MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF

1. Introduction. The gospel according to Matthew has always occupied a position of highest esteem in the faith and life of the Christian Church. This, in part, may be due to the fact that it heads the four gospels and is the first book of the NT, forming a bridge between the Old and New Covenants; but on the contrary, it would seem that the Early Church placed it in first position in the NT Canon, precisely because of the profound influence of its contents on the Church and the world; so much so, that many have termed it the greatest book ever written. William Barclay writes, “When we turn to Matthew, we turn to the book which may well be called the most important single document of the Christian faith, for in it we have the fullest and the most systematic account of the life and the teachings of Jesus” (The First Three Gospels, p. 197). The writings of the Early Church Fathers reveal that it was the most frequently quoted and perhaps the most widely read gospel during the first two centuries of the church’s history. In particular, it is the most complete record of the life, works and words of Jesus Christ in existence. After the Lord’s death and resurrection, there was much interest in knowing who Jesus really was and what He said and did. In fact, many believe the gospel was written to fulfill this need. For this reason the gospel lessons or pericopes from Matthew to be read in the churches have been favored by the church’s liturgies. More lessons were chosen from Matthew’s gospel than from any other.

It also has had much influence on lit., music and the fine arts both in and out of the Church. Matthew’s formulations of favorite texts, such as the Beatitudes, the Lord’s Prayer, and the passion narrative have been widely used in Christian lit. and in the Church’s preaching and teaching. J. S. Bach used Matthew’s VS of the Lord’s passion for his great oratorio known throughout the world as the St. Matthew Passion. The theology of Matthew, particularly the ethical content, has dominated the Church’s teaching perhaps even more than the theology of the gospel of John. Another reason for its wide acceptance has been the apostolic authority associated with Matthew’s name, an eyewitness and apostle of our Lord. In the years both before and after the writing of the gospel, the Church had great need for the authoritative Word of our Lord to instruct the faithful and to refute those who would divide the Church. It also became popular because of the full and orderly way in which it describes events and records the pronouncements and teachings of the Lord. The unique combination of the Lord’s life and teaching, and the theological theme of Jesus as the Messiah, became the final touchstone for its use and authority in the Church. The first gospel became a favorite of the Church because of its close relationship to the OT. Converts readily saw that it interprets the OT as a Christian book. Whether or not it was the first gospel committed to writing, its position in the NT testifies to its importance and influence in the eyes of Christians through the years, particularly during the first two centuries. Furthermore, it was an ecumenical gospel, upholding both Jewish and Gentile Christianity. All things considered, the first gospel is perhaps the most powerful document ever written.

The gospel is still doing for the church what it has always done. Because it bridges the OT and NT, it is still basic to both church and the world for the understanding of the teachings of Jesus Christ and of historical Christianity. The amount of lit. produced on the gospel of Matthew during recent decades indicates that the gospel still commands the attention of the Church and Biblical scholars. Everyone welcomes new insights into its treasured message. The Gospel contained in Matthew was certainly proclaimed in great detail by the NT prophets and apostles (Eph 2:20; 3:5) long before it was written down, and those who would learn what was preached and taught during the apostolic era have generally turned to the first gospel. To get behind all later formulations and systems of Christianity, the gospel merits the attention of Christians everywhere. In our time, with its social turbulence similar to what the Early Church experienced, the first gospel could restore broken bodies and spirits as in the days of Jesus and the apostles. When asked by a member of a Bible class which of the four gospels one should read first for a thorough understanding of Christianity, a well-known preacher and Bible scholar recently said, “Naturally, one should read all four gospels. Which one first? For many years I always pointed to Luke, but in our time I believe I would suggest that one read Matthew first and then the rest of the gospels in the order listed in the Canon of the NT.” See Gospels.

2. The title. The title of this gospel in most modern Bibles reads, “The Gospel According to St. Matthew.” This wording is an exact tr. of the title in many Gr. MSS which reads Εὐαγγέλιον Κατα Μαθαῖον, “The Gospel According To Matthew.” But the oldest Gr. copies of the gospel have the shortened form, “According to Matthew” (Κατα Μαθαῖον). Most scholars believe the original text had no title at all. When the early Christians wished to distinguish one gospel from another, they called the first gospel not the “Gospel of Matthew,” as we often say, but “The Gospel According to Matthew,” to distinguish it from the other VSS of Mark, Luke and John. There is only one Gospel, but four VSS or accounts of it. The term “Gospel According to Matthew” is, therefore, not the “Good News of Matthew,” but Matthew’s VS of the “Good News from God.” The Gospel is “God’s Story” of salvation and life, the best news story the world has ever heard. The earliest Church Fathers, for example, Irenaeus (a.d. 180), spoke of the fourfold Gospel canon in this manner; that is, that there is only one Gospel according to four different authors (Against Heresies III. 11, 8). The Church Fathers identified the four gospel writers with the four living beings or beasts named in Revelation 4:6, 7; cf. Ezekiel 1:10—the lion was Mark, the ox was Luke, the flying eagle was John and the the creature with the face of a man was Matthew. This symbolic identification is made in both Christian lit. and art.

3. The author. All four of the canonical gospels are anonymous. None of them begins with words like these, “Matthew, the apostle, to the Jewish Christians of Palestine,” as Paul introduces his apostolic letters (cf. Rom 1:1-4). Thus, paradoxically, the title “According to Matthew” does not mean that Matthew personally wrote the traditional first gospel. And the passing years have not made it clear who wrote it. There has been a great deal of discussion and lit. on the question. The question has not greatly troubled Christians, however, because they know they have an inspired authoritative gospel nevertheless. Of course, the fact that some question the authorship of Matthew does not mean, on the other hand, that he did not write the gospel.

