The Purpose Of Matthew’s Gospel — Part I

By Andy M. Woods

[Ph.D. Cand., Dallas Theological Seminary]

This series of articles represents an attempt to unveil the argument of Matthew’s Gospel. An argument is different than a typical journal article, which usually centers on a key exegetical issue; rather, an argument seeks to set forth the central point of a biblical book and then relate the contents of the entirety of the book to this central point. An argument asks what is the content of the book and how do each of its component parts contribute to its subject?

Attempting to uncover the argument of the canonical books is one of the most important exercises that a biblical interpreter can become engaged. While exegesis certainly has its place, it is of little value unless the interpreter first sees the general flow of thought of an entire book. Without first discovering a book’s argument, the interpreter is confined to straining so intensely at the veins on the leaves of the tree that he forgets what the forest looks like. However, Matthew’s message can best be appreciated only after the interpreter first grasps several key background issues. These background issues will be addressed in this article[1] and Matthew’s argument will be traced in the subsequent article.

Authorship

External evidence favors Matthew as the book’s author. External sources include Pseudo Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Dionysius, Theophilus, Cerinthus, Valentinus, and Tatian. Other sources confirming the authenticity of Matthew include the Didache, Ignatius, and Barnabas’ Epistle. The virtual unanimous voice of the early church is that Matthew is the book’s author. One wonders how such powerful tradition and external testimony could have emerged if Matthew had not written the book.

Interestingly, the earliest copies of the book contain the superscription “according to Matthew.” Only Matthean authorship explains the church’s early acceptance of the book.

Internal evidence also demonstrates Matthean authorship. Although Matthew does not identify himself as the book’s author, such an omission is not surprising. As a tax gatherer (10:3) he no doubt felt shame regarding his former profession and therefore omitted his name from the book. Interestingly, the book also omits other stories that Jesus told about tax gatherers (Luke 18:9–14; 19:1–10). Matthew’s reluctance to identify himself as the book’s author no more disqualifies him from being its writer than John’s continual reference to himself as the disciple whom Christ loved (John 19:26) disqualifies him from being the author of the fourth Gospel. If a forger had written the book, he probably would have used a prominent name as opposed to creating an anonymous work.

Despite Matthew’s desire for anonymity, several internal clues still point to him as the book’s author. For example, while the other Gospel writers refer to a party given for the Lord in Matthew’s house (Mark 2:14–15; Luke 5:29), Matthew referred to this same event as taking place in “the house” rather than “his house” (9:10). Moreover, while the other writers refer to this occasion as a great banquet (Luke 5:29), Matthew referred to it simply as a dinner (9:9–10). Also, unlike the other Gospel writers’ list of the various disciples, the phrase “tax collector” is only associated with Matthew in Matthew’s list of the disciples (10:3). Additionally, while Matthew’s Gospel simply alludes to Matthew as a “tax gatherer” (10:3) or a publican (9:9), the other evangelists used his surname Levi when referring to him (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27, 29). Interestingly, Paul followed a similar practice by only referring to himself with his post conversion name when penning his letters.

Matthew the tax collector would be a logical candidate as the book’s author since it contains more financial references than any of the other Gospels. Allusions to money and rare coins are replete throughout the book. Only Matthew speaks of a “talent” (18:24; 25:14–30). This monetary denomination was a sum of such magnitude that only a tax gatherer would have been familiar with it. Indeed, Matthew used three words for money that none of the other Gospel writers used (17:24, 27; 18:24). Other financial terms found throughout the Book of Matthew include debt, account-taking or reckoning, and money-changers (18:23–24, 27; 25:19, 27). With the exception of debt, these terms are unique to Matthew. Matthew is also unique in comparison to the other Gospel writers through his employment of the terms gold (chrusos), silver (arguros), and brass (chalkos). Interestingly, only Matthew records Christ’s payment of the two-drachma tax (17:24–27).

