Mateus 24

Albert Barnes · Citado em PreceptAustin

Mateus 24

Barnes - The abomination of desolation means the Roman army, and is so explained by Lu. 21:20. The Roman army is farther called the abomination on account of the images of the emperor, and the eagles, carried in front of the legions, and regarded by the Romans with divine honours. Adam Clarke like Barnes interprets the abomination as the Roman Army - This abomination of desolation, St. Luke, ( Luke 21:20, Luke 21:21;), refers to the Roman army; and this abomination standing in the holy place is the Roman army besieging Jerusalem." Comment: Clearly Clarke spiritualizes the phrase "holy place" for there is no way the Roman army could be standing in the Temple which is clearly the plain sense of the phrase "holy place." Other commentators who interpret the abomination of desolation as the Roman Army - John Trapp, Joseph Benson, Phillip Schaff, William Burkitt, John Wesley, Daniel Whedon, Rhoderick Ice, Thomas Coke, Marvin Vincent, A T Robertson, Expositor's Greek Testament. Johann Bengel - The time of flight is joined in Luke 21:20 with the actual moment of the approach of the army; and Eusebius mentions (H. E. iii. 5), that at that very time the Divine warning to fly had been repeated. The holy place, therefore, does not here signify the temple, or the holy of holies, for it would have been too late to flee after that had been profaned, but a definite place without and near the Holy City; in short, that very place which our Lord (as He had often done) regarded as made holy by His presence, whilst He was uttering these words: cf. Acts 7:33. Comment: Notice what Bengel does -- he recognizes that there is a problem having the Roman army standing in the holy place, so what does he do? He simply changes the plain meaning of holy place! I hope you see why I am including writers who favor a past historical fulfillment of Mt 24:15. Since they refuse to let the text speak for itself, they are forced to invent a host of rationalizations. Reformation Study Bible (R C Sproul) on the abomination of desolation - The phrase is from Daniel. In Da. 9:27; 11:31 it refers to the desecration of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes (Ed comment: Da 11:31 is clearly a prophecy of Antiochus, but Da 9:27 is not for it occurs in the 70th week of Daniel). In 168 B.C. Antiochus erected a pagan altar in the temple. According to Josephus, he also sacrificed swine there. Shortly before A.D. 70 the Zealots were in the temple precincts during the war with Rome, and their presence could have been considered a desecration (Ed: Dear reader, can you see how one is compelled to come up with relatively far fetched speculations when one refuses to accept a simple, plain reading of the text!). (Comment - The notes in the Reformation Study Bible do not attempt to explain Mt 24:21 but simply skip over "the Great Tribulation!") John Gill interprets the abomination of desolation as "the Roman army...the Roman armies were desolating ones to the Jews, and to whom they were an abomination." Matthew Poole and the Concordia Study Bible also interpret the abomination as the Roman armies! Jesus plainly states that the abomination stands in the Holy Place. Clearly the abomination cannot be the Roman army, as there would hardly be room in the Temple! The only way such an interpretation works is to disregard (or spiritualize) the clear words of Jesus! Do you see how absurd such an interpretation is when one refuses to let Jesus' words say what they say? Andrews Study Bible on the abomination of desolation - The clear context of the next five verses (Mt 24:16-20) is the destruction of Jerusalem that took place in A.D. 70. Therefore, this prophecy of Daniel (Da 9:26-27) points to, among other events, the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome. Mt 24:21-22 After the fall of Jerusalem and before the Second Coming of Christ the church was to go through oppression and persecution, as predicted in Da 7:21-26 Jesus promised that God in His sovereignty and love would limit the duration of that experience. (Comment - Notice how this note does not even interpret a Jewish prophet's writing to a Jewish audience in Babylonian captivity in a Jewish context, but as written to the church! This is an excellent example of the absurd interpretations that are imagined when one chooses to presumptuously jettison a literal interpretation of the Scriptures.) BRIEF CRITIQUE OF SEVERAL MORE RECENT TOP RATED COMMENTARIES ON MATTHEW From the previous analysis, it seems relatively clear that if (and this is a critical "IF") one reads Matthew 24:15-21 seeking the plain, normal sense from Jesus' words, these passages have never been perfectly fulfilled in the history of the world! On the other hand if one feels Jesus' words have been fulfilled in 70AD, there are significant problems as alluded to above. To further illustrate the problems one encounters when the passage is interpreted as fulfilled in 70AD, we will present analyses of several of the top rated commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew, because NOT ONE of these commentaries interpret Matthew 24:15 as a yet to be fulfilled future event. One wonders if there is a non-futuristic bias in these lists of "best commentaries". In fact, one of the best evangelical expository commentaries available on Matthew (John MacArthur's Matthew Commentary) does not even attain honorable