritual, as we have of the visible and material elements of this consummation, it is because they are not in the nature of things equally cognizable by the senses. But we accept them on the faith of His word who declared, ‘Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation;’ and again, ‘Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away until all these things be fulfilled.’ ‘Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.’ The literal fulfilment of all that falls within the sphere of human observation is the voucher for the credibility of the remainder, which belongs to the realm of the unseen and the spiritual.

{1} Burton’s Bampton Lecture p. 20.

THE PAROUSIA IN THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN

In the Synoptical Gospels we have generally been able to compare the allusions to the Parousia, recorded by the Evangelists, one with another; and have often found it advantageous to do so. It is not easy, however, to interweave the Fourth Gospel with the Synoptics, and it is somewhat remarkable that not one allusion to the Parousia in the latter is to be found in the former. It is therefore preferable on all accounts to consider the Gospel of St. John by itself, and we shall find that the references to the subject of our inquiry, though not many in number, are very important and full of interest.

The Parousia and the Resurrection of the Dead

#Joh 5:25-29.—‘ Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall bear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because lie is the Son of man.’

‘Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.’

In the references to the approaching consummation which we have found in the Synoptical Gospels, it is impossible not to be struck with the constant association of the Parousia with a great act of judgment. From the very first notice of this great event to the last, the idea of judgment is put prominently forward. John the Baptist warns the nation of ‘the coming wrath.’ The men of Nineveh and the queen of the south are to appear in the judgment with this generation. In the harvest at the close of the age the tares were to be burned, and the wheat gathered into the barn. The Son of man was to come in His glory to reward every man according to his works. The judgment of Capernaum and Chorazin was to be heavier than that of Tyre and Sidon. The closing parables in our Lord’s ministry are nearly all declaratory of coming judgment—the pounds, the wicked husbandman, the marriage of the king’s son, the ten virgins, the talents, the sheep and the goats. The great prophecy on the Mount of Olives is wholly occupied with the same subject.

It is remarkable that the first allusion which St. John makes to this event recognises its judicial character. But we now find a new element introduced into the description of the approaching consummation. It is connected with the resurrection of the dead; of ‘all that are in the graves.’ ‘The hour is coming when all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth,’ etc.

There can be no doubt that the passage just quoted {#Joh 5:28, 29} refers to the literal resurrection of the dead. It may also be admitted that the preceding verses {#Joh 5:25, 26} refer to the communication of spiritual life to the spiritually dead. {1} The time for this life-giving process had already commenced, —‘ The hour is coming, and now is.’ The dead in trespasses and sins were about to be made alive by the quickening power of the divine Spirit acting upon men’s souls in the preaching of the gospel of Christ. This lifegiving power belonged by divine appointment to the Son of God, to whom also was committed, in virtue of His humanity, the office of supreme Judge. {#Joh 5:27}

Anticipating that this claim to be the Judge of mankind would stagger His hearers, our Lord proceeds to strengthen His assertion and heighten their admiration by declaring that at His voice the buried dead would ere long come forth from their graves to stand before His judgment throne.

The reader will particularly note the indications of time specified by our Lord in these important passages. First we have ‘the hour is coming, and now is: ‘this intimates that the action spoken of, viz. the communication of spiritual life to the spiritually dead, has already begun to take effect. Next we have ‘the hour is coming,’ without the addition of the words ‘and now is:’ intimating that the event specified, viz., the raising of the dead from their graves, is at a greater distance of time, although still not far off. The formula ‘the hour is coming’ always denotes that the event referred to is not far distant. It does not indeed define the time, but it brings it within a comparatively brief period. We find these two expressions, ‘the hour is coming,’ and ‘the hour is coming, and now is,’ employed by our Lord in His conversation with the woman of Samaria, {#Joh 4:21,23} and their use there may help us to determine their force in the passage before us. When our Lord says, ‘the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,’ He intimates that the time was already present, for had He not begun to collect the materials of that spiritual Church of true worshippers of which He spoke? When, however, He says, ‘Woman, believe me, the hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father,’ He speaks of a time which, though not distant, was not yet come. He foresaw the period of which He spoke, when the worship of the temple would cease, —when Mount Zion would be ‘ploughed as a field,’ and Mount Gerizirn also be overwhelmed in the deluge of wrath. But the abrogation of the local and material was necessary to the inauguration of the universal and spiritual; and therefore it was that the temple with its ritual must be swept away to make room for the nobler worship ‘in spirit and in truth.’

Of course, it cannot be absolutely proved that the phrase ‘the hour is coming’ refers to precisely the same point of time in these two instances, though the presumption is strong that it does. Let it suffice, at this stage, to note the fact that our Lord here speaks of the resurrection of the dead and the judgment as events which were not distant, but so near that it might properly be said, ‘The hour is coming,’ etc.

{1} Some interpreters prefer to understand ‘the dead’ in verse 25 as having reference to such cases as the daughter of Jairus, the son of the widow of Nain, and Lazarus of Bethany, persons literally raised from the dead and restored to life by our Lord. They understand the argument of our Lord to be something like this: ‘You are astonished at the wonderful work which I have wrought upon this impotent man, but you will yet see far greater wonders. The moment is at hand when I will recall even the dead to life; and if this appear incredible to you, a still mightier work will one day be accomplished by my power: for the hour is coming when all that are in the grave shall come forth at my call, and stand before me in judgment.’ (Dr. J. Brown. Discourses and Sayings of our Lord vol. i. p. 98.) This explanation has the advantage of consistency, in giving the same sense of the word ‘dead’ throughout the whole passage; but it seems impossible to admit that our Lord in verse 24 is speaking of literal death. To say that the believer has already ‘passed from death unto life’ obviously is the same thing as to say that he has passed from condemnation to justification. We feel compelled, therefore, to adopt the generally received interpretation, which regards #Joh 5:24,25 as referring to the spiritually dead, and #Joh 5:28,29 to the corporeally dead.