Other factors make Matthew an appropriate candidate for the book’s writer. For example, his occupation as a publican (Matt 9:9; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27) would have meant that he was literate and adept at keeping records. Also, because Matthew was from Capernaum (Mark 2:1–14), he would have been a logical candidate to write the Gospel since it seems to place a special emphasis upon this city (4:13; 9:1; 11:23). Furthermore, because Matthew was a Jew living inside the land, he would have been familiar with the Jewish geography, history, customs, ideas, classes, and terminology that are so prominently displayed throughout the book. Matthew’s biography demonstrates God’s grace. As a tax gatherer (Matt 9:9; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27), he was considered both a thief (Luke 3:12–13; 19:2, 8) and a traitor by his peers. In biblical times, tax gatherers were placed in the same category as sinners, Gentiles, and harlots (Matt 5:46; 18:17; 21:31–32; Luke 7:34; 15:1; 18:13). Despite this vile background, Christ extended grace to him and even selected him to write the first book of the New Testament canon featuring Christ’s royal identity.

While Levi was his surname (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27), Matthew was his apostolic name. His name means “gift of the Lord.” He was the son of Alphaeus (Mark 2:14) and his hometown was Capernaum. The ministry of John the Baptist and Christ may have already impacted him since he immediately obeyed the Lord and followed him when called (9:9). Matthew walked with Christ for most of His ministry and was therefore an eyewitness to Christ’s incarnation and earthly ministry. Matthew is listed as being in the inner circle as one of the original twelve disciples (Matt 10:1–4; Mark 3:13–19; Luke 6:12–16). Luke also mentioned him as waiting with the other disciples for the Holy Spirit after Christ’s resurrection (Acts 1:13).

Some sources indicate that Matthew later became a member of an ascetic, Judaistic branch of Christianity. However, membership in such a group should not be construed as legalism on Matthew’s part since legalism runs counter to the character of Matthew’s Gospel and because the early church seemed to adhere to some aspects of the Mosaic Law (Acts 15:29). Matthew probably preached in Judea for fifteen years before becoming a missionary to various foreign countries. While one source indicates that Matthew preached in Ethiopia and Persia, another source indicates that he traveled to Parthia. Nothing definitive is known of Matthew’s death although one source indicates that he died in Ethiopia of natural causes.

Original Language

Eusebius quoted Papias as indicating that Matthew originally recorded the “oracles” or logia in Hebrew.[2] Therefore, many believe that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic and that this original copy was later translated into Greek. However, several reasons make it unlikely that Matthew is a Greek translation from the Aramaic. First, Matthew’s Gospel contains no Aramaisms. Second, Matthew’s clarification of Jewish customs (Matt 27:7–8, 15) would be an exercise in redundancy if Matthew’s original readers were Palestinian, Aramaic. Third, if the book was translated from Aramaic to Greek, then one would not expect Aramaic words to be retained and given a translation as one often finds in Matthew’s text (1:23; 27:33, 46).

Fourth, many scholars believe that Matthew’s book does not read like a translation but rather an original. Fifth, early works quoting Matthew, such as those of Ignatius and the Shepherd of Hermas in addition to the Didache, do so in Greek rather than Aramaic. Sixth, although Semitic traces are detectable in Matthew, this is not surprising given Matthew’s Semitic background. Seventh, although there are thousands of Greek manuscripts of Matthew’s Gospel dating back to the fourth and fifth century, there is not a single Aramaic copy of Matthew’s Gospel. Furthermore, no church father ever refers to an Aramaic translation. Therefore, Matthew probably wrote his entire book in Greek rather than Aramaic.

If this is true, then how is Papias’ statement to be understood? Several options are possible. Perhaps Matthew wrote some of the sayings of Christ in Aramaic, which another used along with other documents to create Matthew’s Gospel. However, this option should be dismissed since it also involves attributing Matthew’s Gospel to someone other than Matthew. Perhaps Matthew wrote everything except Christ’s discourses in Greek. Perhaps Papias just meant that although Matthew was written in Greek, it was composed according to a Hebrew literary style. Perhaps Matthew wrote two Gospels, one in Aramaic and the other in Greek. While the former was not inspired and preserved, the later was inspired and preserved. However, because there is no manuscript evidence of a former Aramaic Gospel, this theory rests upon speculation.

