20151203

Population explosion

According to Times reporter Ian Brodie the Washington based Population Institute has recently produced figures suggesting that in the last year the world’s population has grown by a staggering 100 million. The world’s population now stands at 5.75 billion. The previous biggest increase of 95 million was last year and in the last 40 years world population has more than doubled.*
 Werner Fornos, the Institute’s director, predicts that this trend will continue over the next five years unless something is done to change things. What Mr Fornos advocates is the active promotion of ‘family planning’. This, he believes, could ‘make the difference between our setting course for an environmental Armageddon in the 21st century or a better quality of life’. Such prophets of gloom are everywhere as they warn of the ‘people problem’, ‘over-population’ and even ‘the human population monster’. What are we to make of this? Are babies really the enemies of the human race, as Isaac Asimov declared? Was Kingsley Davies right to say that bearing more than four children is a crime worse than most? A number of things can be said.
 
Statistics
Disraeli warned of lies, damned lies and statistics. Groups such as the Population Institute are able to produce impressive sets of figures but the fact is that no-one but God knows the world’s population. No competent method of gathering such data is presently conceivable, regardless of what statisticians and social scientists may claim. As for extrapolations from such figures we need to be doubly careful. A conference held in Cambridge some years ago featured various individuals positing optimum population targets for European countries (eg France 10 million, Germany 6 million.) Such ‘optima’ have no scientific basis whatever.
 
Man’s Ignorance
Man does not know what a day will bring. Predictions of population growth can never take into account possible wars and other disasters that may overtake a people. Someone writing to The Times in 1987 on over-population in Rwanda and Burundi could never have guessed the horrors facing that part of the world and the recent decimation of the population. Who would have dreamt what a swath AIDS would cut through the world’s population twenty years ago? This is quite apart from what appears in the small print as ‘totally unpredictable effects on the population’. There is some evidence, for instance, that civilisations in decay see a ‘psychosomatic’ increase in the death rate. Urbanisation may also hasten life expectancy.
 
Over-population?
What is ‘over-population’? It can be defined as an imbalance between population and food supply or too many mouths to feed. Once the issue is seen in that light, it is clear that there are two sides to the ‘problem’. Even a relatively small population may suffer famine in certain circumstances. Famine can be caused by prevention of crop cultivation or wilful destruction of crops; by defective agriculture due to poor land use; by incompetent or corrupt civil government, etc. The Irish potato famine last century was due not to excessive population growth but to blight hitting an economy based almost exclusively on a single crop. A low population is just as likely to lead to famine as a high population.
 
‘Family planning’
We must never forget the lust for power that grips anti-Christian rulers. They want to control everything. One of the things they want to control is population size. Often policy concentrates on man’s latter end. Meanwhile there have been many attempts, at least from the time Moses was placed in the bulrushes, to limit population at the other end by means of what is today called ‘birth control’ or ‘family planning’. The subtlety of this approach extends from relatively discreet government policy that encourages small families through to mass sterilisation programmes and forced abortions. The family is clearly under threat from the state in many instances. On one hand limiting the number of babies born will not in itself affect population figures. Further, Christians should be alert to the fervour with which the evil of abortion and certain forms of contraception are being advocated by governmental and non-governmental organisations alike. Few Protestants would be opposed to contraception itself but even here there is reason for some to pause and consider their attitudes to the whole matter of ‘family planning’.
 
Scripture
Last, but by no means least, we ought to take note of the positive way the Bible speaks of population growth in several places, such as in Genesis 9:1 and Psalm 127:3-5. On the other hand, we must not ignore other passages that speak of population growth but God’s blessing withheld (such as Ezekiel 5:7,8 and Jeremiah 15:9). Large numbers guarantee nothing on their own, as is often made plain (see Deuteronomy 7:7). India’s problem is not too many people. Rather, the grip of false religion means, for instance, the burden of an excessive bovine population. This undoubtedly works to the detriment of both the people and the environment. Similarly, China’s brutal approach to ‘family planning’ is creating far more problems than it may appear to solve. This world’s problems are not down to the population explosion but to its widespread refusal to bow the knee to Christ.
*By now the figure is 7 billion and rising. See here for a suggested current figure.
This was an editorial for Grace Magazine back in 1996

