804 Gospel tradition. It is obvious, for example, that Luke re- gards Nazareth as the residence of Joseph and M ary from the first (i. 26 ; ii. 4), whereas Matthew seems to represent them as selecting Nazareth for their new home after the birth of Jesus and the return from Egypt, only because they were afraid to return to their old home in J udaea, thereby fulfil- ling an ancient prophecy (ii. 23). Throughout his preface, as throughout his version of the Triple Tradition, Matthew I always bears in mind that J csus came to fulfil the prophets as well as the law. The birth from a virgin (i. 25), the birth in Bethlehem (ii. 6), the return from Egypt (ii. 15), the massacre of the children in Bethlehem (ii. 18), and the residence in Nazareth (ii. 23) are all spoken of as the con- sequences of prophecies. It is scarcely fanciful, also, to see some reference to the infancy of Moses, and the slaughter of the Israelitish children by Pharaoh in the massacre of the children of Bethlehem by Herod. Passing next to Matthew’s version of the Triple Tradition, we note first the prominence given to the law. Instead of giving a chronological account of our Lord’.s acts and say- ings, Matthew prefers to collect a mass of doctrine into one continuous discourse, known from early times as the Sermon on the Mount. This discourse follows almost imniediatcly (iv. 1l;v. 1.) on the commencement of His public life; and it contains the new law of the new kingdom. The Sermon on the .Iount correspon_ds to the law given on Mount Sinai, and a thread of contrast runs through the former, comparing in each case that which had been said “of old time" with that which the New Lawgiver prescribed, and showing that in each case the 11ew law, though more gentle, was also more stringent and more exacting than the old. “Depart from Me, ye workers of iniquity” (Lu. xiii. 27) is expressed by Matthew (vii. 23), “Depart from M e, ye that work lawlessness ;” and this word “lawlessness” is found four times in Matthew, and not at all in the rest of the Gospels. Luke recognizes that no jet or tittle is to pass from the law till all be fulfilled ; but nowhere in Luke shall we find the strong language which declares (Mat. v. 19) that he who breaks, or teaches others to break, one of the least of the commandments of the law shall be called least in the kingdom of God. The genealogy traced from Abraham, and the stress lail on prophecy, as well as the prominence thus given to the law, all suggest that this book was primarily intended for Jewish readers; and this supposition is confirmed by the whole tenor of the Gospel. Matthew finds less space than Luke for the parables which point to the inclusion of the Gentiles, and more for those which point to the exclusion of the workers of lawlessness and of the unworthy Jews. He alone among the evangelists has the saying, “.[any are called but few chosen ;” and the distinction between the “called” (K)'I]1'0l.l) and “chosen” (e’x)ta<-rot’) is the more remarkable, because Paul uses the two words almost indifierently, and Luke (though he too has the parable of the unworthy guests) has not ventured to use x)w;-rot’ in M atthew’s disparaging significa- tion. But Matthew, more than the rest of the evangelists, seems to move in evil days, and amid a race of backsliders, among dogs and swine who are unworthy of the pearls of truth, among the tares sown by the enemy, among fisher- men who have to cast back again many of the fish caught in the net of the gospel ; the broad way is ever in his mind, and the multitude of those that go thereby, and the guest without the wedding garment, and the foolish virgins, and the goats as well as the sheep, and those who even “ cast out devils ” in the name of the Lord, and yet are rejected by Him because they “work lawlessness.” Where Luke speaks exultantly of “joy in heaven ” over one repentant sinner, Matthew in n1ore negative and sober phrases declares that it is not the will of the Father that one GOSPE LS of the little ones should perish; and as a reason for not being distracted about the future it is alleged that “sufficient for the day is the evil thereof”: see above, (10), (11), (12), (13), (:38), (29 c), (50), (52). It is far- fetched to suppose that these subjects are selected or amplified in antagonism to the doctrine of Paul. The condition of the Jews, their increasing hostility to the Christians, and the wavering or retrogression of many Jewish converts when the hostility became intensified shortly before and during the siege of J erusalcm,—this may well explain one side of Matthew’s Gospel; and the other side (the condenmation of “lawlessness ”) might find an ex- planation in a reference to Hcllenizing Jews, Wllu (like some of the Corinthians) considered that the new law set them free from all restraint, and who, in casting aside every vestige of nationality, wished to cast aside morality as well. Viewed in the light of the approaching fall of Jerusalem, and the wavering or retrogression of great masses of the nation, the introduction into the Lord's Prayer of the words, “ Deliver us from the evil,” and the prediction (xxiv. 12) that “ by reason of the multiplying of lawlessness the love of many shall wax cold,” will seem not only appropriate, but typical of the character of the whole of the First Gospel. Besides the fulfilments of prophecy mentioned in the pre- face, Matthew sees several others (6), (25), (43), (4-1),(.'3-1) which are not mentioned in the Triple Tradition, and these applications of prophecy sometimes contain obvious confu- sions. For example, Matthew sees in our Lord's entry into- Jerusalem a fulfilment of the prophecy : “ Thy king cometlr . sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.” The- repetition seems to denote one animal, after the manner of Hebrew poetry, and only one is mentioned by Mark and Luke; but Matthew, applying prophecy more closely. speaks of two, and adds (xxi. 7) “they brought the ass and the foal and cast their clothes upon (Item, and he sat upon tlzem.” Again, in speaking of the “ potter’s field” (xxvii. 9), he quotes, as from Jeremiah, a prophecy that is really from Zechariah xi. 12 (the word translated “potter” is rendered by Ewald “treasury”; and [though Aquila has 7r)uio'1'77v] the LXX. has Xcovevrfiptov, “foundry,” neither of which renderings will suit Matthew’s application). Again. though Luke speaks of the “ sign of Jonah,” Matthew alone makes Jesus publicly declare that, as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale (xii. 40), so lfe shall be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth; and such a declaration, exciting no questioning in the disciples, nor wonder in bystanders, appears in the highest degree improbable, and looks like a later application. It will be remembered that Matthew alone has the inac- curate statement that the murdered Zachariah was the son of Barachiah (sxiii. 35) ; and perhaps an inaccuracy result- ing from a lapse of memory may explain, not only the use of the name of Jeremiah above, but also the quotation “ He shall be called a Nazarene ” (ii. 23), which is found in no existing book of prophecy. Similarly (perhaps) Mark, through lapse of memory on the part of those whose tradi- tion he records, quotes (i. 2), as from Isaiah, according to the correct reading (the A. V. reads “prophcts”), a prophecy composed of two passages, the first of which is from Malachi, and only the second from Isaiah. It must be remembered that, without the modern means for rapid ref crence, verifica tion was a much harder task then than now, and much more trust was necessarily given to memory. Few new miracles are introduced by Matthew into the body of his work (l5), (21), (31), (34). Two of these con- sist of acts of healing ; and two are connected with. Peter. viz., Peter's partial success i11 walking upon the waves, and his (supposed) extraction of a stater from the moutl1 of a fish. But the words implying the latter miracle have possibly arisen from a misunderstanding ; at all events-
[SYNOl’TICAL.