Text -- Matthew 17:24-27 (NET)

The Temple Tax

17:24 After they arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the temple tax came to Peter and said, “Your teacher pays the double drachma tax, doesn’t he?” 17:25 He said, “Yes.” When Peter came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do earthly kings collect tolls or taxes– from their sons or from foreigners?” 17:26 After he said, “From foreigners,” Jesus said to him, “Then the sons are free. 17:27 But so that we don’t offend them, go to the lake and throw out a hook. Take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth, you will find a four drachma coin. Take that and give it to them for me and you.”

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Mat 17:24

They that received the half-shekel ( hoi ta didrachma lambanontes ).

This temple tax amounted to an Attic drachma or the Jewish half-shekel, about one-third of a dollar. Every Jewish man twenty years of age and over was expected to pay it for the maintenance of the temple. But it was not a compulsory tax like that collected by the publicans for the government. "The tax was like a voluntary church-rate; no one could be compelled to pay"(Plummer). The same Greek word occurs in two Egyptian papyri of the first century a.d. for the receipt for the tax for the temple of Suchus (Milligan and Moulton’ s Vocabulary ). This tax for the Jerusalem temple was due in the month Adar (our March) and it was now nearly six months overdue. But Jesus and the Twelve had been out of Galilee most of this time. Hence the question of the tax-collectors. The payment had to be made in the Jewish coin, half-shekel. Hence the money-changers did a thriving business in charging a small premium for the Jewish coin, amounting to some forty-five thousand dollars a year, it is estimated. It is significant that they approached Peter rather than Jesus, perhaps not wishing to embarrass "Your Teacher,""a roundabout hint that the tax was overdue"(Bruce). Evidently Jesus had been in the habit of paying it (Peter’ s).

Robertson: Mat 17:25

Jesus spake first to him ( proephthasen auton ho Iēsous legōn ).

Here only in the N.T. One example in a papyrus b.c. 161 (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary ). The old idiomatic use of phthanō with the participle survives in this example of prophthanō in Mat 17:25, meaning to anticipate, to get before one in doing a thing. The Koiné uses the infinitive thus with phthanō which has come to mean simply to arrive. Here the anticipation is made plain by the use of prȯ . See Robertson’ s Grammar , p. 1120. The "prevent"of the Authorized Version was the original idea of praevenire , to go before, to anticipate. Peter felt obliged to take the matter up with Jesus. But the Master had observed what was going on and spoke to Peter first.

Robertson: Mat 17:25

Toll or tribute ( telē ē kēnson ).

Customs or wares collected by the publicans (like phoros , Rom 13:7) and also the capitation tax on persons, indirect and direct taxation. Kēnsos is the Latin census , a registration for the purpose of the appraisement of property like hē apographē in Luk 2:2; Act 5:37. By this parable Jesus as the Son of God claims exemption from the temple tax as the temple of his Father just as royal families do not pay taxes, but get tribute from the foreigners or aliens, subjects in reality.

Robertson: Mat 17:26

The sons ( hoi huioi ).

Christ, of course, and the disciples also in contrast with the Jews. Thus a reply to Peter’ s prompt "Yes."Logically (arage ) free from the temple tax, but practically not as he proceeds to show.

Robertson: Mat 17:27

Lest we cause them to stumble ( hina mē skandalisōmen autous ).

He does not wish to create the impression that he and the disciples despise the temple and its worship. Aorist tense (punctiliar single act) here, though some MSS. have present subjunctive (linear). "A hook"(agkistron ). The only example in the N.T. of fishing with a hook. From an unused verb agkizō , to angle, and that from agkos , a curve (so also agkalē the inner curve of the arm, Luk 2:38).

Robertson: Mat 17:27

First cometh up ( ton anabanta prōton ichthun ).

More correctly, "the first fish that cometh up."

Robertson: Mat 17:27

A shekel ( statēra ).

Greek stater = four drachmae, enough for two persons to pay the tax.

Robertson: Mat 17:27

For me and thee ( anti emou kai sou ).

Common use of anti in commercial transactions, "in exchange for."Here we have a miracle of foreknowledge. Such instances have happened. Some try to get rid of the miracle by calling it a proverb or by saying that Jesus only meant for Peter to sell the fish and thus get the money, a species of nervous anxiety to relieve Christ and the Gospel of Matthew from the miraculous. "All the attempts have been in vain which were made by the older Rationalism to put a non-miraculous meaning into these words"(B. Weiss). It is not stated that Peter actually caught such a fish though that is the natural implication. Why provision is thus only made for Peter along with Jesus we do not know.

Vincent: Mat 17:24

They that received tribute-money ( οἱ τὰ δίδαχμα λαμβάνοντες )

Rev., They that received the half-shekel. Every male Israelite of age, including proselytes and manumitted Jews, was expected to pay annually for the temple-service a half-shekel or didrachm, about thirty-five cents. This must be paid in the ancient money of Israel, the regular half-shekel of the treasury; and the money-changers, therefore, were in demand to change the current into the temple coin, which they did at a rate of discount fixed by law, between four and five cents on every half-shekel. The annual revenue to the money-changers from this source has been estimated at nearly forty-five thousand dollars; a very large sum in a country where a laborer received less than twenty cents for a day's work, and where the good Samaritan left about thirty-three cents at the inn for the keeping of the wounded man. Jesus attacked a very powerful interest when he overthrew the tables of the money-changers.

Vincent: Mat 17:25

Yes ( ναί )

Indicating that Jesus had paid the tax on former occasions.

Vincent: Mat 17:25

Prevented ( προέφθασεν )

Rev., rather awkwardly, but following Tynd., Spake first to him. Prevent, in its older sense, to anticipate, get before, was a correct translation. Compare Shakspeare:

" So shall my anticipation prevent your discovery."

Hamlet , ii., 1.

Out of this grew the secondary meaning, to hinder. By getting before another, one hinders him from accomplishing his purpose. This meaning has supplanted the other. Wyc. renders came before him. The meaning is that Jesus did not wait for Peter to tell him of the demand of the collectors. He anticipated him in speaking about it.

Vincent: Mat 17:25

Custom or tribute ( τέλη ἢ κῆνσον )

Rev. gives toll for custom. Toll is duty upon goods; tribute, tax upon individuals. Κῆνσος tribute, is merely a transcription of the Latin census, which means, first, a registration with a view to taxation, and then the tax itself.

Vincent: Mat 17:25

Strangers ( ἀλλοτρίων )

Not foreigners, but others than those of their own families; their subjects. In other words, Does a king tax his own children or his subjects?

Vincent: Mat 17:27

Hook ( ἄγκιστρον )

The only mention in the New Testament of fishing with a hook. A single fish is wanted.

Vincent: Mat 17:27

A piece of money ( στατῆρα )

The A. V. is very inadequate, because Christ names a definite sum, the stater, which is a literal transcription of the Greek word, and represents two didrachmas, or a shekel. Hence Rev., a shekel.

Wesley: Mat 17:24

Where our Lord now dwelt. This was the reason why they stayed till he came thither, to ask him for the tribute.

Wesley: Mat 17:24

This was a tribute or payment of a peculiar kind, being half a shekel, (that is, about fifteen pence,) which every master of a family used to pay yearly to the service of the temple, to buy salt, and little things not otherwise provided for. It seems to have been a voluntary thing, which custom rather than any law had established.

Wesley: Mat 17:25

Just when St. Peter was going to ask him for it. Of their own sons, or of strangers? - That is, such as are not of their own family.

Wesley: Mat 17:26

The sense is, This is paid for the use of the house of God. But I am the Son of God. Therefore I am free from any obligation of paying this to my own Father.

Wesley: Mat 17:27

Even those unjust, unreasonable men, who claim what they have no manner of right to: do not contest it with them, bat rather yield to their demand, than violate peace or love. O what would not one of a loving spirit do for peace! Any thing which is not expressly forbidden in the word of God.

Wesley: Mat 17:27

The original word is a stater, which was in value two shillings and sixpence: just the sum that was wanted.

Wesley: Mat 17:27

Peter had a family of his own: the other apostles were the family of Jesus. How illustrious a degree of knowledge and power did our Lord here discover! Knowledge, penetrating into this animal, though beneath the waters; and power, in directing this very fish to Peter's hook, though he himself was at a distance! How must this have encouraged both him and his brethren in a firm dependence on Divine Providence.

JFB: Mat 17:24

The double drachma; a sum equal to two Attic drachmas, and corresponding to the Jewish "half-shekel," payable, towards the maintenance of the temple and its services, by every male Jew of twenty years old and upward. For the origin of this annual tax, see Exo 30:13-14; 2Ch 24:6, 2Ch 24:9. Thus, it will be observed, it was not a civil, but an ecclesiastical tax. The tax mentioned in Mat 17:25 was a civil one. The whole teaching of this very remarkable scene depends upon this distinction.

JFB: Mat 17:24

At whose house Jesus probably resided while at Capernaum. This explains several things in the narrative.

JFB: Mat 17:24

The question seems to imply that the payment of this tax was voluntary, but expected; or what, in modern phrase, would be called a "voluntary assessment."

JFB: Mat 17:25

That is, "To be sure He does"; as if eager to remove even the suspicion of the contrary. If Peter knew--as surely he did--that there was at this time no money in the bag, this reply must be regarded as a great act of faith in his Master.

JFB: Mat 17:25

Peter's.

JFB: Mat 17:25

Anticipated him; according to the old sense of the word "prevent."

JFB: Mat 17:25

Using his family name for familiarity.

JFB: Mat 17:25

Meaning custom on goods exported or imported.

JFB: Mat 17:25

Meaning the poll-tax, payable to the Romans by everyone whose name was in the census. This, therefore, it will be observed, was strictly a civil tax.

JFB: Mat 17:25

This cannot mean "foreigners," from whom sovereigns certainly do not raise taxes, but those who are not of their own family, that is, their subjects.

JFB: Mat 17:26

"of those not their children."

JFB: Mat 17:26

By "the children" our Lord cannot here mean Himself and the Twelve together, in some loose sense of their near relationship to God as their common Father. For besides that our Lord never once mixes Himself up with His disciples in speaking of their relation to God, but ever studiously keeps His relation and theirs apart (see, for example, on the last words of this chapter)--this would be to teach the right of believers to exemption from the dues required for sacred services, in the teeth of all that Paul teaches and that He Himself indicates throughout. He can refer here, then, only to Himself; using the word "children" evidently in order to express the general principle observed by sovereigns, who do not draw taxes from their own children, and thus convey the truth respecting His own exemption the more strikingly:--namely, "If the sovereign's own family be exempt, you know the inference in My case"; or to express it more nakedly than Jesus thought needful and fitting: "This is a tax for upholding My Father's House. As His Son, then, that tax is not due by Me--I AM FREE."

JFB: Mat 17:27

Stumble.

JFB: Mat 17:27

All ignorant as they are of My relation to the Lord of the Temple, and should misconstrue a claim to exemption into indifference to His honor who dwells in it.

JFB: Mat 17:27

Capernaum, it will be remembered, lay on the Sea of Galilee.

JFB: Mat 17:27

A stater. So it should have been rendered, and not indefinitely, as in our version, for the coin was an Attic silver coin equal to two of the afore-mentioned "didrachms" of half a shekel's value, and so, was the exact sum required for both. Accordingly, the Lord adds,

JFB: Mat 17:27

Literally, "instead of Me and thee"; perhaps because the payment was a redemption of the person paid for (Exo 30:12) --in which view Jesus certainly was "free." If the house was Peter's, this will account for payment being provided on this occasion, not for all the Twelve, but only for him and His Lord. Observe, our Lord does not say "for us," but "for Me and thee"; thus distinguishing the Exempted One and His non-exempted disciple.

Clarke: Mat 17:24

They that received tribute - This was not a tax to be paid to the Roman government; but a tax for the support of the temple. The law, Exo 30:13, obliged every male among the Jews to pay half a shekel yearly; for the support of the temple; and this was continued by them wherever dispersed, till after the time of Vespasian, see Josephus, War, book 7. c. 6, who ordered it afterwards to be paid into the Roman treasury. The word in the text, which is generally translated tribute - τα διδραχμα, signifies the didrachma , or two drachms. This piece of money was about the value of two Attic drachms, each equal to fifteen pence of our money. The didrachma of the Septuagint, mentioned Exo 30:13, was twice as heavy as the Attic, for it was equal to a whole shekel, this being the value of that piece of money at Alexandrina, the place where the Septuagint translation was made; for the half shekel mentioned in the above passage, they render ημισυ του διδαχμου, the half of a didrachma .

Clarke: Mat 17:25

He saith, Yes - From this reply of Peter, it is evident that our Lord customarily paid all taxes, tributes, etc., which were common among the people wherever he came. The children of God are subject to all civil laws in the places where they live - and should pay the taxes levied on them by public authority; and though any of these should be found unjust, They rebel not, as their business is not to reform the politics of nations, but the morals of the world.

Clarke: Mat 17:26

Then are the children free - As this money is levied for the support of that temple of which I am the Lord, then I am not obliged to pay the tax; and my disciples, like the priests that minister, should be exempted from the necessity of paying.

Clarke: Mat 17:27

Lest we - offend them - Be a stumbling-block to the priests, or rulers of the Jews, I will pay the tribute - go thou to the sea - cast a hook, and take the first fish - thou shalt find a piece of money, στατηρα, a stater. This piece of money was equal in value to four drachms, or two shekels, (five shillings of our money), and consequently was sufficient to pay the tribute for our Lord and Peter, which amounted to about half-a-crown each. If the stater was in the mouth or belly of the fish before, who can help admiring the wisdom of Christ, that discovered it there? If it was not before in the mouth of the fish, who can help admiring the power of Christ, that impelled the fish to go where the stater had been lost in the bottom of the sea, take it up, come towards the shore where Peter was fishing, and, with the stater in its mouth or stomach, catch hold of the hook that was to draw it out of the water? But suppose there was no stater there, which is as likely as otherwise, then Jesus created it for the purpose, and here his omnipotence was shown; for to make a thing exist that did not exist before is an act of unlimited power, however small the thing itself may be. Some suppose that the haddock was the fish caught by Peter, because this fish has a blackish mark on each side of its neck or shoulders, as seems to exhibit the impression of a finger and thumb. The haddock is the gadus eglesinus . But this being a sea fish, could not be a native of the sea of Galilee or Tiberias, etc., for the river Jordan runs through the sea of Galilee, and falls into the Dead Sea, which has no outlet to the ocean: no sea fish of any kind can be found there; and we may add to this, that Belzoni, a learned traveler, who examined the produce of the lake of Tiberias, found only trouts, pikes, chevins, and tenches. That it may, besides these, have some fishes peculiar to itself, as most extensive fresh water lakes have, need not be denied; but it could have no sea fish

The account of the transfiguration, the peculiar case of the lunatic, with his cure, and the miracle wrought to pay the tribute money, render this one of the most interesting and instructive chapters in the New Testament

1.    To what has already been said on the subject of the transfiguration, nothing need be added: I have given that sense to it which the circumstances of the case, the construction of the words, and the analogy of faith warrant. That others have understood the whole transaction differently, is readily granted. Some of the foreign critics, who are also called divines, have stripped it, by their mode of interpretation, of all its strength, use, and meaning. With them, it is thus to be understood: - "Jesus, with his disciples, Peter, James, and John, went by night into a mountain, for the purpose of prayer and meditation; while thus engaged, the animal spirits of the disciples were overcome by watching and fatigue, and they fell asleep: in this sleep they dreamed, or Peter only dreamed, that he saw his Master encompassed with a glorious light, and that Moses and Elijah were conversing with him. That early in the morning, just as the sun was rising, there happened some electric or thunder-like explosions (a thing not unfrequent near some mountains) by which the disciples were suddenly awoke; that Peter, whose mind was strongly impressed with his dream, seeing the rising sun shine gloriously upon his Master, and his strongly impressed senses calling to remembrance his late vision, he for a moment imagined he saw, not only the glory of which he had dreamed, but the persons also - Moses and Elijah, still standing on the mount with Christ; that not being as yet sufficiently awake, finding the images impressed on his imagination fleeting away with his returning exercise of reason, he cried out, before he was aware, Lord! it is good for its to be here, let us make three tabernacles, etc.; but in a short time, having recovered the regular use of his senses, he perceived that it was a dream; and, having told it to our Lord and his brother disciples, lest the Jews might take occasion of jealousy from it, he was desired to tell the vision to no man."This is the substance of that strange explanation given by those learned men to this extraordinary transaction; a mode of interpretation only calculated to support that system which makes it an important point to deny and decry all supernatural and miraculous influence, and to explain away all the spirituality of the New Testament. Whatever ingenuity may be in this pretended elucidation, every unprejudiced person must see that it can never be brought to accord with the letter and concomitant circumstances of this most remarkable case

2.    The cure of the deaf and dumb lunatic has been treated, by the same critics, in nearly the same way, and for the same obvious design, namely, to exclude from the world all supernatural agency; and could they succeed in this, of what value, or, indeed, utility, could the whole New Testament be to mankind? We might be well astonished to find such a history, with such a great variety of curious and apparently interesting circumstances: - a wondrous person, laboring, preaching, suffering, dying, etc., etc., without having scarcely any thing in view, but a sort of merely moral reformation of the outward man! Truly, this: -

"Is like an ocean into tempest toss’ d

To waft a feather, or to drown a fly.

But the truth of God’ s miraculous interpositions, the miracles of the New Testament, demoniacal possessions and influence, the atonement, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the regeneration of the corrupted human heart, etc., etc ,, must not be given up to please a certain description of persons, who have no commerce with God themselves, and cannot bear that others should either have or pretend to it

3.    The miracle wrought for the paying of the temple tribute money, is exceedingly remarkable. The note on Mat 17:27, brings this particularly to view. To what is there said, it may be added, that our Lord seems to have wrought this miracle for the following purposes: -

1.    More forcibly to impress the minds of his disciples, and his followers in general, with the necessity and propriety of being subject to all the laws of the different states, kingdoms, etc., wheresoever the providence of God might cast their lot

2.    To show forth his own unlimited power and knowledge, that they might be fully convinced that he knew all things, even to the most minute; and could do whatsoever he pleased; and that both his wisdom and power were continually interested in behalf of his true disciples

3.    To teach all believers a firm trust and reliance on Divine Providence, the sources of which can never be exhausted; and which, directed by infinite wisdom and love, will make every provision essentially requisite for the comfort and support, of life. How many of the poor followers of Christ have been enabled to discern his kind hand, even in the means furnished them to discharge the taxes laid on them by the state! The profane and the unprincipled may deride, and mock on, but the people of God know it to be their duty, and their interest, to be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord’ s sake; and, while his grace and providence render this obedience, in things both spiritual and secular, possible, his love, which their hearts feel, renders their duty their delight. The accomplishment of such ends as these is worthy both of the wisdom and benevolence of Christ.

Calvin: Mat 17:24

Mat 17:24.And when they came to Capernaum We must attend, first of all, to the design of this narrative; which is, that Christ, by paying tribute of his own accord, declared his subjection, as he had taken upon him the form of a servant, (Phi 2:7,) but at the same time showed, both by words and by the miracle, that it was not by obligation or necessity, but by a free and voluntary submission, that he had reduced himself so low that the world looked upon him as nothing more than one of the common people. This was not a tax which was wont to be demanded on crossing the sea, ⁵⁷⁷ but an annual tribute laid individually on every man among the Jews, so that they paid to tyrants what they were formerly in the habit of paying to God alone. For we know that this tax was imposed on them by the Law, that, by paying every year half a stater, (Exo 30:13,) they might acknowledge that God, by whom they had been redeemed, was their supreme King. When the kings of Asia appropriated this to themselves, the Romans followed their example. Thus the Jews, as if they had disowned the government of God, paid to profane tyrants the sacred tax required by the Law. But it might appear unreasonable that Christ, when he appeared as the Redeemer of his people, should not himself be exempted from paying tribute To remove that offense, he taught by words, that it was only by his will that he was bound; and he proved the same thing by a miracle, for he who had dominion over the sea and the fishes might have released himself from earthly government. ⁵⁷⁸

Doth not your Master pay? Some think that the collectors of the tribute intended to throw blame on Christ, as if he were claiming exemption from the common law. For my own part, as men of that class are insolent and abusive, I interpret these words as having been spoken by way of reproach. It was customary for every man to be enrolled in his own city; but we know that Christ had no fixed habitation in one place. Those people therefore inquire if he be exempted from the law on the ground of his frequent removals from place to place. ⁵⁷⁹

Calvin: Mat 17:25

25.He saith, Yes. Peter’s reply contains a modest excuse ⁵⁸⁰ to satisfy them: “he will pay,” ⁵⁸¹ says he; from which we infer that Christ had formerly been accustomed to pay, for Peter promises it as a thing about which there was no doubt. That they address him rather than the other disciples was, as I conjecture, because Christ lived with him; for if all had occupied the same habitation, the demand would have been made on all alike. It is therefore very ridiculous in the Papists, on so frivolous a pretense, to make Peter a partner in the dignity of Christ. “He chose him (they say) to be his vicar, and bestowed on him equal honors, by making him equal to himself in the payment of tribute.” But in this way they will make all swine-herds vicars of Christ, for they paid as much as he did. And if the primacy of Peter was manifested in the paying of tribute, whence comes that exemption which they claim for themselves? But this is the necessary result of the shameful trifling of those who corrupt Scripture according to their own fancy.

What thinkest thou, Simon? In this Christ gave a proof of his Divinity, by showing that nothing was unknown to him. But what is the object of his discourse? Is it to exempt himself and his followers from subjection to the laws? Some explain it thus, that Christians have a right to be exempted, but that they voluntarily subject themselves to the ordinary government, because otherwise human society cannot be maintained. To me, however, the meaning appears to be more simple; for there was danger lest the disciples might think that Christ had come in vain, because, by paying tribute cut off the hope of deliverance; and therefore he simply affirms that he pays tribute, solely because he voluntarily refrains from exercising his right and power. Hence it is inferred that this takes nothing from his reign. But why does he not openly claim his right? It is because his kingly power was unknown to the collectors of the tribute. For, though his kingdom be spiritual, still we must maintain, that as he is the only Son of God, he is also the heir of the whole world, so that all things ought to be subject to him, and to acknowledge his authority. The meaning, therefore, is, that God has not appointed kings, and established governments over mankind, in such a manner as to place him who is the Son in the same rank indiscriminately with others, but yet that, of his own accord, he will be a servant along with others, till the glory of his kingdom be displayed.

The Pope has not less foolishly than successfully abused this passage to exempt his clergy from the laws; as if the shaving of the head made them sons of God, and exempted them from tributes and taxes. But nothing else was intended by Christ than to claim for himself the honor of a King’s Son, so as to have at least a home privileged and exempted from the common law. And therefore it is also highly foolish in the Anabaptists to torture these words for overturning political order, since it is more than certain, that Christ does not say any thing about a privilege common to believers, but only draws a comparison from the sons of kings, who, together with their domestics, are exempted. ⁵⁸²

Calvin: Mat 17:27

27.Throw a hook Though I acknowledge that Christ had not always full coffers, yet I think that he was not compelled by poverty to give this order to Peter, but that he did so in order to prove by a miracle, that he had a more extensive dominion than all earthly kings, since he had even fishes for his tributaries. And we do not read that this was done more than once, because one proof was enough for his whole life. Thou wilt find a stater. A stater was of the same value as a shekel, namely, four drachms or two didrachma. ⁵⁸³

Defender: Mat 17:27

This was not a miracle of creation (Jesus did not create the coin out of nothing) but a miracle of providence - controlling and directing natural processes to produce a desired result, that otherwise would have an almost infinitesimally small probability of occurring."

TSK: Mat 17:24

when : Mar 9:33

tribute : ""Gr. didrachma, in value fifteen pence.""Exo 30:13, Exo 38:26; This tribute seems to have been the half shekel which every male among the Jews paid yearly for the support of the temple, and which was continued by them, wherever dispersed, till after the time of Vespasian.

TSK: Mat 17:25

Yes : Mat 3:15, Mat 22:21; Rom 13:6, Rom 13:7

of their : 1Sa 17:25

TSK: Mat 17:26

Mat 17:17

TSK: Mat 17:27

lest : Mat 15:12-14; Rom 14:21, Rom 15:1-3; 1Co 8:9, 1Co 8:13, 1Co 9:19-22, 1Co 10:32, 1Co 10:33; 2Co 6:3; 1Th 5:22; Tit 2:7, Tit 2:8

and take : Gen 1:28; 1Ki 17:4; Psa 8:8; Jon 1:17, Jon 2:10; Heb 2:7, Heb 2:8

a piece of money : ""Or, a stater, half an ounce of silver, value 2s. 6d., after 5s. the ounce."

that take : 2Co 8:9; Jam 2:5

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Mat 17:24-27

And when they were come to Capernaum - See the notes at Mat 4:13.

They that received tribute - In the original this is, they who received the didrachma, or double drachma. The drachma was a Grecian coin worth about fifteen cents (7 1/2 d.) of British money. The didrachma, or double drachma, was a silver coin equal to the Attic drachma, and, in the time of Josephus, equal to the Jewish half shekel, that is, about 30 cents (circa 1880’ s). This tribute, consisting of the didrachma or double drachma, was not paid to the Roman government, but to the Jewish collectors for the use of the temple service. It was permitted in the law of Moses (see Exo 30:11-16) that in numbering the people half a shekel should be received of each man for the services of religion. This was in addition to the tithes paid by the whole nation, and seems to have been considered as a voluntary offering. It was devoted to the purchase of animals for the daily sacrifice, wood, flour, salt, incense, etc., for the use of the temple.

Doth not your master pay tribute? - This tribute was voluntary, and they therefore asked him whether he was in the habit of paying taxes for the support of the temple. Peter replied that it was his custom to pay all the usual taxes of the nation.

Mat 17:25

Jesus prevented him - That is, Jesus commenced speaking before Peter, or spoke before Peter had told him what he had said. This implies that, though not present with Peter when he gave the answer, yet Jesus was acquainted with what he had said.

Prevent - To go before, or precede. It did not mean, as it now does with us, to hinder or obstruct. See the same use of the word in Psa 59:10; Psa 79:8; Psa 88:13; 1Th 4:15; Psa 119:148.

Of whom do the kings of the earth ... - That is, earthly kings.

Their own children - Their sons; the members of their own family.

Or of strangers? - The word "strangers"does not mean foreigners, but those that were not their own sons or members of their family. Peter replied that tribute was collected of those out of their own family. Jesus answered, Then are the children, or sons of the kings, free; that is, taxes are not required of them. The meaning of this may be thus expressed: "Kings do not tax their own sons. This tribute-money is taken up for the temple service; that is, the service of my Father. I, therefore, being the Son of God, for whom this is taken up, cannot be lawfully required to pay this tribute."This argument is based on the supposition that this was a religious, and not a civil tax. If it had been the latter, the illustration would not have been pertinent.

Mat 17:27

Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them - That is, lest they should think that we despise the temple and its service, and thus provoke needless opposition; though we are not under obligation to pay it, yet it is best to pay it to them.

Go to the sea - This was at Capernaum, on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias.

Thou shalt find a piece of money - In the original, thou shalt find a stater, a Roman silver coin of the value of four drachmas, or one shekel, and of course sufficient to pay the tribute for two - himself and Peter.

In whatever way this is regarded, it is proof that Jesus was possessed of divine attributes. If he knew that the first fish that came up would have such a coin in his mouth, it was proof of omniscience. If he created the coin for the occasion and placed it there, then it was proof of divine power. The former is the most probable supposition. It is by no means absurd that a fish should have swallowed a silver coin. Many of them bite eagerly at anything bright, and would not hesitate, therefore, at swallowing a piece of money.

Remarks On Matthew 17

1. It is proper to withdraw from those around us that we may engage in secret prayer; and it is desirable for every one to have a place where he may be alone with God, Mat 17:1. Christ often went into deserts and on mountains that he might be by himself. This should be done:

(1)\caps1     t\caps0 o avoid the appearance of ostentation.

(2)\caps1     p\caps0 ride is easily excited when we know that others hear us pray.

Everyone should have some place - some closet - to which he may retire at any time, with the assurance that none sees him but God. See the notes at Mat 6:6.

2. In such seasons we shall meet God, Mat 17:2. It was in such a season that the divine favor was uniquely shown to Christ. Then the transfiguration took place - the brightest manifestation of his glory that ever occurred on earth. So the clearest and most precious manifestations of the love and glory of God will be made to us in prayer.

3. We see the great glory of Christ, Mat 17:2. No such favor had been granted to any prophet before him. We see the regard in which he was held by Moses and Elias among the greatest of the prophets. We see the honor which God put on him, exalting him far above them both, Mat 17:5. The glory of heaven encompasses the Lord Jesus, and all its redeemed pay him reverence. In him the divine nature shines illustriously; and of him and to him the divinity speaks in glory as the only begotten Son of God.

4. It is right to have particular affection for some Christians more than others, at the same time that we should love them all. Christ loved all his disciples, but he admitted some to special friendship and favors, Mat 17:1. Some Christians may be more congenial to us in feeling, age, and education than others; and it is proper, and may be greatly to our advantage, to admit them among our special friends.

5. The death of Jesus is an object of great interest to the redeemed. Moses and Elias talked of it, Luk 9:31. Angels also desire to look into this great subject, 1Pe 1:12. By that death all the redeemed are saved, and in that death the angels see the most signal display of the justice and love of God.

6. Christians should delight to be where God has manifested his glory. The feeling of Peter was natural, Mat 17:4. His love of the glorious presence of Christ and the redeemed was right. He erred only in the manner of manifesting that love. We should always love the house of prayer - the sanctuary the place where Christ has manifested himself as especially glorious and precious to our souls, or unique as our Friend and Deliverer.

7. We need not be afraid of the most awful displays of deity if Christ be with us, Mat 17:7. Were we alone we should fear. None could see God and live, for he is a consuming fire, Heb 12:29. But with Jesus for our friend we may go confidently down to death; we may meet him at his awful bar; we may dwell in the full splendors of his presence to all eternity.

8. Saints at death are taken to happiness and live now in glory, Mat 17:3. Moses and Elias were not created anew, but went to heaven as they were. They came from heaven and returned thither. The spirits of all people live, therefore, in happiness or woe after the body is dead.

9. It is not unreasonable to suppose that saints may have some knowledge of what is done here on earth. Moses and Elias appear to have been acquainted with the fact that Jesus was about to die at Jerusalem.

10. The Scriptures will be fulfilled. The fulfillment may take place when we little know it, or in events that we should not suppose were intended for a fulfillment, Mat 17:12.

11. Erroneous teachers will endeavor to draw us away from the truth, Mar 9:14. They will do it by art, and caution, and the appearance of calm inquiry. We should always be on our guard against any teachers appearing to call in question what Christ has plainly taught us.

12. Christ, in his word and by his Spirit, is a safe teacher, Mar 9:15. When people are suggesting plausible doubts about doctrine, or attempting to unsettle our minds by cavils and inquiry, we should leave them, and apply by prayer, and by searching the Bible, to Christ, the great Prophet, who is the way, the truth, and the life.

13. Parents should be earnest for the welfare of their children, Mat 17:15. It is right for them to pray to God, in times of sickness, that he would heal them. Miracles are not to be expected, but God only can bless the means which parents use for their sick and afflicted children.

14. Parents may do much by faith and prayer for their children. Here the faith of the parent was the means of saving the life of the child, Mat 17:14-18. So the faith of parents - a faith producing diligent instruction, a holy example, and much prayer, may be the means of saving their souls. God will not, indeed, save them on account of the faith of the parent, but the holy life of a father and mother may be the means of training up their children for heaven.

15. It is proper to pray to Jesus to increase our faith, Mar 9:24. We may be sensible of our unbelief may feel that we deserve condemnation, and that we deserve no favor that is usually bestowed on faith; but we may come to him and implore of him an increase of faith, and thus obtain the object of our desires.

16. Our unbelief hinders our doing much that we might do, Mat 17:20. We shrink from great difficulties, we fail in great duties, because we do not put confidence in God, who is able to help us. The proper way to live a life of religion and peace is to do just what God requires of us, depending on his grace to aid us.

17. We see the proper way of increasing our faith, Mat 17:21. It is by much prayer, self-denial, and fasting. Faith is a plant that never grows in an uncultivated soil, and is never luxuriant unless it is often exposed to the beams of the Sun of Righteousness.

18. It is right to weep and mourn over the death of Jesus, Mat 17:23. It was a cruel death, and we should mourn that our best Friend passed through such sufferings. Yet we should rather mourn that our sins were the cause of such bitter sorrows; and that, but for our sins, and the sins of the rest of mankind, he might have been always happy.

"’ Twas you, my sins, my cruel sins,

His chief tormentors were;

Each of my crimes became a nail,

And unbelief the spear.

"’ Twas you that pulled the vengeance down

Upon his guiltless head.

Break, break, my heart! O burst, mine eyes!

And let my sorrows bleed."

19. At the same time, we should rejoice that God made his death the source of the richest blessings that ever descended on mankind. He rose and brought life and immortality to light, Mat 17:23.

20. We should comply with all the requirements of the laws of the land, if not contrary to the law of God. It is important that governments should be supported, Mat 17:25. See also Rom 13:1-7.

21. We should also be willing to contribute our just proportion to the support of the institutions of religion. The tribute which Jesus paid here by a miracle was for the support of religion in the temple, Mat 17:24-27. He understood of how much value are the institutions of religion to the welfare of man. He worked a miracle, therefore, to make a voluntary offering to support it. Religion promotes the purity, peace, intelligence, and order of the community, and every man is therefore under obligation to do his part toward its support. If any man doubts this, he has only to go to the places where there is no religion among scoffers, and thieves, and adulterers, and prostitutes, and pick-pockets, and drunkards. No money is ever lost that goes in any way to suppress these vices and to make people better.

Poole: Mat 17:24-27

Ver. 24-27. The Jews were by God’ s law, Exo 30:13 , obliged to pay a half shekel, which was for the service of the sanctuary, Exo 30:16 : this was paid every year. The half shekel amounted in our money to fifteen pence, or thereabouts. Whether this were the tribute money here demanded and paid, some doubt, and say that the Romans having the Jews now under their power, imposed this payment upon every head, as a tribute to the emperor; which being a customary payment, they thought the Jews would less stumble at, though it was changed from a sacred to a civil use, from a homage penny to God, to be a homage penny to the conquerors. The agreement of this sum with what was required by the law, together with what our Saviour saith afterward, will incline us to think that this tax was that religious tax mentioned in Exo 30:13-16 , and that the collectors were some officers deputed for that service by the priests. When Peter came into the house, our Saviour prevents his propounding the question to him, (for Peter had before told them, Yes he did), by asking him of whom the kings of the earth use to receive tribute, of their own children, or of strangers? Where by children we must not understand their political children, that is, their subjects, but their natural children, for otherwise Peter would not have said, Of strangers, nor would our Saviour have answered, Then are the children free; for there is nothing more ordinary than for princes to receive tribute of their subjects. That which our Saviour seemeth to mean is this: This tribute is gathered for my heavenly Father. I am his Son, I am not bound to pay it.

Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them lest we give them occasion to say we break the law of God,

go thou to the sea ( the sea of Galilee, which was near),

and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find stathra , a piece of money, to the value of about a half crown in English. How this money came in the mouth of the fish is a very idle dispute, considering that he that speaks was the Creator of all things.

