The early historical testimony provides substantial grounds for accepting that Matthew first prepared an account of Jesus’ life and teaching in Hebrew for Jewish believers. That conclusion rests principally on ancient statements about Matthew’s literary activity, supported by the linguistic and religious circumstances of the earliest Christian congregation. It does not require the assumption that the surviving Greek Gospel is a mechanically literal translation of a Hebrew manuscript. Nor does it require assigning equal certainty to authorship, original language, order of composition, and the exact year of publication. Those questions are closely related, but each must be established through the evidence that actually addresses it. Matthew’s apostolic authorship has strong historical support, while an earlier Hebrew composition receives explicit ancient attestation. The proposed completion date of 41 CE belongs to a more specific chronological tradition and must be evaluated accordingly.

The historical-grammatical method requires attention to the actual wording of both Scripture and the ancient testimony concerning its transmission. A report that Matthew wrote in Hebrew should first be examined as a statement about language rather than redefined to accommodate a preferred theory of Gospel origins. Similarly, a statement that Matthew wrote first should be distinguished from a statement identifying a particular year. The existence of a polished Greek Gospel does not automatically invalidate an earlier Hebrew account, since an author can prepare material in more than one language. However, the possibility of such a process does not supply a surviving record of every stage through which it occurred. A sound defense therefore identifies what the witnesses affirm, considers the surviving Greek text, and explains where historical reconstruction begins. This approach permits a firm argument for Matthew’s Hebrew literary activity without presenting undocumented details as established facts.

Matthew’s Place Among the Apostolic Eyewitnesses

Matthew was an identifiable participant in the ministry of Jesus rather than an otherwise unknown name attached to a religious composition. Matthew 9:9 records Jesus calling him from the tax office, and Matthew 10:2–4 places him among the twelve apostles. The designation associated with his former occupation remains in Matthew 10:3, connecting the apostle with the man called earlier in the narrative. Acts 1:13 also names Matthew among the apostles gathered after Jesus’ ascension. These passages establish his presence within the circle entrusted with preserving and proclaiming Jesus’ teaching. They do not contain a statement identifying the language or completion date of his Gospel. Nevertheless, they provide the historical setting in which the ancient attribution of the Gospel to Matthew must be assessed.

Matthew’s occupation is relevant to the question of literary competence, although it should not be made to prove more than it establishes. Work connected with collecting revenue involved practical dealings with money, accounts, and administrative arrangements. Such a background makes the suggestion that Matthew was incapable of producing an organized written account especially unpersuasive. However, Matthew 9:9 does not provide a list of the languages he knew or describe his education. Competence in Greek is historically intelligible within his setting, but his occupation alone cannot establish the precise process by which the Greek Gospel was composed. The stronger argument brings his identifiable apostolic position together with the ancient attribution of the Gospel and the character of the surviving work. His former profession contributes to that argument without functioning as an independent certificate of bilingual authorship.

Hebrew Had Not Disappeared From Jewish Life

The claim that Matthew could not have written in Hebrew because Hebrew was already a dead language rests on an inadequate account of Jewish linguistic history. Hebrew continued to function in Scripture reading, religious instruction, literary composition, and other forms of Jewish communication. The Dead Sea Scrolls include Hebrew biblical manuscripts and substantial Hebrew compositions outside the biblical books, demonstrating active literary use. The later compilation of the Mishnah in Hebrew also belongs to the evidence for the language’s continuing development and employment. Aramaic was widespread, and Greek served important purposes among Jews within and beyond Judea. The presence of those languages does not establish the disappearance of Hebrew. The relevant historical setting was multilingual, allowing different languages to serve different audiences and purposes.

The biblical evidence also prevents a simplistic claim that the Babylonian exile necessarily ended Jewish knowledge of Hebrew. Nehemiah 13:23–24 describes children from certain mixed marriages who could not speak the language of Judah. Nehemiah’s concern makes sense because that language remained an expected element of the community’s identity and instruction. Nehemiah 8:8 describes the public reading and explanation of the Law so that the people understood it. The passage establishes the importance of intelligible exposition, but it does not explicitly state that the entire returned population had abandoned Hebrew and required an Aramaic translation. Explanation can address vocabulary, meaning, legal requirements, and application as well as linguistic difficulty. Consequently, the passage cannot bear the weight of a universal claim that Hebrew had ceased to be understood.

