In this book, author Eric Hovee traces a never-ending Christian dialogue and practice that may espouse peace but often engages in conflict. The author explores this interplay through 12 pioneers who shape Christianity as it has been handed down to us today. We begin with the contrasting perspectives of four gospel writers - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - continuing with early church leaders Paul, James, Peter, and non-canonical sources with Thomas, and Mary Magdalene. The journey then skips forward three centuries to the Roman Emperor Constantine, who sought to marry church and state, before moving another millennium ahead to Martin Luther, who sought radical reform and finally circles back to our starting point: Jesus, as the one who intended it all.
How best to experience conflict, and yet find peace? Through every phase of human experience, there is opportunity for resolution and partnership, in step and at home with Jesus. We seek a Jesus who consistently demonstrates that, just when we think we have the answers, new questions arise. When we feel we've run the race, we find we've only just begun.
Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel.
Matthew 1:23, quoted from Isaiah 7:14 (Septuagint)
Pioneers can come in many forms. To a 21st century audience, Matthew’s gospel is often characterized as the “greatest story ever told.” But, to first- century Judaism, a tax collector turned Jesus follower named Matthew uttered words of heresy to the Jewish leaders of his day. Matthew proclaimed Jesus as Messiah—as prophecy fulfilled. 4
As lead-off gospel to the New Testament, Matthew’s purpose of prophecy fulfilled is made clear right at the outset. The author begins his gospel story this way, as:
…an account of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham.5
The prime thesis of Matthew’s gospel is to demonstrate that Jesus is not a blasphemer intent on overthrowing Judaism. Rather, Jesus makes it clear that he did not come “to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.”6
4 A wide variety of authors have been quick to note Matthew’s interest in prophecy fulfilled. An example is Robert M. Grant, The Formation of the New Testament, (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 13. Grant states that.” the evangelist Matthew depicts important events in the life of Jesus as taking place so that particular prophesies, carefully quoted, might be fulfilled.”
5 Matthew 1:1.
6 Matthew 5:17.
More on this subject is yet to come. But first, turn to a brief review of what is known and not known about the time when this gospel was written, the author, and the audience.
Background of Matthew the Gospel
While Matthew is generally believed to be addressed to a Jewish audience, all of the currently known early versions of this gospel were compiled in Greek. However, early traditions reference a document that may have been written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Though scholars feel that the work contains at least some Semitic language influence, today the Greek version of Matthew generally is not viewed as a straight-across translation from the Aramaic— which may be problematic. (See the Supplement at the end of this chapter for more detail.)
However, this was not necessarily the early church view. As one of the leading authorities of the late first/early second century church, a bishop named Papias from Hierapolis (in Asia Minor) proclaimed that:
Matthew compiled the sayings in the Aramaic language, but everyone has translated them as best he could.7
There is some confusion as to whether this statement as reported by the 4th century church historian Eusebius of Caesarea is best translated as “Aramaic” (as indicated above) or as being written in “Hebrew,” for example, as indicated by the more recent translation of Eusebius by Paul L. Maier.8
The confusion doesn’t necessarily end here. A 20th century scholar offers this interpretation about the above noted statement by Papias:
7 Eusebius, The History of the Church,3.39. Unless otherwise indicated, references to this4th century work of Eusebius of Caesarea and to the translation by G.A Williamson (1885–1892) is provided together with subsequent revisions/edits in 1989 by Andrew Louth. This volume of Eusebius is also often referred to as Ecclesiastical History.
8Paul L. Maier, Eusebius—The Church History: A New Translation (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999), 3.39.
This enigmatic sentence(1) refers not to sayings of Jesus (logoi) but to Old Testament predictions (logia) and(2) suggests that various Greek writings similar to one another and probably ascribed to Matthew are in circulation.9
In any event, if the account of Papias is correct, there should an early Aramaic or Hebrew version of Matthew that predates the earliest available and extant manuscripts in Greek. Similarly, Eusebius quotes the renowned third century theologian Origen who had offered a similar view, specifically that:
I accept the traditional view of the four Gospels which alone are undeniably authentic in the Church of God on earth. First to be written was that of the one-time exciseman who became an apostle of Jesus Christ— Matthew; it was published for believers of Jewish origin, and was composed in Aramaic.10
Like Papias, Irenaeus of the late second century and Origen of the third century, all describe Matthew as the first gospel to be written.11 In contrast, the modern scholarly opinion more often centers on Mark as first of the gospel accounts.
