Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 24:15 - 24:15
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_24:15. See Wieseler in the Götting. Vierteljahrschr. 1846, p. 183 ff.; Hengstenberg, Christol. III. p. 116 ff. More precise information regarding this τέλος .
οὖν ] therefore, in consequence of what has just been stated in the καὶ τότε ἥξει τὸ τέλος . According to Ebrard and Hoelemann, οὖν indicates a resuming of the previous subject (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 177; Winer, p. 414 [E.T. 555]): “Jesusad primam questionem revertitur, praemisso secundae quaestionis responso.” But even Ebrard himself admits that Jesus has not as yet made any direct reference to the disciples’ first question, Mat_24:3, accordingly he cannot be supposed to recur to it with a mere οὖν . Wieseler also takes a similar view of οὖν . He thinks that it is used by way of resuming the thread of the conversation, which had been interrupted by the preliminary warning inserted at Mat_24:4-14. But this conversation, which the disciples had introduced, and in which, moreover, Mat_24:4-14 are by no means of the nature of a mere warning, has not been interrupted at all. According to Dorner, οὖν marks the transition from the eschatological principles contained in Mat_24:4-14 to the applicatio eorum historica s. prophetica, which view is based, however, on the erroneous assumption that Mat_24:4-14 do not possess the character of concrete eschatological prophecy. The predictions before us respecting the Messianic woes become more threatening till just at this point they reach a climax.
τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως ] the abomination of desolation; the genitive denotes that in which the βδέλυγμα specifically consists and manifests itself as such, so that the idea, “the abominable desolation,” is expressed by the use of another substantive instead of the adjective, in order to bring out the characteristic attribute in question; comp. Sir_49:2; Hengstenberg: the abomination, which produces the desolation. But in Daniel also the ἐρήμωσις is the leading idea. The Greek expression in our passage is not exactly identical with the Septuagint[17] rendering of ùÑÄ÷ÌåÌöÄéí îÀùÑÉîÅí , Dan_9:27 (Mat_9:31, Mat_12:11). Comp. 1Ma_1:54; 1Ma_6:7. In this prediction it is not to Antichrist, 2Th_2:4 (Origen, Luthardt, Klostermann, Ewald), that Jesus refers; nor, again, is it to the statue of Titus, which is supposed to have been erected on the site of the temple after its destruction (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus); nor to that of Caligula, which is said (but see Krebs, p. 53) to have been set up within the temple; nor even to the equestrian statue of Hadrian (all which Jerome considers possible), which references would imply a period too early in some instances, and too late in others. It is better, on the whole, not to seek for any more special reference (as also Elsner, Hug, Bleek, Pfleiderer have done, who see an allusion to the sacrilegious acts committed by the zealots in the temple, Joseph. Bell. iv. 6. 3), but to be satisfied with what the words themselves plainly intimate: the abominable desolation on the temple square, which was historically realized in the doings of the heathen conquerors during and after the capture of the temple, though, at the same time, no special stress is to be laid upon the heathen standards detested by the Jews (Grotius, Bengel, Wetstein, de Wette, Ebrard, Wieseler, Lange), to which the words cannot refer. Fritzsche prefers to leave the ΒΔΈΛ . Τ . ἘΡ . without any explanation whatever, in consequence of the Ὁ ἈΝΑΓΙΝΏΣΚ . ΝΟΕΊΤΩ , by which, as he thinks, Jesus meant to indicate that the reader was to find out the prophet’s meaning for himself. The above general interpretation, however, is founded upon the text itself; nor are we warranted by Dan_9:27 in supposing any reference of a very special kind to underlie what is said. The idea of a desecration of the temple by the Jews themselves (Hengstenberg), or of the corrupt state of the Jewish hierarchy (Weisse, Evangelienfr. p. 170 f.), is foreign to the whole connection.
τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Δαν . τ . προφ .] what has been said (expressly mentioned) by Daniel, not: “which is an expression of the prophet Daniel” (Wieseler); for the important point was not the prophetic expression, but the thing itself indicated by the prophet. Comp. Mat_12:31.
On ἑστός , see critical notes, and Kühner, I. p. 677.
ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ ] in the holy place; i.e. not the town as invested by the Romans (so Hoelemann and many older expositors, after Luk_21:20), but the place of the temple which has been in question from the very first (Mat_24:2), and which Daniel has in view in the passage referred to. The designation selected forms a tragic contrast to the ΒΔΈΛΥΓΜΑ ; comp. Mar_13:14 : ὍΠΟΥ Οὐ ΔΕῖ . Others, and among them de Wette and Baumgarten-Crusius (comp. Weiss on Mark), understand the words as referring to Palestine, especially to the neighbourhood of Jerusalem (Schott, Wieseler), or to the Mount of Olives (Bengel), because it is supposed that it would have been too late to seek to escape after the temple had been captured, and so the flight of the Christians to Pella took place as soon as the war began. The ground here urged, besides being an attempt to make use of the special form of its historical fulfilment in order to correct the prophetic picture itself, as though this latter had been of the nature of a special prediction, is irrelevant, for this reason, that in Mat_24:16 the words used are not “in Jerusalem,” but ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ ; see on Mat_24:16. Jesus means to say: When the abomination of desolation will have marred and defaced the symbol of the divine guardianship of the people, then everything is to be given up as lost, and safety sought only by fleeing from Judaea to places of greater security among the mountains.
Ὁ ἈΝΑΓΙΝΏΣΚΩΝ ΝΟΕΊΤΩ ] let the reader understand! (Eph_3:4). Parenthetical observation by the evangelist, to impress upon his readers the precise point of time indicated by Jesus at which the flight is to take place upon the then impending (not already present, Hug, Bleek) catastrophe. Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus, Paulus, Fritzsche, Kaeuffer, Hengstenberg (Authent. d. Dan. p. 258 ff.), Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, ascribe the observation to Jesus, from whose lips, however, one would have expected, in the flow of living utterance, and according to His manner elsewhere, an expression similar to that in Mat_11:15, Mat_13:9, or at least ὁ ἀκούων νοείτω . We may add that our explanation is favoured by Mar_13:14, where τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Δαν . τοῦ προφ . being spurious, it is consequently the reader, not of Daniel, but of the gospel, that is meant. Hoelemann incorrectly interprets: “he who has discernment, let him understand it” (alluding to Dan_12:11); ἈΝΑΓΙΝΏΣΚ . is never used in the New Testament in any other sense than that of to read.
[17] In the Hebrew of the passage referred to in Daniel the words are not intended to be taken together (Hävernick, von Lengerke on Dan_9:27, Hengstenberg, Christol. III. p. 103 f.). They are, moreover, very variously interpreted; von Lengerke (Hengstenberg), for example: “the destroyer comes over the pinnacles of abomination;” Ewald (Auberlen): “and that on account of the fearful height of abominations;” Wieseler: “and that because of the destructive bird of abomination” (referring to the eagle of Jupiter Olympius, to whom Epiphanes dedicated the temple at Jerusalem, 2Ma_6:2); Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf. I. p. 309: “and that upon an offensive idol cover” (meaning the veil with which the altar of the idol was covered). My interpretation of the words in the original ( åÀòÇì áÌÄðÇó ùÑÄ÷ÌåÌöÄéí îÀùÑÉîÅí ) is this: the destroyer (comes) on the wing of abominations, and that until, etc. Comp. Keil. Ewald on Matthew, p. 412, takes ëÌÀðÇó as a paraphrase for τὸ ἱερόν . The Sept. rendering is probably from such passages as Psa_57:2. For other explanations still, see Hengstenberg, Christol. III. p. 123 ff.; Bleek in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1860, p. 98 ff.