Perhaps Papias was in error regarding the language used or even confused Matthew’s Gospel with the Book of Hebrews. Perhaps Eusebius misconstrued what Papias said. One truly has no possibility of verifying Papias’ words since one is only aware of them through the pen of Eusebius. Indeed, nearly all of the knowledge of early fathers supposedly contending for Matthew’s Hebrew origin is cited by Eusebius. Therefore, there is no possibility to validate if Eusebius accurately recorded what they said. The credibility of Eusebius’ writings has been attacked in other areas since he sometimes incorporated the apocryphal stories. In sum, it seems best to conclude that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Greek and to hold to Papias’ statement loosely until more information is forthcoming.

Sources And Synoptic Problem

The issue of whether Matthew used sources in compiling his material leads into the whole controversy regarding the “synoptic problem.” This problem involves creating a suitable explanation in order to explain the similarities and differences between the three synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke).[3] The first explanation is the interdependence theory. Adherents of this view maintain that the first Gospel writer relied upon oral tradition in composing his work. The second writer then depended upon the work of the first writer. The third writer then consulted the work of the first and second writers. However, there is no blatant evidence that one Gospel writer depended upon the work of another Gospel writer. Furthermore, the theory fails to explain the omissions and differences between the Gospels.

The second explanation is the fragment theory. According to this view, each Gospel writer drew from various short written narratives. Some narratives contained Christ’s parables. Others contained Christ’s miracles. Still others contained information about Christ’s passion. This view has in its favor the fact that Luke indicated that narratives were in existence for the Gospel writers to draw (Luke 1:1–4). This view also explains the differences among the Gospels. However, the theory suffers because there is no evidence of the degree to which Luke and the other writers depended upon these outside sources. Indeed, it is not known if Matthew or Mark consulted such sources. Also, it fails to explain the agreement among the Gospels. Additionally, there is no external proof that these written narratives ever existed.

The third explanation is the oral transmission theory. According to this view, oral tradition was transmitted from the apostles and became fixed through constant repetition. The Gospel writers then drew from this tradition when composing their books. This theory takes advantage of the importance of oral tradition to the early church. It is because the Jews committed volumes of material to memory that it is likely that the early church followed this practice as well. Oral tradition was also significant in the early church since its immediate focus was evangelism rather than literary output. However, the theory suffers because it fails to explain why eyewitnesses would have depended upon tradition in composing their works. It also fails to explain why so many divergences exist among the Synoptic Gospels if tradition was as fixed as the theory’s proponents argue.

The fourth explanation is the urevangelium theory. This theory states that oral tradition was encapsulated in an original Gospel. All three Gospel writers then drew from this first Gospel in composing their material. However, the theory suffers by failing to explain the differences and omissions among the synoptic writers. Also, there is no manuscript evidence of an original gospel. Indeed, no biblical or patristic writer ever makes reference to such a gospel. Furthermore, why would eyewitnesses depend upon an outside source?=

The fifth explanation is the two-document theory.

This theory assumes that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark. This assumption is based on the fact that 606 of Mark’s 661 verses are found in Matthew and 320 of Mark’s 661 verses are found in Luke. On the one hand, 7% of Mark is unique. On the other hand, 93% of Mark’s Gospel can be found in Matthew and Luke. Also, both Luke and Matthew seem to follow Mark’s order. Whenever one of the writers departs from these orders, the other follows it. The presupposition of Marcan priority is also made on the basis of the fact that Matthew and Luke seem to stabilize of Mark’s primitive[4] and harsh language (Mark 4:35–41; Matt 8:32–37) and Mark is a smaller Gospel that was later expanded by Matthew and Luke. “Q” is a document supposedly created in Antioch in AD 50–70. It is said to have consisted of 200–50 verses and accounts for the common material found in Matthew and Luke that is absent from Mark (Matt 7:3–5; Luke 6:41–42; Matt 23:37–39; Luke 13:34–35). The major weakness of the two-document theory is that it does not account for the material unique to Matthew or Luke. For example, the Good Samaritan material is found in Luke (10:25–37) and yet omitted from Mark and Matthew.[5]

This weakness has given rise to the sixth explanation, which is the four-document theory.