mention status on the following two lists of "best commentaries" on Matthew (Use these lists with a healthy Acts 17:11-note mindset): Best Commentaries on Matthew - Tim Challies Best Commentaries on Matthew - Ligonier Ministries Now we will take a look at the Matthew commentaries to which Challies and Ligonier give the highest rank. (1) Expositor's Bible Commentary - Matthew - D A Carson. Carson's work is singled out for scrutiny because it is Tim Challies' highest rated commentary on Matthew and Dr Carson is highly respected (and rightly so!) So let's see how he interprets Matthew 24:15. In explaining Mt 24:15 Carson first asks the question "to what event does Jesus make this text (Ed: Daniel 9:27 and Daniel 12:11) from Daniel refer?" Carson then makes a relatively dogmatic statement that... The obvious occasion, in general terms, is AD 70, though certain difficulties must be faced. Although topos ("place," GK 5536) can refer to the city of Jerusalem (cf. BDAG, 1011), the normal meaning of topos hagios ("holy place") is the Temple complex (cf. BDAG; see Isa 60:13; 2Macc 1:29; 2:18; Acts6:13; 21:28). But by the time the Romans had actually desecrated the Temple in AD 70, it was too late for anyone in the city to flee." (Expositor's Bible Commentary, 2010). Could it be that AD 70 in fact is not "the obvious" answer and that this is the reason there are "certain difficulties?" It is always difficult to force a square plug in a round hole! It is much better to let the text speak for itself and to compare Scripture with Scripture. The first difficulty Carson alludes to is the identity of the holy place. However if one examines the 60 NT uses of holy place, it is clear that they all refer to the Temple and none refer to the city. The second difficulty Carson alludes is more problematic and even Carson acknowledges that by the time the Romans had actually desecrated the Temple in AD 70, it was too late for anyone in the city to flee. Recall that the disciples had asked Jesus for a sign and Jesus gave them a clear sign, one that would be visible, one that could be seen (cf "When you see...") = the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place. So if it would have been too late to flee, why would Jesus have given such a specific sign? There would have been no need to give a sign! And it follows that if the sign was of no value, then Jesus' subsequent extended warning to flee the city in Mt 24:16-20 would have been superfluous. But we know that everything Jesus says has purpose, so there must be another answer. Carson goes on in an attempt to explain this significant difficulty writing that... Mark's language is less explicit—standing where it does not belong (Mk 13:14) instead of standing in the holy place. Luke resolves the matter: "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near" (Lk 21:20-24-note) (Ed: See commentary on these Lucan passages)—but now there is no explicit mention of "the abomination of desolation." Possibly Jesus said something ambiguous, such as Mark reports (Ed comment: Why would Jesus be ambiguous and then immediately give five verses emphasizing that the reader must flee Jerusalem immediately? That simply makes no sense if the sign was ambiguous!). Luke, writing for a Gentile audience less concerned with Daniel, emphasizes the aspect of warning (Ed comment: But as explained in my commentary on Lk 21:20-24 Luke gives an entirely different "sign". Luke's "sign" is outside the city, while Matthew's sign is in the city, specifically in the Temple!) Matthew, believing the allusions to Daniel important for his Jewish audience because Jesus drew attention to them, makes explicit reference to "the abomination of desolation" and to "the holy place," since the setting up of the abomination in the holy place is the inevitable result of the pagan attack." Notice that because of the difficulty in trying to make Mt 24:15 "fit" an AD 70 fulfillment, Carson compares the CLEAR UNMISTAKABLE SIGN in Matthew 24:15 with a distinctly different "sign" in Luke 21:20, a sign pointing to the subsequent desolation of the city of Jerusalem in 70AD. In explaining why Luke 21:20-24 has no mention of an abomination of desolation, Carson hypothesizes that "Possibly Jesus said something ambiguous." Considering the fact that Jesus was giving a "sign" followed by a warning to flee, it is highly unlikely that Jesus was ambiguous! He does not mention the other possibility that the signs given by Jesus in Matthew and Luke are different because these are signs of different events, one past and the other yet to be fulfilled. Carson makes an interesting statement (with which I agree) that "there is reasonably good tradition that Christians abandoned the city, perhaps in A.D. 68, about halfway through the siege." But think about that for a moment. What was the "sign" that even made this possible? The city had to have a siege, an encircling Roman army, as described in Luke 21:20, but there would have to be a lull in the siege to allow Jews to escape. And historically that seems to be what happened as Fruchtenbaum explains. If that is true, then why would Jesus even need to give a second and different sign? I think the answer is clear -- the second sign points to a different event, one that has not yet occurred in history. While there are similarities between the discourses in Matthew 24 and Luke 21, there are significant differences as highlighted by a chart depicting