20151201

Late Twentieth Century Barbarity - An example

I sometimes try to imagine a school history class at some future date studying the closing years of the twentieth century (and into the 21st). I imagine their utter disbelief when they learn about attitudes in this period towards the unborn.
It is not difficult to imagine. I remember my own amazement learning about the slave trade that had gone on in the 18th and 19th centuries. What was staggering was not just the slave trade itself but the way it was defended even by some who professed to be Christians.
Will a future generation be equally bewildered?
Will they understand why sometimes in the same street you have people who desperately want to adopt children and others who are having their unborn offspring killed in the womb?
Will they be able to comprehend the anguish of a woman in hospital for fertility treatment who finds herself in the bed next to another woman who has just had an abortion?
Will they be able to comprehend the logic of a hospital where there is a desperate struggle to preserve the life of a baby 24 weeks on from conception in one room, while in another they are destroying another just a few weeks younger?
What will they make of gynaecology professor Philip Bennett for instance? He spoke openly last August of how ‘I dismember the foetus, pull it apart limb by limb and remove it piece by piece.’ Here is a man who kills as many babies as he delivers, yet who does not hide in shame but wallows in his butchery by speaking about it to a Sunday newspaper.
What will they make of another senior gynaecologist who declared that he would sack any of his staff who dared to suggest to an expectant mother that she would be better to have her unwanted child adopted rather than aborting it?
Will they not be horrified to learn how, because a woman finds the thought of twins unthinkable, it is perfectly legitimate for a doctor to inject poison into one of the two children in her womb so that one is born whole while the other dies in the womb? It is difficult to think of anything more barbaric.
How will they react to the trivialisation of life that is part of the IVF programme in this country where thousands of embryos are created with no hope of their survival?
Or what about the mass slaughter of thousands that did survive, despite many genuine offers to save the lives of these unborn innocents?
Will they believe it when they learn how abortion is presented as ‘a woman’s right to choose’, yet all the while women who would really like to have children are being pressurised by men into getting rid of their unborn children.
Will they not be utterly staggered that until relatively recently it has been medical practice to assume that an unborn child feels no pain? ‘What was it like back then?’ they will ask, ‘Were they completely ignorant?’
Far more important than what a future generation may say is what God does say. He says,
Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. Rescue those being led away to death Defend the cause of the weak .... and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
The 19th century slave trade was ended, under God, not only through the work of Wilberforce and other prominent figures but through the work of a host of ordinary men and women who did what they could. By the grace of God, may we also be used so that this barbaric onslaught against the unborn will also soon be brought to an end.
A Grace Magazine editorial from December 1996. Nothing has really changed.

20151127

The Nature of Sin

What is wrong with this world? SIN. That is the problem. Most readers of this magazine are well aware of that. But what does the Bible mean when it talks about sin? Not what some mean.
 
Wrong views of sin
Sin is only something very bad such as a crime. Think of how the Pharisees spoke of ‘sinners’. The answer is, therefore, respectability. Just do not do it in the street and frighten the horses.
Sin is a bodily problem. This ancient Greek idea is still around in different forms. The answer is, therefore, hard work, a certain diet, cold showers and may be some self-flagellation.
Sin is the triumph of the lower nature. Some believe sin is simply the result of the struggle between the lower and the higher or better nature. The answer is, therefore, education.
Sin is just an inevitable part of being human. As human beings we are limited. Sin is simply a part of that. The answer is, therefore, in politics. We cannot be rid of sin but at least we can curb its worst effects.
Sin is an illusion. In various ways it is suggested that sin does not exist. For certain reasons we feel guilty, we have a bad conscience, but there is no such thing as sin. The answer is, therefore, psychiatry or psycho-analysis. You just need to get rid of your hang ups.
Sin is selfishness. It is certainly the assertion of self over against God that is part of the problem, but is it the whole of it? The answer is, therefore, altruism. Do what you can to help others. But if a man steals to feed his family that is altruistic but is it not also sinful?
Sin is only deliberately wrong acts. Some simply say we all have free will and every time we choose to do what we know is wrong rather than what we know is right, that is sin. We start with a clean slate but we copy others and, like them, do wrong. Only conscious, deliberate acts can be sin. The answer is, therefore, rules. We must try and keep the law.
 
