The Bible Knowledge Commentary Gospels

By John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck

Walk with Those Who Walked with Jesus
 
In the Gospels we witness the most crucial turning point in world history and the reason we believe what we do. The New Testament begins with four accounts of the “good news” of the Son of God. Drawing on the research of Dallas Theological Seminary scholars, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Gospels explores similarities and differences among Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The authors also look at difficult or confusing passages, apologetic evidence for these eyewitness accounts, and what we can learn about Christ-like living from observing the life of Jesus.
 
With dozens of visuals and Old Testament cross-references, this commentary is one of the most thorough and theologically sound studies of the Gospels. Journey with Jesus as if for the first time in this detailed look at His life on earth.
 

• Language: English
• Publisher: David C Cook
• Release date: Mar 1, 2018
• ISBN: 9780830772896

Book preview

THE BIBLE KNOWLEDGE COMMENTARY: GOSPELS

Published by David C Cook

4050 Lee Vance View Colorado Springs, CO 80918 U.S.A.

David C Cook U.K., Kingsway Communications Eastbourne, East Sussex BN23 6NT, England

The graphic circle C logo is a registered trademark of David C Cook.

All rights reserved. Except for brief excerpts for review purposes, no part of this book may be reproduced or used in any form without written permission from the publisher.

The website addresses recommended throughout this book are offered as a resource to you. These websites are not intended in any way to be or imply an endorsement on the part of David C Cook, nor do we vouch for their content.

Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are taken from the Holy Bible: New International Version®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.

LCCN 2017955600

ISBN 978-0-8307-7267-4

eISBN 978-0-8307-7289-6

© 1983, 2018 John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck Previously published as part of The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, ISBN 978-0-88207-812-0.

Cover Design: Nick Lee

Cover Photo: Getty Images

First Edition 2018

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

010818

Table of Contents

MATTHEW: Louis A. Barbieri, Jr.

MARK: John D. Grassmick

LUKE: John A. Martin

JOHN: Edwin A. Blum

Editors

John F. Walvoord, B.A., M.A., TH.M., Th.D., D.D., Litt.D.

Chancellor Emeritus

Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology

Roy B. Zuck, A.B., Th.M., Th.D.

Senior Professor Emeritus of Bible Exposition Editor, Bibliotheca Sacra

Consulting Editors

Donald K. Campbell, B.A., Th.M., Th.D.

President Emeritus

Professor Emeritus of Bible Exposition

Stanley D. Toussaint, B.A., Th.M., Th.D.

Senior Professor Emeritus of Bible Exposition

MATTHEW

Louis A. Barbieri, Jr.

INTRODUCTION

It is fitting that the New Testament begins with four accounts of the life of Jesus Christ. These accounts present the good news concerning the Son of God, telling of His life on earth and His death on the cross for the sin of mankind. The first three Gospels take a similar view of the facts surrounding this Person, while the Fourth Gospel is unique in its presentation. Because of this common view of Jesus Christ the first three New Testament books are called the Synoptic Gospels.

The Synoptic Problem

1. The problem stated. Synoptic comes from the Greek adjective synoptikos, which is from two words syn and opsesthai, to see with or together. While Matthew, Mark, and Luke have distinctive purposes, they nevertheless view the life of Jesus Christ in a common way. However, some differences in the Gospel narratives must also be accounted for. These similarities and differences raise the question of the sources of the Gospels, thus positing a Synoptic problem.

Most conservative scholars acknowledge that the Gospel writers made use of various sources. For example, the genealogical records of both Matthew and Luke may have come from temple records or oral tradition. Luke stated at the beginning of his Gospel (Luke 1:1) that many had written down the facts concerning the Lord Jesus. This implies that Luke could have drawn on a number of written accounts. That the individual writers may have used different sources for their material is a valid conclusion. However, this is not what critical scholars mean when they talk about sources. Most critical scholars view the sources as extensive writings which were joined together by skilled editors to produce their own accounts. This conclusion has led to several explanations of these sources.

a. The Urevangelium theory. Some scholars conclude that an original Gospel (known in German as the Urevangelium) now lost, was the source for the biblical editors as they compiled their accounts. The major objection to this view is that no trace of such a writing has ever been discovered. No scholar can point to a document as the possible Urevangelium. Also, while such an explanation would account for the similarities, it in no way explains the differences in the Gospel stories of the same events.

b. The oral tradition theory. Some have concluded that the basic sources for the Gospels came from oral tradition, an oral testimony that developed around Jesus Christ. Normally such a testimony involved four steps: (1) The event occurred. (2) The event was told and repeated often enough so that it became widely known. (3) The event became fixed so that it was then told exactly the same way. (4) The event was written down in an account. An objection to this view is similar to the Urevangelium theory: this view accounts for similarities in the stories but it fails to account for the differences. Furthermore, why would an eyewitness of the events limit himself to stories from oral tradition?

c. The document theory. A popular view today is that the biblical editors made use of various written sources to compile their accounts. This viewpoint usually posits the following: (1) The first written account was the Gospel of Mark. A major reason for this position is that only 7 percent of the Gospel of Mark is unique, as 93 percent of Mark can be found in Matthew and Luke. (2) In addition to Mark a second written document existed which basically contained discourse material. This document is known as Q, an abbreviated form of the German word for source, Quelle. The approximately 200 verses common to Matthew and Luke which are not found in Mark must have come from Q. (3) The editors used at least two other sources. One source reflects verses in Matthew not found in either Mark or Luke, and the other source reflects verses in Luke not found in either Matthew or Mark. This theory with its lines of dependence could be charted in this way:

This theory has several problems. First, it has difficulty with tradition. Conservative scholars have generally held that Matthew was the first of the written Gospels. While not all conservatives agree, this tradition does have some weight behind it and should not be shrugged off as mere tradition as sometimes tradition is correct. Second, this theory cannot account for the fact that occasionally Mark made a comment that neither Matthew nor Luke included. Mark wrote that the rooster crowed a second time (Mark 14:72), but neither Matthew nor Luke included that fact. Third, if Mark were the first Gospel, written after Peter’s death around A.D. 67-68, then Matthew and Luke would probably have been written later after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. One would then expect that destruction to have been mentioned as a fitting climax to the Lord’s words in Matthew 24-25 or Luke’s statement in 21:20-24; however, neither mentioned the event. Fourth, the greatest problem is the whole speculation about the existence of Q. If such a document existed and were thought of so highly by Matthew and Luke that they quoted extensively from it, why did not the church also regard it highly and preserve it?

d. The form critical theory. This widely held view assumes the document theory, but takes it a step further. When the Gospel accounts were compiled, a multiplicity of documents existed, not simply four documents (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Q). Interpreters today seek to discover and classify these documents, called forms, and also to get behind the forms and discover exactly what the first-century church was seeking to communicate through them. The literal facts communicated in the forms are not sufficient in themselves; the truth is discovered by going behind the literal story. The facts in the stories are considered myths which the church built up around Jesus Christ. By scraping away the myths or demythologizing, kernels of truth concerning Jesus are discovered.