similarities and differences. (2) Craig Blomberg - BORROW - NEW AMERICAN COMMENTARY - Matthew (Ranked number four in Tim Challies' top 5, and in the "Runners Up" after the top five in the Ligonier's list) - Although Blomberg ends up favoring a 70AD fulfillment, he does seem to entertain the possibility that Jesus' warning in Mt 24:15-20 refers to a yet future event writing "The imagery of sacrilegious desolation and the temple's destruction (Mt 24:15) calls to mind Second Thessalonians and particularly the appearance of the "man of lawlessness" in God's temple (2Th 2:3-4). Given the repeated patterns of God's activity in history, these parallels should not surprise us. (Ed comment: Notice Blomberg really does not address clear resemblance of the abomination of desolation in Mt 24:15 and the abomination committed by the "man of lawlessness" in God's Temple, but instead simply says "these parallels should not surprise us." Perhaps not, but what about the fact that the best "commentary" on Scripture is Scripture - see Compare Scripture with Scripture. Blomberg basically chooses not to talk about the parallel between Mt 24:15 and 2Thes 2:3-4, this latter prophecy clearly awaiting a future fulfillment and thus lending credence to a similar futuristic interpretation of Mt 24:15ff!) Undoubtedly, much that surrounded the destruction of the temple and the Jewish war in A.D. 70 will be repeated, probably on a larger scale, just prior to Christ's return (Ed comment: This begs the question what does Blomberg think "will be repeated?" Does he think an abomination standing in the holy place will be repeated? He does not elaborate). But given the thoroughly Jewish nature of all of the details of Mt 24:15-20, their close correspondence to the actual events of the mid-first century, and the more explicit wording of Luke 21:20-24 (Ed comment: As noted elsewhere in these notes all commentaries that interpret Mt 24:15ff as fulfilled in 70AD reference this passage in Luke, but as discussed elsewhere this passage not only has a different "sign" but also has multiple other differences compared to the similar passage in Matthew 24! See Simple Chart Comparing Luke 21 and Matthew 24), there is no reason to take any of Matthew's text here as looking beyond the events that culminated in the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. (Ed comment: I strongly disagree with his dogmatic statement! There is one reason and it is the fact that the "abomination of desolation" Daniel described in Daniel 9:27+ has not taken place! But if one interprets Daniel 9:27 as fulfilled in Antiochus IV Epiphanes, then that problem text is removed, except that there is no historical evidence that Antiochus ever made a seven year covenant with the Jews and broke it after three and one-half years, 1260 days, 42 months or time, times and half a time! See the "coincidentally" similar eschatological time phrases = 3.5 years, "Time, times, half a time", 42 mo, 1260 days) Blomberg also encounters difficulty when he tries to explain the Great Tribulation of Mt 24:21 - He writes... Another "then" (tote) appears. It does not seem to mean later but at that time or beginning immediately (Ed comment: Which begs the question "At what time?" If we examine the context Jesus clearly tells us the "time" - "When [an expression of time] you see the abomination of desolation...". Blomberg continues...) —the NIV does not even break for a paragraph. But the concept of a period of unparalleled distress (based on Da 12:1-note) causes problems (Ed comment: Why does it cause problems? In simple terms, it causes problems because a 70AD fulfillment simply cannot explain Mt 24:21!). If these two verses simply depict the horrors surrounding the war of A.D. 70, it is hard to see how Mt 24:21 could be true (Ed comment: I am thankful for his honest comment that it is difficult to explain Mt 24:21 if one adheres to a 70AD destruction!). If they point to some end-time sacrilege, just before the Parousia, then it is hard to see how Matthew allows for a gap of at least two thousand years between Mt 24:20-21 (Ed comment: To reiterate, it is NOT "hard" at all to see, if one simply takes at face value the flow of Jesus' clear, visible starting signal in Mt 24:15, followed by His words of warning in Mt 24:16-20 and then by His crystal clear explanation of why it so imperative that the Jews flee in Mt 24:21. Blomberg continues...) It is probably best, therefore, to understand this period of great distress, or "the great tribulation," as it is more commonly known, as the entire period beginning with the devastation of A.D. 70 and continuing on until Christ's return (cf. "immediately" in Mt 24:29) (Ed comment: It is interesting that Blomberg calls attention to the time phrase "immediately" because if one reads Mt 24:15-21 literally the Great Tribulation is in fact followed "immediately" by His return and that in fact is how "those days shall be cut short!" Mt 24:22! Oh, the "tinkering" that one must invoke if one refuses to read Jesus' words literally!) Rosscup adds Blomberg "appears to hold a post-tribulation rapture of the church (370), but with some lack of clarity as to how that would be consistent with other aspects of his views." (3) Leon Morris. The Gospel According to Matthew (Pillar Commentary). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. - (Ranked second in Tim Challies' top 5, and ranked fourth in the Ligonier list)

