WHEN ONE HAS STUDIED the Old Testament carefully and reaches the end of the Book of Malachi, one realizes that the story contained therein is incomplete. Figuratively speaking, there are dangling ends of prophecy hanging down from all the utterances of the seers in Israel. Had the revelation closed with Malachi, earnest truth seekers would be disappointed; but as soon as one reads Matthew, one recognizes that it carries forward the "Story of Redemption" of the Old Testament. This conviction is strengthened in the mind of the reader as he continues to study the New Testament.

A casual reading of the four records of the gospel shows that these books simply give the life and teachings of our Lord during His personal ministry, which terminated with His tragic death. But He was not left in the tomb, for He arose again in fulfillment of Old Testament predictions, bringing life and immortality to light through the gospel.

There are many similarities in these four records. This phenomenon is due to the fact that the writers were giving an account of the life, labors, and teaching of the same person--Jesus our Lord. There are at the same time many dissimilarities, which can be accounted for upon the basis of the individuality of the various writers and the objective which each had in view as he wrote his account. The first three records, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are very similar because they move largely in the same groove and cover the same incidents and periods of time. The Apostle John, however, gave us the ministry of the Lord Jesus in Jerusalem among the religious authorities. The three Synoptic writers devoted the major part of their attention to the great Galilean ministry, the period of retirements from the Holy Land, and the Perean ministry. All, however, are very full in dealing with the events of the last week and our Lord's resurrection from the dead.

It is a well-known fact that Matthew wrote his account of the life of our Lord for the Jews, His brethren according to the flesh. He accordingly selected, guided by the Spirit of God, those narrations and teachings from the many things which Jesus did and taught, and which would aid him most effectually in presenting to his readers Jesus as the King of the Jews. On the other hand, Mark chose that material which aided him in picturing Jesus to the Roman people as the obedient servant of Jehovah. Luke, who wrote for the Greeks, collected those incidences which would present our Lord to his readers as the Ideal Man, our Kinsman-Redeemer, who came to give His life a ransom for many. The Apostle John was led to pursue a different course. He devoted, as stated above his entire book to the life, and the activities, of our Lord which took place largely at Jerusalem. His book is sermonic. He naturally selected those discussions which Jesus had with the Jerusalem authorities and in which the deity of our Lord shines forth most resplendently. The object of his writing was to convince unbelievers that Jesus of Nazareth was and is the Hebrew Messiah, the Saviour of the world.

With the general remarks just given, let us now turn especially to the Gospel According To Matthew and note some facts in regard to it. Papias, one of the early Christian Fathers living during the first half of the second century declared that Matthew wrote the words of our Lord in the Hebrew language. Some believing scholars think that Papias was speaking of a book which contained discourses of our Lord alone and that Matthew was led by the Spirit later on to write the book in Greek which now is known as Gospel According To Matthew. There is much discussion on these points. Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons, France (latter half of the second century), likewise attributed to Matthew the authorship of the Gospel which bears his name. There can be no doubt concerning the proposition that Matthew was led by the Spirit of God to write this record for His brethren according to the flesh.

When was Matthew written? There is a diversity of opinion on this point. The best conservative scholarship places the date around 60 A. D.--some thirty years after the crucifixion of our Lord. There are different facts which lead them to select this date as the probable one. It is quite likely that Mark was written prior to Matthew and Luke. Just when Matthew wrote his Gospel is of little concern to us, since all the evidence points positively to the fact that it was written by the man of God who was infallibly guided by the Spirit. Of course we delight to know all or as many facts as possible concerning the origin and date of the different books of the Bible in order that we might understand the messages more perfectly. That Matthew did write this book somewhere around 60 A. D. cannot be successfully disputed.