The right view of sin
Sin is a moral evil. Sin is evil. Sickness and death are evil too, but sin is a particular kind of evil - moral evil. The actual words the Bible uses for sin show this. It talks of missing the target or deviating from the right way; of moral perversion; of revolt or rebellion; of breaking the law. Sin is not simply weakness or a fault or something that just happens. It is active opposition to God for which each individual is responsible.
Sin is an absolute moral evil. Clearly some sins are worse than others. However, all sin is sin. Each sin, no matter how seemingly insignificant, is nevertheless an absolute moral evil. Sin is not a lesser degree of goodness but positive evil. Every action or thought is either good or bad. It is black or white. There are no shades of grey.
Sin is what God declares to be sinful. What makes a thing sinful? Is it just your conscience or the values of your culture? No, it is God who decides. What he loves and commands is good. What pleases him is right. All else is sin. Anything we think or say or do not in conformity to his will is sin.
Sin involves both guilt and pollution. To be guilty is to be deserving of condemnation or to be liable to punishment for breaking the law. It refers to our relationship to justice or to law’s penalty. It can refer both to an inherent quality and to the obligation we have to satisfy justice and pay the penalty. It is possible to remove this latter by a substitutionary atonement and that is just what happens when a person trusts in Christ and his death. Pollution refers to the way we are not only guilty but inherently corrupt. All sinners have a corrupt nature.
Sin has its seat in the heart. Right at man’s centre, in his soul, and extending to every part of him, there is sin. From the heart it affects mind, will, attitudes, even the body. Sin does not consist only in outward acts. It is our sinful state that leads us into sinful acts and sinful habits. It is not just acts that are sinful but words and thoughts and attitudes too. It is not just to do with what we commit but what we omit. In the words of the catechism "Sin is any failure to conform to God’s Law in act attitude or nature."
The remedy cannot, therefore, be any of those suggested above. Sin is deep seated and life controlling not just a physical or outward problem. Rules and laws can never save us. We are both guilty and polluted before God. We need to be cleansed inwardly and outwardly. We need not just education but total renewal. This can be ours through trusting only in the Lord Jesus Christ and his death in place of his people.
This was an Opening Bat for Grace Magazine

20151124

Special Articles - 3 Special People

Today’s aversion to anything special is found among a growing number of evangelicals. It manifests itself in various ways. Take the antipathy some Christians have toward revival. Often behind this gut reaction is resistance to the idea that God ever does anything special or out of the ordinary. Such Christians so emphasise that God works in ordinary ways among us that they leave no room for extraordinary visitations of the Spirit.
Or take the common argument that the Bible is to be read ‘just like any other book’. The very suggestion that the Bible is special and needs to be approached in a special way puts some interpreters in a fairy fit!
But consider too the antipathy found among some evangelicals to the idea of ‘special people’. Unlike the aversions we have considered in the last two months to ‘special days’ and ‘special times’, this phenomenon is not entirely new.
 
