Of several of these parables it will rightly be felt that, as originally spoken, they had a wider meaning and scope than that liere given, and one which is inconsistent with the narrow limits of the Kingdom to be inaugurated imniediatelv after the fall of Jerusalem. That is quite true. But the question is not. What did the.se parables mean when they were originallv spoken '! but, What interpretation did the" editor put upon them when he incorporated them into his Gospel'^ He every- where seems lo use the iihrase ' kingdom of the heavens ' in its eschatological sense. In four or five passages he has, instead, the 'kingdom of God.' In &■> toZ bio'C is probably not genuine (omit NBgik). As regards 19-'^, a passage borrowed from Mk., the fact that Mt. in 13 other places where 'kingdom of God' occurs in Mk., substitutes ' kingdom of the heavens,' or omits or paraphrases the passage, makes it very probable that 'kingdom of the heavens' should be read here also. In 12-« 2131.43 the editor has retained ' kingdom of God,' not because he regarded it as equivalent to 'kingdom of the heavens,' but because he felt that in these passages the idea conveyed was different from that which his phrase 'kingdom of the heavens' everywhere carries with it ; and he therefore retained ' kingdom of God' to mark the difference.
Thus the conception of Christianity as expressed in this Gospel may be summarized as follows, f Jesus was the King-Messiah of the OT. He was also the Son of Man of apocalyptic anticipation. But how could tlie functions ascribed to these tM-o ideals be combined ? Only if the King passed tbrougii deatli that He might come again on the clouds to inaugurate His Kingdom. And to those who could read the OT ariglit, all this had been foretold. Hence the Crucifixion. When Jerusalem fell, the end of the age would come, and the Son of Man would appear. In the meantime the good news was to be preached, and men were to be gathered into the society of disciples of the Messiah.
2. Date and place of composition. — If the dominant conception of the book has been rightly sketched, very imijortant conckisions can be drawn as to its provenance and date. It must liave been written by a Jewish -Christian, probably by a Jewisii-Christian of Palestine, and it cannot date from long after the fall of Jerusalem. For it is inconceivable that any one should so arrange the words of Christ as to convey the impression that He had taught that He woukl return as Son of Man immediately after the fall of Jerusalem, if many years had elai)sed since that event. And this conclusion as to the early date and Palestinian origin of the Gospel is supported by other features of the book. It is markedly anti-lMiarisaic, and .strongly Jewish-Christian in outlook.
(1) Its anti-Phnrisnism. — This alreadj' underlies the stories of the first two chapters, which are most easilj^ explained as a narrative of facts written to rebut Pharisaic calunmies. Christ was born of a virgin, but He was legally of Davidic descent, and the Virgin Mary's marvellous history already found prototypes by contrast in the history of women connected with the ancestors of the Christ. If He went into Egy))t, it was in the days of His infancy, and He brought no magical arts thence. If His parents settled at Nazareth, it was that the tenor of prophecy might be fuKilled.
So far tlie iinti-Pharisaic i)olemic of the writer has been defensive .and imjilicit. In the third chapter it becomes manifest and open. The say- ings of the Baptist are so arrangetl as to form a sermon of denunciation of the Pharisees and Sad- ducees. They are a ' brood of vipers,' who jiride themselves on their descent from Abrah.am. But right action based on repentance is the only ground for hope of God's favour. The Messiah is at hand, and will sweep away all such false claims with the lire of judgment. In the Sermon on the Mount the same anti- Pharisaic polemic is found. Their ' righteousness' will not admit them into the King- dom (5^"). They are ' hypocrites ' whose religious observances .are based on desire for jiersonal credit (6'""). In 8'^ they are ' the .sons of the kingdom,' but nevertheless thej- will be cast into the outer dark- ness. It w.as the Pharisees who complained that
k
146
MATTHEW (GOSPEL)
MATTHEW (GOSPEL)
Christ ate witli tax-gatherers and sinners (9"), and it was they wlio ascribed His po^ver to cast out demons to Beelzebul (v.^^ 12-^). They accused His disciples (v.-), and Christ Himself (v.^"), of doing illegal actions on the Sabbath. They plotted to destroy Him (v.^*), and asked a sign from Him (v.^*). They condemned His disciples for eating with unwaslien hands (15^), and were shocked at His teaching about things clean and unclean (v.^-), being themselves blind guides (v.^'*). The disciples were to beware of their teaching (16^^). In tlie last days of the ^lessiah's life the Pharisees took a prominent part in the events that led to His death. They plotted with the chief priests to arrest Him (21'*''). They planned to entrap Him in His speech (22'-''). They tried to entangle Him in argument (yy,_34. 41) All this leads up to the tremendous in- dictment of the scribes and Pharisees in ch. 23. In the narrative dealing with the Crucifixion we read naturally rather of the chief priests and elders than of the Pharisees ; but it is the latter, with the chief priests, who efi'ect the sealing of the tomb {2T^-^-).