Hebrew and Aramaic Must Be Distinguished Carefully

Hebrew and Aramaic are related Semitic languages, but their relationship does not make their names interchangeable in every historical statement. Ancient descriptions nevertheless require careful examination because the terminology used by Greek-speaking writers does not always correspond neatly to modern linguistic classifications. Acts 21:40 and Acts 22:2 describe Paul addressing the Jerusalem crowd in the Hebrew language or dialect. Acts 26:14 similarly identifies the language of Jesus’ words to Paul through the corresponding Greek expression. These passages establish the terminology employed by Luke, while questions about the precise spoken form require further linguistic assessment. It is therefore inappropriate either to replace every ancient reference to Hebrew automatically with Aramaic or to insist that the label alone resolves every linguistic question. In Matthew’s case, the ancient testimony should retain its explicit identification of Hebrew while acknowledging that the lost composition cannot now be examined directly.

The distinction becomes particularly important when evaluating the claim that Matthew wrote in a “Hebrew style” rather than in a Hebrew language. A Jewish author could certainly write Greek while employing Jewish forms of argument and extensive references to the Hebrew Scriptures. However, that general possibility does not determine what a particular ancient witness meant by a linguistic expression. The words surrounding the expression must control the interpretation. Where a statement joins a named language with the activity of interpreting or translating, the natural reading concerns communication across languages. Replacing that meaning with an otherwise unstated literary style requires positive evidence. The historical case for Matthew’s Hebrew composition should therefore begin with the ordinary linguistic force of the testimony.

Papias and the Earliest Explicit Testimony

Papias supplies one of the earliest surviving statements directly connecting Matthew with a Hebrew composition. His statement survives through quotation in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 3.39.16 rather than through a complete surviving copy of his own work. The central assertion reads: “Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could.” The report identifies Matthew, describes an act of literary arrangement, specifies a language, and mentions subsequent interpretation. Each element contributes to the historical question. Its brevity does not make it insignificant, since concise notices frequently preserve valuable information about ancient books. At the same time, the statement supplies neither a publication year nor a detailed explanation of the relationship between the Hebrew work and the surviving Greek Gospel.

Papias’ proximity to the apostolic period gives his testimony considerable importance. His interest in information transmitted by people connected with Jesus’ disciples distinguishes his work from a modern reconstruction based solely on comparisons among surviving Gospel passages. Irenaeus associated him with the earlier Christian generation and described him as a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp. Questions concerning the precise identification of John in the surviving discussion should not be concealed, but they do not erase Papias’ early position within Christian historical memory. His statement must therefore receive a hearing on its own terms. A theory that requires Matthew to have written only in Greek cannot dismiss the testimony merely because it creates a difficulty for that theory. Rejection requires an evidential argument explaining why this particular report should be considered mistaken.

What Papias Meant by the Oracles

The Greek expression ta logia, commonly rendered “the oracles,” does not require the conclusion that Matthew produced only a disconnected collection of sayings. The surrounding discussion preserved by Eusebius concerns Mark’s account of things Jesus said and did. Within that discussion, language concerning the Lord’s oracles appears alongside descriptions of both teaching and events. That context makes a narrowly exclusive definition inappropriate. Papias could employ the expression for material encompassing the words and deeds of Jesus rather than for sayings isolated from narrative. The term therefore provides no sufficient basis for declaring that his statement could not concern a Gospel account. Its meaning must arise from its usage rather than from an assumed reconstruction of Gospel sources.

The same consideration applies to attempts to identify Matthew’s Hebrew work with a hypothetical sayings document. A proposed document does not become historically attested merely because its reconstructed contents include teachings of Jesus. Papias names Matthew and specifies Hebrew, but he does not identify a document called Q or explain the literary relationships assigned to that hypothetical source. Reading those additional claims into his statement substitutes a reconstruction for his actual testimony. The opposite exaggeration must also be avoided, since his brief notice does not establish that the Hebrew work contained every verse now found in Greek Matthew in precisely the same arrangement. Its strongest direct contribution is the early association of Matthew with an arranged Hebrew account of the Lord’s material. The extent and form of that account require consideration beyond the single word logia.

