> ‎Chapter 1‎ > ‎Chapter 2‎ > ‎Chapter 3‎ > ‎Chapter 4‎ > ‎Chapter 5‎ > ‎Chapter 6‎ > ‎Chaper 7‎ > ‎Chapter 8‎ > ‎Chapter 9‎ > ‎Chapter 10‎ > ‎Chapter 11‎ > ‎Chapter 12‎ > ‎Chapter 13‎ > ‎Chapter 14‎ > ‎Chapter 15‎ > ‎Chapter 16‎ > ‎Chapter 17‎ > ‎Chapter 18‎ > ‎Chapter 19‎ > ‎Chapter 20‎ > ‎Chapter 21‎ > ‎Chapter 22‎ > ‎Chapter 23‎ > ‎Chapter 24‎ > ‎Chapter 25‎ > ‎Chapter 26-27:1-2‎ > ‎Chapter 27‎ > ‎Chapter 28‎ > ‎  

 

 

 

Introduction

Early in the 20th century, Form Critics used to say the Evangelists were not authors, just "stringers of beads". They meant that the writers just gathered up reports of individual sayings or acts of Jesus and strung them together. Predictably, there has been an equal and opposite reaction. Now the critics see wonderful artistry.

Matthew does show more structure than the other Gospels. After a few preliminaries, there are five units which critics sometimes call "books". Each unit opens with a narrative, followed by a discourse, ending with some such words as: "When Jesus finished these words."(7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:11).

Preliminaries: Genealogy of Jesus, His birth, flight into Egypt, return to Nazareth: chapters 1 & 2.

Unit 1: a) Narrative: Chapters 3 & 4: John the Baptist, the Baptism of Jesus, His inaugural retreat and temptation in the desert, His call of the first disciples. b) Discourse: Sermon on the Mount: chapters 5, 6, 7.

Unit 2: a) Narrative: chapters 8, 9. Begins to announce the Kingdom of God, works many miracles to show His authority and power. b) Discourse: the trial missionary mission: 10. 1 to 11. 1.

Unit 3: a) Narrative: chapters 11, 12: People begin to reject Him. b) Discourse: chapters 12, 13. He turns to parables because of their blindness and rejection.

Unit 4: a) Narrative: 14. 1 -16:13: Death of the Baptist, more miracles, conflict with Pharisees, the Canaanite woman, multiplication of loaves and fishes. b) Discourse: 16:13-19:1 - Characteristics of the Church, it will be built on Peter.

Unit 5: a) Narrative: chapters 19, 20, 21, 22, 23: He leaves Galilee for Jerusalem. b) Discourse: the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the world. 24:1 to 26:1.

Epilogue: Passion and resurrection.

Commentary on St. Matthew

Literary genre of chapters 1-2, the infancy narratives: Pope Paul VI, in an Allocution of Dec. 28, 1966 (Insegnamenti de Paolo VI, IV, pp. 678-79, Vatican Press, 1966) complained that some, "try to diminish the historical value of the Gospels themselves, especially those that refer to the birth of Jesus and His infancy. We mention this devaluation briefly so that you may know how to defend with study and faith the consoling certainty that these pages are not inventions of people's fancy, but that they speak the truth.... The authority of the Council has not pronounced differently on this: 'The Sacred Authors wrote... always in such a way that they reported on Jesus with sincerity and truth' (Constitution on Divine Revelation §19)." Although the Council had used extreme care in LG §55 to make clear it was not giving assurance that the sacred writers of Gen 3:15 and Is 7:14 understood as much as the Church now sees in these texts, yet when in §§ 56- 57 it spoke of the material of the Infancy Gospels, it used no such reservations at all. Rather, for example, it said in §57: "This union of the Mother with the Son in the work of salvation is manifested from the time of the virginal conception of Christ even to His death... in His birth, when the Mother of God joyfully showed her firstborn, who did not diminish but consecrated her virginal integrity, to the shepherds and the Magi." (In passing we note it spoke of virginal integrity, a physical word, ruling out the idea that the texts on her virginity were meant only spiritually - as a theologoumenon).

Pope John Paul II, in a General Audience of Jan. 28, 1988 said: "To identify the source of the infancy narrative, one must go back to St. Luke's remark: 'Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart,' ... Mary who 'kept these things in her heart' ... could bear witness, after Christ's death and resurrection, in regard to what concerned herself and her role as Mother, precisely in the apostolic period when the New Testament texts were being written and when the early Christian tradition had its origin."