So to summarize, we learn two key points from these early patriarchs which are at variance with most contemporary scholarship. Matthew is described by the patriarchs as the first gospel to be written. And this gospeli s cited by early church patriarchs as originally composed in Aramaic or Hebrew, not Greek.
What are we to make of this divergence in opinion between those closer in time to the action than modern day scholars? This question is again explored in yet more detail and in the context of an alternative perspective as provided by the next chapter focused on Mark’s gospel.
9 Robert Grant, Formation of the New Testament, 71.
10 As quoted from Origen’s“ Commentary on Matthew” by Eusebius in The History of the Church, 6.25. In contrast with G.A. Williamson’s 1965 translation, Paul Maier’s more recent 1999 translation indicates the gospel was written in Hebrew (not Aramaic).
11 Origen, Commentary on Matthew, as cited by Eusebius, The History of the Church, 6.25.
Gospel Dating. As with the other Gospels, there is no clear consensus as to where or when Matthew was written. By tradition, Matthew is often viewed to have originated perhaps in Syria.
Dates suggested range from the early 50s to a time as late as 80–90 AD. The first-century Bishop Ignatius provides the earliest documented example of a person who appears to have cited Matthean passages as early as 110 AD.
Modern scholars including liberal theologians are more likely to posit a date for the composition of Matthew’s gospel that is post-70 AD—after Jerusalem was destroyed.12 More fundamental theologians lean toward a pre- 70 date of composition (making the Jewish temple’s destruction as the subject of prophecy rather than reporting on an event already occurred).
Authorship. Answers to the question of who actually wrote Matthew also tend to split along theological lines. More fundamental theologians note that early church patriarchs were virtually unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the 12 disciples, was the author of this Gospel. Since at least the time of second-century Christian leader Irenaeus, the first gospel has been ascribed to the apostle Matthew.
The early church historian Eusebius of Caesarea wrote that:
Matthew had begun by preaching to Hebrews; and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own gospel to writing in his native tongue, so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote.13
As noted, Papias and Origin had much earlier offered similar views, specifically that Matthew was written by the tax collector of the same name.
Recent scholarship tends toward a different view of authorship for this and other Gospels influenced, in part, by dating the time of writing beyond the likely life spans of Jesus’ 12 apostles. Modern scholarship views authorship as often being claimed in the name of an early disciple but by later adherent(s).
The Tradition of Matthew. Matthew (also identified as Levi) was a tax collectorwho left a vocation reviled by Jewish society to follow Jesus. His
12Jesus’ lament over the prophetic destruction of Jerusalem is found at Matthew 23:37–39.
13 Eusebius, History of the Church,3.24.
name translated means “gift of the Lord.” In the Gospels of Mark and Luke, Matthew is referred to as Levi.
Eusebius of Caesarea articulated the view that Matthew’s mission was primarily oriented to a Jewish audience. Various church traditions indicate that he was martyred—possibly in “Ethiopia, in Persia, or in Pontus on the Black Sea.”14
Prophetic Fulfillment
The theme most distinctive to Matthew’s gospel is of Old Testament prophecies described as being fulfilled by the life and message of Jesus. Of the four New Testament gospel writers, Matthew makes the greatest use of Old Testament (OT) prophecy. A total of 14 prophetic fulfillments are quoted by Matthew, most introduced with a statement to the effect that:…all this took place to fulfill…
Isaiah is the prophet of the Hebrew Scriptures most widely cited by Matthew. There also are references to prophetic fulfillments of OT passages from the Hebrew scriptures of Samuel, Psalms, Jeremiah, Hosea, Micah and Zechariah.
