Bible Commentaries
Matthew 24

Verses 1-51

XXIV 1-52 Discourse on ’the End’ (Mark 13:1-37; Luke 21:5-36). 715a

XXIV 1-3 The Question and its Background (Mark 13:1-4; Luke 21:5-7)—1. Our Lord leaves the temple by the eastern gate and, crossing the Kedron, climbs the slope of Olivet. Turning to look backward down upon the temple buildings the disciples, admiring provincials, exclaim at their massive beauty.

2. Our Lord’s reply is disconcerting. This Herodian temple, begun more than forty years before ( 20/19 b.c.) and not completely finished until thirty years later ( a.d. 64) was even now threatened with total ruin—it was burned and overthrown in a.d. 70.

3. The remark is unexpected and the disciples walk on, perhaps in silence, perhaps in agitated discussion until, reaching the summit, all stop to rest. Our Lord’s four privilege disciples (Mk) put the double question: ’When?’; ’What warnings?’. It is difficult to determine whether these questions refer to one event, the time and herald-signs of the destruction of Jerusalem, or to two, the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and the signs of the end of the world. Luke’s words and to a slightly less extent Mk’s seem to suggest one; Mt’s suggest two. It is usual to reconcile the two forms of the question, Mt as against Mk, Lk, by pointing out that for a Jew the destruction of the temple would spell the end of the world itself. In this hypothesis the disciples thought that the two events were to be simultaneous, and our Lord in his reply treats of them together because the first is a figure of the second (’end of a world’, ’end of the world’); nevertheless, it is claimed, he removes the disciples’ chronological confusion. It is said that two separate events are certainly discussed in the discourse because one is described as local, imminent, foreseeable through historical happenings while the other is universal, of unknown date, without warning signs.

Another and important theory has been recently presented by A. Feuillet [ RSR 34 ( 1947) 303-27; 35 ( 1948) 544-65; NRT 71 ( 1949) 701-22, 806-28; RB 55 ( 1948) 481-502; 56 ( 1949) 61-92, 340-64; 57 ( 1950) 43-62, 180-211]. It is a revival of Augustine’s tentative opinion ( PL 33, 904-25), later adopted by Calmet and Le Camus, but revised and supported with powerful new arguments. The theory defends the unity of the discourse and holds that the reference throughout is to the destruction of Jerusalem with its double aspect: the end of the old order (’times of the Jews’) and the opening of the new (’times of the Gentiles’). The hypothesis does not deny the possibility of a further sense (fuller? typical?) in the discourse. Indeed it follows from the nature of the case that the divine judgement which closes the first act of world-history (the Age of Israel) is the destined model or type of the Last Judgement which is to mark the end of the next (the Age of the Gentiles). This fusion of perspective is in the style of the prophets. For them the ’Day of Yahweh’ (i.e. of Yahweh’s judgement) has a shifting perspective, the reason being that this ’day’ is considered more from the theological, transcendental, plane than from the historical and contingent point of view (cf. Scripture, 4 [ 1950] 222-30, 264-73). But the hypothesis denies that the two themes (end of Jerusalem, end of the world) are juxtaposed so that one part of the discourse refers to the end of Jerusalem, the other to the end of the world; it does not deny that the themes are superimposed (Benoit). St Paul, therefore, could resume certain phrases of the discourse and refer them to the end of the world. Strictly literal interpretation, the theory claims, is satisfied by the historical reference (destruction of Jerusalem) and, in fact, sometimes demands such a reference (e.g. 24; 16-20). The following commentary will briefly state both views. Regarding the form of the disciples’ question Feuillet, emphasizing the text of Mk, Lk, insists that it is explicity concerned with the destruction of Jerusalem and that Mt’s form is capable of the same interpretation. The phrase ’thy coming’ (pa???s?a, a term not used in the gospels except Mt 24) has in the Greek papyri the meaning of a royal visit. Paul certainly uses the word for Christ’s final coming at the end of the world (I Cor 15:23 etc.) but it may be that in this case as in others he has taken over Mt’s terminology and adapted it to the final coming, RB 56 ( 1949) 75-6, note. On the resemblance between Mt and Paul; cf.* Dodd, ET 58 ( 1947) 293 ff. and critique in DR 66 ( 1948) 367-83; on the likeness of terminology between Mt 24 in particular and 1, 2 Thess cf. Orchard, Bi 19 ( 1938) 19-42; the last author concludes that Paul in his apocalyptic ’has used the same words, ideas and phraseology (as Mt), reshuffled them, and set them down in their new combination’. The ’consummation of the world’ (s??te?e?a t??+? a?+??+???s) sounds more decisive for the end of the world reference than does the term ’parousia’. Nevertheless the word a??? signifies not the physical world or universe, but ’era, epoch’ of human history; for Paul’s use cf. Allo, Vivre el Penser, 1re Sér., 1941, 179. The ’era’ here might therefore be that of the old dispensation. In 28:20, where the perspective changes, it is the new, Messianic era.