From the earliest times the ancient Church has been clear, consistent and unanimous in attributing the first gospel to the Apostle Matthew. During those days there was no evidence at all that any other author ever claimed to have written the book, nor was it ever attributed to anyone except Matthew. No doubt the early view of Matthaean authorship grew out of the statement in Matthew 9:9: “As Jesus passed on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax office; and he said to him, ‘Follow me.’ And he rose and followed him.” The record of Matthew’s call in all three synoptics strengthened the view. Scholars believe that the identification became more positive from the fact that Mark and Luke call him by the name of Levi, the son of Alphaeus, the publican or tax collector.

The identification was aided by the fact that Jesus attended a dinner in Levi’s home and explained the Gospel to the Pharisees with the words, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Mark 2:14-17; Luke 5:27-32). The clincher was found in Matthew 10:3, where “Matthew the tax collector” is named among the twelve apostles (cf. Mark 3:18; Acts 1:13). It is interesting that after his name appears in the lists of the apostles, Matthew disappears from the history of the Church as recorded in the NT. Incidents which are attributed to him later prob. are legendary. He is known mainly for his writing of the first gospel—otherwise he would be almost entirely unknown.

Both of Matthew’s names are Heb. Could it be that he was the son of a man named Levi, “Matthew ben Levi,” and that he was a Levite? Perhaps, as in Peter’s case, Jesus gave him the name Matthew as a Christian-Jewish name, because it means “gift of Yahweh.” He certainly was a Jew because the gospel which bears his name is Jewish in character, and was written mainly for Jewish Christians. If so, he was a chosen vessel, “made to order” for his audience. Luke calls him Levi (Luke 5:27), and Mark adds “the son of Alphaeus” (Mark 2:14). It has been pointed out that Matthew-Levi’s call was not only daring on the part of Jesus because there was an inherent hatred of tax collectors among the Jews, but also an event in the life of the new kingdom since it was a symbol of the power of God’s grace and Jesus’ love for sinners. Only God could change a tax collector named Levi into a Christian apostle named Matthew. Tax collectors, or publicani, were both numerous and dishonest. Moreover, they were in the employ of the hated foreign government which dominated the land and sent taxes collected from both poor and rich alike to far-away Rome. Tax collectors collaborated with the enemy; in fact, they became the real enemy because the people did not actually see the government of Herod and Rome. They saw more often the tax collector. Rome did not collect her own taxes. The system was to farm out the taxes and let the collector collect as much over the rate as he could. Rome was satisfied with her quota—the tax collector could keep the balance as a fat commission. A man without a conscience could easily become rich and exploit beyond measure under such a system. Besides, there were many kinds of taxes, and those collected in the line of custom or duty on foreign goods brought into or through the country were the most lucrative. People were not informed of the customs rates and the collector could collect as much as he could get from each caravan or individual. No doubt this is the type of tax collecting in which Matthew-Levi was involved in Capernaum of Galilee. It is not surprising, therefore, that tax collectors among the Jews—and particularly Jews who collected from their own countrymen—were numbered with harlots, thieves and murderers, not only by Biblical writers but by secular writers as well (Matt 21:31, 32; Mark 2:15, 16; Luke 5:30: Cicero, De Officiis, I. 42). That such people came into the kingdom demonstrated well the power of the Gospel to reconcile men to God and to each other. For such a converted Jewish tax collector to write a gospel to Jews and Gentiles alike, as the gospel portrays, would give the gospel a special appeal and acceptance to “sinners.” In fact, it is more truthful to state that only such a person could write a gospel like Matthew-Levi’s gospel. And since he was also an apostle of the Lord, it was natural for the Early Church to attribute it to Matthew the publican; the Church would simply “know” that he wrote it.

This is a most plausible explanation of the authorship of the first gospel, since the evidence from the NT itself for Matthaean authorship is somewhat less than direct. This is, no doubt, the reason the Patristic evidence, esp. after the first two centuries of the Christian Era, persists. Origen states that “the first gospel was written by Matthew, who was once a tax collector, but who was afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew tongue” (Eccl. His., VI. 14. 5). Irenaeus writes: “Matthew also published a book of the Gospel among the Hebrews, in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the Church” (Against Heresies, III, 1. 1.). Eusebius reports a similar view: “Matthew, who preached earlier to the Hebrews, committed his gospel to writing in his native tongue, and so compensated by his writing for the loss of his presence” (Eccl. His., III, 24. 5). Later Jerome speaks in the same vein in his Prologue to the Gospels: “Matthew, the tax collector with the cognomen Levi, is the first of all to have published a gospel in Judea in the Hebrew tongue. It was produced for the sake of those Jews who had believed in Jesus and who were serving the true Gospel at a time when the shadow of the Law had not disappeared.” Jerome also writes: “Matthew, who is also called Levi, and who was changed from a tax collector into an apostle, was the first in Judea to compose a gospel of Christ in Hebrew for those of the circumcised who believed. But who later translated it into Greek is not known” (Illus. Men, 36).