The author speaks of Matthew, the publican, in 9:9 and 10:3. In the parallel passages found in Mark and Luke the name, Levi, the publican, appears. From this data we see that he had two names. His real name was Matthew or Levi, but being a tax collector he became known as Matthew the publican, or Levi the publican. Tax gatherers in the days of Jesus were notorious, because of their unscrupulous, unprincipled dealings with the people. They took advantage, whenever possible, of anyone. They were therefore a despised group. While as a class the tax gatherers were an unprincipled set of men, some were true and honest--as was Matthew. Had he not been, the Lord would not have selected him to become one of the disciples to proclaim the message of salvation. In the list of the Apostles found in the Synoptic Gospels and in Acts, Matthew appears as either the seventh or eighth in the list.

There are certain outstanding peculiarities or characteristics of the Gospel of Matthew, only a few of which I shall have space to present. A casual reading of the book shows that Matthew wrote in order that he might prove to his Jewish brethren that Jesus of Nazareth was and is the Messiah of whom the prophets spoke. All the material which he was led by the Spirit to record aided him in presenting Jesus as the King of the Jews and establishing the thesis that He was the Messiah of Old Testament prediction.

There are three outstanding sermons appearing in this record. First, there is the "Sermon on the Mount," found in chapters 5-7. In this discourse Jesus set forth the principles for which He stood. This sermon has well been called, "The Manifesto of the King of the Jews." When the people began to throng Jesus in unprecedented numbers, He delivered this masterpiece of oratory. The masses of men had vague ideas of the things for which He stood. They thought that He intended to establish a literal kingdom in Israel at that time. In order to disabuse their minds of this error, He set forth the principles for which He stood. When Governor Dewey delivered his speech of acceptance of the Republican presidential nomination, he stated in clear, forceful language the principles for which he and the party stood and which they intend, if he is elected, to enforce. The Lord Jesus, in this great Manifesto, set forth the principles for which He stands--both then, now, and forever.

The second outstanding sermon recorded by Matthew is found in chapter 23. This message, was delivered the last day of our Lord's public ministry. In it He excoriated the hypocritical, pharisaical leaders of Israel. There was no opportunity for anyone's misunderstanding what the Lord said and meant.

The last outstanding sermon in the Book of Matthew is found in chapters 24 and 25 and is known as "The Olivet Discourse." In this message our Lord dealt with the sign of His coming and the end of the age. In answering the questions put to Him relative to these matters, our Lord naturally discussed the rapture of the church, the Tribulation, the rewarding of His servants, and the judgment of the living nations when He returns in glory and power to mount the throne of David and to establish His kingdom throughout the world. (I wrote an extended discussion of these two chapters which appeared as my volume, Future Events Revealed, a book of 208 pages.) In these sermons our Lord gave His official attitude toward various and sundry problems and great questions.

Matthew brings together within the compass of two chapters, 8 and 9, the various outstanding miracles wrought by our Lord as the credentials proving His messianic claims. There are other shorter discourses and speeches which He made and which are just as important as any of His other pronouncements. For instance, in Matthew, chapter 13, appear the parables of the kingdom which outline the various periods into which the Christian Dispensation naturally falls. In other words, Matthew, chapter 13, is church history pre-written.

Matthew uses the expression, "kingdom of heaven," almost universally. There are, however, four notable exceptions. These are found in verses 12:28, 19:24, 21:31, and 21:43. In the parallel passages recorded by Mark and Luke appears the term, "kingdom of God." The most probable explanation of this difference is that Matthew, led by the Spirit, selected that expression current among the Jews and acceptable to them in referring to the reign of God upon earth. Since Mark and Luke used "kingdom of God" where Matthew has "kingdom of heaven," we see that in our Lord's teaching during His personal ministry these expressions have the same connotation generally. Let us therefore be careful and not build a theory upon Matthew's use of this term. There are many other peculiarities to be found in this record of the gospel but they will be noted in the exposition.

