MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF. The first of the four Gospels in the New Testament. After a preliminary narrative containing ;111 account of the divine announeement to Joseph of the coming, Girth of Jesus. the visit of the Magi after that birth. the flight of Joseph and his family into Egypt, Ilerod's massacre of the children, and Joseph's return ii.), a brief is given of the ministry of John the Baptist, leading up to Jesus' baptism by John and Ilk temptation in the wilderness (iii.-iv. 11). The narrative proper then begins with with drawal to Galilee and Ilk active entrance upon Ili- work. The record of this work is divided into three principal parts: (a) his ministry in Halilee 12-xv. 20) ; (b) Ills ministry in the regions north and cast of Galilee (xY. 21-xvii. 20): (e) his ministry in Jerikalent These parts cover praetieally the same events as the main portions of Mark and Linke. hut the events themselves aro eIrranged in a way peculiar to this t:ospel. The chronologieal order is apparently abandoned for the topical order. As a result, after a short introduetory passage (iv. 12.251 there is presented a group of diseourses, treating of the Messianic Kingdom—the composite ad dress known as the Sermon on the Mount (v. 1 vii, 29). This is followed by a group of miracles, evidently intended to be typical of Messianic times (viii. 1-ix. 34). This in turn is followed by another group of discourses, though of broader compass than the former (ix. 35-xiii. 58). Then comes another smaller group of miracles repre sentative of Messianic conditions (xiv. 13-3(i) and another smaller group of discourses of a more distinctly judgment character (xv. 1-20). This same arrangement is carried out in the second main portion of the narrative—the ministry in the northern region—the groups, however, being all of them small. First are two miracles, the leading one evidently intended to represent the future mission to the Gentiles (xv. 21-39). Then follow two discourses, the main one having to do with Jesus' coming passion (xvi.). Finally there are two more miracles, the principal one of which apparently represents the Messianic glory which is to be (xvii. 1-21). There then follows a passage of considerable length, the object of which seemingly is to form a transition to the closing main portion of the narrative. In this also a tendency to the same grouping order is seen (xvii. 22-xx.). Then is given the final .Jerusalem ministry (xxi.-xxv.). In this, how ever, apart from the introductory passage, con taining a record of the triumphal entry into the city, the cleaning of the temple. and a general oniumary statement regarding healings accom plished during that day, the whole narrative is concerned with the discourses and discussions of Tuesday of Passion Week, the one exception being the account of the withering of the fig tree. The Gospel closes with the record of the Pass over meal, the agony in Gethsemane, the be trayal, arrest, trial, crucifixion, and resurrection (xxvi.-xxviii.).
From this arrangement of his material it is quite clear that the Evangelist had before him self the didactic purpose of representing Jesus Christ to his readers as the Jewish Messiah, This is confirmed by the projibetie setting in which the narrative is placed. The birth of Jesus. the events of His life, the circumstances surrounding His death, are not simply connected with Old Testament predictions, but connected with them as being the necessary outcome of a divinely pre arranged plan, making Him the consummation of theocratic history and the fulfillment of the ocratic prediction—though not answering to the national Messianic hopes, hut rather standing cut against them and disclosing the falseness of the Judaism of that time. As a consequence. while the first chapters are marked by the ante typal idea, the last chapters are marked by the idea of judgment upon the false views of the people.
There would seem to be no room for doubt that the author of the Gospel was a Jew. The narra tive discloses a distinctively Jewish east, not merely in the above Jewish presentation of Jesus. but in many specific Jewish details which this representation involves. At the same time it is quite as clear that, though a .Jew. the author was not in any way a narrow-minded one. He recognizes the admission of the Gentiles into the Kingdom, and is in perfect accord with it. He unites with the third Gospel in reciting time Bap tist's rebuke of the Jerusalem Jews (eh. iii.): while he is alone in giving Jesus' denunciation of the Pharisees and Scribes (eh. xxiii.) and Jesus' commission to go out into all the world and make disciples of all nations (eh. xxviii.). From these facts it would seem to follow that the Gospel was intended for Jewish Christian readers. Where these readers were situated is not 2.s, apparent, though the tendency on the au thor's part to explain Judean customs and be liefs (xxii. 23; xxvii. 15) and to interpret He brew and Aramaic words (i. 23; xxvii. :33, 46) would go to show that they were not personally familiar with Palestine and the Jewish life within that land. In confirmation of this is the fact. generally accepted to-day, that the Gospel is a piece of first-hand Greek composition and not a translation from a Hebrew original. The place of writing is impossible to determine, though Palestine seems most probable. The date is a matter of much discussion and cannot be decided with any certainty. At the same time the placing of it by the Tubingen School in the second century is now abandoned and the ques tion is mainly concerned with the dividing line of A.D. 70—the date of the destruction of Jeru salem. For either side of this line definite reasons may be urged. the general Jewish tone of the Gospel—especially its Jewish-Christian didactic, if not apologetic cast—suiting the sit uation either before or after this event.