4-14 The Beginning of Sorrows (cf.Mark 13:5-13; Luke 21:18-19)—Our Lord does not yet reply directly to the disciples’ question: he is concerned primarily with spiritual issues and with the conduct of the disciples.

4-5. He supposes his own death after which many would come usurping the title that belonged to him— as in fact they did, with grievous results for themselves and their followers. For these political, pseudoMessiahs who appeared in considerable numbers before the destruction of Jerusalemcf. Jos., BJ 2, 13, 4; 6, 5, 4; Lagrange, Le Messianisme, 21-7. 6-7. Still anxious to warn his own rather than to foretell the future, our Lord speaks of the inward peace the disciples must preserve in a troubled world. The prophetic style he uses does not call for minute verification though this is not lacking for the years before a.d. 70. It was a period savage in its wars, ferocious in its very peace ( Tacitus, Hist.3, 2, 1) with war’s usual concomitants: plagues ( Tacitus, Annales 16, 13) and famine (Acts 11:28; Jos., Ant. 20, 2, 5); even earthquakes (in towns of Asia Minor, a.d. 61-2; Pompeii in a.d. 63 etc.). All this does not closely concern the Apostles, as the Jerusalem catastrophe will; cf. 15 ff. The ’end’ of Jerusalem with its final break with the old order is still to come. 8. These calamities are ’the beginnings of the pangs of childbirth’ (???? ?d????). The world is in travail for a new age (cf.Micah 4:9-10; Apoc 12:2) though the pangs have not reached their climax; cf. 15, note. The sentence, though ominous, is designed to console the disciples; cf.John 16:20-22.9. Pursuing the theme of his disciples’ conduct (cf. 10:17-23, notes) Jesus fortifies them against the future by showing that their fate is neither outside his knowledge nor divorced from his interests (’for my names’s sake’).

10-12. Under the pressure of persecution many shall fall away and even hand one another over to the persecutors. In this divided field religious impostors (cf. 5) reap a rich harvest. (Such a situation in fact developed some years before the Destruction of Jerusalem; Romans 16:17-18; Galatians 1:6-9; 2 Corinthians 11:13 etc.) Faced with this disedifying spectacle the love of God will freeze in the hearts of many.

13. But he will save his soul (cf.Luke 21:19) who has endured perfectly (or ’to the end’, i.e.—in this context—to the end of life, not of Jerusalem. Nevertheless, the phrase e?? t????—not, e?? t???? —probably signifies ’completely, perfectly’ like the ??? t????? of 2 Corinthians 1:13 and, possibly, the e?? t???? of John 13:1). 14. But before the ’consummation’ (t????: ’the end’) which, in view of the following verses, probably now means the end of Jerusalem, the good news of the Kingdom must be announced to the whole world (?? ??? t?+? ?????µ???). This last phrase, suggesting to modern ears the inhabited world as we now know it, is already used, equivalently, in Romans 1:8 ’in the whole world’ and the testimony ’to all nations’ finds its echo in Romans 1:5. Paul registers this universal preaching as a fait accompli as early as a.d. 60, Colossians 1:23, ten years before the fall of Jerusalem. The verse does not hint, therefore, that the perspective has passed beyond the fall of Jerusalem. Through all the hostile circumstances described, 5-12, the gospel will go steadily forward. 14, too, thus holds a note of consolation for the disciples.

