Let’s start with a reminder of what verses we are looking at:

⁹“Then they will hand you over to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. ¹⁰And at that time many will fall away, and they will betray one another and hate one another. ¹¹And many false prophets will rise up and mislead many people. ¹²And because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will become cold. ¹³But the one who endures to the end is the one who will be saved. ¹⁴This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.  
(Matthew 24:9-14; NASB)

And now we’ll start in the mid-20th century commentaries:

“The next two chapters of Matthew comprise the discourse on the Fall of Jerusalem and the End of the World (Matt. xxiv, xxv). The Markan parallel is xiii. 5-37. Both begin with our Lord’s prophecy of the destruction of the Temple; and in both the main discourse is located on the Mount of Olives. In Matthew the discourse, arising out of the double question about the date of the destruction of the Temple and the sign of our Lord’s Coming and the End of the Age, begins with a warning about false Christs. A sketch of future history — wars, famines and earthquakes — leads up to the prophecy that Christ’s followers will be persecuted and hated. Moreover, there will be defections from within, treachery and mutual hatred. ‘False prophets’ will cause many to err, sin will increase and charity will grow cold. ‘This Gospel of the Kingdom’ will be proclaimed throughout the world ‘and then will come the end’.

“…A gradual evolution of events within our Lord’s own generation will give ample warning of the first disaster (the destruction of the Temple), but no forecast can be made of the date of the second…”

As I’ve said a number of times earlier, Matthew does not really seem to be discussing the destruction of the Temple. Perhaps from the relative calm of the mid-20th century the first century looked chaotic and dangerous, leading commentators to think about the descriptions in Matthew as being fulfilled at that time. Meanwhile, here at the dawn of 2024, I’m reading articles about how the world government cabal is setting up a control grid in space to run each of our lives on an individual level ( https://www.coreysdigs.com/technology/space-the-new-frontier-for-the-central-control-grid/ ). I don’t think anything in the first century can top that.

“Apart from one obscurity (the apparent confusion of the lesser and the greater catastrophe in xxiv. 19f.) the whole passage is a grandiose logical and rhetorical structure, in which passages closely paralleled in Mark cohere inseparably with a great deal of material that is hardly represented at all in Mark, so that no one antecedently could suppose that conflation of sources had occurred…”

And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!      (Matthew 24:19; KJV)

I’m really not sure what the author means by “the apparent confusion of the lesser and the greater catastrophe,” or why he would consider Matthew 24:19 an “obscurity.” I suspect this is a lack of the author’s rather than of Scripture’s.

“Assuming Matthew is here secondary to Mark, we have to suppose that St Matthew noticed the inadequacy of the Marcan question to the Marcan answer and succeeded in elaborating his own double question out of Mark’s single question. How lucky for him that Mark already had the word sunteleidthai, to provide the stem for St Matthew’s characteristic sunteleia tou aionos! And we further note that Mark’s ‘sign when these things’ — the prophecy of the destruction of the Temple? — ‘are about to be accomplished’ becomes in Matthew the sign of our Lord’s parousia, and is taken up again in Matthew (but of course not in Mark) in the reference to the sign of the Son of Man in xxiv. 30. 

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.   (Matthew 24:30; KJV)

I looked up translations for sunteleidthai and sunteleia tou aionos. The former means “it’s done.” The latter translates as “end of the century.”

“Are we to suppose that St Matthew invented the second occurrence, and that the sign of the Coming of the Son of Man is a Matthaean fiction? But if St Matthew went to the length of inventing the idea of this ‘sign’, why did he not also explain what he meant by it?   

“There can thus be no doubt that there are good critical grounds for holding that Mark is here dependent on a source indistinguishable from the parallel passage in Matthew. A believer in Q would be well advised to suggest that St Mark has again copied that convenient conjectural document, and that, as so often, St Matthew has noted his dependence and has been able to substitute the original text…”

I just want to say here that of course Matthew wasn’t inventing things. I’m also not sure at all about the existence of a “Q” document. Of course, what was being written and/or said by one Apostle would influence another, but we must also remember that each of the eleven Apostles heard Jesus with his own ears, so that Jesus, what He did and said, becomes what each of the Gospels have in common. Matthew remembered what he heard, filtered through his mind, and Mark wrote down what Peter remembered, filtered through their minds. It’s thought that Luke also interviewed Peter as a source. So truly, we have only 3 different Apostles remembering the life of Jesus here: Matthew, Peter, and John. And each of the writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were influenced by the Holy Spirit as they wrote. Perhaps the Holy Spirit is “Q.”