The Matthean fulfillment statements typically are followed by an account of Jesus casting out spirits and healing the sick. For example, the author of Matthew writes this as a post-script to his description of a healing by Jesus:
This was to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet Isaiah, ‘He took our infirmities and bore our diseases.’15
A Virgin Birth? Matthew’s drive to demonstrate that Jesus’ earthly sojourn represents prophetic fulfillment leads him into dangerous (if not erroneous) applications of Old Testament prophetic Scriptures. We begin with perhaps the most controversial example of Matthean overreach—with what this New Testament author describes as a prophecy from Isaiah of the virgin birth of Jesus, stated by Matthew as follows:
14Robert Brownrigg, Who’s Who in the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 176.
15 Matthew 8:17, from Isaiah 53:4.
“Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” which means, “God is with us.”16
An initial problem with this interpretation is that Chapter 7 of Isaiah is directly addressing an immediate challenge for Ahaz (an OT king of Judah)to fend off invasion from a coalition of northern Israel and Syria (Damascus). Isaiah records that God spoke directly to Ahaz requesting that the king ask for a sign of pending success or failure. Ahaz responds by saying “I will not put the Lord to the test.”17
The question is: does Isaiah’s prophetic pronouncement refer to birth of a son to King Ahaz (of Judah) at the time of Isaiah’s encounter with Ahaz? Or is the prophecy intended to refer to a much longer lead time extending well beyond Isaiah’s lifetime(not specifically stated but retrospectively understood by Matthew as referring to Jesus the Messiah)?
In the historical setting of Chapter 7, Isaiah lets the king know that he will receive a sign whether Ahaz wants it or not. If this is a near term prophecy, the son possibly refers to Hezekiah as the successor to Ahaz who would serve as Judah’s next king, one who would restore Judah to God and (temporarily) save Jerusalem from destruction.
The prophecy may also be seen as a sign for Ahaz that the lineage of King David would be preserved.
If Isaiah is referring to a future Messiah separate from or possibly in addition to a coming son for Ahaz, a second and more significant question arises—this time placed directly on the shoulders of Matthew. This question is whether Matthew has misinterpreted the Hebrew term almah which generically means a young woman or whether in this instance the woman might be appropriately considered as a virgin (i.e., not yet had intercourse).
As noted, Matthew’s quotation of Isaiah likely comes as the result of an apparent mistranslation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew to the Greek Septuagint (which occurred in about the third century BC). While the Matthean account cites correctly from the Septuagint, in the process this New Testament author appears to wittingly or unwittingly misrepresent the words
16 Matthew 1:23 (NRSV), as adapted from Isaiah 7:14 per the Septuagint and not a Hebrew text. The KJV translates the underlying Hebrew term almah in Isaiah as “virgin,” the NRSV as “young woman.”
17 Isaiah 7:12.
and the meaning of the original Hebrew manuscripts (from which the Septuagint was translated).
The term appropriated by Matthew from the Greek Septuagint is parthenos, specifically meaning a virgin. However, the term used from the original Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 is almah, more appropriately translated as maiden, young woman or unmarried woman.
As noted, the term almah is not definitive as to whether the young woman has or has not experienced sexual intercourse. The Hebrew does have another term bethulah that is more narrowly defined as a virgin, a term that is used repeatedly throughout the Old Testament. However, bethulah is not the word that is used by earliest Hebrew manuscripts of the Isaiah passage.
The term almah is used several other times in the Hebrew Scriptures— referring to women ranging from older children to those being seduced or forced to have sexual relations before marriage. In some of these cases, it is unclear whether the use of almah is intended to be a general reference simply to a young woman or more specifically to a young woman who is also a virgin.