THE PAROUSIA IN THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN

In the Synoptical Gospels we have generally been able to compare the allusions to the Parousia, recorded by the Evangelists, one with another; and have often found it advantageous to do so. It is not easy, however, to interweave the Fourth Gospel with the Synoptics, and it is somewhat remarkable that not one allusion to the Parousia in the latter is to be found in the former. It is therefore preferable on all accounts to consider the Gospel of St. John by itself, and we shall find that the references to the subject of our inquiry, though not many in number, are very important and full of interest.

The Parousia and the Resurrection of the Dead

#Joh 5:25-29.—‘ Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall bear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because lie is the Son of man.’

‘Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.’

In the references to the approaching consummation which we have found in the Synoptical Gospels, it is impossible not to be struck with the constant association of the Parousia with a great act of judgment. From the very first notice of this great event to the last, the idea of judgment is put prominently forward. John the Baptist warns the nation of ‘the coming wrath.’ The men of Nineveh and the queen of the south are to appear in the judgment with this generation. In the harvest at the close of the age the tares were to be burned, and the wheat gathered into the barn. The Son of man was to come in His glory to reward every man according to his works. The judgment of Capernaum and Chorazin was to be heavier than that of Tyre and Sidon. The closing parables in our Lord’s ministry are nearly all declaratory of coming judgment—the pounds, the wicked husbandman, the marriage of the king’s son, the ten virgins, the talents, the sheep and the goats. The great prophecy on the Mount of Olives is wholly occupied with the same subject.

It is remarkable that the first allusion which St. John makes to this event recognises its judicial character. But we now find a new element introduced into the description of the approaching consummation. It is connected with the resurrection of the dead; of ‘all that are in the graves.’ ‘The hour is coming when all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth,’ etc.

There can be no doubt that the passage just quoted {#Joh 5:28, 29} refers to the literal resurrection of the dead. It may also be admitted that the preceding verses {#Joh 5:25, 26} refer to the communication of spiritual life to the spiritually dead. {1} The time for this life-giving process had already commenced, —‘ The hour is coming, and now is.’ The dead in trespasses and sins were about to be made alive by the quickening power of the divine Spirit acting upon men’s souls in the preaching of the gospel of Christ. This lifegiving power belonged by divine appointment to the Son of God, to whom also was committed, in virtue of His humanity, the office of supreme Judge. {#Joh 5:27}

Anticipating that this claim to be the Judge of mankind would stagger His hearers, our Lord proceeds to strengthen His assertion and heighten their admiration by declaring that at His voice the buried dead would ere long come forth from their graves to stand before His judgment throne.

The reader will particularly note the indications of time specified by our Lord in these important passages. First we have ‘the hour is coming, and now is: ‘this intimates that the action spoken of, viz. the communication of spiritual life to the spiritually dead, has already begun to take effect. Next we have ‘the hour is coming,’ without the addition of the words ‘and now is:’ intimating that the event specified, viz., the raising of the dead from their graves, is at a greater distance of time, although still not far off. The formula ‘the hour is coming’ always denotes that the event referred to is not far distant. It does not indeed define the time, but it brings it within a comparatively brief period. We find these two expressions, ‘the hour is coming,’ and ‘the hour is coming, and now is,’ employed by our Lord in His conversation with the woman of Samaria, {#Joh 4:21,23} and their use there may help us to determine their force in the passage before us. When our Lord says, ‘the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,’ He intimates that the time was already present, for had He not begun to collect the materials of that spiritual Church of true worshippers of which He spoke? When, however, He says, ‘Woman, believe me, the hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father,’ He speaks of a time which, though not distant, was not yet come. He foresaw the period of which He spoke, when the worship of the temple would cease, —when Mount Zion would be ‘ploughed as a field,’ and Mount Gerizirn also be overwhelmed in the deluge of wrath. But the abrogation of the local and material was necessary to the inauguration of the universal and spiritual; and therefore it was that the temple with its ritual must be swept away to make room for the nobler worship ‘in spirit and in truth.’

Of course, it cannot be absolutely proved that the phrase ‘the hour is coming’ refers to precisely the same point of time in these two instances, though the presumption is strong that it does. Let it suffice, at this stage, to note the fact that our Lord here speaks of the resurrection of the dead and the judgment as events which were not distant, but so near that it might properly be said, ‘The hour is coming,’ etc.

{1} Some interpreters prefer to understand ‘the dead’ in verse 25 as having reference to such cases as the daughter of Jairus, the son of the widow of Nain, and Lazarus of Bethany, persons literally raised from the dead and restored to life by our Lord. They understand the argument of our Lord to be something like this: ‘You are astonished at the wonderful work which I have wrought upon this impotent man, but you will yet see far greater wonders. The moment is at hand when I will recall even the dead to life; and if this appear incredible to you, a still mightier work will one day be accomplished by my power: for the hour is coming when all that are in the grave shall come forth at my call, and stand before me in judgment.’ (Dr. J. Brown. Discourses and Sayings of our Lord vol. i. p. 98.) This explanation has the advantage of consistency, in giving the same sense of the word ‘dead’ throughout the whole passage; but it seems impossible to admit that our Lord in verse 24 is speaking of literal death. To say that the believer has already ‘passed from death unto life’ obviously is the same thing as to say that he has passed from condemnation to justification. We feel compelled, therefore, to adopt the generally received interpretation, which regards #Joh 5:24,25 as referring to the spiritually dead, and #Joh 5:28,29 to the corporeally dead.