Confused
It manifests itself today chiefly as opposition to the whole idea of a ‘call’ to the Christian ministry. According to R. L. Dabney, ‘the church has always held that none should preach the gospel but those who are called of God’, but some are not so sure.
A recent survey of some 400 men thinking about ministry in the 21st century revealed that 40 per cent were confused as to what was a divine call. This is not surprising given the current climate.
Some are so impressed by the biblical doctrine of the sacredness or priesthood of every believer and are so taken up with the rediscovery of Reformation teaching on vocation that they run to the opposite extreme. They end up with something unbiblical and potentially damaging to churches and individuals.
One can understand people reacting against the wrong mysticism that is sometimes associated with ‘the call’. Agreed, that while there are analogies to the call to be a prophet or an apostle, the call to the ministry is not the same; Charles Bridges wrote long ago that ministers ‘having no extraordinary commission ... do not expect an immediate and extraordinary call’.
Agreed too, that a mystical experience of God’s call is not a firm enough foundation for it; desire, gifts and opportunity are all vital factors in a true call to the ministry.
But what we are protesting against is the idea that there is no such thing as a call, and that more or less any man will do for the ministry provided he is morally upright, reasonably educated and can speak in public.
‘Woe to me’
If anyone can be a minister of God’s Word and there is no call to the ministry, why in Acts 20:28 does Paul say to the Ephesian elders, ‘Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers’?
If anyone can be a minister of God’s Word and there is no call to the ministry, what does Paul mean when he says in 1 Corinthians 9:16, ‘Yet when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, for I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!’?
If anyone can be a minister of God’s Word and there is no call to the ministry, why does Paul say in 1 Corinthians 12:28 that, ‘God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers...’?
If anyone can be a minister of God’s Word and there is no call to the ministry, why does Paul say of Christ in Ephesians 4:11-12, ‘It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up’?
Our concern is not to deny that each Christian must conscientiously use whatever gift he has to God’s glory. Rather, it is to say that to deny that there is a special call to the ministry is to make the mistake of supposing that just anyone can try for it. Such an attitude is bound to lead to disaster.
This article first appeared in Evangelical Times

Special Articles - 2 Special Time

Last month, this column highlighted society’s nervousness about the idea of specialisation and noted how a growing number of evangelicals are nervous about special days, times and people.
How strange that those who believe God has singled out one special planet, one particular species on it and one special people from among them to receive his blessing should think like that!
We considered the fact that the New Testament marks out the first day of the week as special. It is the Lord’s Day, a day to be kept to him. This month we address the question, whether it is right to think in terms of special times of worship.
Is it right to put a notice outside a church building announcing ‘worship services’? Should we speak of ‘coming together to worship’? Or is that, as some suggest, a concept more Jewish than Christian, and one that has no New Testament basis?
Worship services?
For some years, various evangelicals have been advocating the idea that it is wrong to think of those times when God’s people gather together as times of worship. Their arguments are similar to those against a special day.
People who are not keen on keeping the Lord’s Day special often assert that every day belongs to the Lord. Similarly, those who say that our meetings are not primarily for worship often assert that all of life is worship, not just certain hours in the week.
They may then go on to give the impression that there is little difference between going fishing or having a family meal on one hand, and corporate prayer and praise on the other. More often the idea is developed, with reference to Hebrews 10:25 and 1 Corinthians 14, that the main purpose of our meetings is encouragement and edification.
The character of Christian meetings thus significantly shifts from a vertical to a horizontal focus — meetings are seen to be chiefly for teaching, rather than worship.
Certainly Romans 12:1 urges believers to offer their bodies ‘as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God’ and Paul calls it ‘your spiritual act of worship’. There is no suggestion, however, that those who live such lives will not take time apart, especially on the Lord’s Day, to worship.
John 4:24 says that worship in the new age is to be ‘in spirit and in truth’. Surely this does not mean forbidding the church to have any set times and places for public worship? Rather it points out that worship occurs, not automatically when one is in a certain place or following a certain ritual, but when one offers honour to God in accord with his standards.

