apostasy is suggested by the idea of the destruction of Jerusalem, for there would be peculiar temptations at this time; and this is why the answer is prefaced by a warning. The contemplation of this event gave rise also to the question about the end of the world. It is very likely that the two things were associated together in the disciples' minds, for, although the double form of the question appears only in Matthew, the answer in each case is the same, covering both events. This is perfectly natural, and does not argue any confusion in their minds as to the two events; the association arises from the fact that the destruction of Jerusalem was typical of the destruction of the wicked at the end of the world.

The Lord Jesus answers first the question with reference to the end, because it was the practical question for the young church. They would not be affected very much by the destruction of the temple, but they were commanded to be ever mindful of Christ's second coming, the preparation for which must terminate with death.

The first sign which he gives of this event is: "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony unto all the nations; and then shall the end come." The last clause shows that this sign is the only one in these verses which has reference to the end. The enumeration of evils in the other verses are all of matters which shall happen along through the course of the ages. The conjunctions introducing verses 9 and 10 raise no question of time or succession between these statements and those preceding, but simply introduce new matter in the enumeration. These are clear instances of the continuative use of TÓTE. (See Winer.)

One more point needs notice. When it is said, "he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved," we do not think there is any necessary implication that the troubles of the church are to continue to the end of the world. "Enduring,” in such a case, means simply continuing faithful through all the temptations which either the church as a whole, or any individual Christian, shall be called upon to bear. While it is perfectly general, including all, it also individualizes; and any individual Christian

could only be said to "endure to the end" by remaining faithful unto death. Meyer explains the phrase to mean, "till the end, until the troubles will have come to an end." This is all that we could wish, since Meyer thus acknowledges that it does not necessarily mean "till the end of time." If this be true, we should give it a meaning which, while applying to the whole church, is applicable also to the individuals which compose the church. It is precisely of the individuals that the words are spoken. The parallel passage makes this still clearer: "And not a hair of your head shall perish. In your patience ye shall win your souls." This patience is a patience unto death, which is the end of troubles for the righteous; and both these clauses find their elucidation in Matthew x. 28: "And be not afraid of them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

We think this is the only point in the passage in Matthew which gives any color to the idea that the church is to suffer down to the end of time; and we see that a fair and natural interpretation of the passage is entirely consistent with the millennial period.

VERSES 15-28. Professor Milligan takes this division of our chapter as covering the whole history of the Christian church, from the moment when she was planted in the world to the moment when her Lord shall come again to introduce her to everlasting blessedness." After this rather surprising statement the passage is divided into two parts, and we are told that verses 15-22 give us the external history of the church, while in verses 23-28 we have the internal history.

We confess that we are unable to appreciate this analysis, and do not understand how our author arrives at his conclusion. He notes several points from which he concludes that the passage must have a general application, but how he sees in it the whole history of the Christian church is more than we can understand. We can hardly do justice to the argument without giving it intact. He says in this passage, "we are not dealing with Jewish Christians alone. It is true that the fall of Jerusalem is especially mentioned in these verses, that we read of them that are 'in

Judea' fleeing to the mountains, and that the disciples are instructed to pray that their flight may not be on 'a Sabbath.' But the words of verses 17-19 were words used by our Lord, as we learn from the third Gospel, with a universal application. (Comp. Luke xvii. 30-37.) We cannot confine the words 'no flesh,' of verse 22, to Jews; and the remarkable omission by St. Mark, in his report of the discourse, of the words 'on a Sabbath,' is a clear proof that the exhortation of Jesus was understood by him to apply also to the Gentiles. St. Luke, as might be expected from the object of his Gospel, is still more specific. He not only omits the words, 'on a Sabbath,' but speaks of 'the times of the Gentiles'-those times which were to prevail everywhere and to the end-of distress of nations 'upon the earth,' and of the things that were coming upon the world' or 'the inhabited earth.' Throughout this second part of the discourse the whole world is before us; and, as is distinctly shown by the word 'immediately' of verse 29, is before us to the end."