The Resurrection, the Judgment, and the Last Day

#Joh 6:39—‘ And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.’

#Joh 6:40—‘ I will raise him up at the last day.’

#Joh 6:44—‘ I will raise him up at the last day.’

#Joh 11:24—‘ He shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.’

#Joh 12:48—‘ The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.’

We have in these passages another new phrase in connexion with the approaching consummation, which is peculiar to the Fourth Gospel. We never find in the Synoptics the expression ‘the last day,’ although we do find its equivalents, ‘that day,’ and ‘the day of judgment.’ It cannot be doubted that these expressions are synonymous, and refer to the same period. But we have already seen that the judgment is contemporaneous with the ‘end of the age’ (sunteleia ton aiwnov), and we infer that ‘the last day’ is only another form of the expression ‘the end of the age or Aeon.’ The Parousia also is constantly represented as coincident in point of time with the ‘end of the age,’ so that all these great events, the Parousia, the resurrection of the dead, the judgment, and the last day, are contemporaneous. Since, then, the end of the age is not, as is generally imagined, the end of the world, or total destruction of the earth, but the close of the Jewish economy; and since our Lord Himself distinctly and frequently places that event within the limits of the existing generation, we conclude that the Parousia, the resurrection, the judgment, and the last day, all belong to the period of the destruction of Jerusalem.

However startling or incredible such a conclusion may at first sight appear, it is what the teachings of the New Testament are absolutely committed to, and as we advance in this inquiry, we shall find the evidence in support of it accumulating to such a degree as to be irresistible. We shall meet with such expressions as ‘the last times,’ ‘the last days,’ and ‘the last hour,’ evidently denoting the same period as ‘the last day,’—yet spoken of as being not far off, and even as already come. Meanwhile we can only ask the reader to reserve his judgment, and calmly and impartially to weigh the evidence, derived, not from human authority, but from the word of inspiration itself.


The Judgment of this World, and of the Prince of this World

#Joh 12:31—‘ Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.’

#Joh 16:11—‘ Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.’

It is usual to explain these words as meaning that a great crisis in the spiritual history of the world was now at hand: that the death of Christ upon the cross was the turning-point, so to speak, of the great conflict between good and evil, between the living and true God and the false usurping god of this world—that the result of Christ’s death would be the ultimate overthrow of Satan’s power and the final establishment of the kingdom of truth and righteousness on the ruins of Satan’s empire.

No doubt there is much important truth in this explanation, but it fails to satisfy all the requirements of the very distinct and emphatic language of our Lord with respect to the nearness and completeness of the event to which He refers: ‘Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the prince of this world be cast out.’ It is not enough to say that, to the prophetic foresight of our Saviour, the distant future was as if it were present; nor, that by His approaching death the judgment of the world and the expulsion of Satan would be virtually secured, and might therefore be regarded as accomplished facts. Nor is it enough to say, that from the moment when the great sacrifice of the Cross was offered, the power and influence of Satan began to ebb, and must continually decrease until it is finally annihilated. The language of our Lord manifestly points to a great and final judicial transaction, which was soon to take place. But judgment is an act which can hardly be conceived as extending over an indefinite period, and especially when it is restricted by the word now, to a distinct and imminent point of time. The phrase ‘cast out,’ also, is evidently an allusion to the expulsion of a demon from a body possessed by an unclean spirit. But this suggests a sudden, violent, and almost instantaneous act, and not a gradual and protracted process. No figure could be less appropriate to describe the slow ebbing and ultimate exhaustion of Satanic power than the casting out of a demon. We are compelled, therefore, to set aside the explanation which makes our Lord’s words refer to a judgment which, after the lapse of many ages, is still going on; or to an expulsion of Satan which has not yet been effected. He would not speak of a judgment which was not to take place for thousands of years as ‘now,’ nor of a ‘casting out’ of Satan as imminent, which was to be the result of a slow and protracted process.

We conclude, then, that when our Lord said, ‘Now is the judgment of this world,’ etc., He had reference to an event which was near, and in a sense immediate: that is to say, He had in view that great catastrophe which seems to have been scarcely ever absent from His thoughts—the solemn judicial transaction when ‘the Son of man was to sit upon the throne of his glory’—the great ‘harvest’ at the end of the age, when the angel reapers were to ‘gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them that do iniquity.’ If it be objected to this that the word kosmov (world) is too comprehensive to be restricted to one land or one nation, it may be replied that kosmov is employed here, as in some other passages, especially in the writings of St. John, rather in an ethical sense than as a geographical expression. {See #Joh 7:7 8:23 1Jo 2:15 5:14}

But it may be said, How could this judgment of Israel be spoken of as ‘now,’ any more than a judgment which is still in the future? Forty years hence is no more now than four thousand years. To this it may be replied, That event was now imminent which more than any other would precipitate the day of doom for Israel. The crucifixion of Christ was the climax of crime, —the culminating act of apostasy and guilt which filled the cup of wrath, and sealed the fate of ‘that wicked generation.’ The interval between the crucifixion of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem was only the brief space between the passing of the sentence and the execution of the criminal; and just as our Lord, when quitting the temple for the last time, exclaimed, ‘Behold, your house is left unto you desolate!’ though its desolation did not actually take place till nearly forty years after, so He might say, ‘Now is the judgment of this world’—though a like space of time would elapse between the utterance and the accomplishment of His words.