That take, and give unto them for me and thee The papists, who think they have found here an argument for the primacy of Peter, because Christ paid this tribute for him, and not for the other disciples, do not only affirm what they do not know, but forget that Capernaum was the city in which Peter lived, (we heard before of Christ’ s curing his wife’ s mother there of a fever), and that Peter was the only man of whom this tribute was demanded. This portion of Scripture affords us this instruction: That it is the duty of Christians to yield something of their own right, when they cannot insist upon and obtain it without a scandal and prejudice to the gospel, and the concern of religion. If this were required in pursuance of the law, Exo 30:12,13 , and our Saviour had refused to pay it, the scribes and Pharisees would have clamoured against him as violating the law of God. If it were required as a civil tax, they would have clamoured against him as a man that went about to stir up sedition or rebellion. Having therefore first asserted his right and immunity, he departeth from it to prevent a scandal. We must never part with God’ s right; but to depart from our own is not only lawful, but oftentimes very advisable and expedient. Our Saviour chooseth rather to work a miracle than to give a scandal, and by this miracle he also confirmed his immunity, that he was the Son of him who is the King of kings, and so not in strictness obliged to pay it.

Lightfoot: Mat 17:24

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?   

[They that receive the (didrachma) tribute-money.] Two things persuade me that this is to be understood of the half-shekel, to be yearly paid into the treasury of the Temple:   

1. The word itself whereby this tribute is called, Concerning this, thus Josephus writes: "He laid a tax upon all the Jews wheresoever they were, namely, two drachms; commanding every one, of whatever age, to bring it into the Capitol, as before they had paid it into the Temple at Jerusalem." And Dion Cassius of the same thus, "He commanded all to bring the didrachm yearly to Jupiter Capitolinus."   

The Seventy Interpreters, indeed, upon Exo 30:13; render it half a didrachm; but adding this moreover, which is according to the holy didrachm. Be it so; the whole shekel was the holy didrachm; then let the half shekel be, the common didrachm. However, the thing is, he that paid the half-shekel, in the vulgar dialect, was called, he that paid the shekels; and that which is here said by Matthew, they that receive the didrachm; the Talmudists express they that demand or collect the shekels. The Targumists render that place, Exo 30:13, the half of the shekel; the reason of which see, if you please, in Maimonides. "The shekel (saith he) concerning which the Law speaks, did weigh three hundred and twenty grains of barley; but the wise men sometime added to that weight, and made it to be of the same value with the money Sela; under the second Temple, that is, three hundred eighty-four middling grains of barley." See the place and the Gloss.   

2. The answer of Christ sufficiently argues that the discourse is concerning this tax, when he saith, He is son of that king for whose use that tribute was demanded: for, "from thence were bought the daily and additional sacrifices, and their drink offerings, the sheaf, the two loaves (Lev 23:17), the shewbread, all the sacrifices of the congregation, the red cow, the scapegoat, and the crimson tongue, which was between his horns," etc.   

But here this objection occurs, which is not so easy to answer. The time of the payment of the half shekel was about the feast of the Passover; but now that time was far gone, and the feast of Tabernacles at hand. It may be answered, 1. That Matthew, who recites this story, observed not the course and order of time, which was not unusual with him, as being he among all the evangelists that most disjoints the times of the stories. But let it be granted that the order of the history in him is right and proper here, it is answered, 2. Either Christ was scarcely present at the Passover last past; or if he were present, by reason of the danger he was in by the snares of the Jews, he could not perform this payment in that manner as it ought to have been. Consider those words which John speaks of the Passover last past, Joh 6:4, "The Passover, a feast of the Jews, was near"; and Mat 7:1, "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for he would not walk any more in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him." 3. It was not unusual to defer the payment of the half shekels of this year to the year following, by reason of some urgent necessity. Hence it was, when they sat to collect and receive this tribute, the collectors had before them two chests placed; in one of which they put the tax of the present year, in the other of the year past.   

But it may be objected, Why did the collectors of Capernaum require the payment at that time, when, according to custom, they began not to demand it before the fifteenth day of the month Adar? I answer, 1. It is certain there were, in every city, moneychangers to collect it, and, being collected, to carry it to Jerusalem. Hence is that in the tract cited, "The fifteenth day of the month Adar, the collectors sit in the cities," to demand the half shekel; "and the five-and-twentieth they sit in the Temple." 2. The uncertain abode of Christ at Capernaum gave these collectors no unjust cause of demanding this due, whensoever they had him there present; at this time especially, when the feast of Tabernacles was near, and they about to go to Jerusalem, to render an account, perhaps, of their collection.   

But if any list to understand this of the tax paid the Romans, we do not contend. And then the words of those that collected the tribute, "Does not your master pay the didrachm?" seem to sound to this effect, "Is your master of the sect of Judas of Galilee?"

Haydock: Mat 17:24

Then the children. From these words and the following, that we may not scandalize them, some argue that Christians are exempt from taxes. The fallacy of this deduction is victoriously demonstrated from the express words of St. Paul, (Romans xiii.) commanding us to be subject to the higher powers, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake: Render tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom, &c. The word children then does not mean subjects, but must be understood in its natural limited sense. (Jansenius) ---

Jesus Christ argues a minori ad majus thus, if the kings of the earth exact money from their subjects only, and exempt their own children, how much more ought I to be exempt, who do not claim my descent from a temporal prince only, but from the supreme King of heaven. This example our Saviour would never have adduced, says St. John Chrysostom had he not really been the Son of God. (hom. lix.) Our Saviour uniformly waved his right to exemptions in temporal things: he declares every where that temporal princes have nothing to fear from him, or his doctrines, since his kingdom is not of this world. (Haydock)

Haydock: Mat 17:26

But that we may not. Jesus Christ pays the tribute, not as one subject to the law, but as consulting the infirmity of the people; but he first shews himself exempt from the above example, lest his disciples might take occasion of scandal therefrom. (St. John Chrysostom, hom. lix.) ---

For me and thee. A great mystery this: Jesus Christ paid not only for himself, but for the future representative of Him and his Church, in whom, as chief, the rest were comprised. (St. Augustine, q. ex Nov. Tes. q. lxxv. tom. 4.) Jesus Christ here, as well as on many other occasions, pointedly marks the precedence of Peter, which might give rise to the strife and contention of the disciples, in the commencement of the ensuing chapter, on the subject of superiority. Thus St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom, Tirinus, &c.

====================

Gill: Mat 17:24

And when they were come to Capernaum,.... Called Christ's own city, Mat 9:1 where he dwelt some time Mat 4:13 and Peter had an house, Mat 8:14 "they that received tribute money", or the "didrachms"; in Talmudic language, it would be גובין השקלים ⁱ, "they that collect the shekels": for not the publicans, or Roman tax gatherers are meant; nor is this to be understood of any such tribute: there was a tribute that was paid to Caesar, by the Jews; see Mat 22:17 but that is expressed by another word, and was paid in other money, in Roman money, which bore Caesar's image and superscription; and was exacted of them, whether they would or not: but this designs the collection of the half shekel, paid yearly for the service of the temple: the original of this custom, was an order of the Lord to Moses, upon numbering the people; that everyone that was twenty years of age and upwards, should give half a shekel as atonement money, or as a ransom for his soul; which was to be disposed of for the service of the tabernacle, Exo 30:12. This does not appear to have been designed for a perpetual law, or to be paid yearly; nor even whenever the number of the people was taken, but only for that present time: in the time of Joash king of Judah, a collection was set on foot for the repair of the temple; and the collection of Moses in the wilderness, was urged as an argument, and by way of example; nor is any mention made of the half shekel, nor was any sum of money fixed they should pay; but, according to the account, it was entirely free and voluntary. In the time of Nehemiah, there was a yearly charge of the "third" part of a "shekel", for the service of the temple; but this was not done by virtue of a divine order, or any law of Moses, with which it did not agree; but by an ordinance the Jews then made for themselves, as their necessity required. Aben Ezra ^k indeed says, that this was an addition to the half shekel. Now in process of time, from these instances and examples, it became a fixed thing, that every year an half shekel should be paid by every Israelite, excepting women, children, and servants, towards defraying the necessary charges of the temple service, and this obtained in Christ's time. There is a whole tract in the Jewish Misna, called Shekalim; in which an account is given of the persons who are obliged to pay this money, the time and manner of collecting it, and for what uses it is put: and so it continued till the times of Titus Vespasian, who, as Josephus says ^l, laid a tax of two drachms, the same with the half shekel, upon the Jews; and ordered it to be brought yearly into the capitol at Rome, as it used to have been paid into the temple at Jerusalem. We need not wonder that we hear of receivers of the half shekel at Capernaum; since once a year, on the "fifteenth" of the month Adar, tables were placed, and collectors sat in every city in Judea, as they did on the "twenty fifth" of the same month, in the sanctuary ^m. The value of the half shekel, was about "fifteen pence" of our money. The Syriac version renders the word here used, "two zuzim of head money": now a "zuz" with the Jews, answered to a Roman penny, four of which made a "shekel" ⁿ; so that two of them were the value of an half "shekel"; it is further to be observed, that shekels in Judea, were double the value of those in Galilee, where Christ now was: five "shekels" in Judea, went for ten in Galilee, and so ten for twenty ^o. The receivers of this money

came to Peter; not caring to go to Christ himself; but observing Peter a forward and active man among his disciples, they applied to him; or rather, because he had an house in this place, at which Christ might be:

and said, doth not your master pay tribute? or the "didrachms", the half "shekel" money. Had this been the Roman tribute, the reason of such a question might have been either to have ensnared him, and to have known whether he was of the same mind with Judas, of Galilee, that refused to pay tribute to Caesar; or because they could not tell whether he was reckoned as an inhabitant, or citizen of that city; for, according to the Jewish canons ^p, a man must be twelve months in a place, before he is liable to tribute and taxes; or because they might suspect him to be exempted, as a doctor, or teacher for the Jewish doctors, wise men, and scholars, were freed from all tribute and taxes ^q even from the "head money", the Syriac version here mentions; and which was a civil tax paid to kings ^r; to which sense that version seems to incline: the rule concerning wise men or scholars, is this ^s.

"They do not collect of them for the building a wall, or setting up gates, or for the hire of watchmen, and such like things; nor for the king's treasury; nor do they oblige them to give tribute, whether it is fixed upon citizens, or whether it is fixed on every man.''

But this was not the Roman tax, nor tribute, on any civil account, but the half shekel for religious service: and it may seem strange that such a question should be asked; and especially since it is a rule with them ^t, that

"all are bound to give the half shekel, priests, Levites, and Israelites; and the strangers, or proselytes, and servants, that are made free; but not women, nor servants, nor children; though if they gave, they received it of them.''

But a following canon ^u explains it, and accounts for it: on the fifteenth

"(i.e. of the month Adar,) the collectors sit in every province or city, (that is, in the countries,) כל ובעין בנחת, "and mildly ask everyone": he that gives to them, they receive it of him; and he that does not give, ליתן אין כופין אותו, "they do not oblige him to give": on the five and twentieth they sit in the sanctuary to collect, and from hence and onward, they urge him that will not give, until he gives; and everyone that will not give, they take pawns of him.''

So that it seems, there was a different usage of persons, at different times and places: our Lord being in Galilee at Capernaum, was treated in this manner.

Gill: Mat 17:25

He saith, yes,.... Without any hesitation, knowing it had been his master's practice; and therefore as he had done it, did not doubt but he would again:

and when he was come into the house; that is, Peter, as both the Syriac and Persic versions express; when he was come into his own house, or at least into that where Christ was, in order to talk with him about this affair, the collectors had been speaking of to him, who seems to have been alone when they met with him; however, Christ was not with him:

Jesus prevented him; saying what he intended to say, on that head; for he being the omniscient God, though not present, knew what question had been put to Peter, and what answer he had returned; and therefore, before Peter could lay the case before him, he puts this question to him;

saying, what thinkest thou, Simon? How does it appear to thee, to thy reason and understanding? in what light dost thou consider this matter? what is thy judgment of it?

of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers, or others? What is the usual practice of earthly kings, whether of Judea, or of other countries? do their own children, sons, and heirs, such as are of their own family, pay? or is it only their subjects that are not of their family?

Gill: Mat 17:26

Peter saith unto him,.... The Vulgate Latin reads, "and he said": and so the Ethiopic, and Munster's Hebrew Gospel; but without doubt Peter is meant, and rightly expressed; whose answer to Christ's question is,

of strangers: meaning not foreigners, or such who formerly belonged to other nations, but were now taken captive, and brought into subjection; but their own native subjects, so called, in distinction from their domestics, their children, and those of their own family:

Jesus saith unto him, then are the children free; from paying custom, tribute, and taxes, and leaves Peter to make the application; and which he suggested might be made, either thus: supposing it was a civil tax, that since he was the son of David, king of Israel, was of his house and family, and heir apparent to his throne and kingdom; according to this rule, he must be exempt from such tribute: or, thus; taking it to have respect to the half shekel, paid on a religious account, for the service of the temple worship; that since he was the Son of the King of kings, for the support of whose worship and service that money was collected; and was also the Lord and proprietor of the temple, and greater than that, he might well be excused the payment of it.

Gill: Mat 17:27

Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them,.... Though Christ could have maintained his right of exemption from payment, by such strong and clear reasons and arguments; yet he chose to forego it, lest any should be offended with him, and look upon him as a transgressor of the law; one that had no regard to the temple, and slighted the worship and service of it, and so be prejudiced against him, and his doctrines: which, by the way, may teach us to be careful to give no offence, to Jew or Gentile, or the church of God; though it may be to our own disadvantage, when the honour and interest of religion lie at stake. This is following the example of Christ, who therefore said to Peter,

go thou to the sea; of Tiberias, which was near this city,

and cast an hook; a fisher's hook into it:

and take up the fish that first cometh up, and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: a "stater", as in the original text, the same with the אסתירא of the Talmudists; and which word the Syriac version here retains, and was, they ^w tell us, of the same value with a "sela", or "shekel" of the province. The Arabic and Persic versions render it, by "four drachms", which also were the same with a "shekel": and so was just enough to pay the two half shekels, for Christ and Peter, and was worth, of our money, near "half a crown"; and not "nearly a crown", as in a late paraphrase is said, through mistake. This was a wonderful instance of the omniscience of Christ, who knew there was in such a fish, such a piece of money, as exactly answered the present exigence, and that that would come first to Peter's hook; and of his omnipotence, if not in forming this piece of money immediately in the fish's mouth, as is thought by some, yet in causing this fish to come to Peter's hook first, and as soon as cast in; and of his power and dominion over all creatures, even over the fishes of the sea; and so proved himself to be what he suggested, the Son of the King of kings; and to be a greater person than the kings of the earth, to whom tribute was paid: and yet, at the same time, it declares his great poverty as man, that he had not a shekel to pay on such an occasion, without working a miracle; and his great condescension to do it, rather than give offence by non-payment:

and take, and give unto them for me and thee; for the half shekel was expected of Peter, as well as of Christ, and he had not wherewith to pay it; and this Christ knew, and therefore provides for both. But why did not Christ pay for the other disciples, as well as for himself and Peter? It may be replied, that this money would pay for no more than two: but this is not a full answer; Christ could have ordered more money in the same way he did this: it may then be further said, that only he and Peter were looked upon as inhabitants of this place; and so the rest were not called upon here, but in their respective cities, where they might pay also, and, besides, were not now present.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Mat 17:24

¹ tn Here δέ (de) has not been translated.

² map For location see Map1 D2; Map2 C3; Map3 B2.

³ tn Grk “Collectors of the double drachma.” This is a case of metonymy, where the coin formerly used to pay the tax (the double drachma coin, or δίδραχμον [didracmon]) was put for the tax itself (cf. BDAG 241 s.v.). Even though this coin was no longer in circulation in NT times and other coins were used to pay the tax, the name for the coin was still used to refer to the tax itself.

sn The temple tax refers to the half-shekel tax paid annually by male Jews to support the temple (Exod 30:13-16).

NET Notes: Mat 17:25

¹ tn Grk “spoke first to him, saying.” The participle λέγων (legwn) is redundant in English and has not been translated.

² sn The phrase their sons may mean “their citizens,” but the term “sons” has been retained here in order to preserve the implicit comparison between the Father and his Son, Jesus.

NET Notes: Mat 17:26

¹ sn See the note on the phrase their sons in the previous verse.

NET Notes: Mat 17:27

¹ sn The four drachma coin was a stater (στατήρ, stathr), a silver coin worth four drachmas. One drachma was equivalent to one denarius, the standard pay for a day’s labor (L&N 6.80).

Geneva Bible: Mat 17:24

^{( 6 )} And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute [money] came to Peter, and said, Doth ^{( i )} not your master ^{( k )} pay ^{( l )} tribute?

^{( 6 )} In that Christ willingly obeys Caesar's edicts, he shows that civil policy is not taken away by the Gospel.

^{( i )} He does not deny, but he asks.

^{( k )} Should he not pay?

^{( l )} They that were from twenty years of age to fifty, paid half a shekel to the Sanctuary, (Exo 30:13). This was an Attic didrachma which the Roman exacted after they had subdued Judea.

Geneva Bible: Mat 17:25

He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own ^{( m )} children, or of strangers?

^{( m )} By children we must not understand subjects who pay tribute, but natural children.

Geneva Bible: Mat 17:27

Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a ^{( n )} piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

^{( n )} The word used here is "stater", which is in value four didrachmas; every drachma is about five pence.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Mat 17:1-27

1 The transfiguration of Christ.

14 He heals the lunatic,

22 foretells his own passion,

24 and pays tribute.

Maclaren: Mat 17:25-26

The Coin In The Fish's Mouth

And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute! of their own children, or of strangers? 26. Peter saith unto Him, of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.'--Matt. 17:25-26.

ALL our Lord's miracles are signs' as well as wonders.' They have a meaning. They not only authenticate His teaching, but they are themselves no inconsiderable portion of the teaching. They are not only' the great bell before His sermon,' but they are also a portion of the sermon.

That doctrinal or dogmatic purpose characterises all the miracles in varying degrees. It is the only purpose of the one before us. This singular miracle of finding the coin in the fish's mouth and giving it for the tribute-money is unlike our Lord's other works in several particulars. It is the only miracle, with the exception of the cursing of the barren fig-tree, and the episode of the unclean spirits entering into the swine--in which there is no message of love or blessing for man's sorrow and pain. It is the only miracle in which our Lord uses His power for His own service or help, and it is like the whole brood of legendary miracles, and unlike all the rest of Christ's in that, at first sight, it seems done for a very trivial end--the providing of some three shillings of our money.

Now, if we put all these things together, the absence of any alleviation of man's sorrow, the presence of a personal end, and the apparent triviality of the result secured, I think we shall see that the only explanation of the miracle is given by regarding it as being what I may call a teaching one, full of instruction with regard to our Lord's character, person, and work. It is a parable as well as a miracle, and it is in that aspect that I wish to look at it now, and try to bring out its lessons.

I. We Have Here, First, The Freedom Of The Son.

The whole point of the story depends upon the fact that this tribute-money was not a civil, but an ecclesiastical impost. It had originally been levied in the Wilderness, at the time of the numbering of the people, and was enjoined to be repeated at each census, when every male Israelite was to pay half a shekel for a ransom for his soul,' an acknowledgment that his life was forfeited by sin. In later years it came to be levied as an annual payment for the sup, port of the temple and its ceremonial. It was never compulsory, there was no power to exact it. The question of the collectors, Doth not your Master pay tribute?' does not sound like the imperative demand which a publican' would have made for payment of an impost due to the Roman Government. It was an optional church-rate,' and the very fact that it was so, would make Jews who were, or wished to be considered, patriotic or religious, the more punctilious in paying it.

The question put to Peter possibly implies a doubt whether this Rabbi, who held lax views on so many points of Pharisaical righteousness, would be likely to recognise the obligation of the tax. Peter's quick answer seems to be prompted by zeal for his Master's honour, on which the question appears to him to cast a slur. It was perhaps too quick, but the apostle has been too much blamed for his answer, which was in fact correct, and for which our Lord does not blame him. When he comes to Christ to tell what has happened, before he can speak, Christ puts to him this little parable which I have taken as part of my text: How thinkest thou? Do kings of this world take custom?'--meaning thereby not imports or exports, but taxes of all kinds of things,--or tribute,' --meaning thereby taxes on persons--from their own children, or from subjects who are not their children?' The answer, of course, is, From the latter.' So the answer comes, Then are the children free.'

Christ then here, claims in some sense, Sonship to Him to whom the tribute is paid, that is, to God, and therefore freedom from the obligation to pay the tribute. But notice, for this is an important point in the explanation of the words, that the plural in our Lord's words, Then are the children free,' is not intended to include Peter and the others in the same category as Himself. The only question in hand is as to His obligation to pay a certain tax; and to include any one else would have been irrelevant, as well as erroneous. The plural belongs to the illustration, not to its application, and corresponds with the plural in the question, Of whom do the kings of the earth take custom?' The kings of the earth are contrasted with the one King of the heavens, the supreme and sole Sovereign; and the children of the kings of the earth are contrasted with the only begotten Son of the only King of kings and Lord of lords.

So that here there is no mixing up of Himself with others, or of others with Himself, but the claiming of an unique position, singular and sole, belonging to Him only, in which He stands as the Son of the mighty Monarch to whom the tribute is paid. He claims to have the divine nature, the divine prerogatives, to bear a specific relationship to God Himself, and to be, as other words in Scripture put it, the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of His person.'

If there is anything certain about Jesus Christ's teaching, this is certain about it, that He proclaimed Himself to he the Son of God, in such a sense as no man shared with Him, and in such a sense as vindicated the attitude which He took up, the demands which He made, and the gifts which He offered to men.

What a deduction must be made from the wisdom of His teaching, and from the meekness of His Spirit, if that claim was an illusion! What shall we say of the sanity of a man who poses himself before the whole race, claiming to be the Son of God, and whose continual teaching to them therefore is, not, Believe in goodness'; Believe in virtue'; Believe in truth'; Believe in My word'; but Believe in Me'? Was there ever anywhere else a religious teacher, all of whose words were gracious and wise and sweet, but who-

Make the important stumble,Of saying that he, the sage and humble,Was likewise, one with the Creator'?But now what is the freedom based on sonship which our Lord here claims?

I have said that this tax was levied with a double meaning; first, it was an atonement or ransom for the soul; second, it was devoted to the temple and its worship. And now, mark, that in both these aspects our Lord alleges His true sonship as the reason why He is exempt from it.

That is to say, first, Jesus Christ claims to have no need of a ransom for His soul. Never one word dropped from His lips which indicated the smallest consciousness of flaw or failure, of defect or imperfection, still less of actual transgression. He takes His position outside the circle of sinful men which includes all others. It is a strange characteristic in a religious teacher, very unlike the usual tone of devout men. And stranger still is the fact that the absence of this consciousness of evil has never been felt to be itself evil and a blot. Think of a David's agony of penitence. Think of a Paul's, Of whom I am chief!' Think of the long wail of an Augustine's confessions. Think of the stormy self-accusations of a Luther; and then think that He who inspired them all, never, by word or deed, betrayed the slightest consciousness that in Himself there was the smallest deflection from the perfect line of right, the least speck or stain on the perfect gold of His purity. And remember, too, that when He challenges the world with, Which of you convinceth Me of sin?' with the exception of half a dozen men, of whom we can scarcely say whether their want of spiritual insight or their arrogance of self-importance is the most flagrant, who, in the course of nineteen centuries, have ventured to fling their little handfuls of mud at Him, the whole world has answered, Thou art fairer than the children of men; grace is poured into Thy lips.'

The Son needs no ransom for His soul,' which, being translated, is but this: the purity and the innocence of Jesus Christ, which is a manifest fact in His biography, is only explicable when we believe that we have before us the Incarnate God, and therefore the Perfect Man. And the Son needs no temple for His worship. His whole life, as human, was a life of communion and prayer with His Father in heaven. And just because He dwelt in' God's bosom all the year,' for Him ritual and temple were nought. Sense-bound men needed them; He needed them not. In this place,' said He, is one greater than the temple.' He was all which the temple symbolised. Was it the dwelling-place of God, the place of sacrifice, the meeting-place of man with God, the place of divine manifestation? The temple of His body' was in deepest reality all these. In it dwelt the whole fulness of the Godhead. It was at once sacrifice and place of sacrifice, even as He is the true everlasting Priest. In Him men see God, and meet with God. He is greater than the temple because He is the true temple, and He is the true temple because He is the Son. And because He is the Son, therefore He is free from all dependence upon, and connection with, the outward worship of ceremony and sacrifice and priest and ritual.

Now, dear brethren, let me pause for one moment to press upon you and upon myself this question: Do I welcome that Christ with the full conviction that He is the Son of God? It seems to me that, in this generation, the question of questions, as far as religion is concerned, is the old one which Christ asked of His disciples by the fountains and woods of Caesarea Philippi: Whom say ye that I, the Son of Man, am?' Can you lift up your face to meet His clear and all-searching eye, and say: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God'? If you can, you are on the way to understanding Him and His work; if you cannot, His life and work are all wrapped in darkness for you, His death robbed of its truest power, and your life deprived of its surest anchor.

II. The Voluntary Submission Of The Son To The Bonds From Which He Is Free.

Now, there is a second lesson that I would gather from this miracle--the voluntary submission of the Son to the bonds from which He is free.

He bids His disciple pay the tribute for Him, for a specific reason: Lest we should offend them.' That, of course, is simply a piece of practical wisdom, to prevent any narrow or purblind souls from stumbling at His teaching, by reason of His neglect of this trivial matter. The question of how far religious teachers or any others are at liberty, when they are not actuated by personal motives, to render compliance with ceremonies which are of no value to them, is a wide one, which I have no need to dwell upon here. But, turning from that specific aspect of the incident, I think we may look upon it as being an illustration, in regard to a very small matter, of what is really the essence of our Lord's relation to the whole world and our-solves--His voluntary taking upon Himself of bonds from which He is free.

Is it not a symbol of the very heart of the meaning of His Incarnation? For as much as the children are partakers of flesh and blood He also Himself likewise takes part of the same.' He is found in fashion as a man.' He chooses to enter within the limits and the obligations of humanity. Round the radiant glories of the divinity, He gathers the folds of the veil of human flesh. He immerses the pillar of fire in a cloud of smoke. He comes amongst us, taking on His own wrists the fetters that bind us, suffering Himself to be cribbed, cabined, and confined' within the narrow limits of our manhood, in order that by His voluntary acceptance of it we may be redeemed from our corruption.

Is it not a parable of His life and lowly obedience? He proclaimed the same principle as the guide for all His conduct, when, sinless, He presented Himself to John for the baptism of repentance,' and overcame the baptiser's scruples with the words, Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.' He comes under the law. Bound to no such service, He binds Himself to all human duties that He may hallow the bonds which He has worn, may set us the pattern of perfect obedience, and may know a servant's heart.

The Prince is free, but King's Son though He be, He goes among His Father's poor subjects, lives their squalid lives, makes experience of their poverty, and hardens His hands by labouring like them. Sympathy He learned in huts where poor men lie.'

Is it not the rehearsal in parable of His death? He was free from the bonds of mortality, and He took upon Him our human flesh. He was free from the necessity of death, even after He had taken our flesh upon Him. But, being free from the necessity, He submitted to the actuality, and laid down His life of Himself, because of His loving will, to save and help each of us. Oh, dear friends! we never can understand the meaning and the beauty, either of the life or of the death of our Master, unless we look at each from this point of view, that it is His willing acceptance of the bonds that bind us. His own loving will brought Him here; His own loving will kept Him here; His own loving will impelled Him along the path of life, though at every step of it He trod as with naked feet upon burning iron; His own loving will brought Him to the Cross; His own loving will, and not the Roman soldiers' nails, fastened Him to it. Let us look, then, to Him with thankfulness, and recognise in that death His thorough identification with all the bonds and miseries of our condition. He took part of the same that through death He might deliver them that by fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.'

III. The Supernatural Glory Which Ever Accompanies The Humiliation Of The Son.

Then there is another lesson which I think we may fairly gather from this miracle, viz. that we have here the supernatural glory which ever accompanies the humiliation of the Son.

The miracle, at first sight, appears to be for a very trivial end. Men have made merry with it by reason of that very triviality. But the miracle is vindicated, peculiar as it is, by a deep divine congruity and decorum. He will submit, Son though He be, to this complete identification of Himself with us. But He will so submit as, even in submitting, to assert His divine dignity. As has been well said, In the midst of the act of submission majesty flashes forth.' A multiform miracle--containing many miracles in one--a miracle of omniscience, and a miracle of influence over the lower creatures is wrought. The first fish that rises carries in its mouth the exact sum needed.

Here, therefore, we have another illustration of that remarkable blending of humiliation and glory, which is a characteristic of our Lord's life. These two strands are always twined together, like a twisted line of gold and black. At each moment of special abasement there is some special coruscation of the brightness of His glory. Whensoever He stoops there is something accompanying the stooping, to tell how great and how merciful He is who bows. Out of the deepest darkness there flashes some light. So at His cradle, which seems to be the identifying of Him with humanity in its most helpless and lowest condition, there shall be angels, and the stars in their courses shall bow and move to guide wise men from afar with offerings to His feet. And at His Cross, where He sounds the very bass string and touches the lowest point of humiliation and defeat, a clearer vision sees in that humiliation the highest glory.

And thus, here, He will not only identify Himself with sinful men who need a ransom, and with sense-bound men who need a sacrifice and a temple, but He will so identify Himself with them as that He shall send His power into the recesses of the lake, where His knowledge sees, as clearly as our eyes see the men that stand beside us, and obedient to an unconscious impulse from Him, the dumb creature that had swallowed, as it sunk, the shining stater that had dropped out of the girdle of some fisherman, shall rise first to the hook; in token that not only in His Father's house does He rule as a Son over His own house, but that He' doeth as He hath pleased, in all deep places,' and that in Him the ancient hope is fulfilled of a Son of Man who hath dominion over the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the sea.' The miracle was for a trivial end in appearance, but it was a demonstration, though to one man only at first, yet through him to all the world, that this Christ, in His lowliness, is the Everlasting Son of the Father.

IV. Give Unto Them For Me And For Thee.

And so, lastly, we have here also the lesson of the sufficiency for us all of what He provides. That take, and give unto them for Me and for thee.

He does not say For us.' He and Peter do not stand on the same level. He has chosen to submit Himself to the obligations, Peter was necessarily under them. That which is found by miracle in the fish's mouth is precisely the amount required for both the one and the other. It is rendered, as the original has it, Instead of thee and Me,' putting emphasis upon the characteristic of the tribute as being ransom, or payment, for a man's soul.

And so, although this thought is not part of the original purpose of the miracle, and, therefore, is different from those which I have already been dwelling on, which are part of that purpose, I think we may fairly see here this great truth,--that that which Christ brings to us by supernatural act, far greater than the miracle here, is enough for all the claims and obligations that God, or man, or law, or conscience have upon any of us. His perfect obedience and stainless life discharged for Himself all the obligations to law and righteousness under which He came as a Man; His perfect life and His mighty death are for us the full discharge of all that can be brought against us,

There are many and solemn claims and claimants upon each of us. Law and duty, that awful ought which should rule our lives and which we have broken thousands of times, come to each of us in many an hour of clear vision, and take us by the throat, and say,' Pay us what thou owest!' And there is a Judgment Day before all of us; which is no mere bugbear to frighten children, but will be a fact of experience in our case. Friend! how are you going to meet your obligations? You owe God all your love, all your heart, will, strength, service. What an awful score of unpaid debts, with accumulated interest, there stands against each of our names! Think of some bankrupt sitting in his counting-house with a balance-sheet before him that shows his hopeless insolvency, He sits and broods, and broods, and does not know what in the world he is going to do. The door opens --a messenger enters and gives him an envelope. He tears it open, and there flutters out a cheque that more than pays it all. The illustration is a very low one; it does not cover the whole ground of Christ's work for you. It puts a possibly commercial aspect into it, which we have to take care of lest it become the exclusive one; but it is true for all that. You are the bankrupt. What have you to pay? Oh, behold that precious treasure of gold tried in the fire, which is Christ's righteousness and Christ's death; and by faith in Him, that take and give' and all the debt will be discharged, and you will be set free and made a son by that Son who has taken upon Himself all our bonds, and so has broken them; who has taken upon Himself all our debts, and so has cancelled them every one.

MHCC: Mat 17:24-27

Peter felt sure that his Master was ready to do what was right. Christ spoke first to give him proof that no thought can be withholden from him. We must never decline our duty for fear of giving offence; but we must sometimes deny ourselves in our worldly interests, rather than give offence. However the money was lodged in the fish, He who knows all things alone could know it, and only almighty power could bring it to Peter's hook. The power and the poverty of Christ should be mentioned together. If called by providence to be poor, like our Lord, let us trust in his power, and our God shall supply all our need, according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus. In the way of obedience, in the course, perhaps, of our usual calling, as he helped Peter, so he will help us. And if any sudden call should occur, which we are not prepared to meet, let us not apply to others, till we first seek Christ.

Matthew Henry: Mat 17:24-27

We have here an account of Christ's paying tribute.

I. Observe how it was demanded, Mat 17:24. Christ was now at Capernaum, his headquarters, where he mostly resided; he did not keep from thence, to decline being called upon for his dues, but rather came thither, to be ready to pay them.

1. The tribute demanded was not any civil payment to the Roman powers, that was strictly exacted by the publicans, but the church-duties, the half shekel, about fifteen pence, which were required from every person or the service of the temple, and the defraying of the expenses of the worship there; it is called a ransom for the soul, Exo 30:12, etc. This was not so strictly exacted now as sometimes it had been, especially not in Galilee.

2. The demand was very modest; the collectors stood in such awe of Christ, because of his mighty works, that they durst not speak to him about it, but applied themselves to Peter, whose house was in Capernaum, and probably in his house Christ lodged; he therefore was fittest to be spoken to as the housekeeper, and they presumed he knew his Master's mind. Their question is, Doth not your master pay tribute? Some think that they sought an occasion against him, designing, if he refused, to represent him as disaffected to the temple-service, and his followers as lawless people, that would pay neither toll, tribute, nor custom, Ezr 4:13. It should rather seem, they asked this with respect, intimating, that if he had any privilege to exempt him from this payment, they would not insist upon it.

Peter presently his word for his Master; " Yes, certainly; my Master pays tribute; it is his principle and practice; you need not fear moving it to him."(1.) He was made under the law (Gal 4:4); therefore under this law he was paid for at forty days old (Luk 2:22), and now he paid for himself, as one who, in his state of humiliation, had taken upon him the form of a servant, Phi 2:7, Phi 2:8. (2.) He was made sin for us, and was sent forth in the likeness of sinful flesh, Rom 8:3. Now this tax paid to the temple is called an atonement for the soul, Exo 30:15. Christ, that in every thing he might appear in the likeness of sinners, paid it though he had no sin to atone for. (3.) Thus it became him to fulfil all righteousness, Mat 3:15. He did this to set an example, [1.] Of rendering to all their due, tribute to whom tribute is due, Rom 13:7. The kingdom of Christ not being of this world, the favourites and officers of it are so far from having a power granted them, as such, to tax other people's purses, that theirs are made liable to the powers that are. [2.] Of contributing to the support of the public worship of God in the places where we are. If we reap spiritual things, it is fit that we should return carnal things. The temple was now made a den of thieves, and the temple-worship a pretence for the opposition which the chief priests gave to Christ and his doctrine; and yet Christ paid this tribute. Note, Church-duties, legally imposed, are to be paid, notwithstanding church-corruptions. We must take care not to use our liberty as a cloak of covetousness or maliciousness, 1Pe 2:16. If Christ pay tribute, who can pretend an exemption?