Most scholars believe, however, that the traditional view of the Matthaean authorship rests squarely upon a sort of a double quotation from Eusebius in his famous Church History (III, 39. 16) who quotes another Church Father by the name of Papias who says: “Matthew compiled (or arranged) the logia (oracles) in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them (or translated them) as best he could.” The gospel was entitled “According to Matthew,” they say, because it contains the tr. of his collection of the sayings of Jesus, the Logia. By the term logia Papias was not speaking, it is believed, of a life of Christ or even a gospel, but a complete record of the sayings of Jesus. Scholars gave this unknown document the name “Q” or “Source.” Many believe now, however, that such a view is highly improbable since the term logion had been a technical term in Gr. for many years to designate a divine oracle or an inspired utterance, like the oracles at Delphi, and that there is a difference between logia and logoi (words). Other scholars, like E. J. Goodspeed, believe that the term “oracles” as used in Romans 3:2; Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 4:11, refers not to a set of OT passages or quotations about the Messiah which Matthew compiled, or prophecies which Christ fulfilled, but to an early Heb. gospel containing both the words and deeds of Jesus which Matthew had written down from the fixed oral tradition, either in Jerusalem or Antioch. It assumed that Matthew, being an apostle and one interested in Jesus’ words and deeds, must have been the first evangelist to write. Often men do not take into account that Papias himself discusses Mark before Matthew in the passage quoted. These assertions were expanded into a theory that Matthew wrote the first gospel but that he wrote it in a short form in Heb. or Aram. which then was used when the canonical gospel of Matthew was composed. For these reasons modern scholarship has for the most part abandoned the traditional Matthew authorship and believe the first gospel was ascribed to Matthew only because he was the author of one of its sources and not the author of the entire gospel itself. These scholars, however, believe this situation explains why the first gospel came to bear Matthew’s name.

While the view that Matthew originally wrote a gospel to the Hebrews in the Heb. language, as scholars have deduced from remarks by Church Fathers like Papias and Eusebius, may still be acceptable to some, this view also has been repudiated by most modern scholars. Even older conservative scholars had their doubts about this theory. They said it would be better to believe that Matthew wrote a gospel in Heb. and another in Gr. The “translation by inspiration” theory also has little acceptance today. The gospel tradition must have circulated in the Early Church in Aram., but the written gospels we know are Gr. books. Advocates of the Aram. gospel theory were compelled to develop a complicated hypothesis for which there is no real evidence in or outside the gospels themselves. If Heb. gospels or written information about the life and words of Jesus were in existence in the first days of the Church, and if Paul’s Gr. mission churches quickly outnumbered the Aram, churches, any Heb. originals may have disappeared early. A recent authority writes: “The thesis, which has been advocated again and again, that Matthew was the author of a chief source of Matthew (the Logia-Source, or of an Aramaic Matthew) and from that the entire Matthew was named is, therefore, a completely unfounded hypothesis. We must admit that the report about the Matthew composed by Matthew in the Hebrew language is false, however it may have originated” (Feine - Behm - Kuemmel, p. 85). Most NT scholars today believe that the internal evidence of all four gospels indicates that they were composed in Gr. but contain Aram. materials, some from oral and some from written sources.

The interpretive method known as “form criticism” also has been employed to ascertain the author and explain the nature of the first gospel. Following G. A. Kilpatrick’s view (1946) that the first gospel is a product of the Christian community and that the author is really an editor, Dr. Krister Stendahl (The School of St. Matthew, 1954), prominent NT scholar and theologian, has in recent years developed a theory that the writer or editor of the first gospel was a Christian rabbi who was interested in creating a manual for catechetical teaching in the Church. The rabbi was not working alone; an entire school of scribes and teachers was at work in the church of Matthew, a school which was the counterpart of the elders of Judaism. Not an individual, nor the community, but a group is the author. Is not the gospel characterized by a teacher addressed as “Rabbi” by a group of disciples around Him? The purpose of the Matthew school was to write a polemic to convert the unbeliever to the validity of Jesus as the Messiah. The structure of the Gospel into ordered sections of discourses and narratives indicates that the school attempted to create a manual or textbook for teaching and administration in the Church. The school is said to have influenced not only the shape, but also the actual materials of the gospel itself. While this theory throws much interesting light on the first gospel, it still results in an unknown author, and offers no more valid explanation of the character and purpose of the gospel than other views.

New Testament studies and criticism during the past 150 years, particularly in synoptic gospel studies, should be much appreciated and should not be denigrated in any manner, for much light has been thrown upon the NT; but a penetrating evaluation of all the theories, hypothesies and conclusions, sometimes offered without solid evidence, gives birth to the thought that the traditional view of Matthaean authorship of the first gospel should not be entirely excluded. The following considerations might be offered:

(a) The quotations from the Church Fathers relative to the authorship of Matthew may be used on both sides of the question. It is possible that Matthew may have written a gospel in Heb. of some type for Heb. Christians and converts, and then later wrote such a gospel in Gr., the gospel which bears his name in the canon. At least, he could have compiled a group of Aram. sayings or OT prophecies which were applied to our Lord for instructing Jewish Christians. Scholars believe that if he wrote a Gr. gospel (the one we have) then he could have used Mark and through Mark included elements of Peter’s gospel, particularly in the Antioch area, which would have drawn the Heb. and Gr. elements of the Church closer together. This aspect would coincide with one of the purposes of Matthew’s gospel.

(b) It must be admitted, however, that no fragment of an Aram. Matthew has ever been found and a Gr. edition is more plausible than a Gr. tr. Matthew’s gospel does not give evidence of being a tr., which is one of the weak evidences for the Aram. theory. The discussion of “Papias through Eusebius” should not overshadow the statement of Irenaeus which was written earlier than Eusebius’ statement: “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundation of the church” (Against Heresies, III, 1.1). It seems from this statement that Matthew was considered the author, at least of a gospel for the Jewish-speaking Christians, and that the appearance of a Gr. Matthew would be readily accepted, although one must admit this is in the area of conjecture. At least there is some historical tradition that Matthew actually wrote gospel material.