In like manner the ‘casting out of the prince of this world’ is represented as coincident with ‘the judgment of this world,’ and both are manifestly the result of the death of Christ. But how can it be said that Satan was cast out at the period referred to, viz. the judgment at the close of the age? That event marked a great epoch in the divine administration. It was the inauguration of a new order of things: the ‘coining of the kingdom of God’ in a high and special sense, when the peculiar relation subsisting between Jehovah and Israel was dissolved, and He became known as the God and Father of the whole human race. Thenceforth Satan was no longer to be the god of this world, but the Most High was to take the kingdom to Himself. This revolution was effected by the atoning death of Christ upon the cross, which is declared to be ‘the reconciliation of all things unto God, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven’. {#Col 1:20} But the formal inauguration of the new order is represented as taking place at ‘the end of the age,’ the period when ‘the kingdom of God was to come with power,’ and the Son of man was to sit as Judge ‘on the throne of his glory.’ What, then, could be more appropriate than the ‘casting out’ of the prince of this world at the period when his kingdom, ‘this world,’ was judged?

It may be objected that if any such event as the casting out of Satan did then take place, it ought to be marked by some very palpable diminution of the power of the devil over men. The objection is reasonable, and it may be met by the assertion that such evidence of the abatement of Satanic influence in the world does exist. The history of our Saviour’s own times furnishes abundant proof of the exercise of a power over the souls and bodies of men then possessed by Satan which happily is unknown in our days. The mysterious influence called ‘demoniacal possession’ is always ascribed in Scripture to Satanic agency; and it was one of the credentials of our Lord’s divine commission that He, ‘by the finger of God, cast out devils.’ At what period did the subjection of men to demoniacal power cease to be manifested? It was common in our Lord’s days: it continued during the age of the apostles, for we have many allusions to their casting out of unclean spirits; but we have no evidence that it continued to exist in the post-apostolic ages. The phenomenon has so completely disappeared that to many its former existence is incredible, and they resolve it into a popular superstition, or, in unscientific theory of mental disease, —an explanation totally incompatible with the representations of the New Testament.

It is worthy of remark that our Lord, on a previous occasion, made a declaration closely resembling that now under consideration.

When the severity disciples returned from their evangelistic mission they reported with exultation their success in casting out demons through the name of their Master: ‘Lord, even the demons are subject unto us through thy name’. {#Lu 10:17} In His reply, Jesus said, I beheld Satan as lightening falling from heaven; ‘an expression nearly equivalent to the words, ‘Now shall the prince of this world be cast out,’ and on which Neander makes the following suggestive remarks:

‘As Christ had previously designated the cure of demoniacs wrought by Himself as a sign that the kingdom of God had come upon the earth, so now he considered what the disciples reported as a token of the conquering power of that kingdom, before which every evil thing must yield: "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven," i.e. from the pinnacle of power which he had thus far held among men. Before the intuitive glance of His spirit lay open the results which were to flow from His redemptive work after His ascension into heaven. He saw, in spirit, the kingdom of God advancing in triumph over the kingdom of Satan. He does not say, "I see now," but, "I saw." He saw it before the disciples brought their report of their accomplished wonders. While they were doing these isolated works he saw the one great work, of which theirs were only particular and individual signs—the victory over the mighty power of evil which had ruled mankind completely achieved.’ {1}

In comparing these two remarkable sayings of our Lord there are three points that deserve particular notice:—

1. They are both uttered on occasions when the approaching triumph of His cause was vividly brought before Him.

2. In both, the casting out of Satan is represented as an accomplished fact.

3. In both it is regarded as a swift and summary act, not a slow and protracted process: in the one case Satan falls ‘as lightning from heaven,’ in the other he is ‘cast out’ as an unclean spirit from a demoniac.

Neander, therefore, has somewhat missed the real point of the expression, in his otherwise admirable remarks. We think the words plainly point to a great judicial transaction, taking place at a particular point of time, that time very near, and as the consequence and result of the Saviour’s death upon the cross. Such a transaction and such a period we can find only in the great catastrophe so vividly depicted by our Lord in His prophetic discourse, and we can therefore have no hesitation in understanding His words to refer to that memorable event.

No other explanation satisfies the requirements of the declaration: ‘Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the prince of this world be cast out.’

{1} Life of Christ, chap. xii. 205.

CHRIST’S RETURN [THE PAROUSIA] SPEEDY

#Joh 14:3—‘ And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself.’

#Joh 14:18—‘ I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you.’

#Joh 14:28—‘ I go away, and come again unto you.’

#Joh 16:16—‘ A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.’

#Joh 16:22—‘ I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice.’

Simple as these words may seem they have occasioned great perplexity to commentators. Their very simplicity maybe the chief cause of their difficulty: for it is so hard to believe that they mean what they seem to say. It has been Supposed that our Lord refers in some of these passages to His approaching departure from earth, and His final return at the ‘end of all things,’ the consummation of human history; and that in the others He refers to His temporary absence from His disciples during the interval between His crucifixion and His resurrection.