Perhaps the most graphic depiction of a less than virginal passage is to be found in the Proverbs:
Three things are too wonderful for me; four I do not understand:
the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a snake on a rock,
the way of a ship on the high seas,
and the way of a man with a girl (almah).18
In effect, Matthew’s citation best illustrates the far-reaching consequences of a potential overreach—an insult or heresy to those steeped in the traditions
18 Proverbs 30:18–19 (NRSV). Per Young’s Analytical Concordance, other uses of the Hebrew term almah are found in Genesis 24:43 (describing when Isaac first met Rebekah as a young woman at the well), Exodus 2:8 (referring to Miriam sister of Moses), Psalms 68:25 (referring to damsels playing their tambourines), Song of Solomon 1:3 (referring to one whom maidens love), and Song of Solomon 6:8 (some variants of which describe “sixty queens and eighty concubines, and maidens [almah} without number”).
of Judaism. This is because the virgin described by Isaiah is not necessarily a virgin, but an unmarried young woman—virginal or otherwise.
Matthew’s misquotation of Isaiah does not necessarily mean that there is no virgin birth. Luke’s gospel provides a similar account of Mary’s virgin birth without reference to Old Testament accounts—prophetic or otherwise. In fact, Luke’s description describes the visit to Nazareth of the angel Gabriel “to a virgin (parthenos) engaged to a man whose name was Joseph of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.”19
Luke does not feel the need to inject an ostensibly prophetic statement from six centuries earlier to support the case for Mary’s virginity. While not directly stated, the implication from Luke is that her virginity was maintained from the time of becoming engaged to Joseph to at least the time of Jesus’ birth.
What is one to make of this apparent Matthean overreach? Four summary observations are noted:
Assuming an all-powerful God, the issue at stake is not whether God (or the Holy Spirit) could disrupt the natural order for a woman to become pregnant without intercourse. All is possible with God. Rather, the question is of a historical nature. Did the all-mighty, in fact, cause Mary to conceive via divine(non-human) intervention? Or did Mary conceive via the normal human route of human sexual intercourse?
Matthew sees the opportunity and/or feels the need to reach back to a prophecy by Isaiah to make or strengthen the case for a virginal birth— in part by using a sloppy Septuagint translation together with disregarding the immediate implications of Isaiah 7 for then King Ahaz and his son Hezekiah. In contrast, Luke’s gospel is comfortable stating the facts of Mary’s virginity at engagement without the need to bolster the case with a prophetic re-interpretation.
Whether or not Matthew was aware of the difference between the original Hebrew and the Greek translation is indeterminate based on the information available. However, the resulting implications for Christian authenticity are unfortunate—casting doubt on an item
19 Luke 1:27.
viewed as consequential yet not necessarily essential to Christian faith and practice.
Even more questionable is a pattern of emphasizing Jesus’ fulfillment of varied prophecies that runs throughout Matthew’s gospel— retrospectively re-interpretating OT prophecies from times gone by into a first-century context as a means to validate or reinforce the messianic role of Jesus.
Other Examples of Prophetic Overreach. A sampling of other prophecies cited by Matthew as being fulfilled by Jesus life and ministry includes the following:
Matthew refers to statements in Samuel and Micah that a ruler of Judah will emerge from Bethlehem. The original citation in Samuel is that of a forerunner to the kingship of David, not Jesus. It is not clear whether the subsequent statement in Micah is looking back to David or forward to someone who is yet to come.20
Upon his return from Egypt (after King Herod’s reputed slaughter of the innocents), Matthew refers back to the statement of the prophet Hosea that: “Out of Egypt I have called my son.”21 However, Hosea’s use of the term son clearly refers to the entire nation of Israel rather than to an individual (i.e., Messiah). The full text of the verse in Hosea is: “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.”
In describing Herod’s massacre of the young males of Bethlehem, Matthew recalls Jeremiah: “A voice was heard in Ramah, wailing and loud lamentation, Rachel weeping for her children; she refused to be consoled, because they are no more.”22 However, Ramah is not Bethlehem, but most likely a town situated north rather than south of Jerusalem.23 Jeremiah is writing of the exile of the Northern tribes of
20 From Matthew 2:6. Sources are 2 Samuel5:2 and Micah 5:2.
21 Matthew 2:15, from Hosea 11:1.
22 Matthew 2:18 quotes from Jeremiah 31:15.
23 The Ramah referred to by Jeremiah is believed to be situated five miles north of Jerusalem. Other placesi n Palestine have had the name Ramah meaning “hill.” Along with Bethlehem (south of Jerusalem), Ramah is cited as a potential place of burial or
Israel to Assyria, with Ramah potentially a site for deportation of those being deported.
