Explaining The Book

Categories

Tags

Matthew 24 Commentary

Table of Contents

Matthew 24 Commentary by J.A. Alexander

Though our Lord had solemnly concluded his public work as a teacher, and taken an affecting leave of Israel as a people (Matthew 23:37-39), his prophetic ministry was yet to be wound up, within a smaller circle, and by a prophetical discourse, in the strictest sense of the expression (Matthew 24 and 25).

A natural feeling of admiration in the twelve or some of them for the majestic structure of the temple leads him to predict its absolute destruction, and this to an inquiry as to the time and the premonitory signs of the great catastrophe of which they had so often heard obscurely (Matthew 24:1-3).

Instead of gratifying idle curiosity by positive details, our Lord begins by showing what would not be necessarily the signs of his return, however men might be inclined so to regard them, and impostors so to represent them (4, 5); such as wars and other national commotions and calamities, which instead of announcing the end, might be merely the beginning of sorrows (6-8).

Even when assailed themselves, betrayed, and hated, they should still be rescued if they remained faithful during these sore trials, and the Gospel must be preached to every nation before the coming of the final consummation (9-14).

Without distinguishing the different stages of his coming or the accompanying judgments, he instructs his followers what to do when the Romans should invest Jerusalem, viz., to flee without the least delay, the idea of precipitancy being variously and strikingly expressed (15-20).

The reason given is the unparalleled severity of the judgments coming on the Jews, and only to be checked for the sake of true believers (21-22).

Even at this fatal juncture there would not be wanting false pretenders to the prophetic, and even to the Messianic office, whom he solemnly charges his disciples not to listen to, either at home or abroad (23-26), assuring them that when he did come, it would be as conspicuously as the lightning, or the flight of eagles to their prey (27-28), and be followed by the most terrific changes in the frame of nature, and the final gathering of God’s elect (29-31).

Having answered their question as to the signs of his return in judgment, he now answers that as to the time: first, by telling them that these great changes were not arbitrary judgments, but the growth of moral causes, and could no more take place until these had done their work, than the fig-tree would bear fruit before the season (32-33); 2. — that in a certain sense, this whole prophetic scheme should be verified, before the end of the contemporary generation (34) ; 3. — that although the event were as far more certain than the continuance of the frame of nature, the precise time of its occurrence was concealed alike from men and angels (35-36), and it would therefore come as unexpectedly at last as the flood upon the antediluvian sinners (37-39), but with a discrimination between individuals unknown in that case (40-41).

Having thus disclosed as much as he thought fit with respect to his departure and return, our Lord now teaches his disciples how they ought to act during his absence, whether long or short. The first great duty is that of vigilance, enforced by a case of burglary, perhaps of recent date and well known to his hearers (42-44), and then by a supposed but most familiar case of a servant left to take care of his absent master’s house (45-51). In carrying out this illustration, he exhibits in a plain but vivid manner, the conduct of a faithful and unfaithful servant in such circumstances, showing, however, by the fearful severity of the punishment, that he has his eye not so much upon the sign as the thing signified.
Alexander, J.A. – The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1861)

Matthew 24 Commentary by John Broadus

24:1-36. DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM AND COMING OF CHRIST.

Found also in Mark 13:1-32; Luke 21:5-33.

Our Lord’s last public discourse has now been ended. The day is probably Tuesday of the Passover week (see on 21:18,23). He has been discoursing all day in the courts of the temple, and before turning away he draws instruction from the widow’s touching gift to the sacred treasury. (Mark 12:41; Luke 21:1.) He then leaves the temple, and seems never to have entered it again. In this final departure it was very natural that his thoughts should dwell on the impending destruction of the temple and the city. Moreover, as there is no sufficient reason for departing from Matthew’s order (compare on 23:1,13), we see that he had just before predicted the destruction of Jerusalem and his own future coming. (23:38f.) Six months earlier (16:27f.) he had declared that he would come again in the glory of his Father, as the sovereign Judge of mankind; and that some then present would live to see him “coming in his kingdom.” We there found it necessary to understand that the particular coming to which this last phrase especially refers took place at the destruction of Jerusalem, which made Christianity completely and manifestly distinct from Judaism, and established the Messianic kingdom in its permanent present state. The prediction then briefly made by our Lord is now more fully unfolded. He first declares in leaving the temple that it is going to be completely destroyed (v. 1f.); and then, sitting on the Mount of Olives, he gives the great discourse of ch. 24 and 25.

