The subject is now before the reader; and the question to be considered is: Whether the language of Matthew in the passage above quoted, is to be referred to the judgment of the last great day; or, rather to the then impending destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish nation? It is a question on which good men have ever differed; and on which, perhaps, entire unity of opinion is not to be expected, until the night of darkness and ignorance in which we are here enveloped, shall be chased away by the morn of pure light and perfect knowledge.

It is conceded by all, I believe, that the representation as far as to the end of the 28th verse of Matthew, and in the parallel verses of the other Evangelists, applies solely to the overthrow of Jerusalem. Or, if there be still those who would refer any portion of these preceding verses to the judgment-day, it seems to me that they must first show, that the " abomination of desolation" spoken of by Matthew and Luke has nothing to do with the "compassing of Jerusalem with armies," mentioned in the same connexion by Luke; and then, further, that all these things could have no connexion with the "treading down" of Jerusalem by the Gentiles, which Luke goes on to speak of as the result of all these antecedent circumstances. This, however, cannot well be shown, without disregarding every rule of interpretation, and without violating the very first principles of language.

But with the 29th verse a new specification of time is introduced: Immediately after the affliction of those days" shall appear the harbingers of our Lord's coming; and these are depicted in language which elsewhere, it is said, is employed only to describe his coming to the final judgment. The "coming" here meant, is then to be subsequent to the downfall of Jerusalem; and can therefore only mean the coming of the Messiah in his kingdom at the judgment day. This opinion is perhaps, at the present time, the most prevalent one among commentators, and even with those whose views in other respects have little in common; as in the case of Olshausen and De Wette.

But on the other hand, it is replied, that the phrase “immediately after" indicates a very close connexion of this "coming" of

See Matt. 25, 31 sq. Also the explanation of the parable of the wheat and the tares, Matt. 13, 40. 41.

our Lord with the preceding events; and the Saviour himself goes on to declare, that "this generation shall not pass away, till all these things be fulfilled." We must then assume, it is said, that the prediction had its fulfilment within a period not long subsequent to our Lord's ministry; or, if it is to be referred to the day of judgment, then we must admit that our Lord was in error, inasmuch as he here foretold that it would take place immediately after the downfall of Jerusalem. For these reasons many commentators have understood the language as applicable only to the destruction of the Holy City; forgetting, apparently, that the very expression which they urge against a remote future application, is equally stringent against an exclusive reference to the latter catastrophe.

It is very obvious that both of these different opinions cannot be true; while it is also very possible, that both of them may be more or less wrong. Before proceeding to develope the manner in which the subject has presented itself to my own mind, it will be necessary to examine the language of the prediction and the attendant circumstances, and to bring into view some other preliminary considerations. All this may be best done under a number of heads, as follows:

I. The destruction of Jerusalem was the topic of our Lord's discourse with his disciples, and the subject of his predictions at the temple and on the mount of Olives, as related by Matthew in c. 24, 1–28 inclusive; and also by Mark and Luke in the parallel verses. This point has been already sufficiently considered; and requires here no further elucidation.

II. The "coming" foretold in v. 29-31 of Matthew, was to be subsequent to the time of the "abomination of desolation," and the compassing of Jerusalem by armies, and also to the "treading down" of the city by the Gentiles. By this latter phrase is usually and rightly understood the capture and destruction of the city by Titus, as related by Josephus. This same event is doubtless shadowed forth in the language of Matthew: "For wheresoever the carcass is, there will the eagles be gathered together;" not indeed through any verbal allusion to the Roman eagles, as some assume; but in the general application of a proverbial expression, viz. that where the guilty are, there punishment shall find them; or, in other words, the guilty are sure to be overtaken by the divine

punishment. When this catastrophe shall have taken place, then, immediately after (εvvéos μɛzú) this affliction, there shall be distress and anxiety, and the shaking of the powers of heaven, all which are to accompany and introduce our Lord's coming. The word soos means literally straightway, and implies a succession more or less direct and immediate; so that there can be no doubt, as De Wette justly remarks, that the coming of the Messiah, as here described by Matthew, was straightway to follow the destruction of Jerusalem. Indeed no meaning can possibly be assigned to evέws, which will admit of any great delay; much less of an interval so enormous as that between the destruction of the Holy City and the end of the world, as understood by us. From this it is manifest, that "the coming" of Christ here spoken of, as occurring after the downfall of Jerusalem, could not be meant to refer solely

to that event.