A careful examination of our Lord’s allusions to His departure and His coming again will satisfy every intelligent reader that His ‘coming,’ or ‘coming again,’ always refers to one particular event and one particular period. No event is more distinctly marked in the New Testament than the Parousia, the ‘second coming’ of the Lord. It is always spoken of as an act, and not a process; a great and auspicious event; a ‘blessed hope,’ eagerly anticipated by His disciples and confidently believed to be at hand. The apostles and the early believers knew nothing of a Parousia spread over a vast and indefinite period of time; nor of several ‘comings,’ all distinct and separate from one another; but of only one coming, —the Parousia, ‘the glorious appearing of the great God even our Saviour Jesus Christ’. {#Tit 2:13} If anything is clearly written in the Scriptures it is this. It is therefore with astonishment that we read the comments of Dean Alford on our Lord’s words in #Joh 14:3—

‘The coming again of the Lord is not one single act, as His resurrection, or the descent of the Spirit, or His second personal advent, or the final coming to judgment, but the great complex of all these, the result of which shall be His taking His people to Himself to where He is. This ercomai is begun {#Joh 14:18} in His resurrection; carried on {#Joh 14:23} in the spiritual life, making them ready for the place prepared; farther advanced when each by death is fetched away to be with Him; {#Php 1:23} fully completed at His coming in glory, when they shall ever be with Him {#1Th 4:17} in the perfected resurrection state.’ {1}

This is all evolved out of the single word ercomai! But if ercomai has such a variety and complexity of meaning, why not npalw and porenomai? Why should not the ‘going away’ have as many parts and processes as the ‘coming again?’ It may be asked likewise, How could the disciples have understood our Lord’s language, if it had such a ‘great complex’ of meaning? Or how can plain men be expected ever to come to the apprehension of the Scriptures if the simplest expressions are so intricate and bewildering?

This comment is not conceived in the spirit of lucid English common sense, but in the mystical jargon of Lange and Stier. What can be more plain than that the ‘coming again’ is as definite an act as the ‘going away,’ and can only refer to that one coming which is the great prophecy and promise of the New Testament, the Parousia? That this event was not to be long deferred is evident from the language in which it is announced: Ercomai—‘ I am coming.’ The whole tenor of our Lord’s address supposes that the separation between His disciples and Himself is to be brief, and their reunion speedy and perpetual. Why does He go away? To prepare a place for them. Is it, then, not yet prepared? Has he not yet received them to Himself? Are they not yet where he is? If the Parousia be still in the future these hopes are still unfulfilled.

That this anticipated return and reunion was not a far-off event, many centuries distant, but one that was at hand, is shown in the subsequent references made to it by our Lord. ‘A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father’. {#Joh 16:16} He was soon to leave them; but it was not for ever, nor for long, —‘ a little while,’ a few short years, and their sorrow and separation would be at an end; for ‘I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you’. {#Joh 16:22} It will be observed that our Lord does not say that death will reunite them, but His coming to them. That coming, therefore, could not be distant.

That it is to this interval between His departure and the Parousia that our Lord refers when He speaks of ‘a little while’ is evident from two considerations: First, because he distinctly states that He is going to the Father, which shows that His absence relates to the period subsequent to the ascension; and, secondly, because in the Epistle to the Hebrews this same period, viz. the interval between our Lord’s departure and His coming again, is expressly called ‘a little while.’ ‘For yet a little while, and he that is coming shall come, and will not tarry’. {#Heb 10:37}

Here again we are constrained to protest against the forced and unnatural interpretation of this passage {#Joh 16:16} by Dr. Alford:—

‘The mode of expression,’ he observes, ‘is purposely enigmatical; the yewreite and oqesye not being co-ordinate: the first referring to physical, the second also to spiritual sight. The oqesye (ye shall see) began to be fulfilled at the resurrection; then received its main fulfilment at the day of Pentecost; and shall have its final completion at the great return of the Lord hereafter. Remember, again, that in all these prophecies we have a perspective of continually unfolding fulfilments presented to us.’ {2}

Conceive of an act of vision, ‘ye shall see,’ divided into three distinct operations, each separated from the other by a long interval, and the last still uncompleted after the lapse of eighteen centuries, and this in the face of our Lord’s express declaration that it was to be ‘in a little while.’ This is not criticism, but mysticism. So artificial and intricate an explanation could never have occurred to the disciples, and it is surprising that it should have occurred to any sober interpreter of Scripture. But even the disciples, though at first perplexed about ‘the little while,’ soon fully comprehended our Lord when He said,

‘I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father’. {#Joh 16:28}

Supplement this by three other words of Jesus, and we have the substance of His teaching respecting the Parousia:

‘I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am there ye way be also’. {#Joh 14:3}

‘I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you’. {#Joh 14:18}

‘A little while, and ye shall not see me; and again, a little while, and ye shall see me’. {#Joh 16:16}

Language is incapable of conveying thought with accuracy if these words do not affirm that the return of our Saviour to His disciples was to be speedy.

{1} Greek Test., in loc.


ST. JOHN TO LIVE TILL THE PAROUSIA

#Joh 21:22—‘ Jesus said unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?’

It would serve no purpose to specify and discuss the various interpretations of this passage which learned men have conjectured. Had it been a riddle of the ancient Sphinx, it could not have been more perplexing and bewildering. Those who wish to see some of the numerous opinions which have been broached on the subject will find them referred to in Lange. {1}

The words themselves are sufficiently simple. All the obscurity and difficulty have been imported into them by the reluctance of interpreters to recognise in the ‘coming’ of Christ a distinct and definite point of time within the space of the existing generation. Often as our Lord reiterates the assurance that he would come in His kingdom, come in glory, come to judge His enemies and reward His friends, before the generation then living on earth had wholly passed away, there seems an almost invincible repugnance on the part of theologians to accept His words in their plain and obvious sense. They persist in supposing that He must have meant something else or something more. Once admit, what is undeniable, that our Lord Himself declared that His coming was to take place in the lifetime of some of His disciples {#Mt 16:27,28} and the whole difficulty vanishes. He had just revealed to Simon Peter by what death he was to glorify God, and Peter, with characteristic impulsiveness, presumed to ask what should be the destiny of the beloved disciple, who at that moment caught his eye. Our Lord did not give an explicit answer to this question, which savoured somewhat of intrusiveness, but his reply was understood by the disciples to mean that John would live to see the Lord’s return. ‘If I will that he tarry till I come.’ This language is very significant. It assumes as possible that John might live till the Lord’s coming. It does more, it suggests it as probable, though it does not affirm it as certain. The disciples put the interpretation upon it that John was not to die at all. The Evangelist himself neither affirms nor denies the correctness of this interpretation, but contents himself with repeating the actual words of the Lord, —‘ If I will that he tarry till I come.’ It is, however, a circumstance of the greatest interest that we know how the words of Christ were generally understood at the time in the brotherhood of the disciples. They evidently concluded that John would live to witness the Lord’s coming; and they inferred that in that case he would not die at all. It is this latter inference that John guards against being committed to. That he would live till the coming of the Lord he seems to admit without question. Whether this implied further that he would not die at all, was a doubtful point which the words of Jesus did not decide.

