Untitled Sermon

BACKROUND FOR THE PASSAGE (PART 1)

Author

We do not know much of the author of this book based upon his own writing.(The Bible Exposition Commentary, Chapter One). Blomberg states, “…nothing in the actual text of the Gospel ever specifically discloses its author.” (The New American Commentary; Blomberg, Craig; Page 43) He sought to highlight the life of Jesus Christ as the King. If we look at what we know of various kings we would readily see that the mention of his subjects is a rarety. He chose instead to be hidden in the shadows so that the subject of his literary work could be high and lifted up as the King of his people. In fact, so did all of the writers of the 4 parts of the Gospel. “Strictly speaking, this Gospel, like all four cannonical Gospels, is anonymous. The titles, ‘The Gospel according to X,’ are almost certainly not original.” (The New American Commentary; Blomberg, Craig; Page 43)

While most Christians today know the book to be the work of the Apostle Matthew, it because of his anonymity that some are relunctant to be adamant about the issue. Luke was a polished writer in the Greek, Mark was not as good as the book attributed now to Matthew, and yet, there was enough introduction of Hellenization in Galilee the fact that Matthew was a tax collector gives enough reasonable probability that Matthew indeed had the knowledge and ability to author this literary piece.(The New American Commentary; Blomberg, Craig; Page 43) His use of personal pronouns and places where the various sects of Jewish leadership are not distinguished have caused pause for some scholars to infer authorship of the book to Matthew. Such notations can be explained to the point of dismissal as the personal pronouns typically refer to places that Matthew, now associating with Christianity, would correctly denote as “their” rather than “mine” or “our”. There are other matters that have been made a piece of discussion in referencing the authorship of the book, specifically, pointing to a possibility that Matthew was not a tax collector at all, but a scribe. This is not likely.(The New American Commentary; Blomberg, Craig; Page 44) As Blomberg puts it, “In fact, if he were a Christian scribe or teacher, his previous experience with an occupation that required writing and record keeping might even have helped better prepare him for his later responsibilities.” (The New American Commentary; Blomberg, Craig; Page 44)

While most Christians today know the book to be the work of the Apostle Matthew, it because of his anonymity that some are relunctant to be adamant about the issue. Luke was a polished writer in the Greek, Mark was not as good as the book attributed now to Matthew, and yet, there was enough introduction of Hellenization in Galilee the fact that Matthew was a tax collector gives enough reasonable probability that Matthew indeed had the knowledge and ability to author this literary piece.(The New American Commentary; Blomberg, Craig; Page 43) His use of personal pronouns and places where the various sects of Jewish leadership are not distinguished have caused pause for some scholars to infer authorship of the book to Matthew. Such notations can be explained to the point of dismissal as the personal pronouns typically refer to places that Matthew, now associating with Christianity, would correctly denote as “their” rather than “mine” or “our”. There are other matters that have been made a piece of discussion in referencing the authorship of the book, specifically, pointing to a possibility that Matthew was not a tax collector at all, but a scribe. This is not likely.(The New American Commentary; Blomberg, Craig; Page 44) As Blomberg puts it, “In fact, if he were a Christian scribe or teacher, his previous experience with an occupation that required writing and record keeping might even have helped better prepare him for his later responsibilities.” (The New American Commentary; Blomberg, Craig; Page 44)

While most Christians today know the book to be the work of the Apostle Matthew, it because of his anonymity that some are relunctant to be adamant about the issue. Luke was a polished writer in the Greek, Mark was not as good as the book attributed now to Matthew, and yet, there was enough introduction of Hellenization in Galilee the fact that Matthew was a tax collector gives enough reasonable probability that Matthew indeed had the knowledge and ability to author this literary piece.

J.G. Bashaw in the Lexham Bible Dictionary refers to the “Two-Source Hypothesis” in reference to Matthew. Over the last century the idea of this hypothesis has become a matter of common discussion. He states, “This theory posits that Matthew used Mark’s Gospel and a sayings collection known as ‘Q’ as sources for his Gospel (some recent arguments argue against the two-source hypothesis; see Fance, ).” (TheLexham Bible Dictionary, J.G. Bashaw, Matthew the Apostle (Name of Article) The same is said for Luke and his Gospel. “The Q hypothesis argues that since Matthew and Luke have similar non-Markan content, this indicates the availability of another common source.” (TheLexham Bible Dictionary, J.G. Bashaw, Source Criticism and the New Testament (Name of Article) Another scholar indicates his acceptance of such a hypothesis. “In my judgement, the most reasonable explanation for the ‘double tradition’ is that both Matthew and Luke drew upon the collection of Jesus’ sayings identified as ‘Q’” (Matthew, A Mentor Commentary; Chamblin, J. Knox; Page 81; Christian Focus Publications, 2010)