II. How it was disputed (Mat 17:25), not with the collectors themselves, lest they should be irritated, but with Peter, that he might be satisfied in the reason why Christ paid tribute, and might not mistake about it. He brought the collectors into the house; but Christ anticipated him, to give him a proof of his omniscience, and that no thought can be withholden from him. The disciples of Christ are never attacked without his knowledge.

Now, 1. He appeals to the way of the kings of the earth, which is, to take tribute of strangers, of the subjects of their kingdom, or foreigners that deal with them, but not of their own children that are of their families; there is such a community of goods between parents and children, and a joint-interest in what they have, that it would be absurd for the parents to levy taxes upon the children, or demand any thing from them; it is like one hand taxing the other.

2. He applies this to himself; Then are the children free. Christ is the Son of God, and Heir of all things; the temple is his temple (Mal 3:1), his Father's house (Joh 2:16), in it he is faithful as a Son in his own house (Heb 3:6), and therefore not obliged to pay this tax for the service of the temple. Thus Christ asserts his right, lest his paying this tribute should be misimproved to the weakening of his title as the Son of God, and the King of Israel, and should have looked like a disowning of it himself. These immunities of the children are to be extended no further than our Lord Jesus himself. God's children are freed by grace and adoption from the slavery of sin and Satan, but not from their subjection to civil magistrates in civil things; here the law of Christ is express; Let every soul (sanctified souls not excepted) be subject to the higher powers. Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's.

III. How it was paid, notwithstanding, Mat 17:27.

1. For what reason Christ waived his privilege, and paid this tribute, though he was entitled to an exemption - Lest we should offend them. Few knew, as Peter did, that he was the Son of God; and it would have been a diminution to the honour of that great truth, which was yet a secret, to advance it now, to serve such a purpose as this. Therefore Christ drops that argument, and considers, that if he should refuse this payment, it would increase people's prejudice against him and his doctrine, and alienate their affections from him, and therefore he resolves to pay it. Note, Christian prudence and humility teach us, in many cases, to recede from our right, rather than give offence by insisting upon it. We must never decline our duty for fear of giving offence (Christ's preaching and miracles offended them, yet he went on with him, Mat 15:12, Mat 15:13, better offend men than God); but we must sometimes deny ourselves in that which is our secular interest, rather than give offence; as Paul, 1Co 8:13; Rom 14:13.

2. What course he took for the payment of this tax; he furnished himself with money for it out of the mouth of a fish (Mat 17:27), wherein appears,

(1.) The poverty of Christ; he had not fifteen pence at command to pay his tax with, though he cured so many that were diseased; it seems, he did all gratis; for our sakes he became poor, 2Co 8:9. In his ordinary expenses, he lived upon alms (Luk 8:3), and in extraordinary ones, he lived upon miracles. He did not order Judas to pay this out of the bag which he carried; that was for subsistence, and he would not order that for his particular use, which was intended for the benefit of the community.

(2.) The power of Christ, in fetching money out of a fish's mouth for this purpose. Whether his omnipotence put it there, or his omniscience knew that it was there, it comes all to one; it was an evidence of his divinity, and that he is Lord of hosts. Those creatures that are most remote from man are at the command of Christ, even the fishes of the sea are under his feet (Psa 8:5); and to evidence his dominion in this lower world, and to accommodate himself to his present state of humiliation, he chose to take it out of a fish's mouth, when he could have taken it out of an angel's hand. Now observe,

[1.] Peter must catch the fish by angling. Even in miracles he would use means to encourage industry and endeavour. Peter has something to do, and it is in the way of his own calling too; to teach us diligence in the employment we are called to, and called in. Do we expect that Christ should give to us? Let us be ready to work for him.

[2.] The fish came up, with money in the mouth of it, which represents to us the reward of obedience in obedience. What work we do at Christ's command brings its own pay along with it: In keeping God's commands, as well as after keeping them, there is great reward, Psa 19:11. Peter was made a fisher of men, and those that he caught thus, came up; where the heart is opened to entertain Christ's word, the hand is open to encourage his ministers.

[3.] The piece of money was just enough to pay the tax for Christ and Peter. Thou shalt find a stater, the value of a Jewish shekel, which would pay the poll-tax for two, for it was half a shekel, Exo 30:13. Christ could as easily have commanded a bag of money as a piece of money; but he would teach us not to covet superfluities, but, having enough for our present occasions, therewith to be content, and not to distrust God, though we live but from hand to mouth. Christ made the fish his cash-keeper; and why may not we make God's providence our storehouse and treasury? If we have a competency for today, let tomorrow take thought for the things of itself. Christ paid for himself and Peter, because it is probable that here he only was assessed, and of him it was at this time demanded; perhaps the rest had paid already, or were to pay elsewhere. The papists make a great mystery of Christ's paying for Peter, as if this made him the head and representative of the whole church; whereas the payment of tribute for him was rather a sign of subjection than of superiority. His pretended successors pay no tribute, but exact it. Peter fished for this money, and therefore part of it went for his use. Those that are workers together with Christ in winning souls shall shine with him. Give it for thee and me. What Christ paid for himself was looked upon as a debt; what he paid for Peter was a courtesy to him. Note, it is a desirable thing, if God so please, to have wherewithal of this world's goods, not only to be just, but to be kind; not only to be charitable to the poor, but obliging to our friends. What is a great estate good for, but that it enables a man to do so much the more good?

Lastly, Observe, The evangelist records here the orders Christ gave to Peter, the warrant; the effect is not particularly mentioned, but taken for granted, and justly; for, with Christ, saying and doing are the same thing.

Barclay: Mat 17:24-27

The Temple at Jerusalem was a costly place to run. There were the daily morning and evening sacrifices which each involved the offering of a year-old lamb. Along with the lamb were offered wine and flour and oil. The incense which was burned every day had to be bought and prepared. The costly hangings and the robes of the priests constantly wore out; and the robe of the High Priest was itself worth a king's ransom. All this required money.

So, on the basis of Exo 30:13, it was laid down that every male Jew over twenty years of age must pay an annual Temple tax of one half-shekel. In the days of Nehemiah, when the people were poor, it was one-third of a shekel. One half-shekel was equal to two Greek drachmae (1406); and the tax was commonly called the didrachm (1323), as it is called in this passage. The value of the tax was about 8 pence; and that sum must be evaluated in the light of the fact that a working man's wage in Palestine in the time of Jesus was only 3 1/2 pence. The tax was in fact the equivalent of two days' pay. It brought into the Temple treasury no less than about 76,000 British pounds a year. Theoretically the tax was obligatory and the Temple authorities had power to distrain upon a man's goods, if he failed to pay.

The method of collection was carefully organized. On the first of the month Adar, which is March of our year, announcement was made in all the towns and villages of Palestine that the time to pay the tax had come. On the fifteenth of the month, booths were set up in each town and village, and at the booths the tax was paid. If the tax was not paid by the twenty-fifth of Adar, it could only be paid direct to the Temple in Jerusalem.

In this passage we see Jesus paying this Temple tax. The tax authorities came to Peter and asked him if his Master paid his taxes. There is little doubt that the question was asked with malicious intent and that the hope was that Jesus would refuse to pay; for, if he refused, the orthodox would have a ground of accusation against him. Peter's immediate answer was that Jesus did pay. Then he went and told Jesus of the situation, and Jesus used a kind of parable in Mat 17:25-26.

The picture drawn has two possibilities but in either case the meaning is the same.

(i) In the ancient world conquering and colonizing nations had little or no idea of governing for the benefit of subject peoples. Rather, they considered that the subject peoples existed to make things easier for them. The result was that a king's own nation never paid tribute, if there were any nations subject to it. It was the subject nations who bore the burden and who paid the tax. So Jesus may be saying, "God is the King of Israel; but we are the true Israel, for we are the citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven; outsiders may have to pay; but we are free."

(ii) The picture is more likely a much simpler one than that. If any king imposed taxes on a nation, he certainly did not impose them on his own family. It was indeed for the support of his own household that the taxes were imposed. The tax in question was for the Temple, which was the house of God. Jesus was the Son of God. Did he not say when his parents sought him in Jerusalem: "Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?" (Luk 2:49). How could the Son be under obligation to pay the tax which was for his own Father's house?

None the less Jesus said that they must pay, not because of the compulsion of the law, but because of a higher duty. He said they must pay "lest we should offend them." The New Testament always uses the verb to offend (skandalizein, 4624) and the noun offence (skandalon, 4625) in a special way. The verb never means to insult or to annoy or to injure the pride of. It always means to put a stumbling-block in someone's way, to cause someone to trip up and to fall. Therefore Jesus is saying: "We must pay so as not to set a bad example to others. We must not only do our duty, we must go beyond duty, in order that we may show others what they ought to do." Jesus would allow himself nothing which might make someone else think less of the ordinary obligation of life. In life there may sometimes be exemptions we could claim; there may be things we could quite safely allow ourselves to do. But we must claim nothing and allow ourselves nothing which might possibly be a bad example to someone else.

We may well ask why is it that this story was ever transmitted at all? For reasons of space the gospel writers had to select their material. Why select this story? Matthew's gospel was written between A.D. 80 and 90. Now just a little before that time Jews and Jewish Christians had been faced with a very real and a very disturbing problem. We saw that every male Jew over twenty had to pay the Temple tax; but the Temple was totally destroyed in A.D. 70, never to be rebuilt. After the destruction of the Temple, Vespasian, the Roman emperor, enacted that the half-shekel Temple tax should now be paid to the treasury of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome.

Here indeed was a problem. Many of the Jews and of the Jewish Christians were violently inclined to rebel against this enactment. Any such widespread rebellion would have had disastrous consequences, for it would have been utterly crushed at once, and would have gained the Jews and the Christians the reputation of being bad and disloyal and disaffected citizens.

This story was put into the gospels to tell the Christians, especially the Jewish Christians, that, however unpleasant they might be, the duties of a citizen must be shouldered. It tells us that Christianity and good citizenship go hand in hand. The Christian who exempts himself from the duties of good citizenship is not only failing in citizenship, he is also failing in Christianity.

Barclay: Mat 17:24-27

Now we come to the story itself If we take it with a bald and crude literalism, it means that Jesus told Peter to go and catch a fish, and that he would find a stater in the fish's mouth which would be sufficient to pay the tax for both of them. It is not irrelevant to note that the gospel never tells us that Peter did so. The story ends with Jesus' saying.

Before we begin to examine the story we must remember that all oriental people love to say a thing in the most dramatic and vivid way possible; and that they love to say a thing with the flash of a smile. This miracle is difficult on three grounds.

(i) God does not send a miracle to enable us to do what we can quite well do for ourselves. That would be to harm us and not to help us. However poor the disciples were, they did not need a miracle to enable them to earn two half-shekels. It was not beyond human power to earn such a sum.

(ii) This miracle transgresses the great decision of Jesus that he would never use his miraculous power for his own ends. He could have turned stones into bread to satisfy his own hunger--but he refused. He could have used his power to enhance his own prestige as a wonder-worker--but he refused. In the wilderness Jesus decided once and for all that he would not and could not selfishly use his power. If this story is taken with a crude literalism, it does show Jesus using his divine power to satisfy his own personal needs--and that is what Jesus would never do.

(iii) If this miracle is taken literally, there is a sense in which it is even immoral. Life would become chaotic if a man could pay his debts by finding coins in fishes' mouths. Life was never meant to be arranged in such a way that men could meet their obligations in such a lazy and effortless way. "The gods," said one of the great Greeks, "have ordained that sweat should be the price of all things." That is just as true for the Christian thinker as it was for the Greek.

If all this is so, what are we to say? Are we to say that this is a mere legendary story, mere imaginative fiction, with no truth behind it at all? Far from it. Beyond a doubt something happened.

Let us remember again the Jewish love of dramatic vividness. Undoubtedly what happened was this. Jesus said to Peter: "Yes, Peter. You're right. We, too, must pay our just and lawful debts. Well, you know how to do it. Back you go to the fishing for a day. You'll get plenty of money in the fishes' mouths to pay our dues! A day at the fishing will soon produce all we need."

Jesus was saying, "Back to your job, Peter; that's the way to pay your debts." So the typist will find a new coat in the keys of her typewriter. The motor mechanic will find food for himself and his wife and family in the cylinder of the motor car. The teacher will find money to pay his way in the blackboard and the chalk. The clerk will find enough to support himself and his dear ones in the ledger and in the account sheets.

When Jesus said this, he said it with that swift smile of his and with his gift for dramatic language. He was not telling Peter literally to get coins in fishes' mouths. He was telling him that in his day's work he would get what he needed to pay his way.

Constable: Mat 13:54--19:3

V. The reactions of the King 13:54--19:2

Matthew recorded increasing polarization in this section. Jesus expanded His ministry, but as He did so opposition became even more intense. The Jewish leaders became increasingly hostile. Consequently Jesus spent more time preparing His disciples. Jesus revealed Himself more clearly to His disciples, but they only understood some of what He told them. They strongly rejected other things He said. The inevitability of a final confrontation between Jesus and His critics became increasingly clear. The general movement in this section is Jesus withdrawing from Israel's leaders (13:54-16:12) and preparing His disciples for His passion (16:13-19:2).

Constable: Mat 16:13--19:3

B. Jesus' instruction of His disciples around Galilee 16:13-19:2

Almost as a fugitive from His enemies, Jesus took His disciples to the far northern extremity of Jewish influence. He proceeded to give them important revelation concerning the future in that safe haven. He revealed to them more about His person, His program, and His principles as Israel's rejected King.

Constable: Mat 17:14-27

3. Instruction about the King's principles 17:14-27

Jesus' instruction of His disciples in view of the King's coming death and resurrection and the kingdom's postponement continued. Jesus had taught them about His person (16:13-17) and His program (16:18-17:13). He now taught them principles that clarified His work and His person further.

Constable: Mat 17:24-27

Appreciating Jesus' sonship 17:24-27

17:24 The two drachma tax was a Jewish tax that every male Jew between 20 and 50 years of age had to pay toward the maintenance of the temple and its services (Exod. 30:13). There was no two drachma coin in circulation at this time, so two adults often went together and paid one shekel that was worth four drachmas.⁶⁸³

17:25-26 Jesus turned this inquiry from the tax collector into a teaching situation for Peter and presumably the other disciples. Jesus changed the tax from a religious one to a civil one to make His point clearer. The principle is the same in both cases, but it was easier to illustrate in the civil arena of life.

Jesus' point was that as the sons of kings are exempt from the taxes their fathers impose, so He was exempt from the taxes His Father imposed. He meant the temple tax. The temple really belonged to Jesus (Mal. 3:1). Jesus was teaching Peter the implications of His deity. He was not teaching Peter to fulfill his civic responsibility.

17:27 Even though He was exempt, Jesus would pay the tax because He did not want to offend anyone needlessly (cf. 5:29). Failure to pay the tax would create unnecessary problems. Because Peter was one of Jesus' disciples and one of God's children through faith in Jesus, he also had no obligation to pay the temple tax (cf. 12:1-8). Paul later followed Jesus' example of not giving offense in a similar situation (1 Cor. 8:13; 9:12, 22), as all God's children should.

God had declared Jesus His Son clearly in the Transfiguration (v. 5) as well as at Jesus' baptism. Yet Jesus' glory remained veiled as He moved toward the Cross. This established a pattern for His disciples (cf. 18:1-5). Since the sons of God are exempt from maintaining the temple and its service, the end of this system of worship appeared to be approaching, as it was. Here is another indication that Jesus ended the Mosaic Law (15:11). Again the disciples failed to grasp the major significance of these things until after the Resurrection.

Jesus alone could obtain the stater (shekel) as He did. Again the sinless Man fulfilled the command of the Adamic Covenant to exercise dominion over the fish of the sea (cf. 8:27; 14:25). Even though He was free from the law's demands, being God's Son, He submitted to them and miraculously provided for His disciples to do so. This demonstration of humility and power is even more impressive following as it does an announcement of Jesus' passion. Jesus proceeded to teach His disciples the importance of following the examples that He provided for them in the next section (ch. 18).

College: Mat 17:1-27

MATTHEW 17

B. TRANSFIGURATION (17:1-8)

¹ After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. ² There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. ³ Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

⁴ Peter said to Jesus, " Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters - one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah."

⁵ While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, " This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!"

⁶ When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. ⁷ But Jesus came and touched them. " Get up," he said. " Don't be afraid." ⁸ When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.

It is unusual for Matthew to link events together by documenting how much time elapsed between episodes (v. 1 " after six days" ). It is doubtful that the notation of time was simply to indicate how long it took them to travel from Caesarea Philippi (16:13) to the mountain where the transfiguration takes place (17:1f.). The temporal reference is intended to closely tie the transfiguration scene with the events that occurred in Caesarea Philippi (16:13-28). It is significant that the transfiguration happens only a few days after Peter's confession (16:16), and Jesus' prediction of his suffering and death (16:21). Once again the revelatory action of God (cf. 16:17) reveals to a select few Jesus' transcendent glory and status (17:1-8). However, as emphasized in 16:21-23, Jesus' exalted status is qualified by his role as God's Suffering Servant (17:5).

It has also been observed that the account of Jesus' transfiguration has many parallels with the experience of Moses on Mt. Sinai (cf. Exod 24 and 34). Both Jesus and Moses ascend a mountain, and after a " six day" interval the glory of the Lord is revealed (cf. Exod 24:15-16). In both incidents three men are specifically named as being present (Exod 24:1, " Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu" ; 17:1 " Peter, James, and John" ). Both scenes mention the presence of a cloud (Exod 24:15f.), and the glory of God being revealed. Both Jesus and Moses experience an alteration of their appearances. However, while Moses' shining face reflected God's glory, Jesus' transformed appearance radiated from within, reflecting the glory of God's presence in him. In both instances the voice of God was heard (cf. Exod 24:16; Matt 17:5), and in the Matthean context, God's exhortation to " listen" to Jesus (17:5), may be an allusion to Deuteronomy 18:15 where Moses predicts that God will raise up a prophet like him, and all the people " must listen to him" (Deut 18:15-18). It certainly appears that Matthew does intend his readers to see Sinai motifs behind his narration of Jesus' transfiguration.

17:1-2. Jesus leads three of his disciples ( Peter, James, and John ) onto a very high mountain . The precise location is not named, possibly " so that the reader is free to make symbolic associations with mountains of biblical importance, such a Sinai, Carmel, or Moriah." In the privacy of this setting, Jesus' physical appearance was dramatically altered (metemorfwvqh, metemorphôthç), so that his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as light (cf. Exod 34:29; 2 Cor 3:7, 11). The brilliance of Jesus' true glory is God's revelatory disclosure to the disciples (note the passive). They are privileged to experience firsthand a remarkable disclosure of Jesus' transcendent glory and status. Certainly they would never look at Jesus in the same way after such a remarkable event.

17:3. The astonishing character of the scene is even further enhanced by the appearance of two of Israel's most illustrious figures, Moses and Elijah . The presence of Israel's great lawgiver, Moses, accompanied with Elijah, the famed prophet, may be intended to represent the " law and the prophets." Thus, while their conversing with Jesus indicates a degree of continuity between their work and the mission of Jesus, their ultimate departure (v. 8) indicates the surpassing greatness of Jesus' person and role, in terms of fulfillment. It may also be that general expectations concerning the return of Moses and Elijah in the Messianic Age (cf. Deut 18:15-18; Mal 3:1; 4:6) prompted Matthew to mention their presence. Whatever the precise significance of their presence, the ensuing narrative makes it clear that in Jesus the line of God's faithful servants has reached its ultimate fulfillment.

17:4. The majestic and imposing aura surrounding the scene prompted Peter's proposal to erect three shelters , one for each of the notable figures before him. The flaw in Peter's honorary proposal is that it seemed to relativize Jesus by equating him in importance with Moses and Elijah. Although Peter does acknowledge Jesus' authority ( if you wish ), by equating Jesus with Moses and Elijah he has adopted a human point of view (cf. 16:23), similar to the popular proposals noted in 16:14. Once again, while good intentioned, Peter reveals his failure to see the real significance of Jesus transfigured state and the appearance of Moses and Elijah.

17:5. While still speaking, Peter is interrupted by an awesome sight signaling the very presence of God. Suddenly a bright cloud enveloped them (ejpiskiavzein, episkiazein , cf. Exod 19:19), not casting a shadow, but flooding the place with dazzling light. The imagery is reminiscent of the Shekinah glory of God (Isa 4:5), and the glory of the Son of Man described in Daniel 7:13. From the midst of the cloud God once again offers his evaluative point of view concerning Jesus' identity and role. In language virtually verbatim to the announcement made at his baptism (3:17), Jesus is identified as God's Son, in whom he delights. The allusion to Psalm 2 ( this is my Son ) recalls Jesus Messianic status, especially his Kingly role as the Son of David. The allusion to Isaiah 42 ( with him I am well pleased ) is suggestive of Jesus' role as God's Suffering Servant who conforms to his Father's will. This emphasis is especially poignant in light of Jesus' prediction concerning his fate in Jerusalem (e.g., 16:21). The command to Listen to him is not found in the baptism announcement. As noted earlier the exhortation may be an allusion to Deuteronomy 18:18-19, and thus show Jesus to be God's authoritative spokesman. If the disciples are to grasp the significance of Calvary they must put aside their own agendas and personal ambitions and learn from the authoritative words of Jesus.

17:6-8. The disciples were overcome with fear upon hearing the voice of God, and hid their faces in terror. Nevertheless, Jesus by his " touch" (cf. 8:3, 15; 9:29; 20:34) seeks to still their fears as he orders them to get up and stop being afraid. It is critical that they not allow their terrifying experience to stifle the work at hand. The transcendent glory of Jesus is always balanced by his compassionate response to human frailty. When the disciples who had fallen facedown to the ground looked up, only Jesus was before them. The absence of Moses and Elijah reinforces the centrality of Jesus as the pivotal figure in God's salvific plan.

Although the disciples must come to understand Jesus' mission in terms of suffering and death (16:21), the transfiguration, along with God's assessment of his Son (v. 5), foreshadow Jesus' ultimate vindication and subsequent glorification. The themes of Jesus' glory and divine status alongside his humble obedience continue to dominate Matthew's portrayal of Jesus.

C. THE COMING ELIJAH (17:9-13)

⁹ As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, " Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead."

¹⁰ The disciples asked him, " Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?"

¹¹ Jesus replied, " To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. ¹² But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." ¹³ Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.

17:9. While coming down from the mountain Jesus prohibits his disciples from telling anyone what they had just witnessed (o{rama, horama ). The command to silence is motivated by the inappropriateness of proclaiming Jesus' glorious status apart from the reality of the cross. It is only after the cross, and his vindication by God in the resurrection, that the significance of the transfiguration can rightly be understood. Hence, these verses, (i.e., 9-13) link the transfiguration to the resurrection and therefore tie the transfiguration vision to the passion predictions (cf. 16:21; 17:23; 20:19). The Son of Man, who is the " Christ, the Son of the living God" (16:16, 17:5), who radiates God's divine presence (17:2-3), is also the one who will suffer and die (16:21, 17:12), but will be raised in glory (17:9), and one day return as eschatological judge (16:27). The reader is therefore encouraged to read the exalted titles in terms of a mission involving suffering and death.

17:10. Although one might expect the disciples to question Jesus about their experience on the mountain, or perhaps the reason for his prohibition (v. 9), they instead seek his response to the scribal contention that Elijah must come before the inauguration of the messianic era (cf. 11:14). Presumably, Jewish belief about Elijah's reappearance was based on Malachi 4:5, where Elijah is depicted as a messianic precursor. It may be that the religious authorities had earlier used this text in opposition to the messianic claims surrounding Jesus. Hence, they would argue that Jesus could not be the Messiah since no figure comparable to Elijah had arisen. The disciples are therefore soliciting Jesus' response to the scribal contention that Elijah would have an active part in the messianic era (=" day of the Lord," Mal 4:5-6).

17:11-12. Jesus is in agreement with the scribal interpretation that Elijah must come first, but insists that Elijah as already come . His task is described as to restore all things (ajpokatasthvsei, apokatastçsei). It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the task of " restoration." Most likely the idea behind " restoration" points to the preparatory renewal and reform suggested by Malachi 3:1. Although it may be difficult for some to accept, in view of his brutal treatment in the hands of Herod, the preparatory work of John the Baptist is to be identified with the Elijah who was to come (cf. 11:14). The failure of the religious and political leaders to recognize and accept the pivotal role of John led them to act " toward him as though there was nothing to be considered but their own will" (= done to him everything they wished ).

But their treatment of John was only a foreshadow of Jesus' fate. Their failure to see the significance of John virtually guaranteed that Jesus' role as the promised Messiah would also be rejected. Nevertheless, although his inevitable suffering comes about by the hands of evil men, Jesus has accepted his fate as the ultimate expression of his Father's will (16:21). Hence, the glorious transfigured Son of Man is destined for a similar fate as that suffered by John.

17:13. Matthew closes the section by observing that the disciples finally make the connection between Elijah and John the Baptist. Perhaps their memories were jogged to remember the earlier explicit identification of John with Elijah (11:14). The theme of " understanding" is an important concept in Matthew since discipleship demands a level of apprehension (cf. 13:13-17, 51; 15:16; 16:12). The major question confronting the disciples is their ability to integrate the reality of the passion with their exalted estimation of Jesus.

D. THE POWER OF FAITH (17:14-21)

¹⁴ When they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and knelt before him. ¹⁵" Lord, have mercy on my son," he said. " He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. ¹⁶ I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him."

¹⁷" O unbelieving and perverse generation," Jesus replied, " how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me." ¹⁸ Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment.

¹⁹ Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, " Why couldn't we drive it out?"

²⁰ He replied, " Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you. ^a"

^a 20 Some manuscripts you. ²¹ But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting .

It may be that Matthew intended this episode to be reminiscent of Moses' descent from the mountain when he was confronted with Israel's rebellion and apostasy (Exod 32). In this instance, Jesus is confronted with an " unbelieving and perverse generation" (v. 17) that exhibits " little faith" (v. 10) in God's power to resolve a spiritual crisis. Jesus therefore becomes a model of great faith, thus indicating that his fate in Jerusalem should not be construed as an indication of his powerlessness, but of his resolve to do the Father's will. If the disciples are to accept the cross, they must see it as an expression of faith not weakness.

17:14-16. When Jesus and the three disciples come down from the mountain, they encounter a crowd from which a man emerges to make a request of Jesus. The man exhibits an attitude of deep respect, assuming the posture of worship. The supplicant is described as kneeling (gonupetw'n, gonypetôn), and addressing Jesus with reverential words ( Lord, have mercy on my son ). The condition of his son is described as having seizures (selhniavzetai, selçniazetai, lit., " moonstruck," i.e., epileptic seizures were " associated in ancient times with the supernatural power of the moon" [Louw and Nida, Greek English Lexicon , 1:272]). The result of his severe condition was the loss of motor skills, often resulting in self-destructive behavior ( falls into the fire or into the water ). The reader subsequently will learn that the boy's condition was ultimately caused by demon possession (v. 18). The man also informs Jesus that he had brought his son to his disciples (i.e., the nine who did not accompany Jesus onto the mountain), and they were unable to relieve the boy's condition. In spite of their earlier empowerment to cast out demons (10:1, 8), they had miserably failed in their efforts to expel the demon from this stricken boy.

17:17-18. Seemingly frustrated with his powerless followers, Jesus indicts the entire generation as unbelieving and perverse (cf. Deut 32:5). Their powerless condition undermined the reality of God's powerful presence and his sovereign reign. In a kind of " prophetic lament" Jesus poses the rhetorical question, " How long shall I put up with you?" The words spell out in graphic terms Jesus' exasperation with the faithless impotency of his disciples. Rather than exercise the divine authority given them, in Jesus' absence they had become part of a " faithless" generation. With a note of flustered impatience, Jesus orders the boy to be brought to him. With nothing more than a " rebuke" the demon is compelled to leave the boy and he is instantly healed (cf. Mark 9:20-17).

17:19-20. The disciples then inquire privately concerning the reason they were unable to drive the demon from the boy. Jesus is emphatic that their inability to cast out the demon was to be attributed to their little faith . It may be that they had become infatuated with previous successes and had forgotten the true source of their power. Or, possibly the absence of Jesus, coupled with the seriousness of the boy's condition, caused them to doubt their ability to remedy the situation. Whatever the exact reason for their " little faith," their focus was more on themselves than on the God who could empower them.

Although the disciples have " little faith," Jesus insists that if they possessed even a small amount of genuine faith that truly trusted in God, they would have access to unlimited resources through the power of God. Jesus' proverbial and hyperbolic illustration of faith the size of a mustard seed commanding mountains to be removed, drives home the enormous potentiality of faith. In fact, Jesus promises that with such faith Nothing will be impossible for you . Contextually Jesus' words have reference to those things that promote and announce God's dynamic kingdom. Jesus assures his disciples that within the parameters of God's will nothing shall be impossible for the one who truly believes. However, lest we reduce faith to a kind of mind-over-matter technique, the observation by France is particularly noteworthy: " It is important to observe here that it is not the 'amount' of faith which brings the impossible within reach, but the power of God, which is available to even the 'smallest' faith.

E. THE SECOND PASSION PREDICTION (17:22-23)

²² When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, " The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. ²³ They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life." And the disciples were filled with grief.

With another passion prediction Matthew reminds the reader that everything comprising 16:21-20:34 must be seen under the shadow of the cross. The glorious transfigured Son of God (17:1-9), who has faith so as to remove mountains (17:20) will face suffering and death in Jerusalem.

17:22-23. Although the disciples " gather around" Jesus in Galilee , Jesus' focus is upon his fate awaiting him in Jerusalem. For the first time the reader learns that Jesus will be betrayed (paradivdosqai, paradidosthai ) into the hands to men . It may be that the term does not refer specifically to his betrayal by Judas, but rather to God's handing over of his Son to suffer and die (cf. 26:45). It is not at all improbable that Jesus' words are intended to allude to the fate of God's suffering servant as portrayed in Isaiah 53:6, 12. Once Jesus is " delivered" into the hands of men They will kill him , but God will raise him from the dead (cf. 16:21; 20:19). Unlike Peter's earlier response to the first passion prediction (" This shall never happen to you," 16:22), this time the disciples are deeply saddened by Jesus' prediction. At least they are listening to him (cf. 17:5) and are beginning to fathom the seriousness of the course of events.

F. JESUS AND THE TEMPLE TAX (17:24-27)

²⁴ After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, " Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax ^a ?"

²⁵" Yes, he does," he replied.

When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. " What do you think, Simon?" he asked. " From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes - from their own sons or from others?"

²⁶" From others," Peter answered.

" Then the sons are exempt," Jesus said to him. ²⁷" But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."

^a 24 Greek the two drachmas

Why Matthew included this scene at precisely this point in the narrative is not easy to discern. However, if one observes that the issue of paying the temple tax is resolved by the principle of not needlessly offending (skandalivswmen, skandalisômen, v. 27) others, then the episode does prepare the reader for a major theme developed in ch.18. But also the principle reminds the readers of the way of the cross earlier articulated by Jesus (16:24-25). Jesus' followers must forgo their own prerogatives (=" deny yourself" ) for the sake of a higher value. As Patte has shown, the various topics and issues enumerated in 17:24-18:35 are calculated to teach the disciples that self-denial and submission constitute the greater good, while self-preservation at the expense of others should be viewed negatively.

17:24. Having returned to Capernaum, Peter is questioned about Jesus' policy regarding payment of the temple tax. The question is phrased in such a manner that a positive answer to their question is expected. Although there were some exemptions to the tax, for the most part, all male Jews, twenty years and older, submitted to the tax as a matter of patriotic duty. The payment of two drachmas (=half shekel, or about one day's wages) was based on Exod 30:11-16 (cf. Neh 10:32-33), and was used to fund the daily activities associated with the temple cult. Although Jesus may have some grounds for exemption, a refusal to pay certainly could generate some hard feelings. Apparently for Peter there was no question that the Lord would fulfill his patriotic responsibility and pay the tax. Although he gives the right answer, he needs instruction concerning the principle involved.

17:25-26. Later, while in the house (probably Peter's) Jesus takes the initiative to revisit the issue of the temple tax. As a means to get Peter to look at the issue from a different perspective, Jesus asks Peter for his opinion regarding the collection of taxes: Do kings collect taxes from their immediate family or from the citizens over which they have authority? Peter correctly answers from others . Jesus then draws the necessary conclusion: " Then the sons are exempt." By analogy, the exemption extended to the " sons" of earthly kings would also apply to Jesus and his followers by virtue of their relationship to God as Father. It follows that not only does Jesus affirm that he and his disciples constitute God's immediate household, he also views " the temple cult as being irrelevant to Christians" (cf. 12:6; 24:1f.).

17:27. However, the primary focus of the episode comes in v. 27. In order not to offend (skandalisômen) Jesus is willing to forgo his rights and pay the tax. Payment is not a matter of necessity or obligation but a willingness to surrender one's own rights out of concern for the interest of others. Thus, although Peter was correct that Jesus will pay the tax, the reason for doing so is based on principle, not a mere customary obligation.