Regarding the use of parables rather than a more straightforward message delivered to the masses, Matthew’s Jesus once more quotes Isaiah: “You will indeed listen, but never understand.”24 Again, Isaiah does not appear to have been writing of a future time, but of a message that Isaiah was to take to his contemporaries. However, centuries later, Matthew has Jesus (perhaps erroneously) suggesting a direct prophetic link, quoting Jesus as saying: “With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah…” Jesus appears to be re-interpreting a malaise of Isaiah’s day to 1st century Israel, as well.
In remorse for betraying Jesus, Judas returns the thirty pieces of silver he was paid back to the chief priests. Matthew reports that the priests use the money to buy a potter’s field as a place to bury foreigners. This is in fulfillment of a prophecy made by Jeremiah: “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one on whom a price had been set, on whom some of the people of Israel had set a price, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”
Matthew is mistaken; there is no directly similar verse in Jeremiah. Rather, Matthew’s quote appears to be a very loose paraphrase of a verse in Zechariah.25
Fulfillment of Torah Law. Matthew saw Jesus not only as a fulfillment of specific events foretold by Jewish prophets of the Scripture. Jesus also serves as a fulfillment of Jewish teaching—and more specifically of Judaic law or the Torah.
Of the four gospel writers, Matthew is the only one to refer repeatedly to the “law and the prophets.” For example, in Matthew’s account of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus asks the crowd:
memorial for Rachel (Jacob’s wife). Precise locations are a subject of some dispute.
24 Excerpted from Matthew 13:14–15which is referencing Isaiah 6:8–10.
25 Matthew 27:9–10. Zechariah 11:13 indicates that this prophet “…took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them into the treasury in the house of the LORD.” Any reference to Jeremiah would be much more oblique, perhaps to Jereimah 19:1–13, 18:2–12, or 32:6–9 (including references to the valley of Hinnom-Gehenna) and potter’s house.
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.26
More so than with the other Gospels, Matthew’s account is particularly critical of the Jewish sect known as the Pharisees. As a first-century movement, the Pharisees were intent on assuring devoted adherence to all forms of Jewish law—including customs built up over the centuries—particularly so since the return of exiles from Babylonian captivity starting in the 6th century BC.
While Matthew’s Jesus is highly critical of the Pharisees, the criticism does not appear to be focused on the fine details of the law. Rather, Jesus’ criticism is that in prescribing detailed rules (as for tithing and other matters), the Pharisees had “neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith.”27
Jesus as Messiah. A final theme of fulfillment important to Matthew’s gospel relates to Jesus’ role as the Messiah or Anointedone of God. As noted, Matthew makes known his view of the messiahship of Jesus right from the outset of his gospel. In verse 1 of chapter 1, Matthew states his purpose as: “An account of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah…” (emphasis mine)
Beyond the Obvious. There is one other possible explanation for Matthew’s apparent misinterpretations or extrapolations of Old Testament prophetic pronouncements. This is raised by the possibility that Jesus and other New Testament writers were, in fact, legitimately re-interpreting OT Scripture as applying not only during OT times but also in a New Testament (NT) context.
For example, the authors of a book titled Beyond the Obvious observe that:
It becomes increasingly clear the more we pursue this issue that there are several instances where the New Testament interprets the Old in strange and varied ways, and surely not in a literal way.28
26 Matthew 5:17–18.
27 Matthew 23:23.
28 James DeYoung and Sarah Hurty, Beyond the Obvious (Gresham, Oregon: Vision House, 1995),47–48. The difference between the scriptural author’s literal intent and later spirit-led re-interpretation is what the authors of this book describe as the
In effect, the Spirit of God may have intended a meaning for Scripture beyond that of the original author. Divine intent may have applied not only historically but also prospectively. This more liberal approach could include reshaping the narrative to reflect what would become the unfolding kingdom of God or New Covenant purposes.
