|
|
 Helping San Diego, California and beyond since 1997.
|
|
Click here and add this page to your favorites!
|
|
Helping San Diego, California and beyond since 1997.
|
|
Click here and add this page to your favorites!
General Information
The Gospel According to Matthew is the opening book of the New Testament of the Bible. Although first in canonical order, it is probably not the earliest Gospel. Besides drawing heavily from the Gospel According to Mark, Matthew shapes material from other sources around Mark's narrative outline. One such source, commonly called Q (from the German quelle, "source"), is thought to have consisted primarily of sayings of Jesus; it was also used by Luke. Material unique to this Gospel relates to the birth of Jesus (1 - 2), the arrangement of the Sermon on the Mount (5 - 7), and Jesus' utterances on the end of the world (24 - 25).
Matthew is the most topical of the Synoptic Gospels. The teachings and sayings of Jesus are gathered into five thematic discourses and structured around Mark's narrative framework. Each discourse is followed by a summary statement (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 28:1). A prologue and epilogue are added (1 - 2; 28:9 - 20). Because of the emphasis on law, teaching, and righteousness, scholars believe that Matthew was addressed to a predominantly Jewish audience, presumably in Palestine or Syria. Jesus is presented as the messianic fulfiller, especially in the role of king, and the teacher of the way of righteousness.
Douglas Ezell
Bibliography
W G Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament (1975);
J L McKenzie, "Matthew," in Jerome Biblical Commentary (1968).
Matthew, gift of God, a common Jewish name after the Exile. He was the son of Alphaeus, and was a publican or tax-gatherer at Capernaum. On one occasion Jesus, coming up from the side of the lake, passed the custom-house where Matthew was seated, and said to him, "Follow me." Matthew arose and followed him, and became his disciple (Matt. 9:9). Formerly the name by which he was known was Levi (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27); he now changed it, possibly in grateful memory of his call, to Matthew. The same day on which Jesus called him he made a "great feast" (Luke 5:29), a farewell feast, to which he invited Jesus and his disciples, and probably also many of old associates. He was afterwards selected as one of the twelve (6:15). His name does not occur again in the Gospel history except in the lists of the apostles. The last notice of him is in Acts 1:13. The time and manner of his death are unknown.
The author of this book was beyond a doubt the Matthew, an apostle of our Lord, whose name it bears. He wrote the Gospel of Christ according to his own plans and aims, and from his own point of view, as did also the other "evangelists." As to the time of its composition, there is little in the Gospel itself to indicate. It was evidently written before the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. 24), and some time after the events it records. The probability is that it was written between the years A.D. 60 and 65. The cast of thought and the forms of expression employed by the writer show that this Gospel was written for Jewish Christians of Palestine. His great object is to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah, and that in him the ancient prophecies had their fulfilment.
The Gospel is full of allusions to those passages of the Old Testament in which Christ is predicted and foreshadowed. The one aim prevading the whole book is to show that Jesus is he "of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write." This Gospel contains no fewer than sixty-five references to the Old Testament, forty-three of these being direct verbal citations, thus greatly outnumbering those found in the other Gospels. The main feature of this Gospel may be expressed in the motto, "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." As to the language in which this Gospel was written there is much controversy. Many hold, in accordance with old tradition, that it was originally written in Hebrew (i.e., the Aramaic or Syro-Chaldee dialect, then the vernacular of the inhabitants of Palestine), and afterwards translated into Greek, either by Matthew himself or by some person unknown.
This theory, though earnestly maintained by able critics, we cannot see any ground for adopting. From the first this Gospel in Greek was received as of authority in the Church. There is nothing in it to show that it is a translation. Though Matthew wrote mainly for the Jews, yet they were everywhere familiar with the Greek language. The same reasons which would have suggested the necessity of a translation into Greek would have led the evangelist to write in Greek at first. It is confessed that this Gospel has never been found in any other form than that in which we now possess it. The leading characteristic of this Gospel is that it sets forth the kingly glory of Christ, and shows him to be the true heir to David's throne. It is the Gospel of the kingdom.
