Matthew is winking at us here, knowing that his readers would spot these out of place names. Jesus is from a line of kingly succession that also culminates the rich tradition of worship and prophecy of Israel. This way, readers are thinking about all of Israel and her history as they meet Jesus for the first time. Ah, well. Look at the unique appearance of four women in the genealogy of Matthew: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. All four are either non-Israelites or connected to non-Israelite families. Not only is it unconventional for Matthew to list these female names in an all-male genealogy, but these particular women are all associated with potential sex scandals.
Matthew wants his readers to see that God has been using all types of people to move his plan forward. He will continue to include the rejects and outsiders into his family see the list in Matthew And so, we read the genealogy of Matthew and see the royal lineage of Jesus.
He will be the king of Israel who blesses all of the nations of the world, especially the outsiders. We know all of this because Matthew tells us in a genealogy that carefully reveals the hope that has arrived in Jesus. Not Another Genealogy Okay… But why does this genealogy matter?
- The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.
- Aspergers Disorder (Medical Psychiatry Series)!
- GROWING UP DRUG FREE: A PARENTS GUIDE.
- Messianic Prophecies & How Matthew Proves Jesus Is The Messiah.
- The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem;
- Old Testament messianic prophecies quoted in the New Testament?
- MATTHEW IN THE MESSIANIC TRADITION: Morris Inch: swholardietencent.cf: Books;
The whole context of impending trouble in chapter , 20 seems to argue for a date of writing prior to the event. The purpose of Matthew seems to argue for the earlier date—a time when Judaism needed to be confronted with the truth in Jesus before the doom that was to befall their worship in 70 A.
- A Messianic Commentary: Matthew Presents Yeshua, King Messiah | Logos Bible Software.
- Madlands (K. W. Jeter Suspense & Thriller Books).
- Praise for the Print Edition!
- 50 Things to Know About Preparing for College: Tips and Secrets for College Success (50 Things to Know Career Series Book 3)!
- Book of Matthew Study.
- Piano-Yoga® Transform Your Hands: Preliminary Stage.
- Tree of Life Version: a New Messianic Bible Translation - Book Reviews - With His People!
- The Dagger of Adendigaeth (A Pattern of Shadow & Light Book 2).
- Introduction to the Gospel of Matthew.
- UPTOPIAN SOCIETY.
- Read e-book The New Messianic Version of the Bible - Matthew.
If one accepts the later date, then Streeter, Hunter, Johnson, and Goodspeed may be right in assigning the place of writing and the recipients to Antioch. But an early date does not rule out Antioch. For example, Milligan says the lack of reference to the troublous times prior to 70 A. Having accepted Matthean authorship, the next problem to be examined, all too briefly, is style and diction.
Of the words in Matthew but not in the other Synoptics, many are of special interest in view of the fact that Matthew was the taxgatherer. For example, he uses three words for money found nowhere else-tribute dedrachmon, , piece of money stater, , and talent talanton, ; Matthew deals with large sums of money whereas Mark deals usually with small sums. Again, Matthew fairly teems with Jewish terminology. The material is arranged in a didactic fashion. The grouping of teaching material is a primary phenomenon of style.
A large part of it is devoted to the discourses of our Lord. Though the threefold ministry of Jesus is outlined in Matthew , the major emphasis in the Gospel of Matthew is on the teaching ministry.
Typological Fulfillment: The Key to Messianic Prophecy By Hank Hanegraaff
His structure is conducive to memory by the use of these discourses, numerical emphases, and the didactic arrangement. One further question calls for attention. For example, of verses in Mark appear in Matthew. Or, to put it another way, of the verses in Matthew, about contain material also found in Mark. Only 31 verses in Mark have no parallel in Matthew or Luke. To explain these facts we move abruptly from the arena of fact into the arena of speculation. Unfortunately, this line of approach usually denies Matthean authorship, or at least attributes only a portion of the Gospel to Matthew.
It is refreshing, however, to find such men as Goodspeed and Ladd who assert Matthean authorship while holding to the priority of Mark. But be sure to note that these views with their variations are theories, not scientifically proved facts, as some would suggest. Though in light of the present trend in New Testament study the priority of Mark is generally accepted, it does not necessarily follow that Matthew was slavishly dependent upon Mark in the narrative portion. While such men as Scroggie, Hunter; and Streeter argue that from per cent of Mark is used by Matthew, other men who likewise reveal a deep study of the Synoptic relationship deny such a high degree of dependence.
