^{page 284 note 1} Cf. Lohmeyer, op. cit., p. 280.

^{page 284 note 2} To take it to refer to the celestial portents of vv. 24 f would be no easier, as what was last mentioned would still not be included. Moreover, it is preferable to regard vv. 24–27 as describing a single event rather than a series of events.

^{page 284 note 3} So Lohmeyer, op. cit., p. 281.

^{page 284 note 4} So Michaelis, W., Der Hen verzieht nicht die Verheissung, pp. 24 and 31.Google Scholar

^{page 284 note 5} For other interpretations of the parable that involve loosing it from its Markan context see Dodd, C. H., The Parables of the Kingdom (3rd edit.), p. 137Google Scholar; Smith, B. T. D., The Parables of the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 89 ffGoogle Scholar; Jeremias, J., Die Gleichnisse Jesu, p. 78 fGoogle Scholar. The imaginative suggestion of E. Schwartz and J. Wellhausen that Jesus was referring to a particular withered tree near Jerusalem, which according to popular expectation was once more to bud when the Messianic End-time was at hand, and that in 11.14 He was repudiating this popular fancy, while in 13.28 He takes it over, has little to commend it. Calvin's interpretation here, though interesting, is unlikely. The ‘mystical meaning’ which is given by Bede (Migne, PL 92, col. 264) is worth mentioning for the sake of its ingenuity. According to this the disciples are to know that the End is near, when, after the fulness of the gentiles has been brought in and the hardening is removed from Israel (Rom. 11.25 f), the fig tree which is Israel once more becomes fruitful, that had been condemned to eternal barrenness by the Lord on account of unbelief (Mark 11.14). For ‘at the doors’ cf. James 5.9.

^{page 285 note 1} For a convenient summary cf. G. K. Barrett, ‘New Testament Eschatology’ in SJT, 6, p. 152 f.

^{page 285 note 2} The Gospel according to St. Mark, p. 177.

^{page 285 note 3} The Teaching of Jesus, p. 260.

^{page 285 note 4} op. cit., p. 637.

^{page 286 note 1} The Gospel according to St. Mark, p. 123.

^{page 286 note 2} op. cit., pp. 34–110. But see also Dodd, C. H., The Coming of Christ (1951)Google Scholar, in which his earlier views seem to be significantly modified.

^{page 286 note 3} op. cit., p. 102.

^{page 286 note 4} op. cit., p. 117.

^{page 286 note 5} op. cit., p. 116.

^{page 286 note 6} op. cit., p. 642.

^{page 286 note 7} op. cit., p. 644.

^{page 287 note 1} op. cit., p. 282.

^{page 287 note 2} This conviction, to which I came several years ago and tried to express in The First Epistle of Peter, p. 92 f, has been confirmed by a reading of W. Michaelis' useful book, to which reference has already been made, and of Barth's, KarlKirchliche Dogmatik, 3/2, pp. 560–616Google Scholar, to which I am very greatly indebted.

^{page 288 note 1} Cf. Barth's vivid illustration of ‘der Gesamtkomplex “die Alpen” vom Jura aus gesehern’ (op. cit., p. 598).

^{page 288 note 2} For references see SJT 6, p. 287, n. 3.

^{page 288 note 3} Cf. Barth, op. cit., p. 597 f. We might perhaps also compare John 16.16.

^{page 289 note 1} op. cit., p. 589 f.

^{page 289 note 2} ibid.

^{page 289 note 3} ibid.

^{page 289 note 4} op. cit., p. 613.

^{page 290 note 1} op. cit., p. 592 f.

^{page 290 note 2} Quoted by Lagrange: ‘aut omne genus hominum significat, aut specialiter Judaeorum.’

^{page 290 note 3} ‘Nomine generationis aut omne hominum significat genus, aut specialiter Judaeorum’ (Migne, PL, 92, col. 26)

^{page 290 note 4} Cf. Michaelis, op. cit., p. 32.

^{page 290 note 5} Cited by Lagrange.

^{page 290 note 6} op. cit., p. 176; cf. his Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, p. 246.

^{page 290 note 7} Quoted in Michaelis, op. cit., p. 74, n. 18.

^{page 290 note 8} op. cit., p. 289 f.

^{page 290 note 9} op. cit., p. 118.

^{page 290 note 10} Cited by Lagrange, op. cit., p. 348.

^{page 290 note 11} Quoted by Swete, op. cit., p. 315.

^{page 291 note 1} op. cit., p. 32 f.

^{page 291 note 2} op. cit., p. 348.

^{page 291 note 3} op. cit., p. 521.

^{page 291 note 4} Mentioned by Michaelis, p. 30, as a possibility.

^{page 291 note 5} Le Retour du Christ, p. 26 f.

^{page 291 note 6} op. cit., pp. 601–3.