(c) It is not incredible that Matthew in writing a Gr. gospel would use a gospel like Mark which, if he wished to embody the Petrine material from Rome, would lend itself well to one of his purposes of drawing the Heb. and Gentile churches together. One must face openly, however, the extreme doubts of some modern scholars (doubts which have caused them to forsake the Matthaean authorship) that an eyewitness of the Lord’s words and life would lean heavily upon a non-apostolic person like Mark for his gospel.

(d) One must account for the unanimous early tradition which speaks for the Matthaean authorship of the first gospel. Matthew certainly had something to do directly with the gospel which carries his name. While it may be true that in ancient times books and documents sometimes were connected with famous names to gain for them recognition and authority, it remains a fact that Matthew was not one of the great figures of the Early Church. Hardly anything is known of him. He occupies little space in NT history. If he did not write the first gospel, it is most difficult to explain his connection with the gospel to which his name is attached. One might ask why Matthew is the only one of the synoptics who is denied authorship. The title Κατα Μαθαῖον is very old, perhaps as early as a.d. 125, and should imply authorship rather than nonauthorship. Scholars may come to the general conclusion some day that the Early Church did not ascribe the first gospel to Matthew because he was the source of one of its sources, but because he actually wrote it. It should be remembered that many theories which explain the origin of the gospels were brought forth not to ascertain authorship but to account for their similarities and dissimilarities.

(e) Although it may not be considered the strongest argument for authorship, the suggestion of the late Dr. E. J. Goodspeed, noted NT scholar, is worthy of note. He believed that Matthew’s occupation as a tax collector highly qualified him to be the official recorder of the works and words of Jesus and this is the practical reason why Jesus called him to be a disciple. Here was a man used to keeping books and records day after day. The entire contents of the gospel bear the marks of a tax collector. The tax collector, it is said, is one man who wrote everything down. “There was doubtless one special thing that Matthew did bring with him. To the rest of the disciples, to the men who worked on the fishingboats, a pen and a book would be strange and unfamiliar things; but Matthew’s work would make him familiar with the act of writing and recording. He left all, but he brought with him a talent that one day in some way he would use for his new Master” (Barclay, p. 208). The character of the gospel reveals the background and thinking of a tax collector. The story of the unforgiving debtor deals in millions of dollars. Throwing a small debtor into prison for a few hundred dollars is part of the vocabulary of a publican. Besides, this arrangement would be in keeping with the practice of the ancient prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah who had such writers and recorders (Isa. 8:16, 17). A man like Matthew could hardly keep from writing things down, completely and accurately.

(f) If the apostle Matthew, one of the Twelve, is not the author of our canonical Matthew, then the author is unknown to us. Two questions in this regard must be faced. How did it happen that the real author was forgotten so soon? The other is, how did Matthew become known as the author? If the tradition which attributes the gospel to Matthew cannot be fully explained or accepted, the alternate author or authors is just as difficult to determine. While Matthew 13:52 might be a veiled hint of a single author who was a learned rabbi or scribe, “Every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old,” his identity is still unknown. Although an unknown author of the first gospel may not disturb faithful Christians as long as such a proposal does not obviate the inspiration and authority of the gospel, there is no reason why an eyewitness and an apostle did not write the gospel according to Matthew. Another conclusion, it would seem, posits the interesting paradox that the first gospel is one of the greatest Christian treatises in the world which no one has written. See Matthew.

4. Structure and outline. An examination of the outline and structure of the gospel of Matthew reveals that it has been both orderly and artistically arranged. Although he has certain theological and didactic aims, Matthew employs the same general historical and chronological framework as Mark and Luke, esp. Mark. Yet he marshals his material in a topical rather than an exact day-by-day record. In the first gospel we do not look for an exact chronology of events, but the events of the Lord’s life written in such an order so as to teach certain lessons. Matthew was an evangelist rather than a historian. He always had the Church in mind. A rather deliberate artistic arrangement of the material in groups or units of three, five, and seven, is discernible, however. Some scholars, like Dr. Goodspeed, believe the gospel is arranged according to the pattern of many ancient Jewish works, for example, the five “books” or main divisions of the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and the Magilloth.

In Matthew each of the five “books” contains a narrative section (Jesus ministering) which is followed by a “lesson section” (Jesus teaching). Some have observed that Matthew was attempting to create a “New Testament Pentateuch” by this schematic arrangement. An outline of the five-book plan of alternate “deeds” and “words” sections may be constructed as follows:

Fivefold Narrative-discourse Arrangement of Matthew’s gospel

The idea is that as the five books of the Pentateuch contain the laws for the OT people, so the five discourses lay down the ethics which are to guide the life of the Christian. Each one of the divisions is concluded by a repeated formula: “When Jesus had finished these sayings” (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). Some believe these sections were meant to be read in the Christian meetings of worship. The formula might be understood: “Here ends the first, second, third, fourth and fifth book of the teachings of Jesus the Messiah.”

In attempting such a simplified division of the first gospel, however, it should be remembered that in certain instances the material is only generally divided according to this scheme and sharp, rigid sections are not to be expected. The arrangement is neither superficial nor forced but remains more or less topical. For example, some of Jesus’ shorter discourses are woven into the narrative sections. It seems strange also to designate the infancy narrative as mere prologue and the important passion, death and Resurrection section as conclusion or epilogue. It is necessary to point out that the first gospel itself says nothing directly about this arrangement. The Markan sequence and geographical framework alone seem to be the basis of the gospel. No deviation can be found up to Matthew 13:35. There is no evidence that Matthew wished to be a “new Moses.”