While this theory is widely held, it has some serious problems. It is virtually impossible to classify the forms into exact categories. It is doubtful if any two interpreters would agree on the classifications. Furthermore, this view says that the first-century church caused these stories to be told the way they were, but the view never adequately explains what caused the church. In other words, this view has purposefully overlooked the living witness of Jesus Christ and the true impact His life and death made on first-century believers.

2. A proposed solution. The similarities and differences in the Gospel accounts can be solved through a composite viewpoint. First, the Gospel writers of the first century had extensive personal knowledge of much of the material they recorded. Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus Christ who spent a considerable amount of time with the Lord. Mark’s account may be the reflections of Simon Peter near the end of his life, and Luke could have learned many facts through his relationship with Paul and others. These facts would have been used in writing the four accounts.

Second, oral tradition was involved. For example, Acts 20:35 refers to a saying of Christ not recorded in the Gospels. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:10 gave a quotation from the Lord; when Paul wrote this, possibly none of the Gospels had yet been written. Third, written documents told some of the stories about Jesus Christ. Luke acknowledged this fact as he began his Gospel (Luke 1:1-4). None of these facts, however, gives the dynamic needed to record an inspired account of Jesus Christ’s life that is free from all error. Fourth, another element must be included to help solve the Synoptic problem, namely, the dynamic of the Holy Spirit’s ministry of inspiration as the Gospel writers recorded the accounts. The Lord promised the disciples that the Holy Spirit would teach them all things and remind them of all Jesus had told them (John 14:26). This dynamic guarantees accuracy, whether the author was making use of his memory, passed-down oral traditions, or written accounts available to him. Whatever the source, the direction of the Holy Spirit assured an accurate text. The better one understands the various stories about the Lord, the clearer the difficulties become, for there was a divine superintendence over the authors regardless of the sources they used.

The Authorship of the First Gospel. When one deals with the question of who wrote a particular Bible book, the evidence is normally twofold: evidence outside the book (external evidence) and evidence within the book itself (internal evidence). External evidence strongly supports the view that the Apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel that bears his name. Many early church fathers cited Matthew as its author, including Pseudo Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen. (For further attestation see Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible. Chicago: Moody Press, 1968, p. 193.) Matthew was certainly not one of the more prominent apostles. One might think the First Gospel would have been written by Peter, James, or John. But the extensive tradition that Matthew wrote it strongly commends him as its author.

Internal evidence also supports the fact that Matthew was the author of the First Gospel. This book has more references to coins than any of the other three Gospels. In fact this Gospel includes three terms for coins that are found nowhere else in the New Testament: The two-drachma tax (Matt. 17:24); a four-drachma coin (17:27), and talents (18:24). Since Matthew’s occupation was tax collecting, he had an interest in coins and noted the cost of certain items. The profession of tax collector would necessitate an ability to write and keep records. Matthew obviously had the ability, humanly speaking, to write a book such as the First Gospel.

His Christian humility comes through as well, for Matthew alone continually refers to himself throughout his Gospel as Matthew the tax collector. But Mark and Luke do not continually use that term of contempt when speaking of Matthew. Also, when Matthew began to follow Jesus, he invited his friends to a dinner (Matt. 9:9-10). Luke, however, called the dinner a great banquet (Luke 5:29). The omissions from the First Gospel are significant too, for Matthew omitted the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14) and the story of Zacchaeus, a tax collector who restored fourfold what he had stolen (Luke 19:1-10). The internal evidence concerning the authorship of the First Gospel points to Matthew as its most likely author.

The Original Language of the First Gospel. While all the extant manuscripts of the First Gospel are in Greek, some suggest that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, similar to Hebrew. Five individuals stated, in effect, that Matthew wrote in Aramaic and that translations followed in Greek: Papias (A.D. 80-155), Irenaeus (A.D. 130-202), Origen (A.D. 185-254), Eusebius (fourth century A.D.), and Jerome (sixth century A.D.). However, they may have been referring to a writing by Matthew other than his Gospel account. Papias, for example, said Matthew compiled the sayings (logia) of Jesus. Those sayings might have been a second, shorter account of the Lord’s words, written in Aramaic and sent to a group of Jews for whom it would have been most meaningful. That writing was later lost, for no such version exists today. The First Gospel, however, was probably penned by Matthew in Greek and has survived until today. Matthew’s logia did not survive, but his Gospel did. This was because the latter, part of the biblical canon and thus God’s Word, was inspired and preserved by the Spirit of God.

The Date of the First Gospel. Pinpointing the writing of the First Gospel to a specific year is impossible. Various dates for the book have been suggested by conservative scholars. C.I. Scofield in the original Scofield Reference Bible gave A.D. 37 as a possible date. Few scholars give a date after A.D. 70, since Matthew made no reference to the destruction of Jerusalem. Furthermore, Matthew’s references to Jerusalem as the Holy City (Matt. 4:5; 27:53) imply that it was still in existence.

But some time seems to have elapsed after the events of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. Matthew 27:7-8 refers to a certain custom continuing to this day, and 28:15 refers to a story being circulated to this very day. These phrases imply the passing of time, and yet not so much time that the Jewish customs had ceased. Since church tradition has strongly advocated that the Gospel of Matthew was the first Gospel account written, perhaps a date somewhere around A.D. 50 would satisfy all the demands mentioned. It would also be early enough to permit Matthew to be the first Gospel account. (For further discussion and an alternate view [that Mark was the first of the four Gospels] see Sources under the Introduction to Mark.)

