universal Resurrection, the reward and punishment assigned are represented as of
eternal duration, although it may be open to question, as in regard to Rabbinic teaching,
which of those who had been sinners would suffer final and endless torment.
111. This is expressed in the clearest language in every one of these books. In view of
this, to maintain the opposite on the ground of these isolated words in Baruch (xl. 3): 'Et
erit principatus ejus stans in saeculum, donec finiatur mundus corruptionis,' seems, to
say the least, a strange contention, especially when we read in lxxiii. 1.: 'Sederit in pace
in aeternum super throno regni sui.' We can quite understand that Gfrörer should
propound this view in order to prove that the teaching of the New Testament is only a
reflection of that of later Judaism; but should an argument so untenable be repeated? IV.
Esdras must not here be quoted, as admittedly containing New Testament elements.
112. Book of Enoch xlv. 4, 5.
113. Dr. Schürer, following in this also Gfrörer, holds that one party placed the renewal of
the earth after the close of the Messianic reign. He quotes in support only Bar. lxxiv. 2, 3;
but the words do not convey to me that inference. For the reason stated in the preceding
Note, IV. Esdras cannot here serve as authority.
115. Sanh, 91 a and b.
114. Ap. Bar. 1, 2, 3.
116. u. s. li. 1-6.
117. Ant. xviii. 1, 3; War ii. 8, 14.
118. In support of it Schürer quotes Ps. of Sol. iii. 16, xiv. 2, &c. But these passages
convey to me, and will, I think, to others, the very opposite. Ps. iii. 16 says nothing of the
wicked, only of the righteous. But in ver. 13 b we have it:
η απωλεια του αµαρτωλου εις τον αιωνα, and in ver. 15,
αυτη µερις των αµαρτωλων εις τον αιωνα. Ps. xiv. 2 has again only reference to the
righteous, but in ver. 6 we have this plain statement, which renders any doubt impossible,
δια τουτο η κληρονοµια αυτων αδης και σκοτος και απωλεια.
119. Comp. Book of Enoch and Apoc. of Bar.
The many and persistent attempts, despite the gross inconsistencies involved, to
represent the teaching of Christ concerning 'the Last Things' as only the reflection of
contemporar y Jewish opinion, have rendered detailed evidence necessary. When, with
the information just summarised, we again turn to the questions addressed to Him by
the disciples, we recall that (as previously shown) they could not have conjoined, or
rather confounded, the 'when' of 'these things' - that is, of the destruction of Jerusalem
and the Temple - with the 'when' of His Second Coming and the end of the 'Age.' We
also recall the suggestion, that Christ referred to His Advent, as to His disappearance,
from the Jewish standpoint of Jewish, rather than from the general cosmic view-point of
universal, history.
As regards the answer of the Lord to the two questions of His disciples, it may be said
that the first part of His Discourse120 is intended to supply information on the two facts of
the future: the destruction of the Temple, and His Second Advent and the end of the
'Age,' by setting before them the signs indicating the approach or beginning of these
events. But even here the exact period of each is not defined, and the teaching given