“Matthew xxiv. 5-14, in fact, gives a straightforward anticipation of the whole of the future history (in reference to the question about the Consummation of the Age), warning the disciples that secular catastrophes must not be taken as signs of the imminent end of history, forecasting, briefly, the world’s persecution of the Church, and working to a poignant climax (om. Mark) which foretells defections from the Church, ‘false prophets’ and spiritual decay and treason within the Christian body itself; an anticipation devoid of irrelevant instructions about Christian behavior in these circumstances (for the discourse is not exhortatory but informative), and reaching its culmination in the prophecy of the universal proclamation of the ‘Gospel of the Kingdom’ — ‘and then will come the end’ (om. Mark), a clause resuming and explaining the earlier ‘but not yet is the end’ (Matthew and Mark). Is it credible that St Matthew, by editorial work on the material supplied by Mark xiii, could, with the help of the additional verses Matt. xxiv. 10-12 — where could they have existed in isolation? — and by drastic abbreviation of Mark and one transposition of genius (moving Mark v. 10 to its new position in Matthew), have achieved such superb result?

And the gospel must first be published among all nations.  
(Mark 13:10; KJV)

“…Professor C. F. Burney (THE POETRY OF OUR LORD, pp. 8f., 118-21) separated Mark xiii. 9-13 out of the context in which it appears in Mark solely, on the ground of its rhythmical form, by which it is distinguished from the rest of the chapter, before he was aware of the fact that these verses have their true parallel in Matt. x. He also rejected Mark xiii. 10 as a ‘gloss’, also on rhythmical grounds, before noticing that the verse was absent from Matt. x. 17-22. He further observes that Mark xiii. 9-13, ‘though not unsuited to be fitted into an eschatological discourse’ such as Mark xiii, is not in itself eschatological — and the setting of the parallel in Matt. x is uneschatological. As Dr Burney accepted the Two-Document hypothesis he suggests, as an explanation of these phenomena, that both Matthew and Mark drew the passage independently from Q, and Bishop Rawlinson (without reference to the stylistic argument) makes the same suggestion. But even if Q could be supposed to have existed, there is no need to introduce it here, as Mark’s dependence on Matthew will explain all the phenomena. Moreover, the intrusive character of Mark xiii.10 and its indubitable literary link with Matt. xxiv.14 shows that, if Q is to be invoked to save Mark from dependence on Matthew, Q must have contained not only a passage to serve as a source for Matt. x. 17-22 = Mark xiii.9-13, but another passage  to serve as source for Matt. xxiv. 14, and presumably for the whole paragraph vv. 9-14. In other words, when we try to bring in Q to explain literary connections between Matthew and Mark, exactly the same thing happens as when we use it to explain the connection in the ordinary Q passages between Matthew and Luke — Q turns out to be indistinguishable from Matthew.”        [from THE ORIGINALITY OF ST. MATTHEW; A CRITIQUE OF THE TWO-DOCUMENT HYPOTHESIS, by Basil Christopher Butler, 1951]

The last statement: “Q turns out to be indistinguishable from Matthew,” is the truth in my opinion. Matthew, in Hebrew, was probably the first Gospel written, and was also probably written quite early on.  Peter probably read it to refresh his memory, and then added his spin on the story when dictating to Mark and talking to Luke. And John most likely read it to see what he could add about Jesus’ life that Matthew missed.

“It is hard to explain why, if Jesus said this (and Acts i.8), the Twelve stayed in Jerusalem, even when the Church was persecuted (Acts viii.1), and let Paul and others develop the mission to Gentiles.”

But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samar’ia and to the end of the earth.”  
(Acts 1:8; RSV)

And Saul was consenting to his death. And on that day a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the region of Judea and Samar’ia, except the apostles.  
(Acts 8:1; RSV)

I don’t see this as “hard to explain” at all. Luke, in Acts, was obviously interviewing people long after Pentecost had occurred. The only Apostles who were around Jerusalem after Pentecost seem to be Peter and John, and maybe Philip for a short time. Luke does not seem to have interviewed any of the other Apostles, so it’s safe to assume that those that were still alive (i.e. James, John’s brother, was killed early on), had moved out into the rest of the world. It seems reasonable as well that everyone but Peter and John were working with the Gentiles. John, clearly, was in Asia Minor later on, so then it was just Peter working with the Jews.

The reason that it looks like Paul and his cohorts were the only ones working with the Gentiles is that Luke was traveling with Paul and documenting what he was doing in the book of Acts. He didn’t travel with Thomas, or Matthew, or Andrew, etc. Unfortunately, we don’t have scriptural accounts of what the other Apostles did after Pentecost; though there are some accounts in the Apocrypha.

“For all his breadth of outlook, Peter was essentially an evangelist among the Jews (Gal. ii.7 f.). 

but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised      (Galatians 2:7; RSV)

“Did the Twelve hope first to win the Jews before undertaking a mission to Gentiles? Some think that Jesus never spoke of this wider mission, but all four gospel writers say he did, and ‘Matthew’ as a Jewish Christian would have had no reason to ascribe such words to Jesus unless solid early tradition reported them.”        [from A COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW, by Floyd Filson, 1960]

Again, I don’t think the Apostles were neglecting the Gentiles at all; it’s just that their activities were not captured in Scripture. I agree with Filson’s conclusion about Matthew, but I don’t appreciate the quotation marks.