15-28 The Great Tribulation (Mark 13:14-23; Luke 21:20-24)—At last our Lord proceeds to answer the disciples’ question but he is still concerned primarily with practical advice and comfort.

15. The prophet Daniel (Daniel 9:27; cf. 11:31; 12:11) had spoken of the ’devastating hateful thing’ which ’will be upon the temple’ (LXX). The words were verified in 168 b.c. (cf.1 Mac 1:57; 2 Mac 6:1-5) by the conduct of the hellenizing tyrant Antiochus Epiphanes who set up in the temple an idol and altar to Olympian Zeus. Our Lord speaks of a repetition of such sacrilege and he invites the reader of Daniel to penetrate the deeper prophetic sense of the allusion. (Possibly it is the evangelist himself who invites to this or to an attentive consideration of our Lord’s words.) If Jesus is referring explicitly to the desecration of the temple (’in a holy place’), the warning would be recognized by the Christians when, in a.d. 68, the Jewish Zealots tyrannized in the temple which they had turned into a fortress. If he is referring to the desecration of the sacred soil of Palestine, it would be the Roman armies bearing down on Jerusalem in a.d. 69 that would be the signal for flight; cf.Luke 21:20.16. The Christians are to flee from Judaea to the mountains (across Jordan, seemingly). In effect they did leave Jerusalem for Pella before the siege, Eus., HE 3, 5, 3.

17-20. Haste will be imperative. Should anyone be taking his ease, eastern-fashion, on the flat-roof let him run down the outer staircase but not go into the house to encumber his flight with baggage. Should he be at work in the field let him not wait even to pick up his cloak. And alas for those forbidden by necessity or by love to leave their burden behind! The disciples must pray that God’s judgement be tempered with mercy. In winter, rushing torrents would stay their flight; sabbathscruples (cf.Exodus 16:29), still felt by the Christians in the early days of the Church, would restrict it to less than one useless mile. Many exegetes see in 21 the beginning of a discourse on the end of the world, 21-32. If this is so, its opening conjunction ??? (’For’) is a merely formal connective after the manner of apocalypse (cf. e.g.Daniel 11:45 with Daniel 12:1). Others prefer to see a close connexion (WV makes one sentence of 20-21) and refer 21 to the destruction of Jerusalem. In support of this reference is the parallel Luke 21:23b. The ’great tribulation’, it is urged, like the ’great distress’ of Luke 21:23b, may still be the concomitant of the destruction. The extravagance of the terms (not, however, entirely absent from 6-7 which certainly refer to the period before the destruction) is not incompatible with this restricted reference. The prophets present local historical events connected with the fortunes of God’s people in grandiose language; cf., e.g. the ’apocalypse’ of Is 24-27 dealing with the overthrow of the arch-enemy, Assyria. ’The mere mention of a world-judgement is no proof that the section deals with the end of time. Every intervention of God is a worldjudgement’; Kissane, The Book of Isaiah ( Dublin 1941) 1, 267. See terms very like those of Mt and referring to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nabuchodonosor, Bar 2:2; cf.Isaiah 13:6-10; Jeremiah 4:23-26; Jeremiah 30:7.22. This verse may suggest the period immediately preceding the end of the world; the time, with its physical trials and moral seductions, 24, is mercifully to be shortened; otherwise the salvation of the chosen Christian faithful would be threatened. The mention of these ’elect’ is said to prove that the destruction of Jerusalem is not here referred to since the ’elect’ can be neither the Jewish factions besieged in Jerusalem nor the Christians, because these last left Jerusalem before the siege, 16, note. Nevertheless the argument is not peremptory: Chrysostom (Hom. 76 in Mt) identifies the ’elect’ with Christians who remained in Jerusalem and explains that it was owing to their presence that God shortened the siege and so preserved a remnant of the Jews. Alternatively it is possible to identify this ’remnant’ itself with the ’elect’ of 22 and 24. The ’remnant of Israel’ is the recurrent theme of the prophets ( RB 42 [ 1933] 562-39); it indicates the survivors of the particular national calamity the prophet has in mind, some of whom, not all, will prove worthy of God’s promise. In this view the calamity is the destruction of Jerusalem and the ’elect’ are the surviving Jews for whom the offer of the Messianic kingdom still lies open. St Paul (Romans 11:7; cf.Romans 11:15) names the ’remnant’ ’the elect but refers the term to those Jews who have already (c a.d. 56) embraced Christianity. This is because, in his perspective, the crisis has already occurred—the advent, death, resurrection of the Messias; this crisis is entirely a spiritual one, and its ’survivors’, therefore, are necessarily those who have actually entered the Messianic kingdom. Our Lord’s perspective is different: the crisis is national and yet to come. This difference of perspective means, as in the case of the prophets ( Scripture 4 [ 1950] 223-4), that the personnel of the ’remnant’ is different also. The prophetic flavour of the passage is perceptible: divine decree has ’cut short’ (cf. Daniel 9:24) the time of tribulation (the siege of Jerusalem lasted five months)—otherwise no single inhabitant (’no flesh’; cf.Jeremiah 12:12) would have survived.