According to Barker there are ample arguments that should lead someone to reject the hypothesis of the Q author and simply accept that both Matthew and Luke drew from Mark for the writing of their Gospels. The amount of information that Matthew gleans from Mark is too great to dismiss Matthews consultation of Mark’s Gospel. The language between the two Gospels are similar when considering the portion from Mark’s Gospel that is inserted in Matthew’s Gospel. The order followed by Matthew and Mark are too similar in nature to dismiss that Matthew likely referenced Mark. (The Lexham Bible Dictionary, Barker, Thomas E; Source Criticism and the New Testament (Name of Article)

This hypothesis brings into question reasons for which the author would use the name Matthew rather than the name given to him by Mark in chapter two of his own Gospel. There are a few explanations for this according to Bashaw. If Matthew wrote it then could be for “deliberate self identification or an editorial insertion.” (TheLexham Bible Dictionary, J.G. Bashaw, Matthew the Apostle (Name of Article). Another idea is that Levi is simply an indication of Matthew’s tribal affiliation as a Levite. The questions that arise from this idea is that there is a lack of basis for which to come to such a conclusion and if true, “Mark and Luke would have probably used it along side the name Matthew.” (The Lexham Bible Dictionary, J.G. Bashaw, Matthew the Apostle (Name of Article) There could be two different people by the names of both Matthew and Levi and Matthew was used intentionally as he was more readily identified by the audience (The Lexham Bible Dictionary, J.G. Bashaw, Matthew the Apostle (Name of Article) The final proposition concerning the name of the Author is that “Matthew could have had two Semitic names, going by both Levi and Matthew because of the prevalence of the name Levi. Under this hypothesis, he would be similar to Joseph, who was also called Barnabas () and Barabbas, who some ancient copies of Matthew idenify as Jesus Barabbas (; France, Matthew, 352.” (The Lexham Bible Dictionary, J.G. Bashaw, Matthew the Apostle (Name of Article)

It is important to note that though the evidence can neither support or deny authorship of the book to the Apostle Matthew he is likely the choice that best fit the perameters that are necessary to have written the literary work in the way it was. While the authorship may be in doubt for some the book is without dispute as to its divine inspiration through an author moved by the Holy Spirit to produce a great introduction to Jesus Christ as the King. (The New American Commentary; Blomberg, Craig; Page 44)

This hypothesis brings into question reasons for which the author would use the name Matthew rather than the name given to him by Mark in chapter two of his own Gospel. There are a few explanations for this according to Bashaw. If Matthew wrote it then could be for “deliberate self identification or an editorial insertion.” (TheLexham Bible Dictionary, J.G. Bashaw, Matthew the Apostle (Name of Article). Another idea is that Levi is simply an indication of Matthew’s tribal affiliation as a Levite. The questions that arise from this idea is that there is a lack of basis for which to come to such a conclusion and if true, “Mark and Luke would have probably used it along side the name Matthew.” (The Lexham Bible Dictionary, J.G. Bashaw, Matthew the Apostle (Name of Article) There could be two different people by the names of both Matthew and Levi and Matthew was used intentionally as he was more readily identified by the audience (The Lexham Bible Dictionary, J.G. Bashaw, Matthew the Apostle (Name of Article) The final proposition concerning the name of the Author is that “Matthew could have had two Semitic names, going by both Levi and Matthew because of the prevalence of the name Levi. Under this hypothesis, he would be similar to Joseph, who was also called Barnabas () and Barabbas, who some ancient copies of Matthew idenify as Jesus Barabbas (; France, Matthew, 352.” (The Lexham Bible Dictionary, J.G. Bashaw, Matthew the Apostle (Name of Article)

It is important to note that though the evidence can neither support or deny authorship of the book to the Apostle Matthew he is likely the choice that best fit the perameters that are necessary to have written the literary work in the way it was. The existence of Q is called into question when the evidence is reviewed. While the authorship may be in doubt for some the book is without dispute as to its divine inspiration through an author moved by the Holy Spirit to produce a great introduction to Jesus Christ as the King. (The New American Commentary; Blomberg, Craig; Page 44)

Arguments against this hypothesis include that lack of explanation for why Matthew would include so much more information than Mark.

It is important to note that though the evidence can neither support or deny authorship of the book to the Apostle Matthew he is likely the choice that best fit the perameters that are necessary to have written the literary work in the way it was. While the authorship may be in doubt for some the book is without dispute as to its divine inspiration through an author moved by the Holy Spirit to produce a great introduction to Jesus Christ as the King. (The New American Commentary; Blomberg, Craig; Page 44)

Matthew, a disciple of Christ and one of the twelve, is introduced to us in when he is called by Jesus to follow him. Matthew was not his name then, however, at least it is not the name by which Mark refers to him. His name is Levi. Christ finds him seated at the receipt of customs. Though hated among the Jews for being what he was, a tax collector, this man was likely wealthy and established in his trade. For, when Christ called him to follow him he left his place at the tax collectors table and chose a new path. Soon after, he would invite friends and former colleagues to his house to hear Jesus and make up their own minds about the religious leader that was making the Pharisees nervous and indignant. (The Bible Exposition Commentary, Chapter One)