The usual manner of securing payment reinforces Jesus' unique relationship to God, who provides sufficient funds for his Son to pay the tax. In fact, the coin to be found in the mouth of a fish (stath'ra [statçra]=shekel) was sufficient to provide payment for both Jesus and Peter. There is no contextual reason not to take the incident at face value, and recognize Jesus' supernatural foreknowledge in predicting the discovery of the coin in the mouth of a fish. Hence, the episode underscores the importance of not being side-tracked by trivial concerns that can only generate hostility and alienation. The reader is therefore prepared for a major thematic emphasis in ch.18.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

McGarvey: Mat 17:24-27

LXXII.
JESUS PAYS THE TRIBUTE MONEY.
(Capernaum, Autumn, A. D. 29)
^aMATT. XVII. 24-27.

   ^a24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received the half-shekel came to Peter, and said, Doth not your teacher pay the half-shekel? [The law of Moses required from every male of twenty years and upward the payment of a tax of half a shekel for the support of the temple (Exo 30:12-16, 2Ch 24:5, 2Ch 24:6). This tax was collected annually. We are told that a dispute existed between the Pharisees and Sadducees as to whether the payment of this tribute was voluntary or compulsory. The collectors of it may have thought that Jesus regarded its payment as voluntary, or they may have thought that Jesus considered himself exempt from it because he was so great a rabbi. Though this temple tax was usually collected in March, Lightfoot informs us that the payment of it was so irregular that its receivers kept two chests; in one of which was placed the tax for the current year, and in the other that for the year past. The demand was made upon Jesus at Capernaum because that was his residence, and it was not made sooner because of the wandering life which he led. It appears that since the first of April he had been in Capernaum only once for a brief period, probably no longer than a Sabbath day (Joh 6:22-24). The Jewish shekel answered to the Greek stater, which has been variously estimated as worth from fifty to seventy-five cents. The stater contained four drachmæ, and a drachma was about equivalent to a Roman denarius, or seventeen cents.]  25 He saith, Yea. [Peter answered with his usual impulsive presumption. Probably he had known the tribute to be paid before out of the general fund held by Judas; or he may have assumed that Jesus [428] would fulfill this as one of God's requirements.] And when he came into the house, Jesus spake first to him [without waiting for him to tell what he had said], saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? the kings of the earth, from whom do they receive toll or tribute? from their sons, or from strangers?  26 And when he said, From strangers, Jesus said unto him, Therefore the sons are free. [The argument is this: If the sons of kings are free from the payment of tribute, I, the Son of God, am free from God's tribute. The half-shekel was regarded as given to God -- Jos. Ant. xviii. 9. 1.]  27 But, lest we cause them to stumble [lest we be totally misunderstood, and be thought to teach that men should not pay this tribute to God], go thou to the sea [of Galilee], and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a shekel: that take, and give unto them for me and thee. [Jesus paid the tribute in such a manner as to show that the whole realm of nature was tributary to him, and that he was indeed the Son of the great King. Some have thought that our Lord's beneficence, in paying Peter's tax also, was an evidence that Peter, too, was exempt from tribute. But the conclusion is not well drawn. Had this been intended, Jesus would have said "for us," and would not have used the words "for me and thee," which distinguished between the exempted Son and the unexempted subject. Though afterward Peter might possibly have claimed exemption as a child of God by adoption, he was not yet free from this duty to pay this tax -- Joh 1:12.] [429]

[FFG 428-429]

Lapide: Mat 17:20-27

aith, as a grain of mustard seed, i.e., faith small in appearance, but of great virtue and efficacy; humble faith, which boasteth not itself, and therefore small in man's judgment, but verily quick, perfect burning like mustard seed. For when such faith is united to humility, it takes away every shadow of unbelief. It works miracles and removes mountains. This faith shone brightly in S. Gregory, Bishop of Neocæsarea; for he, when a mountain stood in the way of his building a church, by his prayers removed it to another place. (See Nyssen in his Life : and Eusebius, H. E. 7, 25.) He performed many other miracles, from which he received the name of Thaumaturgus, i.e., wonder-worker. In like manner, a mountain in Tartary was removed by Christians, when a tyrant required such a miracle of them in accordance with this promise of Christ. (See Marco Polo, On Tartary ) S. Jerome gives a similar instance in his Life of S. Hilarion. For he, when the sea, through an earthquake, raised vast masses of waters upon the shore—which threatened the city of Epidaurus with destruction—was placed by its citizens upon the shore as a bulwark against the waves. "He drew three figures of the cross on the sand, and stretched forth his hands against the sea when it was swelling to a vast height before him, when it stood still; and roaring for a long time, and (as it were) being angry with the bulwark, by degrees it sunk down to its ordinary level. Verily that which was said to the Apostles, If ye believe, ye shall say to this mountain, Be thou cast into the sea, and it shall be done, may be fulfilled even to the letter. For what difference is there between a mountain going down into the sea, and immense mountains of waters being suddenly arrested at the feet of an old man?"

Mystically : a mountain is severe temptation, especially to ambition and pride, as S. Jerome teaches. Such a temptation is best overcome by faith and hope. Wherefore S. Francis, being troubled by a dreadful temptation in spirit, betaking himself to prayer, with tears, heard a voice from Heaven, saying, "Francis, if thou shalt have faith as a grain of mustard seed, thou shalt command this mountain to pass away, and it shall pass away." He, not knowing what was the meaning of the oracle, cried out, "Lord, what is this mountain?" The answer came, "The mountain is temptation." Then Francis added, with many tears, "0 Lord, be it unto me according to thy word." And immediately all the temptation was removed, and he obtained perfect tranquillity. (Wadding, in Annal. Minor. A.D. 1218, num. 2.)

This kind, &c. Observe first, this kind does not mean every kind of demons, as S. Chrysostom thinks, but those of a higher order, which are most powerful, obstinate and malicious, like this one whom Christ here cast out.

Observe secondly. This sort of demons can only be driven out by prayer and fasting; because these two things lift men up from the flesh to God. As S. Chrysostom says, "Fasting is the chief work of the higher philosophy, and places men on a level with angels, and vanquishes the incorporeal powers."

Observe thirdly. Christ does not require prayer and fasting in both the person who works the miracle and in him for whose benefit the miracle is wrought, as S. Chrysostom supposes, but in him only who works the miracle, as Origen has observed. Yet there can be no doubt that faith and prayer on the part of the recipient greatly aid in the working of the miracle.

You may say, that it is not said of Christ, when He cast out this devil, that He prayed or fasted. I answer, that He had prayed and fasted a little while before, when He was transfigured on Mount Tabor. Besides, prayer and fasting are required in mere men, not in Christ, who was God, and as God, was able by His word alone to put the devils to flight, yea to annihilate them. So Abulensis.

While they abode, &c. Christ reiterates His prophecy concerning His Cross and Passion, which He uttered first at Cæsarea Philippi (xvi. 22), that the disciples might not be affrighted, nor scandalized when the time came, nor fall from faith in Him as the Messiah, because He suffered such a shameful death. For the Cross was an offence to the Apostles, so that they all forsook Him and fled. The Cross therefore needed to be again and again preached to them, and impressed upon them, so that they might know that Christ did not suffer it because He was compelled, but of His own will, and in obedience to the Father's will; that He might redeem mankind. Moreover He reiterated this preaching of the Cross in Galilee, after He had healed the lunatic when He came down from Tabor, and the Galileans on account of that miracle had given Him great praise and honour, as we may learn from SS. Mark and Luke, in order that He might repress any vain-glorious thoughts which were likely to arise in the minds of the Apostles, by putting them in mind of His Cross and Passion.

And shall kill Him, &c. When the Apostles heard speak of Christ being put to death, because they were unwilling that He should die, and that they should be separated from Him by death, He alleviates this their sorrow by adding, And the third day He shall rise again. But they did not understand these words of Christ. They were not able to receive them. Whence they were, for a long time, doubtful concerning His resurrection. And this was why Christ by many apparitions and miracles was obliged to convince them that He had really risen again, so that He might root out all doubt from their minds

And when they were come, &c... . tribute, the Syriac adds, poll tax, as paid by each individual. Pay tribute, the Arabic has, pay what is due. The collectors do not make an assertion, but ask a question, because these tax-gatherers were newly in office, or at least had fresh servants, who did not know, or did not remember that in the year which was past, Christ had paid the tribute at Capernaum, as other people did.

Tribute money : The Gr. and the Vulg. have didrachma, that is, a half shekel, equal in value to two Spanish reals. The shekel weighed four didrachma. See what I have said on Exo 30:13. Baronius and others are of opinion that this didrachma was the sacred half shekel, which was required by the Divine law to be paid to the temple. (Exo 30:13.)

There God ordained that every Israelite male of twenty years old and upward should pay a half shekel for the service of the Sanctuary. This was when a census was taken. But subsequently, the Jews of their own accord, out of devotion, and that they might more entirely fulfil the law, decreed that all should pay this half shekel every year for the sustentation of the Priests and Levites, for repairing the temple, for furnishing victims for the sacrifices, and many other similar purposes. All this is plain from 2Ch 24:5-7: also from Josephus, who shows that the Jews who lived at a distance from the Holy Land were accustomed to collect this sacred didrachma, and send it to the temple at Jerusalem. (Jos. Ant. xviii. 12).

But the tribute here spoken of was a civil tax, and payable either to the Romans, or to Herod Antipas. This is seen from Christ's words to Peter—of whom do the kings of the earth take custom, or tribute? This then was royal tribute, and payable either to a king or an emperor. The same thing is plain from xxii. 21, where the Herodians ask Christ, "whether it were lawful to pay tribute to Cæsar or not?" The origin of this tribute being levied was a little before the time of Christ, when, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, the grandsons of Simon Maccabæus were contending which should have the high priesthood. Pompey, being called in to arbitrate between them, adjudged it to Hyrcanus: but the people of Jerusalem, who favoured the other candidate, restored it to Aristobulus. After that Pompey took Jerusalem, and reduced Judea to subjection to Rome, and exacted an annual tribute. Moreover because the Jews were accustomed to pay a didrachma to the temple, they were also ordered by the Romans to pay the same sum to them, until after the rebellion, when Jerusalem was besieged and captured by Vespasian, and the temple destroyed, he ordered them to pay that didrachma to the Roman capitol. The Jews greatly disliked paying this tribute to the Romans. They said that they were the people of God, and therefore free; and that they ought to pay tribute to Him, not to Cæsar. This feeling it was which gave rise, about the time of Christ, to the sect of the Galilæans, whose leader was Judas of Galilee, who refused all payment of tribute to Cæsar, and all acknowledgment of his authority. Christ and His Apostles were suspected of belonging to this sect, because they were Galilæans, and were preachers of the new, heavenly kingdom. In order therefore that Christ might show the groundlessness of this imputation, He, on the present occasion, paid the didrachma. So S. Jerome, Bede, Jansen, and others. The collectors of the tribute did not venture to ask Christ Himself for it, on account of the fame of His sanctity and miracles; but they said to Peter, in private, is not your Master accustomed to pay the didrachma?

He said, yea : Peter asserted that it was Christ's custom, as he had seen in previous years, always to pay this tribute.

When He was come into the house, hired by Christ at Capernaum, as I have said, iv. 13.

And He said, &c. Christ being conscious in His spirit of the conversation which had passed between Peter and the tax collectors, prevented him, i.e., first asked him about the matter, and showed that He was not under obligation to pay this tribute. The kings of the earth, &c. It is an argument from the less to the greater, as S. Chrysostom teaches: in this way, the children of kings, of common right, are free from the tribute paid to kings. Much more therefore am I, together with My Apostles, who are My family; I, I say, who am king of kings, and the true and only begotten Son of God Himself, free from every kind of tribute which the kings of the earth impose upon their subjects. So S. Jerome and others.

Wherefore certain Canonists are wrong in gathering from this reasoning of Christ that the clergy, by Divine right, are exempt from all taxes. For by parity of reasoning it might be concluded that all Christians are exempted from payment of taxes, as the Anabaptists assert. For Christians are the adopted children of God, born again in baptism. The falsehood of this idea is shown by the Apostle (Rom 13:7) and the whole Church: for this adoption pertains to a higher order of inheritance, even a Heavenly one. Properly, however, in accordance with these words of Christ, kings and princes have exempted ecclesiastics, who are of the household and family of Christ, from the payment of taxes. And this is all which is meant by S. Jerome and the Canons when they say that the clergy are exempt from taxes, not only by human but Divine right; because, in truth, Divine right intimates that this exemption ought to be conceded. (See Lessius de Justitia, l. 2, c. 33, dub. 4, where he shows that the exemption of the clergy from paying taxes is not of Divine but of human right.)

Nevertheless, &c. It is as though He said, lest the collectors should be offended, and think we despise Tiberius Cæsar, as a Gentile, and reject his authority, like Judas of Galilee. Piece of money, Greek and Vulgate stater : this is the same as the Hebrew shekel, namely a pound. For formerly money not stamped was paid by weight. The shekel weighed four drachmæ, which were equivalent to four Spanish reals, or a florin of Brabant. Observe, Christ here afforded an example of justice, humility and obedience, and taught that Christianity is not opposed to civil government, but is rather an aid and advantage to it.

For Me and thee. You will ask why Christ only paid this tribute for Himself and Peter? I answer, He did not pay for the rest of the disciples, either because, as Lyra thinks, only the heads of families were bound to pay this tribute, or because the disciples of Christ were poor men. Wherefore Christ tacitly desired that they should be excused by the tax gatherers on account of their poverty or because they belonged to other places, and had already paid the tribute in those cities. Lastly, Abulensis thinks that for all the Apostles, who had wives and children, and therefore were heads ot families, this didrachma was paid out of the common coffer which Judas carried; and that Matthew only related the payment of Christ's didrachma because of the miracle of its being found in the mouth of the fish, that He might show that He was not under an obligation to pay it, nor was subject to Cæsar. For Peter, however, Christ paid, both because Peter was the instrument of the exaction, as well as of the payment, as also because Peter had a house and family at Capernaum. It was also honoris causa, to intimate that Peter was the vicar of his Church and household, and destined by him to be the head and prince of the rest of the Apostles. So SS. Chrysostom, Jerome, Origen, and others.

Moraliter : Learn from hence Christ's zeal for poverty, that He had not at home so much as one shekel to pay the tribute, but obtained it miraculously from a fish that he might teach that God by means of fishes and the rest of the creatures provides necessary things for the poor in spirit, as He provided food for Elias by the ministry of ravens.

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: Matthew (Book Introduction)

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

By Way of Introduction

The passing years do not make it any plainer who actually wrote our Greek Matthew. Papias records, as quoted by Eusebius, that Matthew wrote the Logia of Jesus in Hebrew (Aramaic). Is our present Matthew a translation of the Aramaic Logia along with Mark and other sources as most modern scholars think? If so, was the writer the Apostle Matthew or some other disciple? There is at present no way to reach a clear decision in the light of the known facts. There is no real reason why the Apostle Matthew could not have written both the Aramaic Logia and our Greek Matthew, unless one is unwilling to believe that he would make use of Mark’s work on a par with his own. But Mark’s book rests primarily on the preaching of Simon Peter. Scholfield has recently (1927) published An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew’s Gospel . We know quite too little of the origin of the Synoptic Gospels to say dogmatically that the Apostle Matthew was not in any real sense the author.

If the book is genuine, as I believe, the date becomes a matter of interest. Here again there is nothing absolutely decisive save that it is later than the Gospel according to Mark which it apparently uses. If Mark is given an early date, between a.d. 50 to 60, then Matthew’s book may be between 60 and 70, though many would place it between 70 and 80. It is not certain whether Luke wrote after Matthew or not, though that is quite possible. There is no definite use of Matthew by Luke that has been shown. One guess is as good as another and each decides by his own predilections. My own guess is that a.d. 60 is as good as any.

In the Gospel itself we find Matthew the publican (Mat_9:9; Mat_10:3) though Mark (Mar_2:14) and Luke (Luk_5:27) call him Levi the publican. Evidently therefore he had two names like John Mark. It is significant that Jesus called this man from so disreputable a business to follow him. He was apparently not a disciple of John the Baptist. He was specially chosen by Jesus to be one of the Twelve Apostles, a business man called into the ministry as was true of the fishermen James and John, Andrew and Simon. In the lists of the Apostles he comes either seventh or eighth. There is nothing definite told about him in the Gospels apart from the circle of the Twelve after the feast which he gave to his fellow publicans in honor of Jesus.

Matthew was in the habit of keeping accounts and it is quite possible that he took notes of the sayings of Jesus as he heard them. At any rate he gives much attention to the teachings of Jesus as, for instance, the Sermon on the Mount in chapters Matthew 5-7, the parables in Matthew 13, the denunciation of the Pharisees in Matthew 23, the great eschatological discourse in Matthew 24 and 25. As a publican in Galilee he was not a narrow Jew and so we do not expect a book prejudiced in favor of the Jews and against the Gentiles. He does seem to show that Jesus is the Messiah of Jewish expectation and hope and so makes frequent quotations from the Old Testament by way of confirmation and illustration. There is no narrow nationalism in Matthew. Jesus is both the Messiah of the Jews and the Saviour of the world.

There are ten parables in Matthew not in the other Gospels: The Tares, the Hid Treasure, the Net, the Pearl of Great Price, the Unmerciful Servant, the Labourers in the Vineyard, the Two Sons, the Marriage of the King’s Son, the Ten Virgins, the Talents. The only miracles in Matthew alone are the Two Blind Men, the Coin in the Mouth of the Fish. But Matthew gives the narrative of the Birth of Jesus from the standpoint of Joseph while Luke tells that wonderful story from the standpoint of Mary. There are details of the Death and Resurrection given by Matthew alone.

The book follows the same general chronological plan as that in Mark, but with various groups like the miracles in Matthew 8 and 9, the parables in Matthew 13.

The style is free from Hebraisms and has few individual peculiarities. The author is fond of the phrase the kingdom of heaven and pictures Jesus as the Son of man, but also as the Son of God. He sometimes abbreviates Mark’s statements and sometimes expands them to be more precise.

Plummer shows the broad general plan of both Mark and Matthew to be the same as follows:

Introduction to the Gospel Mar_1:1-13 Matthew 3:1-4:11. Ministry in Galilee Mark 1:14-6:13 Matthew 4:12-13:58. Ministry in the Neighborhood Mark 6:14-9:50 Matthew 14:1-18:35. Journey through Perea to Jerusalem Mark 10:1-52 Matthew 19:1-20:34. Last week in Jerusalem Mark 11:1-16:8 Matthew 21:1-28:8. The Gospel of Matthew comes first in the New Testament, though it is not so in all the Greek manuscripts. Because of its position it is the book most widely read in the New Testament and has exerted the greatest influence on the world. The book deserves this influence though it is later in date than Mark, not so beautiful as Luke, nor so profound as John. Yet it is a wonderful book and gives a just and adequate portraiture of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. The author probably wrote primarily to persuade Jews that Jesus is the fulfilment of their Messianic hopes as pictured in the Old Testament. It is thus a proper introduction to the New Testament story in comparison with the Old Testament prophecy.

The Title

The Textus Receptus has " The Holy Gospel according to Matthew" ( to kata Matthaion hagion Euaggelion ), though the Elzevirs omit " holy," not agreeing here with Stephanus, Griesbach, and Scholz. Only minuscules (cursive Greek manuscripts) and all late have the adjective. Other minuscules and nine uncials including W (the Washington Codex of the fifth century), C of the fifth century (the palimpsest manuscript) and Delta of the ninth together with most Latin manuscripts have simply " Gospel according to Matthew" ( Euaggelion kata Matthaion ). But Aleph and B the two oldest and best Greek uncials of the fourth century have only " According to Matthew" ( Kata Maththaion ) (note double th) and the Greek uncial D of the fifth or sixth century follows Aleph and B as do some of the earliest Old Latin manuscripts and the Curetonian Syriac. It is clear, therefore, that the earliest form of the title was simply " According to Matthew." It may be doubted if Matthew (or the author, if not Matthew) had any title at all. The use of " according to" makes it plain that the meaning is not " the Gospel of Matthew," but the Gospel as given by Matthew, secundum Matthaeum , to distinguish the report by Matthew from that by Mark, by Luke, by John. Least of all is there any authority in the manuscripts for saying " Saint Matthew," a Roman Catholic practice observed by some Protestants.

The word Gospel ( Euaggelion ) comes to mean good news in Greek, though originally a reward for good tidings as in Homer’s Odyssey XIV. 152 and in 2Ki_4:10. In the New Testament it is the good news of salvation through Christ. The English word Gospel probably comes from the Anglo-Saxon Godspell, story or narrative of God, the life of Christ. It was early confused with the Anglo-Saxon godspell, good story, which seems like a translation of the Greek euaggelion . But primarily the English word means the God story as seen in Christ which is the best news that the world has ever had. One thinks at once of the use of " word" ( Logos ) in Joh_1:1, Joh_1:14. So then it is, according to the Greek, not the Good News of Matthew, but the Good News of God, brought to us in Christ the Word, the Son of God, the Image of the Father, the Message of the Father. We are to study this story first as presented by Matthew. The message is God’s and it is as fresh to us today in Matthew’s record as when he first wrote it.

JFB: Matthew (Book Introduction)

THE author of this Gospel was a publican or tax gatherer, residing at Capernaum, on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. As to his identity with the "Levi" of the second and third Gospels, and other particulars, see on Mat 9:9. Hardly anything is known of his apostolic labors. That, after preaching to his countrymen in Palestine, he went to the East, is the general testimony of antiquity; but the precise scene or scenes of his ministry cannot be determined. That he died a natural death may be concluded from the belief of the best-informed of the Fathers--that of the apostles only three, James the Greater, Peter, and Paul, suffered martyrdom. That the first Gospel was written by this apostle is the testimony of all antiquity.

For the date of this Gospel we have only internal evidence, and that far from decisive. Accordingly, opinion is much divided. That it was the first issued of all the Gospels was universally believed. Hence, although in the order of the Gospels, those by the two apostles were placed first in the oldest manuscripts of the Old Latin version, while in all the Greek manuscripts, with scarcely an exception, the order is the same as in our Bibles, the Gospel according to Matthew is "in every case" placed first. And as this Gospel is of all the four the one which bears the most evident marks of having been prepared and constructed with a special view to the Jews--who certainly first required a written Gospel, and would be the first to make use of it--there can be no doubt that it was issued before any of the others. That it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem is equally certain; for as HUG observes [Introduction to the New Testament, p. 316, FOSDICK'S translation], when he reports our Lord's prophecy of that awful event, on coming to the warning about "the abomination of desolation" which they should "see standing in the holy place," he interposes (contrary to his invariable practice, which is to relate without remark) a call to his readers to read intelligently--"Whoso readeth, let him understand" (Mat 24:15) --a call to attend to the divine signal for flight which could be intended only for those who lived before the event. But how long before that event this Gospel was written is not so clear. Some internal evidences seem to imply a very early date. Since the Jewish Christians were, for five or six years, exposed to persecution from their own countrymen--until the Jews, being persecuted by the Romans, had to look to themselves--it is not likely (it is argued) that they should be left so long without some written Gospel to reassure and sustain them, and Matthew's Gospel was eminently fitted for that purpose. But the digests to which Luke refers in his Introduction (see on Luk 1:1) would be sufficient for a time, especially as the living voice of the "eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word" was yet sounding abroad. Other considerations in favor of a very early date--such as the tender way in which the author seems studiously to speak of Herod Antipas, as if still reigning, and his writing of Pilate apparently as if still in power--seem to have no foundation in fact, and cannot therefore be made the ground of reasoning as to the date of this Gospel. Its Hebraic structure and hue, though they prove, as we think, that this Gospel must have been published at a period considerably anterior to the destruction of Jerusalem, are no evidence in favor of so early a date as A.D. 37 or 38--according to some of the Fathers, and, of the moderns, TILLEMONT, TOWNSON, OWEN, BIRKS, TREGELLES. On the other hand, the date suggested by the statement of IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 3.1], that Matthew put forth his Gospel while Peter and Paul were at Rome preaching and founding the Church--or after A.D. 60--though probably the majority of critics are in favor of it, would seem rather too late, especially as the second and third Gospels, which were doubtless published, as well as this one, before the destruction of Jerusalem, had still to be issued. Certainly, such statements as the following, "Wherefore that field is called the field of blood unto this day" (Mat 27:8); "And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day" (Mat 28:15), bespeak a date considerably later than the events recorded. We incline, therefore, to a date intermediate between the earlier and the later dates assigned to this Gospel, without pretending to greater precision.

We have adverted to the strikingly Jewish character and coloring of this Gospel. The facts which it selects, the points to which it gives prominence, the cast of thought and phraseology, all bespeak the Jewish point of view from which it was written and to which it was directed. This has been noticed from the beginning, and is universally acknowledged. It is of the greatest consequence to the right interpretation of it; but the tendency among some even of the best of the Germans to infer, from this special design of the first Gospel, a certain laxity on the part of the Evangelist in the treatment of his facts, must be guarded against.

But by far the most interesting and important point connected with this Gospel is the language in which it was written. It is believed by a formidable number of critics that this Gospel was originally written in what is loosely called Hebrew, but more correctly Aramaic, or Syro-Chaldaic, the native tongue of the country at the time of our Lord; and that the Greek Matthew which we now possess is a translation of that work, either by the Evangelist himself or some unknown hand. The evidence on which this opinion is grounded is wholly external, but it has been deemed conclusive by GROTIUS, MICHAELIS (and his translator), MARSH, TOWNSON, CAMPBELL, OLSHAUSEN, CRESWELL, MEYER, EBRARD, LANGE, DAVIDSON, CURETON, TREGELLES, WEBSTER and WILKINSON, &c. The evidence referred to cannot be given here, but will be found, with remarks on its unsatisfactory character, in the Introduction to the Gospels prefixed to our larger Commentary, pp. 28-31.

But how stand the facts as to our Greek Gospel? We have not a title of historical evidence that it is a translation, either by Matthew himself or anyone else. All antiquity refers to it as the work of Matthew the publican and apostle, just as the other Gospels are ascribed to their respective authors. This Greek Gospel was from the first received by the Church as an integral part of the one quadriform Gospel. And while the Fathers often advert to the two Gospels which we have from apostles, and the two which we have from men not apostles--in order to show that as that of Mark leans so entirely on Peter, and that of Luke on Paul, these are really no less apostolical than the other two--though we attach less weight to this circumstance than they did, we cannot but think it striking that, in thus speaking, they never drop a hint that the full apostolic authority of the Greek Matthew had ever been questioned on the ground of its not being the original. Further, not a trace can be discovered in this Gospel itself of its being a translation. MICHAELIS tried to detect, and fancied that he had succeeded in detecting, one or two such. Other Germans since, and DAVIDSON and CURETON among ourselves, have made the same attempt. But the entire failure of all such attempts is now generally admitted, and candid advocates of a Hebrew original are quite ready to own that none such are to be found, and that but for external testimony no one would have imagined that the Greek was not the original. This they regard as showing how perfectly the translation has been executed; but those who know best what translating from one language into another is will be the readiest to own that this is tantamount to giving up the question. This Gospel proclaims its own originality in a number of striking points; such as its manner of quoting from the Old Testament, and its phraseology in some peculiar cases. But the close verbal coincidences of our Greek Matthew with the next two Gospels must not be quite passed over. There are but two possible ways of explaining this. Either the translator, sacrificing verbal fidelity in his version, intentionally conformed certain parts of his author's work to the second and third Gospels--in which case it can hardly be called Matthew's Gospel at all--or our Greek Matthew is itself the original.

Moved by these considerations, some advocates of a Hebrew original have adopted the theory of a double original; the external testimony, they think, requiring us to believe in a Hebrew original, while internal evidence is decisive in favor of the originality of the Greek. This theory is espoused by GUERICKS, OLSHAUSEN, THIERSCH, TOWNSON, TREGELLES, &c. But, besides that this looks too like an artificial theory, invented to solve a difficulty, it is utterly void of historical support. There is not a vestige of testimony to support it in Christian antiquity. This ought to be decisive against it.

It remains, then, that our Greek Matthew is the original of that Gospel, and that no other original ever existed. It is greatly to the credit of DEAN ALFORD, that after maintaining, in the first edition of his Greek Testament the theory of a Hebrew original, he thus expresses himself in the second and subsequent editions: "On the whole, then, I find myself constrained to abandon the view maintained in my first edition, and to adopt that of a Greek original."

One argument has been adduced on the other side, on which not a little reliance has been placed; but the determination of the main question does not, in our opinion, depend upon the point which it raises. It has been very confidently affirmed that the Greek language was not sufficiently understood by the Jews of Palestine when Matthew published his Gospel to make it at all probable that he would write a Gospel, for their benefit in the first instance, in that language. Now, as this merely alleges the improbability of a Greek original, it is enough to place against it the evidence already adduced, which is positive, in favor of the sole originality of our Greek Matthew. It is indeed a question how far the Greek language was understood in Palestine at the time referred to. But we advise the reader not to be drawn into that question as essential to the settlement of the other one. It is an element in it, no doubt, but not an essential element. There are extremes on both sides of it. The old idea, that our Lord hardly ever spoke anything but Syro-Chaldaic, is now pretty nearly exploded. Many, however, will not go the length, on the other side, of HUG (in his Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 326, &c.) and ROBERTS ("Discussions of the Gospels," &c., pp. 25, &c.). For ourselves, though we believe that our Lord, in all the more public scenes of His ministry, spoke in Greek, all we think it necessary here to say is that there is no ground to believe that Greek was so little understood in Palestine as to make it improbable that Matthew would write his Gospel exclusively in that language--so improbable as to outweigh the evidence that he did so. And when we think of the number of digests or short narratives of the principal facts of our Lord's history which we know from Luke (Luk 1:1-4) were floating about for some time before he wrote his Gospel, of which he speaks by no means disrespectfully, and nearly all of which would be in the mother tongue, we can have no doubt that the Jewish Christians and the Jews of Palestine generally would have from the first reliable written matter sufficient to supply every necessary requirement until the publican-apostle should leisurely draw up the first of the four Gospels in a language to them not a strange tongue, while to the rest of the world it was the language in which the entire quadriform Gospel was to be for all time enshrined. The following among others hold to this view of the sole originality of the Greek Matthew: ERASMUS, CALVIN, BEZA, LIGHTFOOT, WETSTEIN, LARDNER, HUG, FRITZSCHE, CREDNER, DE WETTE, STUART, DA COSTA, FAIRBAIRN, ROBERTS.

On two other questions regarding this Gospel it would have been desirable to say something, had not our available space been already exhausted: The characteristics, both in language and matter, by which it is distinguished from the other three, and its relation to the second and third Gospels. On the latter of these topics--whether one or more of the Evangelists made use of the materials of the other Gospels, and, if so, which of the Evangelists drew from which--the opinions are just as numerous as the possibilities of the case, every conceivable way of it having one or more who plead for it. The most popular opinion until recently--and perhaps the most popular still--is that the second Evangelist availed himself more or less of the materials of the first Gospel, and the third of the materials of both the first and second Gospels. Here we can but state our own belief, that each of the first three Evangelists wrote independently of both the others; while the fourth, familiar with the first three, wrote to supplement them, and, even where he travels along the same line, wrote quite independently of them. This judgment we express, with all deference for those who think otherwise, as the result of a close study of each of the Gospels in immediate juxtaposition and comparison with the others. On the former of the two topics noticed, the linguistic peculiarities of each of the Gospels have been handled most closely and ably by CREDNER [Einleitung (Introduction to the New Testament)], of whose results a good summary will be found in DAVIDSON'S Introduction to the New Testament. The other peculiarities of the Gospels have been most felicitously and beautifully brought out by DA COSTA in his Four Witnesses, to which we must simply refer the reader, though it contains a few things in which we cannot concur.

JFB: Matthew (Outline)

• GENEALOGY OF CHRIST. ( = Luke 3:23-38). (Mat. 1:1-17)
• BIRTH OF CHRIST. (Mat 1:18-25)
• VISIT OF THE MAGI TO JERUSALEM AND BETHLEHEM. (Mat 2:1-12)
• THE FLIGHT INTO EGYPT--THE MASSACRE AT BETHLEHEM--THE RETURN OF JOSEPH AND MARY WITH THE BABE, AFTER HEROD'S DEATH, AND THEIR SETTLEMENT AT NAZARETH. ( = Luk 2:39). (Mat 2:13-23)
• PREACHING AND MINISTRY OF JOHN. ( = Mar 1:1-8; Luke 3:1-18). (Mat 3:1-12)
• BAPTISM OF CHRIST AND DESCENT OF THE SPIRIT UPON HIM IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER. ( = Mar 1:9-11; Luk 3:21-22; Joh 1:31-34). (Mat 3:13-17)
• TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. ( = Mar 1:12-13; Luk 4:1-13). (Mat 4:1-11)
• CHRIST BEGINS HIS GALILEAN MINISTRY--CALLING OF PETER AND ANDREW, JAMES AND JOHN--HIS FIRST GALILEAN CIRCUIT. ( = Mar 1:14-20, Mar 1:35-39; Luk 4:14-15). (Mat 4:12-25)
• THE BEATITUDES, AND THEIR BEARING UPON THE WORLD. (Mat. 5:1-16)
• IDENTITY OF THESE PRINCIPLES WITH THOSE OF THE ANCIENT ECONOMY; IN CONTRAST WITH THE REIGNING TRADITIONAL TEACHING. (Mat. 5:17-48)
• FURTHER ILLUSTRATION OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE KINGDOM--ITS UNOSTENTATIOUSNESS. (Mat. 6:1-18)
• CONCLUDING ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE KINGDOM--HEAVENLY-MINDEDNESS AND FILIAL CONFIDENCE. (Mat. 6:19-34)
• MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLEMENTARY COUNSELS. (Mat 7:1-12)
• CONCLUSION AND EFFECT OF THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. (Mat. 7:13-29)
• HEALING OF A LEPER. ( = Mar 1:40-45; Luk 5:12-16). (Mat 8:1-4) When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.
• INCIDENTS ILLUSTRATIVE OF DISCIPLESHIP. ( = Luk 9:57-62). (Mat 8:18-22) And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.
• MATTHEW'S CALL AND FEAST. ( = Mar 2:14-17; Luk 5:27-32). (Mat 9:9-13)
• TWO BLIND MEN AND A DUMB DEMONIAC HEALED. (Mat 9:27-34)
• THIRD GALILEAN CIRCUIT--MISSION OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. (Mat. 9:35-10:5)
• MISSION OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. ( = Mar 6:7-13; Luk 9:1-6). (Mat 10:1-5)
• THE TWELVE RECEIVE THEIR INSTRUCTIONS. (Mat. 10:5-42)
• THE IMPRISONED BAPTIST'S MESSAGE TO HIS MASTER--THE REPLY, AND DISCOURSE, ON THE DEPARTURE OF THE MESSENGERS, REGARDING JOHN AND HIS MISSION. ( = Luke 7:18-35). (Mat. 11:1-19)
• OUTBURST OF FEELING SUGGESTED TO THE MIND OF JESUS BY THE RESULT OF HIS LABORS IN GALILEE. (Mat 11:20-30) Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not.
• PLUCKING CORN EARS ON THE SABBATH DAY. ( = Mar 2:23-28; Luk 6:1-5). (Mat 12:1-8)
• THE HEALING OF A WITHERED HAND ON THE SABBATH DAY AND RETIREMENT OF JESUS TO AVOID DANGER. ( = Mar 3:1-12; Luk 6:6-11). (Mat 12:9-21)
• A BLIND AND DUMB DEMONIAC HEALED AND REPLY TO THE MALIGNANT EXPLANATION PUT UPON IT. ( = Mar 3:20-30; Luk 11:14-23). (Mat. 12:22-37)
• A SIGN DEMANDED AND THE REPLY--HIS MOTHER AND BRETHREN SEEK TO SPEAK WITH HIM, AND THE ANSWER. ( = Luk 11:16, Luk 11:24-36; Mar 3:31-35; Luk 8:19-21). (Mat 12:38-50)
• JESUS TEACHES BY PARABLES. ( = Mark 4:1-34; Luk 8:4-18; Luk 13:18-20). (Mat. 13:1-52) The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the seaside.
• HOW JESUS WAS REGARDED BY HIS RELATIVES. ( = Mar 6:1-6; Luk 4:16-30). (Mat 13:53-58) And it came to pass, that, when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.
• HEROD THINKS JESUS A RESURRECTION OF THE MURDERED BAPTIST--ACCOUNT OF HIS IMPRISONMENT AND DEATH. ( = Mark 6:14-29; Luk 9:7-9). (Mat 14:1-12)
• JESUS CROSSES TO THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE LAKE WALKING ON THE SEA--INCIDENTS ON LANDING. ( = Mar 6:45; Joh 6:15-24). (Mat 14:22-26)
• DISCOURSE ON CEREMONIAL POLLUTION. ( = Mar 7:1, Mar 7:23). (Mat. 15:1-20)
• THE WOMAN OF CANAAN AND HER DAUGHTER. (Mat 15:21-28)
• PETER'S NOBLE CONFESSION OF CHRIST AND THE BENEDICTION PRONOUNCED UPON HIM--CHRIST'S FIRST EXPLICIT ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS APPROACHING SUFFERINGS, DEATH, AND RESURRECTION--HIS REBUKE OF PETER AND WARNING TO ALL THE TWELVE. ( = Mar 8:27; Mar 9:1; Luk 9:18-27). (Mat. 16:13-28)
• HEALING OF A DEMONIAC BOY--SECOND EXPLICIT ANNOUNCEMENT BY OUR LORD OF HIS APPROACHING DEATH AND RESURRECTION. ( = Mark 9:14-32; Luk 9:37-45). (Mat 17:14-23)
• THE TRIBUTE MONEY. (Mat 17:24-27)
• FURTHER TEACHING ON THE SAME SUBJECT INCLUDING THE PARABLE OF THE UNMERCIFUL DEBTOR. (Mat. 18:10-35)
• FINAL DEPARTURE FROM GALILEE--DIVORCE. ( = Mar 10:1-12; Luk 9:51). (Mat 19:1-12)
• PARABLE OF THE LABORERS IN THE VINEYARD. (Mat. 20:1-16)
• THE AUTHORITY OF JESUS QUESTIONED AND THE REPLY--THE PARABLES OF THE TWO SONS, AND OF THE WICKED HUSBANDMAN. ( = Mark 11:27-12:12; Luke 20:1-19). (Mat. 21:23-46)
• PARABLE OF THE MARRIAGE OF THE KING'S SON. (Mat 22:1-14)
• DENUNCIATION OF THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES--LAMENTATION OVER JERUSALEM, AND FAREWELL TO THE TEMPLE. ( = Mar 12:38-40; Luk 20:45-47). (Mat. 23:1-39)
• PARABLE OF THE TEN VIRGINS. (Mat 25:1-13)
• PARABLE OF THE TALENTS. (Mat. 25:14-30)
• THE LAST JUDGMENT. (Mat. 25:31-46)
• JESUS LED AWAY TO PILATE--REMORSE AND SUICIDE OF JUDAS. ( = Mar 15:1; Luk 23:1; Joh 18:28). (Mat 27:1-10)
• GLORIOUS ANGELIC ANNOUNCEMENT ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, THAT CHRIST IS RISEN--HIS APPEARANCE TO THE WOMEN--THE GUARDS BRIBED TO GIVE A FALSE ACCOUNT OF THE RESURRECTION. ( = Mar 16:1-8; Luk 24:1-8; Joh 20:1). (Mat 28:1-15)
• JESUS MEETS WITH THE DISCIPLES ON A MOUNTAIN IN GALILEE AND GIVES FORTH THE GREAT COMMISSION. (Mat 28:16-20)
• SIGNS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FOLLOWING THE DEATH OF THE LORD JESUS--HE IS TAKEN DOWN FROM THE CROSS, AND BURIED--THE SEPULCHRE IS GUARDED. ( = Mar 15:38-47; Luk 23:47-56; Joh 19:31-42). (Mat. 27:51-66)

TSK: Matthew (Book Introduction)

Matthew, being one of the twelve apostles, and early called to the apostleship, and from the time of his call a constant attendant on our Saviour, was perfectly well qualified to write fully the history of his life. He relates what he saw and heard. " He is eminently distinguished for the distinctness and particularity with which he has related many of our Lord’s discourses and moral instructions. Of these his sermon on the mount, his charge to the apostles, his illustrations of the nature of his kingdom, and his prophecy on mount Olivet, are examples. He has also wonderfully united simplicity and energy in relating the replies of his Master to the cavils of his adversaries." " There is not," as Dr. A. Clarke justly remarks, " one truth or doctrine, in the whole oracles of God, which is not taught in this Evangelist. The outlines of the whole spiritual system are here correctly laid down. even Paul himself has added nothing. He has amplified and illustrated the truths contained in this Gospel - under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, neither he, nor any of the other apostles, have brought to light one truth, the prototype of which has not been found in the words and acts of our blessed Lord as related by Matthew."