This theory builds upon the two-document theory but also includes “M” and “L.” “M” was allegedly written in AD 60 from Jerusalem. Its 300 verses contain material found in Matthew that is not found in Mark or Luke. Such material includes various parables, material followed by an introductory formula, and anti-pharisaical yet pro-Jewish mission material. “L” was allegedly written from Caesarea in AD 60. Its 580 verses contain material found in Luke that is not found in Matthew or Mark. Such material includes Christ’s detailed sayings, fourteen parables, thirty narratives, and those aspects of Christ’s ministry emphasizing the need for humility, attacking self-righteousness, and comforting the common man. The main strengths of both the two document and four document theories is that they incorporate the understanding that the Gospel writers consulted sources (Luke 1:1–4) and they attempt to explain the source of all the material found in the Synoptics.

However, despite the strengths of these theories, they are fraught with problems. First, they assume Marcan priority. Marcan priority is problematic since it may wreak havoc on the dating of other New Testament books. It is because Mark received his material from Peter in Rome that Mark’s Gospel was probably written near Peter’s death in AD 68. Consequently, if Mark was written in AD 67, Matthew and Luke may have been written after AD 70.[6] This late date for these books seems strange since both of them predict the coming AD 70 judgment without commenting upon its fulfillment in history (Matt 21:41; 22:7; 23:36; 24:2; Luke 21:20–24). Such an absence is particularly problematic for Matthew because of his interest in using fulfilled prophecy to validate Christ’s messianic credentials. Also, if Luke was written after AD 70, Acts was written even later since it was the sequel to Luke. However, Acts was probably not written after AD 70 since it makes no mention of this event. It is more likely that Acts was written in AD 62–64 since the book cuts off abruptly with no mention of the outcome of Paul’s impending trial before Caesar.

Marcan priority is also problematic since tradition favors Matthean priority. Tradition unanimously states that Matthew wrote first.[7] Tradition should be accepted unless it is first proven to be unreliable. Another problem with Marcan priority is that it fails to explain why Matthew, who was an eyewitness to the events, would need to borrow from Mark who was not an eyewitness. For example, when describing a banquet in his own home (Matt 9:9–13), why would Matthew use Mark as a source (Mark 2:13–17) instead of recounting this event from his own perspective as an eyewitness? Furthermore, Marcan priority makes Mark the most authoritative Gospel. However, Mark should not be considered the most authoritative Gospel since he was not an apostle and Matthew was an apostle. This hierarchy should be reversed. Finally, the Jewish content of Matthew argues for its priority since the early church at its inception was primarily Jewish. It stands to reason that the most Jewish Gospel would be the first to be written in the church age since the church was primarily Jewish at its earliest stages.

Second, there is no manuscript evidence confirming the existence of “Q,” “M,” or “L.” Patristic and biblical writers fail to mention any of these documents. If these documents were so instrumental in producing the Gospels, it seems strange that the early church would not have preserved them; rather than being the product of early Christianity, they instead seem to be the product of nineteenth century scholarship.

Third, it is unlikely that Matthew and Luke used Mark. For example, the two and four document theories fail to explain the agreements of Matthew and Luke contrary to Mark. This phenomenon occurs over 200 times.[8]

Interestingly, Mark sometimes includes material (Mark 14:72) that is not incorporated by either Matthew or Luke. Also, Luke failed to incorporate material from the middle section of Mark (6:45–8:26). Additionally, “Luke followed Mark’s order when Matthew did not and Matthew follows Mark’s order when Luke did not.”[9]

The seventh explanation for resolving the synoptic problem is the composite or eclectic theory. This view is the most attractive one and is built upon several factors. First, this view not only takes into consideration the fact that Matthew was an eyewitness but also acknowledges that Mark and Luke were one person removed from the eyewitnesses. By way of analogy, although only Peter, James and John were eyewitnesses to Christ’s transfiguration (Matt 17:1–2), they communicated this event to others subsequent to Christ’s resurrection (Matt 17:9). Similarly, Mark as a Jerusalem resident not only had access to the eyewitness testimony of the Jerusalem apostles, but he also had access to the testimony of Peter (1 Pet 5:13). Mark also could have heard Christ’s direct teaching, heard the various sermons of the apostles, and received information from Luke (Phlm 24). In the same way, Luke had access to eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2) such as Mary. Luke also had ample opportunity to interact with other apostles since he journeyed to Jerusalem with Paul (Acts 21:17). Luke also had access to the Apostle Paul. Since he had contact with the other apostles and received direct revelation from God, Paul’s testimony would have proven to be valuable.