Examples
Yet, just as some cannot see how one day needs to be special, so there are those who cannot see why Christians need special times to worship. Well consider these points:
If all of life is worship, and there are no special times of worship, why does Acts 13:2 say of the disciples that it was ‘while they were worshipping the Lord and fasting’ that the Holy Spirit told them to set apart Barnabas and Saul?
If all of life is worship and there are no special times of worship, what do we make of Jesus’ statement that when two or three come together in his name, he is there with them (Matthew 18:19-20)?
If all of life is worship and there are no special times of worship, what does Paul mean when he speaks, in 1 Corinthians 5, about God’s people being ‘assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus’ and ‘the power of our Lord Jesus’ being present?
If all of life is worship and there are no special times of worship, what about prayer? We are told to pray continually, but New Testament believers, clearly, still set aside times for prayer (e.g. Matthew 18:19; Acts 12:5; 1 Corinthians 14:23-25).
At times they were praying together; at times they were not. Surely the same is true of sung praise and hearing God’s Word.
God’s glory
What we are saying is not new. It is what believers have practised in all ages. This is not because they have unwittingly imbibed the idea from Jerusalem or Rome, but because it is there in the New Testament.
Some today are nervous about calling their meetings ‘services’ or ‘acts of worship’. This undermines such meetings and detracts from God’s glory. Rather, we should be setting aside regular times for the precise purpose of worshipping Almighty God.
This article first appeared in Evangelical Times

Special Articles - 1 Special Day


Dash: You always say, "Do your best" but you don't really mean it. Why can't I do the best that I can do?
Helen: Right now, honey, the world just wants us to fit in, and to fit in, we just gotta be like everybody else.
Dash: Dad always said our powers were nothing to be ashamed of. Our powers made us special.
Helen: Everyone's special, Dash.
Dash: [sullenly] Which is another way of saying no one is.

This mother and son dialogue is from Pixar's critically acclaimed animation The Incredibles, about a super-hero family living at a time when super-heroes are not fashionable. The dialogue perceptively highlights an issue in western society today.
Specialisation is receiving a negative press. People fear that in the academic and business worlds, for example, it is causing harm.
Another negative influence on perception is the way young people, influenced by phrases such as special education and Special Olympics use the word in a pejorative way.
Besides all this, some evangelicals have had bad experiences when special people, days and times have been held in high esteem and are rather wary of such talk.
Growing numbers of evangelicals are not at all keen on the idea of special people, special days or special times.
Yet surely fear of specialisation should hardly characterise people who serve a God who has singled out one special planet in this vast universe, earth, to be inhabited; one special creature, humankind, to be his focus; and one special people, believers in Jesus Christ, to redeem.
*
There was a time when most evangelicals accepted that not all days are the same. There are seven days in a week but the first is special, the “day of rest and gladness” when “Christ rose from depths of earth”, a special day to celebrate.
In more recent years, however, more and more are shying away from the idea. It is usually put in terms of every day being special rather than no day being special but, as Dash would say, saying every day is special is another way of saying no day is.
Such people often quote Romans 14:5, 6a and Colossians 2:16, 17. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honour of the Lord. ... let no one pass judgement on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. It is clear, they say, keeping a day special is fine but it is not an obligation. Certainly no-one can say “keep the Sabbath” as it is only an Old Testament shadow anyway.
On the face of it, the verses seem to say that. Seasoned Bible students, however, know that first impressions can be wrong. Rather than simply assume Paul is talking about Sundays, wisdom suggests considering other possibilities. Albert Barnes' commentary points out that Sabbath in Colossians 2:16 is plural and highly unlikely to refer to the Lord's Day. “There is no evidence from this passage that he would teach that there was no obligation to observe any holy time, for there is not the slightest reason to believe that he meant to teach that one of the ten commandments had ceased to be binding.” In 1971 Paul Jewett similarly remarked that “it is unconvincing ... to press Paul’s statement in Romans 14:5 so absolutely as to have considered John a Judaiser for having called one day in the week the Lord’s Day, thus giving it the pre-eminence.” Such statements should give pause.
If no day is special, why did God allocate seven days to creation, deliberately making one different?
If no day is special, why does Moses make the point that one day in seven is specially blessed and set apart to God?
If no day is special, why, in John 20, having met with his disciples on the evening of his resurrection in Thomas' absence, is it only eight days later (John 20:26), the following Sunday, that Jesus meets with them again? Did he not know that all days are now equal?
If no day is special, why was the Spirit poured out on the Lord's Day? Is it simply coincidence?
If no day is special, given that Acts 20:6 says Paul spent seven days in Troas, why wait until Sunday to break bread and preach, especially given that Paul's sermon went on until midnight? If only he had realised there are no special days any more!
If no day is special, why did Paul tell the Corinthians to put gifts aside and store them up as God prospered on the first day of every week not just any day? Did he not know that all days are now equal?
If no day is special, why, in Revelation, does John speak about the Lord's Day? Did he not know that every day is the Lord's day?
One is not naïve enough to think that the Sabbath question is easy to settle but if we can at least agree that the first day of the week is special we will at least make some progress in the right direction.
This article first appeared in Evangelical Times