23-25. The words are addressed indeed to the apostles but only in so far as these represent the faithful who live to see the end (of the world? of Jerusalem?). The pseudo-liberators, 5, appear again. Their deceits are described in the terms of Deuteronomy 13:1 where the false prophet announces (Heb. na?an; LXX d?+?; Mt d?s??s??; DV ’shew’) various portents. The fulfilment of such predictions, however, is to be taken only as a trial of faith permitted by God, Deuteronomy 13:2-3. Their purpose (DV ’inasmuch as to’, but ?ste here is probably purposive as in 10:1; 27:1; cf. Mk ’in order to deceive’) will be to win supporters even among the ’elect’. The reappearance of the ’deliverers’ in this part of the discourse argues for a reference to a second epoch—the end of the world. But, on the other hand, it may be that our Lord’s intention is simply to indicate that they multiply, as might be expected, as the threat to Jerusalem grows more alarming.

26. The impostor must be left severely alone under whatever guise he present himself: whether coming like a second Moses from the desert, as happened under the procurators Felix, a.d. 52-60, and Florus, a.d. 60-2 (cf. Jos. B.J. 2, 13, 4; Ant. 20, 5, 10) or hidden in the store-rooms (the inmost rooms) surrounding his preparations with the mystery sometimes expected of the Messias ( Lagrange, Le Messianisme, 221-4).

27. The ’lightning’ image suggests a suddenness which might forbid reference to the destruction of Jerusalem which, 15, gives warning of its approach. Yet the argument is not conclusive since the suddenness is not such as to exclude a period of activity for pseudo-messiahs, 24, and the ’lightning’ image is used by the prophets, Isaiah 30:27 ff.; Zach 9:14, of divine judgements in the course and not at the end of history. The ’coming’ (pa???s?a, 3, note) of the Son of Man is therefore not necessarily a coming for the final and universal judgement; it may be his coming for the judgement upon Israel. 28. A sentence in proverb-form reminiscent of Job 39:20. It possibly means that the final coming of the Son of Man will leave none untouched (Buzy) but similar language is used by the prophets to describe divine judgement on Jerusalem (Jeremiah 7:33 f. etc.) in which case the ’carcase’ is Jerusalem where the birds of prey will have work to do.

29-31 After the Tribulation (Mark 13:24-27; Luke 21:25-27)—Almost all commentators refer 29-31 to the end of the world theme. The new theory, however, maintaining the single reference of the whole discourse, insists that Jesus still speaks of the fall of Jerusalem or rather of its counterpart which is the establishment of the Messianic kingdom in power.