Second, this view also takes into consideration the prevalence of oral tradition (John 21:25). Since Acts 20:35 contains a statement by Christ not found in the Gospels and because the book of 1 Corinthians (7:10; 11:25) records statements by Christ before most of the Gospels had been written, oral tradition was obviously prevalent and exerted influence over the Gospel writers. Third, this view acknowledges that the Gospel writers could have consulted written sources (Luke 1:1–4). Fourth, this view acknowledges that the Gospel writers could have consulted one another’s work. Fifth, this view explains the differences among the synoptics in terms of each writer selectively including and excluding material that fit with his purpose in writing. Sixth, this view acknowledges the miraculous intervention of the Holy Spirit who could have revealed new truth to the writers just as He revealed new truth to Paul (John 14:26; 16:12–13; 2 Tim 3:16–17; 2 Pet 1:20–21).

Date

Matthew obviously had to have been written prior to AD 110 since Ignatius mad reference to the book. Liberals typically date the book after AD 70 since they believe it is impossible that Matthew could have known of the events of AD 70 ahead of time (Matt 21:41; 22:7; 24:2). However, this position emanates from an anti-supernatural bias rather than sound scholarship. Others date the book late on the basis that the book incorporates a baptismal formula that began later in church history (28:19). However, this statement could have just as easily proceeded from the lips of Christ.

Still others suggest a late date on the basis of the continuation of the name of the potter’s field (27:7–8) and the continuation of the story that the disciples stole the body (28:13, 15) even “to this day.” Late date proponents argue that this phrase suggests a lengthy period in between the transpiring of the recorded events and the writing of the book. However, not too long of an intervening time period is needed in order to accomplish these events. Interestingly, these events actually result in an argument for a pre-AD 70 date since they presuppose no major upheaval for national Israel. Other factors arguing for a pre-AD 70 date include references to the city of Jerusalem as if it were still standing (4:5; 27:53) in addition to a lack of mention of the fulfillment of Christ’s prophecies of Jerusalem’s destruction. Matthew certainly would have mentioned this event if his book were written after the fact because of his interest in using fulfilled prophecy in order to establish Christ’s messianic credentials. If the book was written to Jewish believers living inside the land of Israel, it obviously must have been written prior to AD 70.

Irenaeus moved the date even earlier when he says that the book was written during Nero’s reign while Peter and Paul were in Rome.[10] Since these apostles were martyred in AD 67–68, the book obviously had to have been written prior to this time. Whether one dates the book closer to AD 70 or earlier depends upon whether he adheres to Marcan or Matthean priority. Since Mark was probably written around AD 65, adherence to Marcan priority causes Matthew’s Gospel to be dated even later. However, as previously explained, Marcan priority is problematic. It counters tradition, forces an eyewitness to depend upon a secondary source when recounting events, places Mark’s non-apostolic Gospel into the most authoritative position, ignores the logical reality of the most Jewish gospel being written at a time when the church was heavily Jewish, and forces Matthew, Luke and Acts to be given a post-AD 70 date. Due to the preference for Matthean priority, a date of AD 45–50 for the composition of Matthew’s Gospel seems appropriate.

