the Midrash, [c On Cant. ii. 14.] where Israel is described as harmless as the dove towards God, and wise as serpents towards the hostile Gentile nations. Such and even greater would be the enmity which the disciples, as the true Israel, would have to encounter from Israel after the flesh. They would be handed over to the various Sanhedrin, [1 The question of the constitution and jurisdiction of the various Sanhedrin will be discussed in another place.] and visited with such punishments as these tribunals had power to inflict, [d St. Matt. x. 17.] More than this, they would be brought before governors and kings, primarily, the Roman governors and the Herodian princes, [e ver. 18.] And so determined would be this persecution, as to break the ties of the closest kinship, and to bring on them the hatred of all men. [f w. 21, 22.]The only, but the all-sufficient, support in those terrible circumstances was the assurance of such help from above, that, although unlearned and humble, they need have no care, nor make preparation in their defence, which would be given them from above. And with this they had the promise, that he who endured to the end would be saved, and the prudential direction, so far as possible, to avoid persecution by timely withdrawal, which could be the more readily achieved, since they would not have completed their circuit of the cities of Israel before the 'Son of Man be come.'
It is of the greatest importance to keep in view that, at whatever period of Christ's Ministry this prediction and promise were spoken, and whether only once or oftener, they refer exclusively to a Jewish state of things. The persecutions are exclusively Jewish. This appears from verse 18, where the answer of the disciples is promised to be 'for a testimony against them,' who had delivered them up, that is, here evidently the Jews, as also against 'the Gentiles.' And the
Evangelistic circuit of the disciples in their preaching was to be primarily Jewish; and not only so, but in the time when there were still 'cities of Israel,' that is, previous to the final destruction of the Jewish commonwealth. The reference, then, is to that period of Jewish persecution and of Apostolic preaching in the cities of Israel, which is bounded by the destruction of Jerusalem. Accordingly, the 'coming of the Son of Man,' and the 'end' here spoken of, must also have the same application. It was, as we have seen, according to Dan. vii. 13, a coming in judgment. To the Jewish persecuting authorities, who had rejected the Christ, in order, as they imagined, to save their City and Temple from the Romans, [a St. John xi. 48.] and to whom Christ had testified that He would come again, this judgment on their city and state, this destruction of their polity, was 'the Coming of the Son of Man' in judgment, and the only coming which the Jews, as a state, could expect, the only one meet for them, even as, to them who look for Him, He will appear a second time, without sin unto salvation.
That this is the only natural meaning attaching to this prediction, especially when compared with the parallel utterances recorded in St. Mark xiii. 9-13, appears to us indubitable. It is another question how, or how far, those to whom these words were in the first place addressed would understand their full bearing, at least at that time. Even supposing, that the disciples who first heard did not distinguish between the Coming to Israel in judgment, and that to the world in mingled judgment and mercy, as it was afterwards conveyed to them in the Parable of the Forthshooting of the Fig-tree, [b St. Luke xxi. 29-31.] yet the early Christians must soon have become aware of it. For, the distinction is sharply marked. As regards its manner, the 'second' Coming of Christ may be said to correspond to the state of those to whom He cometh. To the Jews His first Coming was visible, and as claiming to be their King. They had asked for a sign; and no sign was given them at the time. They rejected Him, and placed the Jewish polity and nation in rebellion against 'the King.' To the Jews, who so rejected the first visible appearance of Christ as their King, the second appearance would be invisible but real; the sign which they had asked would be given them, but as a sign of judgment, and His Coming would be in judgment. Thus would His authority be vindicated, and He appear, not, indeed, visibly but really, as what He had claimed to be. That this was to be the manner and object of His Coming to Israel, was clearly set forth to the disciples in the Parable of the Unthankful Husbandmen, [c St. Matt. xxi. 33-46, and the parallels.] The coming of the Lord of the vineyard would be the destruction of the wicked husbandmen. And to render misunderstanding impossible, the explanation is immediately added, that the Kingdom of God was to be taken from them, and given to those who would bring forth the fruits thereof. Assuredly, this could not, even in the view of the disciples, which may have been formed on the Jewish model, have applied to the Coming of Christ at the end of the present AEon dispensation.
