III.-The Analogous Prophecies in Luke And Mark
One great loss in the study of Scripture, and in its edifying power upon the soul, is the denial of its inspiration, or even a mere lessening in one's mind of the sense of the integrity and fullness of that inspiration. The apostolic doctrine (2 Timothy 3:1616All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Timothy 3:16)) is that “every scripture is inspired"; further, not merely inspired in a general or vague sense, as might be said of the animated utterances of a man of genius, but “inspired by God” (θεόπνεθστος), and in that way marked off from all other writings of men. Still further, that the very “words” used in so communicating spiritual things are “words taught by the Spirit” (γόλοις... διδακτοῖς πνεύματος), so that not only are the things communicated “spiritual,” but the “words” by which they are communicated are “spiritual” also (1 Corinthians 2:1313Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. (1 Corinthians 2:13)). This is the authoritative apostolic doctrine on the subject. But still more. Scripture is, in all cases, the final appeal by the apostles, and—highest of all—by the Lord Jesus Himself. “As it is written” is Paul's appeal (Romans 3:1010As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: (Romans 3:10)), “What saith the scripture” (Romans 4:33For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (Romans 4:3)), “He” i.e., God) “saith also in Osee” (Romans 9:2525As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. (Romans 9:25)), “For the scripture saith'' (Romans 10:1111For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. (Romans 10:11)). Here are four instances from one epistle, showing what scripture was to an apostle. The Lord Jesus Himself says, “The scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:3535If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; (John 10:35)). “It is written in the prophets,” He says again (John 6:4545It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. (John 6:45)); and He places Moses' writings as a moral test on a level with His own precious words, “If ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words” (John 5:4747But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? (John 5:47)). “Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written” (Luke 24:45, 4645Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: (Luke 24:45‑46)). “And beginning at Moses, and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (ver. 27).
If therefore the Christ Himself is an authority on Christianity, and if His apostles may be supposed to know His doctrines, scripture is, in the fullest sense, in its very words, inspired by God. It follows from this that whether the four Evangelists, or the three, copied from a common document is a worthless speculation. He who holds that cardinal truth of Christianity, the inspiration of scripture, goes back to a higher source, the fountain-head, God Himself, who inspired the scriptures, and who has thus conferred upon us the priceless boon of having His own exact words. The rejecter of inspiration reads Scripture under a great disadvantage. When he comes to a seeming discrepancy, instead of reverently waiting for illumination, his spirit frets at the difficulty, and he proceeds to force things into a uniformity which was never intended. To have given a mere chronological narration of events and discourses would have been mechanically simple, but not so has the inspiring Spirit wrought. He has given us four distinct views in the Gospels, which we simply spoil by forcing them into what is misnamed “a Harmony.”
Now if Scripture be inspired, the differences are as much a matter of divine intention as the coincidences, and this line of reflection finds an illustration in the four Gospels. If our gracious God has given us four differing Gospels, it is our wisdom to heed the differences, instead of trying to obliterate them and thus merge all in one dead level of uniformity.
There are two chief differences between the prophecy of Matthew 24, and the similar prophecies in Luke 17 and 21. Matthew 24 gives “the abomination of desolation” but does not give the destruction of Jerusalem. Luke 21 gives the destruction of Jerusalem (vers. 12-24), but does not mention “the abomination of desolation” or “the great tribulation.” The scope and intention of the prophecy in Matthew are, in the main, quite distinct from the scope and intention of that in Luke, though in some points they overlap, as will be shown. Failure to perceive the distinction of subjects in the two scriptures has led to great confusion in expositions of them. It has been supposed that Matthew 24, which really relates to the Lord's future coming, applied to the destruction of Jerusalem, and that Luke's prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem was intended to include Matthew's prediction of the coming of the Son of man in glory. The result is a baffling and confusing amalgam of what divine wisdom had made distinct. Take the two prophecies separately, as given to us by inspiration, and all is plain.
Comparing Luke 21 with Matthew 24, it will be found that verses 8-11 of Luke give the “beginning of sorrows” corresponding with verses 3-14 of Matthew. Then in Luke there is an express turning back at verse 12, introduced by the words: “But before all these things they shall lay their hands on you” (vers. 12-24), forming an interlude in which are announced the persecution of the disciples, the destruction of Jerusalem, and “the times of the Gentiles” —a passage which finds no place in Matthew. After this, the subject of the last days, broken off at ver. 12, is resumed at ver. 25, and what thence follows belongs to “the time of the end,” the same as in Matthew.
This simple explanation is the key to the difficulties which have perplexed commentators in reconciling Matthew 24 with Luke 21. These difficulties have arisen from the attempt to amalgamate what Scripture has separated—to force the destruction of Jerusalem, which is proper to Luke, into Matthew 24, where the Spirit, who indited that chapter, never intended it to be. The following table exhibits the division of the subjects in question in Matthew and Luke respectively—
Matthew 24
Luke 21
Vers. 3-14.—The beginning of sorrows.
