Matthew 24:3-51

Great prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, and the end of the world (Mark 13:8; Luke 21:7). Many of the most serious difficulties of this great discourse disappear when it is realised that our Lord referred in it not to one event but to two, and that the first was typical of the second. This is especially clear in St. Matthew's Gospel. The disciples ask Jesus (Matthew 24:3) for information on two subjects: (1) the date of the approaching destruction of the Temple, (2) the sign that will precede His second coming at the end of the world. That these two events were clearly distinguished in the mind of Christ Himself, and, therefore, in this discourse as He delivered it, admits of demonstration. Luke 21:24 especially, which speaks of 'the times of the Gentiles,' during which Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the heathen, and the Jews dispersed into all lands 'till the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled,' places an indefinite interval between the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the world. Similarly in St. Matthew and St. Mark, Jesus declares that He is ignorant of, or is not allowed to reveal, the date of the end of the world (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32), but expressly says that the fall of Jerusalem will take place within the lifetime of the Apostles (Matthew 10:23). Again the statement that the end will not come till the gospel has been preached to all nations (Matthew 24:14) postpones the end indefinitely: cp. also Luke 22:1. The reasons why the two events are not equally distinguished in the discourse as we have it, are mainly four: (1) Our Lord's words, as in other cases, are condensed. We have not a full report of the speech, but its most striking passages, which being isolated from their context, are naturally somewhat difficult to interpret. (2) At the time when the speech was committed to writing, the apostles believed that Christ's second coming would occur in their lifetime, and that the fall of Jerusalem and the Last Judgment would be coincident: see on 1 Thessalonians 4:15. This belief would affect, if not the faithfulness of their report, at any rate the arrangement of it. It would cause the evangelists to group together, as if referring to the same event, sayings which really referred to events widely sundered in time. (3) The discourse perhaps contains some sayings not spoken at this time, but inserted here because believed to refer to the same events. The hypothesis of extensive additions cannot indeed be admitted. Nevertheless, it is quite in the manner of the evangelists, and especially of St. Matthew, to group together in a single discourse utterances delivered at different times. (4) Our Lord for devotional reasons desired His disciples always to regard His coming as if it were near. The time of it was purposely not revealed, in order that Christians might live in a state of continual watchfulness, looking for their Lord's coming. Such continual exhortations to watchfulness were easily understood to imply that the Second Coming was near.

Other views of the scope of the discourse are, (1) that it refers entirely to the destruction of Jerusalem; (2) or entirely to the Last Judgment; (3) or that 'the coming' of Christ is a continuous process lasting from the fall of Jerusalem to the Second Advent; (4) or that Christ's' coming' represents the extension of His kingdom which followed the Resurrection, or Pentecost, or the fall of Jerusalem; (5) or that His coming refers to the coming of the Comforter, in whom Christ Himself returns to earth.

Some suppose (but without sufficient warrant) that the sections Mark 13:7; Mark 13:14; Mark 13:24; Mark 13:27; Mark 13:30 were not spoken by Christ, but formed part of a short Christian apocalypse composed shortly before the fall of Jerusalem.