29. The consequence of the great disaster is expressed in the prophetic style we have already noted, 21. The serried ranks (?ea’ô? i.e. ’marshalled hosts’; DV ’powers’) of God’s heavenly army are in turmoil. As in Isaiah 13:6-10, foretelling the ruin of Babylon, the very heavens are presented as involved in the catastrophe. All agree that these stereotyped terms of prophecy and apocalypse are not to be taken literally whether the reference be to the end of the world or to the end of Jerusalem. It follows that 29 does not settle the problem. It should be noticed, however, that Peter, Acts 2:19 f., uses the very similar language of Joel 2:30 f. not of the end of the world but of the new era formally and spectacularly inaugurated on Pentecost Day. For Peter, Joel’s ’great and manifest day of the Lord’ has come with the Messianic age. It is instructive (cf. 31, note) that Joel heralds this ’day’ with a trumpet, Joel 2:1.

30. Commonly taken as decisive for the end of the world reference. The Son of Man appears as sovereign judge; the sign is of his triumphant and avenging Cross; the lamentation is not of repentance, which would come too late, but of despair. The opposed view makes ’the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds’ (cf.Daniel 7:13) refer (as in 26:64; see note) to the glorious establishment of his kingdom on earth. The ’mourning of the tribes’ is taken from Zach 12:10-14 where the ’mourning’ is not of despair but of repentance for the death of one untimely slain, apparently of David’s house. The repentance is followed, Zach 13:1 ff., by an era of grace. These references to Daniel and Zacharias, it is claimed, both suggest the Messianic era rather than the end of the world (cf. the grouping of the same texts in Apoc 1:7, probably in the same sense; Allo, L’Apocalypse, 61). The ’sign of the Son of Man in heaven’ is taken to mean the rallying-signal which is the Messias himself (s?µe?+??? as in Isaiah 11:12). It is a sign perhaps experienced rather than ’seen’; cf. 26:64, § 720g. It is a ’heavenly’ sign (once asked for and now to be given, cf. 12:38 ff., § 697d), like the ’coming in the clouds’, because the Son of Man’s heavenly glory is perceived in the triumphal establishment of his kingdom on earth. The mourning, as in Zach 12:10, is consequent upon the realization of the glory of the Son whose death is thus shown to have been a hideous crime. In this theory, therefore, the sign is ’Christ the King seen in symbolic vision bearing the marks of his shameful death now as glorious wounds—a vision which forces itself upon the attention of men’. 31. The gathering of the elect is variously interpreted according to the sense given to the word ’elect’ (22, 24, notes). It is usually understood as the fulfilment of the Christian hope for the end of time, 1 Thessalonians 4:17; 2 Thessalonians 2:1, while the ’trumpet’, 1 Thessalonians 4:15 f., is to awaken the faithful who are supposed dead (Buzy). The second hypothesis, which has referred 30 to the conversion of the nations (’all tribes of the earth’) who perceive that Christ has risen and reigns, asserts that 31 calls attention to those other members of the Messianic kingdom—the ’remnant of Israel’ (22, note). The ’trumpet’, it is held, is only the signal that the Messianic era has opened; it is the rallying-call for God’s people precisely as in Isaiah 27:13. We are reminded that in the Jewish daily prayer (Šemonê ’Esrê, 10) the ’trumpet’ of 31 and the ’sign’ of 30 are joined in a petition for the coming of the Messianic age: ’Sound the great trumpet for our deliverance and raise a standard for the rallying of our exiles!’. The ’trumpet’ in Mt, as so often in the Apocalypse ( Allo, L’Apocalypse, lxi, 122 f.), unlike the ’last’ trumpet of 1 Corinthians 15:52 announces perhaps the intervention of God in the course of history and not at its end. In this view the symbolical trumpet is to rally Christ’s own elect— the remnant of Israel dispersed over the known world.