Vers. 8-11.—The same
A parenthesis—not given by Matthew.
Vers. 12-19.—Persecution of the 1st century (A.D.) antecedent to the destruction of Jerusalem.
Vers. 20-24.—Siege and desolation of Jerusalem (A.D. 70) and its downtreading “until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.”
Vers. 15-28.—The time of the end (including the great tribulation)
Not given by Luke.
Vers. 29-41.—The appearing of the Son of man in glory.
Vers. 25-33.—The same.
Luke 17 Vers. 22-37.—The same.
Possibly this explanation will suffice for the ordinary reader. If he choose to skip the remainder of the present chapter he can do so without detriment to the understanding of the subsequent ones. What here follows, however, will, it is thought, assist those who may wish to compare more fully Matthew 24 and Luke 21.
In Matthew 24 the disciples ask two very precise and definite questions: (1) “When shall these things be” (the overthrow of the Temple just referred to)?; and (2), “What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?” But these Dean Alford blends into one, with the remark, “We must, I think, be careful not to press the clauses of it too much, so as to make them bear separate meanings, according to the arrangements of our Lord's discourse” (Greek Test. in loco). One may well ask, “Why?” For, as a matter of fact, disregard of the clear-cut definition of subjects in the disciples' questions is what has beclouded the expositions of commentators. Starting with this initial error it is not surprising to find the worthy Dean afterward expounding the following verses of Matthew 24 down to ver. 28, as applying to both “the destruction of Jerusalem and the final judgment.” It is true that there are phrases in the prophecy of Jerusalem's destruction which resemble phrases in Matthew 24, and this has too readily led some to suppose that the theme of both prophecies was identical. Thus Luke says that when Jerusalem should be compassed with armies, the disciples were to know that the desolation thereof was nigh. But the “desolation of Jerusalem” is a wholly different matter from the “abomination of desolation” spoken of in Matthew. The desolation of Jerusalem given in Luke took place in A.D. 70. The abomination of desolation will not be until “the time of the end,” as will be clearly seen if attention is paid to the due connection of vers. 14, 15, 16, 21, 29 of Matthew 24.
Again, Luke says, referring to the destruction of Jerusalem: “Then let them which are in Judea 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” (21:21). And in Matthew the same means of safety is prescribed on the abomination of desolation being set up. But is it surprising that for local peril in Jerusalem—though at different dates—the same way of escape should be enjoined (a way which the mountainous cincture of Jerusalem renders peculiarly fitting)? The directions, however, in the two cases are not the same, though similar. In Luke there is a command that those in Judea were to depart to the mountains, and that those in the country were not to enter in. Yet there is no note of alarming urgency, such as we find in Matthew at the setting up of the abomination of desolation. In the latter case the delay of an instant is prohibited. He that is on the housetop is not to come down to take anything out of his house, and he who is in the field is not to return back to take his clothes. Another incident which is similar in the two events is that a persecution of the disciples precedes both. Accordingly, this is predicted of each, in terms similar, but not the same (see Luke 21:1212But 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. (Luke 21:12)-19, and Matthew 24:99Then 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. (Matthew 24:9), 10). The pictures of these two persecutions, and what is said about each, are so much alike that without attention to the era within which they respectively fall they might easily be supposed to be identical. Yet there are differences which show that they relate to distinct periods of time. Thus, in the early persecutions of Luke 21:1212But 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. (Luke 21:12), synagogues—an institution of that time—are mentioned, but not in the persecution of the last days given in Matthew 24:99Then 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. (Matthew 24:9). Again, in Luke the disciples are to be brought before kings and rulers for Christ's name's sake. But in Matthew they are, for His name's sake, to be “hated of all nations.” Now this is a striking difference, for the hating by all nations is a natural consequence of that detested preaching of the gospel for a witness to all nations, which is predicted for the time of the end. So, while on a superficial reading the two passages may seem identical, a careful scanning reveals minor verbal differences, which are both accurate and designed.
The subject of the destruction of Jerusalem being, in Luke 21, finished at ver. 24, that of the last days (which was interrupted at ver. 12) is now resumed, but with briefness, for in Luke it has already been dealt with in chap. 17. Neither in chap. 17, however, nor in 21 is it treated with anything like the detail of Matthew 24. And this, indeed, is characteristic and appropriate as regards each of these two Gospels.