The Linguistic Force of Papias’ Statement

Papias’ expression Hebraidi dialekto naturally identifies a language. The noun dialektos is used in Acts for human languages or dialects, including the languages heard at Pentecost in Acts 2:6–8. Its use does not inherently denote a theological method or a distinctive style of presenting an argument. Joined with the designation Hebrew, it gives a straightforward linguistic description of Matthew’s work. The absence of a Greek definite article does not require the phrase to mean an indefinite Jewish manner of expression. Greek nouns can be definite without the article when their construction and context identify their reference. Consequently, grammatical observations do not justify dissolving Papias’ linguistic statement into a general claim about Matthew’s Jewish outlook.

The following verb, commonly rendered “interpreted,” reinforces the linguistic setting without describing every detail of the activity. The Greek verb can concern explanation or translation, with context determining the appropriate emphasis. Here it follows the statement that Matthew arranged material in Hebrew, making the communication of that material to others a natural concern. Papias does not specify whether each instance involved oral rendering, written translation, or some combination of activities. Nor does he identify every person involved or describe an official Greek edition. His statement therefore supports the existence of a Hebrew work that required interpretation for at least some users. It does not establish a complete history of the Greek Gospel’s production.

Irenaeus and a Gospel Published Among the Hebrews

Irenaeus provides important testimony in Against Heresies 3.1.1 by associating Matthew with the publication of a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language. His statement concerns a Gospel rather than merely an otherwise unidentified collection of religious observations. It also belongs to a discussion in which the recognized Gospel accounts are associated with their historical authors and apostolic connections. This makes it relevant to both Matthew’s authorship and the Hebrew-language tradition. Irenaeus’ acquaintance with Polycarp gives his historical position additional importance, although it does not make every detail of his account infallible. His testimony should therefore be examined rather than dismissed because it affirms traditional authorship. Its value rests on the particular information it preserves.

The chronological clause in Irenaeus’ statement must receive the same attention as its affirmation of Hebrew composition. He connects Matthew’s publication with Peter and Paul preaching in Rome and establishing the congregation there. That association does not directly support completion in the early forties and cannot honestly be presented as though Irenaeus named 41 CE. Moreover, Romans 1:8 and Romans 15:22–24 show that believers were already present in Rome before Paul’s intended visit, requiring care in interpreting language about establishing the congregation. The difficulty does not cancel Irenaeus’ testimony concerning Matthew and Hebrew, but it prevents an unqualified appeal to him for the proposed exact year. An undocumented distinction between initial composition and later publication cannot simply be inserted into his sentence to remove the problem. Each component of his testimony must be assessed according to the evidence relevant to it.

Origen’s Testimony Concerning Matthew’s Priority

Origen explicitly identifies Matthew as the first Gospel written in the testimony preserved in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 6.25.3–6. He associates the Gospel with the former tax collector who became an apostle and describes its preparation for believers from Judaism in Hebrew. His report thus brings together authorship, language, intended readership, and priority. Those are specific historical claims rather than a general observation about the Gospel’s Jewish character. His testimony deserves consideration even though other aspects of his theology and interpretive practice require rejection. A historical statement must be evaluated through its content and transmission rather than accepted or rejected solely because of everything else its author believed. In this instance, the statement gives explicit support to the traditional understanding that Matthew’s account preceded the other Gospels.

Priority, however, remains distinct from a calendar date. Origen’s statement does not identify the number of years between Jesus’ ascension and Matthew’s writing. It also does not provide separate dates for a Hebrew account and a Greek edition. Consequently, it cannot independently establish the proposed year or the interval between two stages of composition. The same restraint applies to the sequence in which Eusebius quotes Papias concerning Mark and Matthew. An historian’s order of quotation does not by itself establish the order in which the books under discussion were written. Origen’s express statement about priority carries evidential force that should not be confused with an inference drawn merely from the arrangement of another writer’s excerpts.

Eusebius and the Preservation of Apostolic Instruction

Eusebius describes a practical setting for Matthew’s writing in Ecclesiastical History 3.24.5–6. He associates Matthew’s earlier preaching among the Hebrews with the preparation of a written account before extending his work elsewhere. The account would preserve instruction for people from whom the apostle would be absent. Such a purpose is historically intelligible within the expanding mission described in Acts. Acts 8:4 records believers carrying the message beyond their former locations, while Acts 11:19–21 describes its further spread. Written instruction could continue serving a congregation after the departure of the person who had taught it. Eusebius’ explanation therefore connects Matthew’s Gospel with a recognizable apostolic need.