Mateus 24

Barnes - It is recorded in the history of Rome that violent agitations prevailed in the Roman empire previous to the destruction of Jerusalem. PARALLELS BETWEEN MATTHEW 24 AND THE SEALS IN REVELATION 6 From the chart below you can see that at least some component of the predictions Jesus made in the Olivet Discourse are found in descriptions of the first 6 Seal judgments, suggesting that the Seals may be fulfillments of several of the predictions in Mt 24:4-14. This would explain why some writers favor all predictions in Mt 24:4-14 as part of the first half of the Seven Year tribulation. I personally cannot be dogmatic but it is certainly interesting to see the parallels. Come to you own conclusion! Mt. 24:5 “For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many. Mt 24:11 “Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many. (cf Mk 13:6, Lk 21:8) FIRST SEAL Rev 6:2 I looked, and behold, a white horse, and he who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer. (ED: Interpreting the rider as the antichrist) Mt 24:6-7 “You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars (cf Mk 13:7, Lk 21:9) SECOND SEAL Rev 6:4 And another, a red horse, went out; and to him who sat on it, it was granted to take peace from the earth, and that men would slay one another (see also Rev 6:8) Mt 24:7 in various places there will be famines (Mk 13:8, Lk 21:11) THIRD AND FOURTH SEALS Rev 6:6-8 to kill...with famine and with pestilence and by the wild beasts of the earth. Mt 24:9 Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. FIFTH SEAL Rev 6:9-11 ...avenging our blood...their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been... Mt 24:7 in various places there will...earthquakes. (Mk 13:8, Lk 21:11) SIXTH SEAL Rev 6:12 there was a great earthquake Matthew 24:5 "For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will mislead many: polloi gar eleusontai (3PFMI) epi to onomati mou legontes (PAPMPN) ego eimi (1SPAI) o Christos kai pollous planesousin (3PFAI): CLICK FOR >60 ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF THIS VERSE Amplified For many will come in (on the strength of) My name [appropriating the name which belongs to Me], saying, I am the Christ (the Messiah), and they will lead many astray. ESV For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and they will lead many astray. NIV For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. NLT for many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Messiah.' They will deceive many. Mt 24:11,24 Jer 14:14 23:21,25 John 5:43 Ac 5:36,37 8:9,10 Rev 13:8 Matthew 24 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Related Passage: Revelation 13:8+ (FULFILLMENT OF JESUS' PROPHECY OF FALSE CHRISTS) All (NOTE "MANY" IN THE LAST 3.5 YEARS WILL BE "ALL") who dwell on the earth will worship him (THE ANTICHRIST - THE FINAL, CONSUMMATE "FALSE MESSIAH!"), everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain (NOTE THAT THOSE DECEIVED IN THE LAST 3.5 YEARS ARE ALL WHO ARE NOT BELIEVERS). John 5:43+ “I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him (MANY JEWS WILL RECEIVE THE ANTI-CHRIST). THE COMING OF MANY FALSE MESSIAHS For - This is a term of explanation which should always beg the question what is being explained and this will almost always force your to review the preceding context (re-reading is always a worthwhile practice!) And so from the preceding passage, it is clear that Jesus is explaining how the disciples might be misled into believing error(s) especially as related to future world events (eschatology). As Jesus goes on to explain, false Messiahs, wars and rumors of wars are not "signs of the times" and do not signal the end of this age. These things occurred in Jesus' day and are still operative 2000 years later which is a further indication that they do not herald the end. As Jesus later makes very clear that of "that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." (Mt 24:36) He will give some signs that will signal the end of the age is near, but Mt 24:4-7 are not specific (e.g., as I write in Nov, 2023 there are two significant wars in the Ukraine and in Israel, with "rumors" that the latter could become much worse!). However, as summarized above in "Various Interpretations," there is a considerable difference of opinion regarding the interpretation of all of the signs in Mt 24:4-14 and of course the most specific sign in Mt 24:15. FALSE MESSIAHS For (gar) is a term of explanation, which begs the question "What is Jesus explaining?" He has just commanded them to not be misled or led astray and now He explains who it is that will come on the scene to potentially mislead them. Many will come in My name, saying, 'I am (ego eimi) the Christ,' and will mislead many - This is a prophecy ("will come.") Note not just one or two but many! In my Name is more literally upon or on My Name, "that is, on the strength of; resting their claims on the Name Messiah." (Vincent) In effect these imposters will claim to be the long expected Jewish Messiah. I am is the well known ego eimi, the Name Jehovah used of Himself in the Septuagint of Ex 3:14+ and which Jesus used several times in John (Jn 8:58+, et al) thus saying He was Yahweh!, which is exactly what these imposters will declare. Warren