Nor was this inference of ‘the brethren’ so incredible a thing or so unreasonable as it may appear to many. To live till the coming of the Lord was, according to the apostolic belief and teaching, tantamount to enjoying exemption from death. St. Paul taught the Corinthians, —‘ We shall not all sleep [die], but we shall all be changed’.{#1Co 15:51} He spoke to the Thessalonians of the possibility of their being alive at the Lord’s coming: ‘We which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord’.{#1Th 4:15} He expressed his own personal preference ‘not to be unclothed [of the bodily vesture], but to be clothed upon’ [with the spiritual vesture]—in other words, not to die, but to be changed. {#2Co 5:4} The disciples might be justified in this belief by the words of Jesus on the evening of the paschal supper: ‘I will come again, and receive you unto myself.’ How could they suppose that this meant death? Or they may have remembered His saying on the Mount of Olives, ‘The Son of man Shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect,’ etc. {#Mt 24:31} This, He had assured them, would take place before the existing generation passed away. They were, therefore, not wholly unprepared to receive such an announcement as our Lord made respecting St. John. {2}

We may therefore legitimately draw the following inferences from this important passage:—

1. That there was nothing incredible or absurd in the supposition that John might live till the coming of the Lord.

2. That our Lord’s words suggest the probability that he would actually do so.

3. That the disciples understood our Lord’s answer as implying besides that John would not die at all.

4. That St. John himself gives no sign that there was anything incredible or impossible in the inference, though he does not commit himself to it.

5. That such an opinion would harmonise with our Lord’s express teaching respecting the nearness and coincidence of His own coming, the destruction of Jerusalem, the judgment of Israel, and the close of the aeon or age.

6. That all these events, according to Christ’s declarations, lay within the period of the existing generation.

——————

Having thus gone through the four gospels, and examined all the passages which relate to the Parousia, or coming of the Lord, it may be useful to recapitulate and bring into one view the general teaching of these inspired records on this important subject.

{1} Commentary of St. John.
{2} It is scarcely necessary to point out that, on the hypothesis that the ‘coming’ of Christ was not to take place until the ‘end of the world,’ in the popular acceptation of the phrase, the answer of our Lord would involve an extravagance, if not an absurdity. It would have been equivalent to saying, ‘Suppose I please that he should live a thousand years or more, what is that to you?’ But it is evident that the disciples took the answer seriously.


SUMMARY OF THE TEACHING OF THE GOSPELS RESPECTING THE PAROUSIA

1. We have the link between Old and New Testament prophecy in the announcement by John the Baptist (the Elijah of Malachi) of the near approach of the coming wrath, or the judgment of the Theocratic nation.

2. The herald is closely followed by the King, who announces that the kingdom of God is at hand, and calls upon the nation to repent.

3. The cities which were favoured with the presence, but rejected the message, of Christ are threatened with a doom more intolerable than that of Sodom and Gomorrha.

4. Our Lord expressly assures His disciples that His coming would take place before they should have completed the evangelisation of the cities of Israel.

5. He predicts a judgment at the ‘end of the age’ or aeon [sunteleia ton aiwnov], a phrase which does not mean the destruction of the earth, but the consummation of the age, i.e. the Jewish dispensation.

6. Our Lord expressly declares that He would speedily come [mellei ercesyai] in glory, in His kingdom, with His angels, and that some among His disciples should not die until His coming took place.

7. In various parables and discourses our Lord predicts the doom impending over Israel at the period of His coming. (See #Lu 18, parable of the importunate widow. #Lu 19, parable of the pounds. #Mt 21, parable of the wicked husbandmen. #Mt 22, parable of the marriage feast.)

8. Our Lord frequently denounces the wickedness of the generation to which He preached, and declares that the crimes of former ages and the blood of the prophets would be required at their hands.

9. The resurrection of the dead, the judgment of the world, and the casting out of Satan are represented as coincident with the Parousia, and near at hand.

10. Our Lord assured His disciples that He would come again to them, and that His coming would be in ‘a little while.’

11. The prophecy on the Mount of Olives is one connected and continuous discourse, having exclusive reference to the approaching doom of Jerusalem and Israel, according to our Lord’s express statement {#Mt 24:34 Mr 13:30 Lu 21:32}

12. The parables of the ten virgins, the talents, and the sheep and the goats all belong to this same event, and are fulfilled in the judgment of Israel.

13. The disciples are exhorted to watch and pray, and to live in the continual expectation of the Parousia, because it would be sudden and speedy.

14. After His resurrection our Lord gave St. John reason to expect that He would live to witness His coming.


APPENDIX TO PART I

See NOTE A. topic 19.

On the Double-sense Theory of Interpretation.