This discourse certainly foretells in the outset the destruction of Jerusalem (e.g., v. 15-21, v. 34) ; and in the conclusion certainly foretells the final coming of our Lord, with the general judgment of mankind and the resulting permanent state of the good and the bad (25:31-46), in a way substantially equivalent to the predictive descriptions afterwards given by the apostles. To refer that closing passage to the destruction of Jerusalem is absurd and impossible. So then the discourse begins with the destruction of the temple and city, and ends with the final coming to judgment: how does it make the transition from the former to the latter topic? Every attempt to assign a definite point of division between the two topics has proved a failure. Place it after v. 28, saying that up to that point only the former topic is meant, and after that point only the latter, and at once we see that v. 34 must refer to the destruction of Jerusalem. Place it after v. 34 or 36 or 42, and we cannot resist the persuasion that v. 30 f. (and v. 36) must refer to the final coming for judgment (compare 12:41-43; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10). But if the destruction of Jerusalem was itself in one sense a coming of the Lord, why may we not suppose that the transition from this to the final coming is gradual? Then much in 24:3-36 may be taken as referring both to the former and the latter topic, while some of the expressions may refer exclusively to the one or the other. In Matthew 24:37 to 25:13 the earlier topic is sinking out of sight; in Matthew 25:31-46 it has completely disappeared, and nothing is in view but the final coming to judgment. (Luke and Mark are parallel only as far as Matthew 24:42.) Similar cases occur in the Old Testament, where a prediction refers to some nearer event, and also, by typical relation, to a kindred event in the remoter future. This view does not rest on the crude notion of a “double sense” in Scripture words or phrases, but on the unquestionable Scripture use of types, prophetic as well as ceremonial. For example, in Isaiah 41:8 to Isaiah 53, the predictions as to the “servant of Jehovah” make a gradual transition from Israel to the Messiah, the former alone being seen in 41:8 ff., the Messiah also appearing to view in 42:1 ff. (Matthew 12:18-21), and Israel quite sinking out of our sight in ch. 53. (Acts 8:32-35.) Compare above on Matthew 2:15. All the Scripture predictions remained obscure till their fulfillment (cornp. on v. 15). Accordingly we may expect here to see somewhat clearly the fulfillment in the destruction of Jerusalem, but the other and yet future fulfillment must remain still quite obscure, and we should be “contented (Alex.) with a careful explanation of the terms employed, according to analogy and usage, and a reverential waiting for ulterior disclosures by the light of divine providence shining on the word.” Some zealous students of prophecy have brought reproach on the Scripture by their lack of moderation and reserve in the interpretation. It should be frankly conceded that grave difficulties attend the interpretation of this discourse in any of the methods that have been suggested. The view above described is believed to involve fewer difficulties, and to yield better results, than any other theory.
Broadus, John – Commentary on Matthew (1886)

Matthew 24 Commentary by David Dickson

Our Lord having told that the temple shall be destroyed, the disciples ask of the time thereof, and of the signs of his coming (vv 1–3). For answer, he forewarns them of trial and persecution, wherein all his disciples had need to beware, lest they should be deceived; and shows the signs of the utter destruction of Jerusalem (vv 42); and again teaches them that the chief care of his disciples should be that they be not deceived with false religion, and false Christs wherein the danger was to be great, even until his second coming, when he should gather all his elect unto him (vv 23–31). As for the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, he tells that the forerunners and coming of it should be in their own days (vv 32–35). But the time of the day of universal judgment and of his second coming was a secret, and should come as the flood came, unexpectedly (vv 36–41), and therefore that it was the disciples’ part to watch, that they might be found in peace, following their calling, lest wrath should fall on them (vv 42– 51).
Dickson, David – A Brief Exposition of the Evangel of Jesus Christ According to Matthew (1651)

Matthew 24 Commentary by A.T. Robertson

The Coming Judgment on the City and the World, Matthew 24 and 25

I. The Prophecy of the End, Matthew 24:1-3

The destruction of the temple, the second return of Jesus as Messiah, the end of the age blend all through this eschatological discourse; now one, now the other, is in the foreground. The death of Jesus lies back of all that is here said. According to Matthew 23:37-39 Jesus had just foretold, in symbolic language, the destruction of the temple. It was natural that, as they passed out for the last time, the disciples should comment on the beauty of these buildings. But now they are astonished to hear Christ pointedly foretell the doom of the city.
Robertson, A.T. – Commentary on Matthew in The Bible for Home & School (1911)

Matthew 24 Commentary by Verse

New Testament Gospels

Comments

Leave a comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.