Matthew 24:1

Went out and departed from the temple (ἐξελθὼν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἐπορεύετο) Rev., better: Went out from the temple and was going on his way. The temple, ἱεροῦ, not ναοῦ: the whole of the buildings connected with the temple, all of which, including the ναός, or sanctuary, and the porches and courts, constituted the ἱερόν. See on Matthew 4:5.

1 . went out, and departed from the temple ] Read, on the highest MS. authority, “went out from the temple, and was going on his way.” On leaving the Temple Jesus would descend into the valley of Kedron and ascend the opposite slope of the Mount of Olives. Then full in view the Temple would rise with its colonnade of dazzling white marble, surmounted with golden roof and pinnacles, and founded on a substructure of huge stones. Milman writes ( History of the Jews , ii. 322) “At a distance the whole Temple looked literally like a mount of snow, fretted with golden pinnacles.”

Matthew 24:1 . And Jesus went out — For the last time; and departed from the temple — Which he never entered afterward; and his disciples came to him — As he was going away; to show him the buildings of the temple — To call his attention to the splendid buildings and sumptuous decorations of the place, saying, according to Mark, Master, see what manner of stones and buildings are here! intending to intimate, probably, what a pitiable calamity they thought it that such a grand structure should be destroyed. Indeed, as the whole temple was built with the greatest cost and magnificence, so nothing was more stupendous than the uncommon measure of the stones, some of which, particularly those employed in the foundations, were in magnitude forty cubits, that is, above 60 feet; and the superstructure was worthy of such foundations. And some of the stones were of the whitest marble, forty-five cubits long, five cubits high, and six broad. Indeed, the marble of the temple was so white that, according to Josephus, it appeared at a distance like a mountain of snow; while the gilding of several of its external parts, especially when the sun shone upon it, rendered it a most splendid and beautiful spectacle. See Bishop Newton, from whose admirable work on the prophecies most of the notes on this chapter are extracted.

CHAPTER 24 Mt 24:1-51. Christ's Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem, and Warnings Suggested by It to Prepare for His Second Coming. ( = Mr 13:1-37; Lu 21:5-36). For the exposition, see on [1355]Mr 13:1-37. Matthew 24:1,2 Christ foretells the destruction of the temple.Matthew 24:3-31 He showeth what signs and calamities shall go beforeit; and what shall happen at the time of his coming.Matthew 24:32-35 By a parable of the fig tree he marketh the certaintyof the prediction.Matthew 24:36-41 No man knoweth the day and hour, which shallcome suddenly.Matthew 24:42-51 We ought therefore to watch, like good servants whoexpect their master’s coming. See Poole on "Matthew 24:2".

XXIV. (1) And Jesus went out.—Better, following the best MSS., Jesus departed from the Temple, and was going on His way, when His disciples. St. Mark and St. Luke report the touching incident of the widow’s mite as connected with our Lord’s departure. His disciples came to him.—We may well think of their action as following on the words they had just heard. Was that house, with all its goodly buildings and great stones, its golden and its “beautiful” gates (Acts 3:2)—through which they had probably passed—its porticos, its marble cupolas, the structural and ornamental offerings which had accumulated during the forty-six years that had passed since Herod had begun his work of improvement (John 2:20), to be left “desolate”? Would not the sight of its glories lead Him to recall those words of evil omen? This seems a far more natural explanation than that which sees in what they were doing only the natural wonder of Galilean peasants at the splendour of the Holy City. They had seen it too often, we may add, to feel much wonder.

Matthew 24:1 . Καὶ ἐξελθὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱεροῦ , ἐπορεύετο , and Jesus having come forth from the temple, went His way ) Such is the reading of the Colinæan editions, and of the following MSS., viz.: Bunkleanus, Cantabrigiensis, Paris, 5, 6, Stephanus η or more; also of Chrysostom, and the Æthiopic,[1028] Arabic, Latin, Persian, and Syriac versions: according to which ἘΠΟΡΕΎΕΤΟ ( went His way ) has greater force, being contrasted with, and in antithesis to, καθημένου δὲ Αὐτοῦ , and as He was sitting .[1029] Modern transcribers have, as though it mattered nothing, written ἐπορεύτο ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱεροῦ , He went His way from the temple .[1030] A discourse, which embraced even the end of the world, was appropriately held in the open air.— οἱ μαθηταὶ , the disciples ) one especially, as we learn from Mark 13:1 .— ἐπιδεῖξαι , to show ) It is possible that Jesus had never looked at the outside of the temple, for He was not curious; cf. Gnomon on Mark 12:15 . He had looked, and that deservedly, at the inside of the temple; Ibid. Matthew 11:11 .— τὰς οἱκοδομὰς , the buildings ) The separate parts were in themselves great buildings: even at that time the building was being carried on, which is mentioned in John 2:20 . And perhaps it was being the more zealously done, on account of the proximity of the Passover.— τοῦ ἱεροῦ , of the temple ) which was doomed to destruction: see ch.

Matthew 23:38 ; and in that very age, too, only a few years after its completion. [1028] That portion of the Æthiopic or Abyssinian Version which contains the New Testament, is supposed to have been executed in the fourth century by Frumentius, who, about the year 330, preached Christianity in Æthiopia.—(I. B.) [1029] The verb πορεύομαι , signifying progressive motion , corresponds with the Latin progredior , or the French marcher .—(I. B.) [1030] Such is the reading of the E. M., and of Bengel’s own Edition of the Greek Testament.—(I. B.) BD abc Vulg. place the ἐπορεύετο last: and so Hil. 728. Rec. Text puts ἐπορεύετο , without good authority.—ED. He had now been in the temple for the last time.—V. g.

Matthew 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. Matthew 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.