Mateus 24

Barnes commented (in the 1880's) on "Then shall the end come" explaining that this refers to "The end of the Jewish economy; the destruction of the temple and city." Not only does he take Mt 24:14 out of the context of the original question about the "end of the age" (Mt 24:3), but he incorrectly states this is the "end of the Jewish economy." I wonder how he would explain the rebirth of the "Jewish economy" in May, 1948 when Israel became a nation after almost 2000 years and began to have a thriving economy in the decades thereafter! Barnes would have done well to Keep Context King. Related Resources: Sign - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia What signs indicate that the end times are approaching? | GotQuestions.org Why do so many people seek after signs and wonders? | GotQuestions.org QUESTION - What is the preterist view of the end times? (see also related discussion) ANSWER - According to preterism, all prophecy in the Bible is really history. The preterist interpretation of Scripture regards the book of Revelation as a symbolic picture of first-century conflicts, not a description of what will occur in the end times. The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, meaning “past.” Thus, preterism is the view that the biblical prophecies concerning the “end times” have already been fulfilled—in the past. Preterism is directly opposed to futurism, which sees the end-times prophecies as having a still-future fulfillment. Preterism is divided into two types: full (or consistent) preterism and partial preterism. This article will confine the discussion to full preterism (or hyper-preterism, as some call it). Preterism denies the future prophetic quality of the book of Revelation. The preterist movement essentially teaches that all the end-times prophecies of the New Testament were fulfilled in AD 70 when the Romans attacked and destroyed Jerusalem. Preterism teaches that every event normally associated with the end times—Christ’s second coming, the tribulation, the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment—has already happened. (In the case of the final judgment, it still is in the process of being fulfilled.) Jesus’ return to earth was a “spiritual” return, not a physical one. Preterism teaches that the Law was fulfilled in AD 70 and God’s covenant with Israel was ended. The “new heavens and new earth” spoken of in Revelation 21:1 is, to the preterist, a description of the world under the New Covenant. Just as a Christian is made a “new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17), so the world under the New Covenant is a “new earth.” This aspect of preterism can easily lead to a belief in replacement theology. Preterists usually point to a passage in Jesus’ Olivet Discourse to bolster their argument. After Jesus describes some of the end-times happenings, He says, “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened” (Matthew 24:34). The preterist takes this to mean that everything Jesus speaks of in Matthew 24 had to have occurred within one generation of His speaking—the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was therefore “Judgment Day.” The problems with preterism are many. For one thing, God’s covenant with Israel is everlasting (Jeremiah 31:33–36), and there will be a future restoration of Israel (Isaiah 11:12). The apostle Paul warned against those who, like Hymenaeus and Philetus, teach falsely “that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some” (2 Timothy 2:17–18). And Jesus’ mention of “this generation” should be taken to mean the generation that is alive to see the beginning of the events described in Matthew 24. Eschatology is a complex subject, and the Bible’s use of apocalyptic imagery to relate many prophecies has led to a variety of interpretations of end-time events. There is room for some disagreement within Christianity regarding these things. However, full preterism has some serious flaws in that it denies the physical reality of Christ’s second coming and downplays the dreadful nature of the tribulation by restricting that event to the fall of Jerusalem. GotQuestions.org Tony

Mateus 24:1-14

Barnes - It is recorded in the history of Rome that violent agitations prevailed in the Roman empire previous to the destruction of Jerusalem. As Hiebert says "Instead of giving them the sign they had requested, Jesus began by alerting them to false signs." As John

Mateus 24:1-14

Mateus 24:4-8

Barnes - It is recorded in the history of Rome that violent agitations prevailed in the Roman empire previous to the destruction of Jerusalem. David L Turner is somewhat of a hybrid - Matthew 24:4–14 should be viewed as a summation of the difficulties the church will face in its early days before AD 70—and indeed throughout its existence until Jesus returns (Blomberg 1992:356–357; Hagner 1995:693–694). (Cornerstone biblical commentary, Vol 11: Matthew and Mark) As Hiebert says "Instead of giving them the sign they had requested, Jesus began by alerting them to false signs." (The Gospel of Mark- An Expositional Commentary) As John