THE following extracts, from theologians of different ages, countries, and churches, exhibit a powerful consensus of authorities in opposition to the loose and arbitrary method of interpretation adopted by many German and English commentators:—

‘Unam quandam ac certam et simplicem sententiam ubique quaerendam esse.’—Melanethon.

(‘One definite and simple meaning of [Scripture] is in every case to be sought.’)

‘Absit a nobis ut Deum faciamus oiglwtton, aut multiplices sensus affingamus ipsius verbo, in quo potius tanquarn in speculo limpidissimo sui autoris simplicitatem contemplari debemus. {#Ps 12:6 19:8} Unicus ergo sensus scripturae, nempe grammaticus, est admittendus, quibuscunque demum terminis, vel propriis vel tropicis et figuratis exprimatur.’—Maresius.

(Far be it from us to make God speak with two tongues, or to attach a variety of senses to His Word, in which we ought rather to behold the simplicity of its divine author reflected as in a clear mirror {#Ps 12:6 19:8} Only one meaning of Scripture, therefore, is admissible: that is, the grammatical, in whatever terms, whether proper or tropical and figurative, it may be expressed.)

‘Dr. Owen’s remark is full of good sense—" If the Scripture has more than one meaning, it has no meaning at all:" and it is just as applicable to the prophecies as to any other portion of Scripture.’—Dr. John Brown, Sufferings and Glories of the Messiah, p. 5, note.

The consequences of admitting such a principle should be well weighed.

What book on earth has a double sense, unless it is a book of designed enigmas? And even this has but one real meaning. The heathen oracles indeed could say, "Aio te, Pyrrhe, Romanos vincere posse;" but can such an equivoque be admissible into the oracles of the living God? And if a literal sense, and an occult sense, can at one and the same time, and by the same words, be conveyed, who that is uninspired shall tell us what the occult sense is? By what laws of interpretation is it to be judged? By none that belong to human language; for other books than the Bible have not a double sense attached to them.

‘For these and such-like reasons, the scheme of attaching a double sense to the Scriptures is inadmissible. It sets afloat all the fundamental principles of interpretation by which we arrive at established conviction and certainty and casts us on the boundless ocean of imagination and conjecture without rudder or compass.’—Stuart on the Hebrews, Excurs. xx.

‘First, it may be laid down that Scripture has one meaning, —the meaning which it had to the mind of the prophet or evangelist who first uttered or wrote to the hearers or readers who first received it.’

‘Scripture, like other books, has one meaning, which is to be gathered from itself, without reference to the adaptations of fathers or divines, and without regard to a priori notions about its nature and origin.’

‘The office of the interpreter is not to add another [interpretation], but to recover the original one: the meaning, that is, of the words as they struck on the ears or flashed before the eyes of those who first heard and read them.’—Professor Jowett, Essay on the Interpretation of Scripture, sec. i. 3, 4.

‘I hold that the words of Scripture were intended to have one definite sense, and that our first object should be to discover that sense, and adhere rigidly to it. I believe that, as a general rule, the words of Scripture are intended to have, like all other language, one plain definite meaning, and that to say that words do mean a thing merely because they can be tortured into meaning it, is a most dishonourable and dangerous way of handling Scripture.’—Canon Ryle, Expository Thoughts on St. Luke, vol. i. P. 383.


See NOTE B. Topic 31

On the Prophetic Element in the Gospels.

‘Let us proceed to the predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem. These predictions, as is well known, in all the gospel narratives (which, by the way, are singularly consentaneous, implying that all the Evangelists drew from one consolidated tradition) are inextricably mixed up with prophecies of the second coming of Christ and the end of the world—a confusion which Mr. Hutton fully admits. The portion relating to the destruction of the city is singularly definite, and corresponds very closely with the actual event. The other portion, on the contrary, is vague and grandiloquent, and refers chiefly to natural phenomena and catastrophes. From the precision of the one portion, most critics infer that the gospels were compiled after or during the siege and conquest of Jerusalem. From the confusion of the two portions Mr. Hutton draws the opposite inference—namely, that the prediction existed in the present recorded form before that event. It is in the greatest degree improbable, he argues, that if Jerusalem had fallen, and the other signs of Christ’s coming showed no indication of following, the writers should not have recognised and disentangled the confusion, and corrected their records to bring them into harmony with what it was then beginning to be seen might be the real meaning of Christ or the actual truth of history.’

‘But the real perplexity lies here. The prediction, as we have it, makes Christ distinctly affirm that His second coming shall follow "immediately,"—" in those days," after the destruction of Jerusalem, and that "this generation" (the generation he addressed) should not pass away till all "these things are fulfilled." Mr. Hutton believes that these last words were intended by Christ to apply only to the destruction of the Holy City. He is entitled to his opinion; and in itself it is not an improbable solution. But it is, under the circumstances, a somewhat forced construction, For it must be remembered, first, that it is rendered necessary only by the assumption which Mr. Hutton is maintaining—namely, that the prophetic powers of Jesus could not be at fault; secondly, it assumes or implies that the gospel narratives of the utterances of Jesus are to be relied upon, even though in these especial predictions he admits them to be essentially confused and, thirdly (what at we think he ought not to have overlooked), the sentence he quotes is by no means the only one indicating that Jesus Himself held the conviction, which He undoubtedly communicated to His followers, that His Second coming to judge the world would take place at a very early date. Not only was it to take place "immediately" after the destruction of the city, {#Mt 24:29} but it would be witnessed by many of those who heard Him. And these predictions are in no way mixed up with those of the destruction of Jerusalem:" There be some standing here that shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom"; {#Mt 16:28} "Verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of man be come;" {#Mt 10:23} If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? {#Joh 21:23} and the corresponding passages in the other Synoptics.’

