성경 주석서

그리스도의 설교는 대부분 실천적인 내용이었다. 그러나 이 장에서는 예언적 강화(講話), 곧 장차 일어날 일들에 대한 예고를 보게 된다. 다만 그 예언은 실천적 지향을 지닌 것으로서, 제자들의 호기심을 만족시키려는 것이 아니라 그들의 양심과 삶의 행실을 인도하려는 의도를 담고 있었으며, 그러므로 실천적 적용으로 마무리된다. 교회는 신자들을 지도하고 격려하기 위하여 일반적인 약속들 외에도 언제나 특별한 예언들을 가지고 있었다. 그런데 주목할 만한 점은, 그리스도께서 이 예언적 설교를 자신의 사역 마지막 무렵에 전하셨다는 사실이다. 이는 마치 요한계시록이 신약성경의 마지막 책으로 놓이고, 구약성경의 예언서들이 맨 뒤에 배치된 것과 같다. 곧 우리가 어둡고 어려운 일들 속으로 깊이 들어가기에 앞서, 먼저 평이한 진리들과 의무들에 충분히 터를 잡고, 그것들을 먼저 잘 소화해야 함을 일러주려는 것이다. 많은 이들이 성경을 잘못된 끝에서부터 읽기 시작함으로써 스스로를 혼란에 빠뜨린다. 이제 이 장에서 우리는 다음과 같은 내용을 보게 된다.

I. 이 강화의 계기, 마 24:1-3.

II. 강화 그 자체. 여기서 우리는 다음을 보게 된다.

1. 여러 사건들에 대한 예언. 특히 예루살렘의 멸망과 유대 교회 및 민족의 완전한 파멸을 가리키는데, 이 일들은 빠르게 다가오고 있었으며 약 사십 년 후에 성취되었다. 곧 그 멸망의 전조들, 그에 수반되는 일들과 그 결과들이다. 그러나 이는 더 나아가, 그것이 하나의 모형이요 표상이 되는바, 시대의 끝에 있을 그리스도의 오심과 만물의 완성까지도 바라보고 있다. 마 24:4-31.

2. 이 예언의 실천적 적용. 곧 제자들로 하여금 이 크고 두려운 일들을 대비하도록 일깨우고 분발시키기 위함이다. 마 24:32-51.

예수께서는 성전을 마지막으로 떠나시면서 그 성전의 파괴를 예언하시고, 자신의 오심의 표적들이 무엇인지 가르치신다. 이 예언들은 막 13장과 눅 21:5-38에도 기록되어 있다.

그리스도께서 성전의 멸망을 예고하신다(마태복음 24:1, 마태복음 24:2). 그의 제자들이 이 멸망이 언제 있겠으며 그 징조가 무엇이겠는지 묻는다(마태복음 24:3). 우리 주께서 대답하시며 그 징조들을 열거하신다 — 거짓 그리스도들(마태복음 24:5). 난리와 기근과 전염병과 지진(마태복음 24:6-8). 그를 따르는 자들에 대한 박해(마태복음 24:9). 진리에서 떠나는 배교(마태복음 24:10-13). 복음의 전반적인 전파(마태복음 24:14). 로마인들이 그 성을 에워쌀 것을 예고하신다(마태복음 24:15-18). 그때의 재앙들(마태복음 24:19-22). 거짓 선지자들에게 미혹되지 않도록 경계하신다(마태복음 24:23-26). 이 재앙들의 갑작스러움(마태복음 24:27, 마태복음 24:28). 유대 국가 체제의 완전한 멸망(마태복음 24:29-31). 이 전체를 무화과나무의 비유로 예시하신다(마태복음 24:32, 마태복음 24:33). 그 때는 감추어져 있으나 그 일은 확실하다는 것(마태복음 24:34-36). 백성의 무심한 상태(마태복음 24:37-41). 하나는 충성되고 하나는 악한 두 종의 비유로 예시된, 깨어 있음과 신실함의 필요성(마태복음 24:42-51).

이 장은 예루살렘 성과 성전의 철저한 멸망과 유대인의 온 정치 체제의 전복에 관한 예언을 담고 있으며, 그리스도교의 진리를 입증하는 증거라는 점에서 새 언약 성경 가운데 가장 값진 부분의 하나다. 우리 주께서 유대인의 성전과 성과 백성에게 임하리라고 예고하신 모든 일이 가장 정확하고 놀라운 방식으로 성취되었으며, 그 전 기간에 현장에 있었던 한 저술가가 이를 증언하였다. 그는 자신이 유대인이었고, 예루살렘 멸망에 관계된 모든 사건에 있어서 그 진실성을 다툴 수 없는 역사가로 인정받는 사람이다. 그는 그럴 뜻이 없었으면서도 우리 주의 말씀에 대한 주석을 써서, 어떻게 그 한 획까지 어김없이 성취되었는지를 보여 주었다. 이 놀라운 예언을 담은 성경을 그는 전혀 알지 못하였는데도 그러하였다. 이 주석을 진행하는 동안 그의 기록을 자주 인용할 것이며, 예언에 관한 뉴턴 주교의 탁월한 저작 또한 그러할 것이다.

Ch. Matthew 24:1-22. Prediction of the Fall of Jerusalem

Mark 13:1—end. Luke 21:5-36This chapter opens with the great discourse of Jesus, which is continued to the end of ch. 25. That discourse contains (1) a prediction of the fall of Jerusalem, (2) a prediction of the end of the world, (3) Parables in relation to these predictions.

It is difficult to determine the limits of the several portions. The division adopted below has the sanction of Chrysostom and Jerome, and is followed by Maldonatus.

Another arrangement of the prophecy is: (1) A general answer of the question to the end of Matthew 24:14; (2) a specific reference to the fall of Jerusalem, 15–28; (3) in Matthew 24:29 a resumption of the subject of (i).

The view that the two predictions are inextricably intermingled seems the least probable.

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).

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.

마태복음 24:1-51. 예루살렘 멸망에 대한 그리스도의 예언과, 그 예언에서 제시된 그의 재림 준비의 경고들(막 13:1-37; 눅 21:5-36 병행). 해설은 마가복음 13:1-37 주석을 보라.