For facility in study and even memorization, as a church manual for discipleship, Matthew seems to have a penchant for grouping his materials also into threes and sevens. The miracles of chs. 8 and 9 are divided into groups of three. Chapter 13 has seven parables. And the genealogy which heads the gospel has the double division of three fourteens. Since the early Christians did not possess books as we know them, things had to be committed to memory if one was to have a “copy” of them. (No doubt such divisions were to aid the memory.) Other examples are easily seen: There are three main events in Jesus’ childhood (ch. 2); three temptations (4:1-11); seven strophes in The Lord’s Prayer (two more than Luke) 6:9-15; three prohibitions (6:19-7:6); three commands (7:7-20); three miracles of healing (8:1-15); three prayers in Gethsemane (26:39-44); three denials of Peter (26:69-75); seven woes (23); three questions by Pilate (27:11-17); seven demons (12:45); seven loaves and baskets (15:34, 37); forgiving seven times and seventy times seven (18:22); seven brothers (22:25). It has been said that the Gospel’s appeal lay not in its narrative or literary power, but in its practical ability to shape the life of the Church. It is a gospel that is easy to remember and to use for reference. The arithmetical arrangement seems too prominent to be overlooked.

The gospel also has been divided into three major parts around which the topical materials may be gathered. In this outline, as has been pointed out above, the infancy narratives and the death and Resurrection form the prologue and the epilogue:

Threefold Division of Matthew’s Gospel Prologue: Infancy narratives (chs. 1, 2)

First major part: Jesus in Galilee (4:12-13:58)

Second major part: Jesus the Messiah (chs. 14-20)

Third major part: Jesus in Jerusalem (chs. 21-25)

Epilogue: Death and Resurrection (chs. 26-28).

Others see in the design of Matthew a double outline or line of thought which can be detected from the formula “from that time Jesus began.” The first part of the double outline is primarily biographical, similar to that found in Mark and Luke, with two main points of departure. Point one: Matthew 4:17, “From that time Jesus began to preach,” which activity led to His great preaching ministry and brought Him into prominence. Point two: Matthew 16:21, “From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem,” which section shows His decline in public favor and His ultimate death on the cross. It seems that the author wishes to emphasize these two poles of Jesus’ life and works and Jesus’ entire life is to be conceived as having one divine purpose.

Within this first structure the second part of the double outline is to be found in the topical representations of Jesus’ words and activity, divided into various blocks of material in terms of five, three or seven, as we have seen. Each one of these sections concludes with the phrase, “when Jesus had finished” (11:1), and if one includes the introductory narrative and the story of the passion there are seven divisions in all.

An acceptable and usable outline of the contents of Matthew’s gospel, which takes into consideration a dominant theme of Matthew, that of Messianic fulfillment (see Section on Theological Purpose), is outlined below:

Jesus the Messianic Fulfiller

I. Introduction (1:1—4:16). Genealogy. Seven fulfillments of prophecy.

II. First Group of Messianic deeds and words. The annunciation of the kingdom and the call to repentance (4:17-7:29).

III. Second group of Messianic deeds and words (11:2-13:53). The contradicted Messiah seeks the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

IV. Third group of Messianic deeds and words (11:2-13:53). The contradicted Messiah conceals the kingdom from those who have rejected it (those who “have not” [Matt 13:12]) and further reveals it to those who have accepted it (those who “have” [Matt 13:12]).

V. Fourth group of Messianic deeds and words (13:54-19:1). Toward the new Messianic people God, the Church: The Messiah separates His disciples from the mass of old Israel and deepens His communion with His own.

VI. Fifth group of Messianic deeds and words (19:2-26:1). The Messiah gives His disciples a sure and sober hope.

VII. Conclusion (chs. 26-28). The passion, death, and Resurrection of the Messiah. The risen Lord in the perfection of His power: the universal commission to the disciples (M. H. Franzmann, The Word of The Lord Grows, p. 175).

A general outline of the subject matter of Matthew’s gospel, without specific reference to any schematic structure, is as follows:

General Outline of Contents

5. Theme and theological purpose. The theme of the first gospel is stated in the lead sentence of the book, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (1:1). One is reminded of the Book of Genesis which is divided into sections by the use of a similar phrase, “the generations of” or “book of the generations of” (Gen 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; etc.). In the OT the phrase marks a new stage in the development of the promises of the Messiah, carried on until David where the line ends. Matthew begins his genealogy at this point and shows in detail how Jesus of Nazareth fulfills the OT prophecies. In this manner Matthew imitates the structure of the OT, and perhaps in more than one way provides a definite bridge between the prophets and the NT fulfillment. All things considered, this is the dominant theme of the gospel, namely, the fulfillment of OT prophecy, and this forms at the same time Matthew’s main theological purpose. The purpose is indicated by the genealogy itself; Matthew begins the line with Abraham to show that Jesus is a true Jew while Luke traces him back to Adam as the true son of man (Luke 3:38). If Jesus’ lineage can be traced back to Abraham through David then He is the Messiah, the divine Son of God (Matt 22:42). If not, theologically speaking, Jesus could not be the One who died and rose again and be the “Sent One.”

The first gospel testifies that God is the Lord of all history and salvation and that Jesus Christ is His Son. Jehovah’s work and Word are so closely related in both the OT and the NT that God’s great works are described simply as the action of His Word (the Logos), His only Son. Nowhere is this theme more clearly illustrated than in the gospel according to Matthew, the gospel of fulfillment. God’s promise in the Covenant of the Messiah and Savior in the OT is fulfilled in the words and deeds of Jesus Christ in the NT. An outstanding example is Jesus before the high priest: “But Jesus was silent. And the high priest said to him, ‘I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.’ Jesus said to him, ‘You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven’” (Matt 26:63, 64).