Eusebius also serves as a transmitter of earlier testimony, which means his quotations must be counted accurately. When he preserves Papias’ statement, the quotation supplies access to Papias rather than an additional independent eyewitness to Matthew’s composition. The same principle applies when he quotes Origen or Irenaeus. Repetition establishes that a tradition was known and transmitted, but it does not automatically establish several separate lines of firsthand information. Conversely, dependence upon an earlier writer does not make the preserved information worthless. Much ancient history survives precisely because later authors quoted works that subsequently disappeared. The appropriate assessment distinguishes the age of the original testimony, the reliability of its preservation, and the independence of any additional claims.

Jerome and the Hebrew Text at Caesarea

Jerome’s On Illustrious Men, chapter 3, adds a more concrete claim concerning a Hebrew Gospel. He identifies Matthew with Levi and states that he composed a Gospel in Judea in Hebrew letters and words for believers from the circumcision. Jerome also reports that a Hebrew text was preserved in the library at Caesarea associated with Pamphilus. He further describes access granted by the Nazarenes in Beroea to a volume they used. These details matter because they concern reported copies rather than only a general tradition that a Hebrew work once existed. Nevertheless, a later copy identified with Matthew is not equivalent to the apostle’s original manuscript. The identity and textual history of the reported volume remain subjects requiring historical assessment.

Jerome’s qualification concerning the Greek form is equally significant. He states that the person who subsequently translated the work into Greek was not certainly known. His testimony therefore cannot be cited as an explicit identification of Matthew as the Greek translator. Neither does his uncertainty prove that Matthew could not have produced the Greek Gospel himself. It establishes the narrower fact that Jerome did not claim certain knowledge of that stage. Likewise, the Hebrew volume he described cannot now be subjected to a complete comparison with Greek Matthew through a surviving manuscript securely identified as that same copy. His report strengthens the historical significance of the Hebrew-Gospel tradition while leaving particular questions about textual identity unresolved.

Why Greek Matthew Does Not Disprove an Earlier Hebrew Account

The surviving Greek Gospel must be examined as a deliberate literary work addressed to readers who could understand Greek. Matthew 1:23 explains the meaning of Immanuel, Matthew 27:33 explains Golgotha, and Matthew 27:46 supplies the meaning of Jesus’ words from the cross. These passages show attention to readers who needed Semitic expressions explained. They fit naturally within a Gospel intended to communicate beyond a exclusively Hebrew-speaking readership. However, such explanations do not establish that the author had never written related material in Hebrew. An author preparing an account for another linguistic audience can add explanations unnecessary for the first audience. A translator can also include explanatory material, so the presence of such explanations does not independently identify the person responsible for the Greek wording.

The distinction between translation and authorial recomposition is particularly useful here. A translation seeks to convey an existing text in another language, whereas an author preparing a further edition can also revise arrangement, add explanations, and draw upon familiar wording in that language. An earlier Hebrew account and a later Greek account from Matthew therefore need not exhibit the characteristics of a rigid word-for-word transfer. This provides a coherent explanation for the coexistence of the Hebrew tradition and the literary character of Greek Matthew. Nevertheless, a coherent explanation remains a historical proposal where the production process is not directly documented. The evidence does not reveal the interval between the accounts, the extent of any revision, or the details of Matthew’s working procedure. Confidence in his authorship should not be expressed through invented descriptions of how he wrote.

Matthew’s Scripture Quotations Require Individual Examination

Matthew’s quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures provide evidence of close engagement with Israel’s sacred writings. They do not, however, support a simple rule that every quotation derives directly from Hebrew or that Greek wording excludes Hebrew composition. Some passages correspond closely to the Septuagint, while others show wording more closely related to the Hebrew or a combination of features. Matthew 21:16 provides a concrete example through its reference to praise from the mouths of infants and nursing children. Its wording corresponds to the Greek form of Psalm 8:2, whereas the Masoretic Hebrew employs the expression concerning established strength. Matthew 12:21 likewise corresponds to the Septuagint’s wording concerning the nations hoping in the Servant’s name at Isaiah 42:4. Such examples require an argument more careful than the assertion that a Greek-writing Matthew would necessarily have used only the Septuagint.

