Bible Commentaries

CHAPTER 24.

THE APOCALYPTIC DISCOURSE.

This chapter and its synoptical parallels (Mark 13, Luke 21) present, in many respects, the most difficult problem in the evangelic records. Many questions may be, have been, asked concerning this discourse on things to come. Which of the three versions comes nearest to what Jesus said? Did He say all that is here reported on this occasion, or have we in all the versions, more or less, a combination of words spoken at different times? Were the words here collected, all of them, or even the greater number of them, ever spoken by Jesus at any time; have the evangelists not worked up into the discourse a Jewish, or Jewish-Christian, apocalypse, or given us a composition of their own, consisting of certain logia of the Master, as the nucleus, with additions, modifications, and comments in the light of subsequent events? Finally, what is the didactic significance of the discourse, what did Jesus mean to teach His disciples respecting the themes treated: the Ruin of the Holy City, the Coming of the Son of Man, and the End of the Age, and the connection between these things? A history of opinion on these topics cannot here be given; a confident attempt at answering the questions propounded I am not prepared to make; perhaps a final satisfactory solution of the problem is not attainable. I offer only a few general considerations which may, at least, help readers to assume a right attitude towards the problem, and to bring to the study of the discourse a sympathetic spirit.

1. The time was suitable for some such utterance. The situation was this: Jesus expecting death in a few days; convinced that the moral and religious condition of the Jewish people is hopelessly bad, and that it must ere long end in disaster and ruin; surrounded by friends who are to be, after the decease of their Master, the missionaries of a new faith in a troublous time, when an old world is going down and a new world is coming into being. Here surely is an occasion to provoke the prophetic mood! At such supreme crises prophetic utterances, apocalyptic forecasts, are inevitable. Here they are, whomsoever we have to thank for them. From whom are they more likely to have proceeded than from Him who had such clear insight into the moral forces at work, and into the spiritual phenomenology of the time?

2. The aim of any prophetic discourse Jesus might deliver at this crisis, like that of all true prophecy, would be ethical; not to foretell, like a soothsayer, but to forewarn and forearm the representatives of a new faith, so that they might not lose their heads or their hearts in an evil perplexing time—not to gratify curiosity but to fortify against coming trial.

3. Prophetic utterance with such an aim would not need to be exact in statements as to dates and details, but only to be true as to the sequence and general character of events. From all we know of Hebrew prophecy it was to be expected that the prophesying of Jesus would possess only this latter kind of truth, instead of being like a “history of events before they come to pass”. The version of the evangelic apocalypse that least resembles the description of prophecy now quoted from Butler’s Analogy (part ii., chap. vii.) will come nearest to the original utterance. This consideration tells in favour of Mt. and Mk.

4. All prophetic or apocalyptic utterances have much in common; phraseology and imagery tending to become stereotyped. The prophetic literature of the O. T. had indeed provided a vocabulary, which by the Christian era had become normative for all speech concerning the future. Hence Jewish, Jewish-Christian, and Pauline utterances of this kind would in many particulars resemble one another, and it might be difficult to decide by mere internal evidence from what circle any particular utterance emanated. But it is not probable that the evangelists would introduce into a professed report of a discourse by Jesus a current apocalypse of known Jewish origin unless they had reason to believe that Jesus had adopted it, or endorsed its forecast of the future (vide Weizsäcker, Untersuchungen über die Evang. Gesch., pp. 126, 551).

5. As we have seen reason to believe that in previous reports of our Lord’s Discourses (e.g., of the Sermon on the Mount and of the Mission Discourse, chap. 10) grouping of kindred material irrespective of historical occasion has taken place, so we cannot be surprised if traces of a similar procedure present themselves here. The remark applies especially to the latter part of the chapter, Matthew 24:37-51, which contain logia given by Lk. in other connections (chaps. 12 and 17).

Matthew 24:1-3. Introduction (cf. Mark 13:1-4; Luke 21:5-7).