Ludlam says the agreement is only Is it not possible that some, if not many, agreements even to minute points can be explained by the well-known emphasis on memory among Jews? They are of such quality and quantity as to negate the possibility that the author composed a Gospel by combining the Greek Mark with other sources and materials. If Mark was used slavishly by Matthew he must have deliberately inserted them into Markan passages. Goodspeed claims that Matthew felt free to rearrange Markan material because he felt he knew chronology better than Mark, since Peter had been martyred.
In addition, this question should be asked: do we have three synoptic accounts or one account copied, rearranged, and corrected by the other two?
Though it is not possible to deny that Matthew used Mark, it is questionable that his dependency on Mark is as great as some have suggested. There remains room for further investigation here. It is possible that a further study on the use of Aramaic by the Gospel writers may shed further light on this thorny synoptic problem.
Again it should be strongly asserted that too many discussions leave out the work of the Holy Spirit in the inspiration and preservation of the Gospels. The Gospel of Matthew is a member of a unified body of spiritual truth which bears effective and reliable witness to what God has done in Christ. The authors were men writing in the framework of their own backgrounds arid experiences, but were writing as they were led by the Spirit of God. Their purposes were not their own, nor were their sources simply of human derivation.
Under divine direction they selected from a vast reservoir those truths which bore out the purpose of God in their preservation. They were messages relevant to the day in which they were written, and they are just as relevant to our day.
Gospel of Matthew
Share This Article:. Southwestern Journal of Theology To download full issues and find more information on the Southwestern Journal of Theology , go to swbts. All rights reserved. Preaching Source.
The Background of Matthew Thomas C. Matthew, The Taxgatherer Who was Matthew? Matthew, The Author The question which naturally arises is whether or not Matthew is the author of the Gospel which bears his name. Date Many New Testament scholars, such as B.
The Messianic Banquet and the Eschatology of Matthew | swholardietencent.cf
To quote Streeter, That Matthew was written after 70 A. He goes on to say, This insertion the destruction of the city is intelligible if it is regarded as an attempt to point the moral of the parable by interpreting it as a prophecy by Christ of the destruction of the city of Jerusalem. Style and Diction Having accepted Matthean authorship, the next problem to be examined, all too briefly, is style and diction. Edgar J. From archaeological findings in Egypt evidence has been uncovered which greatly illuminates the role of the taxgatherer.
For me, there were two groups of people in the world—Jews and Gentiles, or Christians we generally perceived them to be the same. And somehow this Jesus-God was a child who had become God. This, too, is a deception and a stumbling block for Jews, who, even if not religious, know one thing: God is One.
This covenant would be different from the Mosaic covenant. God would forgive our sins and remember them no more.
How can that happen? Forgiveness of sins comes only by the shedding of blood. The yearly sacrifice could not accomplish this type of forever forgiveness.
Only the blood of a once-and-for-all sacrifice could do that. This is not the God of Christianity alone. This is a new covenant that is promised to the old covenant People, the People of Israel, and then spreads through the nations of the world for all people. This is Yeshua the Messiah of Israel foretold by the Jewish prophets. They remain Jews, but have found their Messiah! Another lie is the popular claim that Jesus came to earth and began a new religion, separate from Judaism.
Was Yeshua bringing a new message? In Matthew 22, we find the account of Yeshua being put to the test by the Pharisees and Sadducees to see if His teaching was sound according to the Law, the Torah. This is the cornerstone of Jewish faith! Yeshua quoted from the Torah and in doing so affirmed the commandments. Yeshua brought the promised new covenant to the House of Israel. He did not bring a new religion known as Christianity.
In fact, there was no religion known as Christianity until much later in Antioch when His disciples became known as Christians. Christ-followers were Messiah-followers, whether Jewish or Gentile. Many Jewish People believe that Jesus was a rabbi, a teacher, or even a prophet but that He never claimed to be the Messiah. They believe that it was His followers who deified Him and claimed He was the Messiah. This is totally false! In Matthew , Yeshua also blessed Simon Peter for recognizing that He is the Messiah and acknowledged that it was God alone who gave that revelation.
So did Yeshua claim to be the Messiah? Yes, and more! It is unfortunate that nearly two thousand years after He came, we have a Jesus who is nearly devoid of any Jewish identity and a Church that is almost completely severed from its Jewish roots.