聖經註釋書

基督的講道大多是實踐性的；但本章我們看到的是一篇預言性的講論，是對將來之事的預告；然而這預言卻有實踐的傾向，其目的不是為滿足門徒的好奇心，而是為引導他們的良心和為人，因此最後以實踐性的應用作為結束。教會除了有一般的應許之外，一直都有特定的預言，既為指引信徒，也為鼓勵信徒；但值得注意的是，基督是在祂事奉的末了講了這篇預言性的講道，正如《啟示錄》是新約最後一卷書，舊約的先知書也被放在最後，這是要暗示我們：必須先在明顯的真理和本分上扎穩根基，並充分消化之後，才能深入那些隱晦難明的事；許多人因從錯誤的一端開始讀聖經，而使自己陷入混亂。在本章我們看到：I. 這篇講論的緣起，Mt 24:1-3。II. 講論的內容，其中包含：1. 對多樣事件的預言，特別是關於耶路撒冷的毀滅，以及猶太教會和民族的徹底傾覆，這些事當時正速速臨近，並在約四十年後應驗；那毀滅的前兆、相伴而來的和隨之而來的後果；然而也展望到基督在末了的再來，以及萬事的成全，前者是其預表和影像，Mt 24:4-31。2. 這預言的實踐性應用，為要喚醒和激勵門徒預備迎接這些重大而可畏的事，Mt 24:32-51。

耶穌最後離開聖殿時，預言聖殿的毀壞，並教導祂降臨的預兆是什麼。這些預言也記在Mark 13；Luke 21:5-38。

Christ foretells the destruction of the temple, Matthew 24:1, Matthew 24:2. His disciples inquire when and what shall be the sign of this destruction, Matthew 24:3. Our Lord answers, and enumerates them - false Christs, Matthew 24:5. Wars, famines, pestilences, and earthquakes, Matthew 24:6-8. Persecution of his followers, Matthew 24:9. Apostasy from the truth, Matthew 24:10-13. General spread of the Gospel, Matthew 24:14. He foretells the investment of the city by the Romans, Matthew 24:15-18. The calamities of those times, Matthew 24:19-22. Warns them against seduction by false prophets, Matthew 24:23-26. The suddenness of these calamities, Matthew 24:27, Matthew 24:28. Total destruction of the Jewish polity, Matthew 24:29-31. The whole illustrated by the parable of the fig-tree, Matthew 24:32, Matthew 24:33. The certainty of the event, though the time is concealed, Matthew 24:34-36. Careless state of the people, Matthew 24:37-41. The necessity of watchfulness and fidelity, illustrated by the parable of the two servants, one faithful, the other wicked, Matthew 24:42-51

This chapter contains a prediction of the utter destruction of the city and temple of Jerusalem, and the subversion of the whole political constitution of the Jews; and is one of the most valuable portions of the new covenant Scriptures, with respect to the evidence which it furnishes of the truth of Christianity. Every thing which our Lord foretold should come on the temple, city, and people of the Jews, has been fulfilled in the most correct and astonishing manner; and witnessed by a writer who was present during the whole, who was himself a Jew, and is acknowledged to be an historian of indisputable veracity in all those transactions which concern the destruction of Jerusalem. Without having designed it, he has written a commentary on our Lord's words, and shown how every tittle was punctually fulfilled, though he knew nothing of the Scripture which contained this remarkable prophecy. His account will be frequently referred to in the course of these notes; as also the admirable work of Bishop Newton on the prophecies.

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.

Mt 24:1-51.

基督關於 耶路撒冷被毀的 預言， 並由此 所提示要 為他第二次 再臨作 預備的 警告。 ( =

Mr 13:1-37； Lu 21:5-36).

註釋請見

Mr 13:1-37.