Kommentar über sämmtliche Schriften des Neuen Testaments

Commentary on the Complete Text of the New Testament
completed and revised by Ebrard and Wiesinger

Dr. Hermann Olshausen
(August 21, 1796 – September 4, 1839)

"Jesus did intend to represent his coming as contemporaneous with the destruction of Jerusalem and the overthrow of the Jewish polity"

CLICK BELOW FOR PDF FILES
(Various Editions)

Olshausen on Matthew 24

This statement surprises us ; as there not only is nothing in the prophecy to justify it, but it is an impeachment of the accuracy of the prediction. As Christ's coming was not in fact to take place at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, nor till many centuries after, how can a representation that they were to be contemporaneous consist with truth ? Why would not such a contradiction to the Divine purpose form as decisive a proof of the error of the prophecy, as an equal contradiction to the Divine designs and to fact in respect to any other events? And what motive can be supposed to have prompted such a false exhibition of the relations of the two events in time, which, on its being demonstrated by the fall of Jerusalem without the personal advent of the Son of man, would have convicted the prophecy of error in the judgment of all careful readers, divested it of authority, and debarred it from the faith of the church? The supposition is thus in every respect untenable. " Christ's Prophecy (Matt. xxiv) of the Destruction of Jerusalem, and of His Second Coming

Heinrich Meyer
"Certain expositors have referred, in this connection, to the sentiment of the modern poet, who says : " the  history is represented the destruction of Jerusalem as the first act in this judgment, which is supposed to be immediately followed (ver. 29) by a renovation of the world through the medium of Christianity,—a renovation which is to go on until the last revelation from heaven takes place (Kern, Dorner, Olshansen). But this is only to commit the absurdity of importing into the passage a poetical judgment, such as is quite foreign to the real judgment of the New Testament. No less objectionable is Bengel's idea, revived by Hengstenberg and Olshausen, about the perspective nature of the prophetic vision,—an idea which could only have been vindicated from the reproach of imputing a false vision, i.e., an optical delusion, to Jesus if the latter had failed to specify a definite time by means of a statement so very precise as that contained in ver. 29, or had not added the solemn declaration of ver. 34. Dorner, Wittichen, rightly decide against this view. As a last shift, Olshausen has recourse to the idea that some condition or other is to be understood : " All those things will happen, unless men avert the anger of God by sincere repentance,"—a reservation which, in a prediction of so extremely definite a character, would most certainly have been expressly mentioned, even although no doubt can be said to exist as to the conditional nature of the Old Testament prophecies (Berthcan in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1859, p. 335 ff.). IE, as Olshansen thinks, it was the wish of the Lord that His second advent should always be looked upon as a possible, nay, as a probable thing,— and if it was/or this reason that He spoke as Matthew represents Him to have done, then it would follow that He made use of false means for the purpose of attaining a moral end,—a thing even more inconceivable in His case than theoretical error, which latter Strauss does not hesitate to impute." (p. 431-434)

Benjamin Pearce
"The Greek word aión, seems to signify age here, as it often does in the New Testament, and according to its most proper signification." Clarke, Wakefield, Boothroyd, Simpson, Lindsey, Mardon, Acton, agree. So do Locke, Hammond, Le Clerc, Beausobre, Lenfant, Dodridge, Paulus, Kenrick and Olshausen." (in Matt. vii: 33)

E. De Pressence (1870)
"It would be useless to attempt to catalogue the works which have accumulated during the last fifty years in Germany—that fatherland of modern theology. We will only cite the most characteristic. Let us point first to the vast treasures of exegesis—De Wette's exegetical manuals, so full and so exact; the graphic commentaries of Olshausen and Tholuck; the great works of Lücke on the "Writings of St. John," and of Bleek on the "Epistle to the Hebrews," and many other monuments of learning, so solid and so reliable that they furnish inexhaustible resources to the student of the primitive age of the Church." The Early Years of Christianity

Dr. Edward Robinson
"Another form of the same general view is that presented by Olshausen. He too refers the verses of Matthew under consideration directly to the final coming of Christ; but seeks to avoid the difficulty above stated, by an explanation derived from the alleged nature of prophecy. He adopts the theory broached by Hengstenberg, that inasmuch as the vision of future things was presented solely to the mental or spiritual eye of the prophet, he thus saw them all at one glance as present realilirs, with equal vividness and without any distinction of order or time,—like the figures of a great painting without perspective or other marks of distance or relative position. ' The facts and realities are distinctly perceived ; but not their distance from the period, nor the intervals by which they are separated from each other.' Hence our Lord, in submitting himself to the laws of prophetic vision, was led to speak of his last coming in immediate connexion with his coming for the destruction of Jerusalem : because in vision the two were presented together to his spiritual eye, without note of any interval of time.— Not to dwell here upon the fact, that this whole theory of prophecy is fanciful hypothesis, and appears to have been since abandoned by its author ; it is enough to remark, that this explanation admits, after all, the same fundamental error, viz. that our Lord did mistakenly announce his final coming as immediately to follow the overthrow of the Holy City. Indeed, the difficulty is even greater here, if possible, than before ; because, according to the former view, the error may be charged upon the report of the evangelists; while here it can only be referred to our Lord himself." (p. 544)

Philip Schaff
" A fair exegesis of this passage can hardly fail to recognize the fact that the apostle here as well as elsewhere (1 Thess. 4: 17; 1 Cor. 15: 51), speaks of the coming of the Lord as rapidly approaching." Most modern German commentators defend this reference. Olshausen, DeWette, Philippi, Meyer, and others, think no other view in the least tenable ; and Dr. Lange, while careful to guard against extreme theories  on this point, denies the reference to eternal blessedness, and admits that the Parousia is intended. The opinion gains  ground among Anglo-Saxon exegetes."