The Occasion for Writing the First Gospel. Though the precise occasion for the writing of this account is not known, it appears Matthew had at least two reasons for writing. First, he wanted to show unbelieving Jews that Jesus is the Messiah. Matthew had found the Messiah, and he wanted others to come into that same relationship. Second, Matthew wrote to encourage Jewish believers. If indeed Jesus is the Messiah, a horrible thing had occurred. The Jews had crucified their Messiah and King. What would now become of them? Was God through with them? At this point Matthew had a word of encouragement, for though their act of disobedience would bring judgment on that generation of Israelites, God was not through with His people. His promised kingdom would yet be instituted with His people at a future time. In the meantime, however, believers are responsible to communicate a different message of faith in this Messiah as they go into all the world to make disciples among all nations.

Some Outstanding Characteristics of the First Gospel

1. The Book of Matthew places great emphasis on the teaching ministry of Jesus Christ. Of the Gospel accounts Matthew has the largest blocks of discourse material. No other Gospel contains so much of Jesus’ teachings. Matthew 5-7 is commonly referred to as the Sermon on the Mount; chapter 10 includes Jesus’ instructions to His disciples as they were sent out to minister; chapter 13 presents the parables of the kingdom; in chapter 23 is Jesus’ hot denunciation of the religious leaders of Israel; and chapters 24-25 are the Olivet Discourse, a detailed explanation of future events relating to Jerusalem and the nation.

2. Some of the material in Matthew is arranged logically rather than chronologically. As examples, the genealogical tables are broken into three equal groups, a large number of miracles are given together, and the opposition to Jesus is given in one section. Matthew’s purpose is obviously more thematic than chronological.

3. The First Gospel is filled with Old Testament quotations. Matthew includes approximately 50 direct citations from the Old Testament. In addition about 75 allusions are made to Old Testament events. This is undoubtedly because of the audience for whom the book was intended. Matthew primarily had Jews in mind as he wrote, and they would have been impressed by the many references to Old Testament facts and events. In addition, if this Gospel was written around A.D. 50, not many New Testament books were available for Matthew to have cited. Those books may not have been known to his readers or even to Matthew himself.

4. The First Gospel shows that Jesus Christ is the Messiah of Israel and explains God’s kingdom program (Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew, pp. 18-20). If indeed Jesus is Messiah, a Jew would ask, what has happened to the promised kingdom? The Old Testament clearly taught that the Messiah would bring in a glorious utopian reign on the earth in which the nation Israel would have a prominent position. Since the nation rejected its true King, what happened to the kingdom? The Book of Matthew includes some mysteries about the kingdom, which had not been revealed in the Old Testament. These mysteries show that the kingdom has taken a different form in the present Age, but that the promised Davidic kingdom will be instituted at a future time when Jesus Christ returns to earth to establish His rule.

5. The First Gospel has a summary statement in its first verse: A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the Son of David, the Son of Abraham. Why does David’s name appear before Abraham’s? Would not Abraham, the father of the nation, be more significant to a Jewish mind? Perhaps Matthew listed the name of David first because the King who would rule over the nation was to come through David (2 Sam. 7:12-17). Jesus Christ came with a message for His own nation. But in the plan of God, His message was rejected. Therefore a universal message reaches out to the entire world. The promise of blessings for all the nations of the world came through Abraham and the covenant God made with him (Gen. 12:3). It is significant that Matthew did include Gentiles, such as the Magi from the East (Matt. 2:1-12), the centurion with his great faith (8:5-13), and the Canaanite woman who had greater faith than Christ had seen in all Israel (15:22-28). Also the book concludes with the Great Commission to "go and make disciples of all nations" (28:19).

OUTLINE

I. Introduction of the King (1:1-4:11)

A. Presentation by ancestry (1:1-17)

B. Presentation by advent (1:18-2:23)

C. Presentation by an ambassador (3:1-12)

D. Presentation through approval (3:13-4:11)

II. Communications from the King (4:12-7:29)

A. Beginning proclamations (4:12-25)

B. Continuing pronouncements (chaps. 5-7)

III. Credentials of the King (8:1-11:1)

A. His power over disease (8:1-15)

B. His power over demonic forces (8:16-17, 28-34)

C. His power over men (8:18-22; 9:9)

D. His power over nature (8:23-27)

E. His power to forgive (9:1-8)

F. His power over traditions (9:10-17)

G. His power over death (9:18-26)

H. His power over darkness (9:27-31)

I. His power over dumbness (9:32-34)

J. His power to delegate authority (9:35-11:1)

IV. Challenge to the King’s Authority (11:2-16:12)

A. Seen in the rejection of John the Baptist (11:2-19)

B. Seen in the condemnation of the cities (11:20-30)

C. Seen in the controversies over His authority (chap. 12)

D. Seen in the change in the kingdom program (13:1-52)

E. Seen in various rejections (13:53-16:12)

V. Cultivation of the King’s Disciples (16:13-20:34)

A. The revelation in view of rejection (16:13-17:13)

B. The instruction in view of rejection (17:14-20:34)

VI. Climax of the King’s Offer (chaps. 21-27)

A. The official presentation of the King (21:1-22)

B. The religious confrontation with the King (21:23-22:46)

C. The national rejection of the King (chap. 23)

D. The prophetic anticipation of the King (chaps. 24-25)

E. The national rejection of the King (chaps. 26-27)

VII. Confirmation of the King’s Life (chap. 28)

A. The empty tomb (28:1-8)

B. The personal appearance (28:9-10)

C. The official explanation (28:11-15)

D. The official commissioning (28:16-20)

COMMENTARY

I. Introduction of the King (1:1-4:11)

A. Presentation by ancestry (1:1-17)

(Luke 3:23-38)

1:1. From the very first words of his Gospel, Matthew recorded his central theme and character. Jesus Christ is the main character in Matthew’s presentation, and the opening verse connected Him back to two great covenants in Jewish history: the Davidic (2 Sam. 7) and the Abrahamic (Gen. 12; 15). If Jesus of Nazareth is the fulfillment of these two great covenants, is He related to the rightful line? This is a question the Jews would have asked, so Matthew traced Jesus’ lineage in detail.