Place Of Writing

Numerous suggestions have been made for the place of writing of Matthew’s Gospel. Among them are Alexandria, Edessa, Syria, and Caesarea. However, Judea and Syrian Antioch are the primary places where it is believed that Matthew’s Gospel originated. The Judean place of writing is affirmed because that is the general place where Matthew lived and worked in the years following the birth of the church. However, it seems preferable to argue that Matthew wrote his Gospel from Syrian Antioch. Interestingly, Ignatius was the first known church father to quote from Matthew’s Gospel. Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch. Also, if Matthew’s stylistically Hebraic Gospel was originally composed in Greek, then Antioch would serve as a logical place of origin for the book since the city was primarily comprised of Greek speaking Jews. Antioch would also be an appropriate place to write the book from since the city served as the base of operations for the church’s early Gentile missionary outreach (Acts 11:19–30). Matthew’s emphasis upon Gentile inclusion and Israel being presently set aside would serve as a helpful explanation for the church during this critical transitionary time period.

Recipients

Although no specific target audience is mentioned, various clues make it apparent that Matthew had a believing Jewish audience in mind. The Jewish nature of the letter is apparent by noting several factors. First, the book contains a disproportionate number of Old Testament citations and allusions. Of the books 129 Old Testament references, 53 are direct citations and 76 are allusions. On thirteen occasions, Christ’s actions are said to be a fulfillment of the Old Testament. Second, the book follows a five-fold division. The five major sermons of the book are delineated through the repetition of the concluding formula “when He had finished saying these things” (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). This fivefold structure would have immediately been recognizable to the Jewish mind since Jews had a tendency to categorize items, such as the Books of Psalms and the Pentateuch, according to a fivefold division. Third, although originally written in Greek, the book evidences a Hebraistic style, parallelism, and elaboration.

Fourth, τότε (“then” or “at that time”) reflects a Jewish style. While this term is employed ninety times in Matthew, it is only used six times in Mark, fourteen times in Luke, and ten times in John. Fifth, the vocabulary of the book is distinctly Jewish. The following Jewish terms are found in the book: David,[11] Jerusalem as the Holy City (4:5; 27:53), city of the great king (5:35), lost sheep of the house of Israel (10:6; 15:24), kingdom of God, and kingdom of heaven.[12] Sixth, the subject matter of the topics covered is distinctly Jewish. Among the topics covered are the Law, ceremonial defilements, Sabbath, kingdom, Jerusalem, Temple, Messiah, prophecy, prophets, David, Abram, Moses, scribes, Sadducees, and Pharisees.

Seventh, Matthew’s genealogy reveals a Jewish audience since Matthew traced Christ back to David and Abraham rather than back to Adam (Luke 3). Eighth, Matthew placed a special focus upon the Apostle Peter. Since Peter was the apostle to the circumcised (Gal 2:7–8), Matthew’s focus on Peter harmonizes with the Jewish emphasis of his book. Ninth, unlike the other Gospels that explain Jewish customs to Gentile audiences, Matthew left these same Jewish customs unexplained. This is true not only with regard to Jewish rulers (Matt 2:1, 22; 14:1; Luke 2:1–2; 3:1–2) but it is also true with regard to ceremonial cleansing (Matt 15:2; Mark 7:3–4). The customs that Matthew does explain are of Roman rather than Jewish origin (Matt 27:15). Although some of Matthew’s writings seem to anticipate at least some kind of Gentile audience by giving the interpretation of some Jewish words (1:23; 27:33, 46), it does seem to be a general rule that Matthew provides fewer interpretations of Jewish customs than any other Gospel writer.

Tenth, various church fathers, such as Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius believed that Matthew wrote to a Jewish audience. Not only was Matthew written to a Jewish audience but also to a believing audience. In other words, Matthew’s audience primarily consisted of Jewish Christians. Both Eusebius[13] and Origen[14] indicated that Matthew was written to those within Judaism who came to believe.

Purposes And Message

Matthew wrote in order to accomplish three purposes. First, he wrote to convince his Jewish audience that the Christ in whom they had believed was indeed the long awaited Jewish messiah. Therefore, Matthew demonstrated that Christ was the rightful heir to the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants. Matthew appeals to a variety of devices to accomplish this purpose such as genealogies, fulfilled prophecy, messianic titles, kingdom teachings, and miracles. Since the Jewish understanding was that the kingdom would be immediately established upon the arrival of the king (Isa 9:6–7; Matt 20:20–21), the next logical question that a Jew would ask is, “if Christ is indeed the Jewish king then where is His kingdom?”