Matthew uses the expression "kingdom of heaven" (thirty-two times), while Luke uses the expression "kingdom of God" (thirty-three times). Some Latinized forms occur in this Gospel, as kodrantes (Matt. 5:26), for the Latin quadrans, and phragello (27:26), for the Latin flagello. It must be remembered that Matthew was a tax-gatherer for the Roman government, and hence in contact with those using the Latin language. As to the relation of the Gospels to each other, we must maintain that each writer of the synoptics (the first three) wrote independently of the other two, Matthew being probably first in point of time. "Out of a total of 1071 verses, Matthew has 387 in common with Mark and Luke, 130 with Mark, 184 with Luke; only 387 being peculiar to itself." (See Mark; Luke; Gospels.) The book is fitly divided into these four parts: (1.) Containing the genealogy, the birth, and the infancy of Jesus (1; 2). (2.) The discourses and actions of John the Baptist preparatory to Christ's public ministry (3; 4:11). (3.) The discourses and actions of Christ in Galilee (4:12-20:16). (4.) The sufferings, death and resurrection of our Lord (20:17-28).
In the meantime, the preaching of the gospel of grace, especially committed to Paul, who was not of the twelve, is accompanied by gifts of another kind (Eph. 4:10-12). Look at verses 11 to 15, where the "worthy" mean those looking for the Messiah promised by the Old Testament prophets. The gospel of grace is not offered to the "worthy," but to "whomsoever" will accept it. Or, take verses 16-23, which speak of the way the apostles' message would be received, and compare the prophecy they contain with the persecution in the Acts of the Apostles; or look at these verses in the light of the second coming of Christ, to which verse 23 refers.
We learned in Daniel and elsewhere, that time is not counted in the history of Israel when she is not in her own land. Hence the testimony here begun by the apostles and continued up to Israel's rejection of the Kingdom, is an unfinished testimony, and will be taken up again when the Church is translated during the tribulation.
From this point to verse 33 we find encouragement. The disciples are identified with their Lord (vv. 24, 25); therefore, they need not fear (vv. 26-28), for He cares for them (vv. 29-33). Then follows a description of the age in which we live, a time of war rather than peace (34-36); of separation on the part of Christ's followers (vv. 37, 38), and yet with the prospect of a bright recompense (vv. 39-42). Modern research throws light on a chapter like this. Take verses 9 and 10. Upon a monument at Kefr-Hanar in Syria, during this same period, one who calls himself "a slave" of the Syrian goddess tells of his begging journeys in her services, and uses the word for his collecting-bag here translated "scrip." He boasts that "each journey brought in seventy bags." The contrast with the followers of Christ is marked, who were neither to earn nor beg as they went forth with speed to herald His coming., Habershon.
Verse twelve is capable of two interpretations, an external and an internal one. In the first, the enemies of Jesus and John are the "violent" who are rejecting the Kingdom by force; in the second, the "violent" are those who in face of the opposition are pressing into the Kingdom. A description of that generation follows as a foolish one (vv. 16-19), but there were some who believed and are referred to in the words "wisdom is justified of her children." As the judge of that generation our Lord now speaks (vv. 20-27). "Woe," is heard for the first time. In the coming day there will be different degrees of punishment (vv. 22, 24), responsibility being gauged by privilege.
From the "wise and prudent" in their own eyes, i.e., the self-righteous Pharisees, these things were hidden, but were revealed unto "babes," the poor in spirit conscious of their need (v. 25). Our Lord now turns toward these in verses 28-30, in which he offers no longer the Kingdom, but rest and service to them that come to Him. Practically He has been rejected by the nation, and is approaching the turning point in His ministry, when the proclamation of the Kingdom shall cease.
As He is departing, the incident of 22-30 takes place, when He is again charged as the representative of Satan (v. 24, compared with 9:34). The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost consists in attributing His work to Satan (vv. 31, 32). "A word against the Son of Man" might be forgiven, for the Holy Spirit still remained to convict one of that sin by testifying to Christ. But when the testimony of the Holy Spirit to Christ was rejected as in this case, there was no hope left.
The opposition increases by the demand for a sign (vv. 38-42). Had He not given sufficient signs? Jonah is a type of His own death and resurrection and He will give him as a sign. The Queen of Sheba is another sign. But Israel is like a man out of whom a demon had gone of his own accord, and comes back to find the place unoccupied and brings seven other worse spirits to fill the former abode. The nation, in other words, had been cured of idolatry by the Babylonian captivity, but now it was boasting of forms and ceremonies, traditions and self-righteousness. It was empty so far as the fear of Jehovah was concerned, and by and by the evil spirit would return, and the end of Israel, i.e., the period of the tribulation, would be worse than the first.