32-35 Parable of the Fig-tree (Mark 13:28-31; Luke 21:28-33)—On the assumption that the preceding verses refer to the end of the world the context of this section causes difficulty, particularly in view of

34. Some (Lagrange, Buzy) suggest that our passage refers back to the destruction of Jerusalem section; others (Prat) find this procedure arbitrary and, yielding to the force of the context, apply 32-35 to the end of the world (34, note). The view which holds for the destruction of Jerusalem theme throughout the discourse claims to offer the more natural explanation of the text, with Lagrange, and also to save the context, with Prat.

32-33. Just as the happy season of summer has its herald-signs, Cant 2:12 f., so the establishment of the Messianic era, counterpart of the destruction of Jerusalem, has its portents, viz. ’all these things’, 33; cf. ’these things’ in 3. The events of 5-28 will, as they mature, proclaim the imminence of the Kingdom whose powerful establishment is described, according to the Feuillet view, in 29-31.

34. And indeed none of ’these things’ is far distant. All shall take place within the lifetime of many now living (’this generation’; cf. 11:16; 12:39; 17:7 etc.). Here, as in 23:36 f., our Lord appears to intend a chronological indication; the alternative explanation (Knabenbauer, Prat) of ’this generation’ as ’the Jewish race’ is less probable.

35. That ’heaven and earth shall pass’ may mean that the old order is to give way to a new world (19:28, note)—the Messianic era, 29. Possibly, however, 35 which is apparently parenthetical and occurs elsewhere (5:18, note) has no reference to the symbolism of 29 and indicates that our Lord’s words (his doctrine in general) are more stable than the physichl universe.

36-41 The Deluge Comparison (Luke 17:26-27, Luke 17:30) 34-35; cf.Mark 13:32)—36. A return to (Lagrange) or continuation of (Prat) the end of the world theme; or (Feuillet) a continuation of the destruction of Jcrusalem theme. Our Lord refuses an exact date though in 34 he seems to define a date within 30-40 years. From this apparent incompatibility the inference is usually drawn that 34 and 36 refer to two different events, respectively the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world. It is admitted however ( Ricciotti, Vita di Gesù Cristo, Milan, 1946, 641) that 36 is unexpected in its present place. For this reason, and for others, Feuillet emphasizes the indefiniteness of the time-indication in 34 as opposed to the refused precision (’day and hour’) in 36. He concludes that 34 and 36 may refer to the one event—the establishment of the Messianic kingdom, the great ’day’ of Yahweh according to the prophets. He underlines the close similarity between 36 and Acts 1:7 f. where our Lord, asked the time of this establishment, refuses to give it and says only (Acts 1:8; cf.Matthew 24:14) that the Gospel must first be spread abroad ( RB 56 [ 1949] 87 f.). In either case, the exact day and hour is the Father’s secret. No man, no angel, not even the Son (this last phrase, certainly authentic in Mark 13:32, is probably authentic in Mt) knows that. The crescendo is instructive, but there remains the dogmatic difficulty of our Lord’s proclaiming his ’ignorance’. It should however be remarked in passing that the inclusion of the phrase is a strong witness to the complete honesty of the evangelists. The difficulty (similar to that of 19:17; 20:23; cf. §§ 709b, 710b) is to some degree solved if we remember that it is the constant practice of the incarnate Son to claim no knowledge beyond that which the Father has instructed him to use. This is true even of the gospel of John who indubitably teaches the divinity of Christ; cf.John 7:16; John 14:10. On the dogmatic side it may be said ( A. Durand, S.J., NRT 71 [ 1949], 497-503) that in the incarnate Word were two planes of knowledge—divine and total on one plane, human and limited on the other; direct communication between the two being established only by his supernatural ’infused knowledge’. This last was infused in proportion to the dignity of the man-God and to the needs of his redemptive work (e.g. knowledge of his own divinity and Messianic character; gift of prophecy). It is doubtful if the knowledge of the time of the world’s ending or of the exact ’day and hour’ of Jerusalem’s destruction was thus needed; cf. Dz 2183-5. 37-39. No one knows the hour because (???) in the divine decree the exact time of the coming (pa???s?a) is uncertain and sudden. This ’coming’ is to overtake people at their usual occupations, careless of impending disaster.