20151117

Guide to the Gospel of Matthew

The focus of Matthew’s Gospel is Jesus, Divine Son of God and Messianic King. Today we more readily turn to John or Mark, perhaps, but for early Christians Matthew was a liturgical favourite – perhaps because, compared with Mark, its narrative style is generally more concise. It is also quite orderly in structure. Maybe we should give it more attention than we do.
Authorship
The Gospel itself gives no indication of authorship but has traditionally been ascribed to Matthew. Many early church fathers held that Matthew or Levi the tax collector, the disciple and apostle, was its author. Around AD 325 Eusebius quotes Papias to the effect that Matthew had composed the oracles of the Lord, probably a reference to the Gospel. About 150 years earlier Irenaeus (c 175) wrote that ‘Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church Against’ (Heresies 3.1.1). Several early manuscripts are headed According to Matthew.
Matthew was not prominent in the apostolate and so it is likely that this assertion is true. It would be a strange choice of pseudonym. Surely the name of a more prominent apostle would have been preferred.
There are some possible internal indicators to support this. Mark and Luke both refer to him as Levi and use his more familiar name (Mark 2:14, Luke 5:27) - perhaps it is omitted from the first Gospel because the original readers already knew it. Mark and Luke both refer to the banquet he held for the Lord being at his house whereas Matthew simply says it was in the house – again perhaps because he had already told those to whom he wrote where the meal was held.
Words for money appear not found elsewhere in the New Testament, possibly reflecting the author’s contact and financial involvement with Gentiles. Also, it is the only Gospel to record the Lord’s payment of the Temple Tax (17:24–27) and the parable of the unforgiving servant where the servant owes 10,000 talents (18:21–25). Also observe the distinctive way it deals with the parable of the master entrusting wealth to his servants before heading off on a journey (cf Luke 19:11–27, Matthew 25:14–30) and the specific no gold, or silver or copper of Matthew 10:9. He is the only evangelist to use the expression to settle accounts (18:23, 24; 25:19) or refer to debt (18:32), bankers (25:27). Such details help confirm traditional authorship.
The account of his call to follow Christ is in Matthew 9:9; Mark 2:13–17; Luke 5:27–32. He was a tax collector, more like a modern day customs officer, collecting tolls on trade caravans passing through the district centred on Capernaum on Galilee’s northern shores. Publicans were a largely despised group, reviled for their close contact with Gentiles, service to an alien occupying force and their common dishonesty. Nevertheless, the Lord called Matthew to follow and he immediately obeyed, a decision that probably cost Matthew more than most. He was the least able to go back on his decision. The banquet for the Lord, his disciples and friends, that followed included, to the Pharisees’ disgust, notorious sinners (Luke 5:29–30).
As a tax collector he would have been used to taking notes in the course of his work, a habit he may have continued as a disciple. It would have helped in compiling his Gospel.
Beyond his name and occupation little is known. He is listed among the 12 in the Gospels, among the Apostles in Acts 1:13, after which Scripture records nothing more. Tradition says he preached in Judea for about 15 years, then in Ethiopia, Persia and Parthia. This may be mere legend.
Original language?
The idea that Matthew originally wrote in Aramaic was first put forward by Papias (see above). He is quoted in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History (3.39.16). The view has been rejected because no trace of the original remains. Papias says many attempted to translate into Greek, ‘as they are able’, which does not suggest polished results, whereas the Greek of the Gospel is fine. The book contains no aramaisms but does explain customs, such as Pilate releasing a prisoner at the Feast of Passover (27:15). This would surely be unnecessary for Aramaic readers in Palestine.