Mateus 24:9-14

Mateus 24:15

Barnes - The abomination of desolation means the Roman army, and is so explained by Lu. 21:20. The Roman army is farther called the abomination on account of the images of the emperor, and the eagles, carried in front of the legions, and regarded by the Romans with divine honours. Adam Clarke like Barnes interprets the abomination as the Roman Army - This abomination of desolation, St. Luke, ( Luke 21:20, Luke 21:21;), refers to the Roman army; and this abomination standing in the holy place is the Roman army besieging Jerusalem." Comment: Clearly Clarke spiritualizes the phrase "holy place" for there is no way the Roman army could be standing in the Temple which is clearly the plain sense of the phrase "holy place." Other commentators who interpret the abomination of desolation as the Roman Army - John Trapp, Joseph Benson, Phillip Schaff, William Burkitt, John Wesley, Daniel Whedon, Rhoderick Ice, Thomas Coke, Marvin Vincent, A T Robertson, Expositor's Greek Testament. Johann Bengel - The time of flight is joined in Luke 21:20 with the actual moment of the approach of the army; and Eusebius mentions (H. E. iii. 5), that at that very time the Divine warning to fly had been repeated. The holy place, therefore, does not here signify the temple, or the holy of holies, for it would have been too late to flee after that had been profaned, but a definite place without and near the Holy City; in short, that very place which our Lord (as He had often done) regarded as made holy by His presence, whilst He was uttering these words: cf. Acts 7:33. Comment: Notice what Bengel does -- he recognizes that there is a problem having the Roman army standing in the holy place, so what does he do? He simply changes the plain meaning of holy place! I hope you see why I am including writers who favor a past historical fulfillment of Mt 24:15. Since they refuse to let the text speak for itself, they are forced to invent a host of rationalizations. Reformation Study Bible (R C Sproul) on the abomination of desolation - The phrase is from Daniel. In Da. 9:27; 11:31 it refers to the desecration of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes (Ed comment: Da 11:31 is clearly a prophecy of Antiochus, but Da 9:27 is not for it occurs in the 70th week of Daniel). In 168 B.C. Antiochus erected a pagan altar in the temple. According to Josephus, he also sacrificed swine there. Shortly before A.D. 70 the Zealots were in the temple precincts during the war with Rome, and their presence could have been considered a desecration (Ed: Dear reader, can you see how one is compelled to come up with relatively far fetched speculations when one refuses to accept a simple, plain reading of the text!). (Comment - The notes in the Reformation Study Bible do not attempt to explain Mt 24:21 but simply skip over "the Great Tribulation!") John Gill interprets the abomination of desolation as "the Roman army...the Roman armies were desolating ones to the Jews, and to whom they were an abomination." Matthew Poole and the Concordia Study Bible also interpret the abomination as the Roman armies! Jesus plainly states that the abomination stands in the Holy Place. Clearly the abomination cannot be the Roman army, as there would hardly be room in the Temple! The only way such an interpretation works is to disregard (or spiritualize) the clear words of Jesus! Do you see how absurd such an interpretation is when one refuses to let Jesus' words say what they say? Andrews Study Bible on the abomination of desolation - The clear context of the next five verses (Mt 24:16-20) is the destruction of Jerusalem that took place in A.D. 70. Therefore, this prophecy of Daniel (Da 9:26-27) points to, among other events, the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome. Mt 24:21-22 After the fall of Jerusalem and before the Second Coming of Christ the church was to go through oppression and persecution, as predicted in Da 7:21-26 Jesus promised that God in His sovereignty and love would limit the duration of that experience. (Comment - Notice how this note does not even interpret a Jewish prophet's writing to a Jewish audience in Babylonian captivity in a Jewish context, but as written to the church! This is an excellent example of the absurd interpretations that are imagined when one chooses to presumptuously jettison a literal interpretation of the Scriptures.) BRIEF CRITIQUE OF SEVERAL MORE RECENT TOP RATED COMMENTARIES ON MATTHEW From the previous analysis, it seems relatively clear that if (and this is a critical "IF") one reads Matthew 24:15-21 seeking the plain, normal sense from Jesus' words, these passages have never been perfectly fulfilled in the history of the world! On the other hand if one feels Jesus' words have been fulfilled in 70AD, there are significant problems as alluded to above. To further illustrate the problems one encounters when the passage is interpreted as fulfilled in 70AD, we will present analyses of several of the top rated commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew, because NOT ONE of these commentaries interpret Matthew 24:15 as a yet to be fulfilled future event. One wonders if there is a non-futuristic bias in these lists of "best commentaries". In fact, one of the best evangelical expository commentaries available on Matthew (John MacArthur's Matthew Commentary) does not even attain honorable mention status on the following