1:2-17. Matthew gave Jesus’ lineage through His legal father, Joseph (v. 16). Thus this genealogy traced Jesus’ right to the throne of David, which must come through Solomon and his descendants (v. 6). Of particular interest is the inclusion of Jeconiah (v. 11) of whom Jeremiah said, Record this man as if childless (Jer. 22:30). Jeremiah’s prophecy related to the actual occupation of the throne and the reception of blessing while on the throne. Though Jeconiah’s sons never occupied the throne, the line of rulership did pass through them. If Jesus had been a physical descendant of Jeconiah, He would not have been able to occupy David’s throne. Luke’s genealogy made it clear that Jesus was a physical descendant of David through another son named Nathan (Luke 3:31). But Joseph, a descendant of Solomon, was Jesus’ legal father, so Jesus’ right to the throne was traced through Joseph.

Matthew traced Joseph’s line from Jeconiah through the latter’s son Shealtiel and grandson Zerubbabel (Matt. 1:12). Luke (3:27) also refers to Shealtiel, the father of Zerubbabel, in Mary’s line. Does Luke’s account, then, mean that Jesus was a physical descendant of Jeconiah, after all? No, because Luke’s Shealtiel and Zerubbabel were probably different persons from those two in Matthew. In Luke Shealtiel was the son of Neri, but Matthew’s Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah.

Another interesting fact about Matthew’s genealogy is the inclusion of four Old Testament women: Tamar (Matt. 1:3), Rahab (v. 5), Ruth (v. 5), and Solomon’s mother (v. 6), Bathsheba. All of these women (as well as most of the men) were questionable in some way. Tamar and Rahab were prostitutes (Gen. 38:24; Josh. 2:1), Ruth was a foreigner, a Moabitess (Ruth 1:4), and Bathsheba committed adultery (2 Sam. 11:2-5). Matthew may have included these women in order to emphasize that God’s choices in dealing with people are all of His grace. Perhaps also he included these women in order to put Jewish pride in its place.

When the fifth woman, Mary (Matt. 1:16), was mentioned in the genealogy, an important change occurred. The genealogy consistently repeated, the father of, until it came to Mary. At that point Matthew changed and said of whom was born Jesus. The of whom is a feminine relative pronoun (ex hes), clearly indicating that Jesus was the physical Child of Mary but that Joseph was not His physical father. This miraculous conception and birth are explained in 1:18-25.

Matthew obviously did not list every individual in the genealogy between Abraham and David (vv. 2-6), between David and the Exile (vv. 6-11), and between the Exile and Jesus (vv. 12-16). Instead he listed only 14 generations in each of these time periods (v. 17). Jewish reckoning did not require every name in order to satisfy a genealogy. But why did Matthew select 14 names in each period? Perhaps the best solution is that the name David in Hebrew numerology added up to 14. It should be noted that in the period from the Exile to the birth of Jesus (vv. 12-16) 13 new names appeared. Many scholars feel that Jeconiah (v. 12), though repeated from verse 11, provides the 14th name in this final period.

Matthew’s genealogy answered the important question a Jew would rightfully ask about anyone who claimed to be King of the Jews. Is He a descendant of David through the rightful line of succession? Matthew answered yes!

B. Presentation by advent (1:18-2:23)

(Luke 2:1-7)

1. HIS ORIGIN (1:18-23)

1:18-23. The fact that Jesus was born of Mary only, as indicated in the genealogical record (v. 16), demanded further explanation. Matthew’s explanation can best be understood in the light of Hebrew marriage customs. Marriages were arranged for individuals by parents, and contracts were negotiated. After this was accomplished, the individuals were considered married and were called husband and wife. They did not, however, begin to live together. Instead, the woman continued to live with her parents and the man with his for one year. The waiting period was to demonstrate the faithfulness of the pledge of purity given concerning the bride. If she was found to be with child in this period, she obviously was not pure, but had been involved in an unfaithful sexual relationship. Therefore the marriage could be annulled. If, however, the one-year waiting period demonstrated the purity of the bride, the husband would then go to the house of the bride’s parents and in a grand processional march lead his bride back to his home. There they would begin to live together as husband and wife and consummate their marriage physically. Matthew’s story should be read with this background in mind.

Mary and Joseph were in the one­ year waiting period when Mary was found to be with child. They had never had sexual intercourse and Mary herself had been faithful (vv. 20, 23). While little is said about Joseph, one can imagine how his heart must have broken. He genuinely loved Mary, and yet the word came that she was pregnant. His love for her was demonstrated by his actions. He chose not to create a public scandal by exposing her condition to the judges at the city gate. Such an act could have resulted in Mary’s death by stoning (Deut. 22:23-24). Instead he decided to divorce her quietly. .

Then in a dream (cf. Matt. 2:13, 19, 22), an angel told Joseph that Mary’s condition was not caused by a man, but through the Holy Spirit (1:20; cf. v. 18). The Child Mary carried in her womb was a unique Child, for He would be a Son whom Joseph should name Jesus for He would save His people from their sins. These words must have brought to Joseph’s mind the promises of God to provide salvation through the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-37). The unnamed angel also told Joseph that this was in keeping with God’s eternal plan, for the Prophet Isaiah had declared 700 years before that the virgin will be with Child (Matt. 1:23; Isa. 7:14). While Old Testament scholars dispute whether the Hebrew ‘almâh should be rendered young woman or virgin, God clearly intended it here to mean virgin (as implied by the Gr. word parthenos). Mary’s miraculous conception fulfilled Isaiah’s prophecy, and her Son would truly be Immanuel ... God with us. In light of this declaration Joseph was not to be afraid to take Mary into his home (Matt. 1:20). There would be misunderstanding in the community and much gossip at the well, but Joseph knew the true story of Mary’s pregnancy and God’s will for his life.

2. HIS BIRTH (1:24-25)

1:24-25. As soon as Joseph awakened from this dream, he obeyed. He violated all custom by immediately taking Mary into his home rather than waiting till the one-year time period of betrothal had passed. Joseph was probably thinking of what would be best for Mary in her condition. He brought her home and began to care and provide for her. But there was no sexual relationship between them until after the birth of this Child, Jesus. Matthew simply noted the birth of the Child and the fact that He was named Jesus, whereas Luke, the physician (Col. 4:14), recorded several details surrounding the birth (Luke 2:1-7).