R. E. Brown, in The Birth of the Messiah (Doubleday, 1977) thought that the Gospel writers had little factual basis for the infancy Gospels - rather they, especially Luke, built up scant data by using parallels to Old Testament texts. But John L. McKenzie, a real friend of Brown, in his review of that book (National Catholic Reporter, Dec. 2, 1977, p. 10) wrote: "One wonders how a gentile convert... could have acquired so quickly the mastery of the Greek Old Testament shown... in Luke's infancy narratives.... Luke must have had a source for his Old Testament texts and allusions; and as it is hard to think of such a collection of texts without a narrative for them to illustrate, a pre-Lucan infancy narrative is suggested, I beg to submit." We recall St. Luke in his opening lines did say he used written accounts.

There are some specific objections about certain things within the infancy narratives. We will answer each at the suitable point. The most considerable is about the census, mentioned by Luke, and the fact that Luke speaks of Quirinius as "governing" [though not as governor]. Usually scholars have put the birth of Christ as between 4 and 6 BC. But new research by E. L. Martin, in The Star that Astonished the World (ASK Publications, Portland, Box 2500, 1991). We summarize Martin's work:

(1). The date of the birth of Christ hinges on just one thing, the statement of Josephus (Antiquities 17. 6-8) that Herod died shortly after an eclipse of the moon. Astronomers supply the dates for such eclipses around those years: None in 7 or 6 BC. In 5 BC, March 23, 29 days to Passover. Also in 5 BC. Sept 15, 7 months to Passover. In 4 BC. March 13, 29 days to Passover. 3 and 2 BC. no eclipses. In 1 BC. January 10, 12 1/2 weeks to Passover.

(2). Josephus also tells what events happened between the Eclipse and the Passover (cf. Martin pp. 85-87). They would occupy probably about 12 weeks. Martin also, pp. 99-101 shows that the eclipse of Sept 15, 5 BC could not fit with known data, especially the fact that Herod was seriously ill in Jericho (over 800 feet below sea level) when the eclipse happened - but Jericho was a furnace of heat at that time, Sept 15. Herod would not have stayed there when he could have had the much better climate of Jerusalem. But if the eclipse was in midwinter - Jan 10-- Herod would find Jericho comfortable.

(3). We know from an inscription from Paphlagonia in Asia Minor - cf. Lewis and Reinhold, Roman Civilization, Source Book II, pp. 34-35 - that in 3 BC all the people took an oath of allegiance to Augustus. The same oath is also reported by the Armenian historian Moses of Khorene, and by the later historian Orosius.

(4). Augustus was to receive the great title of Pater Patriae on Feb. 5, 2 BC. So the actual governor of Palestine, probably Varus, would have had to go to Rome for the festivities, and since sailing on the Mediterranean stopped about Nov. 1, and did not resume until Spring, he must have gone in the early fall of 3 BC. But Quirinius was nearby, had just finished a successful war against the Homonadenses. So he was left as acting Governor. Luke does not use the noun governor, but the participle, "governing".

(5). There is an obscure decade in history, 6 BC to 4 AD, as Classicists readily recognize. Yet this period is important, including the time when Tiberius was absent from political life at Rome, being at Capri. It is hard to fit the events of this period into place if we make the birth of Christ early as is commonly done. But if we put it in 3 BC the difficulties are over. For example, we know Augustus received his 15th acclamation for a major victory, won by one of his generals, around this time. If we pick 4 BC for the death of Herod, we cannot find a victory to warrant the acclamation, which came in 1 AD. But if we put the birth of Christ in 3 BC, then the war would be running at about the needed time, and finished in 1 AD.

Objection: a) Josephus says Herod had a reign of 37 years after being proclaimed king by Romans, and had 34 yrs after death of Antigonus, which came soon after Herod took Jerusalem. b) Further, his 3 successors, Archelaus, Antipas and Philip started to reign in 4 BC. So Herod died in 4 BC.

