Commentary on Mark (1896)
(On Mark 13:24-27)
“We come now to the coming of the Son of Man, with its accompanying portents, v. 24-27. It is placed after the destruction of Jerusalem, but in the same general period: in those days, after that affliction. The portents, the darkening of the sun and moon, and the falling of the stars belong to that event, and not to the destruction of Jerusalem. This separation of the two events which might seem to belong together, means that the fall of Jerusalem is a preparation for the Advent, which cannot take place without it. It is that end of the old order which must precede the beginning of the new” (Gould, p. 249).
(On Matthew 24:30/Mark 13:26)
“A third interpretation, the one adopted here, holds that the events predicted in the second part did take place in that generation, and in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem. The event itself, and the signs of it, interprets according to the analogy of prophecy, figuratively. It finds numerous instances of such use in O.T. prophecy. God coming in the clouds of heaven with his angels, and preceded or announced by disturbances in the heavenly bodies, is the ordinary prophetic manner of describing any special Divine interference in the affairs of nations. See especially Dan. 7:13, 14, 27, where this language is used of the coming of the Son of Man, i.e. of the kingdom of the saints, to take the place of the world-kingdoms. The prophecy becomes thus a prediction of the setting up of the kingdom, and especially of its definite inauguration as a universal kingdom, with the removal of the chief obstacle to that in the destruction of Jerusalem.” (p. 241)
(On Matthew 24:34)
“there is general consent now that the prophecy is restricted in time to that generation, v. 30. In general, the historical interpretation of this prophecy is fairly settled.” (p.249)
What do YOU think ?
Submit Your Comments For Posting Here