The circumstances of the times, as alluded to under the last inquiry,
afford much light on the immediate object which Matthew had in view, in
writing his gospel. It is true, that common readers of the Bible seldom
think of it as anything else than a mere complete revelation made to
all men, to lead them in the way of truth and salvation; and few are
prepared for an inquiry which shall take each portion of the scriptures
by itself, and follow it through all its individual history, to the
very source,――searching even into the immediate and temporary purpose
of the inspired writers. Indeed, very many never think or know, that
the historical portions of the New Testament were written with any
other design than to furnish to believers in Christ, through all ages,
in all countries, a complete and distinct narrative of the events of
the history of the foundation of their religion. But such a notion
is perfectly discordant, not only with the reasonable results of an
accurate examination of these writings, in all their parts, but with
the uniform and decided testimony of all the Fathers of the Christian
church, who may be safely taken as important and trusty witnesses of
the notions prevalent in their times, about the scope and original
design of the apostolic records. And though, as to the minute
particulars of the history of the sacred canon, their testimony is
worth little, yet on the general question, whether the apostles wrote
with only a universal reference, or also with some special design
connected with their own age and times,――the Fathers are as good
authority as any writers that ever lived could be, on the opinions
generally prevalent in their own day. In this particular case, however,
very little reference can be made to external historical evidence, on
the scope of Matthew’s gospel; because very few notices indeed, are
found, of its immediate object, among the works of the early writers.
But a view of the circumstances of the times, before referred to, will
illustrate many things connected with the plan of the work, and show
a peculiar force in many passages, that would otherwise be little
appreciated.
It appears on the unimpeachable testimony of the historians of those
very times, of Josephus, who was a Jew, and of Tacitus and Suetonius,
who were Romans, that both before and during the civil disturbances
that ended in the destruction of Jerusalem, there was a general
impression among the Jews, that their long-foretold Savior and national
restorer, the Messiah-king, would soon appear; and in the power of God,
lead them on to a certain triumph over the seemingly invincible hosts,
which even the boundless strength of Rome could send against them. In
the expectation of the establishment of his glorious dominion, under
which Israel should more than renew the honors and the power of David
and Solomon, they, without fear of the appalling consequences of their
temerity, entered upon the hopeless struggle for independence; and
according to the testimony of the above-mentioned historians, this
prevalent notion did much, not only to incite them to the contest,
but also to sustain their resolution under the awful calamities which
followed. The revolt thus fully begun, drew the whole nation together
into a perfect union of feeling and interest; all sharing in the
popular fanaticism, became Jews again, whereby the Christian faith must
have lost not a few of its professors.
In these circumstances, and while such notions were prevalent, Matthew
wrote his sketch of the life, teachings and miracles of Jesus; and
throughout the whole of his narrative makes constant references, where
the connection can suggest, to such passages in the ancient holy books
of the Hebrews, as were commonly supposed to describe the character and
destiny of the Messiah. Tracing out in all these lineaments of ancient
prophecy, the complete picture of the Restorer of Israel, he thus
proved, by a comparison with the actual life of Jesus of Nazareth, that
this was the person, whose course throughout, had been predicted by
the ancient prophets. In this way, he directly attacked the groundless
hopes, which the fanatical rebels had excited, showing, as he did, that
he for whom they looked as the Deliverer of Israel from bondage, had
already come, and devoted his life to the disenthralment and salvation
of his people from their sins. A distinct and satisfactory proof,
carried on through a chain of historical evidence to this effect,
would answer the purpose as fully as the written truth could do, of
overthrowing the baseless imposition with which the impudent Zealots
were beguiling the hopes of a credulous people, and leading them on,
willingly deceived, to their utter ruin. In this book, containing a
clear prediction of the destruction of the temple and Holy city, and
of the whole religious and civil organization of the Jewish nation,
many would find the revealed truth, making them wise in the way of
salvation, though, for a time, all efforts might seem in vain; for the
literal fulfilment of these solemn prophecies thus previously recorded,
afterwards ensuing, the truth of the doctrines of a spiritual faith
connected with these words of prediction, would be strongly impressed
on those whom the consummation of their country’s ruin should lead to
a consideration of the errors in which they had been long led astray.