To illustrate his theme, Matthew literally crowds his gospel with the entire Christological and Messianic aspects of the OT until he has quoted almost every book in the OT, over fifty quotations in all not counting the many echoes and allusions to the OT. His OT polemic is not limited to a few scattered references but is by far the most complete collection of passages bearing on the theme “Christ in the Old Testament” than any other writer, including Paul, in the NT. He quotes chiefly Isaiah, the Messianic and evangelical prophet, and the Psalms, but his quotes are representative of the entire OT in the law, the prophets, and the Psalms. One-fifth of his quotations are from Isaiah. Perhaps no other OT book influenced Matthew as Isaiah did. A study of the use of the OT in Matthew gives some credence to the belief of those who think that the statement of Papias about the Logia of Matthew refers to a collection of OT quotations on Christ the Messiah.

After his famous genealogy, he launches into the lowly birth of the Suffering Servant quoting Isaiah in fulfillment: “All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel’” (Matt 1:22, 23). After that, prophet after prophet and book after book is quoted by Matthew to illustrate that Jesus is the Messiah foretold by the OT Word. The glory of the Messiah, the ministry of the Messiah, the crucifixion of the Messiah, the resurrection of the Messiah, and the exaltation of the Messiah all receive due attention in Matthew so that his purpose is unmistakable. The Son of man has come for both salvation and judgment and in Him the present is the substance of the past and the future. No book in the NT sets forth the person of Jesus, His life and His teaching, so clearly as the fulfillment of the law and the prophets in Matthew. Some eleven times in the gospel he introduces prophecy with the impressive formula “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,” the cumulative effect of which is remarkable.

In all this prophecy and fulfillment, the Word does not once lose its character of history. Christianity is portrayed as a historical religion. Events are recorded as happening in the way they did because God had willed that it should be so. Even isolated events, the seeming unexplained, happened “according to the Scriptures.” Thus the Word has a history, being the culmination of God’s previous promises and mighty acts. It is history because a real Man comes into history to deal with real men in time and deals with their predicament of sin; it creates history in that the Word is strong and mighty, still fulfilling God’s will on earth.

Matthew’s gospel also represents a full expansion of the apostolic kerygma. In keeping with the view that Matthew used as source material the oral Aram. tradition, his gospel indicates that he followed the outline of this oral preaching (kerygma). The first generation of Christians, between the Resurrection and the writing of the gospels, had no complete written gospels; the only Scripture they had was the OT. The message which is indicated in the speeches of Peter in Acts (3:11-26; 10:36-43) and in certain sections of Paul’s epistles (1 Cor 15:3ff.) followed an outline something like this:

Apostolic Kerygma

1. God’s promises in the OT have been fulfilled.

2. The long-awaited Messiah, born of David’s line, is here with the kingdom.

3. He is Jesus of Nazareth.

4. In His ministry on earth, He went about preaching and doing good through mighty works of healing and power.

5. He was crucified according to the promise and will of God the Father.

6. He was raised from the dead and exalted at God’s right hand.

7. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.

8. Therefore, all should listen to His message, repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins.

This kerygma or “message” was the earliest gospel. Matthew’s gospel gives an expanded VS of it in great detail. One notices how much space he gives to the passion narrative. This is why the gospel was so popular in the Early Church. The earliest gospel was not, therefore, the Sermon on the Mount. This was one of Matthew’s special contributions to the teaching and life of the Church—the ethical teaching of Jesus. We should be reminded that this or the fulfillment of the historical interest was not Matthew’s primary objective, but a means to an end. The gospel is not a biography. It is impossible to write a life of Christ. Too few events are extant and only two to three years of Jesus’ life at the most are portrayed by all of the gospels together. The primary concern was not historical completeness but revelation and theology. In this concern, Matthew seems to exclude almost all material that is not theologically essential to the Messiahship of Jesus. The purpose was completeness of the divine revelation and the culmination of all earlier OT writings. It is not amazing, therefore, that the early Christians considered the OT a true source of the life and works of Jesus and thus placed the OT canon beside the Gr. Scriptures. The NT has definite continuity through Jesus Christ with the Messiah and Israel of the OT.

The fulfillment formula of Matthew follows two principles: (1) every event recorded of Jesus was foretold in the OT; (2) every prediction of the Messiah must find a corresponding event in the life of Jesus. Matthew carries these principles to great lengths in his gospel. He demonstrates that the Messiah descended from Abraham, born as King of the Jews (2:2), entered the Holy City in triumph as a King (21:4), born of a virgin as foretold by the prophet Isaiah (1:22), was conceived by the Holy Spirit (1:20), was called the Son of God (14:33). As the Messiah on earth, He fulfilled all the prophecies of the Old Covenant; His ministry, use of parables, betrayal, miracles, healing, suffering, death, coming in glory with angels (24:30), and sitting on His throne of Glory (25:31), all were foretold in the OT. Matthew covers the entire gamut of the Messiah in the OT, so much so that the NT is, as it were, an OT rerun. Perhaps the central point of this thesis was Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah at Caesarea-Philippi (Matt 16:13-20). It was all part of the divine Messianic plan of the ages, and is perhaps why Matthew’s gospel was used and read more by early Christians than any other. At the end of his gospel Matthew looks both backward and forward to Jesus Christ when he quotes these words of the Lord, “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Matt 28:20).