The language of an author’s composition and the textual form of a quotation are related questions, but they are not identical questions. A person writing Greek can consult Hebrew Scripture and render its wording directly. The same person can also employ an existing Greek rendering where it serves the inspired account. An author preparing Greek material after an earlier Hebrew composition need not reproduce every quotation through a fresh literal translation of that earlier composition. Consequently, the quotations are compatible with a writer possessing access to more than one linguistic form of Scripture. They demonstrate Matthew’s substantive use of the Hebrew Scriptures without independently proving the complete history of a lost Hebrew Gospel. Each quotation should be examined in its own wording and context rather than counted toward a predetermined conclusion.

Greek-Speaking Jews Needed Written Instruction Early

The usefulness of a Greek Gospel did not begin only when large numbers of Gentiles entered the Christian congregation. Acts 2:5–11 describes Jews and proselytes gathered from numerous regions with differing native languages. Acts 6:1 identifies a distinction between Greek-speaking and Hebrew-speaking Jews within the congregation itself. Greek communication therefore served Jewish believers from the earliest period of the Christian mission. A Hebrew Gospel could meet one audience’s needs while a Greek account served another audience within the same expanding movement. The two purposes did not require Christianity to pass through a stage in which Jewish instruction ceased and Gentile instruction began. Jewish and Gentile evangelism continued together as the message spread.

Matthew’s Gospel itself combines concentrated attention to Israel’s Scriptures with a clear international horizon. Matthew 1:1 opens by identifying Jesus in relation to David and Abraham, placing His identity within the history of Jehovah’s promises. Matthew 10:5–6 records a restricted assignment during Jesus’ earthly ministry, while Matthew 28:19–20 records the later commission to make disciples of all nations. These passages describe differing stages within the historical mission rather than conflicting conceptions of its purpose. A Greek Gospel would serve the wider teaching work without abandoning its explanation of Jesus’ Messiahship through the Hebrew Scriptures. The congregation’s multilingual circumstances therefore provide a substantial practical reason for Greek circulation. They do not, by themselves, identify the year in which Matthew supplied it.

The Historical Basis of the Proposed Date of 41 CE

The proposed date of 41 CE rests particularly upon a subscription tradition assigning Matthew’s Hebrew writing to eight years after Jesus’ ascension. A subscription is an annotation placed after a work, often recording information concerning authorship, language, location, or chronology. Minuscule 13 is a named medieval witness containing the eight-year statement. With the ascension placed in 33 CE, adding the stated interval produces the proposed completion year. The calculation is straightforward, but its historical reliability depends upon the accuracy of the transmitted interval. The manuscript preserves evidence that this chronological tradition circulated; it does not supply contemporary eyewitness verification of the event. The date can therefore be defended as a traditional early proposal while its particular evidential basis remains explicit.

The chronological tradition must also be distinguished from the inspired Gospel text. A note following Matthew 28:20 does not become part of Matthew’s composition merely because it appears in the same manuscript. Second Timothy 3:16 establishes the divine origin of Scripture rather than the inspiration of every later heading, marginal explanation, or subscription. Several manuscripts repeating the same note could preserve one inherited tradition rather than several independent reports. Establishing the tradition’s strength requires attention to the witnesses, their wording, their relationships, and the earliest recoverable form of the statement. Papias and Origen provide important evidence concerning language and priority, but they do not supply this eight-year interval. The precise chronology must therefore stand on the evidence belonging to it rather than borrow certainty from the broader case for Matthew’s authorship.

What Matthew’s Internal Time References Establish

Matthew includes references to circumstances continuing until the time of writing. Matthew 27:8 explains the continuing designation associated with the Field of Blood, and Matthew 28:15 describes the continued circulation of the stolen-body explanation. Both expressions establish a distinction between the events narrated and the writer’s later standpoint. Neither expression identifies the number of intervening years. A false explanation can circulate persistently within a comparatively short period, and a place-name can become established without requiring several generations. These statements therefore fit an early Gospel, but they do not function as concealed numerical dates. Their proper historical contribution is to identify continuing circumstances known to the writer and his readers.

The Gospel’s account of opposition to Jesus also fits the concerns of early Jewish believers. Matthew 12:1–14 records disputes involving Sabbath observance, Matthew 15:1–9 addresses inherited religious traditions, and Matthew 22:23–33 presents controversy concerning resurrection. Matthew 28:11–15 directly addresses an explanation advanced against the resurrection proclamation. Such material would serve believers explaining Jesus’ identity and answering objections within the Jewish setting from which the Christian mission emerged. Acts 4:1–3 and Acts 5:27–32 show that conflict over apostolic proclamation existed from the congregation’s beginning. These circumstances make early written instruction historically appropriate. They support the intelligibility of early composition without determining its exact year.