A word or two respecting Luke 17. The prophetic section vers. 22-37 is obviously the same instruction as we have in Matthew 24 The latter may have been a repetition of what we have here in Luke 17 and which (as already given to us in chap. 17.) Luke does not repeat in 21. It is not imperative, however, to suppose this, as there is nothing in Luke 17:2222And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it. (Luke 17:22) to indicate that what follows was spoken at the time of the conversation with the Pharisees in vers. 20, 21. The verse simply states, “And he said unto the disciples,” without saying when or where. It may, or may not, have been immediately after the conversation with the Pharisees in the verses preceding. If it was, then the motive is apparent for Luke's omitting it from chap. 21. If it was not, then it is easy to see that it is introduced here because of its appositeness, and naturally therefore omitted from 21.
The minor differences between Matthew 24 and Luke 17 and 21 are thoroughly characteristic. Thus Luke, where he gives the last days, coincides—so far as he goes—with Matthew's Gospel. He gives the same note of urgency (21:31) for flight as Matthew, but, as we have seen, not quite the same as in regard to the destruction of Jerusalem. He does not, however, mention “the abomination of desolation,” that subject being reserved by the guiding Spirit for Matthew and Mark. Again, Matthew gives the question, “What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?” Mark and Luke omit this. But agreeably with this distinction, Matthew's Gospel gives the close of the dispensation, with an amount of detail and emphasis not found in the other two, and omits any answer to the first question; while Luke gives what was nineteen centuries before the close of the dispensation, that is, the destruction of Jerusalem.
Not only Alford, however, but Olshausen, Lange, Bloomfield—indeed most who have written on the subject—labor under the mistaken idea that in each and all of the three Gospels the prophecy is intended to give as well the destruction of Jerusalem as the Lord's coming; whereas Matthew and Mark give the Lord's coming, but not the destruction of Jerusalem; and Luke, in the verses dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem (12-24), specifically demarks it (ver. 12) from the current of other events. Olshausen speaks of the overthrow of Jerusalem being blended in the prophecy with the Lord's coming, and quotes Fritzsche, Fleck, Schultze and de Wette as supporting him. But this it just their mistake, for the blending is in their comments, not in the Gospels. Olshausen, erroneously assuming that “this generation” meant the persons then living, argues from ver. 34 that the prophecy must belong to the time then present. “Hence,” he says, “we do not hesitate to adopt... the simple interpretation—and the only one consistent with the text—that Jesus did intend to represent His coming as contemporaneous with the destruction of Jerusalem” (pp. 233, 234). The interpretation, however, is the opposite of simple, for Jerusalem has been overthrown, but Christ has not come. Then, amongst other means to reconcile the difficulty, Olshausen says (p. 236) that “Christ is constantly coming in His kingdom.” But Christ is not constantly coming. Scripture is emphatic in representing Him as, during the present period, waiting in expectancy at the Father's right hand. His position now is that of Psalm 110: “Jehovah said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” The Lord Jesus in Matthew 22:2424Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. (Matthew 22:24) applies this to Himself, and the apostles likewise apply this scripture to Christ (Acts 2:34, 3534For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35Until I make thy foes thy footstool. (Acts 2:34‑35); Hebrews 1:1313But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? (Hebrews 1:13)). Acts 3:2121Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. (Acts 3:21) shows that He must be in heaven until the “times of restitution of all things.” To say that Christ is constantly coming is, besides being untrue, really an absurdity, into which commentators are forced by their mistaken scheme of interpretation. Christ is in session at the right hand of God, and will remain so until the Father's moment for Him to rise up and claim the kingdoms as His own. Then will be fulfilled that verse in Matthew 24, “They shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (30).
The theory indeed is laminated confusion. First, Christ is made to represent His coming as contemporaneous with the destruction of Jerusalem; but this could not be because it is not true. Christ did not come at the destruction of Jerusalem. No one saw Him then. When He comes “they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” Secondly, to get over this difficulty it is said, inter alia, that “Christ” is constantly coming in His kingdom,” but this clashes with two other lines of scripture-teaching, (1) that Christ's coming is to be like lightning in the wide heavens, (2) that Christ's present position is in session, in expectancy, in patience (Hebrews 10:12, 1312But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. (Hebrews 10:12‑13); Revelation 1:99I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. (Revelation 1:9); 1 Corinthians 4:88Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you. (1 Corinthians 4:8)). And all these difficulties are incurred through not taking the Gospels simply as they are given to us.
The prophecy in Mark (chap. 13.) is like Matthew 24, in that it makes no reference to the downfall of Jerusalem. It conforms very much, however, to Matthew 10, which, as already explained, is a charge to the remnant in view of their testimony—initiated while Jesus was upon earth, but not to be finished until the Son of man be come (vide ante)—the present, or church-period, being a gap between the commencement of this testimony and its resumption after the church is gone. This explains the occurrence of phrases or passages common alike to Matthew 10; 24 and Mark 13; also found in Luke, chaps. 12, 17, and 21. Whenever indeed Christ is seen instructing the remnant in their testimony, there will be found like, if not identical, instructions.
[E. J. T.]
(To be continued)
( “Gospels,” vol. iii, pp. 234-6, clark's 2nd edition.)