3. HIS INFANCY (CHAP. 2)

a. In Bethlehem (2:1-12)

2:1-2. Though not all scholars agree on the timing of the arrival of the Magi from the East, they apparently came some time after the birth of Jesus. Jesus and Mary and Joseph, though still in Bethlehem, were now in a house (v. 11), and Jesus was called a Child (paidion, vv. 9, 11) rather than a newborn Infant (brephos, Luke 2:12).

The exact identity of the Magi is impossible to determine, though several ideas have been suggested. They have been given traditional names and identified as representatives of the three groups of peoples that descended from Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. More likely they were Gentiles of high position from a country, perhaps Parthia, northeast of Babylon, who were given a special revelation by God of the birth of the King of the Jews. This special revelation may simply have been in the sky, as might be indicated by their title Magi (specialists in astronomy) and by the fact they referred to a star which they saw. Or this revelation could have come through some contact with Jewish scholars who had migrated to the East with copies of Old Testament manuscripts. Many feel the Magi’s comments reflected a knowledge of Balaam’s prophecy concerning the star that would come out of Jacob (Num. 24:17). Whatever the source, they came to Jerusalem to worship the newborn King of the Jews, (According to tradition three Magi traveled to Bethlehem. But the Bible does not say how many there were.)

2:3-8. It is no surprise that King Herod ... was disturbed when the Magi came to Jerusalem looking for the One who had been born King (v. 2). Herod was not the rightful king from the line of David. In fact he was not even a descendant of Jacob, but was descended from Esau and thus was an Edomite. (He reigned over Palestine from 37 B.C. to 4 B.C. See the chart on the Herods at Luke 1:5.) This fact caused most of the Jews to hate him and never truly to accept him as king, even though he did much for the country. If someone had been rightfully born king, then Herod’s job was in jeopardy. He therefore called the Jewish scholars together and inquired where the Christ was to be born (Matt. 2:4). Interestingly Herod connected the One born king of the Jews (v. 2) with the Christ, the Messiah. Obviously Israel had a messianic hope and believed that the Messiah would be born.

The answer to Herod’s question was simple, because Micah the prophet had given the precise location centuries before: the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). This answer from the people’s chief priests and teachers of the Law (scribes, KJV) was apparently carried back to the Magi by Herod himself. Then Herod asked them when they had first seen their star (Matt. 2:7). This became critical later in the account (v. 16); it showed that Herod was already contemplating a plan to get rid of this young King. He also instructed the Magi to return and tell him the location of this King so that he might come and worship Him. That was not, however, what he had in mind.

2:9-12. The journey of the Magi from Jerusalem wrought a further miracle. The star they had seen in the East now reappeared and led them to a specific house in Bethlehem where they found the Child Jesus. Bethlehem is about five miles south of Jerusalem. Stars (i.e., planets) naturally travel from east to west across the heavens, not from north to south. Could it be that the star which the Magi saw and which led them to a specific house was the Shekinah glory of God? That same glory had led the children of Israel through the wilderness for 40 years as a pillar of fire and cloud. Perhaps this was what they saw in the East, and for want of a better term they called it a star. All other efforts to explain this star are inadequate (such as a conjunction of Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars; a supernova; a comet; etc.).

Nevertheless they were led to the Child and going in, they worshiped Him. Their worship was heightened by the giving of gifts ... gold ... incense and ... myrrh. These were gifts worthy of a king and this act by Gentile leaders pictures the wealth of the nations which will someday be completely given to the Messiah (Isa. 60:5, 11; 61:6; 66:20; Zeph. 3:10; Hag. 2:7-8).

Some believe the gifts had further significance by reflecting on the character of this Child’s life. Gold might represent His deity or purity, incense the fragrance of His life, and myrrh His sacrifice and death (myrrh was used for embalming). These gifts were obviously the means by which Joseph took his family to Egypt and sustained them there until Herod died. The wise men were warned by God not to return and report to Herod, so they returned to their homes by another route.

b. In Egypt (2:13-18)

2:13-15. After the visit of the Magi, Joseph was warned by an angel of the Lord to take Mary and Jesus and flee to Egypt. This warning was given in a dream (the second of Joseph’s four dreams: 1:20; 2:13, 19, 22). The reason was Herod would be searching for the Child to kill Him. Under cover of darkness, Joseph obeyed, and his family left Bethlehem (see map) and journeyed into Egypt. Why Egypt? The Messiah was sent to and returned from Egypt so that the prophet’s words, Out of Egypt I called My Son, might be fulfilled. This is a reference to Hosea 11:1, which does not seem to be a prophecy in the sense of a prediction. Hosea was writing of God’s calling Israel out of Egypt into the Exodus. Matthew, however, gave new understanding to these words. Matthew viewed this experience as Messiah being identified with the nation. There were similarities between the nation and the Son. Israel was God’s chosen son by adoption (Ex. 4:22), and Jesus is the Messiah, God’s Son. In both cases the descent into Egypt was to escape danger, and the return was important to the nation’s providential history. While Hosea’s statement was a historical reference to Israel’s deliverance, Matthew related it more fully to the call of the Son, the Messiah, from Egypt. In that sense, as Matthew heightened Hosea’s words to a more significant event-the Messiah’s return from Egypt-they were fulfilled.

2:16-18. As soon as Herod learned that the Magi had not complied with his orders to give him the exact location of the newborn King, he put into action a plan to kill all the male children in Bethlehem. The age of two ... and under was selected in compliance with the time ... the Magi saw the star in the East. Perhaps this time reference also indicated that when the Magi visited Jesus, He was under two years of age.

This slaughter of the male children is mentioned only here in the biblical record. Even the Jewish historian Josephus (A.D. 37-7100) did not mention this dastardly deed of putting to death innocent babies and young children. But it is not surprising that he and other secular historians overlooked the death of a few Hebrew children in an insignificant village, for Herod’s infamous crimes were many. He put to death several of his own children and some of his wives whom he thought were plotting against him. Emperor Augustus reportedly said it was better to be Herod’s sow than his son, for his sow had a better chance of surviving in a Jewish community. In the Greek language, as in English, there is only one letter difference between the words "sow’’ (huos) and son (huios).