It is possible that, having written in Aramaic, Matthew himself produced not a translation but a Greek version of his work. Demand for written information about the life of Christ from Gentile churches would have increased as the first century wore on. Gentile churches soon outstripped Aramaic speaking ones as the gospel spread across the known world.
It is important to remember that this is speculation. Most early Church Fathers seem to know only of a Greek Gospel. Only Papias suggests a Semitic original.
Date of writing
It is impossible to be certain on this but limits can be set and tentative conclusions reached. It was not written after 70 AD, the year the Temple was destroyed. Matthew relates at length the Lord’s teaching on Jerusalem’s destruction (24:1-28). It seems highly unlikely that he could have written this after the event without referring to it explicitly. (Liberal scholars reject predictive prophecy and so readily assign dates after 70 AD).
It is unlikely to have been written before the first dispersal of Christians from Jerusalem (Acts 8:4) when the church was all together with the Apostles in the city. Their presence meant there was no need for a written account of Christ’s life. To some extent, dating will depend on whether we believe Matthew wrote before Mark. Hendriksen narrows down to AD 63–67, which fits Irenaeus’s statement that it was written while Peter and Paul were in Rome. It is as good an estimate as any, though some go for AD 45–55.
It may be that it was written in Syrian Antioch, or at least for the Antioch church, which had a large Gentile element speaking both Aramaic and Greek. The Gospel itself shows signs of having been written for Jews, although it also relates to Gentiles. This would suit a church like Antioch.
Material unique to Matthew
Narratives
Vision of Joseph 1:20–24
Visit of the magi 2:1–12
Flight into Egypt 2:13–15
Massacre of the infants 2:16
Pilate’s wife’s dream 27:19
Judas’s death 27:3–10
Resurrection of saints 27:52
Bribery of guards 28:12–15
Great Commission in this form 28:19–20
Parables
Weeds 13:24–30
Hidden treasure 13:44
Pearl of great price 13:45–46
Dragnet 13:13:47
Unmerciful servant 18:23–35
Labourers in vineyard 20:1–16
Two sons 21:28–32
Marriage of King’s son 22:1–13
Ten virgins 25:1–13
Talents 25:14–30
Miracles
Two blind men 9:27–31
Mute demoniac 9:32–33
Coin in fish’s mouth 17:24–27
Matthew uses miracles more as proof of Jesus’s Messiahship than to advance the narrative, even when he duplicates what is in Mark and Luke.
Purpose and features
The opening phrase: ‘The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham’ is similar to the repeated phrase in Genesis ‘the generations of ...’ Christ’s genealogy follows. Matthew wants to show that all he relates about Jesus goes back to God’s covenants with Abraham and David of a great nation and an eternal house. These are fulfilled in him. Matthew portrays Christ as teacher but especially as king. The phrase kingdom of heaven occurs 33 times; kingdom of God five times; the royal, messianic title Son of David nine times.
Use of the Old Testament
Matthew often speaks of the fulfilment of prophecy, frequently quoting or alluding to the Old Testament. There are some 53 quotations, easily more than in any other Gospel. Matthew shows, for example, that Messiah would:
Be born of a virgin 1:23 Isaiah 7:14
Go down into Egypt 2:15 Isaiah 59:7
Reside in Nazareth 2:23 referring (probably) to prophecies
about Messiah being despised by men.
Be announced by a forerunner 3:3 Isaiah 40:3
Minister in Galilee 4:15,16 Isaiah 9:1
Do healing miracles 8:17 Isaiah 53:40
Be humble 12:18–21 Isaiah 42:1–3
Speak in parables 13:35 Psalm 78:2
Come as a lowly King 21:5 Zechariah 9:9
Be arrested 26:56 Several prophecies
Be crucified 27:35 Psalm 22
These are not random or incidental but are chosen because they suit Matthew’s purpose. They confirm that he is writing for a Jewish audience familiar with these texts and interested in their fulfilment.
Structure