TSK: Matthew 17 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Mat 17:1, The transfiguration of Christ; Mat 17:14, He heals the lunatic, Mat 17:22. foretells his own passion, Mat 17:24. and pays tribute.

Poole: Matthew 17 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 18

MHCC: Matthew (Book Introduction)

Matthew, surnamed Levi, before his conversion was a publican, or tax-gatherer under the Romans at Capernaum. He is generally allowed to have written his Gospel before any other of the evangelists. The contents of this Gospel, and the evidence of ancient writers, show that it was written primarily for the use of the Jewish nation. The fulfilment of prophecy was regarded by the Jews as strong evidence, therefore this is especially dwelt upon by St. Matthew. Here are particularly selected such parts of our Saviour's history and discourses as were best suited to awaken the Jewish nation to a sense of their sins; to remove their erroneous expectations of an earthly kingdom; to abate their pride and self-conceit; to teach them the spiritual nature and extent of the gospel; and to prepare them for the admission of the Gentiles into the church.

MHCC: Matthew 17 (Chapter Introduction)

(Mat 17:1-13) The transfiguration of Christ.

(Mat 17:14-21) Jesus casts out a dumb and deaf spirit.

(Mat 17:22, Mat 17:23) He again foretells his sufferings.

(Mat 17:24-27) He works a miracle to pay the tribute money.

Matthew Henry: Matthew (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Gospel According to St. Matthew

We have now before us, I. The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; so this second part of the holy Bible is entitled: The new covenant; so it might as well be rendered; the word signifies both. But, when it is (as here) spoken of as Christ's act and deed, it is most properly rendered a testament, for he is the testator, and it becomes of force by his death (Heb 9:16, Heb 9:17); nor is there, as in covenants, a previous treaty between the parties, but what is granted, though an estate upon condition, is owing to the will, the free-will, the good-will, of the Testator. All the grace contained in this book is owing to Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour; and, unless we consent to him as our Lord, we cannot expect any benefit by him as our Saviour. This is called a new testament, to distinguish it from that which was given by Moses, and was not antiquated; and to signify that it should be always new, and should never wax old, and grow out of date. These books contain, not only a full discovery of that grace which has appeared to all men, bringing salvation, but a legal instrument by which it is conveyed to, and settled upon, all believers. How carefully do we preserve, and with what attention and pleasure do we read, the last will and testament of a friend, who has therein left us a fair estate, and, with it, high expressions of his love to us! How precious then should this testament of our blessed Saviour be to us, which secures to us all his unsearchable riches! It is his testament; for though, as is usual, it was written by others (we have nothing upon record that was of Christ's own writing), yet he dictated it; and the night before he died, in the institution of his supper, he signed, sealed, and published it, in the presence of twelve witnesses. For, though these books were not written for some years after, for the benefit of posterity, in perpetuam rei memoriam - as a perpetual memorial, yet the New Testament of our Lord Jesus was settled, confirmed, and declared, from the time of his death, as a nuncupative will, with which these records exactly agree. The things which St. Luke wrote were things which were most surely believed, and therefore well known, before he wrote them; but, when they were written, the oral tradition was superseded and set aside, and these writings were the repository of that New Testament. This is intimated by the title which is prefixed to many Greek Copies, Tē kainēs Diathēkēs Hapanta - The whole of the New Testament, or all the things of it. In it is declared the whole counsel of God concerning our salvation, Act 20:27. As the law of the Lord is perfect, so is the gospel of Christ, and nothing is to be added to it. We have it all, and are to look for no more.

II. We have before us The Four Gospels. Gospel signifies good news, or glad tidings; and this history of Christ's coming into the world to save sinners is, without doubt, the best news that ever came from heaven to earth; the angel gave it this title (Luk 2:10), Euagnelizomai humin - I bring you good tidings; I bring the gospel to you. And the prophet foretold it, Isa 52:7; Isa 61:1. It is there foretold that in the days of the messiah good tidings should be preached. Gospel is an old Saxon word; it is God's spell or word; and God is so called because he is good, Deus optimus - God most excellent, and therefore it may be a good spell, or word. If we take spell in its more proper signification for a charm ( carmen ), and take that in a good sense, for what is moving and affecting, which is apt lenire dolorem - to calm the spirits, or to raise them in admiration or love, as that which is very amiable we call charming, it is applicable to the gospel; for in it the charmer charmeth wisely, though to deaf adders, Psa 58:4, Psa 58:5. Nor (one would think) can any charms be so powerful as those of the beauty and love of our Redeemer. The whole New Testament is the gospel. St. Paul calls it his gospel, because he was one of the preachers of it. Oh that we may each of us make it ours by our cordial acceptance of it and subjection to it! But the four books which contain the history of the Redeemer we commonly call the four gospels, and the inspired penmen of them evangelists, or gospel-writers; not, however, very properly, because that title belongs to a particular order of ministers, that were assistants to the apostles (Eph 4:11): He gave some apostles, and some evangelists. It was requisite that the doctrine of Christ should be interwoven with, and founded upon, the narrative of his birth, life, miracles, death, and resurrection; for then it appears in its clearest and strongest light. As in nature, so in grace, the most happy discoveries are those which take rise from the certain representations of matters of fact. Natural history is the best philosophy; and so is the sacred history, both of the Old and New Testament, the most proper and grateful vehicle of sacred truth. These four gospels were early and constantly received by the primitive church, and read in Christian assemblies, as appears by the writings of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, who lived little more than a hundred years after the ascension of Christ; they declared that neither more nor fewer than four were received by the church. A Harmony of these four evangelists was compiled by Tatian about that time, which he called, To dia tessarōn - The Gospel out of the four. In the third and fourth centuries there were gospels forged by divers sects, and published, one under the name of St. Peter, another of St. Thomas, another of St. Philip, etc. But they were never owned by the church, nor was any credit given to them, as the learned Dr. Whitby shows. And he gives this good reason why we should adhere to these written records, because, whatever the pretences of tradition may be, it is not sufficient to preserve things with any certainty, as appears by experience. For, whereas Christ said and did many memorable things, which were not written (Joh 20:30; Joh 21:25), tradition has not preserved any one of them to us, but all is lost except what was written; that therefore is what we must abide by; and blessed by God that we have it to abide by; it is the sure word of history.

III. We have before us the Gospel according to St. Matthew. The penman was by birth a Jew, by calling a publican, till Christ commanded his attendance, and then he left the receipt of custom, to follow him, and was one of those that accompanied him all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out, beginning from the baptism of John unto the day that he was taken up, Act 1:21, Act 1:22. He was therefore a competent witness of what he has here recorded. He is said to have written this history about eight years after Christ's ascension. Many of the ancients say that he wrote it in the Hebrew or Syriac language; but the tradition is sufficiently disproved by Dr. Whitby. Doubtless, it was written in Greek, as the other parts of the New Testament were; not in that language which was peculiar to the Jews, whose church and state were near a period, but in that which was common to the world, and in which the knowledge of Christ would be most effectually transmitted to the nations of the earth; yet it is probable that there might be an edition of it in Hebrew, published by St. Matthew himself, at the same time that he wrote it in Greek; the former for the Jews, the latter for the Gentiles, when he left Judea, to preach among the Gentiles. Let us bless God that we have it, and have it in a language we understand.

Matthew Henry: Matthew 17 (Chapter Introduction)

In this chapter we have, I. Christ in his pomp and glory transfigured (Mat 17:1-13). II. Christ in his power and grace, casting the devil out of a child (Mat 17:14-21). And, III. Christ in his poverty and great humiliation, 1. Foretelling his own sufferings (Mat 17:22, Mat 17:23). 2. Paying tribute (Mat 17:24-27). So that here is Christ, the Brightness of his Father's glory, by himself purging our sins, paying our debts, and destroying for us him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. Thus were the several indications of Christ's gracious intentions admirable interwoven.

Barclay: Matthew (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT MATTHEW

The Synoptic Gospels

Matthew, Mark and Luke are usually known as the Synoptic Gospels. Synoptic comes from two Greek words which mean to see together and literally means able to be seen together. The reason for that name is this. These three gospels each give an account of the same events in Jesusife. There are in each of them additions and omissions; but broadly speaking their material is the same and their arrangement is the same. It is therefore possible to set them down in parallel columns, and so to compare the one with the other.

When that is done, it is quite clear that there is the closest possible relationship between them. If we, for instance, compare the story of the feeding of the five thousand (Mat_14:12-21; Mar_6:30-44; Luk_9:10-17) we find exactly the same story told in almost exactly the same words.

Another instance is the story of the healing of the man who was sick with the palsy (Mat_9:1-8; Mar_2:1-12; Luk_5:17-26). These three accounts are so similar that even a little parenthesis--"he then said to the paralytic"--occurs in all three as a parenthesis in exactly the same place. The correspondence between the three gospels is so close that we are bound to come to the conclusion either that all three are drawing their material from a common source, or that two of them must be based on the third.

The Earliest Gospel

When we examine the matter more closely we see that there is every reason for believing that Mark must have been the first of the gospels to be written, and that the other two, Matthew and Luke, are using Mark as a basis.

Mark can be divided into 105 sections. Of these sections 93 occur in Matthew and 81 in Luke. Of Mark105 sections there are only 4 which do not occur either in Matthew or in Luke.

Mark has 661 verses: Matthew has 1,068 verses: Luke has 1,149 verses. Matthew reproduces no fewer than 606 of Markverses; and Luke reproduces 320. Of the 55 verses of Mark which Matthew does not reproduce Luke reproduces 31; so there are only 24 verses in the whole of Mark which are not reproduced somewhere in Matthew or Luke.

It is not only the substance of the verses which is reproduced; the very words are reproduced. Matthew uses 51 per cent of Markwords; and Luke uses 53 per cent.

Both Matthew and Luke as a general rule follow Markorder of events. Occasionally either Matthew or Luke differs from Mark; but they never both differ against him; always at least one of them follows Markorder.

Improvements On Mark

Since Matthew and Luke are both much longer than Mark, it might just possibly be suggested that Mark is a summary of Matthew and Luke; but there is one other set of facts which show that Mark is earlier. It is the custom of Matthew and Luke to improve and to polish Mark, if we may put it so. Let us take some instances.

Sometimes Mark seems to limit the power of Jesus; at least an ill-disposed critic might try to prove that he was doing so. Here are three accounts of the same incident:

Mar_1:34: And he healed many who were sick with various

diseases, and cast out many demons;

Mat_8:16: And he cast out the spirits with a word, and

healed all who were sick;

Luk_4:40: And he laid his hands on every one of them, and

healed them.

Let us take other three similar examples:

Mar_3:10: For he had healed many;

Mat_12:15: And he healed them all;

Luk_6:19: and healed them all.

Matthew and Luke both change Markmany into all so that there may be no suggestion of any limitation of the power of Jesus Christ.

There is a very similar change in the account of the events of Jesusisit to Nazareth. Let us compare the account of Mark and of Matthew.

Mk 6:5-6: And he could do no mighty work there... and

he marvelled because of their unbelief;

Mat_13:58: And he did not do many mighty works there,

because of their unbelief.

Matthew shrinks from saying that Jesus could not do any mighty works; and changes the form of the expression accordingly.

Sometimes Matthew and Luke leave out little touches in Mark in case they could be taken to belittle Jesus. Matthew and Luke omit three statements in Mark.

Mar_3:5: "He looked around at them with anger, grieved

at their hardness of heart."

Mar_3:21: And when his friends heard it, they went out to

seize him: for they said, He is beside himself;

Mar_10:14: He was indignant.

Matthew and Luke hesitate to attribute human emotions of anger and grief to Jesus, and shudder to think that anyone should even have suggested that Jesus was mad.

Sometimes Matthew and Luke slightly alter things in Mark to get rid of statements which might seem to show the apostles in a bad light. We take but one instance, from the occasion on which James and John sought to ensure themselves of the highest places in the coming Kingdom. Let us compare the introduction to that story in Mark and in Matthew.

Mar_10:35: James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came

forward to him, and said to him...

Mat_20:20: Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came

up to him, with her sons, and kneeling before him,

she asked him for something.

Matthew hesitates to ascribe motives of ambition directly to the two apostles, and so he ascribes them to their mother.

All this makes it clear that Mark is the earliest of the gospels. Mark gives a simple, vivid, direct narrative; but Matthew and Luke have already begun to be affected by doctrinal and theological considerations which make them much more careful of what they say.

The Teaching Of Jesus

We have seen that Matthew has 1,068 verses; and that Luke has 1,149 verses; and that between them they reproduce 582 of Markverses. That means that in Matthew and Luke there is much more material than Mark supplies. When we examine that material we find that more than 200 verses of it are almost identical. For instance such passages as Luk_6:41-42 and Mat_7:1, Mat_7:5; Luk_10:21-22 and Mat_11:25-27; Luk_3:7-9 and Mat_3:7-10 are almost exactly the same.

But here we notice a difference. The material which Matthew and Luke drew from Mark was almost entirely material dealing with the events of Jesusife; but these 200 additional verses common to Matthew and Luke tell us, not what Jesus did, but what Jesus said. Clearly in these verses Matthew and Luke are drawing from a common source-book of the sayings of Jesus.

That book does not now exist; but to it scholars have given the letter Q which stands for Quelle, which is the German word for "source." In its day it must have been an extraordinarily important book, for it was the first handbook of the teaching of Jesus.

MatthewPlace In The Gospel Tradition

It is here that we come to Matthew the apostle. Scholars are agreed that the first gospel as it stands does not come directly from the hand of Matthew. One who had himself been an eye-witness of the life of Christ would not have needed to use Mark as a source-book for the life of Jesus in the way Matthew does. But one of the earliest Church historians, a man called Papias, gives us this intensely important piece of information:

"Matthew collected the sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew tongue."

So, then, we can believe that it was none other than Matthew who wrote that book which was the source from which all men must draw, if they wished to know what Jesus taught. And it was because so much of that source-book is incorporated in the first gospel that Matthewname was attached to it. We must be for ever grateful to Matthew, when we remember that it is to him that we owe the Sermon on the Mount and nearly all we know about the teaching of Jesus. Broadly speaking, to Mark we owe our knowledge of the events of Jesusife; to Matthew we owe our knowledge of the substance of Jesuseaching.

Matthew The Taxgatherer

About Matthew himself we know very little. We read of his call in Mat_9:9. We know that he was a taxgatherer and that he must therefore have been a bitterly hated man, for the Jews hated the members of their own race who had entered the civil service of their conquerors. Matthew would be regarded as nothing better than a quisling.

But there was one gift which Matthew would possess. Most of the disciples were fishermen. They would have little skill and little practice in putting words together on paper; but Matthew would be an expert in that. When Jesus called Matthew, as he sat at the receipt of custom, Matthew rose up and followed him and left everything behind him except one thing--his pen. And Matthew nobly used his literary skill to become the first man ever to compile an account of the teaching of Jesus.

The Gospel Of The Jews

Let us now look at the chief characteristics of Matthewgospel so that we may watch for them as we read it.

First and foremost, Matthew is the gospel which was written for the Jews. It was written by a Jew in order to convince Jews.

One of the great objects of Matthew is to demonstrate that all the prophecies of the Old Testament are fulfilled in Jesus, and that, therefore, he must be the Messiah. It has one phrase which runs through it like an ever-recurring theme--"This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet." That phrase occurs in the gospel as often as 16 times. Jesusirth and Jesusame are the fulfillment of prophecy (Mat_1:21-23); so are the flight to Egypt (Mat_2:14-15); the slaughter of the children (Mat_2:16-18); Josephsettlement in Nazareth and Jesuspbringing there (Mat_2:23); Jesusse of parables (Mat_13:34-35); the triumphal entry (Mat_21:3-5); the betrayal for thirty pieces of silver (Mat_27:9); the casting of lots for Jesusarments as he hung on the Cross (Mat_27:35). It is Matthewprimary and deliberate purpose to show how the Old Testament prophecies received their fulfillment in Jesus; how every detail of Jesusife was foreshadowed in the prophets; and thus to compel the Jews to admit that Jesus was the Messiah.

The main interest of Matthew is in the Jews. Their conversion is especially near and dear to the heart of its writer. When the Syro-Phoenician woman seeks his help, Jesusirst answer is: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mat_15:24). When Jesus sends out the Twelve on the task of evangelization, his instruction is: "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mat_10:5-6). Yet it is not to be thought that this gospel by any means excludes the Gentiles. Many are to come from the east and the west to sit down in the kingdom of God (Mat_8:11). The gospel is to be preached to the whole world (Mat_24:14). And it is Matthew which gives us the marching orders of the Church: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Mat_28:19). It is clear that Matthewfirst interest is in the Jews, but that it foresees the day when an nations will be gathered in.

The Jewishness of Matthew is also seen in its attitude to the Law. Jesus did not come to destroy, but to fulfil the Law. The least part of the Law will not pass away. Men must not be taught to break the Law. The righteousness of the Christian must exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees (Mat_5:17-20). Matthew was written by one who knew and loved the Law, and who saw that even the Law has its place in the Christian economy.

Once again there is an apparent paradox in the attitude of Matthew to the Scribes and Pharisees. They are given a very special authority: "The Scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moseseat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you" (Mat_23:2). But at the same time there is no gospel which so sternly and consistently condemns them.

Right at the beginning there is John the Baptistsavage denunciation of them as a brood of vipers (Mat_3:7-12). They complain that Jesus eats with tax collectors and sinners (Mat_9:11). They ascribe the power of Jesus, not to God, but to the prince of devils (Mat_12:24). They plot to destroy him (Mat_12:14). The disciples are warned against the leaven, the evil teaching, of the Scribes and Pharisees (Mat_16:12). They are like evil plants doomed to be rooted up (Mat_15:13). They are quite unable to read the signs of the times (Mat_16:3). They are the murderers of the prophets (Mat_21:41). There is no chapter of condemnation in the whole New Testament like Matt 23 , which is condemnation not of what the Scribes and the Pharisees teach, but of what they are. He condemns them for falling so far short of their own teaching, and far below the ideal of what they ought to be.

There are certain other special interests in Matthew. Matthew is especially interested in the Church. It is in fact the only one of the Synoptic Gospels which uses the word Church at all. Only Matthew introduces the passage about the Church after Peterconfession at Caesarea Philippi (Mat_16:13-23; compare Mar_8:27-33; Luk_9:18-22). Only Matthew says that disputes are to be settled by the Church (Mat_18:17). By the time Matthew came to be written the Church had become a great organization and institution; and indeed the dominant factor in the life of the Christian.

Matthew has a specially strong apocalyptic interest. That is to say, Matthew has a specially strong interest in all that Jesus said about his own Second Coming, about the end of the world, and about the judgment. Matt 24 gives us a fuller account of Jesus pocalyptic discourse than any of the other gospels. Matthew alone has the parables of the talents (Mat_25:14-30); the wise and the foolish virgins (Mat_25:1-13); and the sheep and the goats (Mat_25:31-46). Matthew has a special interest in the last things and in judgment.

But we have not yet come to the greatest of all the characteristics of Matthew. It is supremely the teaching gospel.

We have already seen that the apostle Matthew was responsible for the first collection and the first handbook of the teaching of Jesus. Matthew was the great systematizer. It was his habit to gather together in one place all that he knew about the teaching of Jesus on any given subject. The result is that in Matthew we find five great blocks in which the teaching of Jesus is collected and systematized. All these sections have to do with the Kingdom of God. They are as follows:

(a) The Sermon on the Mount, or The Law of the Kingdom (Matt 5-7).

(b) The Duties of the Leaders of the Kingdom (Matt 10 )

(c) The Parables of the Kingdom (Matt 13 ).

(d) Greatness and Forgiveness in the Kingdom (Matt 18 ).

(e) The Coming of the King (Matt 24-25).

Matthew does more than collect and systematize. It must be remembered that Matthew was writing in an age when printing had not been invented, when books were few and far between because they had to be hand-written. In an age like that, comparatively few people could possess a book; and, therefore, if they wished to know and to use the teaching and the story of Jesus, they had to carry them in their memories.

Matthew therefore always arranges things in a way that is easy for the reader to memorize. He arranges things in threes and sevens. There are three messages to Joseph; three denials of Peter; three questions of Pilate; seven parables of the Kingdom in Matt 13; seven woes to the Scribes and Pharisees in Matt 23.

The genealogy of Jesus with which the gospel begins is a good example of this. The genealogy is to prove that Jesus is the Son of David. In Hebrew there are no figures; when figures are necessary the letters of the alphabet stand for the figures. In Hebrew there are no written vowels. The Hebrew letters for David are D-W-D; if these letters be taken as figures and not as letters, they add up to 14; and the genealogy consists of three groups of names, and in each group there are 14 names. Matthew does everything possible to arrange the teaching of Jesus in such a way that people will be able to assimilate and to remember it.

Every teacher owes a debt of gratitude to Matthew, for Matthew wrote what is above all the teachergospel.

Matthew has one final characteristic. Matthewdominating idea is that of Jesus as King. He writes to demonstrate the royalty of Jesus.

Right at the beginning the genealogy is to prove that Jesus is the Son of David (Mat_1:1-17). The title, Son of David, is used oftener in Matthew than in any other gospel (Mat_15:22; Mat_21:9; Mat_21:15). The wise men come looking for him who is King of the Jews (Mat_2:2). The triumphal entry is a deliberately dramatized claim to be King (Mat_21:1-11). Before Pilate, Jesus deliberately accepts the name of King (Mat_27:11). Even on the Cross the title of King is affixed, even if it be in mockery, over his head (Mat_27:37). In the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew shows us Jesus quoting the Law and five times abrogating it with a regal: "But I say to you..." (Mat_5:21, Mat_5:27, Mat_5:34, Mat_5:38, Mat_5:43). The final claim of Jesus is: "All authority has been given to me" (Mat_28:18).

Matthewpicture of Jesus is of the man born to be King. Jesus walks through his pages as if in the purple and gold of royalty.

FURTHER READING

W. C. Allen, St. Matthew (ICC; G)

J. C. Fenton, The Gospel of St. Matthew (PC; E)

F. V. Filson, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (ACB; E)

A. H. McNeile, St Matthew (MmC; G)

A. Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew (E)

T. H. Robinson, The Gospel of Matthew (MC; E)

R. V. G. Tasker, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (TC; E)

Abbreviations

ACB: A. and C. Black New Testament Commentary

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC: Moffatt Commentary

MmC: Macmillan Commentary

PC: Pelican New Testament Commentary

TC: Tyndale Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: Matthew 17 (Chapter Introduction)

The Mount Of Transfiguration (Mat_17:1-8)

The Benediction Of The Past (Mat_17:1-8 Continued)

The Instruction Of Peter (Mat_17:1-8 Continued)

Teaching The Way Of The Cross (Mat_17:9-13; Mat_17:22; Mat_17:23)

The Essential Faith (Mat_17:14-20)

The Temple Tax (Mat_17:24-27)

How To Pay Our Debts (Mat_17:24-27 Continued)

Constable: Matthew (Book Introduction)

Introduction

The Synoptic Problem

The synoptic problem is intrinsic to all study of the Gospels, especially the first three. The word "synoptic" comes from two Greek words, syn and opsesthai, meaning "to see together." Essentially the synoptic problem involves all the difficulties that arise because of the similarities and differences between the Gospel accounts. Matthew, Mark, and Luke have received the title "Synoptic Gospels" because they present the life and ministry of Jesus Christ similarly. The content and purpose of John's Gospel are sufficiently distinct to put it in a class by itself. It is not one of the so-called Synoptic Gospels.

Part of the synoptic problem is the sources the Holy Spirit led the evangelists to use in producing their Gospels. There is internal evidence (within the individual Gospels themselves) that the writers used source materials as they wrote. The most obvious example of this is the Old Testament passages to which each one referred directly or indirectly. Since Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus Christ many of their statements represent eyewitness accounts of what happened. Likewise Mark had close connections with Peter, and Luke was an intimate associate of Paul as well as a careful historian (Luke 1:1-4). Information that the writers obtained verbally (oral tradition) and in writing (documents) undoubtedly played a part in what they wrote. Perhaps the evangelists also received special revelations from the Lord before and or when they wrote their Gospels.

Some scholars have devoted much time and attention to the study of the other sources the evangelists may have used. They are the "source critics" and their work constitutes "source criticism." Because source criticism and its development are so crucial to Gospel studies, a brief introduction to this subject follows.

In 1776 and 1779 two posthumously published essays by A. E. Lessing became known in which he argued for a single written source for the Synoptic Gospels. He called this source the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and he believed its writer had composed it in the Aramaic language. To him one original source best explained the parallels and differences between the Synoptics. This idea of an original source or primal Gospel caught the interest of many other scholars. Some of them believed there was a written source, but others held it was an oral source.

As one might expect, the idea of two or more sources occurred to some scholars as the best solution to the synoptic problem.¹ Some favored the view that Mark was one of the primal sources because over 90% of the material in Mark also appears in Matthew and or Luke. Some posited another primary source "Q," an abbreviation of the German word for source, quelle. It supposedly contained the material in Matthew and Luke that does not appear in Mark.

Gradually source criticism gave way to form criticism. The form critics concentrated on the process involved in transmitting what Jesus said and did to the primary sources. They assumed that the process of transmitting this information followed patterns of oral communication that are typical in primitive societies.² Typically oral communication has certain characteristic effects on stories. It tends to shorten narratives, to retain names, to balance teaching, and to elaborate on stories about miracles, to name a few results. The critics also adopted other criteria from secular philology to assess the accuracy of statements in the Gospels. For example, they viewed as distinctive to Jesus only what was dissimilar to what Palestinian Jews or early Christians might have said. Given the critics' view of inspiration it is easy to see how most of them concluded that the Gospels in their present form do not accurately represent what Jesus said and did. However some conservative scholars used the same literary method but held a much higher view of the Gospels.³

The next wave of critical opinion, redaction criticism, hit the Christian world shortly after World War II.⁴ Redaction critics generally accept the tenets of source and form criticism. However they also believe that the Gospel evangelists altered the traditions they received to make their own theological emphases. They viewed the writers not simply as compilers of the church's oral traditions but as theologians who adapted the material for their own purposes. They viewed the present Gospels as containing both traditional material and edited material. Obviously there is a good aspect and a bad aspect to this view. Positively it recognizes the individual evangelist's distinctive purpose for writing. Negatively it permits an interpretation of the Gospel that allows for historical error and even deliberate distortion. Redaction scholars have been more or less liberal depending on their view of Scripture generally. Redaction critics also characteristically show more interest in the early Christian community out of which the Gospels came and the beliefs of that community than they do in Jesus' historical context. Their interpretations of the early Christian community vary greatly as one would expect. In recent years the trend in critical scholarship has been conservative, to recognize more rather than less Gospel material as having a historical basis.

Some knowledge of the history of Gospel criticism is helpful to the serious student who wants to understand the text. Questions of the historical background out of which the evangelists wrote, their individual purposes, and what they simply recorded and what they commented on all affect interpretation. Consequently the conservative expositor can profit somewhat from the studies of scholars who concern themselves with these questions primarily.⁵

Most critics have concluded that one source the writers used was one or more of the other Gospels. Currently most source critics believe that Matthew and Luke drew information from Mark's Gospel. Mark's accounts are generally longer than those of Matthew and Luke suggesting that Matthew and Luke condensed Mark. To them it seems more probable that they condensed him than that he elaborated on them. There is no direct evidence, however, that one evangelist used another as a source. Since they were either personally disciples of Christ or very close to eyewitnesses of His activities, they may not have needed to consult an earlier Gospel.

Most source critics also believe that the unique material in each Gospel goes back to Q. This may initially appear to be a document constructed out of thin air. However the early church father Papias (80-155 A.D.) may have referred to the existence of such a source. Eusebius, the fourth century church historian, wrote that Papias had written, "Matthew composed the logia [sayings? Gospel?] in the hebraidi [Hebrew? Aramaic?] dialekto [dialect? language? style?]."⁶ This is an important statement for several reasons, but here note that Papias referred to Matthew's logia. This may be a reference to Matthew's Gospel, but many source critics believe it refers to a primal document that became a source for one or more of our Gospels. Most of them do not believe Matthew wrote Q. They see in Papias' statement support for the idea that primal documents such as Matthew's logia were available as sources, and they conclude that Q was the most important one.

Another major aspect of the synoptic problem is the order in which the Gospels appeared as finished products. This issue has obvious connections with the question of the sources the Gospel writers may have used.

Until after the Reformation, almost all Christians believed that Matthew wrote his Gospel before Mark and Luke wrote theirs; they held Matthean priority. From studying the similarities and differences between the Synoptics, some source critics concluded that Matthew and Luke came into existence before Mark. They viewed Mark as a condensation of the other two.⁷ However the majority of source critics today believe that Mark was the first Gospel and that Matthew and Luke wrote later. As explained above, they hold this view because they believe it is more probable that Matthew and Luke drew from and condensed Mark than that Mark expanded on Matthew and Luke.

Since source criticism is highly speculative many conservative expositors today continue to lean toward Matthean priority. We do so because there is no solid evidence to contradict this traditional view that Christians held almost consistently for the church's first 17 centuries.

While the game of deducing which Gospel came first and who drew from whom appeals to many students, these issues are essentially academic ones. They have little to do with the meaning of the text. Consequently I do not plan to discuss them further but will refer interested student to the vast body of literature that is available. I will, however, deal with problems involving the harmonization of the Gospel accounts at the appropriate places in the exposition that follows. The Bible expositor's basic concern is not the nature and history of the stories in the text but their primary significance in their contexts.

". . . it is this writer's opinion that there is no evidence to postulate a tradition of literary dependence among the Gospels. The dependence is rather a parallel dependence on the actual events which occurred."⁸

A much more helpful critical approach to the study of the Bible is literary criticism, the current wave of interest. This approach analyses the text in terms of its literary structure, emphases, and unique features. It seeks to understand the text as a piece of literature by examining how the writer wrote it.

Writer

External evidence strongly supports the Matthean authorship of the first Gospel. The earliest copies of the Gospel we have begin "KATA MATTHAION" ("according to Matthew"). Several early church fathers referred to Matthew as the writer including Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen.⁹ Papias' use of the term logia to describe Matthew's work, cited above, is not a clear attestation to Matthean authorship of the first Gospel. Since Matthew was a disciple of Jesus and one of the 12 Apostles, his work carried great influence and enjoyed much prestige from its first appearance. We might expect a more prominent disciple such as Peter or James to have written it. The fact that the early church accepted it as from Matthew further strengthens the likelihood that he indeed wrote it.

Internal evidence of Matthean authorship is also strong. As a tax collector for Rome, Matthew would have had to be able to write capably. His profession forced him to keep accurate and detailed records which skill he put to good use in composing his Gospel. There are more references to money and to more different kinds of money in this Gospel than in any of the others.¹⁰ Matthew humbly referred to himself as a tax collector, a profession with objectionable connotations in his culture, whereas the other Gospel writers simply called him Matthew. Matthew called his feast for Jesus a dinner (Matt. 9:9-10), but Luke referred to it as a great banquet (Luke 5:29). All these details confirm the testimony of the early church fathers.