Therefore, Matthew wrote for the second purpose of explaining why the kingdom had been postponed despite the fact that the king had already arrived. In order to accomplish this purpose, Matthew carefully traced the kingdom program. Here Matthew explained the kingdom’s offer to the nation (3:2; 4:17; 10:5–7; 15:24), its rejection by the nation (11—12; 21—23; 26— 27), the present interim program for those who will inherit the kingdom (sons of the kingdom) due to Israel’s rejection of the kingdom (13; 16:18), and the nation’s eventual acceptance of the kingdom (23:38–39; 24:14, 31; 25:31). The notion of a past rejection and future acceptance of the kingdom by national Israel would lead to the question, “what is God doing in the present?”

Therefore, Matthew wrote for the third purpose of explaining God’s interim program. Here, Matthew introduced the interim program that the sons of the kingdom will experience (Matt 13) in addition to the advent of the church (Matt 16:18; 18:17; 28:18–20). The church age represents God’s present earthly program in between Israel’s past rejection and future acceptance of the king and His kingdom. Since Christ’s disciples would play foundational roles in the church (Eph 2:20), Matthew explained how Christ prepared them not only for His death but also for their new role in the church age.

At the time of writing, the Gentiles were beginning to become more prominent in the church; consequently, the Jewish believers needed an explanation for this Gentile inclusion. Therefore, Matthew explained how God’s interim program would thrust the Gentiles into prominence (2:1–12; 8:11–12; 13:38; 15:22–28). In sum, Matthew selectively (John 20:30–31; 21:25) included material from Christ’s life in order to accomplish these purposes. Therefore, the message of Matthew is the confirmation to Jewish Christians that Jesus is their predicted king who ushered in an interim program by building the sons of the kingdom into the church in between Israel’s past rejection and future acceptance of her king.

Sub-Purposes

In addition to this overarching purpose, Matthew wrote to accomplish three sub-purposes. First, Matthew wanted to confirm the Jewish Christians in their faith. He wanted them to understand that the Jesus in whom they had believed was indeed the Jewish king. This was true in spite of the fact that the kingdom had not immediately materialized according to their expectations and instead God’s program had taken a new direction. Second, Matthew wrote to offer the believing Jews an explanation regarding Gentile inclusion in God’s present program. This was an explanation that the believing Jews desperately needed since the church was on the verge of becoming predominately Gentile through the coming three missionary journeys launched from Syrian Antioch. Therefore, Matthew wrote his Gospel from this very locale for the purpose of assisting the church through this delicate transition. Third, Matthew wanted to encourage the Jewish Christians. Therefore, he explained that although Israel had rejected her king, God was going to use this negative act for the positive purpose of including the Gentiles. He was also going to restore the kingdom to Israel in the future.

Structure

Matthew’s Gospel contains several structural markers. One way of structuring the book is by tracing the previously described kingdom program from its offering to the nation, its rejection by the nation, the interim program for the sons of the kingdom due to the kingdom’s absence, the re-offer of the kingdom to the nation, and the nation’s eventual acceptance of this offer. A related pattern is the transition from Christ’s public teaching and miracles to the nation (1—12) to His private teaching and miracles for the benefit of the disciples (13—28). His public miracles and teachings displayed in the first half of the book are related to the offer of the kingdom to Israel. However, after it becomes apparent that Israel’s religious leaders will reject Christ (12:24), He then transitioned into a private ministry directed toward the disciples. In this phase, His miracles were used primarily as teaching devices for the benefit of His disciples. Furthermore, no longer was Christ teaching for the benefit of the nation but now He taught in parabolic form in order to conceal truth from the nation and instead to reveal truth to His disciples who will become the leaders in the soon to be birthed church. The offer of the kingdom that was so prevalent in the first part of the book (3:2; 4:17; 10:7) is omitted from this second section of the book.