Matthew 24:1. ἐξελθὼν, going out from the temple, within whose precincts the foregoing anti-Pharisaic manifesto had been spoken. The position assigned to ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱεροῦ before the verb, ἐπορ. in the best MSS., suggests connection with ἐξελθὼν. Some, however (Weiss, Schanz, etc.), insist that the words must be taken with ἐπορ. to give to the latter a definite sense. In reality they go along with both, the full meaning being: going out from the temple. He was going away from it, when, etc.—ἐπορεύετο: the imperfect, indicating an action in progress when something else happened. There is an emphasis on the idea of the verb. He was going away, like one who did not mean to return. Hence the action of the disciples next reported.—ἐπιδεῖξαι: they came to their Master, going before in a deeply preoccupied mood, and tried to change the gloomy current of His thoughts by inviting Him to look back at the sacred structure; innocent, woman-like but vain attempt.—τὰς οἰκοδομὰς: the whole group of buildings belonging to the holy house; magnificent, splendid, as described by Josephus (B. J., v., 5, 6), appearing to one approaching from a distance like a snow mountain (ὄρει χιόνος πλήρει) topped with golden pinnacles, which for forty years, in his Napoleonic passion for architecture, Herod the Great had been building to the glory of God and of himself.

Matthew 24:2. ὁ δὲ ἀποκ., but, adversatively. He answered, in a mood entirely different from theirs.—οὐ βλέπετε; do you not see all these things? = you ask me to look at them, let me ask you in turn to take a good look at them.—ταῦτα: these things, not buildings, implying indifference to the splendours admired by the disciples.—οὐ μὴ ἀφεθῇ, etc.: not an exact description ex eventu, but a strong statement of coming destruction (by fire) in prophetically coloured language (Micah 3:12; Jeremiah 26:18). So Holtz., H.C.

Matthew 24:3. n interval of silence would naturally follow so stern a speech. This verse accordingly shows us Jesus with His disciples now on the other side of the Kidron, and sitting on the slope of Olivet, with face turned towards Jerusalem; Master and disciples sitting apart, and thinking their own thoughts. Satisfied that the Master means what He has said, and not daring to dispute His prophetic insight, they accept the fate predicted for Jerusalem, and now desire to know the when and how.—κατʼ ἰδίαν looks as if borrowed from Mk., where it refers to four of the disciples coming apart from the rest. It goes without saying that none but the Twelve were there.—τί τὸ σημεῖον τ. σ. π., etc. The questioners took for granted that all three things went together: destruction of temple, advent of Son of Man, end of the current age. Perhaps the association of the three helped them to accept the first as a fact. Weizsäcker (Untersuchungen, p. 549, note 1) suggests that the second and third questions are filled in by the evangelist to correspond with the answer. So also Weiss in Meyer. The main subject of interrogation is the predicted ruin: when will it happen, and how shall it be known when it is at hand, so as to be prepared for it? Cf. Mk. and Lk., where this alone is the subject of question.—παρουσία (literally presence, second presence) and συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος are the technical terms of the apostolic age, for the second advent of Christ and the close of the present order of things, and they occur in Mt. only, so far as the Gospels are concerned. Do not the ideas also belong to that age, and are not the questions here put into the mouth of the Twelve too advanced for disciples?

Matthew 24:4-14. Signs prelusive of the end. (Mark 13:5-13, Luke 21:8-19).

Matthew 24:4. βλέπετε: again (vide Matthew 24:2), but here = see to it, take heed. Cf. Hebrews 3:12.—πλανήσῃ, lest any one deceive you; striking the practical ethical keynote of the whole discourse: its aim not to gratify curiosity, but to guard against deception and terror (μὴ θροεῖσθε, Matthew 24:6)—heads cool, hearts brave, in a tragic epoch.

Matthew 24:5. πολλοὶ γὰρ ἐλεύσονται, etc., the first omen the advent of pseudo-Messiahs. This first mentioned, quite naturally. Ruin of Jerusalem and the nation will come through revolt against Rome, and the deepest cause of revolt will be the Messianic hope as popularly understood. Volcanic outbursts of Messianic fanaticism inevitable, all the more that they have rejected the true spiritual Christ. Josephus testifies that this was the chief incentive to war against Rome (B. J., vi. 54). The aim of the popular Messianic hope was independence, and all leaders of movements having that goal in view came in the name of “Christs,” whether they formally assumed that name or not. It is doubtful if any did before the destruction of Jerusalem, but that does not falsify Christ’s prediction, which is expressed in terms of an idea rather than in technical terms suggested by fact. It is not a vaticinium ex eventu; yet strictly true, if we understand by one coming in the name of Christ a leader of the fight for liberty (vindicem libertatis, Grotius).—πολλοὺς πλανήσουσιν. The political Christs, leaders of the war against Rome, deceived the bulk of the people. Jesus wished His followers to hold entirely aloof from the movement. To warn them against sympathising with it was by no means superfluous (vide Luke 24:21, Acts 1:6).

Matthew 24:6. econd sign: wars.—πολέμους καὶ ἀκοὰς π.: vague phrase suitable to the prophetic style, not ex eventu; well rendered in A. V[132] “wars and rumours of wars” = wars near and remote (Bengel, Meyer), or better: “actual and threatened” (Speaker’s Com.). The reference is not to wars anywhere in the world, but to those in the Holy Land, arising, as they were sure sooner or later to do, out of Messianic fanaticisms. Christ speaks not out of foreknowledge of the actual facts as reported by contemporary historians and collected by modern commentators (Grotius, etc.), but by prophetic logic: given Messianic hopes misdirected, hence wars, hence ruin.—μελλήσετε, future of a verb, whose very meaning points to the future: ye will be about to hear, by-and-by, not for a while; often delusive times of peace before tragic times of war. Vide Carlyle’s French Revolution, book i.—ὁρᾶτε, μὴ θροεῖσθε, see, be not scared out of your wits (θροέω, originally = cry aloud; later use = to terrify, as if with a scream; here passive in neuter sense). This reference to coming wars of liberation was natural, and necessary if the aim was to fortify disciples against future events. Nevertheless at this point, in the opinion of many critics, begins the so-called “Jewish apocalypse,” which Mk. and after him Mt. and Lk. have interwoven with the genuine utterance of Jesus. The latter embraces all about false Christs and apostolic tribulations (Matthew 24:4-5; Matthew 24:9-14; Matthew 24:22-23), the former all about war, flight, and the coming of the Son of Man with awful accompaniments (Matthew 24:7-8; Matthew 24:15-22; Matthew 24:29-31). Vide Wendt, L. J., i., p. 10 f., where the two series are given separately, from Mk., following in the main Weiffenbach. This critical analysis is ingenious but not convincing. Pseudo-Christs in the sense explained and wars of liberation went together in fact, and it was natural they should go together in prophetic thought. The political Messiahs divorced from the politics become mere ghosts, which nobody need fear.—δεῖ γὰρ γ. Their eventual coming is a divine necessity, let even that consideration act as a sedative; and for the rest remember that the beginning of the tragedy is not the end—ἀλλʼ οὔπω τ. τ.: the end being the thing inquired about—the destruction of the temple and all that went along with it.

[132] Authorised Version.

Matthew 24:7. urther development of the war-portent, possibly here the prophetic range of vision widens beyond the bounds of Palestine, yet not necessarily. In support of limiting the reference to Palestine Kypke quotes from Josephus words describing the zealots as causing strife between people and people, city and city, and involving the nation in civil war (B. J., iv., 6).—λιμοὶ καὶ λοιμοί, famines and pestilences, the usual accompaniments of war, every way likely to be named together as in T. R.—καὶ σεισμοὶ, and earthquakes, representing all sorts of unusual physical phenomena having no necessary connection with the political, but appealing to the imagination at such times, so heightening the gloom. Several such specified in commentaries (vide, e.g., Speaker’s C., and Alford, from whom the particulars are quoted), but no stress should be laid on them.—κατὰ τόπους: most take this as meaning not earthquakes passing from place to place (Meyer) but here and there, passim. vide Elsner and Raphel, who cite classic examples. Grotius enumerates the places where they occurred.