This event too was said to be the fulfillment of a prophecy by Jeremiah. This statement (Jer. 31:15) referred initially to the weeping of the nation as a result of the death of children at the time of the Babylonian Captivity (586 B.C.). But the parallel to the situation at this time was obvious, for again children were being slaughtered at the hands of non-Jews. Also, Rachel’s tomb was near Bethlehem and Rachel was considered by many to be the mother of the nation. That is why she was seen weeping over these children’s deaths.

c. In Nazareth (2:19-23)

2:19-23. After Herod died . . . Joseph was again instructed by an angel of the Lord. This was the third of four times an angel appeared to him in a dream (cf. 1:20; 2:13, 19, 22). He was made aware of Herod’s death and told to return to the land (v. 20). Joseph obediently followed the Lord’s instruction and was planning to return to the land of Israel, perhaps to Bethlehem. However, a son of Herod, Archelaus, was ruling over the territories of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea. Archelaus, noted for tyranny, murder, and instability, was probably insane as a result of close family intermarriages. ( He ruled from 4 B.C. to A.D. 6. See the chart on the Herods at Luke 1:5). God’s warning to Joseph (again in a dream, Matt. 2:22; cf. 1:20; 2:13, 19) was not to return to Bethlehem, but instead to move back to the northern district of Galilee to the town of Nazareth. The ruler of this region was Antipas, another son of Herod (cf. 14:1; Luke 23:7-12), but he was a capable ruler.

The fact that the family moved to Nazareth was once again said to be in fulfillment of prophecy (Matt. 2:23). However, the words He will be called a Nazarene, were not directly spoken by any Old Testament prophet, though several prophecies come close to this expression. Isaiah said the Messiah would be from [Jesse’s] roots like a Branch (Isa. 11:1). Branch is the Hebrew word neṣer, which has consonants like those in the word Nazarene and which carry the idea of having an insignificant beginning. Since Matthew used the plural prophets, perhaps his idea was not based on a specific prophecy but on the idea that appeared in a number of prophecies concerning Messiah’s despised character. Nazareth was the town which housed the Roman garrison for the northern regions of Galilee. Therefore most Jews would not have any associations with that city. In fact those who lived in Nazareth were thought of as compromisers who consorted with the enemy, the Romans. Therefore to call one a Nazarene was to use a term of contempt. So because Joseph and his family settled in Nazareth, the Messiah was later despised and considered contemptible in the eyes of many in Israel. This was Nathanael’s reaction when he heard Jesus was from Nazareth (John 1:46): Can anything good come from there? This concept fit several Old Testament prophecies that speak of the lowly character of the Messiah (e.g., Isa. 42:1-4). Also the term Nazarene would have reminded Jewish readers of the similar-sounding word Nazirite (Num. 6:1-21). Jesus was more devoted to God than the Nazirites.

C. Presentation by an ambassador (3:1-12)

(Mark 1:1-8; Luke 3:1-9, 15-18; John 1:19-28)

3:1-2. In Matthew’s story of the Messiah-King, he skipped the next 30 years or so of Jesus’ life. Matthew picked up the story with the introductory ministry of John the Baptist, the ambassador of the King. In the Scriptures several men were named John, but only one had the distinguishing name John the Baptist, that is, the Baptizer. While self-imposed proselyte baptism was known to the Jews, John’s baptism was unusual for he was the first person who came baptizing others.

John’s ministry was conducted in the Desert of Judea, barren and rugged land west of the Dead Sea. His message was forthright and had two parts: (1) a soteriological aspect, repent, and (2) an eschatological aspect, for the kingdom of heaven is near. The concept of a coming kingdom was well known in Old Testament Scriptures. But the idea that repentance was necessary in order to enter this kingdom was something new and became a stumbling block to many Jews. They thought that as children of Abraham they would automatically be granted entrance into Messiah’s kingdom. John’s message, however, was that a change of mind and heart (metanoeite, repent) was necessary before they could qualify for the kingdom. They did not realize how far they had drifted from God’s Law and the requirements laid down by the prophets (e.g., Mal. 3:7-12).

The eschatological aspect of John’s message has caused modern-day commentators greater problems. Not all scholars agree on John’s meaning; in fact even conservative scholars are divided. What was John preaching? He announced a coming kingdom, which simply means a coming rule. This rule was to be heaven’s rule: the kingdom of heaven. Does that mean God would then begin to rule in heavenly spheres? Obviously not, for God has always ruled over heavenly spheres since Creation. John must mean that God’s heavenly rule was about to be extended directly to earthly spheres. God’s rule over the earth had drawn near and was about to be instituted through the person of the Messiah for whom John was preparing the way. No one hearing John preach asked him what he was talking about, for the concept of Messiah’s rule over the kingdom of earth was a common thread in Old Testament prophecy. The requirement for that institution, however, was that the nation repent.

3:3-10. John’s message was a fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 40:3 with reflections of Malachi 3:1. All four Gospels relate John the Baptist to Isaiah’s words (Mark 1:2-3; Luke 3:4-6; John 1:23). Isaiah 40:3, however, refers to highway construction workers who were called on to clear the way in the desert for the return of the Lord as His people, the exiles, returned to Judah from the Babylonian Captivity in 537 B.C. In similar fashion, John the Baptist was in the desert preparing the way for the Lord and His kingdom by calling on people to return to Him.

John was thus a voice of one calling in the desert to prepare a remnant to receive the Messiah. His preaching in the Desert of Judea (Matt. 3:1) suggests that he came to separate people from the religious systems of the day. He dressed similarly to Elijah (clothes ... of camel’s hair and ... a leather belt; cf. 2 Kings 1:8; Zech. 13:4). And he ate locusts and wild honey. Locusts were eaten by the poor (Lev. 11:21). Like Elijah he was a rough outdoorsman with a forthright message. Large numbers of people . . . from Jerusalem and all Judea went to hear John the Baptist. Some accepted !his message and confessed their sins, submitting to water baptism, the identifying sign of John’s ministry. John’s baptism was not the same as Christian baptism, for it was a religious rite signifying confession of sin and commitment to a holy life in anticipation of the coming Messiah.