Language

Papias' statement, cited above, refers to a writing by Matthew in the hebraidi dialekto (the Hebrew or possibly Aramaic language or dialect). This may not be a reference to Matthew's Gospel. Four other church fathers mentioned that Matthew wrote in Aramaic and that translations followed in Greek: Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.), Origen (185-254 A.D.), Eusebius (4th century), and Jerome (6th century).¹¹ However they may have been referring to something other than our first Gospel. These references have led many scholars to conclude that Matthew composed his Gospel in Aramaic and that someone else, or he himself, later translated it into Greek. This is the normal meaning of the fathers' statements. If Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, it is difficult to explain why he sometimes, but not always, quoted from a Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. The Hebrew Old Testament would have been the normal text for a Hebrew or Aramaic author to use. A Greek translator might have used the LXX (Septuagint) to save himself some work, but if he did so why did he not use it consistently? Matthew's Greek Gospel contains many Aramaic words. This solution also raises some questions concerning the reliability and inerrancy of the Greek Gospel that has come down to us.

There are several possible solutions to the problem of the language of Matthew's Gospel.¹² The best seems to be that Matthew wrote a Hebrew document that God did not inspire that is no longer extant. He also composed an inspired Greek Gospel that has come down to us in the New Testament. Many competent scholars believe that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Greek. They do so mainly because of his Greek.¹³

Date and Place of Composition

Dating Matthew's Gospel is difficult for many reasons even if one believes in Matthean priority. The first extra-biblical reference to it occurs in the writings of Ignatius (c. 110-115 A.D.).¹⁴ However Matthew's references to Jerusalem and the Sadducees point to a date of compositions before 70 A.D. when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. His references to Jerusalem assume its existence (e.g., 4:5; 27:53). Matthew recorded more warnings about the Sadducees than all the other New Testament writers combined, but after 70 A.D. they no longer existed as a significant authority in Israel.¹⁵ Consequently Matthew probably wrote before 70 A.D.

References in the text to the customs of the Jews continuing "to this day" (27:8; 28:15) imply that some time had elapsed between the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and the composition of the Gospel. Since Jesus died in 33 A.D. Matthew may have composed his Gospel perhaps a decade or more later. A date between 40 and 70 A.D. is very probable.¹⁶

Since Matthew lived and worked in Palestine we would assume that he wrote while living there. There is no evidence that excludes this possibility. Nevertheless scholars love to speculate. Other sites they have suggested include Antioch of Syria (because Ignatius was bishop of Antioch), Alexandria, Edessa, Syria, Tyre, and Caesarea Maratima. These are all guesses.

Distinctive Features

Compared with the other Gospels Matthew's is distinctively Jewish. He used parallelism as did many to the Old Testament writers, and his thought patterns and general style are typically Hebrew.¹⁷ Matthew's vocabulary (e.g., kingdom of heaven, holy city, righteousness, etc.) and subject matter (the Law, defilement, the sabbath, Messiah, etc.) are also distinctively Jewish. Matthew referred to the Old Testament 129 times, more than any other evangelist.¹⁸ Usually he did so to prove a point to his readers. The genealogy in chapter 1 traces Jesus' ancestry back to Abraham, the father of the Jewish race. Matthew gave prominent attention to Peter, the apostle to the Jews.¹⁹ The writer also referred to many Jewish customs without explaining them evidently because he believed most of his original readers would not need an explanation.

Another distinctive emphasis in Matthew is Jesus' teaching ministry. No other Gospel contains as many of Jesus' discourses and instructions. These include the Sermon on the Mount, the instruction of the disciples, the parables of the kingdom, the denunciation of Israel's leaders, and the Olivet Discourse.²⁰

Audience and Purposes

Several church fathers (i.e., Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius) stated what we might suppose from the distinctively Jewish emphases of this book, namely that Matthew wrote his Gospel primarily for his fellow Jews.²¹

He wrote, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for a specific purpose or, more accurately, specific purposes. He did not state these purposes concisely as John did in his Gospel (John 20:30-31). Nevertheless they are clear from his content and his emphases.

"Matthew has a twofold purpose in writing his Gospel. Primarily he penned this Gospel to prove Jesus is the Messiah, but he also wrote it to explain God's kingdom program to his readers. One goal directly involves the other. Nevertheless, they are distinct."²²

"Matthew's purpose obviously was to demonstrate that Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah of the Old Testament, that He fulfilled the requirements of being the promised King who would be a descendant of David, and that His life and ministry fully support the conclusion that He is the prophesied Messiah of Israel. . . .

"As a whole, the gospel is not properly designated as only an apologetic for the Christian faith. Rather, it was designed to explain to the Jews, who had expected the Messiah when He came to be a conquering king, why instead Christ suffered and died, and why there was the resulting postponement of His triumph to His second coming."²³

Matthew presented three aspects to God's kingdom program. First, Jesus presented Himself to the Jews as the king that God had promised in the Old Testament. Second, Israel's leaders rejected Jesus as their king. This resulted in the postponement, not the cancellation, of the messianic kingdom that God had promised Israel. Third, because of Israel's rejection Jesus is now building His church in anticipation of His return to establish the promised messianic kingdom on the earth.

There are at least three wider purposes that Matthew undoubtedly hoped to fulfill with his Gospel. First, he wanted to instruct Christians and non-Christians concerning the person and work of Jesus.²⁴ Second, he wanted to provide an apologetic to aid his Jewish brethren in witnessing to other Jews about Christ. Third, he wanted to encourage all Christians to witness for Christ boldly and faithfully. It is interesting that Matthew is the only Gospel writer to use the Greek verb matheteuo, "to disciple" (13:52; 27:57; 28:19; cf. Acts 14:21 for its only other occurrence in the New Testament). This fact shows his concern for making disciples of Christ.²⁵

Carson identified nine major themes in Matthew. They are Christology, prophecy and fulfillment, law, church, eschatology, Jewish leaders, mission, miracles, and the disciples' understanding and faith.²⁶

Plan and Structure

Matthew often grouped his material into sections so that three, five, six, or seven events, miracles, sayings, or parables appear together.²⁷ Jewish writers typically did this to help their readers remember what they had written. The presence of this technique reveals Matthew's didactic (instructional) intent. Furthermore it indicates that his arrangement of material was somewhat topical rather than strictly chronological. Generally chapters 1-4 are in chronological order, chapters 5-13 are topical, and chapters 14-28 are again chronological.²⁸

Not only Matthew but the other Gospel writers as well present the life of Jesus Christ in three major stages. These stages are His presentation to the people, their consideration of His claims, and their rejection and its consequences.

A key phrase in Matthew's Gospel enables us to note the major movements in the writer's thought. It is the phrase "and it came about that when Jesus had finished" (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). This phrase always occurs at the end of one of Jesus' addresses. An address therefore concludes each major section of the Gospel, and it is climactic. Matthew evidently used the narrative sections to introduce Jesus' discourses, which he regarded as specially important in his book. Mark, on the other hand, gave more detailed information concerning the narrative material in his Gospel. In addition to each major section, there is a prologue and an epilogue to the Gospel according to Matthew.

Message²⁹

The four Gospels are foundational to Christianity because they record the life of Jesus Christ and His teachings. Each of the four Gospels fulfills a unique purpose. They are not simply four versions of the life of Jesus. If one wants to study the life of Jesus Christ, the best way to do that is with a harmony of the Gospels that correlates all the data chronologically. However if one wants to study only one of the Gospel accounts, then one needs to pay attention to the uniqueness of that Gospel. The unique material, what the writer included and excluded, reveals the purpose for which he wrote and the points he wanted to stress.

What is the unique message of Matthew's Gospel? How does it differ from the other three Gospels? What specific emphasis was Matthew wanting his readers to gain as they read his record of Jesus' life and ministry? I would put it this way.

Matthew wanted his readers to do what John the Baptist and Jesus called the people of their day to do, namely "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." This was the message of the King to His people and the message of the King's herald as he called the King's people to prepare for the King's coming.

This is not the final message of Christianity, but it is the message that Matthew wanted us to understand. When John the Baptist and Jesus originally issued this call, they faced a situation that is different from the situation we face today. They called the people of their day to trust in and follow Jesus because the messianic kingdom was immediately at hand. If the Jews had responded, Jesus would have established His kingdom immediately. He would have died on the cross, risen from the dead, ascended into heaven, ushered in the Tribulation, returned, and established His kingdom.

The messianic kingdom is at hand for you and me in a different sense. Jesus Christ has died and risen from the dead. The Tribulation is still future, but following those seven years Jesus will return and establish His messianic kingdom on earth. The commission that Jesus has given us as His disciples is essentially to prepare people for the King's return. To do this we must go into all the world and herald the gospel to everyone. We must call them to trust in and follow the King as His disciples.

Essentially the message of Matthew is "the kingdom of heaven is at hand." The proper response to this message is, "Repent." Let us look first at the message and then at the proper response. Note three things about the message.

First, "the kingdom of heaven is at hand" is the statement of a fact. The subject of this statement is the kingdom. The kingdom is the theme of Matthew's Gospel. The word "kingdom" occurs about 50 times in Matthew. Since "kingdom" is such a prominent theme it is not surprising to discover that this Gospel presents Jesus as the great King.

Matthew presents the kingship of Jesus. Kingship involves the fact that Jesus is the great King that the Old Testament prophets predicted would come and rule over all the earth in Israel's golden age. It points to the universal sovereignty of God's Son who would rule over all mankind. He was to be a Son of David who would also rule over Israel. The second smaller sphere of sovereignty lies within the first larger sphere.

The word "kingdom" refers to the realm over which the King reigns. This is usually what we think of when we think of Jesus' messianic kingdom, the sphere over which He will rule. However, it is important that we not stress the sphere to the detriment of the sovereignty with which He will rule. Both ideas are essential to the concept of the kingdom that Matthew presents, sphere and sovereignty.

The little used phrase in Matthew's Gospel "kingdom of God" stresses the fact that it is God who rules. The King is God, and He will reign over all of His creation eventually. The kingdom belongs to God and it will extend over all that God sovereignly controls.

Matthew of all the Gospel evangelists was the only one to use the phrase "kingdom of heaven." John the Baptist nor Jesus ever explained this phrase. Their audiences knew what they meant by it. Ever since God gave His great promises to Abraham the Jews knew what the kingdom of heaven meant. It meant God's rule over His people who lived on the earth. As time passed, God gave the Israelites more information about His rule over them. He told them that He would provide a descendant of David who would be their King. This king would rule over the Israelites who would live in the Promised Land. His rule would include the whole earth, however, and the Gentiles too would live under His authority. The kingdom of heaven that the Old Testament predicted was an earthly kingdom over which God would rule through His Son. It would not just be God's rule over His people from heaven. When the Jews in Jesus' day heard John the Baptist and Jesus calling them to repent for the kingdom of heaven was at hand, what did they think? They understood that the earthly messianic kingdom predicted in the Old Testament was very near. They needed to get ready for it by making some changes.

The simple meaning of "kingdom of heaven" then is God's establishment of heaven's order on earth. Every created being and every human authority would be in subjection to God. God would overturn everyone and everything that did not recognize His authority. It is the establishment of divine order on earth. It is the supremacy of God's will over human affairs. The establishment of the kingdom of heaven on earth then is the hope of humanity, and it will only transpire as people submit to God's King. It is impossible for people to bring in this kingdom. Only God can bring it in. People just need to get ready because it is coming.

Second, Matthew's Gospel interprets the kingdom. It does not just affirm the coming of the kingdom, but it also explains the order of the kingdom. Specifically it reveals the principle of the kingdom, the practice of the kingdom, and the purpose of the kingdom.

The principle of the kingdom is righteousness. This is one of the major themes in Matthew. Righteousness in Matthew refers to righteous conduct, righteousness in practice rather than positional righteousness. Righteousness is necessary to enter the kingdom and to serve in the kingdom under the King. The words of the King in Matthew constitute the law of the kingdom. They proclaim the principle of righteousness.

The practice of the kingdom is peace. Peace is another major theme in Matthew. When you think of the Sermon on the Mount you may think of these two major themes: righteousness and peace. The kingdom would come not by going to war with Rome and defeating it. It would come by peaceful submission to the King, Jesus. These two approaches to inaugurating the kingdom contrast starkly as we think of Jesus hanging on the cross between two insurrectionists. They tried to establish the kingdom the way most people in Israel thought it would come, by violence. Jesus, on the other hand, submitted to His Father's will, and even though He died He ratified the covenant by which the kingdom will come by dying. He secured the kingdom. Jesus' example of peaceful submission to God's will is to be the model for His disciples. Greatness in the kingdom does not come by self-assertion but by self-sacrifice. The greatest in the kingdom will be the servant of all. The works of the King in Matthew demonstrate the powers of the kingdom moving toward peace.

The purpose of the kingdom is joy. God will establish His kingdom on earth to bring great joy to mankind. This will be the time of greatest fruitfulness and abundance in earth's history. God's will has always been to bless mankind. It is by rebelling against God that man loses his joy. The essence of joy is intimate fellowship with God. This intimate fellowship will be a reality during the kingdom to a greater extent than ever before in history. The will of the King in Matthew is to bless mankind. The Beatitudes express this purpose very clearly (cf. 5:3-12).

Third, Matthew's Gospel stresses the method by which the King will administer the kingdom. It is a three-fold method.

In the first five books of the Old Testament, the Law or Torah, God revealed the need for a high priest to offer a final sacrifice for mankind to God. The last part of Matthew's Gospel, the passion narrative, presents Jesus as the Great High Priest who offered that perfect sacrifice.

In the second part of the Old Testament, the historical books, the great need and expectation is a king who will rule over Israel and the nations in righteousness. The first part of Matthew's Gospel presents Jesus as that long expected King, Messiah.

In the last part of the Old Testament, the prophets, we see the great need for a prophet who could bring God's complete revelation to mankind. The middle part of Matthew's Gospel presents Jesus as the prophet who would surpass Moses and bring God's final revelation to mankind.

God will administer His kingdom on earth through this Person who as King has all authority, as Prophet reveals God's final word of truth, and as Priest has dealt with sin finally. God's administration of His kingdom is in the hands of a King who is the great High Priest and the completely faithful Prophet.

The central teaching of Matthew's Gospel then concerns the kingdom of heaven. The needed response to this Gospel is, "Repent."

In our day Christians differ in their understanding of the meaning of repentance. This difference arises because there are two Greek verbs each of which means, "to repent." One of these is metamelomai. When it occurs, it usually describes an active change. The other word is metanoeo. When it occurs, it usually describes a contemplative change. Consequently when we read "repent" or "repentance" in our English Bibles, we have to ask ourselves whether a change of behavior is in view primarily or a change of mind. Historically the Roman Catholic Church has favored an active interpretation of the nature of repentance whereas Protestants have favored a contemplative interpretation. Catholics say repentance involves a change of behavior while Protestants say it involves a change of thinking essentially. One interpretation stresses the need for a sense of sorrow, and the other stresses the need for a sense of awareness.

The word John the Baptist and Jesus used when they called their hearers to repentance was metanoeo. We could translate it, "Think again." They were calling their hearers to consider the implications of the imminency of the messianic kingdom.

Consideration that the kingdom of heaven was at hand would result in a conviction of sin and a sense of sorrow. These are the inevitable consequences of considering these things. Conviction of a need to change is the consequence of genuine repentance.

Consideration leads to conviction, and conviction leads to conversion. Conversion describes turning from rebellion to submission, from self to the Savior. In relation to the coming kingdom it involves becoming humble and childlike rather than proud and independent. It involves placing confidence in Jesus rather than in self for salvation.

To summarize, we can think of the kind of repenting that John the Baptist, Jesus, and later Jesus' disciples were calling on their hearers to demonstrate as involving consideration, conviction, and conversion. Repentance begins with consideration of the facts. Awareness of these facts brings conviction of personal need. Feeling these personal needs leads to conversion or a turning from what is bad to what is good.

Now let us combine "repent" with "the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew's Gospel calls the reader to consider the kingdom and the King. This should produce the conviction that one is not ready for such a kingdom nor is one ready to face such a King. Then we should submit our lives to the rule of the King and the standards of the kingdom.

Matthew's Gospel proclaims the kingdom. It interprets the kingdom as righteousness, peace, and joy. It reveals that a perfect King who is a perfect prophet and a perfect priest will administer the kingdom. It finally appeals to mankind to repent in view of these realities: to consider, to feel conviction, and to turn in conversion. As readers of this Gospel, we need to get ready, to think again, because the kingdom of heaven is coming.

The church now has the task of calling the world to repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. The church is Jesus' disciples collectively. The King is coming back to rule and to reign. People need to prepare for that reality. The church's job is to spread the good news of the King and the kingdom to those who have very different ideas about the ultimate ruler and the real utopia. We face the same problem that Jesus did in His day. Therefore Matthew's Gospel is a great resource for us as we seek to carry out the commission that the King has given us.

Individually we have a responsibility to consider the King and the kingdom, to gain conviction by what we consider, and to change our behavior. Our repentance should involve submission to the King's authority and preparation for kingdom service. We submit to the King's authority as we observe all that He has commanded us. We prepare for kingdom service as we faithfully persevere in the work He has given us to do rather than pursuing our own personal agendas. We can do this joyfully because we have the promise of the King's presence with us and the enablement of His authority behind us (28:18, 20).

Constable: Matthew (Outline)

Outline

I. The introduction of the King 1:1-4:11

A. The King's genealogy 1:1-17

B. The King's birth 1:18-25

C. The King's childhood 2:1-23

1. The prophecy about Bethlehem 2:1-12

2. The prophecies about Egypt 2:13-18

3. The prophecies about Nazareth 2:19-23

D. The King's preparation 3:1-4:11

1. Jesus' forerunner 3:1-12

2. Jesus' baptism 3:13-17

3. Jesus' temptation 4:1-11

II. The authority of the King 4:12-7:29

A. The beginning of Jesus' ministry 4:12-25

1. The setting of Jesus' ministry 4:12-16

2. Jesus' essential message 4:17

3. The call of four disciples 4:18-22

4. A summary of Jesus' ministry 4:23-25

B. Jesus' revelations concerning participation in His kingdom 5:1-7:29

1. The setting of the Sermon on the Mount 5:1-2

2. The subjects of Jesus' kingdom 5:3-16

3. The importance of true righteousness 5:17-7:12

4. The false alternatives 7:13-27

5. The response of the audience 7:28-29

III. The manifestation of the King 8:1-11:1

A. Demonstrations of the King's power 8:1-9:34

1. Jesus' ability to heal 8:1-17

2. Jesus' authority over His disciples 8:18-22

3. Jesus' supernatural power 8:23-9:8

4. Jesus' authority over His critics 9:9-17

5. Jesus' ability to restore 9:18-34

B. Declarations of the King's presence 9:35-11:1

1. Jesus' compassion 9:35-38

2. Jesus' commissioning of 12 disciples 10:1-4

3. Jesus' charge concerning His apostles' mission 10:5-42

4. Jesus' continuation of His work 11:1

IV. The opposition to the King 11:2-13:53

A. Evidences of Israel's opposition to Jesus 11:2-30

1. Questions from the King's forerunner 11:2-19

2. Indifference to the King's message 11:20-24

3. The King's invitation to the repentant 11:25-30

B. Specific instances of Israel's rejection of Jesus ch. 12

1. Conflict over Sabbath observance 12:1-21

2. Conflict over Jesus' power 12:22-37

3. Conflict over Jesus' sign 12:38-45

4. Conflict over Jesus' kin 12:46-50

C. Adaptations because of Israel's rejection of Jesus 13:1-53

1. The setting 13:1-3a

2. Parables addressed to the multitudes 13:3b-33

3. The function of these parables 13:34-43

4. Parables addressed to the disciples 13:44-52

5. The departure 13:53

V. The reactions of the King 13:54-19:2

A. Opposition, instruction, and healing 13:54-16:12

1. The opposition of the Nazarenes and Romans 13:54-14:12

2. The withdrawal to Bethsaida 14:13-33

3. The public ministry at Gennesaret 14:34-36

4. The opposition of the Pharisees and scribes 15:1-20

5. The withdrawal to Tyre and Sidon 15:21-28

6. The public ministry to Gentiles 15:29-39

7. The opposition of the Pharisees and Sadducees 16:1-12

B. Jesus' instruction of His disciples around Galilee 16:13-19:2

1. Instruction about the King's person 16:13-17

2. Instruction about the King's program 16:18-17:13

3. Instruction about the King's principles 17:14-27

4. Instruction about the King's personal representatives ch. 18

5. The transition from Galilee to Judea 19:1-2

VI. The official presentation and rejection of the King 19:3-25:46

A. Jesus' instruction of His disciples around Judea 19:3-20:34

1. Instruction about marriage 19:3-12

2. Instruction about childlikeness 19:13-15

3. Instruction about wealth 19:16-20:16

4. Instruction about Jesus' passion 20:17-19

5. Instruction about serving 20:20-28

6. An illustration of illumination 20:29-34

B. Jesus' presentation of Himself to Israel as her King 21:1-17

1. Jesus' preparation for the presentation 21:1-7

2. Jesus' entrance into Jerusalem 21:8-11

3. Jesus' entrance into the temple 21:12-17

C. Israel's rejection of her King 21:18-22:46

1. The sign of Jesus' rejection of Israel 21:18-22

2. Rejection by the chief priests and the elders 21:23-22:14

3. Rejection by the Pharisees and the Herodians 22:15-22

4. Rejection by the Sadducees 22:23-33

5. Rejection by the Pharisees 22:34-46

D. The King's rejection of Israel ch. 23

1. Jesus' admonition of the multitudes and His disciples 23:1-12

2. Jesus' indictment of the scribes and the Pharisees 23:13-36

3. Jesus' lamentation over Jerusalem 23:37-39

E. The King's revelations concerning the future chs. 24-25

1. The setting of the Olivet Discourse 24:1-3

2. Jesus' warning about deception 24:4-6

3. Jesus' general description of the future 24:7-14

4. The abomination of desolation 24:15-22

5. The second coming of the King 24:23-31

6. The responsibilities of disciples 24:32-25:30

7. The King's judgment of the nations 25:31-46

VII. The crucifixion and resurrection of the King chs. 26-28

A. The King's crucifixion chs. 26-27

1. Preparations for Jesus' crucifixion 26:1-46

2. The arrest of Jesus 26:47-56

3. The trials of Jesus 26:57-27:26

4. The crucifixion of Jesus 27:27-56

5. The burial of Jesus 27:57-66

B. The King's resurrection ch. 28

1. The empty tomb 28:1-7

2. Jesus' appearance to the women 28:8-10

3. The attempted cover-up 28:11-15

4. The King's final instructions to His disciples 28:16-20

Constable: Matthew

Matthew

Bibliography

Abbott-Smith, G. A. A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1937.

Albright, W. F. and Mann, C. S. Matthew. The Anchor Bible series. Garden City: Doubleday, 1971.

Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, n. d.

Allen, Willoughby C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew. 3rd ed. International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912.

Anderson, Robert. The Coming Prince. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1975.

Andrews, Samuel J. The Life of Our Lord Upon the Earth. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1891.

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. 1964; revised ed., Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Armerding, Carl. The Olivet Discourse. Findlay, Oh.: Dunham Publishing Co., n. d.

The Babylonian Talmud. London: Soncino Press, 1935.

Bailey, Mark L. "A Biblical Theology of Paul's Pastoral Epistles." in A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 333-67. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

_____. "Dispensational Definitions of the Kingdom." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 201-21. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

_____. "The Doctrine of the Kingdom in Matthew 13." Bibliotheca Sacra 156:624 (October-December 1999):443-51.

_____. "Guidelines for Interpreting Jesus' Parables." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:617 (January-March 1998):29-38.

_____. "The Parable of the Leavening Process." Bibliotheca Sacra 156:621 (January-March 1999):61-71.

_____. "The Parable of the Mustard Seed." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:620 (October-December 1998):449-59.

_____. "The Parable of the Sower and the Soils." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:618 (April-June 1998):172-88.

_____. "The Parable of the Tares." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:619 (July-September 1998):266-79.

_____. "The Parables of the Dragnet and of the Householder." Bibliotheca Sacra 156:623 (July-September 1999):282-96.

_____. "The Parables of the Hidden Treasure and of the Pearl Merchant." Bibliotheca Sacra 156:622 (April-June 1999):175-89.

Bailey, Mark L., and Constable, Thomas L. The New Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing, 1999.

Baillie, Rebecca A., and Baillie, E. Eugene. "Biblical Leprosy as Compared to Present-Day Leprosy." Christian Medical Society Journal 14:3 (Fall 1983):27-29.

Baly, D. The Geography of the Bible. New York: Harper and Row, 1974.

Barbieri, Louis A., Jr. "Matthew." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 13-94. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Barclay, William. The Gospel of Matthew. 2 vols. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1956.

Barnhouse, Donald Grey. His Own Received Him Not, But . . . New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1933.

_____. Romans. Vol. I: Man's Ruin. God's Wrath. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1952.

Barr, James. "Abba Isn't Daddy." Journal of Theological Studies 39 (1988):28-47.

Bauckham, R. J. "The Eschatological Earthquake in the Apocalypse of John." Novum Testamentum 19 (1977):224-33.

Bauer, J. B. "Libera nos a malo." Verbum Domini 34 (1965):12-15.

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Translated and revised by William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. Baptism in the New Testament. London: Macmillan, 1954.

Bennetch, John Henry. "Matthew: An Apologetic." Bibliotheca Sacra 103 (October 1946):477-84.

Berghuis, Kent D. "A Biblical Perspective on Fasting." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:629 (January-March 2001):86-103.

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. 4th ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1941.

Bernardin, Joseph B. "The Transfiguration." Journal of Biblical Theology 52 (October 1933):181-89.

Bindley, T. Herbert. "Eschatology in the Lord's Prayer." The Expositor 17 (October 1919):315-20.

Blaising, Craig A. "The Fulfillment of the Biblical Covenants." In Progressive Dispensationalism, pp. 174-211. By Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1993.

Blass, F. and Debrunner, A. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and revised by Robert W. Funk. Cambridge: University Press, 1961.

Blomberg, Craig L. "Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35:2 (June 1992):159-72.

_____. "Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, and Celibacy: An Exegesis of Matthew 19:3-12." Trinity Journal 11NS (1990):161-96.

_____. Matthew. New American Commentary series. Nashville, Broadman Press, 1992.

Blum, Edwin A. "Jesus and JAMA." Christian Medical Society Journal 17:4 (Fall 1986):4-11.

Bock, Darrell L. "A Review of The Gospel According to Jesus." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:581 (January-March 1989):21-40.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship. 6th ed. London: SCM, 1959.

Bornkamm, Gunther. "End-Expectation and Church in Matthew." In Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, pp. 15-51. Edited by Gunther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and H. J. Held. Translated by P. Scott. London: SCM Press, 1963.

_____. "The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew." In Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, pp. 52-57. Edited by Gunther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and H. J. Held. Translated by P. Scott. London: SCM Press, 1963.

Bowker, John. "The Son of Man." Journal of Theological Studies 28 (1977):19-48.

Breshears, Gerry. "The Body of Christ: Prophet, Priest, or King?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:1 (March 1994):3-26.

Brown, Raymond. The Birth of the Messiah. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1977.

Bruce, Alexander Balmain. "The Synoptic Gospels." In The Expositor's Greek Testament. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1910.

Buchler, Adolf. "St. Mathew vi 1-6 and Other Allied Passages." Journal of Theological Studies 10 (1909):266-70.

Burrows, Millar. Burrows on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978.

_____. "Thy Kingdom Come." Journal of Biblical Literature 74 (January 1955):1-8.

Burton, Ernest de Witt. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in NT Greek. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1894.

Burton, Ernest de Witt, and Goodspeed, Edgar Johnson. A Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels in Greek. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947.

Byargeon, Rick W. "Echoes of Wisdom in the Lord's Prayer (Matt 6:9-13)." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:3 (September 1998):353-65.

Calvin, John. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 3 vols. Translated by William Pringle. Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1845.

_____. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Translated by John Allen. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Christain Education, 1936.

Campbell, Donald K. "Interpretation and Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1953.

Carr, A. The Gospel According To St. Matthew. Cambridge: University Press, 1913.

Carson, Donald A. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981.

_____. "Matthew." In Matthew-Luke. Vol. 8 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.

_____. "Redaction Criticism: On the Legitimacy and Illegitimacy of a Literary Tool." In Scripture and Truth, pp. 119-42. Edited by D. A. Carson and J. D. Woodbridge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983.

_____. The Sermon on the Mount. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978.

Catchpole, David R. "The Answer of Jesus to Caiaphas (Matt. xxvi. 64)." New Testament Studies 17 (1970-71):213-26.

_____. "The Poor on Earth and the Son of Man in Heaven: A Re-appraisal of Matthew xxv. 31-46." Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 61 (1978-79):355-97.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947.

_____. "The Teachings of Christ Incarnate." Bibliotheca Sacra 108 (October 1951):389-413.

Congdon, Roger D. "Did Jesus Sustain the Law in Matthew 5?" Bibliotheca Sacra 135:538 (April-June 1978):117-25.

Cooper, David L. Messiah: His Historical Appearance. Los Angeles: Biblical Research Society, 1958.

Cranfield, C. E. B. "The Cup Metaphor in Mark xiv. 36 and Parallels." Expository Times 59 (1947-48):137-38.

_____. "St. Mark 13." Scottish Journal of Theology 6 (April 1953):165-96; (July 1953):287-303; 7 (April 1954):284-303.

Crater, Tim. "Bill Gothard's View of the Exception Clause." Journal of Pastoral Practice 4 (1980):5-12.

Cremer, Hermann. Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek. Translated by William Urwick. 4th English ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895.

Criswell, W. A. Expository Notes on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Culver, Robert D. "What Is the Church's Commission? Some Exegetical Issues In Matthew 28:16-20." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:499 (July-September 1968):239-53.

Cunningham, Scott, and Bock, Darrell L. "Is Matthew Midrash?" Bibliotheca Sacra 144:574 (April-June 1987):157-80.

Dahl, N. A. Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976.

Dalman, Gustaf H.. The Words of Jesus. Translated by D. M. Kay. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1909.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Daube, D. "The Anointing at Bethany and Jesus' Burial." Anglican Theological Review 32 (1950):187-88.

_____. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. London: Athlone, 1956.

Davidson, Bruce W. "Reasonable Damnation: How Jonathan Edwards Argued for the Rationality of Hell." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:1 (March 1995):47-56.

Davies, W. D., and Allison, D. C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. International Critical Commentary series. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988.

Deatrick, Eugene P. "Salt, Soil, Savor." Biblical Archaeologist 25 (1962):41-48.

Deissmann, Adolf. Light from the Ancient East. Translated by Lionel R. M. Strachan. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1927.

A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels. Edited by James Hastings. S.v. "Baptism," by Marcus Dodds.

_____. S.v. "Genealogies of Jesus Christ," by P. M. Barnard.

A Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Edited by Colin Brown. S.v. "kardia," by T. Sorg.

_____. S.v. "kathemai," by R. T. France.

_____. S.v. "Leprosy," by R. K. Harrison.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Dodd, C. H. The Parables of the Kingdom. London: Nisbet, 1936.

Donaldson, T. L. Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Theology. Sheffield: JSOT, 1985.

Donn, T. M. "Let the Dead Bury Their Dead' (Mt. viii. 22, Lk. ix. 60)." Expository Times 61 (September 1950):384.

Doriani, Daniel. "The Deity of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:3 (September 1994):333-50.

Duling, Dennis C. "The Therapeutic Son of David: An Element in Matthew's Christological Apologetic." New Testament Studies 24 (1978):392-410.

Dunn, James D. G. Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament. London: SCM, 1975.

Dyer, Charles H. "Do the Synoptics Depend on Each Other?" Bibliotheca Sacra 138:551 (July-September 1981):230-44.

The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Twin Brooks series. Popular ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971.

_____. The Temple: Its Ministry and Services. London: Religious Tract Society, n. d.

Edgar, Thomas R. "The Cessation of the Sign Gifts." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:580 (October-December 1988):371-86.

_____. "An Exegesis of Rapture Passages." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 203-23. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Ellis, Earle E. The Gospel of Luke. New Century Bible series. New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1966.

Ellis, I. P. "But some doubted.'" New Testament Studies 14 (1967-68):574-80.

English, E. Schuyler. Studies in the Gospel According to Matthew. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1935.

Erickson, Millard J. "Is Hell Forever?" Bibliotheca Sacra (July-September 1995):259-72.

Feinberg, Charles Lee. God Remembers, A Study of Zechariah. 4th ed. Portland: Multnomal Press, 1979.

_____. Israel in the Last Days: The Olivet Discourse. Altadena, Ca.: Emeth Publications, 1953.

_____. Premillennialism or Amillennialism? Wheaton: Van Kampen Press, 1954.

Feinberg, Paul D. "Dispensational Theology and the Rapture." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 225-45. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Fenton, J. C. Saint Matthew. Westminster Pelican Commentaries series. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978.

Filson, Floyd V. A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1960.

Fitzmyer, J. A. "Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and the New Testament." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978):493-513.

_____. "The Matthean Divorce Texts and Some New Palestinian Evidence." Theological Studies 37 (1976):208-11.

Fleming, T. V. "Christ and Divorce." Theological Studies 24 (1963):109.

France, R. T. "Exegesis in Practice: Two Samples." In New Testament Interpretation, pp. 252-81. Edited by I. Howard Marshall. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1977.

_____. "Herod and the Children of Bethlehem," Novum Testamentum 21 (1979):98-120.

_____. Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission. London: Tyndale House Publishers, 1971.

Franzmann, Martin L. Follow Me: Discipleship According to Saint Matthew. St. Louis: Concordia, 1961.

Freed, Edwin D. "The Women in Matthew's Genealogy." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29 (1987):3-19.

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology. Tustin, Cal.: Ariel Ministries Press, 1989.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Gospel of Matthew, An Exposition. 2 vols. in 1. Neptune, N. J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1910.

Garlington, Don B. "Jesus, the Unique Son of God: Tested and Faithful." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:603 (July-September 1994):284-308.

Geisler, Norman L. "A Christian Perspective on Wine-Drinking." Bibliotheca Sacra 139:553 (January-March 1982):46-56.

Geisler, Norman L. and Nix, William E. A General Introduction to the Bible. Chicago: Moody Press, 1968.

Geldard, Mark. "Jesus' Teaching on Divorce." Churchman 92 (1978):134-43.

Glass, Ronald N. "The Parables of the Kingdom: A Paradigm for Consistent Dispensational Hermeneutics." Paper presented at the meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Lisle, Illinois, 18 November 1994.

Glover, Richard. A Teacher's Commentary of the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1956.

Goebel, Siegfried. The Parables of Jesus. Translated by Professor Banks. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1913.

Gore, Charles. The Sermon on the Mount. London: John Murray, 1896.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Green, F. W., ed. The Gospel According to Saint Matthew in the Revised Version. The Clarendon Bible series. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936.

Grounds, Vernon C. "Mountain Manifesto." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:510 (April-June 1971):135-41.

Guelich, Robert A. "The Matthean Beatitudes: Entrance-Requirements' or Eschatological Blessings?" Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1973):415-34.

_____. The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Understanding. Waco: Word Books, 1982.

Gundry, Robert H. Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982.

_____. The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew's Gospel, with Special Reference to the Messianic Hope. Leiden: Brill, 1975.

Habershon, Ada R. The Study of the Parables. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1904.

Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 1-13. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1993.

_____. Matthew 14-28. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1995.

Halverson, Richard C. "God and Caesar." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:1 (March 1994):125-29.

Hare, Douglas R. A. The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St. Matthew. Cambridge: University Press, 1967.

Hatch, W. Essays in Biblical Greek. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1889.

