It might be enough to object to such a radical solution by pointing out the entire absence of any external evidence ; but, further, it should be said that it seems incredible that the Evangelists should, by this sort of literary patchwork, have concocted a discourse so difficult for themselves and their readers to understand. The undeniable difficulties of the passage lead us to think that Jesus spoke the words ; they also show the con- scientious regard for truth that actuated those who recorded them. It must also be remembered that the difficulties found in this discourse are precisely the same in nature as those found in the four pass- ages we have just considered, so that to suppose that exti-aneous Apocalyptic literature is inserted here would lead us to give a like explanation of all these other passages. But that is impossible, for no such .supposition would for a moment hold, in the case, for example, of the reply of Jesus to Caiaphas. Neither on external nor on internal grounds is such a .solution to be accepted.
The discourse itself must now claim our atten- tion. The disciples, having pointed out to Jesus the splendour of the Temple buildings, receive the reply that not one stone shall be left upon another : a prediction He had previously made regarding the city of Jerusalem (Lk lO'*^). The words evidently sank deeply into their hearts, for when they sat with Him on the Mount of Olives they askeil Him privately, ' When shall these things be, and what shall be the sign when these things are all about to be accomplished?' (2F). They thus asked two questions : first, ^vhen it would be ; secondly, what sign would herald it. Mt. enlarges the latter ques- tion into ' What shall be the sign of thy coming and of the end of the age ? ' ; showing that the disciples connected the destruction of the Temple with Christ's return, and that they sovight instruc- tion as to whether it was not also the End or consummation of the age (o-ucr^Xeta tov otwcoy, Mt
440
PROPHET
PROPHET
1339. 40. 49 2820, cf . He 926). Our Lord's reply is full, botii as to the time and the sign of the Temple's destruction, and is also directed to the question of His return and the end of the world. The fact tliat He includes these latter subjects in His reply as given in all three Gospels, goes to show that they were implicit in the shorter questions of Mk. and Lk. He hrst tells them that it will not be when false Christs arise and when nation rises against nation, for these things are but ' the be- ginnings of travail ' — the birth-throes preliminary to final pains issuing in a new age — (Mk 13'"**) ; but that it loill be after the gospel has been preached unto all nations, they themselves in the meantime sutt'ering persecution ; and then the end will come (Mk 13^'', Mt 24").
He then spoke of the sign, which would be that predicted by Daniel, namely, ' the abomination of desolation,' which would warn of the imminent destruction of the Temple. He further told them that that would occur at a period of unprecedented affliction, and He bade them, when they saw the sign, escape at once to the mountains (Mk IS''^""^**, Mt i>4»5-22, Lk 2P»-24).
Having thus spoken of the titne and the sign of the destruction, He passed on to speak of His ' Coming,' which He announced as following ' im- mediately' upon the tribulation which He had just described. In Mk. we read, ' In those days, after that tribulation (Mt 24'^'* ' immediately {evdiujs) after . . .'), the sun shall be darkened . . . and then shall they see the Son of Man coming in the clouds, . . . and he shall send forth his angels and gather together his elect from the four winds . . .' Thus both Evangelists make the coming of the Son of Man follow ' immediately ' ujjon the fore- told tribulation which was to preface the destruc- tion of the Temjile.
Briggs (Messiah of Gospels, p. 155) ascribes to the luBia; of Mt. a prophetic sense similar to 3ili3 of the OT. The events were near to the vision of the prophet, but not necessarily near in actual history. But this does not get over the ' in those days ' of Mk., which is almost as definite as the ' immediately ' of Mt
The question at once arises, whether those words can be taken as describing the judgment of the city and Temple. As far as the signs in heaven are concerned, we may say Yes ; for these theo- phanic signs may justly be taken as imagery of the spiritual. Thus Peter interprets the heavenly portents foretold by Joel as fulfilled in the out- pouring of the Spirit (Ac 2^'^- ^s). But as regards the gathering together of the elect from the utter- most parts of the earth, we must say No. In no sense can this be said to have taken place when Jerusalem fell. What, then, we are to conclude is as follows : Jesus here foretold His ' Comings ' ; He wished His disciples to look forward to an early judgment on the guilty city and church, and He wished them also to loolc forward to a time of ingathering to take place at the consunima- tion of all things. As He had done before (Mk 8^** 9' ), so now He spoke of these two events, one nigh at hand, the other far in the distant future, both as ' Comings' of Himself ; but the two Evangelists, untaught as yet by events, were unable to separate in their records that which to His own mind was distinct. This view is much strengthened by our finding that that Evangelist who wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem was able then to dis- tinguish what to them was confused. It is very remarkable that Lk., instead of placing the final return of Christ immediately after the tribulation, inserts a clause which makes the entire Christian dispensation intervene. He writes, ' Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled ' (Lk 212'') ; and thus makes room for the ages of evangelization that