A secondary purpose of Matthew’s gospel, as was noted in the section on Structure and Outline, was to furnish the young church a manual of instruction in doctrine and church practice. Many believe it was not written for private reading and study so much as for the guidance of teachers in their teaching new converts. It is a teaching gospel, quite easy to remember and memorize. Perhaps it was the first textbook in Christian education to be used by the Church. It was designed also to be read aloud in the Christian worship services. Besides the Messianic fulfillment emphasis, the instruction from the gospel would present the ethical teachings of Jesus and the teaching of love and forgiveness, but these are included in the works and teachings of Jesus the Messiah.

6. Characteristics and special features. Matthew’s gospel is, first of all, a mission-type gospel, or a preaching gospel. The over-all purpose is to inform, convince, and evangelize the hearers, both Jew and Gentile, regarding the Messiah. The Messianic theme makes for the unity of the gospel. Some have said the gospel is a defense against all Jewish unbelief. It appeals to deep-rooted Jewish Messianic beliefs in order to convince all that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah. Matthew argues from the OT much as most preachers of the Early Church did.

The Messianic theme of Matthew may be outlined as follows:

1. The prophecies of the Messiah fulfilled—the Coming (1:1-4:11)

2. The teachings of the Messiah—great discourses (4:12-7:29)

3. The Deity of the Messiah revealed—the miracle (8:1-11:1)

4. The kingdom of the Messiah revealed—the parables (11:2-13:53)

5. The redemption of the Messiah proclaimed—the cross (13:54-19:2)

6. The opposition of the enemy—debates with opponents (19:3-26:2)

7. The passion of the Messiah—suffering, death and resurrection (26:3-28:10)

8. Conclusion: The Great Commission (28:11-20)

If Matthew wrote at a time when Jewish and Gentile Christianity were separate and in opposition, his gospel shows that there is both unity and ecumenicity in the Lord Jesus Christ. For Matthew, Christianity was not a divisive sect which was inventing a Christ or misusing the OT, but he shows that the divine purpose of salvation for all men was fulfilled in Jesus Christ the Messiah. The gospel is both universal and particular. The first gospel is, therefore, a gospel which teaches universal grace. It is an ecumenical gospel (Matt 9:12, 13). The first gospel also teaches much about the power of the Gospel. The Messiah’s call to the Christian is earnest, drastic, and by grace. All of the basic theology taught in the first gospel certainly had its personal reference to Matthew himself. The manner in which he records his call (Matt 9:9-13) shows how he appreciated the Savior’s love for all men. He certainly must have thought of himself when he wrote down the parable of the laborers in the vineyard (Matt 20:1-16). By his countrymen he was considered a renegade Jew who had turned his back upon Israel to make profit from the shady tax-collecting system of the Romans and the provincial government. No doubt he was a self-seeking materialist. For him the Lord’s call meant a sharp break with the past. The experience of being totally hated by his people, and then fully and completely accepted by grace left an indelible mark on Matthew the tax collector. On the one hand, he knew how sin could separate a man from God and his fellowman, and on the other, he realized how gracious was the call to repentance and service. Although he was a most unlikely candidate to be the author of a gospel, he was uniquely prepared to appeal to both Jew and Gentile for faith and commitment to the Messiah of the OT Scriptures.

The gospel of Matthew emphasizes the call to repentance and ministry. It is always a demanding absolute call. It involves the total man with his God. Matthew’s gospel is in unswerving opposition to any compromise with evil on the road back to God. No doubt this is why the discipline of winning the sinful brother, an evangelical duty which the Church has followed through the centuries, is found alone in Matthew’s powerful gospel (Matt 18:15-35).

Another prominent aspect of Matthew’s gospel is the emphasis on the obedience of faith. God initiates all dealings with His people on the basis of grace in Christ. Only God is good. The Christian gives himself wholly to the Savior and in faith and service. The sin of the Pharisee was as much halfheartedness as self-righteousness. Matthew, who from a human point of view should be the last to castigate righteous people in the eyes of men, pours the most scathing rebuke on the Scribes and Pharisees in the NT for their hypocrisy. He who once forsook the OT and its teachings, now becomes its most ardent supporter and interpreter. Men who have received the grace of God and entered into discipleship have learned from Matthew the true meaning of the Gospel and of the kingdom. Such discipleship is taught in the parable of the merciless servant (Matt 18). A man is set free to forgive and to free others. Matthew teaches that the Lord calls not only the sinner to repentence but also those who have become His disciples must daily repent (18:1-4). Every limitation of love is set aside when the Lord asks His disciples to love their enemies (5:44). Impetuous stubborn Peter, the impatient man of Galilee, is asked to forgive his brother not just seven times but seventy times seven (18:21, 22). Finally our Lord asks the disciples to make His cross their way of life in ministry and sacrifice (10:38).

The Messiah brings into being a new universal Church, the new Israel. Both Jews and Gentiles find refuge in it. Matthew is the only evangelist who uses the word church at all (16:18; 18:17). He speaks of the permanence of the Church and of discipline and forgiveness within it. The gospel opens with the promise that the Messiah is the Emmanuel who will be with His people and closes with the promise that this same Jesus, now the risen Christ, will be with His disciples of all nations until the end of time. The visit of the Magi to the infant Jesus early in the gospel, and Jesus’ long ministry in “Galilee of the Gentiles” (4:15) speaks of a universal Church. Yet this Christian Church universal in its membership, is no new church. It is the old Israel transformed and expanded (10:5).