However, another clue involves the twofold repetition of the phrase “from that time on” (4:17; 16:21). These two phrases reveal the two great purposes for Christ coming to earth. The first great purpose involved His offering the kingdom to Israel (4:17). The second great purpose involved dying on the cross (16:21). These two purposes are related to each other in the sense that Israel’s rejection of the kingdom offer was made official with the nation’s decision to hand Christ over to the Romans for execution.

Another structural clue is the repetition of the concluding phrase “when He had finished saying these things” (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). This formula alerts the reader to the book’s five major discourses. Each discourse concludes with this phrase. Therefore, the five major discourses include the Sermon on the Mount (5—7), the missionary discourse (10), the kingdom parables (13), the discourse on humility (18), and the Olivet Discourse (24— 25).

A final structural clue involves geography. Christ’s life and ministry seems to transition through three geographic movements. The first section of His life ministry occurs in Bethlehem and Nazareth (1:1–4:11). The second major section of His life and ministry is in Galilee (4:12–16:12). The third major section of His ministry is in Judea (16:13–28:28).

Conclusion

This article has sought to discuss several key background issues that will help the reader better comprehend Matthew’s argument. Among the items discussed were authorship, original language, sources and synoptic problem, date, place of writing, recipients, purposes and message, sub-purposes, and structure. The actual tracing of Matthew’s argument throughout his Gospel will be the subject of the subsequent article.

Notes

1. Material for this section was compiled from various sources, including Robert G. Gromacki, New Testament Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1974), 54–59 6774; Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold the King (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1980), 13–25, 323–32; Bruce Wilkinson and Kenneth Boa, Talk Thru the Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1983), 307–10; Louis Barbieri, “Matthew,” in Bible Knowledge Commentary, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Colorado Springs: Chariot Victor, 1983), 1317; Harold Hoehner, “Criticism of the New Testament” (unpublished class notes in NT 200/305 New Testament Introduction and the Gospels, Dallas Theological Seminary, Summer 2001), 1–8.
2. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16. Interestingly, Eusebius also indicated that Irenaeus, Origen, and Pantaenus believed that Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew. For these citations, see Ed Glasscock, Matthew, Moody Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1997), 13–17.
3. Similarities can be seen among the three Gospels in terms of arrangement, content, sentence and word order, and word usage. Differences can also be seen among the three Gospels in terms of arrangement of materials, content of individual passages, and material unique to each Gospel.
4. Examples include the roughness of Mark’s style and grammar in addition to his preservation of some Aramaic words.
5. Other weaknesses associated with Marcan priority and the existence of “Q” are explored subsequently in the weaknesses involving the four-document theory.
6. Some tradition indicates that Mark wrote during Peter’s life (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.15.2, 6.14.6, 6.25.5). Due to the widespread presupposition that this literary production transpired late in Peter’s life, an AD 67 date for Mark seems appropriate. However, it should be noted that other tradition (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1–2) indicates that Mark wrote after Peter’s death (AD 68). If this latter tradition is true, then the case becomes overwhelming for assigning a post AD 70 date for Matthew, Luke, and Acts.
7. Second century figures Irenaeus and Clement held to Matthean priority. See also Eusebius’ citation from Origen conveying adherence to Matthean priority. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.25.4.
8. This cannot be material from Q; it can only be said to come from Q when the material appears in Matthew and Luke but not Mark.
9. Hoehner, “Criticism of the New Testament,” 6.
10. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 5.7.2.
11. While the word David appears nine times in Matthew, the word only appears three times in Mark, three times in Luke, and not once in John.
12. Interestingly, “kingdom of heaven” appears thirty two times (3:2; 4:17; 5:3, 10, 19–20; 7:21; 8:11; 10:7; 11:11–12; 13:11, 24, 31, 33, 44–45, 47, 52; 16:19; 18:1, 3–4, 23; 19:14, 23; 20:1; 22:2; 23:13; 25:1, 14) and “kingdom of God” (6:33; 12:28; 19:24; 21:31; 21:43) appears only five times. These terms are synonymous. However, the multiple references to the former and the scant references to the latter also reflect a common Jewish reluctance of mentioning God’s name directly.
13. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.24.6.
14. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.25.5.