“The end would only come, as He states explicitly in verse 14, after world-wide evangelism; and that evangelism would be continually hampered by persecutions, martyrdoms, the hatred of the world for those who professed the name of Jesus, loss of faith, the treachery of friends and the failure of love to endure in the face of widespread lawlessness — conditions which would call for the supreme quality of steadfastness (9-13).              [from THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW: AN INTRODUCTION AND COMMENTARY, by Randolph Vincent Greenwood Tasker, 1961]

This is kind of an all-in-one, wrap-it-all-up quote. I really like the conclusion: steadfastness, standing for what you believe in, is indeed called for.

“9 — Pursuing the time of his disciples’ conduct…Jesus fortifies them against the future by showing that their fate is neither outside his knowledge not divorced from his interest (for my name’s sake). 10-12 — Under the pressure of persecution many will defect and even hand one another over to the persecutors. In this divided field religious imposters… reap a rich harvest. (Such a situation in fact developed some years before the destruction of Jerusalem; Rom 16:17-18; Gal 1:6-9; 2 Cor 11:13 etc.) 

¹⁷I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. ¹⁸For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded. 
(Romans 16:17,18; RSV)

⁶I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel — ⁷not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. ⁸But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. ⁹As we have said before, so not I say again, if any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.   
(Galatians 1:6-9; RSV)

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.   (2 Corinthians 11:13; RSV)

Yes, the Epistles do indicate that the wolves were already starting to attack the flock; yet it was far worse by the second century as the Early Church Fathers wrote all their books against heresies. And it continued to worsen as time went on, with fewer and fewer trying to condemn what was happening. Heresies are so well entrenched now that the false prophets preach them with impunity, and the flock, as well as the shepherds, have no idea they’re being led astray. There are exceptions, pastors and flocks who follow the true Gospel, but they are the minority now. To even suggest that this prophecy found its fulfillment in the first century is just another heresy from the false prophets.

“Faced with this disedifying spectacle the love of God will freeze in the hearts of many. 13 — But he will save his life (cf Lk 21:19) who shows perfect fortitude (translating to the end, his telos as ‘perfectly’ as in 2 Cor 1:13 and perhaps Jn 13:1). 

By your endurance you will gain your lives.  
(Luke 21:19; RSV)

For we write you nothing but what you can read and understand; I hope you will understand fully    
(2 Corinthians 1:13; RSV)

Now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.   
(John 13:1; RSV)

Oh my, a “disedifying spectacle”? The actual verse is translated as: iniquity, lawlessness, disobedience, distance, very bad things, evil, sin, wickedness, evildoing, breaking the laws, and the doing of wrong things. “Disedifying” literally means “not providing knowledge,” but it’s used to mean “imparting false doctrine” or to “shock the religious feelings of,” or even “to injure.” Truly, lawlessness/iniquity/evil does not equal disedifying. The VOICE translation goes so far as to say: “There will be no end to the increase of wickedness.” The author of the above quote is playing down the fullness of Matthew 24:12.

The great majority of the translations say that the love/charity of “many/most people” will grow/wax cold. The Worldwide English New Testament says “and many people will stop loving me,” which no other translation agrees with. The other outlier is the Easy to Read Version, which says “the love of most believers will grow cold.” Again, no other translation identifies “believers” as those whose love grows cold. No where, in any of the translations available on biblegateway.com, does it say that it’s the love of God that “freeze(s) in the hearts of many.” The love of God never freezes.

“14 — But before 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. This last phrase, suggesting to modern ears the inhabited world as we now know it, is already used, equivalently, in Rom 1:8 ‘in the wholeworld’,  and the testimony to all nations finds its echo in Rom 1:5. Paul registers this universal preaching as a fait accompli as early as 60 A.D., Col 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. Though all the hostile circumstances described, 5-12, the Gospel will go steadily forward. 14, too, thus holds a note of consolation for the disciples.”           [from THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW; A TEXT AND COMMENTARY FOR STUDENTS, by Alexander Jones, 1965]

⁵through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations…⁸First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world.  
(Romans 1:5,8; RSV)

provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.   
(Colossians 1:23; RSV)

I’ve already discussed the idea of “the whole world,” and Paul having “completed” the spread of the Gospel all on his own. Briefly, if an author wishes to say that “the whole world” is only the Roman Empire of the first century, then he is relegating the Bible to history only and denying it’s relevance to even his own time, never mind to our time.

Jones calls verse 14 a “consolation” for the disciples; as if the spread of the Gospel is a consolation prize rather than the main event. And the verse doesn’t “hint” at a “change in perspective,” the perspective was just mislabeled by Jones from the start.

That’s enough for today. Next time we’ll pick it up in the end of the 20th century.