‘If, therefore, Jesus did not say these things, the gospels must be strangely inaccurate. If He did, His prophetic faculty cannot have been what Mr. Hutton conceives it to have been. That His disciples all confidently entertained this erroneous expectation, and entertained it on the supposed authority of their Master, there can be no doubt whatever. {See #1Co 10:11,15:51 Php 4:5 1Th 4:15 Jas 5:8 1Pe 4:7 1Jo 2:18 Re 1:13,22:7,10,12} Indeed, Mr. Hutton recognises this at least as frankly and fully as we have stated it.’—W. R. Greg, in Contemporary Review, Nov. 1876.

To those who maintain that our Lord predicted the end of the world before the passing away of that generation, the objections of the sceptic present a formidable difficulty—insurmountable, indeed, without resorting to forced and unnatural evasions, or admissions fatal to the authority and inspiration of the evangelical narratives. We, on the contrary, fully recognise the common-sense construction put by Mr. Greg upon the Language of Jesus, and the no less obvious acceptance of that meaning by the apostles. But we draw a conclusion directly contrary to that of the critic, and appeal to the prophecy on the Mount of Olives as a signal example and demonstration of our Lord’s supernatural foresight.

I will finish posting the rest tomorrow ok? tnx

THIS ARTICLE YOU SHARED HERE... is SADLY, another example of man's attempt at trying to Understand the FULL and Deeper Meaning of the Word of God... without FIRST having the INDWELLNG of the Holy Spirit IN HIM, to Lead and Guide Him!!!!

THIS HAS BEEN SAID MANY TIMES BEFORE....when the Word of God is ONLY read Literally, it can be made to say ANY OLD THING MAN WANT'S THE WORD OF GOD TO SAY.

Tribo ... quoting from the article you shared above :

"your redemption draweth nigh" , Were not these words spoken to the disciples, who listened to the discourse? Did they not apply to them? Is there anywhere even a suspicion that they were meant for another audience, thousands of years distant..."

TRIBO!!!

DO YOU ACTUALLY THINK GOD'S WORD WAS JUST SPEAKING TO THOSE FEW.....ONLY BACK THEN ???

WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE LIVING SINCE THAT DAY......UP UNTO THE PRESENT.... AND ALSO INTO THE FUTURE ?????

ARE ALL THE PEOPLE LIVING SINCE THAT DAY,ARE SUPPOSED TO JUST SKIP OVER THAT PART OF SCRIPTURE...CAUSE IT WAS JUST FOR BACK THEN???


HELLO??????


GOD'S WORD IS THE SAME .... YESTERDAY , TODAY AND FOREVER....AND IS FOR ALLLLLLL GENERATIONS!!

NOW IF GOD DID NOT MEAN FOR HIS WORD TO BE FOR ALL PEOPLE AT ALL TIMES...THEN WHY WOULD GOD EVEN MENTION ....THAT HIS WORD IS THE SAME.... YESTERDAY , TODAY, And FOREVER!!!

?????

Amen

all of that is adressed in this small book read it if you want donot if you don't -

Here is your answer to that question MS:

Because "God's word" is NOT the Bible. The "Word," is the vibration of Life which is for all people at all times and is the same, yesterday, today and forever.

It is not a book written by plagiarizing scribes and Roman aristocrats.

The Word is the wave motion of space, the vibrations, the light and sound, and consciousness that creates and sustains this universe.

JB

If what you say here were true then God would be decietful. Hardly a decent deity at all.



Jesus promised the people he was speaking to that he would come back for them!

Clearly he lied to them.

Coming back 2000 years later wouldn't change a thing. He still lied to the people he actually made the promises to.

So Tribo... you actually REALLY believe what some man wrote in a small book( that you are quoting here).....but you won't go straight to God's Word........and ask God to open your eyes ,and show You HIS TRUTH!!

No... you would rather BELIEVE what some man wrote in a little book....a man who does not even have the Holy Spirit !!!

So therefore Tribo , you actually believe that when God said in His Word,

"YOUR REDEMPTION DRAWTH NIGH" ,

this REDEMPTION that God was speaking about in His Word...
was JUST JUST JUST for that small group of people living back then.....

and there is therefore NO redemption whatsoever, for ANYONE living SINCE that time!!!!

Is that right ,Tribo???

NO REDEMPTION for ANY people living today and tomorrow..ooops...too bad.... they did not get to live at that time back then!!


I WEEP at how the enemy blinds peoples eyes

well actually James this book is saying he's not coming back and why, the things in revelations have taken place, there is no coming rapture, or parousia[return of Christ] all that was prophesied was fulfilled and was for the Jews age, the Church now lives on but their will be no rapture[escape] or Christ reign on earth for a millennium, it already took place and the Church now is without those new fangled hopes- that all happened in AD 70 - I'm not going to argue about it - it's just another christian view I'm putting out there for people to examine and read and let them make up their own minds - like i said - not looking for debate - just putting out the info to be read by anyone interested -

Redemption?

What did you do that was so bad MorningSong?

Why do you feel that you need to seek redemption?

I never did anything bad in my entire life MorningSong. The idea that I need to seek redemption is absurd.

This whole idea that everyone is a bad person is utterly absurd and quite negative.

I love God, God loves me.

There's no need for any redemption MorningSong. That's ridiculous.

Any religion that claims that I'm a bad person is just pure demented sickness written by perverts.

What is it that you feel so guilty about?

If you are a nice person like me you'd realize that it's crock of bull.

It was just a religion made up by men to make bad people feel guilty MorningSong.

It doesn't apply to us nice people. We don't need to seek redemption for we have done nothing wrong.

This is not a joke!!!!!!!