Jesus’ Prophecy Does Not Require a Late Gospel

Matthew 24:1–2 records Jesus predicting the destruction of the temple buildings. Matthew 24:15–22 then preserves instructions concerning circumstances requiring urgent flight. The account presents these statements as Jesus’ words to His disciples rather than as Matthew’s retrospective narration of a completed destruction. A method that excludes genuine predictive prophecy will seek a later date because its starting assumption requires that result. The historical-grammatical interpretation of the passage does not impose that restriction upon Jehovah’s ability to reveal future events. Jesus’ prediction must therefore be evaluated as a prediction within the historical account. Its accuracy cannot legitimately become an automatic argument that Matthew wrote only after the event.

The absence of an explicit statement announcing the fulfillment of the temple’s destruction contributes to the dating discussion without settling it independently. A writer before the destruction could preserve the prophecy in the form Matthew gives it. A writer after the destruction could also reproduce Jesus’ earlier words without interrupting the account to describe their fulfillment. Consequently, silence does not identify one particular earlier year. The stronger observation is that Matthew does not explicitly narrate the destruction as an event already completed at the time of composition. This prevents a late date from being treated as a direct declaration of the Gospel itself. The historical case for early composition must draw upon the combined evidence rather than require one omission to establish the entire chronology.

Matthew’s Name in the Manuscript Tradition

The Greek manuscript tradition attributes this Gospel to Matthew through its title. The familiar expression kata Matthaion means “according to Matthew” and identifies the account within the fourfold Gospel collection. The surviving attribution is significant because the historical question concerns the authorship of the Greek Gospel actually transmitted by Christian congregations. There is no established competing ancient authorial attribution for this same canonical work. That consistency supports the historical connection with Matthew, particularly when considered alongside the early literary testimony. However, a manuscript title is evidence concerning authorship rather than a sentence within the narrative identifying the original language of composition. Its contribution should therefore be stated precisely.

Manuscripts of other Gospels also illustrate the importance of keeping evidence attached to the work it actually preserves. Papyrus 66 is a witness to John, while Papyrus 75 preserves material from Luke and John. Their Gospel titles illuminate the practice of identifying accounts by their associated evangelists. They do not directly preserve a title for Matthew or establish the language of his earlier composition. Likewise, an early fragment of Matthew that lacks its opening or ending cannot be expected to preserve a title that originally stood outside its surviving portion. Evidence from titles must account for the physical extent of each manuscript. This prevents general observations about Gospel naming from being mistaken for direct documentary proof of a Hebrew Matthew.

The Authority of the Greek Gospel and the Work of the Holy Spirit

The recognition of Greek Matthew as Scripture does not depend upon the survival of a Hebrew predecessor. The ancient witnesses who affirmed Hebrew composition also received the Greek Gospel as authoritative. Their reception is historically important because it shows that the Hebrew tradition was not ordinarily presented as a reason to displace the Greek account. The surviving Greek text must therefore be studied through its own manuscript evidence rather than rewritten through an imagined Hebrew original. A proposed Hebrew expression cannot overturn documented Greek wording merely because it produces an attractive explanation. Textual decisions require actual evidence from manuscripts and other relevant witnesses. The distinction preserves the historical value of the Hebrew tradition while respecting the text through which Matthew’s Gospel has been transmitted.

John 14:26 records Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit would teach the apostles and bring His words to their remembrance. That promise supplies the theological setting for confidence in apostolic testimony, including the preservation of Jesus’ teaching. It does not disclose whether Matthew produced two accounts, identify the interval between them, or name a Greek translator. Likewise, Second Peter 1:21 explains divine direction in the giving of prophecy without authorizing invented descriptions of a writer’s working procedure. Inspiration establishes the truthfulness and divine authority of Scripture, while historical questions about its composition require the evidence appropriate to those questions. In Matthew 7:24–27, the authority of Jesus’ teaching calls for hearing and obedient action. Matthew 28:20 extends that obligation through the continuing work of teaching disciples to observe everything He commanded.

You May Also Enjoy

Matthew’s Hebrew Gospel—Examining the Case for Completion in 41 CE

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS