聖書注解書

CHAPTER 24

Matthew 24:2. For ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς we should read, with Lachm. and Tisch., ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθείς, following important evidence. The insertion of the subject along with the participle led to the omission of the latter.

οὐ βλέπετε] Fritzsche: βλέπετε, following D L X, min. vss. and Fathers. Ancient (It. Vulg.) correction for sake of the sense, after Mark 13:2.

For πάντα ταῦτα we should read, with Lachm. Fritzsche, Tisch. 8, ταῦτα πάντα, in accordance with a preponderance of evidence.

ὃς οὖ] Elz.: ὃς οὐ μή, against decisive evidence. Mechanical repetition of the preceding οὐ μή.

Matthew 24:3. τῆς συντελ.] The article is wanting in B C L א, min. Cyr. (in the present instance), and has been correctly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. Superfluous addition.

Matthew 24:6. πάντα] is wanting, no doubt, in B D L א, min. vss., and has been deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, but it had been omitted in conformity with Mark 13:7; while in some of the witnesses we find ταῦτα, in accordance with Luke 21:9, and in some others, again, πάντα ταῦτα (Fritzsche: ταῦτα πάντα). The various corrections were occasioned by the unlimited character of πάντα.

Matthew 24:7. καὶ λοιμοί] is wanting in B D E* א, min. Cant. 24 :Verc. Corb. 2, Hilar. Arnob. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8. Other witnesses reverse the order of the words, which is strongly favoured by Luke. All the more are they to be regarded as inserted from Luke 21:11.

Matthew 24:9. Elz. has ἐθνῶν. But the reading τῶν ἐθνῶν has a decided preponderance of evidence in its favour; and then how easily might τῶν be overlooked after πάντων! The omission of τῶν ἐθνῶν in C, min. Chrys. was with a view to conformity with Mark and Luke.

Matthew 24:15. ἑστώς] Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch.: ἑστός, following a preponderance of MS. authority (including B* א), and correctly. The transcribers have contracted into ἑστώς what, strictly speaking, should be spelt ἑσταός, though the spelling ἑστός is also met with in classical writers.

Matthew 24:16. ἐπί] Lachm.: εἰς, following B D Δ, min. Fathers. Adopted from Mark 13:14; Luke 21:21. Mark is likewise the source of the reading καταβάτω, Matthew 24:17, in B D L Z א, min. Or. Caes. Isid. Chrys., and which Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch. 8 have adopted.

For τι ἐκ, as in Elz., read, with Lachm. and Tisch., τὰ ἐκ, following decisive evidence.

Matthew 24:18. τὰ ἱμάτια] τὸ ἱμάτιον, no doubt, has weighty evidence in its favour, and is approved by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, but it is taken from Mark 13:16.

Matthew 24:20. The simple σαββάτῳ (Elz.: ἐν σαββ.) is supported by decisive evidence.

Matthew 24:23. πιστεύσητε] Lachm.: πιστεύετε, following only B* Or. Taken from Mark 13:21.

Matthew 24:24. For πλανῆσαι Tisch. 8 has πλανηθῆναι, following D א, codd. of It. Or.int. and several other Fathers. The reading of the Received text is, no doubt, supported by preponderating evidence; but how readily might the active have been substituted for the passive in conformity with Matthew 24:5; Matthew 24:11!

Matthew 24:27. καί is, with Scholz, Lachm. Tisch., to be deleted after ἔσται, in accordance with decisive evidence. Inserted in conformity with the usual mode of expression; in Matthew 24:37; Matthew 24:39 we should likewise delete the καί, which Tisch. 8 retains in Matthew 24:39.

Matthew 24:28. γάρ] deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8, following B D L א, min. vss. and Fathers. Correctly. A common insertion of the connecting particle. This is more probable than the supposition that a fastidious logic took exception to the kind of connection.

Matthew 24:30. τότε κόψ.] The omission of τότε by Tisch. 8 is without adequate evidence, having among the uncials only that of א*. Had the words been inserted in accordance with Mark 13:26, Luke 21:27, they would have been placed before ὄψονται.

Matthew 24:31. φωνῆς] is not found in L Δ א, min. Copt. Syr. and several Fathers. Being awkward and superfluous, it was in some cases omitted altogether, in others (Syr.jer. Aeth., also Syr.p., though with an asterisk at φων.) placed before σαλπ., and sometimes it was conjoined with σαλπ. by inserting καί after this latter (D, min. Vulg. It. Hilar. Aug. Jer.).

For the second ἄκρων Lachm. has τῶν ἄκρ., following only B, 1, 13, 69.

Matthew 24:34. After λέγω ὑμῖν, Lachm., in accordance with B D F L, min. It. Vulg. Or., inserts ὅτι, which, however, may readily have crept in from Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32.

Matthew 24:35.[13] Griesb. and the more recent editors (with the exception, however, of Matth. and Scholz) have adopted ΠΑΡΕΛΕΎΣΕΤΑΙ in preference to the ΠΑΡΕΛΕΎΣΟΝΤΑΙ of Elz., following B D L, min. Fathers. The plural is taken from Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33.

Matthew 24:36. Before ὭΡΑς Elz. has Τῆς, which, though defended by Schulz, is condemned by decisive evidence. Superfluous addition. Comp. Matthew 24:3.

After ΟὐΡΑΝῶΝ Lachm. and Tisch. 8 have ΟὐΔῈ Ὁ ΥἹΌς, in accordance with B D א, min. codd. of It. Syr.jer. Aeth. Arm. Chrys. Or.int. Hil. Ambr., etc. For a detailed examination of the evidence, see Tisch. The words are an ancient interpolation from Mark 13:32. Had it been the case that they originally formed part of our passage, but were deleted for dogmatic reasons, it is certain that, having regard to the christological importance sometimes ascribed to them (“gaudet Arius et Eunomius, quasi ignorantia magistri,” Jerome), they would have been expunged from Mark as well. The interpolation was all the more likely to take place in the case of Matthew, from its serving to explain ΜΌΝΟς (which latter does not occur in, Mark).

Elz. Scholz, and Tisch. 7 have ΜΟΥ after ΠΑΤΉΡ. Defended by Schulz, though deleted by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. 8. It is likewise adopted by Fritzsche, who, however, deletes the following ΜΌΝΟς, which is wanting only in Sahid. In deference to the ordinary usage in Matthew (Matthew 7:21, Matthew 10:32 f., etc.), ΜΟΥ should be restored. It is wanting, no doubt, in B D L Δ Π א, min. vss. and Fathers, but it may readily enough have been omitted in consequence of the M O immediately following it, all the more that it is not found in Mark.

Matthew 24:37. ΔΈ] Lachm.: ΓΆΡ, following B D I, vss. Fathers. An exegetical gloss.

Matthew 24:38. ΤΑῖς ΠΡΌ] is deleted by Fritzsche and Tisch. 7, in accordance with some few, and these, too, inadequate witnesses (Origen, however). Coming as it does after Matthew 24:37, it had been mechanically omitted; it can scarcely have been inserted as the result of reflection. Before ΤΑῖς Lachm. has ἘΚΕΊΝΑΙς, following B D (which latter omits ΤΑῖς), codd. of It.,—a reading which ought to be adopted, all the more because in itself it is not indispensable, and because it was very apt to be omitted, in consequence of the similarity in the termination of the words.

For ἘΚΓΑΜΊΖΟΝΤΕς read ΓΑΜΊΖΟΝΤΕς with Tisch. 8, following D א, 33, Chrys.; comp. on Matthew 22:30.

Matthew 24:40. For Ὁ ΕἿς Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. have simply ΕἿς in both instances, following B D I L א, min. (Δ and Chrys. leave out the article only in the first case). For sake of uniformity with Matthew 24:41.

Matthew 24:41. ΜΥΛῶΝΙ] Lachm. and Tisch.: ΜΎΛῼ, following preponderating evidence; the reading of the Received text is intended to be more precise.

