- Matthew was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, yet comparatively liberal, being a publican who
came in frequent contact with merchants from Damascus. This occupation was indeed disreputable
in the eyes of the Jews, and scarcely consistent with the national Messianic aspirations; but
Capernaum belonged to the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas, and the Herodian family, which, with all
its subserviency to heathen Rome, was yet to a certain extent identified with the Jewish nation. - He was a man of some means and good social position. His office was lucrative, he owned
a house, and gave a farewell banquet to "a great multitude" of his old associates, at which Jesus
presided.^907 It was at the same time his farewell to the world, its wealth, its pleasures and honors.
"We may conceive what a joyous banquet that was for Matthew, when he marked the words and
acts of Jesus, and stored within his memory the scene and the conversation which he was inspired
to write according to his clerkly ability for the instruction of the church in all after ages."^908 It was
on that occasion that Jesus spoke that word which was especially applicable to Matthew and
especially offensive to the Pharisees present: "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." It is
remarkable that the first post-apostolic quotation from the Gospel of Matthew is this very passage,
and one similar to it (see below). - He was a man of decision of character and capable of great sacrifice to his conviction.
When called, while sitting in Oriental fashion at his tollbooth, to follow Jesus, he "forsook all, rose
up, and followed Him," whom he at once recognized and trusted as the true king of Israel.^909 No
one can do more than leave his "all," no matter how much or how little this may be; and no one
can do better than to "follow Christ."
Character and Aim of the Gospel.
The first Gospel makes the impression of primitive antiquity. The city of Jerusalem, the
temple, the priesthood and sacrifices, the entire religious and political fabric of Judaism are supposed
to be still standing, but with an intimation of their speedy downfall.^910 It alone reports the words of
Christ that he came not to destroy but to fulfil the law and the prophets, and that he was only sent
to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.^911 Hence the best critics put the composition several years
before the destruction of Jerusalem.^912
Matthew’s Gospel was evidently written for Hebrews, and Hebrew Christians with the aim
to prove that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah, the last and greatest prophet, priest, and
(^907) So Luke 5:29. Mark 2:15 ("many publicans and sinners sat down with Jesus and his disciples") and Matt. 9:10 ("many
publicans and sinners") agree; but Matthew modestly omits his own name in connection with that feast. Some commentators
understand "the house" to be the house of Jesus, but Jesus had no house and gave no dinner parties. Luke says expressly that it
was the house of Levi.
(^908) Carr, Com., p. 6.
(^909) Luke 5:28; Mark 2:14; Matt. 9:9.
(^910) Matt. 5:35 (" Jerusalem is the city of the great king"); 23:1 (sit on Moses’ seat") 23:16 (" swear by the temple"); 16:28;
24:15 (" in the holy place;" " let him that readeth understand"), and the whole twenty-fourth chapter.
(^911) Matt. 5:17; 15:24; comp. 10:6.
(^912) Hug, Bleek, Olshausen, Ebrard, Meyer, Reim, Lange, and most commentators fix the date between 60 and 69, other writers
as early as 37-45 (but in conflict with Matt. 27:8; 28:15). Baur’s view, which brings the Greek Matthew down to the second
destruction of Jerusalem under Hadrian, 130-134, is exploded. Even Volkmar puts it much earlier (105 to 115), Hilgenfeld
(Einleitung in das N. T., p. 497) immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem, Keim a.d. 66. Dr. Samuel Davidson, in the
second ed. of his Introd. to the N. T. (London, 1882, vol. I. 413-416), assigns the present Greek Matthew with Volkmar to 105,
but assumes an Aramaean original and Greek paraphrases of the same which were written before the destruction of Jerusalem.
He thinks that "the eschatological discourses which connect the fail of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple and the end of
the world, have been falsified by history" (?); that consequently Jesus did not utter them as they are recorded, but they were
revised and altered by writers who incorporated with them Jewish ideas and expressions (I. 403).
A.D. 1-100.