We will begin a new sermon series this Sunday in the book of Matthew. Interpreting a book of the Bible can be greatly helped by understanding the historical context of its author. A great resource for gaining insight into New Testament books is by Carson & Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament (Second Edition, © 1992, 2005. Grand Rapids: Zondervan). I have highlighted some pertinent facts and quotations from their book below, which I hope will provide helpful context as we begin this new series.
Structure
Matthew was a skilled writer who used many literary devices and schemes to narrate the story of Jesus. “Disagreements over the structure of this gospel arise because there are so many overlapping and competing structural pointers that it appears impossible to establish a consensus on their relative importance.” Although there are numerous possibilities and we may never know for certain what organizational structure Matthew himself had in mind, the most frequently proposed structure is organized around five discourses, bookended by a prologue and a climactic closing narrative.
“Superimposing on these literary markers the transparent development of the plot, we arrive at a seven-part outline:
Author
If you enjoy reading heady debates about historical authorship, based on internal and external evidence, Carson and Moo provide eleven dense pages on Matthew alone. It is only an introduction to the issues, and yet you may find it satisfactorily exhaustive. For the rest who just want the bottom line: there is no compelling reason to deny that this book was written by Matthew, the apostle of Jesus, and a former tax collector (Matt. 9:9).
Date
The majority hold that Matthew was written during the period A.D. 80-100. This places it after the (proposed) date of the Gospel of Mark (~55-70), from which scholars believe Matthew borrowed for his gospel, and after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (70). On the later end of the spectrum, there is evidence that the church father Ignatius of Antioch knew Matthew personally, and the quotations of his Gospel in his own writings suggests an upper limit of Matthew’s writing at A.D. 100.
Purpose
Since Matthew does not directly state his purpose for writing, the best we can do is draw inferences from how his themes and topics are treated differently than by the other gospels. Given how difficult it is to gain scholarly consensus on the purpose of Paul’s letters, even though they articulate a clear occasion (e.g., “To the church at Ephesus”), we should not be surprised that a single, narrow purpose cannot be definitively discerned from Matthew’s gospel. It becomes even more challenging when considering that an epistle typically has a clear author and recipient, whereas the synoptic gospels (Matt, Mark, Lk) narrate the historical life of Jesus while also addressing a particular (albeit likely broader) audience.
With that in mind, many scholars have noted Matthew’s many allusions to the Old Testament–more than the other gospels–and inferred that his purpose was to teach Christians how to read their Bibles (which, of course, at that time was limited to what we call the Old Testament). Others take that same evidence to infer that he was trying to evangelize Jews. “Or perhaps he wrote to train Christians to sharpen their apologetics as they wrestled with the Pharisaic Judaism of their own day.”
These and many other suggestions have been made. Whatever the case, we can conclude the following. “If we restrict ourselves to widely recognized themes, it is surely fair to infer that Matthew wishes to demonstrate, among other things: (1) that Jesus is the promised Messiah, the Son of David, the Son of God, the Son of Man, Immanuel, the one to whom the Old Testament points; (2) that many Jews, especially Jewish leaders, sinfully failed to recognize Jesus during his ministry (and, by implication, are in great danger if they continue in that stance after the resurrection); (3) that the promised eschatological kingdom has already dawned, inaugurated by the life, death, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus; (4) that this messianic reign is continuing in the world as believers, both Jews and Gentiles, submit to Jesus’ authority, overcome temptation, endure persecution, wholeheartedly embrace Jesus’ teaching, and thus demonstrate that they constitute the true locus of the people of God and the true witness to the world of the ‘gospel of the kingdom’; and (5) that this messianic reign is not only the fulfillment of Old Testament hopes but the foretaste of the consummated kingdom that will dawn when Jesus the Messiah personally returns.”
Text
As you may know, we do not have a singular original copy of the biblical manuscript as written by Moses, Isaiah, David, etc. Instead, we have tens of thousands of copies and fragments that were meticulously preserved by scribes. Despite the Bible’s truly miraculous consistency–far beyond the cohesion seen in any other historical document–there are minor discrepancies from copy to copy. Textual criticism analyzes these copies for regularities and anomalies, ultimately to ascertain as closely as possible the text as it was originally written by the biblical authors.
As for the book of Matthew, the text is “relatively stable.” But like all three Synoptics, textual “problems” (if it may be called so) are mostly a matter of how the three gospels relate to one another in terms of their content, wording, and order. Why does Matthew’s account match Mark or Luke nearly word-for-word in some places, but differ so dramatically in others? Or, as many scholars believe Mark’s gospel was written first, we may ask, “Did Matthew borrow from Mark’s writing?” And, with those questions, we may try to discern a “why.”
You may notice a footnote in your Bible from time to time, making reference to a variant in manuscripts. For instance, Matthew 12:47: “Someone told him, ‘Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.’” Your footnote may explain, “Some early and important manuscripts (notably Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) omit this verse entirely.” Other manuscripts do include it, which some view as harmonizing with a parallel passage in the Gospel of Mark (3:32). It is important to note that the vast majority of variations in early manuscripts are semantic and inconsequential to the meaning of the text.
Adoption Into the Canon
The “canon” of scripture refers to the collection of books that were adopted into our Bibles. They were scrutinized on a number of data points and deemed authentic and therefore the true Word of God (as opposed to “Apocryphal” books present in the Catholic Church’s Bibles, which may serve historical interests but were not adopted into the canon). “The gospel of Matthew was universally received as soon as it was published and continued to be the most frequently cited gospel for centuries… So far as our sources go, the book never divided the Eastern and Western wings of the church as did, say, the epistle to the Hebrews.”
The Contribution of Matthew
If Matthew suddenly disappeared, we would still have much of the same content provided by the other Gospels. However, there are some emphases in Matthew’s account that represent unique contributions to the canon. In Matthew, the Sermon on the Mount is recorded in its fullest form, as are Jesus’ parables, the genealogy of chapter one, and his version of discourses, which adds nuances not found in the other Gospels.
The Bible Project
In addition to the awesome content produced by our very own pastors, Sam and Will (CLICK HERE), I would also recommend the two-part video summary of the book of Matthew by The Bible Project:
MATTHEW – PART 1 OF 2
MATTHEW – PART 2 OF 2
I’m looking forward to seeing you all in church!
Your brother,
Ryan
Abigail Lee, Austin Shuffit, Caleb Parsley, Connor Scalzo, David Meiser, Jacob Lynch CCLI Song #7261984 © All Essential Music; Be Essential Songs; SEU Songs; SEU Worship CCLI License #692967