Matthew 24:42. ὭΡᾼ] Lachm. and Tisch.: ἩΜΈΡᾼ. So B D I Δ א, min. Ir. Cyr. Ath. Hilar. and vss. The reading of the Received text is by way of being more definite. Comp. Matthew 24:44.

Matthew 24:45. ΑὐΤΟῦ after ΚΎΡΙΟς is wanting in important witnesses (deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. 8), but it must have been left out to conform with Luke 12:42.

ΘΕΡΑΠΕΊΑς] Lachm. and Tisch.: ΟἸΚΕΤΕΊΑς, following B I L Δ, min. Correctly; from the word not occurring elsewhere in the New Testament, it would be explained by the gloss ΟἸΚΊΑς (א, min. Ephr. Bas. Chrys.), or at other times by ΘΕΡΑΠ.

For the following ΔΙΔΌΝΑΙ read ΔΟῦΝΑΙ, with Griesb. Fritzsche, Lachm. Tisch., in accordance with preponderating evidence.

Matthew 24:46. ΠΟΙΟῦΝΤΑ ΟὝΤΩς] Lachm. and Tisch.: ΟὝΤΩς ΠΟΙΟῦΝΤΑ, following B C D I L א, min. Vulg. It. Aeth. Ir. Hil. The reading of the Received text is from Luke 12:43.

Matthew 24:48. The order ΜΟΥ Ὁ ΚΎΡΙΟς is favoured by a preponderance of evidence, and, with Lachm. and Tisch., ought to be preferred. Lachm. and Tisch. 8 omit ἘΛΘΕῖΝ, though on somewhat weaker evidence; ἘΛΘΕῖΝ is further confirmed by the reading ἔρκεσθι in min. Or. Bas., which is taken from Luke 12:45. The infinitive not being indispensable (comp. Matthew 25:5), was passed over.

Matthew 24:49. ΑὙΤΟῦ, which is wanting in Elz. (and Tisch. 7), has been restored by Griesb. Lachm. and Tisch. 8, in accordance with preponderating evidence. Similarly with regard to ἘΣΘΊῌ ΔῈ ΚΑῚ ΠΊΝῌ (for ἘΣΘΊΕΙΝ ΔῈ ΚΑῚ ΠΊΝΕΙΝ in Elz.), which has decisive evidence in its favour, and is an altered form of Luke 12:45.

[13] The omission of this whole verse by א*, an omission sanctioned neither by earlier nor by later evidence, is simply an error of the transcriber.

Matthew 24:1. On the following discourse generally, see: Dorner, de orat. Chr. eschatologica, 1844; R. Hofmann, Wiederkunft Chr. u. Zeichen d. Menschensohnes, 1850; Hebart, d. zweite sichtb. Zuk. Chr. 1850; Scherer in the Strassb. Beitr. 1851, II. p. 83 ff.; E. J. Meyer, krit. Comment, zu d. eschatolog. Rede Matth. xxiv., xxv., I., 1857; Cremer, d. eschatolog. Rede Matth. xxiv., xxv., 1860; Luthardt, Lehre v. d. letzten Dingen, 1861; Hoelemann, Bibelstudien, 1861, II. p. 129 ff.; Auberlen in the Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 213 ff.; Pfleiderer in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1868, p. 134 ff.; Kienlen, ibid. 1869, p. 706 ff., and Commentaire sur l’apocalypse, 1870, p. 1 ff.; Wittichen, Idee d. Reiches Gottes, 1872, p. 219 ff.; Weissenbach, d. Wiederkunfts-gedanke Jesu, 1873, p. 69 ff., comp. his Jesu in regno coel. dignitas, 1868, p. 79 ff.; Colani, Jésus Christ et les croyances messian. de son temps, ed. 2, 1864, p. 204 ff.

The parallel passages are Mark 13, Luke 21. Luke, however, in accordance with his own independent way of treating his narrative, does not merely omit many particulars and put somewhat differently many of those which he records (as is likewise the case with Mark), but he introduces not a few in a different, and that an earlier historical connection (ch. Matthew 12:17). But this would not justify us, as Luther, Schleiermacher, Neander, Hase suppose, in using Luke’s narrative for correcting Matthew (Strauss, II. p. 337 f.; Holtzmann, p. 200 ff.), to whom, as the author of the collection of our Lord’s sayings, precedence in point of authority is due. It must be admitted, however, that it is precisely the eschatological discourses, more than any others, in regard to which it is impossible to determine how many modifications of their original form may have taken place[14] under the influence of the ideas and expectations of the apostolic age, although the shape in which they appeared first of all was given to them, not by Mark (Holtzmann, p. 95; see, on the other hand, Weiss), but by Matthew in his collection of the sayings of our Lord. This is to be conceded without any hesitation. At the same time, however, we must as readily allow that the discourse is characterized by all the unity and consecutiveness of a skilful piece of composition, and allow it all the more that any attempt to distinguish accurately between the original elements and those that are not original (Keim) only leads to great uncertainty and diversity of opinion in detail. But the idea that portions of a Jewish (Weizsäcker) or Judaeo-Christian (Pfleiderer, Colani, Keim, Weissenbach) apocalyptic writing have been mixed up with the utterances of Jesus, appears not only unwarrantable in itself, but irreconcilable with the early date of the first two Gospels, especially in their relation to the collection of our Lord’s sayings (λογία).

ἐξελθών] from the temple, Matthew 21:23.

ἘΠΟΡΕΎΕΤΟ ἈΠῸ ΤΟῦ ἹΕΡΟῦ] He went away from the temple, withdrew to some distance from it. Comp. Matthew 25:41. For this interpretation we require neither a hyperbaton (Fritzsche, de Wette), according to which ἀπὸ τ. ἱεροῦ would belong to ἘΞΕΛΘΏΝ,[15] nor the accentuation ἌΠΟ (Bornemann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 108 f.)

τὰς οἰκοδομὰς τοῦ ἱεροῦ] not merely τοῦ ναοῦ, but the whole of the buildings connected with the temple, all of which, with the ναός and the porches and the courts, constituted the ἱερόν. Comp. on Matthew 4:5. The magnificent structures (Joseph. Bell. v. 5. 6, vi. 4. 6, 8; Tac. Hist. v. 8. 12) were not then finished as yet, see on John 2:21.

Even Chrysostom, Erasmus, and Bengel did not fail to perceive that what led the disciples to direct the attention of Jesus to the temple-buildings was the announcement contained in Matthew 23:38, which, though it did not refer exclusively to the temple, necessarily included the fate of this latter as well. This the disciples could not but notice; and so, as they looked back and beheld the splendours of the entire sacred edifice, they could not help asking Jesus further to explain Himself, which He does at once in Matthew 24:2, and in terms corresponding with what He had announced in Matthew 23:38.

[14] Although the contents of the discourse itself, as well as the earlier date of the first two Gospels generally, decidedly forbid the supposition that it was not composed till after the destruction of Jerusalem, and that, consequently, it assumes this latter to have already taken place (Credner, Baur, Köstlin, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar). If this supposition were correct, the discourse would have to he regarded as a late product of the apostolic age, and therefore as a vaticinium post eventum. Further, the eschatological views of the apostolical Epistles, though they presuppose corresponding teaching on the part of Jesus, by no means imply any knowledge of the specific discourses in ch. 24, 25 (in answer to E. J. Meyer, p. 50 ff.).

[15] This supposition, indeed, has likewise led to the transposition: ἀπὸ (Lachm.: ἐκ, following B) τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἐπορεύετο (B D L Δ א, min. vss. Fathers), which order is adopted by Tisch. 8.

Matthew 24:2. Οὐ[16] βλέπετε ταῦτα πάντα (see critical notes) does not mean: “do not gaze so much at all this” (Paulus), in which case μή, at least, would be required; nor: “are you not astonished at all this magnificence” (de Wette, following Chrysostom)? which would be to import a different meaning into the simple βλέπετε; but: ye see not all this, by which, of course, Jesus does not intend the mere temple-buildings in themselves considered, but the doom which awaits all those splendid edifices,—a doom which He at once proceeds to reveal. Instead of having an eye to perceive all this, to them everything looked so magnificent; they were βλέποντες οὐ βλέποντες (Matthew 13:13), so that they were incapable of seeing the true state of matters as regarded the temple; it was hid from their eyes. The more vividly Jesus Himself foresaw the coming ruin; the more distinct the terms in which He had just been pointing to it, Matthew 23:38; the deeper the emotion with which He had taken that touching farewell of the temple; the fuller, moreover, the acquaintance which the disciples must have had with the prophecy in Daniel 9; and the greater the perplexity with which, as the Lord was aware, they continued to regard His utterance about the temple, Matthew 23:38; so much the more intelligible is this introductory passage, in which Jesus seeks to withdraw their attention from what presents itself to the mere outward vision, and open their eyes in order that as μὴ βλέποντες βλέπωσι (John 9:39). Further, it is better to take this pregnant utterance in an affirmative rather than in an interrogative sense, as is usually done, because there is no preceding assertion on the part of the disciples to which the question of surprise might be said to correspond. Grulich (de loci Matth. xxiv. 1, 2, interpret., 1839) places the emphasis on πάντα: “videtis quidem ταῦτα, sed non videtis ταῦτα πάντα (nimirum templi desolationem, etc.).” So also Hoelemann. This is improbable, if for no other reason than the ordinary usage as regards ταῦτα πάντα, which has no such refinement of meaning anywhere else. Jesus would simply have said: οὐ πάντα βλέπετε. Bornemann, as above, after other attempts at explanation, finds it simplest to interpret as follows: ye see not; of all this, believe me, not one stone will remain upon another, etc. He thinks that what Jesus meant to say was: ταῦτα πάντα καταλυθήσεται, but that He interrupts Himself in order to introduce the asseveration ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, and so breaks the construction. That Jesus, however, would not merely have broken the construction, but still more would have used the words οὐ μὴ ἀφεθῇ without any logical reference to ταῦτα πάντα, is clearly indicated by ὧδε, which therefore contradicts the explanation just given.

ὃς οὐ καταλυθ.] For οὐ, see Winer, p. 448 [E. T. 604]; Buttmann, p. 305 [E. T. 355]. Not a stone will be left upon another without being thrown down. Occurring as it does in a prophetical utterance, this hyperbolical language should not be strained in the least, and certainly it ought not to be made use of for the purpose of disproving the genuineness of the passage; see, as against this abuse, Keim, III. p. 190 ff.; Weissenbach, p. 162 ff. And on account of Revelation 11:1 ff., comp. also Weizsäcker, p. 548 f.

[16] Among modern critics, Kuinoel, Fritzsche, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Bleek, have decided in favour of omitting οὐ, as approved by Griesbach and Schulz. Among those belonging to an earlier date, Casaubon says distinctly, with regard to the negative: “hic locum non potest habere.”

Matthew 24:3. Κατʼ ἰδίαν] unaccompanied by any but such as belonged to the number of the Twelve, because they were going to ask Him to favour them with a secret revelation. Differently Mark 13:3.

ταῦτα] those disastrous events of Matthew 24:2.

καὶ τί τὸ σημεῖον, κ.τ.λ.] The disciples assume, as matter of course, that immediately after the destruction in question the Lord will appear, in accordance with what is said Matthew 23:39, for the purpose of setting up His kingdom, and that with this the current (the pre-Messianic) era of the world’s history will come to an end. Consequently they wish to know, in the second place (for there are only two questions, not three, as Grotius, Ebrard suppose), what is to be the sign which, after the destruction of the temple, is to precede this second coming and the end of the world, that by it they may be able to recognise the approach of those events. The above assumption, on the part of the disciples, is founded on the doctrine respecting the הבלי המשיח, dolores Messiae, derived from Hosea 13:13. See Schoettgen, II. p. 550; Bertholdt, Christol. p. 43 ff.

τῆς σῆς παρουσίας] After his repeated intimations of future suffering and death, the disciples could not conceive of the advent of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:19; in the Gospels peculiar to Matthew) to set up His kingdom and make a permanent stay in any other way than as a solemn second coming. After His resurrection they expected the Risen One straightway to set up His kingdom (Acts 1:6),—a very natural expectation when we bear in mind that the resurrection was an unlooked-for event; but, after the ascension, their hopes were directed, in accordance with the express promises of Jesus, to the coming from heaven, which they believed was going to take place ere long, Acts 1:11; Acts 3:20 f., al., and the numerous passages in the New Testament Epistles. Comp. Wittichen in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1862, p. 354 ff. Observe, too, the emphatic σῆς coming after the general expression ταῦτα.

καὶ συντελ. τοῦ αἰῶνος] In the Gospels we find no trace of the millenarian ideas of the Apocalypse. The τοῦ αἰῶνος, with the article, but not further defined, is to be understood as referring to the existing, the then current age of the world, i.e. to the αἰὼν οὗτος, which is brought to a close (συντέλεια) with the second coming, inasmuch as, with this latter event, the αἰὼν μέλλων begins. See on Matthew 13:39. The second coming, the resurrection and the last judgment, fall upon the ἐσχάτη ἡμέρα (John 6:39; John 11:24), which, as it will be the last day of the αἰὼν οὗτος in general, so of the ἐσχάτων ἡμερῶν (Acts 2:17; 2 Timothy 3:1; Jam 5:3; Hebrews 1:2; 2 Peter 3:3) in particular, or of the καιρὸς ἔσχατος (1 Peter 1:5), or of the χρόνος ἔσχατος (Judges 1:18; 1 Peter 1:20), which John likewise calls the ἐσχάτη ὥρα (1 John 2:18). This concluding period, which terminates with the last day, is to be characterized by abounding distress and wickedness (see on Galatians 1:4). The article was unnecessary before συντελείας, seeing that it is followed by the genitive of specification; Winer, p. 118 f. [E. T. 155].

Matthew 24:4. The reply of Jesus is directed, in the first instance, to the second question (τί τὸ σημεῖον, κ.τ.λ.), inasmuch as He indicates, as the discourse advances, the things that are to precede His second coming, till, in Matthew 24:28, He reaches the point which borders immediately upon the latter event (see Matthew 24:29). But this answer to the second question involves, at the same time, an indirect answer to the first, in so far as it was possible to give this latter at all (for see Matthew 24:36), and in so far as it was advisable to do so, if the watchfulness of the disciples was to be maintained. The discourse proceeds in the following order down to Matthew 24:28 : first there is a warning with regard to the appearing of false Messiahs (extending to Matthew 24:5), then the announcement of the beginning and development of the dolores Messiae on to their termination (Matthew 24:6-14), and finally the hint that these latter are to end with the destruction of the temple and the accompanying disasters (Matthew 24:15-22), with a repetition of the warning against false Messiahs (Matthew 24:23-28). Ebrard (adv. erroneam nonnull. opinion., qua Christus Christique apost. existumasse perhibentur, fore ut univ. iudicium ipsor. aetate superveniret, 1842) finds in Matthew 24:4-14 the reply of Jesus to the disciples’ second question. He thinks that in Matthew 24:15 Jesus passes to the first, and that in Matthew 24:29 He comes back “ad σημεῖον τῆς ἑαυτοῦ παρουσίας κατʼ ἐξοχήν, i.e. ad secundae quaestionis partem priorem.” This supposition is simply the result of an imperious dogmatic preconception, and cannot be justified on any fair exegetical principle. See below. Dorner, who spiritualizes the discourse, understands Matthew 24:4-14 as setting forth the nature of the gospel and its necessary development, while he regards what follows, from Matthew 24:15 onward, as describing the historical “decursum Christianae religionis;” he thinks that Jesus desired by this means to dispel the premature Messianic hopes of the disciples, and make them reflect on what they must bear and suffer “ut evangelium munere suo historico perfungi possit.”