Acceptance of Matthew. Early Christian literature indicates that Matthew was generally accepted as the first of the New Testament Gospels by the early 2nd century AD. As would later be recounted by the 4th century church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, the late first/early second century patriarch Papias of Hierapolis in Asia Minor preferred an “oral gospel” but attested to the Gospel of Matthew stating:
Matthew compiled the sayings in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could.29
During this same time period, Polycarp who was bishop of Smyrna and reputedly a disciple of the apostle John also quotes or references passages found in the Gospel of Matthew.30 As the 2nd century bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus is perhaps the last of the early church patriarchs to rely extensively on oral tradition. He also is first to list the current four Gospels and 13 Pauline letters as accepted. Irenaeus quoted from Matthew, Mark, Acts, I Corinthians, I Peter, Hebrews and Titus.
Eusebius also offers a more extensive quote from the 3rd century theologian Origen, stating:
I accept the traditional view of the four Gospels which alone are undeniably authentic to the Church of God on earth. First to be written was that of the one-time exciseman who became an apostle of Jesus Christ—
difference between existential and essential meaning. The authors also note that “the divine Author’s meaning may go beyond the human author’s, unknown to him.” (p. 303). Less certain is whether and to what degree the same license of reinterpretation extends beyond Christians of the first century.
29 Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.39.
30 Polycarp, The Letter to the Philippians, http://ntcanon.org/Polycarp.shtml, accessed March 25, 2024.
Matthew; it was published for believers of Jewish origin, and was composed in Aramaic.31
Some Jewish Christian congregations such as the Ebionites who emigrated to Transjordan after the first Roman destruction of Jerusalem (in 70 AD) reportedly preferred or “admitted only the authority of Matthew.”32 In effect, Matthew’s acceptance as authoritative was generally but not completely endorsed by the early church.
As with other Gospels, Matthew was rejected by the 2nd century Gnostic Marcion. The gospel also was opposed by the late 2nd/early 3rd century Ebionite Symmachus, author of a Greek version of the Old Testament who favored a return to Jewish law.
Even among those accepting the gospel, some caveats are noted. For example, the 2nd century theologian Clement of Alexandria notes that that Matthew added several phrases to the Beatitudes.33 The most important outstanding questions continue to center on the language in which the book was originally written and whether it is written first, as early church patriarchs indicate.
Matthew in Summary
Matthew’s gospel has been widely cited down through the last two millennia as the primary source for the greatest story ever told. However, as noted in this chapter, the evidence available suggests that the story as told by this first of the Christian pioneers may be, in fact, too good to be true. An alternative viewpoint might be that if Matthew overstates his case, it is to make a point consistent with his overall objective of portraying Christ as prophecy fulfilled.
Matthew endeavored to weave a narrative that would serve to keep a nascent Christianity within the folds of Judaism. For Matthew, Jesus
31 Eusebius, quoting Origen’s“ Commentary on Matthew,” History of the Church,
6.25.
32 As cited by Williston Walker, et al, A History of the Christian Church,4th ed. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1985), 74.
33 Robert Grant, Formation of the New Testament, 166.
represented a righteous form of Judaism in contrast to the retrograde Judaism practiced by Jewish leaders of the day—scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees.
In the end, this gospel as we now have it—including with possible additions and redactions—may have over-reached. Whether by malevolent design, sloppy homework or simple exuberance, Matthew clearly reaches beyond what the original Old Testament authors may have originally intended. Another possibility is that this re-interpretation and application of prophecy both in the moment and prospectively is in fact justified, if recognized as spirit- led and consistent with other Scripture.
To the extent viewed as heretical for 1st century Judaism, Matthew’s heresy can be viewed primarily as a matter of substance. This gospel writer presents an alternative paradigm of belief. This was a change from considering how prophecy was to be interpreted in the context of an OT prophet’s world view versus projected forward to a fulfillment in Jesus that may or may not have been intended with the prophecy as originally articulated.
Despite these difficulties, Matthew’s grand purpose was served. By repeatedly portraying Jesus as a fulfillment of OT prophesies, Matthew carved a niche for a Christianity that could be broadcast not only for Jewish consumption, but also for a broader Gentile audience. This would be evidenced with Peter’s sermon at Pentecost and more generally by Paul the apostle in his exhortations to Gentile as well as Jewish audiences.