40-41. The sudden event’ will make a sharp distinction between the fate of individuals who up to that moment were in close association’ ( Dodd, The Parabler of the Kingdom, London 1936, 87). The sense of ’taken’ and ’left’ will depend upon the identification of the disaster. For those who accept the end of the world context the terms mean ’taken to God’, ’left unaccepted’. In the destruction of Jerusalem hypothesis, ’taken’ means ’swept away by the catastrophe’ and ’left’ means spared (as Noe was ’left’, Genesis 7:23) to form part of the chosen ’remnant’ ( RSR 35 [ 1948] 555-8).

42-44 The Surprised Householder (Luke 12:39-40; cf. Luke 21:34-35)—This, like the deluge-comparison, 39, presents a man overtaken by disaster. It warns the disciples to be wakeful (??????e?+?te). Though you do not know the hour (cf. 36), proceeds our Lord, this ye know (at least), i.e. you can appreciate this, namely, that if a householder knew exactly when (p??? F??a??+?) the thief would come he would be prepared. The saying is strange because the disciples themselves do not know ’the hour’, 36. We are evidently to understand the suppressed implication that the householder, if forewarned of the event but ignorant of the exact hour, would watch all night. As before, 4 ff., our Lord is concerned with the conduct of his disciples. The coming disasters will overwhelm their hope and faith and lead them to rash action (cf. 25-26) unless they stand in calm fortitude awaiting the hour of deliverance; cf.Luke 21:28.

XXIV 45-51 The Parable of the Stewards (Luke 12:41-48) —It is probable that the parable was not spoken on this occasion and that Lk gives its correct setting. It is drawn hither in Mt by an analogy of subject—the ’watchfulness’ enjoined upon the disciples, 42, in preparation for a divine ’coming’. But the ’coming’ in this case is to the individual not to a community, as in Lk. The parable is a diptych.

45-47. The first picture presents the faithful superintendent of the household, always giving ’them their food in due time’. He is found so doing when his master comes. From supervision of the servants he is promoted to superintendence of all his master’s affairs. This steward would appear to represent the disciple placed by Christ, the Master (? ??????), in a post of responsibility. The coming of the Master (it is not described as a ’return’; Dodd, 159) lacks the solemnity of the ’coming’ of 24:27, 30. It does not, therefore, suggest more than the ’coming’ to each individual—the time of reckoning which is death. The word ’blessed’, 46, and the extravagance of the reward for simple duty, 47, suggest allegory: the disciple, faithful to his earthly responsibilities in the Kingdom, will be associated in heaven with the glorified Son of Man presiding thence over his earthly kingdom; cf. 19:28, note.

48-51. In the companion-picture the steward sees in his master’s absence an opportunity for oppression and debauch. The master’s ’delay’ of 48 is probably but ’a necessary part of the dramatic machinery to produce the situation desired’ (Dodd). In the hypothesis that the ’coming’ of the Master is the End of the World, the ’delay’ is taken as an indication that the End may be ’long a-coming’. The ’separate him’ of 51 is difficult (d???t?µ?se1?; WV ’cut him asunder’) though the sawing asunder of a slave’s body was a punishment not unknown in the Greek and Roman periods; cf. Black, 190. Possibly it allegorically figures severe punishment; possibly it is to be rendered ’cut him off’ (KNT), i.e. from the association with the reigning Christ in heaven, 47. His lot is henceforth with the ’hypocrites’. This last term invites us (cf. 23:13, 15 etc., to think of the scribes and Pharisces who had cut themselves off from the Kingdom, 23:13. The ’weeping and gnashing of teeth’ (cf. 8:11-13, note) has already been associated with individual reprobation, 22:13, and recurs, significantly, in 25:30.