However, not all believed. The Pharisees and Sadducees, who came to see what he was doing, rejected his appeal. Their feelings were summed up in John’s words to them (Matt. 3:7-10). They believed that they, as physical sons of Abraham, were automatically qualified for Messiah’s kingdom. John completely repudiated Pharisaic Judaism and said that God, if necessary, could raise up ... stones to become His children. God could take outsiders, Gentiles, if necessary to find individuals to follow Him. Judaism was in danger of being removed. Unless there was productive fruit in keeping with repentance (v. 8), God would remove the tree.

3:11-12. The relationship of John the Baptist to the coming Messiah was clearly seen. John believed he was not even worthy to carry (or untie) the sandals of the Coming One. John was simply an introducer who was preparing a remnant for the Messiah, and who was baptizing in water those who responded. The Coming One would baptize them with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Those hearing John’s words would have been reminded of two Old Testament prophecies: Joel 2:28-29 and Malachi 3:2-5. Joel had given the promise of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Israel. An actual outpouring of the Spirit did occur in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost, but experientially Israel did not enter into the benefits of that event. She will yet experience the benefits of this accomplished work when she turns in repentance at the Lord’s Second Advent. The baptism with fire referred to the judging and cleansing of those who would enter the kingdom, as prophesied in Malachi 3. This symbolism was carried through by John who spoke of the separation that occurs when a winnowing fork tosses up grain, wheat is then gathered into the barn, and chaff is burned up. John was saying that the Messiah, when He came, would prepare a remnant (wheat) for the kingdom by empowering and cleansing the people. Those who reject Him (chaff) would be judged and cast into eternal unquenchable fire (cf. Mal. 4:1).

D. Presentation through approval (3:13-4:11)

1. BY BAPTISM (3:13-17) (MARK 1:9-11; LUKE 3:21-22)

3:13-14. After years of silence in Nazareth, Jesus appeared among those listening to John’s preaching and presented Himself as a candidate for baptism. Only Matthew recorded John’s opposition to this act: I need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me? John recognized Jesus did not fit the requirements for his baptism, since his baptism was for repentance from sin. Of what did Jesus have to repent? He had never sinned (2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 7:26; 1 John 3:5), so He could not be officially entering into John’s baptism even though He was seeking to be baptized by John. Some feel Jesus was confessing the sins of the nation as Moses, Ezra, and Daniel had done on previous occasions. However, another possibility is suggested in Matthew 3:15.

3:15. Jesus’ response to John was that it was fitting for Him to take part in John’s baptism at this time in order to fulfill all righteousness. What did Jesus mean? The Law included no requirements about baptism, so Jesus could not have had in view anything pertaining to Levitical righteousness. But John’s message was a message of repentance, and those experiencing it were looking forward to a coming Messiah who would be righteous and who would bring in righteousness. If Messiah were to provide righteousness for sinners, He must be identified with sinners. It was therefore in the will of God for Him to be baptized by John in order to be identified (the real meaning of the word baptized) with sinners.

3:16-17. The significant thing about the baptism of Jesus was the authentication from heaven. As Jesus came up out of the water ... the Spirit of God came down on Him in the form of a dove. As One went up, the Other came down. A voice from heaven-the voice of God the Father-said, This is My Son, whom I love; with Him I am well pleased (cf. Eph. 1:6; Col. 1:13). God repeated these words about Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:5). All three Persons of the Godhead were present at this event: the Father who spoke of His Son, the Son who was being baptized, and the Spirit who descended on the Son as a dove. This verified for John that Jesus is the Son of God (John 1:32-34). It was also in keeping with Isaiah’s prophecy that the Spirit would rest on the Messiah (Isa. 11:2). The descent of the Holy Spirit empowered the Son, the Messiah, for His ministry among people.

2. BY TEMPTATION (4:1-11) (MARK 1:12-13; LUKE 4:1-13)

4:1-2. After being baptized, Jesus was led immediately by the Spirit of God into the desert (traditionally near Jericho; see map) for a period of testing. This period of time was a necessary period under God’s direction-a time in which the Son obeyed (Heb. 5:8). After fasting 40 days, when the Lord was hungry, the tests began. From God’s standpoint the tests demonstrated the quality of the Lord. It was impossible for the divine Son to sin, and that fact actually heightened the tests. He could not give in to the tests and sin, but He had to endure until the tests were completed.

4:3-4. The first test pertained to the matter of sonship. Satan assumed that if He were ‘the Son, perhaps He could be persuaded to act independently of the Father. Satan’s test was subtle for since He is the Son of God, He has the power to turn the stones all around Him into bread. But that was not the will of His Father for Him. The Father’s will was for Him to be hungry in the desert with no food. To submit to Satan’s suggestion and satisfy His hunger would have been contrary to God’s will. Jesus therefore quoted Deuteronomy 8:3, which affirms that man does not live on bread alone, but by God’s Word. It is better to obey God’s Word than to satisfy human desires. The fact that Jesus quoted from Deuteronomy showed that He recognized the inerrant authority of that book, one often criticized by scholars.

4:5-7. The second test by Satan appealed to personal display or popularity. This test built on the first, for if He is the Son of God and the Messiah, nothing could harm Him. Satan took Him to ... the highest point of the temple. Whether this was actual or simply a vision cannot be determined dogmatically. Here Satan made a subtle suggestion to Jesus as the Messiah. In effect he was reminding Jesus of Malachi’s prophecy (Mal. 3:1), which had led to a common belief among the Jews that Messiah would suddenly appear in the sky, coming down to His temple. Satan was saying, in essence, "Why don’t You do what the people are expecting and make some marvelous display? After all, the Scripture says His angels will protect You and You won’t even hurt a foot as You come down. Satan may have thought if Jesus could quote Scripture to him, he could quote it too. However, he purposely did not quote Psalm 91:11-12 accurately. He left out an important phrase, in all Your ways." According to the psalmist, a person is protected only when he is following the Lord’s will. For Jesus to cast Himself down from the pinnacle of the temple in some dramatic display to accommodate Himself to the people’s thinking would not have been God’s will. Jesus responded, again from Deuteronomy (6:16), that it would not be proper to test ... God and expect Him to do something when one is out of His will.