The first gospel is known also for the extent and manner in which it presents the ethical teachings of Jesus. To the evangelist Matthew, as well as to Paul, there is a “law of Christ,” a principle of Christian love which becomes imperative for ethical living. Jesus is the great teacher who proclaims a revised law for the new Israel from the mountain in the Sermon on the Mount, even as Moses has spoken divine law on Mount Sinai. The Messiah calls His Church not only to repentance, but also to good works. The righteousness of the disciples must exceed that of the Pharisees. Christian life is free but it is moral and responsible, motivated by love. Even if the existing institution had corrupted and perverted the law, nevertheless it was divine revelation. The Messiah comes not to destroy it but to fulfill it and to supply what it lacked. Thus a large part of the Sermon on the Mount is replete with explanations of the law in which Jesus lays down the moral standards of love by which conduct of Christians is to be judged.

From a practical or methodological viewpoint, the gospel according to Matthew is a teaching gospel. It is characterized by lengthy discourses. It expands the action gospel of Mark which is more interested in what Jesus did than in what He said. The following is a list of prominent lengthy discourses in the gospel:

3:1-12 Preaching of John

5:1-7:29 Sermon on the Mount

10:1-42 The apostolic commission

13:1-52 The parables

18:1-35 The meaning of forgiveness

23:1-25:46 Denunciation and prophecy

28:18-20 The Great Commission

The gospel of Matthew features a large number of parables. The greatest single group of parables is in ch. 13. The illustrations are taken from everyday life and portray the nature and demands of the kingdom. Many of them are prophetic. Matthew says that the parables were intended both to reveal and conceal truth (13:10-13). Ten parables in Matthew are not found in any of the other gospels: tares, hidden treasure, net, pearl of great price, unmerciful servant, laborers in the vineyard, two sons, marriage of the king’s son, the ten virgins, and the parable of the talents. (There are two miracles in Matthew which are found only in Matthew’s gospel: two blind men, coin in the mouth of the fish.)

Matthew alone uses the phrase “the kingdom of heaven” (thirty-three times). Five times he speaks of the “kingdom of God.” Matthew’s gospel is also a royal gospel. The Messiah is pictured repeatedly as the great King. His lineage is traced back to King David; the Magi ask for the King of the Jews; he is called the “Son of David”; He enters Jerusalem in triumph; Pontius Pilate asks Jesus if He is the King of the Jews; over His cross the words are written, “This is Jesus the King of the Jews”; and in the climax of the gospel He claims all power over heaven and earth. One must conclude that the author of the gospel deliberately presents Jesus as the King.

Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus Christ as the Messiah may be patterned after the experiences of the people of Israel. Our Lord’s relationship to Egypt is particularly significant. As the children of Israel went down into Egypt in infancy and came out of it in the Exodus, so Matthew portrays Jesus in His infancy going down to Egypt and coming out of it in fulfillment of the prophecy spoken in Hosea 11:1, “Out of Egypt have I called my son” (2:15). Another parallel is Jesus’ temptation and fasting in the desert forty days and forty nights and Israel’s wandering in the desert for forty years (4:1, 2).

Matthew’s gospel may be characterized as an ecclesiastical gospel. Its interests are centered in the Church more than those of any of the other gospels. The Church is portrayed as an actual living body of worshipers and servants of Christ. The Sermon on the Mount and the parables in the gospel portray the ideals and life of the Christian congregation. This Church is interested in winning all of its erring members (Matt 18) and our Lord says the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Matt 16). The gospel speaks of prayer, giving, Christian rules for marriage and divorce, the sacraments, the teaching and preaching ministry. In fact, Matthew has much to say about the entire life and practices of the Christian Church.

While Matthew’s gospel is known for its lengthy discourses or teaching episodes, a main feature for which it is known is its complete form of the Sermon on the Mount. It contains the spiritual and moral principles of the new Israel. The ethic Jesus expounded was based upon the inner spirit, selfless love, and responsible evangelical living. It is also an interpretation of the old Mosaic law but not an abrogation of it (5:17). All Christians know the formula and authority of the Lord’s ethical teaching: “You have heard that it was said to the men of old....But I say to you” (5:21, 22).

Matthew’s gospel also is definitely a Jewish gospel. The outlook and flavor is Jewish, written by a Jewish Christian to guide the thought and worship of Jewish Christians in Palestine and Syria. The other gospel writers tend to explain Jewish words and phrases (Mark 7:1-13), but Matthew assumes his readers understand Jewish terms and customs.

Another specific feature unique to Matthew’s gospel is the manner of teaching the gospel through what has been called the extreme or critical case method. For example, it illustrates the Gospel by selecting those instances in which Jesus went to extreme limits to illustrate by word and deed the gracious word of God. In the Sermon on the Mount the poor will inherit the earth and the blessings of the kingdom are promised to the beggar, to the poor in spirit (Matt 5:3). What superb teaching to point out that the boundless grace of God is as wide and deep as the need of man! The miracles of Jesus are selected in the same manner. Three illustrate the boundless compassion of Jesus. He heals the leper whom no one can help (8:1-4); He assists the Gentile who is outside the commonwealth of Israel (8:5-13); He restores to health the woman which the culture of the day placed in second place as a creature of God (9:18-22). Troubled Christians throughout the centuries have considered the gospel credible because Jesus called a hated tax collector, a man whom the Jewish authorities always named the sinner and excluded from Jehovah’s grace, to be His disciple and apostle (9:9-13).

Matthew shows that our Lord taught by the extreme method in the ethical area. There are no limits of love because Jesus asks His disciples to love even their enemies, which implies that no man can consider another man his enemy (5:44). A classic example is Jesus’ instruction to Peter which went far beyond the apostle’s own estimate of love when