These prophecies promised, too, that after all these schemes of worldly
triumph for the name and race of Israel, had sadly terminated in the
utter, irretrievable ruin of temple and city,――and when the cessation
of festivals, and the taking away of the daily sacrifice, had left the
Jew so few material and formal objects, to hang his faith and hopes
on,――the wandering ones should turn to the pure spiritual truths, which
would prove the best consolation in their hopeless condition, and own,
in vast numbers, the name and faith of him, whose sorrowful life and
sad death were but too mournful a type of the coming woes of those who
rejected him. Acknowledging the despised and crucified Nazarene as the
true prophet and the long-foretold Messiah-king of afflicted Judah, the
heart-broken, wandering sons of Israel, should join themselves to that
oft-preached heavenly kingdom of virtue and truth, whose only entrance
was through repentance and humility. Hence those numerous quotations
from the Prophets, and from the Psalms, which are so abundant in
Matthew, and by which, even a common reader is able to distinguish the
peculiar, definite object that this writer has in view:――to show to the
Jews, by a minute detail, and a frequent comparison, that the actions
of Jesus, even in the most trifling incidents, corresponded with those
passages of the ancient scriptures, which foreshadowed the Messiah. In
this particular, his gospel is clearly distinguished from the others,
which are for the most part deficient in this distinct unity of design;
and where they refer to the grand object of representing Jesus as the
Messiah,――the Son of God,――they do it in other modes, which show that
it was for more general purposes, and directed to the conversion of
Gentiles rather than Jews. This is the case with John, who plainly
makes this an essential object in his grand scheme; but he combines the
establishment of this great truth, with the more immediate occasions of
subverting error and checking the progress of heretical opinions that
aimed to detract from the divine prerogatives of Jesus. But John deals
very little in those pointed and apt references to the testimony of
the Hebrew scriptures, which so distinguish the writings of Matthew;
he evidently apprehends that those to whom he writes, will be less
affected by appeals of that kind, than by proofs drawn from his actions
and discourses, and by the testimony of the great, the good, and the
inspired, among those who saw and heard him. The work of Matthew was,
on the other hand, plainly designed to bring to the faith of Jesus,
those who were already fully and correctly instructed in all that
related to the divinely exalted character of the Messiah, and only
needed proof that the person proposed to them as the Redeemer thus
foretold, was in all particulars such as the unerring word of ancient
prophecy required. Besides this object of converting the unbelieving
Jews, its tendency was also manifestly to strengthen and preserve those
who were already professors of the faith of Jesus; and such, through
all ages, has been its mighty scope, enlightening the nations with the
clearest historical testimony ever borne to the whole life and actions
of Jesus Christ, and rejoicing the millions of the faithful with the
plainest record of the events that secured their salvation.
Beyond the history of this gospel, the Fathers have hardly given the
least account, either fanciful or real, of the succeeding life of
Matthew. A fragment of tradition, of no very ancient date, specifies
that he wrote his gospel when he was about to leave Palestine to go
to other lands; but neither the region nor the period is mentioned.
Probably, at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, he followed
the eastward course of the Jewish Christians; but beyond this, even
conjecture is lost. But where all historical grounds fail, monkish
invention comes in with its tedious details of fabulous nonsense; and
in this case, as in others already alluded to, the writings of the
monks of the fourteenth century, produce long accounts of Matthew’s
labors in Ethiopia, where he is carried through a long series of fabled
miracles, to the usual crowning glory of martyrdom.
_Ethiopia._――The earliest testimony on this point by any
ecclesiastical history, is that of Socrates, (A. D. 425,) a
Greek writer, who says only, that “when the apostles divided
the heathen world, by lot, among themselves,――to Matthew was
allotted Ethiopia.” This is commonly supposed to mean Nubia, or
the country directly south of Egypt. The other Fathers of the
fifth and following centuries, generally assign him the same
country; but it is quite uncertain what region is designated
by this name. Ethiopia was a name applied by the Greeks to
such a variety of regions, that it is quite in vain to define
the particular one meant, without more information about the
locality.
But no such idle inventions can add anything to the interest which this
apostolic writer has secured for himself by his noble Christian record.
Not even an authentic history of miracles and martyrdom, could increase
his enduring greatness. The tax-gatherer of Galilee has left a monument,
on which cluster the combined honors of a literary and a holy fame,――a
monument which insures him a wider, more lasting, and far higher glory,
than the noblest ♦achievements of the Grecian or the Latin writers,
in his or any age could acquire for them. Not Herodotus nor Livy,――not
Demosthenes nor Cicero,――not Homer nor Virgil,――can find a reader
to whom the despised Matthew’s simple work is not familiar; nor did
the highest hope or the proudest conception of the brilliant Horace,
when exulting in the extent and durability of his fame, equal the
boundless and eternal range of Matthew’s honors. What would Horace
have said, if he had been told that among the most despised of these
superstitious and barbarian Jews, whom his own writings show to have
been proverbially scorned, would arise one, within thirty or forty
years, who, degraded by his avocation, even below his own countrymen’s
standard of respectability, would, by a simple record in humble prose,
in an uncultivated and soon-forgotten dialect, “complete a monument
more enduring than brass,――more lofty than the pyramids,――outlasting
all the storms of revolution and of disaster,――all the course of ages
and the flight of time?” Yet such was the result of the unpretending
effort of Matthew; and it is not the least among the miracles of the
religion whose foundation he commemorated and secured, that such a
wonder in fame should have been achieved by it.
♦ “achievments” replaced with “achievements”