We bear in mind that this second, outwardly invisible but very real, Coming of the Son of Man to the Jews, as a state, could only be in judgment on their polity, in that 'Sign' which was once refused, but which, when it appeared, would only too clearly vindicate His claims and authority. Thus viewed, the passages, in which that second Coming is referred to, will yield their natural meaning. Neither the mission of the disciples, nor their journeying through the cities of Israel, was finished, before the Son of Man came. Nay, there were those standing there who would not taste death, till they had seen in the destruction of the city and state the vindication of the Kingship of Jesus, which Israel had disowned, [a St. Matt. xvi. 28, and parallels.] And evenin those last Discourses in which the horizon gradually enlarges, and this Coming in judgment to Israel merges
in the greater judgment on an unbelieving world, [b St. Matt. xxiv. and parallels.] this earlier Coming to the Jewish nation is clearly marked. The three Evangelists equally record it, that 'this generation' should not pass away, till all things were fulfilled, [c St. Matt. xxiv. 34; St. Mark xiii.30; St. Luke xxi. 32.] To take the lowest view, it is scarcely conceivable that these sayings would have been allowed to stand in all the three Gospels, if the disciples and the early Church had understood the Coming of the Son of Man in any other sense than as to the Jews in the destruction of their polity. And it is most significant, that the final utterances of the Lord as to His Coming were elicited by questions arising from the predicted destruction of the Temple. This the early disciples associated with the final Coming of Christ. To explain more fully the distinction between them would have been impossible, in consistency with the Lord's general purpose about the doctrine of His Coming. Yet the Parables which in the Gospels (especially in that by St. Matthew) follow on these predictions, [d St. Matt. xxv. 1-30.] and the teaching about the final Advent of'the Son of Man,' point clearly to a difference and an interval between the one and the other.
The disciples must have the more readily applied this prediction of His Coming to Palestine, since 'the woes' connected with it so closely corresponded to those expected by the Jews before the Advent of Messiah, [e Sot. ix. 15; comp. Sanh. 97 a to 99 a, passim.] Even the direction to flee from persecution is repeated by the Rabbis in similar circumstances and established by the example of Jacob, [f Hos. xii. 12.] of Moses, [g Ex. ii. 15.] and of David, [h ISam. xix. 12; comp. Bemidb. R. 23, ed. Warsh. p. 86 b, and Tanch.] In the next section of this Discourse of our Lord, as reported by St. Matthew, [a St. Matt. g. 24-34.] the horizon is enlarged. The statements are still primarily applicable to the early disciples, and their preaching among the Jews and in Palestine. But their ultimate bearing is already wider, and includes predictions and principles true to all time. In view of the treatment which their Master received, the disciples must expect misrepresentation and evil-speaking. Nor could it seem strange to them, since even the common Rabbinic proverb had it: [1 So Ber. 58 b; Siphra on Lev. xxv. 23; Ber. R. 49; Shem. R. 42; Midr. on Ps. xxvii. 4.] 'It is enough for a servant to be as his lord' ( ). As we hear it from the lips of Christ, we remember that this saying afterwards comforted those, who mourned the downfall of wealthy and liberal homes in Israel, by thoughts of the greater calamity which had overthrown Jerusalem and the Temple. And very significant is its application by Christ: 'If they have called the Master of the house Beelzebul, [2 This is undoubtedly the correct reading, and not Beelzebub. Any reference to the Baalzebub, or 'fly-god' of 2 Kings i. 2, seems, rationally, out of the question.] how much more them of His household.' This charge, brought of course by the Pharisaic party of Jerusalem, had a double significance. We believe, that the expression 'Master of the house' looked back to the claims which Jesus had made on His first purification of the Temple. We almost seem to hear the coarse Rabbinic witticism in its play on the word Beelzebul. For, Zebhul, ( ) means in Rabbinic language, not any ordinary dwelling, but specifically the Temple, [3 Zebhul ( ) is also the name of the fourth of the seven heavens in which Jewish mysticism located the heavenly Jerusalem with its Temple, at whose altar Michael ministered (Chag. 12 b).] [b Jer. Ber. 13 b.] and Beel-Zebul wouldbe the Master of the Temple.' On the other hand, Zibbul () means [4 The primary meaning is: manuring(land) with dung.] sacrificing to idols; [c Abod. Z. 18 b, and often.] and hence Beel-zebul would, in that sense, be equivalent to 'lord' or 'chief of idolatrous sacrificing' [5 It could not possibly mean, as has been supposed, 'lord of dung,' because dung is and not.], the worst and chiefest of demons, who presided over, and incited to, idolatry. 'The Lord of the Temple' (which truly was His Church) was to them 'the chief of idolatrous
worship,' the Representative of God that of the worst of demons: Beelzebul was Beelzibbul! [6 This alone explains the meaning of Beelzebul. Neither Beelzebub nor Baalzebul were names given by the Jews to any demon, but Beelzebul, the 'lord of sacrificing to idols,' would certainly be the designation of what they regarded as the chief of the demons.] What then might 'His Household' expect at their hands?
But they were not to fear such misrepresentations. In due time the Lord would make manifest both His and their true character, [a St. Matt. x. 26.] [1 Mark the same meaning of the expression in St. Luke viii. 17; xii. 2.] Nor