The Lord is rejected even by His family, as we judge by comparing the closing verses of this chapter with the reason in Mark 3:21. He declines to see them, and intimates the formation of a new family of faith.
Questions 1. What is an essential qualification for an apostle? 2. What is the limitation of the apostles' commission at this time? 3. How does that limitation affect the teaching of chapter 10? 4. How may "violent" be interpreted in chapter 11? 5. On what principle will future retribution be rendered? 6. What is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost? 7. How would you explain verses 43-45? 8. How would you explain Jesus' reference to His mother and His brethren?
Another comment of interest is the order of the appearances of Jesus on this day.
In dividing the chapter we have
We can only touch upon the most important things, one of which is Christ's reference to His disciples as His "brethren" (v. 10). For the first time does he use that word in such connection, showing that until His death and resurrection on their behalf the relationship had not become possible. (Compare Ps. 22: 22 and Heb. 2:11, 12.) Another important thing is verse 13, "Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole Him away while we slept."
We give excerpts from Gaebelein on this verse:
"The watch recover from their fright, and some hasten to the city.
Surely something happened or why should they leave their post
to make a report? Then it is strange they went to the priests
first and not the Roman governor. This was an irregular
proceeding, from which we conclude that what they had to
report was of greater importance for the priests than Pilate.
Who knows but these priests had instructed the guard that if
He should come forth they were to come to them first of all?
Their report was a witness of the resurrection and that the
tomb was empty."
"The Sanhedrin was hastily summoned to receive the report in an offical way. The straightforward statement, as men of military training are apt to report, made doubt about veracity impossible. To impeach them would have been insane. But what would happen if this truth got out among the people?"
"The resurrection must be denied which could only be by inventing a lie. The only possible lie was that His disciples stole the body. The story is incredible. It is easier to believe He arose from the dead than to believe what the Jews invented about His resurrection. The disciples had forgotten about the resurrection promised and they were a scattered, poor, timid lot of people. But even if they had been anxious to steal the body, how could they have done it? Here was the company of armed men. Then there was the sealed, heavy stone."
"But the ridiculous side of the lie came out with the report the soldiers were to circulate. The disciples came and stole the body, while they were sleeping! It is incredible that all these men had fallen asleep at the same time, and so fast asleep that the commotion of rolling away the stone and the carrying away of the dead did not disturb them. Furthermore, sleeping at a post meant death for the Roman soldier. One might have nodded and risked his life, but that all slept is an impossiblity. But the report is foolish; they were asleep, and while asleep witnessed how the disciples stole the body of Jesus! It was a miserable lie, and is continued to the present day."
We might mention here the testimony of Josephus, who says in his Antiquities: "He appeared to them alive on the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning Him."
A third matter of importance is the "Great Commission" as it is called (vv. 19, 20). Note the word "Name" as indicative of the Trinity. It is not names but "Name." "Father, Son and Holy Spirit is the final name of the one true God. The conjunction in one name of the three affirms equality and oneness of substance."
Note the peculiarity of the terms. This is the Kingdom commission, as another expresses it, not the Christian commission. The latter is in Luke, distinctively the Gentile Gospel, but not here, which is distinctively the Jewish Gospel. And this is all the more remarkable because in Luke, the disciples are commanded to go to the Jews (24:47), while here they are commanded to go to "all nations." It points to the close of the age when the commission will be carried out by the faithful remnant of the Jews so often spoken about. It has not yet been carried out. The story of the Acts is not its fulfilment. Its accomplishment has been interrupted, but will be taken up before the Lord comes to deliver Israel at the last.
Questions 1. Repeat the order of the events on the day of resurrection. 2. Do the same with reference to the appearances of Jesus. 3. Divide the chapter into three parts. 4. How would you answer the argument that the disciples stole the body of Jesus? 5. What is the significance of the word "Name" in the "Great Commission"? 6. How do you distinguish the "Commission" in Matthew from that in Luke?
matthew
|
Sponsored Advertisements