A simple outline of the Book of Matthew will aid in our study of its contents. The following will be of value to us:

I. Birth and Infancy Narrative (1:1-2:23).

II. The Ministry of John the Baptist (3:1-12).

III. The Beginning of the Public Ministry of Christ (3:13--4:11).

IV. The Galilean Ministry (4:12--13:58).

V. The Period of Retirements from the Holy Land (14:1--18:35).

VI. The Perean Ministry (19:1--20:34).

VII. Events of the Last Week (21:1--28:10).

VIII. The Post-Resurrection Activity of our Lord (28:11-20).

An examination of the contents of the Book of Matthew shows conclusively that it was written to Jews who were well-acquainted with the message of the Old Testament. From the apostolic days to the present time all biblical scholars have been agreed on this point. A careful study of Matthew shows that the Jews to whom the message was written believed the following doctrines: (1) That the Old Testament, containing the thirty-nine books as it does today, was the Word of the living God. The great bulk of the nation accepted the Old Testament as an inspired revelation. Of course there were some, like the Sadducees, who were the materialists of that time and who denied all spiritual phenomena. (2) That the God-head consisted of a Trinity because Moses and the prophets held to that view, Moses declared to Israel, "Hear, 0 Israel, Jehovah our Gods is Jehovah a Unity" (Deut. 6:4). This declaration is an affirmation regarding the plurality of Divine Personalities constituting the Godhead and also the unity of these Divine Personalities. Matthew assumed on the part of his Jewish readers a knowledge of and a belief in this fundamental Old Testament teaching. (3) That the Messiah would be born of a virgin. Matthew likewise assumed their acceptance of that doctrine and the proper interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, which foretold the virgin birth of Messiah. He did not argue the case but simply presented the facts relative to the virgin birth of Christ and did so in such a way that we know his readers believed it. They of course understood the divine-human nature of King Messiah from the Old Testament. This is seen from the official attitude voiced by Caiaphas when Christ was on trial. To Jesus the High Priest said, "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou are the Christ, the Son of God" (Matt. 26:63). The Jews believed that the Messiah was to appear at that period of Jewish history. Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver, in his book entitled Messianic Speculations in Israel, has proved beyond a peradventure that the Jews of the second quarter of the first century were expecting Messiah to appear at that time. Matthew assumed their acceptance of that position because he did not argue or present any proof to show them that the time for Messiah to appear had come.

Thus on these great fundamentals the Jews of the first century were scriptural. If this is so, one may ask, why then did they reject Jesus as their Messiah? The answer to this question is to be found in two directions: In the first place they did not understand the Old Testament teaching concerning the redemptive career of King Messiah which consists of His first coming, His rejection by the Jews, His ascension to the right hand of the throne of God after His resurrection from the dead, His session there on the Father's throne during the present dispensation, and His final return at the end of this age to set up His earthly reign in Jerusalem. There are those passages in the Old Testament which give His entire redemptive career as thus outlined. The Jews were groaning under the yoke of foreign domination and wanted a political Messiah who would deliver them from Roman tyranny. Hence they ignored those predictions which give the complete messianic career.

In the second place they did not understand that the Messiah would suffer and die. Since they believed that He was divine, they were of the firm conviction that He would abide forever: "The multitude therefore answered him, We have heard out of the law that the Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?" (John 12:34). When Jesus was crucified, the Jews rejected Him as a nation. To them the fact that He could be killed was proof against His messiahship.

Matthew wrote for his brethren who held these fundamental tenets of the faith in order to convince them that Jesus of Nazareth was the true Messiah. He presented the facts concerning our Lord's crucifixion, affirming that it was in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. The Book of Matthew was written therefore for Jews who held the scriptural ideas mentioned above, which are found in the Old Testament. It was sufficient for any honest, conscientious Jew who had the correct Old Testament teaching. The Jews today, figuratively speaking, have traveled nineteen hundred miles from the position occupied by their ancestors of the first century, for whom Matthew was written. It therefore does not have the weight and power with the modern Jew that it did with his ancestors of the first century. Since the Jew today does not hold the doctrines mentioned above, which were assumed by Matthew, he must first be given the Old Testament teaching on these points before he is ready for the New Testament message.

When, however, the Old Testament truth relative to the Messiah has been given to the modern Jew, he is in a position to receive THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW and, after having studied it, to receive the rest of the New Testament.