Matthew, a disciple of Christ and one of the twelve, is introduced to us in when he is called by Jesus to follow him. Matthew was not his name then, however, at least it is not the name by which Mark refers to him. His name is Levi. Christ finds him seated at the receipt of customs. Though hated among the Jews for being what he was, a tax collector, this man was likely wealthy and established in his trade. For, when Christ called him to follow him he left his place at the tax collectors table and chose a new path. Soon after, he would invite friends and former colleagues to his house to hear Jesus and make up their own minds about the religious leader that was making the Pharisees nervous and indignant. (The Bible Exposition Commentary, Chapter One)

It would be at this dinner that Christ would very pointedly make his stand with the scribes and Pharisees claiming his place as a man that sought to give healing to the spiritually broken and call all men to repentance. This Levi would stay in the shadows allowing his Savior, to be lifted up as the King. Levi would later be referred to as Matthew and his life would stay relatively a mystery, at least in the pages of Scripture. Only tradition would offer us a glimpse into his life and ministry after his most important decision to leave that tax table to become one of Christ’s disciples and be called upon by the Holy Spirit to be one of four men moved to write a book about the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Date

The time of the writing of Matthew is in doubt according to Blomberg. He states, “…we dare not be dogmatic; the evidence is simply too slim to come to any secure conclusion.” In reading some of the early church writers we can catch a glipse of the possible dating of the literary work. Ignatius quotes the writing and Didache seems to reference it as well. This gives us a clear path to dating the book’s authorship prior to 100. The question of the “Q” hypothesis comes into play as they could be quoting from the Hebrew sayings.(The New American Commentary; Blomberg, Craig; Page 42)

The uncertainty of a time frame for Matthew’s death proves another issue in producing a concise date. Particular regions do not give us the ability to come to a dogmatic conclusion either. Other considerations such as Matthew’s reference to the demise of Jerusalem or the destruction of the Temple would give be a help to narrow the gap except that this information too, is relative. “Bt, at best, these passages reflect Jesus’ predictions of that destruction. Unless one refuses to believe in the possibility of predictive prophecy (an unjustifiable, antisupernatrualist, presupposition), this argument too collapses.” (The New American Commentary; Blomberg, Craig; Page 41)

According to Sweeney there are those that accept the credit Matthew with the authorship of the book accept that he likely wrote it prior to A.D. 70 due to the quotations by early church fathers. Others who doubt the Papias account would put the writing after 70. (The Lexham Bible Dictionary, James P. Sweeney, Chronology of the New Testament (Name of Article)

Kendall assumes the authorship of Matthew and indicates that though Matthew mentions the temple destruction one cannot use that to assume post 70 authorship as he referred to the destruction “without mentioning that it had come to pass.” (Holman Quick Source Guide to Understanding the Bible; Easley, Kendall; page 246) Also accepting the belief that Matthew indeed consulted Mark’s Gospel the date must be later than the 50’s. (Holman Quick Source Guide to Understanding the Bible; Easley, Kendall; page 246) Conservative scholars, therefore, come to terms with the authorship placement prior to 70. Kendall states, “A typical conservative estimate for its composition is the decade from 55-65.” (Holman Quick Source Guide to Understanding the Bible; Easley, Kendall; page 246)

Blomberg, of Matthew’s dating of authorship states, “We must conclude, with D.A. Carson, that any date between 40 and 100 fits the data.” (The New American Commentary; Blomberg, Craig; Page 41) This, of course if you give any credence to the Two-Author Hypothesis including Matthew and the mysterious “Q”.

Audience

Kendall affirms that Matthew’s first audience is a Jewish-Christian audience. He bases this directly on the author’s “interest in showing that Jesus fulfilled the Scriptures.” (Holman Quick Source Guide to Understanding the Bible; Easley, Kendall; page 246) The population schimatic of Antioch gives us a direction with which to derive a destination for this writing. This destination if further surmised by the quotation of an early church father ignatius of Antioch. (Holman Quick Source Guide to Understanding the Bible; Easley, Kendall; page 246)

Blomberg offers various audiences based upon where you place the timing of the writing. Simply put, for this scholar it simply comes down to whether you are a conservative regarding church writings or a critical one. Ultimately, he states, “A third mediating perspective seems more likely: Matthew’s church has recently been severed from the synagogue; but its predominantly Jewish members remain in frequent, vigorous, and sometimes polemical dialogue with their non-Christian Jewish families and friends.” (The New American Commentary; Blomberg, Craig; Page 35) Webers contention seems to coincide with both Kendall’s and Blombergs “mediating perspective” . Weber states, “Matthew wrote primarily to a Jewish audience. Becaus the Old Testament was the Bible of the first-century Jews, all of Matthew’s references to it were intended to show them that Jesus was the culmination of God’s plan of all history, the completion and perfection of the Old Testament covenants.” (Holman’s New Testament Commentary; Weber, Stuart; Page 3)

The consensus for Matthew’s Audience seems to be the Jewish Christians in order to show them a relationship between Jesus and their King. Through Matthew’s lense they see the Old Testament Scripture fulfilled before their eyes and they rejoice in the great news that the Messiah had come and he indeed was King.