Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 24:1 - 24:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_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. Mat_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, Mat_21:23.
ἘΠΟΡΕΎΕΤΟ ἈΠῸ ΤΟῦ ἹΕΡΟῦ ] He went away from the temple, withdrew to some distance from it. Comp. Mat_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 Mat_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 Joh_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 Mat_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 Mat_24:2, and in terms corresponding with what He had announced in Mat_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 à , min. vss. Fathers), which order is adopted by Tisch. 8.