In regard to verses 15-22, he tells us that here "we have the external history of the church in the world, and her preservation in the midst of all the trials that surround her there. The 'great tribulation' spoken of bears less immediately upon her than upon those who are opposing and afflicting her. The woes that here come upon the earth are woes occasioned by its own sinfulness; and they would be much greater than they are were it not that for the elect's sake the days shall be shortened. These shortened days must thus, from the very circumstance that their 'shortening' is referred to as it is, be the days that immediately precede 'the end.""

We confine our attention, at first, to the first part of the passage (vs. 15-22). If we understand our author's argument, it consists of two steps. First, he argues that these verses must have a more general application than to the destruction of Jerusalem, even an application to the whole world. Second, he concludes that the troubles spoken of here must be in some way representative of the tribulations of the whole world, including the righteous as well as the wicked.

Professor Milligan seems distinctly to recognize in the outset.

that there is in the passage a clear reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, but he fails to explain on what principle the general application, which he claims for the passage, consists with the specific application. We do not say that the two things are necessarily inconsistent, but we do say that a rational exegesis of the passage calls for the rationale which constitutes the logical nexus, binding the two things together.

It must be admitted that no interpretation of the passage is satisfactory which does not account for the facts of all three of the parallel passages; and we freely admit that the passage as a whole has a general application, as well as a specific one, but we think the general application is entirely different from that which our author draws from it, and we think that his method of arguing from particular clauses in one passage to particular clauses in another passage is entirely inconclusive.

Our author's first argument for the general application is that verses 17 and 18, which give instruction concerning the flight, must be general, because our Lord used them with reference to the last times, or, to use his own words, "with a universal application." We may ask what is meant by the universal application, and what does our author wish to prove by it? Does he mean that this instruction given by our Lord on the two occasions applies to the whole world, including the wicked as well as the righteous? If so, the citation does not seem to bear out the conclusion. Does he mean that because the passage in Luke is spoken in reference to the end that it must apply to the church during the whole Christian age? This certainly does not follow, and the "universal application" seems to elude us. We think the application is rather specific than general, applying in the one case to the true people at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, and in the other to Christians at the second coming of Christ.

Meyer himself takes this verse in a general application, but he is clearer in his statement. He says it is not merely the disciples or believers who are ordered to flee, but the summons to do so is a general one. What is said with reference to the flight does not assume an individualizing character till verse 20. We are unable to see any individualizing in verse 20 which is not found in verses

17-19. Perhaps Meyer thinks it not very likely that the wicked would be exhorted to pray; but this is spoken to the same parties as the other verses, the whole discourse being addressed to the disciples. This appears clearly in Mark's narrative, where we are told that Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately about the matter. The idea that the instruction in regard to the flight is intended for the wicked is opposed to the nature of the whole passage. The destruction of Jerusalem was a judgment sent upon an apostate church, that is, upon the wicked. Is there any reason, then, in the idea that God designs. to tell the wicked to escape this judgment by fleeing from one place to another? Can God's final vengeance be averted in this way? The idea is opposed to all those passages where the wicked are warned that there is no escape from God's sword of venge

ance.

Is it any answer to this argument to say that the terms are general, "Let them that are in Judea flee"? We think not. The case is similar to that in Jeremiah xxi. 9, where "falling away to the Chaldeans" was made a test of faith. That instruction was also general, but as a matter of fact only those who were God's true people were to avail themselves of this method of escape, and it was intended only for them, as is perfectly manifest in the very fact that it was designed of God to be a test of faith.

This judgment upon Jerusalem was in a true sense a final judgment upon the Jewish church, and we hope to show that as such it was TYPICAL OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT UPON THE WICKED AT THE END OF THE WORLD.

We are not aware that this idea has been advanced by any commentator, but we believe that it is capable of proof, and that it is the complete solution of the difficulties of this chapter.

Professor Milligan says again, "We cannot confine the words. 'no flesh' of verse 22 to Jews." Our author apparently forgets that which he at first admitted, that this is a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem. Luke's narrative places this fact beyond all controversy, and if we remember this we can not only confine the words "no flesh" to the Jews, but to wicked amongst the