two lists of "best commentaries" on Matthew (Use these lists with a healthy Acts 17:11-note mindset): Best Commentaries on Matthew - Tim Challies Best Commentaries on Matthew - Ligonier Ministries Now we will take a look at the Matthew commentaries to which Challies and Ligonier give the highest rank. (1) Expositor's Bible Commentary - Matthew - D A Carson. Carson's work is singled out for scrutiny because it is Tim Challies' highest rated commentary on Matthew and Dr Carson is highly respected (and rightly so!) So let's see how he interprets Matthew 24:15. In explaining Mt 24:15 Carson first asks the question "to what event does Jesus make this text (Ed: Daniel 9:27 and Daniel 12:11) from Daniel refer?" Carson then makes a relatively dogmatic statement that... The obvious occasion, in general terms, is AD 70, though certain difficulties must be faced. Although topos ("place," GK 5536) can refer to the city of Jerusalem (cf. BDAG, 1011), the normal meaning of topos hagios ("holy place") is the Temple complex (cf. BDAG; see Isa 60:13; 2Macc 1:29; 2:18; Acts6:13; 21:28). But by the time the Romans had actually desecrated the Temple in AD 70, it was too late for anyone in the city to flee." (Expositor's Bible Commentary, 2010). Could it be that AD 70 in fact is not "the obvious" answer and that this is the reason there are "certain difficulties?" It is always difficult to force a square plug in a round hole! It is much better to let the text speak for itself and to compare Scripture with Scripture. The first difficulty Carson alludes to is the identity of the holy place. However if one examines the 60 NT uses of holy place, it is clear that they all refer to the Temple and none refer to the city. The second difficulty Carson alludes is more problematic and even Carson acknowledges that by the time the Romans had actually desecrated the Temple in AD 70, it was too late for anyone in the city to flee. Recall that the disciples had asked Jesus for a sign and Jesus gave them a clear sign, one that would be visible, one that could be seen (cf "When you see...") = the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place. So if it would have been too late to flee, why would Jesus have given such a specific sign? There would have been no need to give a sign! And it follows that if the sign was of no value, then Jesus' subsequent extended warning to flee the city in Mt 24:16-20 would have been superfluous. But we know that everything Jesus says has purpose, so there must be another answer. Carson goes on in an attempt to explain this significant difficulty writing that... Mark's language is less explicit—standing where it does not belong (Mk 13:14) instead of standing in the holy place. Luke resolves the matter: "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near" (Lk 21:20-24-note) (Ed: See commentary on these Lucan passages)—but now there is no explicit mention of "the abomination of desolation." Possibly Jesus said something ambiguous, such as Mark reports (Ed comment: Why would Jesus be ambiguous and then immediately give five verses emphasizing that the reader must flee Jerusalem immediately? That simply makes no sense if the sign was ambiguous!). Luke, writing for a Gentile audience less concerned with Daniel, emphasizes the aspect of warning (Ed comment: But as explained in my commentary on Lk 21:20-24 Luke gives an entirely different "sign". Luke's "sign" is outside the city, while Matthew's sign is in the city, specifically in the Temple!) Matthew, believing the allusions to Daniel important for his Jewish audience because Jesus drew attention to them, makes explicit reference to "the abomination of desolation" and to "the holy place," since the setting up of the abomination in the holy place is the inevitable result of the pagan attack." Notice that because of the difficulty in trying to make Mt 24:15 "fit" an AD 70 fulfillment, Carson compares the CLEAR UNMISTAKABLE SIGN in Matthew 24:15 with a distinctly different "sign" in Luke 21:20, a sign pointing to the subsequent desolation of the city of Jerusalem in 70AD. In explaining why Luke 21:20-24 has no mention of an abomination of desolation, Carson hypothesizes that "Possibly Jesus said something ambiguous." Considering the fact that Jesus was giving a "sign" followed by a warning to flee, it is highly unlikely that Jesus was ambiguous! He does not mention the other possibility that the signs given by Jesus in Matthew and Luke are different because these are signs of different events, one past and the other yet to be fulfilled. Carson makes an interesting statement (with which I agree) that "there is reasonably good tradition that Christians abandoned the city, perhaps in A.D. 68, about halfway through the siege." But think about that for a moment. What was the "sign" that even made this possible? The city had to have a siege, an encircling Roman army, as described in Luke 21:20, but there would have to be a lull in the siege to allow Jews to escape. And historically that seems to be what happened as Fruchtenbaum explains. If that is true, then why would Jesus even need to give a second and different sign? I think the answer is clear -- the second sign points to a different event, one that has not yet occurred in history. While there are similarities between the discourses in Matthew 24 and Luke 21, there are significant differences as highlighted by a chart depicting similarities and