There may be a price to be paid for such exuberance. To his own contemporaries and to succeeding generations, Matthew’s overreach raises doubts not only as to the legitimacy of the prophetic claims offered, but as to the integrity of the rest of this gospel. If the author stretched to reinterpret history in one portion of the gospel for which he is named, might he have done so elsewhere?
As the first of our dozen pioneers of the faith, Matthew serves a vital purpose for the church that was to be. For Matthew, Jesus is the bridge between the old order and the new. Through Matthew, the Christian church was not just an upstart sect, but a full-fledged religious movement rooted both in history and looking forward post-resurrection.
To the Jewish establishment of the first century, Matthew’s gospel was in your face. Corrupt Judaism was to be replaced by a new Judaism—through Jesus as the fulfillment of those whom the prophets had spoken.
Matthew’s pioneering role was critical to the flowering of a church that could leave behind the old for the new. However, in his ultimate mission, Matthew may have fallen short of the mark.
Rather than reforming Judaism from within, Matthean overreach served instead to help drive Christianity out from the Judaic fold—separating and embittering people who nonetheless have continued to worship the same Yahweh for two succeeding millennia.
As this chapter illustrates, there is both an upside and a downside to the endeavors of Matthew. This pattern of tradeoff—of a price to be paid for advancement of Christianity—is a recurring theme played out in multipleways across the eleven other pioneers of the faith profiled through the chapters which follow.
Supplement—Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek?
Communicating within one’s native language is never as precise as one might want but nonetheless can lead to miscommunication. This is especially the case in situations where a specific term may have multiple meanings, for example, depending on the context in which it is used. The risk of incorrect interpretation and miscommunication becomes greater when translation between languages is involved.
For first-century Palestine, three languages are of particular importance to understanding the Bible—both Old and New Testament:
Hebrew is the language in which the Old Testament was largely written. Whereas the typical American has command of perhaps 50,000 words (at high school level), the Hebrew vocabulary comprised about 4–5,000 terms—obviously with more meanings possible for a given term than in English today. An additional challenge was that by the time of Christ, evidence indicates that old Hebrew was no longer in widespread use, making readings as from the Torah more problematic.34
Aramaic had become the most prevalent language of everyday use for Jewish written and oral communication by about the 3rd century BC.
34Britannica, Hebrew Language, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hebrew-language (accessed February 2, 2024).
Jewish religious texts such as the Mishnah and Talmud would be written in Aramaic. While the earliest extant manuscripts of the New Testament are written in Greek, Aramaic words and phrases are found, especially in the Gospels, attesting to the use of Aramaic among the population of Jesus’ day. There also is evidence including quotations from the late first/early 2nd century bishop Papias that Matthew was initially written in Aramaic or Hebrew—though confirming documentation is no longer available.
Greek most likely was not the dominant language across Judea, Samaria and the Galilee but is generally acknowledged as being the language of the ruling elites as with Herodians and Romans.
Greek also was used in trade and commerce, especially in larger urban centers such as Jerusalem, Sepphoris (near Nazareth) and Tiberias (when Herod Antipas relocated his capital from Sepphoris to be on the Sea of Galilee). Educated urban communities were often bilingual as evidenced by historic accounts including the influence of Greek philosophy with elites such as the ruling Sadducees in Jerusalem.
While these are general tendencies, it is largely unknown as to whether, where and when Jesus spoke in Aramaic or Greek. To the extent that Jesus made extensive use of Aramaic, there is increased likelihood of mis- translations by writers whose earliest extant New Testament works are preserved only in Greek.
This issue is perhaps most problematic for Matthew, especially if the initial manuscript was composed in Aramaic—whether or not later redacted as well as coupled with further translations from Hebrew and Aramaic to Greek. Mistranslation coupled with loose interpretation also surfaces as a potential issue for the other three Gospels as noted with the chapters on Mark, Luke and John which now follow.