Reply: a) That calculation would make death of Herod actually in 3 BC, not in 4 BC - scholars have to stretch the date to 4 BC, since no eclipse of moon happened in 3 BC. - But, Herod took Jerusalem late in 36 BC (on Yom Kippur in a sabbatical year, so well remembered - and Josephus says Pompey had taken Jerusalem in 63 which was 27 yrs to the day of Herod's capture of Jerusalem). Using the common accession year dating, we see Herod started his 34 years on Nisan 1 in 35 BC, and those years would end on Nisan 1 BC. So 34 years after 35 BC yields 1 BC for death of Herod after eclipse of Jan 10. --b) As to the 3 successors, Herod lost favor of Augustus in 4 BC, on a false report, was no longer "Friend of Caesar", but "Subject". Antedating of reigns was common - reason here was to make the three seem to connect with the two "royal"sons, of Hasmonean descent, Alexander and Aristobulus, whom Herod executed on false reports from Antipater (do not confuse with Antipas).

The Star: In the evening of June 17, 2 BC, there was a spectacular astronomical event in the western sky. Venus moved eastward seemingly going to collide with Jupiter. They appeared as one star, not two, dominating the twilight of the western sky in the direction of Palestine. This conjunction had not happened for centuries, would not happen again for more centuries. Jupiter was considered the Father, Venus the Mother. Then 19 days later, on August 31st Venus came within . 36 degrees of Mercury. On Sept 11 came the New Moon, the Jewish New Year. This happened when Jupiter, the King planet was approaching Regulus, the King star. Further, there were three conjunctions of Jupiter and Regulus within the constellation of Leo, the lion which was considered the head of the Zodiac. Now Gen 49:10 had foretold there would always be a ruler from Judah, whom Jacob called the lion, until the time of the Messiah. Leo was dominated by the star Regulus, which astronomers called the King Star. The Magi, being astronomers and astrologers, would surely read these signs. (The three conjunctions with Regulus were Aug 12, 3 BC; Feb. 17, 2 BC, and May 8/9 2BC).

Also, on Dec. 25 of 2 BC, Jupiter stopped for 6 days over Bethlehem. This is a normal motion for Jupiter, it stops twice, and reverses its seeming movement. This may have been the very time the Magi came with their gifts. This was also the time of the Hanukkah festival, during which it was customary for Jewish Fathers to give gifts to their children.

Martin thinks the birth of Jesus was in September 3 BC, and the probable date of the Magi was Dec. 25, 2 BC.

More than 600 planetariums here and in Europe have revised their Christmas star show to match this work of E. L. Martin.

OT prophecies in St. Matthew: Matthew is noted for citing fulfillment of prophecies. In what sense does he mean these? There are chiefly three senses of Scripture admitted by all: (1) Literal sense-- not the crude sense, but what the author meant to assert by his words (in studying it, we take into account literary genre: what the writer asserts); (2) Typical sense: in it one thing stands for another. It is a real sense, which we can be sure of only from the use by many Fathers and approval by the Church, e.g., Isaac carrying the wood for his own sacrifice is a type or forecast of Jesus carrying His cross. (3) Accommodated sense: This sense is not really contained in Scripture: a speaker or writer merely adapts the words to a sense he wishes to bring out.

In addition many believe there can be a Fuller sense (sensus plenior). In it, the Chief Author, the Holy Spirit, would have in mind more than the human author saw. Vatican II, DV §12 had an opening to affirm or deny the existence of such a sense. It chose vague wording which did neither. However, in LG §55 it actually made use of a fuller sense. Speaking of Genesis 3:15 and Is 7:14 it said: "These primaeval documents, as they are read in the Church, and understood in the light of later and full revelation, gradually bring to light the figure of the woman, the Mother of the Redeemer. She, in this light, is already prophetically foreshadowed in the promise, given to our first parents fallen into sin, of victory over the serpent (cf. Gen 3. 15)...." It is clear that the Council wanted to avoid saying it was certain that the human authors saw all that the Church now sees - whether what the Church now sees is literal or typical sense (typical sense, as we said, is a real sense of Scripture). The use of cf. is to underscore this position.

Many authors admit there at least can be multiple fulfillment of a prophecy - it can have two fulfillments, go through more than once. It is commonly thought that we have such a case in 2 Tim 3:1 -- "in the last days" can mean either all the time from the ascension to the return of Christ, and can also mean more specially the times just before that return. Another very likely case, as we shall see, is Matthew's use of Is 7:14. For more on this sense, cf. Wm. Most, Free From All Error (Libertyville, Il. 1985), chapter 5.