^{page 291 note 7} The Gospel Message of St. Mark, pp. 48–59 (esp. 54). See also Farrer, A. M., A Study in St. Mark, pp. 135 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 291 note 8} Is there a hint of this in Schlatter, Das Ev. nach Matthäus, p. 361?

^{page 291 note 9} op. cit., p. 151 f.

^{page 292 note 1} Isa. 51.6.

^{page 292 note 2} Ps. 102.25–27.

^{page 292 note 3} Isa. 40.6–8.

^{page 292 note 4} Quoted by Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthäus, p. 713.

^{page 292 note 5} Ps. 119.160: cf. vv. 89, 152.

^{page 292 note 6} Bar. 4.1.

^{page 292 note 7} Wis. 18.4.

^{page 292 note 8} 2 Esdras 9.36 f.

^{page 292 note 9} p. Sanh. 2.20c 39, quoted in Str.−B. I, 244, where other references will be found.

^{page 292 note 10} But with regard to Matt. 5.18 and the Lukan par. see Manson, T. W., The Sayings of Jesus, pp. 135, 154.Google Scholar

^{page 293 note 1} Cf. Lohmeyer, op. cit., p. 280; Taylor, op. cit., p. 521.

^{page 293 note 2} Die Geschichte der Synoptischen Tradition (2nd edit.), p. 130.

^{page 293 note 3} Cf. Lohmeyer's defence of its authenticity (op. cit., p. 282).

^{page 293 note 4} op. cit., p. 522. Cf. Lagrange, 350; Lohmeyer, 283; Schniewind, 175.

^{page 294 note 1} For the view that this is the original reading in Matthew see Taylor, ibid.

^{page 294 note 2} Cf. Lohmeyer, op. cit., p. 283, and Bieneck, Joachim, Sohn Gottes ah Christusbezeichnung der Synoptiker, p. 39 f (the whole book is an interesting and significant discussion).Google Scholar

^{page 294 note 3} op. cit., p. 153 f.

^{page 294 note 4} Cf. Lohmeyer, ibid.; but, when he says: ‘in den synoptischen Evangelien benutzt nur dieser Spruch die aus dem AT geläufige Wendung', he forgets Matt. 7.22, Luke 10.12.

^{page 295 note 1} Cf. Bengel on the Matthew parallel: ‘… utrumque haec antitheton facit ad illo, ἐĸεíνης v. 36. hoc sensu: HAEC omnia, quae ad Hierosolyma pertinent, fient, antequam haec generatio praetereat: sed de ILLO (remotiore, novissimo, judicii) die, nemo novit, etc.’

^{page 295 note 2} Taylor, op. cit., p. 522 f.

^{page 295 note 3} Cf. Busch, quoted in Michaelis, op. cit., p. 74, n. 13; also Lohmeyer, op. cit., p. 283 f.

^{page 295 note 4} Cf. Beasley-Murray, G. R., ‘The Rise and Fall of the Little Apocalypse Theory’ in ET, 64, p. 348 f.Google Scholar

^{page 295 note 5} SJT, 6, p. 196.

^{page 295 note 6} op. cit., p. 153.

^{page 296 note 1} ibid.

^{page 296 note 2} For a discussion of these see Lohmeyer, op. cit., p. 284.

^{page 296 note 3} op. cit., p. 524.

^{page 296 note 4} For a different interpretation see Dodd, op. cit., pp. 158–67.

^{page 297 note 1} Das Ev. nach Matthäus, p. 364.

^{page 297 note 2} Here I am greatly indebted to the magnificent exegesis of Matthew 25 in Barth, op. cit., pp. 607–12.

^{page 298 note 1} ibid., p. 609 f.

^{page 298 note 2} ibid., p. 611.

^{page 298 note 3} Pet. 3.12 (A.V.).

^{page 299 note 1} Cf. Schniewind, , Das Ev. nach Matthäus, p. 247.Google Scholar

^{page 299 note 2} For a history of the ‘Little Apocalypse’ theory and of the various alternative analyses put forward by those who have felt the difficulties of that theory the reader may refer to Dr G. R. Beasley-Murray's article, ‘The Rise and Fall of the Little Apocalypse Theory’ in ET 64 (1952–3), pp. 346–9. See also his recently published book, Jesus and the Future.

^{page 299 note 3} V. Taylor, op. cit., p. 523.

^{page 299 note 4} ibid.

^{page 299 note 5} See p. 295.

^{page 300 note 1} Cf. Hennig, K., Das Markusevangelium, p. 113 f.Google Scholar

^{page 300 note 2} Cf. pp. 287–8.

^{page 301 note 1} p. 261 f.

^{page 301 note 2} op. cit., p. 507.

^{page 302 note 1} T. W. Manson, op. cit., p. 262.