Matthew 24:4-5. In the first place—and how appropriate and necessary, considering the eagerness of the disciples for the second coming!—a warning against false Messiahs, and then Matthew 24:6 f. the first, far off, indirect prognostics of the second advent, like the roll of the distant thunder.

ἐπὶ τ. ὀνόμ. μου] on the strength of my name, so that they rest their claim a upon the name of Messiah, which they arrogate to themselves. Comp. Matthew 18:5. The following λέγοντες, κ.τ.λ. is epexegetical. We possess no historical record of any false Messiahs having appeared previous to the destruction of Jerusalem (Barcochba did not make his appearance till the time of Hadrian); for Simon Magus (Acts 8:9), Theudas (Acts 5:36), the Egyptian (Acts 21:38), Menander, Dositheus, who have been referred to as cases in point (Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Grotius, Calovius, Bengel), did not pretend to be the Messiah. Comp. Joseph. Antt. xx. 5. 1; 8. 6; Bell. ii. 13. 5. Then as for the period subsequent to the destruction of the capital, it is not here in question (in answer to Luthardt, Cremer, Lange); for see on Matthew 24:29 And consequently it cannot have been intended, as yet, to point to such personages as Manes, Montanus, and least of all Mohammed.

Matthew 24:6. Δέ] continuative: but to turn now from this preliminary warning to your question itself—ye will hear, etc. This reply to the disciples’ question as to the events that were to be the precursors of the destruction of the temple (comp. πότε, Matthew 24:3), is so framed that the prophetic outlook is directed first to the more general aspect of things (to what is to take place on the theatre of the world at large, Matthew 24:6-8), and then to what is of a more special nature (to what concerns the disciples and the community of Christians, Matthew 24:9-14). For the future μελλής. (you will have to), comp. 2 Peter 1:12; Plat. Ep. vii. p. 326 C.

πολέμους κ. ἀκοὰς πολέμων] said with reference to wars near at hand, the din and tumult of which are actually heard, and to wars at a distance, of which nothing is known except from the reports that are brought home.

ὁρᾶτε, μὴ θροεῖσθε] take care, be not terrified. For θροεῖσθε, comp. 2 Thessalonians 2:2; Song of Solomon 5:4; on the two imperatives, as in Matthew 8:4; Matthew 8:15, Matthew 9:30, see Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 209 [E. T. 243].

δεῖ γὰρ πάντα γενέσθαι] they are not to be terrified, because it is necessary that all that should take place. The reflection that it is a matter of necessity in pursuance of the divine purpose (Matthew 26:54), is referred to as calculated to inspire a calm and reassured frame of mind. πάντα is to be understood as meaning: everything that is then to happen, not specially (τὰ πάντα, ταῦτα πάντα, comp. critical notes) the matters indicated by μελλήσετε … πολέμων, but rather that: nothing, which begins to take place, can stop short of its full accomplishment. The emphasis, however, is on δεῖ.

ἀλλʼ οὔπω ἐστὶ τὸ τέλος] however, this will not be as yet the final consummation, so that you will require to preserve your equanimity still further. Comp. Hom. Il. ii. 122: τέλος δʼ οὔ πώ τί πέφανται. τὸ τέλος cannot mean the συντέλεια, Matthew 24:3 (Chrysostom, Ebrard, Bleek, Lange, Cremer, Auberlen, Hoelemann, Gess), but, as the context proves by the correlative expression ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων, Matthew 24:8, and by τὸ τέλος, Matthew 24:14, comp. with οὖν, Matthew 24:15, the end of the troubles at present under consideration. Inasmuch, then, as these troubles are to be straightway followed by the world’s last crisis and the signs of the Messiah’s advent (Matthew 24:29-30), τὸ τέλος must be taken as referring to the end of the dolores Messiae. This end is the laying waste of the temple and the unparalleled desolation of the land that is to accompany it. Matthew 24:15 ff. This is also substantially equivalent to de Wette’s interpretation: “the decisive winding up of the present state of things (and along with it the climax of trouble and affliction).”

Matthew 24:7. Γάρ] it is not quite the end as yet; for the situation will become still more turbulent and distressing: nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, etc. We have here depicted in colours borrowed from ancient prophecy (Isaiah 19:2), not only those risings, becoming more and more frequent, which, after a long ferment, culminated in the closing scene of the Jewish war and led to the destruction of Jerusalem, but also those convulsions in nature by which they were accompanied. That this prediction was fulfilled in its general aspects is amply confirmed, above all, by the well-known accounts of Josephus; but we are forbidden by the very nature of genuine prophecy, which cannot and is not meant to be restricted to isolated points, either to assume or try to prove that such and such historical events are special literal fulfilments in concrete of the individual features in the prophetic outlook before us,—although this has been attempted very recently, by Köstlin in particular. As for the Parthian wars and the risings that took place some ten years after in Gaul and Spain, they had no connection whatever with Jerusalem or Judaea. There is as little reason to refer (Wetstein) the πολέμους of Matthew 24:6 to the war waged by Asinaeus and Alinaeus against the Parthians (Joseph. Antt. xviii. 9. 1), and the ἀκοὰς πολέμων to the Parthian declaration of war against King Izates of Adiabene (Joseph. Antt. xx. 3. 3), or to explain the latter (ἀκοὰς πολέμων) of the struggles for the imperial throne that had broken out after the death of Nero (Hilgenfeld). Jesus, who sees rising before Him the horrors of war and other calamities connected, Matthew 24:15, with the coming destruction of Jerusalem, presents a picture of them to the view of His hearers. Comp. 4 Esdr. Matthew 13:21; Sohar Chadasch, f. viii. 4 : “Illo tempore bella in mundo excitabuntur; gens erit contra gentem, et urbs contra urbem: angustiae multae contra hostes Israelitarum innovabuntur.” Beresch. Rabba, 42 f., 41. 1 : “Si videris regna contra se invicem insurgentia tunc attende, et adspice pedem Messiae.”

λιμοὶ κ. σεισμοί] see critical notes. Nor, again, is this feature in the prediction to be restricted to some such special famine as that which occurred during the reign of Claudius (Acts 11:28), too early a date for our passage, and to one or two particular cases of earthquake which happened in remote countries, and with which history has made us familiar (such as that in the neighbourhood of Colossae, Oros. Hist. vii. 7, Tacit. Ann. xiv. 27, and that at Pompeii).

κατὰ τόπους] which is applicable only to σεισμοί, as in Mark 13:8, is to be taken distributively (Bernhardy, p. 240; Kühner, II. 1, p. 414): locatim, travelling from one district to another. The equally grammatical interpretation: in various localities here and there (Grotius, Wetstein, Raphel, Kypke, Baumgarten-Crusius, Köstlin, Bleek), is rather too feeble to suit the extraordinary character of the events referred to. In Matthew 24:6-7, Dorner finds merely an embodiment of the thought: “evangelium gladii instar dissecabit male conjuncta, ut vere jungat; naturae autem phaenomena concomitantia quasi depingent motus et turbines in spiritualibus orbibus orturos.”

Matthew 24:8. But all this will be the beginning of woes (Euthymius Zigabenus: προοίμια τῶν συμφορῶν), will stand in the same relation to what is about to follow, as the beginning of the birth-pangs does to the much severer pains which come after. It is apparent from Matthew 24:7 that ἔσται is understood. The figure contained in ὠδίνων is to be traced to the popular way of conceiving of the troubles that were to precede the advent of the Messiah as חבלי המשיח. Comp. on Matthew 24:3.