Hay, David M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973.

A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. By William Gesenius. Translated by Edward Robinson. Edited by Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, 1906.

Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973.

Hengel, G. Crucifixion. London: SCM, 1977.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. "An Expository Study of Matthew 28:16-20." Bibliotheca Sacra 149:595 (July-September 1992):338-54.

Hill, David. The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972.

Hodges, Zane C. "Form-Criticism and the Resurrection Accounts." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:496 (October-December 1967):339-48.

_____. Grace in Eclipse. Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1981.

_____. "Possessing the Kingdom." The KERUGMA Message 1:1 (May-June 1991):1-2; 1:2 (July-August 1991):1-2; 1:3 (November-December 1991):1, 4; 2:1 (Spring 1992):1, 4; 2:2 (Winter 1992):1, 5-6.

Hoehner, Harold W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

_____. Herod Antipas. Cambridge: University Press, 1972.

Hogg, C. F., and Watson, J. B. On the Sermon on the Mount. 2nd ed. London: Pickering and Inglis, 1934.

Hooker, Morna D. The Son of Man in Mark. London: SPCK, 1967.

Howard, Tracy L. "The Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15: An Alternative Solution." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:572 (October-December 1986):314-28.

Huffman, Norman A. "Atypical Features in the Parables of Jesus." Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978):207-20.

Hunter, Archibald M. The Message of the New Testament. Philadelphia: Wesminster Press, 1944.

_____. A Pattern for Life: An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966.

Hutchison, John C. "Women, Gentiles, and the Messianic Mission in Matthew's Genealogy." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:630 (April-June 2001):152-64.

Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989.

Jensen, Joseph. "Does porneia Mean Fornication? A Critique of Bruce Malina." Novum Testamentum 20 (1978):161-84.

Jeremias, J. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. 3rd ed. Translated by F. H. and C. H. Cave. London: SCM, 1962.

_____. New Testament Theology. Part I. The Proclamation of Jesus. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM, 1971.

_____. The Parables of Jesus. Translated by S. H. Hooke. London: SCM, 1963.

_____. The Prayers of Jesus. Translated by John Bowden and Christoph Burchard. London: SCM, 1967.

Johnson, L. T. "The New Testament's Anti-Jewish Slander and Conventions of Ancient Rhetoric." Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989):419-41.

Johnson, M. D. The Purpose of Biblical Genealogies. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Johnson, S. Lewis, Jr. "The Agony of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:496 (October-December 1967):303-13.

_____. "The Argument Of Matthew," Bibliotheca Sacra 112:446 (April 1955):143-53.

_____. "The Baptism of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:491 (July-September 1966):220-29.

_____. "The Death of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:497 (January-March 1968):10-19.

_____. "The Message Of John the Baptist." Bibliotheca Sacra 113:449 (January 1956):30-36.

_____. "The Temptation of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-December 1996):342-52.

_____. "The Transfiguration of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:494 (April-June 1967):133-43.

_____. "The Triumphal Entry of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):218-29.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kelly, William. Lectures on the Gospel of Matthew. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, n. d.

Kent, Homer A., Jr. "Matthew's Use of the Old Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:481 (January-March 1964):34-43.

Kepler, Thomas. S. Jesus' Design for Living. New York: Abingdon Press, 1955.

Kiddle, M. "The Conflict Between the Disciples, the Jews, and the Gentiles in St. Matthew's Gospel." The Journal of Theological Studies 36 (January 1935):33-44.

Kik, J. Marcellus. Matthew Twenty-Four, An Exposition. Swengel, Pa.: Bible Truth Depot, n. d.

Kilgallen, John J. "To What Are the Matthean Exception-Texts [5, 32 and 19, 9] an Exception?" Biblica 61 (1980):102-5.

Kingsbury, Jack Dean. Matthew as Story. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988.

_____. "The Place, Structure, and Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount within Matthew." Interpretation 41 (1987):131-43.

Kissinger, W. S. The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow & ATLA, 1975.

Kitchens, Ted G. "Perimeters of Corrective Church Discipline." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):201-13.

Lachs, S. T. "Some Textual Observations on the Sermon on the Mount." Jewish Quarterly Review 69 (1978):98-111.

Ladd, George E. The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

Laney, J. Carl. "The Biblical Practice of Church Discipline." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:572 (October-December 1986):353-64.

Laurenson, L. Messiah, the Prince. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1924.

Legrand, L. "The Missionary Command of the Risen Lord Mt 28:16-20." Indian Theological Studies 24:1 (March 1987):5-28.

Leifeld, Walter L. "Theological Motifs in the Transfiguration Narrative." In New Dimensions in New Testament Study, pp. 162-79. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel. Minneapolis: Wartburg Press, 1943.

Levertoff, Paul J. St. Matthew (Revised Version). London: Thomas Murby & Co., 1940.

Levinskaya, Irena. The Book of Acts in Its Diaspora Setting. Vol. 5 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, edited by Bruce W. Winter. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1996.

Lewis, Jack P. "The Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail Against It' (Matt 16:18): A Study of the History of Interpretation." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:3 (September 1996):349-67.

Lindars, Barnabas. New Testament Apologetic. London: SCM, 1961.

Lowery, David K. "Evidence from Matthew." In A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, pp. 165-80. Edited by Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

_____. "A Theology of Matthew." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 19-63. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Maalouf, Tony T. "Were the Magi from Persia or Arabia?" Bibliotheca Sacra 156:624 (October-December 1999):423-42.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1988.

Machen, J. Gresham. The Virgin Birth of Christ. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1930.

Major, H. D. A. Basic Christianity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1944.

Major, H. D. A., Manson, T. W., and Wright, C. J. The Mission and Message of Jesus. New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., Inc., 1938.

Manson, T. W. The Sayings of Jesus. London: SCM, 1949.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary series. Exeter, England: Paternoster Press, 1978.

_____. Kept by the Power of God. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1969.

Martin, John A. "Christ, the End of the Law in the Sermon on the Mount." In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, pp. 248-63. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

_____. "Dispensational Approaches to the Sermon on the Mount." In Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 35-48. Edited by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Marx, Werner G. "Money Matters in Matthew." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:542 (April-June 1979):148-57.

Master, John R. "The New Covenant." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 93-110. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Matera, Frank J. Passion Narratives and Gospel Theologies: Interpreting the Synoptics through Their Passion Stories. Theological Inquiries series. New York: Paulist Press, 1986.

Maticich, Karen Kristine. "Reflections on Tractate Shekalim." Exegesis and Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):58-60.

Mattill, A. J. Jr. "The Way of Tribulation.'" Journal of Biblical Literature 98 (1979):531-46.

McClain, Alva J. The Greatness of the Kingdom, An Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God. Winona Lake, Ind.: BMH Books, 1959.

McClister, David. "Where Two or Three Are Gathered Together': Literary Structure as a Key to Meaning in Matt 17:22-20:19." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:4 (December 1996):549-58.

McHugh, John. The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament. Garden City: Doubleday, 1975.

McKeating, Henry. "Sanctions Against Adultery in Ancient Israelite Society." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 11 (1979):57-72.

McPheeters, William M. "Christ As an Interpreter of Scripture." The Bible Student 1 (April 1900):223-29.

Meier, John P. "Nations or Gentiles in Matthew 28:19." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 39 (1977):94-102.

Merrill, Eugene H. "The Book of Ruth: Narration and Shared Themes." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:566 (April-June 1985):130-41.

_____. "Deuteronomy, New Testament Faith, and the Christian Life." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 19-33. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

_____. Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.

_____. "The Sign of Jonah." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23 (1980):23-30.

Metzger, Bruce M. "The Nazareth Inscription Once Again." In Jesus und Paulus, pp. 221-38. Edited by E. Earle Ellis and Max Wilcox. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1975.

_____. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London: United Bible Societies, 1971.

Meyer, Ben F. The Aims of Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1979.

Michaels, J. R. "Apostolic Hardships and Righteous Gentiles." Journal of Biblical Literature 84 (1965):27-37.

Miller, Earl. The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven. Meadville, Pa.: By the Author, 1950.

The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

M'Neile, Alan Hugh. The Gospel According to St. Matthew. London: Macmillan & Co., 1915.

Moloney, Francis J. "Matthew 19, 3-12 and Celibacy. A Redactional and Form-Critical Study." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2 (1979):42-60.

Montefiore, C. G. "Rabbinic Conceptions of Repentance." Jewish Quarterly Review 16 (January 1904):209-57.

_____. The Synoptic Gospels. 2 vols. Rev. ed. New York: KTAV, 1968.

Montefiore, C. G., and Loewe, H. A Rabbinic Anthology. London: Macmillan, 1938.

Moo, Douglas J. "The Use of the Old Testament in the Passion Texts of the Gospels." Ph.D. dissertation, University of St. Andrews, 1979.

Moore, G. F. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era. 3 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927-30.

Morgan, G. Campbell. The Gospel According to Matthew. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1929.

_____. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morison, Frank [pseud.]. Ross, Albert Henry. Who Moved the Stone? London: Faber and Faber, 1930. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Lamplighter Books, 1976.

Morison, James. A Practical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew. Boston: N. J. Bartlett & Co., 1884.

Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. London: Tyndale Press, 1965.

_____. The Gospel According to John. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971.

Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. London: Cambridge University Press, 1959.

Moulton, James Hope, and Milligan, George. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1930.

Moulton, Mark. "Jesus' Goal for Temple and Tree: A Thematic Revisit of Matt 21:12-22." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:4 (December 1998):561-72.

Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek: Grammar. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

Mueller, James R. "The Temple Scroll and the Gospel Divorce Texts." Revue de Qumran 38 (1980):247-56.

Murray, John. Redemption--Accomplished and Applied. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955.

Nelson, Neil D., Jr. "This Generation" in Matt 24:34: A Literary Critical Perspective." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:3 (September 1996):369-85.

The New Bible Dictionary. Edited by J. D. Douglas. S.v. "Pilate," by D. H. Wheaton.

_____. S.v. "Chinnereth," by R. F. Hosking.

Newman, Albert H. A Manual of Church History. 2 vols. Chicago: American Baptist Press, 1931.

Nickelsburg, G. W. E. Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972.

Nouwen, Henri J. M. In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership. New York: Crossroad, 1994.

Overstreet, R. Larry. "Roman Law and the Trial of Jesus." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):323-32.

Pagenkemper, Karl E. "Rejection Imagery in the Synoptic Parables." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:610 (April-June 1996):179-98; 611 (July-September 1996):308-31.

Parrot, Andre. Golgotha and the Chruch of the Holy Sepulchre. Translated by E. Hudson. London: SCM, 1957.

Patai, Raphael. The Messianic Texts. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1979.

Payne, Philip B. "Jesus' Implicit Claim to Deity in His Parables." Trinity Journal 2NS:1 (Spring 1981):3-23.

Penner, James A. "Revelation and Discipleship in Matthew's Transfiguration Account." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):201-10.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. "The Biblical Covenants and the Birth Narratives." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 257-70. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

_____. The Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

_____. The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

_____. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1990.

Perowne, S. The Life and Times of Herod the Great. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1956.

Peters, George N. D. The Theocratic Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus, the Christ, as Covenanted in the Old Testament and Presented in the New Testament. 3 vols. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1972.

Peterson, Robert A. "Does the Bible Teach Annihilationism?" Bibliotheca Sacra 156:621 (January-March 1999):13-27.

_____. "A Traditionalist Response to John Stott's Arguments for Annihilationism." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:4 (December 1994):553-68.

Pettingill, William L. Simple Studies in Matthew. Findlay, Oh.: Dunham Publishing Co., n. d.

Plummer, Alfred. An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1953.

Price, J. Randall. "Prophetic Postponement in Daniel 9 and Other Texts." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 133-65. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Proctor, John. "Fire in God's House: Influence of Malachi 3 in the NT." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:1 (March 1993):9-14.

Przybylski, Benno. Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought. Cambridge: University Press, 1980.

Rawlinson, A. E. J. The Gospel According to St. Mark. 5th ed. London: Methuen, 1942.

Rice, Edwin W. People's Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Philadelphia: American Sunday School Union, 1887.

Robertson, Archibald, T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934.

_____. A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ. New York: Harper & Row, 1922.

_____. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930.

Robertson, Paul E. "First-Century Jewish Marriage Customs." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):33-36.

Robinson, J. M. Editor. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. New York: Harper and Row, 1977.

Robinson, Theodore H. The Gospel of Matthew. Moffatt New Testament Commentary series. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1928.

Rogers, Cleon. "The Great Commission." Bibliotheca Sacra 130:519 (July-September 1973):258-67.

Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism Today. Chicago: Moody Press, 1965.

Sahl, Joseph G. "The Impeccability of Jesus Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:557 (January-March 1983):11-20.

Saucy, Mark. "The Kingdom-of-God Sayings in Matthew." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:602 (April-June 1994):175-97.

_____. "Miracles and Jesus' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (July-September 1996):281-307.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

_____. "The Presence of the Kingdom and the Life of the Church." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:577 (January-March 1988):30-46.

Sauer, Erich. The Triumph of the Crucified. Translated by G. H. Lang. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951.

Scharen, Hans. "Gehenna in the Synoptics." Bibliotheca Sacra 149:595 (July-September 1992):324-37; 149:596 (October-December 1992):454-70.

Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Translated by W. Montgomery. New York: Macmillan Co., 1961.

Scofield, C. I., ed. The New Scofield Reference Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967.

_____. The Scofield Reference Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1917.

Scroggie, W. Graham, A Guide to the Gospels. Old Tappan, N. J.: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1975.

Senior, Donald. The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1985.

Shepard, J. W. The Christ of the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939.

Showers, Renald E. Maranatha: Our Lord, Come! A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church. Bellmawr, N.J.: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1995.

Sparks, H. F. D. "The Doctrine of the Divine Fatherhood of God in the Gospels." In Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot, pp. 241-62. Edited by D. E. Nineham. Oxford: Blackwell, 1955.

Spencer, Aída Besançon. "Father-Ruler: The Meaning of the Metaphor Father' for God in the Bible." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:3 (September 1996):433-42.

Stamm, Frederick Keller. Seeing the Multitudes. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1943.

Stanton, Gerald B. Kept from the Hour. Fourth ed. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1991.

Stauffer, Ethelbert. New Testament Theology. Translated by John Marsh. London: SCM Press, 1955.

Stein, Robert H. "Wine-Drinking in New Testament Times." Christianity Today 19:19 (June 20, 1975):9-11.

Stonehouse, Ned B. The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1944.

Storms, C. Samuel. Reaching God's Ear. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1988.

Stott, John R. W. The Message of the Sermon on the Mount. Downers Grove, Il.: InterVarsity Press, 1978.

Stoutenburg, Dennis C. "Out of my sight!', Get behind me!', or Follow after me!': There Is No Choice in God's Kingdom." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:1 (March 1993):173-78.

Stowe, C. E. "The Eschatology of Christ, With Special Reference to the Discourse in Matt. XXIV. and XXV." Bibliotheca Sacra 7 (July 1850):452-78.

Sukenik, E. L. Ancient Synagogues in Palestine and Greece. London: Oxford University Press, 1934.

Tasker, R. V. G. The Gospel According to St. Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1961.

Tatum, W. Barnes, Jr. "Matthew 2.23." The Bible Translator 27 (1976):135-38.

Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel According to St. Mark. London: Macmillan, 1952.

Tenney, Merrill C. The Genius of the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. S.v. "makarios," by F. Hauck.

_____. S.v. "polloi," by Joachim Jeremias.

_____. S.v. "porne . . .," by F. Hauck and S. Schulz.

_____. S.v. "telones," by Otto Michel.

Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Translated by David E. Green. S.v. "Chebel," by H. J. Fabry.

Thiessen, Henry C. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1943.

Thistleton, A. C. "Realized Eschatology at Corinth." New Testament Studies 24 (1977):510-26.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. Outline Studies of the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1961.

Torrey, Charles C. "The Foundry of the Second Temple at Jerusalem." Journal of Biblical Literature 55 (December 1936):247-60.

Toussaint, Stanley D. Behold the King: A Study of Matthew. Portland: Multnomah Press, 1980.

_____. "The Contingency of the Coming of the Kingdom." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 222-37. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

_____. "The Introductory and Concluding Parables of Matthew Thirteen." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:484 (October-December 1964):351-55.

Trench, Richard C. Notes on the Parables of Our Lord. New York: Appleton, 1851.

_____. Studies in the Gospels. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.

_____. Synonyms of the New Testament. New ed. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd., 1915.

Trilling, Wolfgang .Das wahre Israel: Studien zur Theologie des Matthaus-Evangeliums. Munchen: Kosel, 1964.

Turner, David L. "The Structure and Sequence of Matthew 24:1-41: Interaction with Evangelical Treatments." Grace Theological Journal 10:1 (Spring 1989):3-27.

Turner, Nigel. Syntax. Vol. 3 of J. H. Moulton. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963.

Vawter, Bruce. "Divorce and the New Testament." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 39 (1977):528-48.

_____. "The Divorce Clauses in Mt 5, 32 and 19, 9." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 16 (1959):155-67.

Vincent, Marvin R. Word Studies in the New Testament. 4 vols. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1887; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946.

Walvoord, John F. "Christ's Olivet Discourse on the End of the Age." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:510 (April-June 1971):109-16; 128:511 (July-September 1971):206-14; 128:512 (October-December 1971):316-26; 129:513 (January-March 1972):20-32; 129:514 (April-June 1972):99-105; 129:515 (July-September 1972):206-10; 129:516 (October-December 1972):307-15.

_____. "The Kingdom of Heaven." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):195-205.

_____. Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

_____. The Millennial Kingdom. Findlay, Oh.: Dunham Publishing Co., 1959.

Ware, Bruce A "Is the Church in View in Matthew 24-25?" Bibliotheca Sacra 138:550 (April-June 1981):158-72.

Warfield, Benjamin B. "Jesus' Alleged Confession of Sin." Princeton Theological Review 12 (1914):127-228.

_____. Selected Shorter Writings. 2 vols. Edited by John E. Meeter. Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970.

Wenham, David. "Jesus and the Law: an Exegesis on Matthew 5:17-20." Themelios 4:3 (April 1979):92-26.

_____. "The Structure of Matthew XIII." New Testament Studies 25 (1979):516-22.

Wenham, G. J. "May Divorced Christians Remarry?" Churchman 95 (1981):150-61.

Wenham, J. W. "When Were the Saints Raised?" Journal of Theological Studies 32 (1981):150-52.

Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Gospel According to St. John. 2 vols. London: John Murray, 1908.

Westerholm, Stephen. "The Law in the Sermon on the Mount: Matt 5:17-48." Criswell Theological Review 6:1 (Fall 1992):43-56.

Wilkin, Robert N. "A Great Buy!" The Grace Evangelical Society News 6:9 (September 1991):2.

_____. "Is Confessing Christ a Condition of Salvation?" The Grace Evangelical Society News 9:4 (July-August 1994):2-3.

_____. "Not Everyone Who Says Lord, Lord' Will Enter the Kingdom: Matthew 7:21-23." The Grace Evangelical Society News 3:12 (December 1988):2-3.

_____. "The Parable of the Four Soils: Do the Middle Two Soils Represent Believers or Unbelievers? (Matthew 13:20-21)." The Grace Evangelical Society News 3:8 (August-September 1988):2.

_____. "Self-Sacrifice and Kingdom Entrance: Matthew 5:29-30." The Grace Evangelical Society News 4:8 (August 1989):2; 4:9 (September 1989):2-3.

Winer, George Benedict. Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament. Translated from the 7th German ed. by J. Henry Thayer. Philadelphia: Smith, English, & Co., 1874.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. "Cultural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):241-52.

Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. S.v. "phylactery," by J. Arthur Thompson.

_____. S.v. "Pilate, Pontius," by J. G. Vos.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p40mat-2@

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p40mat-3@

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p40mat-4@

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p40mat-5@

Haydock: Matthew (Book Introduction)

THE

HOLY GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST,

ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW

INTRODUCTION.

THIS and other titles, with the names of those that wrote the Gospels, are not the words of the Evangelists themselves. The Scripture itself nowhere teacheth us, which books or writings are to be received as true and canonical Scriptures. It is only by the channel of unwritten traditions , and by the testimony and authority of the Catholic Church, that we know and believe that this gospel, for example of St. Matthew, with all contained in it, and that the other books and parts of the Old or New Testament, are of divine authority, or written by divine inspiration; which made St. Augustine say, I should not believe the gospel, were I not moved thereunto by the authority of the Catholic Church: Ego evangelio non crederem, nisi me Ecclesiæ Catholicæ commoveret auctoritas. ( Lib. con. Epist. Manichæi, quam vocant fundamenti. tom. viii. chap. 5, p. 154. A. Ed. Ben.) (Witham)

S. MATTHEW, author of the gospel that we have under his name, was a Galilean, the son of Alpheus, a Jew, and a tax-gatherer; he was known also by the name of Levi. His vocation happened in the second year of the public ministry of Christ; who, soon after forming the college of his apostles, adopted him into that holy family of the spiritual princes and founders of his Church. Before his departure from Judea, to preach the gospel to distant countries, he yielded to the solicitations of the faithful; and about the eighth year after our Saviour's resurrection, the forty-first of the vulgar era, he began to write his gospel: i.e., the good tidings of salvation to man, through Christ Jesus, our Lord. Of the hagiographers, St. Matthew was the first in the New, as Moses was the first in the Old Testament. And as Moses opened his work with the generation of the heavens and the earth, so St. Matthew begins with the generation of Him, who, in the fullness of time, took upon himself our human nature, to free us from the curse we had brought upon ourselves, and under which the whole creation was groaning. (Haydock) ---This holy apostle, after having reaped a great harvest of souls in Judea, preached the faith to the barbarous nations of the East. He was much devoted to heavenly contemplation, and led an austere life; for he eat no flesh, satisfying nature with herbs, roots, seeds, and berries, as Clement of Alexanderia assures us, Pædag. lib. ii. chap. 1. St. Ambrose says, that God opened to him the country of the Persians. Rufinus and Socrates tell us, that he carried the gospel into Ethiopia, meaning probably the southern or eastern parts of Asia. St. Paulinus informs us, that he ended his course in Parthia; and Venantius Fortunatus says, by martyrdom.--- See Butler's Saints' Lives, Sept. 21 st.

Gill: Matthew (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO MATTHEW

The subject of this book, and indeed of all the writings of the New Testament, is the Gospel. The Greek word ευαγγελιον signifies a joyful message, good news, glad tidings of good things; such as Christ was anointed to preach, the Angels brought to the shepherds, and the Evangelists, Apostles, and Ministers of Christ published to the world. Isa 61:1. And such is the account given by this inspired writer, of the incarnation, life, actions, ministry, miracles, sufferings, and death of Jesus Christ; whereby peace and reconciliation, pardon and righteousness, atonement and redemption, life and salvation, are obtained for lost, perishing sinners. The Jews, to whom the message of grace was first sent, and among whom the Gospel was first preached, having despised and rejected it; they and their posterity, in allusion to the word "Evangelion", most wickedly and blasphemously call the whole New Testament, און גליון or וצן גליון "Aven Gilion" ^a, a "revelation", or "volume of iniquity and vanity"; but "blessed are the people that know the joyful sound", see Psa 89:15. The writer of this Gospel, Matthew, who also was called Levi in Luk 5:27 was by occupation a publican, or tax-gatherer, and was in his employ when Christ called him by his grace. He was one of the twelve Apostles sent forth by Christ to preach the Gospel of the kingdom, Mat 10:3 and was honoured to be the first of the writers of the New Testament, and to be the first publisher therein of the good news of the incarnate Saviour; and was a wonderful instance of the rich and sovereign grace of God. Though he was employed in collecting the Roman tax, yet he was of Jewish extract; as appears from his being called the son of Alphaeus, Mar 2:14 and from his name Matthew Levi; for as the latter, so the former is an Hebrew name. The Jews say ^b one of the disciples of Jesus was called yatm, Matthai or Matthew: his name signifies a "gift" or "given"; he was one of those the Father had given to Christ, and was kept by him, when the son of perdition was lost, Joh 17:6. It may not be improper to inquire in what language this Gospel was written. The ancient Christian writers were generally of opinion, that Matthew wrote it in Hebrew; Papias and ^c Pantaenus were of this mind, as also Irenaeus ^d, Origen ^e Eusebius ^f, Athanasius ^g, Epiphanius ^h, and Jerom ⁱ; and it is asserted in the titles of the Arabic and Persic versions, and at the end of the Syriac version of this Gospel, that it was written in that language; and this opinion is espoused by Grotius and Hammond, though justly exploded by others; for what has been published by Munster, Mercer, Hutter, and Robertson, are translations, made by themselves or others, and of no antiquity: and since Hebrew and Syriac words are interpreted in this Gospel, see Mat 1:23 which would not have been done, had it been written in either language; and since Matthew generally follows the Septuagint version in the passages cited by him out of the Old Testament; and since the Hebrew language was not generally known at that time to the common people, only to the learned; for the law and the prophets, when read in the synagogues in that language, required an interpreter; and since the Greek tongue was the language more commonly spoken, and the rest of the Evangelists wrote in Greek, and the Gospel was designed for the Gentiles as well as the Jews; it is most reasonable to conclude that this Gospel also was wrote in Greek; whereby that ancient prophecy was fulfilled, at least in part, "God shall enlarge" or "persuade Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem", Gen 9:27 the Gospel being published in the language of Japheth, the Greek language, which the Jews, the posterity of Shem, now understood; agreeably to which the Palmudic writers interpret the prophecy; says ^k Bar Kaphra, mentioning the above words,

"They shall speak tpy lv wnwvlb in the language of Japheth, in the tents of Shem;''

or,

"the words of the law shall be spoken in the language of Japheth, in the midst of the tents of Shem ^l.''

R. Jochanan ^m explains them thus:

"tpy lv wyrbr "the words of Japheth" shall be in the tents of Shem; and says R. Chiya ben Aba, the sense of it is, The beauty of Japheth shall be in the tents of Shem.''

Which the gloss interprets thus:

"The beauty of Japheth is the language of Javan, or the Greek language, which language is more beautiful than that of any other of the sons of Japheth.''

The time when this Gospel was written is said ⁿ by some to be in the eighth or ninth, by others, in the fifteenth year after the ascension of Christ, when the Evangelist had received the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, among which was the gift of tongues; and when the promise of Christ had been made good to him, Joh 14:26.

College: Matthew (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION

HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION

It may surprise the modern reader to realize that for the first two centuries of the Christian era, Matthew's Gospel prevailed as the most popular of the Gospel accounts. Not only was Matthew's text the most frequently quoted NT book among second century Christians, in virtually all textual witnesses and canonical lists Matthew is placed first.

Several factors may have contributed to the premier position assigned Matthew's Gospel. Certainly its comprehensive detail and the systematic structuring of ethical and pastoral material contributed to the Gospel's favored place in the church. In addition, the Gospel's popularity was undoubtedly based upon its explicit Jewish tendencies that enabled the church to affirm its Jewish roots while at the same time distancing the Christian movement from the synagogue. In short, both in form and content, Matthew's Gospel provided second century Christianity with an eminently practical and useful compendium of what was foundational to the Christian faith.

The priority and dominance extended Matthew's Gospel prevailed as the consensus for roughly 1700 years, until the early decades of the nineteenth century. With the development of an historical consciousness, and the refinement of literary methodology, questions of historical reliability and Synoptic relationships dominated post-Enlightenment Gospel research. While the chronological priority of Matthew was not immediately challenged, the privileged position given Matthew began to erode as scholarship presupposed that Gospel composition demanded a movement from the "more primitive" to the "more advanced." Mark's size, inferior quality, and seemingly "primitive theology," suggested to many that it was Mark not Matthew that should be regarded as the oldest Gospel, and hence the most reliable for a reconstruction of the life and teachings of Jesus. As a result, Matthew was gradually dismissed by many (esp. German scholarship), as a secondary development, being permeated by late and legendary additions (e.g., birth and infancy stories), representing more church tradition than a factual record of the life and teachings of Jesus.

The emerging nineteenth century consensus of the secondary character of Matthew received its most substantial endorsement in 1863 from H.J. Holtzmann, who argued that Mark wrote first and was used independently by Matthew and Luke. While subsequent defenders of Marcan priority have supplemented the theory with additional sources (e.g., Q, L, and M) to explain Synoptic relationships, the hypothesis that Mark is the earliest of the Gospel narratives has remained the dominant scholarly opinion for the past 100 years.

The initial result of the emergence of Mark as the pivotal document to explain Synoptic relationships was a decline of interest in Matthew in the early decades of this century. It was to Mark, rather than Matthew that scholarship turned either to find raw materials from which to reconstruct the life and teachings of Jesus, or to penetrate to the earliest form of the tradition in order to elucidate the possible factors within the Christian communities that generated the rise and preservation of certain text-forms (Form Criticism). As long as the scholarly agenda was preoccupied with penetrating behind the Gospels to isolate sources or to reconstruct early Christian communities, Matthew's Gospel would remain only of secondary interest.

Graham Stanton singles out the date of 1945 as marking a new phase in Matthean studies. The first two decades after 1945 witness a number of studies addressing Matthean themes or sections of the Gospel that begin to call attention to the editorial skills and theological concerns of the Gospel's author. The shift to an emphasis on the role of the evangelist in his selection, arrangement, and modification of the material he received, brought renewed interest in Matthew as an effective communicator and sophisticated theologian (Redaction Criticism). However, such an assessment was ultimately grounded in the hypothesis of Marcan priority and the subsequent evaluation of how Matthew used Mark as his primary literary source. The result has been an exegetical method overly preoccupied with slight literary deviations from Mark, with little sensitivity to the interconnected sequence of events, and their contribution to the whole Gospel.

Recent years have witnessed a resurgence of studies on Matthew, with many books and articles concerned to elucidate Matthew's Gospel as a "unified narrative" or "story" told by a competent story-teller who organizes his thought into a coherent sequence of events. The new concern for the Gospels as literary masterpieces demands that the reader be attentive to how Matthew develops his themes and focuses his account on a retelling of the story of Jesus in a way that does not merely rehearse the past, but speaks meaningfully as a guide for Christian discipleship.

Rather than reading Matthew through the lens of other Gospels or a hypothetical reconstruction of the evangelist's sources, priority has shifted to the whole Gospel as a unified coherent narrative. It follows that whatever written or oral sources the evangelist may have had access to, the writer has so shaped his composition that it has a life of its own, discernable only by attention to the structure of the parts and their contribution to the whole.

In order to read and appreciate Matthew's story of Jesus one must be attentive to the codes and conventions that govern the literary and social context of the first century. A coherent reading of any document demands an awareness of the literary rules that govern the various types of literature. Knowing the general category of literary genre of a text enables the reader to know what types of questions can legitimately be asked of the material. For example, if one is reading poetry, questions of factual accuracy or scientific precision may not be the most relevant inquiry for ascertaining a text's meaning. Knowing the genre of a writing enables one's understanding to be informed by the features and intentions that characterize the writing, and not by our modern expectations and concerns we may impose upon the text.

While Matthew's Gospel has certain affinities with the literary genres of biography and historiography, the Gospel is not strictly an historical biography. No Gospel writer was driven by an impulse simply to record the facts of what happened with strict chronological precision. In fact, one need only to read the Gospels side by side to see the freedom and creative manner with which each writer communicated his message. The authors have selected, arranged, and interpreted events, characters, and settings in the best way to communicate with their respective audiences. The result is four unique accounts of Jesus' life and teachings told from a particular "point of view," informed both by the primary events and the theological concerns and needs of the expanding church.

Matthew's Gospel builds reflectively upon the primary events to capture the significance of what happened in story form. An appreciation of the literary and communicative skills of the author enables one to recognize in the dramatic sequence of events a carefully constructed "plot." In this way the storyteller communicates his values and theological commitment and seeks to persuade the reader to accept his perspective.

COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPEL

Some issues and questions that may be extremely important for understanding one category of literature may contribute little to the understanding of another. For example, an informed interpretation of Paul's letters necessitates a reconstruction of the world that produced the text. The modern reader would need to know as much as possible about the author, destination of the letter, and the factors that gave rise to the text. The letter itself will constitute a prime source for acquiring such information.

However, when one approaches Gospel narratives with the same concerns the matter is complicated by the lack of information afforded by the text. The anonymity of the Gospels, alongside their silence concerning the place, time, and circumstances that may have generated their writings, necessitates that such historical inquiries be answered in terms of probability. What this means is that there is no direct access, via the text, to the historical author or primary recipients of his document. The difficulty is centered in the fact that the text is not primarily designed to function as a "window" through which to gain access into the mind and environment of the author and original readers. The author does not purport to tell his own story or that of his readers, but the story of Jesus of Nazareth. Fortunately, following the sequential development and sense of Matthew's story of Jesus does not depend on identifying with certainty the author or the historical and social matrix that may have prompted his writing.

In what follows, traditional introductory questions will be briefly discussed, alongside important insights afforded by literary theorists who focus on the Gospels as narratives.

A. AUTHORSHIP

The anonymity of the canonical Gospels necessitates heavy reliance on external evidence as a point of departure to establish Gospel authorship. The external testimony from the second century is virtually unanimous that Matthew the tax collector authored the Gospel attributed to him. Even before explicit patristic testimony regarding Gospel authorship there is convincing evidence that no Gospel ever circulated without an appropriate heading or title (e.g., KATA MAQQAION, "according to Matthew"), identifying the person thought to be the author. The common assumption that the Gospels circulated anonymously until the mid-second century when titles were finally affixed to them has been seriously challenged by Martin Hengel. While certain details of Hengel's theory regarding the origins of Gospel headings have been challenged, the lack of variation in the second-century tradition regarding Matthean authorship could well owe its origin to the time when the Gospels first began to circulate among the Christian communities.

The earliest patristic source addressing Gospel authorship comes from Papias, the Bishop of Hierapolis (ca. 60-130), whose comments are available only in quotations preserved by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (ca. 260-340, H.E. 3.39.14-16). Eusebius' citation of Papias regarding Matthean authorship has been subject to various interpretations dependent upon the translation of key terms. The citation reads:

Matthew collected (sunetavxato, synetaxato , "composed," "compiled," "arranged") the oracles (taÉ lovgia, ta logia , "sayings," "gospel") in the Hebrew language (dialevktw/, dialektô, "Hebrew or Aramaic language," "Semitic style") and each interpreted (hJrmhvneusen, hçrmçneusen, "interpreted," "translated," "transmitted") them as best he could (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16).

It appears that patristic testimony subsequent to Papias was dependent upon his testimony and thus perpetuated the tradition of Matthean authorship alongside the notion of an original Semitic version. The testimonies of Irenaeus ( Adv. Haer. 3.1.1), Pantaenus (quoted in H.E. 5.10.3), Origen (quoted in H.E. 6.25.4), Eusebius himself ( H.E. 3.24.6), Epiphanius (quoted in Adv. Haer. 29.l9.4; 30.3.7), Cyril of Jerusalem ( Catecheses 14.15), Jerome ( DeVir. III.3), as well as Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389), Chrysostom (347-407), Augustine (354-430), and Syrian and Coptic authorities are all unanimous in affirming that Matthew authored the first Gospel originally in a Semitic language. However, since the tradition seems ultimately to rest upon the view of Papias, as cited by Eusebius, the accumulated evidence of patristic testimony, in the view of some, has very little independent worth. Especially since the idea of an original Semitic Matthew, from which our Greek Matthew has been translated has been challenged on textual and linguistic grounds. Matthew simply does not read like translated Greek. These and other difficulties with the view of Papias have resulted in many dismissing all patristic testimony concerning Matthean authorship.

