THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW.

It does not enter into the design of this work to determine the authenticity or genuineness of the Gospels. We take that for granted, referring those who may wish to examine the matter thoroughly to Mr. Norton's "Genuineness of the Gospels" for the external evidence, and to Dr. Nichols's "Hours with the Evangelists" for the internal evidence. We suppose the Gospel of St. Matthew to have been written by him in the language which was then spoken in Palestine and which is usually called the Aramæan or Aramaic, and to have been afterwards translated into Greek, either by the Apostle himself or by some other competent person. In the year 1842 a copy of the greater part of the Gospel of St. Matthew in the Syriac language was obtained by Archdeacon Tattam from a Syrian monastery in the valley of the Natron Lakes, which was published in 1858 by William Cureton, D. D., Canon of Westminster, &c., which is regarded by the very learned editor as among the oldest manuscript copies of the Gospel now known, and respecting which he does not hesitate to express his belief, that “it has, to a great extent, retained the identical terms and expressions which the Apostle himself employed; and that we have here, in our Lord's discourses, to a great extent, the very same words as the Divine Author of our holy religion himself uttered in proclaiming the glad tidings of salvation in the Hebrew dialect to those who were listening to him, and through them to all the world." (Cureton's Syriac Gospels, Pref., p. xciii.) The precise time when the Gospel was written is uncertain. "Were we," says Davidson (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 136), "to express an opinion, we should be inclined to adopt A. D. 41, 42, or 43 as the most

32

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW.

probable." "The place where the Gospel was written is uniformly said to have been Judæa." Davidson supposes it to have been written in Hebrew, and that the Greek version "must have been made before the close of the first century; probably before the appearance of the Gospel of John." It is one of the traditions respecting it, and it bears internal evidence to the same effect, that it was written particularly for the Jews. We see marks of this intention, especially in the first chapters; but throughout the Gospel there is evidently a peculiar adaptation to the Jewish mind, particularly when speaking of events as necessary in order to the fulfilment of the prophecies, and in the pains which are taken to set forth the new religion as a fulfilment, while the traditions of the Pharisees were only a perversion and abuse, of the Law and the Prophets.

MATTHEW.

CHAPTER I.

1-17.—THE Lineage or Genealogy of Jesus.

THE Gospel of Matthew bears internal evidence of having been written by a Jew, and with particular reference to his own countrymen. We see marks of this design especially in the first chapters, which open the whole subject from a Jewish point of view, and in a manner particularly adapted to the feelings and habits of thought then existing among the Jews. The writer is not, as has been charged against him, imbued with their prejudices and their erroneous ideas respecting the Messiah. But he has been educated as a Jew, and in sympathy with the Jewish mind. If he has also been introduced into a higher realm of spiritual life and thought, he is able to enter, as no one but a person born and brought up in a Jewish atmosphere could, into the views and feelings of his countrymen. By his appreciation of their state of mind, and his sympathy with them in their religious expectations, he is able to gain a hearing from them, while he turns in the direction of their strongest expectations, and shows how the prophetic writings find their fulfilment in Jesus. His quotations and allusions, his local and historical references, his mode of presenting what they would regard as objectionable subjects, his forms of expression and methods of appeal through their early religious associations, are

C

all adapted to the Jewish mind, and fitted to lead them, without any needless shock to their prejudices, into a recognition of Jesus as the Messiah.

We have an instance of this in the opening words of the Gospel, "The lineage of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham." The term "son of David" seems to have been one held in the highest reverence among the Jews, even if it were not used, as it probably was, like the word Messiah, to designate “him who was to come," their great “deliverer” and "redeemer." By the use of this term, therefore, Matthew at the beginning appeals to a national expectation, which he still encourages when, in a genealogy, probably copied from public registers whose authority was recognized by the Jews of his day, he traces step by step the descent of Jesus from their most powerful monarch, and through him from their most illustrious ancestor. The prejudice which otherwise might have led them to put aside with contempt the claims of a poor young man from Galilee, is thus removed at the very outset. Though Jesus of Nazareth was despised and rejected of men, yet he was descended from a race of kings and patriarchs. We can scarcely conceive how this dry catalogue of hard words should rouse the national enthusiasm of a Jew by its roll of mighty names, and awaken his respect for one whose advent into the world had been prepared through such a line of an

cestors.

In order that it should have any weight with the Jews, this table of names must have been copied from family registers which they recognized as authentic. Whatever view, therefore, we may take of the inspiration of the writer, our confidence in his accuracy cannot be affected by any omissions or mistakes that may be pointed out in the list of names. It is not on his authority as that of an inspired writer, but on their authority as records preserved and accepted by the Jews, that Matthew presents them to his countrymen, If he had been inspired to correct every

mistake and supply every omission, every alteration that he made would serve only to destroy their authority with those for whom he was writing, and to excite their prejudices against him. This view of the matter takes away altogether the force of objections to the accuracy of the Gospels, which are drawn from apparent discrepancies between the genealogy here and that in Luke iii. 23-38. We have only to suppose them to be, as they unquestionably are, copies of different records, which had been kept in different places, and which varied from one another, either through want of exactness in the records, or in consequence of the different methods by which the line of ancestors was brought down from a common original. The labored attempts, therefore, to reconcile these two lists of names with each other, or with records found in the Old Testament, however interesting they may be to ingenious scholars, can have no important bearing on the trustworthiness of the Gospels.

18 - 25. — MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION.

The account of the birth of Jesus which is given here and in the second chapter of Luke, has been a stumblingblock to many sincere minds, and is rejected as in itself incredible by some who accept as authentic the other evangelical accounts of miracles. But is there anything in the nature of things incredible in what is here recorded? The great naturalists of our day recognize a succession of creative epochs, when higher types of physical life were introduced. The different orders of animals which have appeared from time to time were not slowly evolved by a process of development from lower orders previously existing, but one after another they have been introduced by separate and original acts of creation. Now, as the physical advancement of the world has thus been marked by distinct creative epochs, might we not expect something of the same