from it every vestige of the political element, a definition which should so portray it as to put its realization wholly outside the pale of Zealot activity, would avail to keep his community from being disintegrated by the ardent Zealot appeal of the years after his death. It is to such a sketch that Jesus gives himself in §6 of this discourse. Viewed from this standpoint, §§5 and 6 are less a digression from the question of the disciples and more an elaboration of the most important element in a wise and far-seeing reply to the personal element in their inquiry. If this statement is a correct interpretation of the mind and purpose of Jesus in his treatment of the day of the Son of man, it seems clear that it would not be justifiable to go to this discourse for precise outlines as to the form and nature of the Last Things. For by the very demand of the hour Jesus was led to deal with the problem by the method of contrast rather than by that of definitive and descriptive precision. Yet even were one to fall into the easy error of accepting the strong colors of contrast as intended for scientific statement, that one would be at a loss to derive more than one or two large and richly suggestive thoughts from the sketch which Jesus has drawn with such marvelous skill (§6=P §60).

If it is true that the reference by Jesus to the day of the Son of man is wholly secondary to the interest of Jesus in the future welfare of his disciples in the midst of Zealot messianic fanaticism, it seems even more true that this aspect of their future was one phase only in the outlook of Jesus upon their future. For after making answer to the inquiry of the disciples, Jesus seems to have talked with them about many important problems of their mission and its implications (§§11, 12). Indeed, if the evidence has been rightly judged as to the content of this discourse, it ought to be characterized as a discourse on the Future of the Disciples rather than as a discourse on the Last Things. Apparently that which is said about the Last Things is said solely as a contribution to the disciples' knowledge of what would best be avoided in the near future. A careful study of the Synoptic Gospels will reveal to one that previous to this discourse Jesus had not dealt with his disciples about their future mission—that is, provided the external evidence adduced for placing document P §§20, 31, 32 in this discourse rather than earlier is favorably regarded. Indeed, it is reasonable to raise the question as to the probable wisdom

of dealing with that subject at any time before those days in which his disciples had come to some degree of realization that he was actually to be taken away from them. If, then, Jesus had not spoken of their future, as he viewed it, previous to this discourse, except, perhaps, very incidentally on their own initiative, there is additional reason why this discourse should be designated the Discourse on the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Future of the Disciples.

CHAPTER V

THE DAY OF JUDGMENT

§1. The Son of Man as Judge of Men

§2. False Prophets in the Day of Judgment §3. Words as the Basis of Judgment

§4. Judicial Functions of the Twelve

85. The Fate of Pharisees in the Judgment

§6. The Separation of Bad from Good in the Judgment

87. The Basis of Separation in the Judgment

§8. The Fate of Certain Cities in the Judgment

In a study of the sayings of Jesus about the day of judgment, the above passage is brought under consideration solely because of the form of statement reported by the portion A of the Matthaean record"then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds." But the statement is a result of departure from his document MK by the evangelist. Under the influence of the same impulse, he transforms the saying in portion B by substituting "see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" for the words "see the kingdom of God come with power." Both modifications are apparently the outcome of certain marked eschatological tendencies in Matthew. Elsewhere these sayings have been subjected to closer scrutiny, and it has been concluded that they have their true historical setting at other points in the ministry of Jesus than that indicated here by document MK. The saying in portion A seems to have its more original form in the Matthaean report of document P §20, Matt. 10:32, 33. And if the evidence has been correctly interpreted, its occasion was that of the final discourse of Jesus on the future. An interpretation of the saying in portion B forms a part of the study of Jesus' thought about the future of the kingdom of God. For present purposes, it suffices to make it clear that the notion of the Son of Man as Judge of Men as reported by Matthew is unsupported by his document MK.

In the comparison of document with document, it was seen that the above conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount, as reported by document M, is one of the several striking instances in which that document has eschatological additions which are wholly without support in the other document. That with which the peculiar portions, A, G, and I, deal is the work and future fate of "false prophets." It will be observed that the document M portion E is a true parallel for the document G portion B. The portion G is identical in terms with the drastic announcement made by John the Baptist as reported in document G IB end. The intended application of the figurative sayings