While much critical opinion has assumed that Papias' errant view of an original Semitic Matthew discounts his testimony about Matthew being the author, in recent times the evidence afforded by the testimony of Papias has been reassessed. On the one hand, some scholars have argued that the terms Ebrai?di dialevktw/ (Ebraidi dialektô), do not refer to the Hebrew or Aramaic language, but rather to a Jewish style or literary form. In this view, Papias would be referring to Matthew's penchant for Semitic themes and devices, not an original Semitic Gospel. Others have rejected such an interpretation as an unnatural way to read the passage from Papias, and prefer to acknowledge that Papias was simply wrong when he claimed that Matthew was originally written in a Semitic language. However, such an admission does not warrant the complete dismissal of the testimony of Papias concerning the authorship of Matthew. One must still explain how Matthew's name became attached to the first Gospel. The obscurity and relative lack of prominence of the Apostle Matthew argues against the view that the early church would pseudonymously attribute the Gospel to Matthew. Surely, patristic tradition had some basis for attributing the Gospel to Matthew. Therefore, as noted by Davies and Allison, "the simplistic understanding of Papias which dismisses him out of hand must be questioned if not abandoned."

There is nothing inherent in the Gospel itself that convincingly argues against Matthean authorship. Contrary to the view of a few, the decided Jewish flavor of the Gospel argues decisively for the author of the first Gospel being a Jew. Other scholars have noted that Matthew's background and training as a "tax collector" along with other professional skills offers a plausible explanation for the Gospel's sophisticated literary form and attention to detail. Certainly the combined weight of external and internal considerations make the traditional view of Matthean authorship a reasonable, if not a most plausible position. However, in the words of R.T. France there is "an inevitable element of subjectivity in such judgments." Not only is hard data difficult to come by to establish the authorship of any of the Gospels, what is available is often subject to diverse but equally credible explanations. It follows that while the issue of authorship is an intriguing historical problem, it is extremely doubtful that any consensus will ever emerge given the nature of the available evidence.

The question must be raised whether the veracity of the first Gospel or its interpretation are ultimately dependent upon one's verdict concerning authorship. While one's theological bias concerning authorship may influence how the text is evaluated, the two issues are not integrally connected. Since the first Gospel offers very little (if any) insight into the identity of its historical author, recreating the figure behind the Gospel is neither relevant or particularly important for understanding Matthew's story of Jesus. Thus, while I see no compelling reason to abandon the traditional attribution of Matthean authorship to the first Gospel, no significant exegetical or theological concern hangs on the issue.

B. NARRATION OF THE STORY

Of much greater importance than deciding the identity of the author, is an evaluation of the way the author has decided to present his story of Jesus. In literary terms the way a story gets told is called "point of view." A storyteller may tell his story in the first person (i.e., "I"), and portray himself as one of the characters in the story. From a first person point of view the storyteller would necessarily be limited to what he personally has experienced or learned from other characters. Matthew's story is told in a third person narration, wherein the storyteller is not a participant in the story, but refers to characters within the story as "he," "she," or "they." From such a vantage point the Matthean narrator provides the reader with an informational advantage over story characters, and thereby, situates the reader in an advantageous position for evaluating events and characters in the story.

Perhaps the most prominent characteristic of a third person narration is the storyteller's ability to provide the reader with insights which are not normally available to one in real life. His ability to move inside his characters to reveal their innermost thoughts, feelings, emotions, and motivations, enables the reader to use these insights to form evaluations and opinions about characters and events within the story. For example, the narrator reveals when the disciples are amazed (8:29; 21:20), fearful (14:30; 17:6), sorrowful (26:22), filled with grief (17:23), and indignant (26:8). He knows when they understand (16:12; 17:13), and when they doubt (28:17). The overall impact of these insights enables the reader to better evaluate the traits exhibited by the disciples.

Similar insights are provided into the thoughts, emotions, and motivations of minor characters in the story. The inner thoughts of Joseph (1:19), Herod (2:3), the crowds (7:28; 22:33; 9:8; 12:13; 15:31), the woman (9:21), Herod the tetrarch (14:59), Judas (27:3), Pilate (27:14,18), the centurion (27:54), and the reaction of the women at the tomb (28:4,8) are all accessible to the Matthean narrator. The narrator even supplies the reader with inside information about the thoughts and motivations of the Jewish leaders (2:3; 9:3; 12:14; 21:45-46; 26:3-5; 12:10; 16:1; 19:3; 22:15). These insights function to establish in the mind of the reader the antagonist of the story.

The Matthean narrator is also not bound by time or space in his coverage of the story. Matthew provides the reader access to private conversations between Herod and the Magi (2:3-8), John and Jesus (3:13-15), Jesus and Satan (4:1-11), the disciples (16:7), Peter and Jesus (16:23), Judas and the chief priest (26:14-16; 26:40), and Pilate and the chief priest (27:62-64). He makes known to the reader the private decisions made by the chief priest and the Sanhedrin (26:59-60), and the plan of the chief priest and elders concerning the disappearance of the body (28:12-15). The narrator is present when Jesus prays alone, while at the same time he knows the difficulties of the disciples on the sea (14:22-24). He easily takes the reader from the courtroom of Pilate to the courtyard of Peter's denial (26:70f.), and eventually to the scene at the cross (27:45). For the most part, the narrator in Matthew's story stays close to Jesus, and views events and characters in terms of how they affect his main character.

Whoever the actual historical author may be, it is clear that the Matthean storyteller narrates his Gospel in a way to reliably guide his readers through the story so as to properly evaluate events and characters. On occasion the narrator will interrupt the flow of the story in order to provide the reader with an explicit comment or explanation. These intrusions may take the form of various types of descriptions (e.g., 3:4; 17:2; 28:3-4; 27:28-31), summaries (e.g., 4:23-25; 9:35-38; 12:15-16; 14:14; 15:29-31), or explicit interpretive commentary (1:22-23, 2:15, 17-18, 23; 4:15-16; 8:17; 12:17-21; 13:35; 21:4-5; 27:9-10). Detecting the narrator's voice in the story enables the reader to be sensitive to the manner in which Matthew instructs, leads, and encourages the reader to adopt a particular point of view.

SETTING OF THE GOSPEL

Traditional approaches to Gospel introduction usually treat under the heading of "setting" such issues as the date and place of the Gospel's writing, alongside the identity and problems confronting the community addressed. It is important to remember that practically speaking our exclusive source for information about the time and circumstantial factors generating the Gospel's production come only from the Gospel itself. No explicit outside information speaks directly to the issue of the social and historical conditions of the Gospel's primary readers. Essentially, scholarly efforts to establish a life-setting for the writing of the Gospel must search the Gospel for possible clues that hint at the time and circumstances of the writing. The fact that, although reading the same evidence, scholarly proposals for the setting of Matthew's Gospel have resulted in reconstructions that are opposed to one another should give one caution about dogmatic claims in such areas.

A. DATE

Efforts to recover the environmental setting that best explains the form and content of Matthew's Gospel have not resulted in a scholarly consensus. Concerning the date of the Gospel's composition scholars are divided into two broad proposals. The majority view is that Matthew was written after Mark sometime between the dates of A.D. 80-100. However, the arguments adduced to establish such a dating scheme are largely based upon prior judgments concerning the order of Gospel composition or hypothetical reconstructions of developments in the first century. Pivotal to the post-70 dating of Matthew is the contention that Matthew knew and used Mark as a major source for the writing of his Gospel. Since the consensus of scholarly judgment dates Mark in the 60s, it is therefore likely that Matthew composed his Gospel sometime after A.D. 70. Of course, if one rejects Marcan priority or the suggested date for Marcan composition, the argument fails to be convincing.

A post-70 date has also been assumed based upon Matthew's explicit language concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and his references to the "church" (16:18; 18:17). Such language is thought to be anachronistic and therefore indicative of a post-70 composition. The reference to a "king" in the parable of the wedding feast who "sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city" (22:7), appears to reflect historical knowledge of Jerusalem's destruction retrojected into Jesus' ministry as prophecy. However, apart from the fact of whether Jesus could predict Jerusalem's fall, the wording of 22:7, as France observes, "is precisely the sort of language one might expect in a genuine prediction of political annihilation in the Jewish context, and does not depend on a specific knowledge of how things in fact turned out in A.D. 70." There also is no need to read a developed ecclesiology into Jesus' references to the "church." The term ejkklhsiva (ekklçsia) in Matthew says nothing about church order, and with the communal imagery attached to the term in Jewish circles (cf. Qumran), it becomes entirely credible that Jesus could speak of his disciples as constituting an ekklçsia.

Perhaps the most heavily relied upon argument for dating Matthew in the last decades of the first century is the decided Jewish polemic that seemingly dominates the first Gospel. It is thought that formative Judaism in the post-70 period provides the most suitable background for Matthew's portrayal of the Jewish leaders and his underlying view of Israel. After the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 it was the Pharisaic movement that emerged as the normative form of Judaism. Pharisaism was particularly suited to bring stability and a renewed sense of Jewish identity after the tragedy of A.D. 70. The Pharisees saw themselves as "the most accurate interpreters of the law" (see Josephus, JW 1.5.1; 2.8.14; Life 38.191), and definers of both the social and cultic boundaries delimiting the covenanted people of God. The community addressed by Matthew's Gospel is thought to be a rival to a post-70 formative Judaism, having endured severe hostility and rejection by official Judaism.

However, the evidence does not warrant the supposition that Matthew's community has severed all contact with the Jewish community. Furthermore, not enough is known about pre-70 Pharisaism to emphatically deny a setting for Matthew's Gospel before Jerusalem's destruction. Indeed, an impressive list of scholars have cogently argued for a pre-70 dating of Matthew. Not only does such a view have solid patristic evidence, some passages in Matthew may be intended to imply that the temple was still standing at the time of the Gospel's writing (cf. Matt 5:23-29; 12:5-7; 17:23; 16:22; 26:60-61). It appears that the evidence is not sufficiently decisive so as to completely discredit all competitive views. Fortunately, understanding Matthew's story of Jesus is not dependent upon reconstructing the historical context from which the Gospel emerged.

B. PLACE OF ORIGIN

Even less important for a competent reading of the first Gospel involves the effort to decide the Gospel's precise place of origin. Because of its large Jewish community and strategic role in the Gentile mission most Matthean scholars have opted for Antioch of Syria as the Gospel's place of origin. Other proposals have included Jerusalem, Alexandria, Caesarea, Phoenicia, and simply "east of the Jordan." While certain evidence may tend to weigh in favor of one provenance over another, in the final analysis we cannot be certain where Matthew's Gospel was composed. Nevertheless, as observed by France, deciding "the geographical location in which the Gospel originated is probably the least significant for a sound understanding of the text." Much more relevant to the interpretation of the gospel is the dimension given the discussion of "setting" by a literary reading of the first Gospel.

C. NARRATIVE WORLD

In literary terms the discussion of "setting" does not involve the delineation of factors generating the text, but rather the descriptive context or background in which the action of the story transpires. Settings, as described by the narrator, are like stage props in a theatrical production. Oftentimes, the narrator's description of the place, time, or social conditions in which action takes place is charged with subtle nuances that may generate a certain atmosphere with important symbolic significance. For example, early in Matthew's story the narrator relates places and events to create a distinct atmosphere from which to evaluate his central character, Jesus. The story opens with a series of events that are calculated to evoke memories of Israel's past, and thereby to highlight the significance of the times inaugurated by Jesus. By means of a genealogy, cosmic signs, dream-revelations, the appearance of the "angel of the Lord," and the repeated reference to prophetic fulfillment, the narrator highlights God's renewed involvement with his people and the climactic nature of the times realized in Jesus. The locations of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Egypt evoke feelings of continuity between Jesus' history and that of Israel's. Other locations such as the "desert" and "mountain" function to create a certain aura around events and characters in the story. Later in the story specific locations such as "synagogue," the "sea," and the "temple" all contribute to a distinct atmosphere from which to evaluate the course of events. While real-life settings of the author and his readers can only be reproduced in terms of probability, the temporal and spatial settings established in the story provide an integral context for interpreting Matthew's story.

THE LITERARY CHARACTER OF MATTHEW

A. LITERARY AND RHETORICAL SKILL

Since Matthew's text would have been handwritten without systematic punctuation or modern techniques for delineating structural features such as bold print, underlining, paragraph indention, or chapter headings, any clues for discerning the structure and nature of the composition is dependent upon "verbal clues" within the narrative itself. Within both Hebrew and classical traditions communication on a literary level assumed a level of competency in conventional communicative techniques. While NT authors may not have been formally trained in rhetoric, an effective exchange of ideas demands some awareness of conventional patterns for communication. A study of Matthew's literary style puts emphasis on the literary devices he employs to lead the reader to experience his story in a certain way.

Reading Matthew's story (whether orally before an audience, or in private), would have demanded that the reader attend to the various structural features which might illumine the meaning and flow of the narrative. Some of these literary strategies function on a broader structural level providing the text with a sense of progression and cohesion (e.g., Matt see the formulaic phrases in 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1; and 4:17; 16:21). However, most structural features primarily contribute to a sense of cohesion within smaller textual units. These features may highlight or bracket unifying themes by opening and closing distinct units with similar words or phrases (see, e.g., 4:23-24 and 9:35); build anticipation by foreshadowing subsequent events (e.g., ch. 2 foreshadows the passion narrative); or stimulate reflection and a sense of development in the story by verbal repetition and episodic similarities (cf. 8:23-27/14:22-33; 9:27-31/20:29-34; 9:32-34/12:22-34; 14:13-21/15:32-38). These elements along with Matthew's fondness for grouping materials according to a thematic or even numerical scheme, are indicative of an environment largely educated through oral proclamation not the written word. Matthew's compositional scheme greatly facilitated learning by providing the listener (or reader) with a coherent and orderly presentation that aided comprehension and memorization.

The meticulous structural concerns, both in the whole and the smaller details of Matthew, have been widely recognized by scholarship. However, as we shall see in the next section, there is great diversity with respect to the overall structural pattern of the first Gospel. The difficulty lies with going from clearly delineated structural features in the smaller units of text, to the use of the same devices to explain the total composition. Often the analysis seems forced and unable to fit the details into a single coherent pattern. It may not always be easy to identify the precise contribution that a particular literary device makes to the overall composition of a literary work, and certainly there always exists the danger of reading too much into a text by artificially imposing symmetrical patterns where none exist. However, these problems are overcome by a greater sensitivity to the nature and function of literary devices, and not by ignoring these features of a text. The question remains concerning what features might provide clues to the overall structure of Matthew's Gospel.

B. STRUCTURAL-PLOT

Consideration of Matthew's skill in the smaller portions of his text has stimulated numerous efforts to locate structural indications that may provide the organizing pattern for the entire Gospel. Structural appraisals of Matthew's Gospel usually begin with the discovery of a literary device or formulaic expression that appears to be unique to the evangelist. However, while scholars may agree on the existence of a literary device or formula, they may diverge widely concerning the function or theological significance of a literary feature. For example, although the expressions kaiÉ ejgevneto o{te ejtevlesen oJ =Ihsou'" (kai egeneto hote etelesen ho Içsous, "and when Jesus had finished;" 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1), and ajpoÉ tovte h[rxato oJ =Ihsou'" (apo tote erxato ho Içsous, "from that time Jesus began," 4:17; 16:21) are recognized to be structurally significant, it is difficult to establish that Matthew consciously adopted these expressions as the organizational key to his entire Gospel. As helpful as these phrases are for marking off the major discourses of Jesus or highlighting major new developments in the story, neat structural schemes based upon repeated formulae cannot do justice to the subtle twists and turns of the dramatic flow of Matthew's story.

Several scholars have centered on Matthew's use of Mark to determine the structure of his Gospel. Attention has been called to the peculiar Matthean organization of 4:12-13:58 in contrast to the faithful following of Marcan order in 14:1-28:20. Certainly a source-critical study of Matthew must account for the seemingly independent structural form and sequence in the first half of the Gospel as opposed to the latter half. However, it is doubtful that Matthew intended his readers to compare his Gospel with Mark in order to understand his structural scheme. If Matthew could clearly structure patterns on a smaller scale, independent of Mark, why not on a larger scale? Furthermore, there are too many structural peculiarities even in the second half of the Gospel to assume that Matthew merely succumbed to a slavish reproduction of Mark in the second half of his Gospel.

More recent investigations have delineated the Gospel's structure in terms of how the individual events or episodes connect sequentially to form a discernable plot. It is the organizing principle of plot which determines the incidents selected, their arrangement, and how the sequence of events or episodes are to impact the reader. Given the episodic and thematic flavor of Matthew's narrative, his plot development does not exhibit a linear tightness or the flair for the dramatic found in other narratives (cf. Mark). Nevertheless, Matthew does tell a story, and thus the various episodes are carefully interrelated by causal and thematic developments. There are definite major and minor story lines and character development, with certain episodes marking key turning points in the unfolding drama. An analysis of plot has the advantage of moving the discussion away from isolated literary devices or contrived symmetrical patterns, to a consideration of how the sequence of events and portrayal of characters connect meaningfully to tell a continuous and coherent story.

Matthew's story is organized around several narrative blocks comprised of events that are interconnected according to a particular emphasis or theme. The unifying factor giving coherence to the overall sequence of events is the explicit and implicit presence of the central character Jesus in virtually every episode. Within this story-form events of similar nature are often clustered or repeated for their accumulative impact, as various themes are reinforced and developed. An analysis of the sequence and function of Matthew's major narrative blocks enables the reader to discern an overall progression of events according to a consciously constructed plot. The following seven narrative blocks provide the story with a clear sense of dramatic progression:

1:1-4:16 Establishing the identity and role of Jesus, the protagonist of the story.

4:17-11:1 Jesus embarks upon a ministry of teaching and healing to manifest God's saving presence in Israel.

11:2-16:20 While faulty interpretations of Jesus' ministry lead to misunderstanding and repudiation, the disciples, through divine revelation, are provided special insight into Jesus' person and mission.

16:21-20:34 During Jesus' journey to Jerusalem he engages his disciples in explicit discussion concerning the ultimate values, priorities, and intentions of his messianic mission.

21:1-25:46 Upon entering Jerusalem Jesus' actions and teachings lead to conflict and rejection by the Jewish authorities.

26:1-27:50 While hostility and misunderstanding coalesce in betrayal, desertion, and death, Jesus is resolved to consciously and voluntarily fulfill the divine plan.

27:51-28:20 God ultimately vindicates his Son as evidenced by cosmic signs and by raising him from the dead and giving him authority to commission his disciples to a worldwide mission.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED COMMENTARIES:

Albright, W.F. and C.S. Mann. Matthew . AB. Garden City: Doubleday, 1971.

Beare, Francis Wright. The Gospel According to Matthew . San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1981.

Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew. New American Commentary 22. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.

Carson, D.A. "Matthew." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary , 8:3-599. Edited by Frank Gaebelein. 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

Davies, Margaret. Matthew Readings: A New Biblical Commentary . Sheffield, U.K.: JSOT Press/Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.

Davies, W.D. and Dale C. Allison. Introduction and Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew I-VII . Vol. 1 of A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. International Critical Commentaries. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988.

. Introduction and Commentary on Matthew VIII-XVIII . Vol. 2 of A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew . International Critical Commentaries. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991.

France, R.T. Matthew. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.

Gardner, Richard B. Matthew. Believers Church Bible Commentary. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1991.

Garland, David. Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel . New York: Crossroad, 1993.

Gundry, Robert. Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Hagner, Donald. Matthew 1-13 . Word Biblical Commentary 33A. Dallas: Word, 1993.

. Matthew 14-28. Word Biblical Commentary 33B. Dallas: Word, 1995.

Harrington, D.J. The Gospel of Matthew . Sacra Pagina 1. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991.

Hill, David. The Gospel of Matthew . New Century Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.

Keener, Craig S. Matthew . The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Ed. Grant R. Osborne. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

Luz, U. Matthew 1-7 . Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989.

Malina, Bruce J. and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels . Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992.

Meier, J.P. The Vision of Matthew . New York: Crossroad, 1979, 1991.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.

Patte, Daniel. The Gospel According to Matthew: A Structural Commentary on Matthew's Faith . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.

Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Matthew . Translated by David E. Green. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975.

SELECTED STUDIES:

Allison, Dale C. The New Moses: A Matthean Typology . Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

Bauer, D.R. The Structure of Matthew's Gospel: A Study in Literary Design . JSNTSup 31. Sheffield: Almond, 1988.

Borg, Marcus. Conflict, Holiness, and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus . New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1984.

France, R.T. Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.

Hill, David. "Son and Servant: An Essay on Matthean Christology." JSNT 6 (1980) 2-16.

Kingsbury, Jack D. Matthew As Story. 2d ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.

Lohr, C. "Oral Techniques in the Gospel of Matthew." CBQ 23 (1961): 339-352.

Luz, U. The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew . Translated by J. Bradford Robinson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Matera, Frank. "The Plot of Matthew's Gospel." CBQ 49 (1987): 233-253.

. Passion Narratives and Gospel Theologies . New York: Paulist, 1986.

Powell, M.A. God With Us: A Pastoral Theology of Matthew's Gospel . Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.

Senior, D. The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew . Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1985.

. What Are They Saying About Matthew? Revised and Expanded Edition. New York: Paulist Press, 1996.

Stanton, Graham. A Gospel For a New People: Studies in Matthew . Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992.

. "The Origin and Purpose of Matthew's Gospel: Matthean Scholarship from 1945 to 1980." In ANRW II.25.3. Edited by W.Haase. Pages 1889-1895. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1985.

Verseput, Donald J. "The Title Son of God in Matthew's Gospel." NTS 33 (1987): 532-556.

Westerholm, Stephen. Jesus and Scribal Authority . ConNT 10. Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup, 1978.

Wilkens, M.J. The Concept of Discipleship in Matthew's Gsopel as Reflected in the Use of the Term Mathçtçs. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1988.

Witherup, Ronald D. "The Death of Jesus and the Rising of the Saints: Matthew 27:51-54 in Context." SBLASP. Pages 574-585. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.

Wright, N.T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.

. The New Testament and the People of God . Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary

AnBib Analecta Biblica

ANTJ Arbeiten zum Neuen Testament und zum Judentum

BAGD A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker

BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium

Bib Biblica

BibRev Bible Review

BSac Bibliotheca Sacra

BZNW Beheifte zur ZNW

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

ConBNT Coniectanea biblica, New Testament

ConNT Coniectanea neotestamentica

DJG Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels

ETL Ephemerides theologicai lovanienses

ExpTim The Expository Times

HTR Harvard Theological Review

ICC International Critical Commentary

IDB Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible

Int Interpretation

ISBE International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JSNT Journal for the Study of New Testament Theology

LXX Septuagint

NIDNTT New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology

NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary

NIV New International Version

NovT Novum Testamentum

NT New Testament

NTM New Testament Message

NTS New Testament Studies

OT Old Testament

RevQ Revue de Qumran

RQ Restoration Quarterly

SBLASP Society of Biblical Literature Abstracts and Seminar Papers

SBLDS SBL Dissertation Series

SBLMS SBL Monograph Series

SJT Scottish Journal of Theology

SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

Str-B Kommentar zum Neuen Testament by Strack and Billerbeck

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Kittel and Friedrich

TIM Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew by Bornkamm, Barth, and Held

TrinJ Trinity Journal

TynBul Tyndale Bulletin

UBSGNT United Bible Society Greek New Testament

USQR Union Seminary Quarterly Review

WUNT Wissenschaftliche untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: Matthew (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY AND ROLE OF JESUS THE CHRIST - Matt 1:1-4:16

A. Genealogy of Jesus - 1:1-17

B. The Annunciation to Joseph - 1:18-25

C. The Infancy of Jesus - 2:1-23

1. The Gentile Pilgrimage - 2:1-12

2. The Messiah's Exile and Exodus - 2:13-23

D. The Mission and Message of John the Baptist - 3:1-12

E. The Baptism and Commission of Jesus - 3:13-17

F. The Testing of the Son - 4:1-11

G. Introducing the Ministry of Jesus - 4:12-16

II. GOD'S SAVING PRESENCE IN THE MIDST OF HIS PEOPLE - 4:17-10:42

A. Programmatic Heading: Proclamation of the Kingdom - 4:17

B. Call of the Disciples - 4:18-22

C. Programmatic Summary - 4:23-25

D. Sermon on the Mount: Ministry in Word - 5:1-7:29

1. The Setting - 5:1-2

2. The Beatitudes - 5:3-12

3. Salt and Light - 5:13-16

4. Jesus and the Law - 5:17-20

5. Practicing Greater Righteousness Toward One's Neighbor - 5:21-48

a. Murder - 5:21-26

b. Adultery - 5:27-30

c. Divorce - 5:31-32

d. Oaths - 5:33-37

e. An Eye for an Eye - 5:38-42

f. Love Your Enemies - 5:43-48

6. Practicing Greater Righteousness Before God - 6:1-18

a. Summary - 6:1

b. Giving to the Needy - 6:2-4

c. Prayer - 6:5-15

d. Fasting - 6:16-18

7. The Priorities and Values of the GreaterRighteousness - 6:19-34

a. Treasures in Heaven - 6:19-24

b. Worry - 6:25-34

8. The Conduct of Greater Righteousness - 7:1-12

a. Judging Others - 7:1-5

b. Honor What Is Valuable - 7:6

c. Ask, Seek, Knock - 7:7-11

d. The Golden Rule - 7:12

9. The Call for Decision - 7:13-27

a. The Narrow and Wide Gates - 7:13-14

b. A Tree and Its Fruit - 7:15-23

c. The Wise and Foolish Builders - 7:24-27

10. Conclusion - 7:28-29

E. Ministry in Deed - 8:1-9:34

1. Cleansing of a Leper - 8:1-4

2. Request of a Gentile Centurion - 8:5-13

3. Peter's Mother-in-Law - 8:14-15

4. Summary and Fulfillment Citation - 8:16-17

5. Two Would-Be Followers - 8:18-22

6. Stilling of the Storm - 8:23-27

7. The Gadarene Demoniacs - 8:28-34

8. Healing of the Paralytic - 9:1-8

9. Jesus' Association with Tax Collectors and Sinners - 9:9-13

10. Question on Fasting - 9:14-17

11. Raising the Ruler's Daughter and Cleansing the Unclean Woman - 9:18-26

12. Healing Two Blind Men - 9:27-31

13. Healing of a Deaf Mute - 9:32-34

F. A Call to Mission - 9:35-10:4

G. The Missionary Discourse - 10:5-42

1. Instructions for Mission - 10:5-15

2. Persecution and Response - 10:16-23

3. The Disciples' Relationship to Jesus - 10:24-42

III. ISRAEL'S MISUNDERSTANDING AND REPUDIATION OF JESUS - 11:1-14:12

A. John's Question from Prison - 11:1-6

B. The Person and Mission of John - 11:7-19

1. Identification of John by Jesus - 11:7-15

2. Rejection of John and Jesus - 11:16-19

C. Unrepentant Cities - 11:20-24

D. Jesus' Response and Invitation - 11:25-30

E. Sabbath Controversy: Incident in the Grainfield - 12:1-8

F. Sabbath Controversy: Healing in the Synagogue - 12:9-14

G. The Character and Mission of God's Servant - 12:15-21

H. The Beelzebub Controversy - 12:22-37

I. The Request for a Sign - 12:38-42

J. A Concluding Analogy - 12:43-45

K. Jesus' True Family - 12:46-50

L. The Parables of the Kingdom - 13:1-52

1. The Parable of the Four Soils - 13:1-9

2. The Purpose of the Parables - 13:10-17

3. The Interpretation of the Parable ofthe Soils - 13:18-23

4. Parable of the Weeds - 13:24-30

5. Parable of the Mustard Seed - 13:31-32

6. Parable of the Leaven - 13:33

7. The Purpose of Parables - 13:34-35

8. The Interpretation of the Parable of the Weeds - 13:36-43

9. Parables of the Hidden Treasure and the Pearl - 13:44-46

10. Parable of the Dragnet - 13:47-50

11. Trained in the Kingdom - 13:51-52

M. Rejection at Nazareth - 13:53-58

N. The Death of John the Baptist - 14:1-12

IV. EDUCATING THE DISCIPLES: IDENTITY AND MISSION - 14:13-16:20

A. Feeding of the Five Thousand - 14:13-21

B. Walking on the Water - 14:22-33

C. Summary: Healings at Gennesaret - 14:34-36

D. Jesus and the Teachings of the Pharisees - 15:1-20

E. The Canaanite Woman - 15:21-28

F. Feeding of the Four Thousand - 15:29-39

G. Request for a Sign - 16:1-4

H. The Leaven of the Pharisees and Saducees - 16:5-12

I. Confession at Caesarea Philippi - 16:13-20

V. THE WAY OF THE CROSS - 16:21-20:34

A. The Things of God Versus the Things of Men - 16:21-28

B. Transfiguration - 17:1-8

C. The Coming Elijah - 17:9-13

D. The Power of Faith - 17:14-21

E. The Second Passion Prediction - 17:22-23

F. Jesus and the Temple Tax - 17:24-27

G. Fourth Discourse: Life in the Christian Community - 18:1-35

1. Becoming Like a Child - 18:1-5

2. Avoiding Offense - 18:6-9

3. Value of the "Little Ones" - 18:10-14

4. Reconciling an Offending Brother - 18:15-20

5. Importance of Forgiveness - 18:21-35

H. Transition from Galilee to Judea - 19:1-2

I. Marriage and Divorce - 19:3-9

J. The Bewildered Response of the Disciples - 19:10-12

K. The Little Children - 19:13-15

L. The Rich Young Man - 19:16-22

M. Wealth, Reward and Discipleship - 19:23-30

N. The Generous Landowner - 20:1-16

O. Third Passion Prediction - 20:17-19

P. Requests on Behalf of the Sons of Zebedee - 20:20-28

Q. Two Blind Men Receive Sight - 20:29-34

VI. CONFLICT IN JERUSALEM - 21:1-25:46

A. Jesus' Entry into Jerusalem - 21:1-11

B. Demonstration in the Temple - 21:12-17

C. The Fig Tree - 21:18-22

D. The Authority Question - 21:23-27

E. Parable of the Two Sons - 21:28-32

F. Parable of the Tenants - 21:33-46

G. Parable of the Wedding Feast - 22:1-14

H. Confrontations with the Religious Leaders - 22:15-46

1. Paying Taxes to Caesar - 22:15-22

2. Marriage in the Afterlife - 22:23-33

3. The Greatest Commandment - 22:34-40

4. The Son of David - 22:41-46

I. Denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees - 23:1-39

1. Do Not Practice What They Preach - 23:1-12

2. Woes against the Teachers of the Law andthe Pharisees - 23:13-36

3. Lament over Jerusalem - 23:37-39

J. Fifth Discourse: Judgment to Come - 24:1-25:46

1. Introduction - 24:1-3

2. Warnings Not to Be Deceived - 24:4-14

3. The Coming Tribulation in Judea - 24:15-28

4. The Climactic Fall of Jerusalem within "This Generation" - 24:29-35

5. The Coming Judgment of the Son ofMan - 24:36-25:46

a. The Coming Son of Man~ - 24:36-51

b. The Ten Virgins - 25:1-13

c. Parable of the Talents - 25:14-30

d. Judgment of the Son of Man - 25:31-46

VII. THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION OF JESUS - 26:1-28:20

A. The Plot to Arrest and Execute Jesus - 26:1-5

B. Anointing in Bethany - 26:6-13

C. Judas' Betrayal - 26:14-16

D. Preparation for Passover - 26:17-19

E. The Last Supper - 26:20-30

F. Jesus Predicts the Disciples' Desertion and Denial - 26:31-35

G. The Gethsemane Prayer - 26:36-46

H. The Arrest of Jesus - 26:47-56

I. The Hearing Before Caiaphas - 26:57-68

J. The Denial of Peter - 26:69-75

K. Transition to the Roman Authorities - 27:1-2

L. The Suicide of Judas - 27:3-10

M. The Trial Before Pilate - 27:11-26

N. Mockery and Abuse of Jesus - 27:27-31

O. The Crucifixion - 27:32-44

P. The Death of Jesus - 27:45-56

Q. The Burial of Jesus - 27:57-61

R. Keeping Jesus in the Tomb - 27:62-66

S. The Empty Tomb - 28:1-7

T. The Appearance of Jesus to the Women - 28:8-10

U. The Bribing of the Guards - 28:11-15

V. The Great Commission - 28:16-20

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Lapide: Matthew (Book Introduction)

PREFACE.

——————

IN presenting to the reader the Second Volume [Matt X to XXI] of this Translation of the great work of Cornelius à Lapide, I desire to mention that it has not been within my purpose to give an equivalent for every word of the original. This ought to have been stated at the commencement of the first volume, and I greatly regret the omission.

The stern exigencies of publication have compelled me to compress the translation of the Commentary upon the Gospels within five octavo volumes, when a reproduction of the Latin original, verbatim et literatim , would have probably necessitated seven.

The matter standing thus, I have had to exercise my own judgment as to the character of the necessary omissions and compression. I am perfectly aware that in omitting or compressing anything at all, I expose myself to the full fury of the blasts of unkind, bitter, or unscrupulous criticism; though criticism of this kind has, I am thankful to say, been confined to a single print.

I have no fault whatever to find with the criticism of the R. Catholic Tablet . It was dictated by a thoroughly honest and commendable, but certainly mistaken fear, that I had made omissions for controversial purposes. Of this, I hope I am incapable.

With regard to the other adverse criticism to which I have alluded, I am sorry that I cannot regard it as either just or righteous. One reason is this; the reviewer in question concludes his remarks by saying—"Those who are familiar with Cornelius' work are aware of the terseness and pungency of the author's style. Whether it would be possible to give this in English we cannot say, but the present translators do not appear to have even attempted the task, either in their literal rendering, or in their paraphrased passages, so that much of the sententiousness of the original has evaporated."

It would be almost impossible to single out from the whole range of the history of criticism a more telling example of its frequent utter worthlessness and disregard of a strict adherence to truth. In the first place, with regard to Cornelius himself, those who are best acquainted with him—his greatest lovers and admirers—are aware that if there is one thing more than another which they are disposed to regret, it is his great prolixity, and the inordinate length of his sentences.

Secondly, if the hostile reviewer had examined my translation solely for the purposes of an honest criticism, he could not have helped becoming aware of the fact that there is scarcely a page in which I have not broken up what is a single sentence in the Latin into two, three, and sometimes even more sentences in the English.

Lastly, I need not tell scholars that it would be far more easy and pleasant to myself to translate literally, without any omission whatever, than to have continually to be, as it were, upon the stretch to omit or compress what must be omitted, when very often all seems valuable. I can truly say I have often spent as much time in deliberating what to omit, or how to compress a passage, as would have sufficed to have written a translation of it in full twice over.

About two-thirds of the twenty-first chapter of S. Matthew, the last in this second volume, have been translated without any omission, or compression whatever. A note is appended to the place where this unabridged translation begins. This will enable any one who cares to do so, to compare the abridged portion with the unabridged, and both with the original.

T. W. M.