4:8-11. Satan’s final test related to God’s plan for Jesus. It was and is God’s design that Jesus Christ rule the world. Satan showed Jesus the kingdoms of the world with all their splendor. These kingdoms presently are Satan’s, as he is the god of this Age (2 Cor. 4:4) and the prince of this world (John 12:31; cf. Eph. 2:2). He had the power to give all these kingdoms to Jesus at that time-if only Jesus would bow down and worship him. Satan was saying, I can accomplish the will of God for You and You can have the kingdoms of this world right now. This of course would have meant Jesus would never have gone to the cross. He supposedly could have been the King of kings without the cross. However, this would have thwarted God’s plan for salvation and would have meant Jesus was worshiping an inferior. His response, once again from Deuteronomy (6:13 and 10:20), was that God alone should be worshiped and served. Jesus resisted this temptation also.

Interestingly Satan’s temptations of Eve in the Garden of Eden correspond to those of Jesus in the desert. Satan appealed to the physical appetite (Gen. 3:1-3; Matt. 4:3), the desire for personal gain (Gen. 3:4-5; Matt. 4:6), and an easy path to power or glory (Gen. 3:5-6; Matt. 4:8-9). And in each case Satan altered God’s Word (Gen. 3:4; Matt. 4:6). Satan’s temptations of people today often fall into the same three categories (cf. 1 John 2:16). The One who had identified Himself with sinners by baptism and who would provide righteousness proved He is righteous, and revealed His approval by the Father. Satan then left Jesus. At that moment God sent angels to minister to His needs.

II. Communications from the King (4:12-7:29)

A. Beginning proclamations (4:12-25)

1. BY WORD (4:12-22)

(MARK 1:14-20; LUKE 4:14-15)

a. His sermon (4:12-17)

4:12-16. Matthew presented an important time factor in his account when he noted Jesus did not officially begin His public ministry until John the Baptist had been put in prison. The reason for John’s imprisonment was not presented here, but it was stated later (14:3). When Jesus learned of John’s imprisonment, He went from Nazareth and settled in Capernaum (Luke 4:16-30 explains why He left Nazareth). This region was the area settled by the tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali after the conquest of Joshua’s time. Isaiah had prophesied (Isa. 9:1-2) that light would come to this region, and Matthew saw this movement of Jesus as fulfillment of this prophecy. One of Messiah’s works was to bring light into darkness, for He would be a light to both Jews and Gentiles (cf. John 1:9; 12:46).

4:17. When John was imprisoned, Jesus began to preach. His words had a familiar ring: Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near (cf. 3:2). The twofold message of John was now proclaimed by the Messiah. The work of God was rapidly moving toward the establishing of the glorious kingdom of God on earth. If one wanted to be a part of the kingdom, he must repent. Repentance was mandatory if fellowship with God was to be enjoyed.

b. His summons (4:18-22)

(Mark 1:16-20; Luke 5:1-11)

4:18-22. Since Jesus is the promised Messiah, He had the right to call men from their normal pursuits of life to follow Him. This was not the first time these men had met Jesus, for the Fourth Gospel relates Jesus’ first meeting with some of the disciples (John 1:35-42). Jesus now called these fishermen to leave their profession behind and to begin following Him permanently. He would take them from fishing for fish and make them fishers of men. The message of the coming kingdom needed to be proclaimed widely so that many could hear and could become, by repentance, subjects of His kingdom. The calling carried with it a cost, for it involved leaving not only one’s profession but also one’s family responsibilities. Matthew noted that James and John ... left not only their fishing, but also their father to begin following Jesus.

2. BY DEEDS (4:23-25)

(LUKE 6:17-19)

4:23. The work of the Lord was not limited to preaching. His deeds were as important as His words, for a great question in the minds of the Jews would be, Can this One claiming to be Messiah perform the works of Messiah? Matthew 4:23 is an important summary statement crucial to Matthew’s theme (cf. 9:35, almost identical to 4:23). Several important elements are included in this verse. (1) Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues. The ministry of this One who claimed to be King of the Jews was conducted among the Jews. He ministered in synagogues, places of Jewish gatherings for worship. (2) This One was involved in teaching and preaching. He thus was involved in a prophetic ministry for He is the Prophet announced in Deuteronomy 18:15-19. (3) He was proclaiming the good news of the kingdom. His message was that God was moving to fulfill His covenantal program with Israel and to establish His kingdom on the earth. (4) He was healing every disease and sickness among the people (cf. teaching, preaching, and healing in Matt. 9:35). This authenticated that He is indeed the Prophet, for His words were backed up by authenticating signs. All these actions should have convinced the Jewish people that God was moving in history to accomplish His purposes. They were responsible to get ready by repenting from their sins and acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah.

4:24-25. The ministry of Jesus-and probably also the ministry of the four men he called (w. 18-22)-was dramatic for multitudes of people heard of Jesus and began to flock to Him. The news about Him spread all over Syria, the area north of Galilee. As people came, they brought many who were afflicted with a variety of illnesses and Jesus healed them all. No wonder large crowds began to follow Jesus from Galilee, from the Decapolis (lit., 10 cities; an area east and south of the Sea of Galilee), from Jerusalem and Judea, and the region across (west of) the Jordan River (see map, p. 19).

B. Continuing pronouncements (chaps. 5- 7)

1. THE SUBJECTS OF HIS KINGDOM (5:1-16)

a. Their character (5:1-12)

(Luke 6:17-23)

5:1-12. As the multitudes continued to flock to Jesus (cf. 4:25), He went up on a mountainside and sat down. It was the custom of Rabbis to sit as they taught. His disciples came to Him and He began to teach them. Matthew 5-7 is commonly called the Sermon on the Mount because Jesus delivered it on a mountain. Though the mountain’s exact location is unknown, it was undoubtedly in Galilee (4:23) and was apparently near Capernaum on a place which was level (Luke 6:17). Disciples refers not to the Twelve, as some suggest, but to the crowds following Him (cf. Matt. 7:28, the crowds were amazed at His teaching).

Jesus instructed them in view of His announcement of the coming kingdom (4:17). Natural questions on the heart of every Jew would have been, Am I eligible to enter Messiah’s kingdom? Am I righteous enough to qualify for entrance? The only standard of righteousness the people knew was that laid down by the current religious leaders, the scribes and Pharisees. Would one who followed that standard be acceptable in