In 4:17 and 16:21 we have the phrase ‘From that time …’ Seemingly insignificant, it marks major turning points. In 4:17, the opening of the Lord’s public teaching ministry. Having established the Lord’s identity from Scripture, Matthew relates that when the Lord heard that his forerunner John was in prison, ‘from that time’ he began to teach and preach, saying ‘Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’. In 16:21, after Peter’s confession, we read ‘From that time Jesus Christ began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer’, etc.
Another distinctive is the way major blocks of teaching occur, including the largest such block in all the Gospels, the Sermon on the Mount. As much as 60% of the work is teaching. To some extent the placing of these blocks gives the book its structure. Matthew obviously wanted to stress the content of the Lord’s teaching, especially in regard to his relationship with God’s Law, so that the full implications of the long awaited coming of Messiah might be clarified. These significant blocks of teaching are marked by a recurring concluding phrase When Jesus had finished these words …. It marks the close of the five sermons Matthew records. The five major blocks are located thus
Chapters 5–7 Sermon on the Mount
Chapter 10 Commissioning disciples
Chapter 13 Parables of the Kingdom
Chapter 18 Humility and forgiveness
Chapter 24, 25 The last things (Chapter 23 could be included here)
Characteristics
Some have seen in these five major sections a parallel to the Five Books of Moses, the Torah. A new Moses gives a new Law for his disciples, a law written on the heart. Certainly fulfilment is a theme and it could be said that the New Testament people of God, Christ’s followers, are to fulfil what the Old Testament people failed to do. The Lord fulfils all that Scripture foretells. He also makes clear (eg Chapters 5–7) their true meaning, which had been obscured by Pharisaic legalism. But Jesus does more than simply complete the old ways, he inaugurates a new way, with new and distinctive teaching.
Some see 13:52 as a key verse. First Century Teachers of the Law never said anything new. They always went back to the traditions. The Lord himself had authority to build on what was given, not rejecting it but bringing out what was old, developing it and taking it consistently further to the fulfilment of God’s purposes. This is one reason why his teaching came to the people with authority and freshness.
Another feature is an apparent love for the number three. Examples include the threefold division of the genealogy (Chapter 1), three temptations (Chapter 4), three illustrations of righteousness, three prohibitions and three commands (Chapters 6, 7), three groupings of three types of miracle (Chapters 8, 9). It is unlikely that Matthew attached symbolic significance to the number. It is more likely that he had in mind the Jewish requirement that truth be established by testimony from two or three witnesses. It is suggestive of how his mind worked.
Finally, it has been noted that, for some reason, the Sadducees are mentioned more times in this Gospel than in any other.
Matthew shows Jesus is the one the prophets foretold, the Messiah. He shows that he came to his own but they would not receive him. He also shows from the start, with the account of the Magi, that Gentiles would be drawn to him. He includes biting denunciations of the Jews for rejecting Messiah. For instance, the woes on the cities that rejected him (11:20-24). Such a statement must have staggered the Teachers of the Law and priests. Also note the lengthy discourse (Chapters 24, 25) on Jerusalem’s overthrow.
Study Plan
Session 1 Navigating the narratives Dealing with the stories unique to Matthew and how to preach them as described above.
Session 2 Teaching the teaching Dealing with the teaching sections in Chapters 5-7, 10 and 18 and how to preach them.
Session 3 Preaching the parables Dealing especially with Chapter 13 and the unique parables in Chapters 20-22 and how to preach them.
Session 4 Meditating on the miracles Dealing especially with Chapters 8, 9 and 17:24-27 and how to preach them.
Session 5 Learning from the law Dealing with the Old Testament as it is employed by Matthew and how to preach these sections – see the appropriate section above.
Session 6 Expounding eschatology Dealing with Chapters (23?) 24 and 25 and how to preach them.
This article first appeared as an Affinity ministers fraternal guide