differences. (2) Craig Blomberg - New American Commentary - Matthew (Ranked number four in Tim Challies' top 5, and in the "Runners Up" after the top five in the Ligonier's list) - Although Blomberg ends up favoring a 70AD fulfillment, he does seem to entertain the possibility that Jesus' warning in Mt 24:15-20 refers to a yet future event writing "The imagery of sacrilegious desolation and the temple's destruction (Mt 24:15) calls to mind Second Thessalonians and particularly the appearance of the "man of lawlessness" in God's temple (2Th 2:3-4). Given the repeated patterns of God's activity in history, these parallels should not surprise us. (Ed comment: Notice Blomberg really does not address clear resemblance of the abomination of desolation in Mt 24:15 and the abomination committed by the "man of lawlessness" in God's Temple, but instead simply says "these parallels should not surprise us." Perhaps not, but what about the fact that the best "commentary" on Scripture is Scripture - see Compare Scripture with Scripture. Blomberg basically chooses not to talk about the parallel between Mt 24:15 and 2Thes 2:3-4, this latter prophecy clearly awaiting a future fulfillment and thus lending credence to a similar futuristic interpretation of Mt 24:15ff!) Undoubtedly, much that surrounded the destruction of the temple and the Jewish war in A.D. 70 will be repeated, probably on a larger scale, just prior to Christ's return (Ed comment: This begs the question what does Blomberg think "will be repeated?" Does he think an abomination standing in the holy place will be repeated? He does not elaborate). But given the thoroughly Jewish nature of all of the details of Mt 24:15-20, their close correspondence to the actual events of the mid-first century, and the more explicit wording of Luke 21:20-24 (Ed comment: As noted elsewhere in these notes all commentaries that interpret Mt 24:15ff as fulfilled in 70AD reference this passage in Luke, but as discussed elsewhere this passage not only has a different "sign" but also has multiple other differences compared to the similar passage in Matthew 24! See Simple Chart Comparing Luke 21 and Matthew 24), there is no reason to take any of Matthew's text here as looking beyond the events that culminated in the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. (Ed comment: I strongly disagree with his dogmatic statement! There is one reason and it is the fact that the "abomination of desolation" Daniel described in Daniel 9:27-note has not taken place! But if one interprets Daniel 9:27 as fulfilled in Antiochus IV Epiphanes, then that problem text is removed, except that to the best of my knowledge there is no historical evidence that Antiochus ever made a seven year covenant with the Jews and broke it after three and one-half years, 1260 days, 42 months or time, times and half a time! See the "coincidentally" similar eschatological time phrases = 3.5 years, "Time, times, half a time", 42 mo, 1260 days) Blomberg also encounters difficulty when he tries to explain the Great Tribulation of Mt 24:21 - He writes... Another "then" (tote) appears. It does not seem to mean later but at that time or beginning immediately (Ed comment: Which begs the question "At what time?" If we examine the context Jesus clearly tells us the "time" - "When [an expression of time] you see the abomination of desolation...". Blomberg continues...) —the NIV does not even break for a paragraph. But the concept of a period of unparalleled distress (based on Da 12:1-note) causes problems (Ed comment: Why does it cause problems? In simple terms, it causes problems because a 70AD fulfillment simply cannot explain Mt 24:21!). If these two verses simply depict the horrors surrounding the war of A.D. 70, it is hard to see how Mt 24:21 could be true (Ed comment: I am thankful for his honest comment that it is difficult to explain Mt 24:21 if one adheres to a 70AD destruction!). If they point to some end-time sacrilege, just before the Parousia, then it is hard to see how Matthew allows for a gap of at least two thousand years between Mt 24:20-21 (Ed comment: To reiterate, it is NOT "hard" at all to see, if one simply takes at face value the flow of Jesus' clear, visible starting signal in Mt 24:15, followed by His words of warning in Mt 24:16-20 and then by His crystal clear explanation of why it so imperative that the Jews flee in Mt 24:21. Blomberg continues...) It is probably best, therefore, to understand this period of great distress, or "the great tribulation," as it is more commonly known, as the entire period beginning with the devastation of A.D. 70 and continuing on until Christ's return (cf. "immediately" in Mt 24:29) (Ed comment: It is interesting that Blomberg calls attention to the time phrase "immediately" because if one reads Mt 24:15-21 literally the Great Tribulation is in fact followed "immediately" by His return and that in fact is how "those days shall be cut short!" Mt 24:22! Oh, the "tinkering" that one must invoke if one refuses to read Jesus' words literally!) Rosscup adds Blomberg "appears to hold a post-tribulation rapture of the church (370), but with some lack of clarity as to how that would be consistent with other aspects of his views." (3) Leon Morris. The Gospel According to Matthew (Pillar Commentary). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992. - (Ranked second in Tim Challies' top 5, and ranked fourth in the Ligonier list)