III. Our Lord himself limits the interval within which Jerusalem shall be destroyed and his "coming" take place, to that same generation Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. The language is here plain, definite, and express; it cannot be misunderstood, nor perverted. It follows, in all the Evangelists, the annunciation of our Lord's "coming," and applies to it in them all, just as much as it applies to the antecedent declarations respecting Jerusalem; and more directly, indeed, inasmuch as it stands here in a closer connexion.

But what is the meaning of the phrase "this generation"? and what the interval of time thus designated? The specification is, and must be, at any rate, indefinite; for the tide of human life flows on in an unbroken stream, and no man can mark or tell the point where one generation ends and another begins. Yet modern chronology, with some degree of definiteness, reckons three generations in a century; and thus allows to each an interval of thirtythree and a third years, or, more loosely, from thirty to forty years. The ancient Hebrews, on the other hand, appear to have counted a hundred years to each generation. God said to Abraham, that his seed should be afflicted in Egypt four hundred years; but that in the fourth generation they should return to the Promised Land." 2 Gen. 15, 13. 15; comp. Ex. 12,

1

Comp. Luke 17, 37. Neander Leben Jesu p. 559. 3d edit.

40.

In which of these senses is the above expression of our Lord to be understood? If in the former, then certainly the destruction of Jerusalem, which is usually held to have occurred in A. D. 70, took place within the time thus generally specified; that is, within an interval of less than forty years after our Lord's passion. But of the events which were to follow that catastrophe, we know of none that can be referred to the same interval. The destruction of the city itself occurred at the very latest point of time that can be reckoned to that generation thus understood; and no events of importance in Jewish history took place for quite a number of years afterwards.

But our Lord was speaking in a popular manner, and would naturally employ expressions in their most popular sense. He did not mean to point out definitely the exact time when this or that event was to take place. He says himself, immediately afterwards: "Of that day and hour knoweth no one, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." It seems necessary, therefore, to understand the word "generation," as thus used by our Lord, in its largest sense, and in accordance with popular Hebrew usage, as implying a hundred years. But this again must not be construed too definitely. It is rather a general expression, designating time by a reference to the duration of human life; and is apparently neither more nor less than equivalent to our mode of expression, when we say : "There are those now born, who will live to see all these things fulfilled.' Our Lord himself, in another passage, relating to the same subject, presents the same idea in this very form: "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."2

IV. 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 Evows the meaning suddenly, as it is employed by the Seventy in Job 5,3, for the Heb. But even in this passage, the pur

Matt. 24, 36. Mark 13, 32.

3 See Wolfe Curæ in loc. Schott

* Matt. 16, 28; comp. Mark 9, 1. Comment. in Chr. Sermones qui de Luke 9, 27.

ejus reditu agunt, Jena 1820. p.

pose of the writer is simply to mark an immediate sequence —to intimate that another and consequent event happened forthwith. Nor would any thing be gained, even could the word εvéos be thus disposed of, so long as the subsequent limitation to " this generation" remained. And in this, again, others have tried to refer reveά 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. Two or three general views, however, are current on the subject, which demand some further remark.

One is that of De Wette and others, who do not hesitate to regard our Lord as here announcing, that the coming of the Messiah to the judgment of the last day would take place immediately after the fall of Jerusalem. This idea, according to De Wette, is clearly expressed by our Lord, both here and elsewhere; and was likewise held by Paul. But as the day of judgment has not yet come, it follows, either that our Lord, if correctly reported, was himself mistaken, and spoke here of things which he knew not; or else, that the sacred writers have not truly related his discourse. The latter horn of this dilemma is preferred by De Wette. According to him the disciples entertained the idea of their Lord's return with such vividness of faith and hope, that they overlooked the relations of time, which Jesus himself had left indefinite; and they thus connected his final coming immediately with his coming to destroy Jerusalem. They give here, therefore, their own conception of our Lord's language, rather than the language itself as it fell from his lips. They mistook his meaning; they acted upon this mistake in their own belief and preaching; and in their writings have perpetuated it to the world throughout all time.

This view is, of course, incompatible with any and every idea of inspiration on the part of the sacred writers; the very essence of which is, that they were commissioned and aided by the Spirit to impart truth to the world, and not error. To a believer in this fun

89. Comp. De Wette Exeget. Handb. in loc.

'Wolf Curæ in loc. Paulus Comment. in loc.

2 See Matt. 16, 28; also 1 Cor. 15, 51 sq. 1 Thess. 4, 15 sq. De Wette Exeg. Handb. in Matt. Comp. Olshausen's Comm. I. p. 861, 862.