CHRISTIAN LITERATURE
& LIVING

FULFILLING THE DECLARATION IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW
Mike Leeming

"I'VE COME TO FULFILL"

This paper will explore the theme of fulfillment as it is used in the Gospel of Matthew with special attention given to the question of understanding Matthew 2:23 along with an analysis of different interpretations of that verse.

Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill (Matthew 5:17 KJ21).

The book of Matthew is the only Gospel account that contains this statement from Jesus. Thirteen times in the book of Matthew, we find Matthew saying that something happened in order to fulfill something else. In twelve of those thirteen incidents, the word in Greek used for "fulfilled" is pleroo¹. W.E. Vine simply says that in the sense of "sayings, prophecies, etc., e.g., Matt. 1:22 (twelve times in Matt., two in Mark, four in Luke, eight in John, two in Acts)" that it means, "to fulfill" or "complete."²

THE STUDY OF THE THEME OF FULFILLMENT

R.T. France devotes forty pages to the theme of fulfillment in Matthew in his book Matthew: Evangelist & Teacher (pages 166 to 205). He quotes German theologian H. Frankemolle, who says, "This verb [fulfill] indicates in the briefest and most pregnant way Matthew's fundamental theological idea."³

Most Christians tend to think of the concept of fulfillment in the Scriptures in the sense of the fulfillment of a prediction, especially the idea that something happened in the New Testament that fulfilled an Old Testament prophecy. The book of Matthew contains such fulfillments of Old Testament prophecies. However, Matthew does not always use fulfillment in this sense. For example, consider the "fulfillment" in Matt. 2:15.

... the angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, "Arise, and take the young Child and His mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him." When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed into Egypt, and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt have I called My Son" (Matthew 2:13-15 KJ21).

The quote, "Out of Egypt have I called My Son," is taken by Matthew from Hosea- "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called My son out of Egypt" (Hosea 11:1 KJ21).

A PROBLEM WITH LOOKING AT MATTHEW

The problem with looking at Matthew 2:15 as a fulfillment of Hosea 11:1 is that this verse in Hosea is not a prediction. Rather than looking forward to some future event, it looks back in history to the exodus of the children of Israel out of Egypt. This verse in Matthew is commonly understood as a fulfillment in the sense of typology. Typology is defined loosely by R.T. France as-

"... some concept of ongoing patterns in the purpose of God whereby later events may be helpfully understood in the light of the earlier. On the basis of such a concept it becomes possible to see a 'fulfillment', a theologically future relevance, for passages which in their original writers' apparent intention were not in any way predictive, but merely records of the way things were."⁴

In the example above, Israel is a type of Jesus in Hosea 11:1. Matthew 2:15 is a fulfillment of Hosea 11:1 is the sense that Israel is called "God's son" in Hosea 11:1, yet Jesus is God's Son is a way in which Israel could never be. France's comments here are illuminating-

Certainly Hosea was not referring to any future event. But our discussion of typology… has prepared us to see Matthew claiming the 'fulfillment' of passages which had in themselves no forward reference. Among the crucial events of Old Testament history it is not surprising to see the exodus taken as a type of God's future acts of deliverance… What Matthew in fact offers is… the proposal that Israel, described in this connection as God's 'son' (cf. especially the use of this imagery in Ex. 4:22-23) finds its fulfillment not in a community but in an individual 'Son of God', and Israel's initial 'call out of Egypt' points forward to his literal return from Egypt.⁵

ANOTHER TYPOLOGICAL FULFILLMENT

Another typological fulfillment in Matthew is found just a few verses after the one referred to above-

Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked by the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth and slew all the children who were in Bethlehem and in all the region thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, "In Ramah was there a voice heard, lamentation and weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and would not be comforted, because they are no more" (Matthew 2:16-18 KJ21).

The reference from Jeremiah is in Jer. 31:15--

Thus saith the LORD: "A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping; Rachel, weeping for her children, refused to be comforted for her children, because they were no more" (Jeremiah 31:15 KJ21).

Here again we see that Jeremiah was not predicting a future event, but was looking back in history to a much earlier event. Craig L. Blomberg gives this background on the quote from Jeremiah-

In its original context, the passage depicted the lament of mothers in Israel bewailing their sons led off into exile. Already a sense of the recapitulation of history appeared in Jeremiah's time in that the mothers of Israel were personified as 'Rachel,' the mother in the days of the patriarchs whose sons Joseph and Benjamin had also been threatened with being 'no more' (i.e., carried away to Egypt; cf. Gen. 42:36).⁶

The typological connection between the quote in Jeremiah about "Rachel weeping for her children" and the slaughter of the infants in Bethlehem by order of Herod is explained in this way by Donald A. Hagner-

The typological correspondence between Rachel's weeping for the exiles and the weeping of the mother's of Bethlehem, both in larger contexts of deliverance, is more than coincidental for Matthew… Again, in Matthew's perspective, Jesus is understood as summarizing the whole experience of Israel as well as bringing it to fulfillment. Every strand of hope and trial in the OT is woven together in the eschatological appearance of the Promised One.⁷

A PUZZLING PASSAGE

We will now begin our study of one of the most puzzling passages in the book of Matthew-Matt. 2:19-23.

But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying, "Arise, and take the young Child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel, for they are dead who sought the young Child's life." And he arose and took the young Child and His mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus reigned in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither. Notwithstanding, being warned by God in a dream, he turned aside into the region of Galilee. And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene" (Matthew 2:19-23 KJ21).

The enigmatic portion of this passage has to do with the source of the quote "He shall be called a Nazarene." In the entire Old Testament and the Apocrypha there is no occurrence of the word "Nazareth," "Nazarene," or "Nazarenes" at all. Albert Barnes, the 19th century Bible expositor, gives these insights-

The words here ["That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets: 'He shall be called a Nazarene.'"] are not found in any of the books of the Old Testament; and there has been much difficulty in ascertaining the meaning of this passage… Some have supposed that Matthew refers to some prophecy which was not recorded, but handed down by tradition.⁸

There are several ideas concerning what Matthew meant when he said that "the prophets" had said that Jesus would "be called a Nazarene." We will examine some of these ideas.

First, however, the Lutheran commentator R.C.H. Lenski makes an interesting point about the fact that Matthew designates "spoken by the prophets" (plural) and not "prophet" (singular).

The plural 'through the prophets' is important. It cannot refer to one prophet speaking for all. This plural evidently refers either to the prophetic books in general or to the entire Old Testament. It also shows that no quotation is to follow which will introduce some word that was uttered by several prophets. This means that [it] is not like our quotation marks, pointing to a direct quotation.⁹

France concurs with this opinion-

The change of formula [from 'prophet' to 'prophets'] in this case may therefore be deliberate, in order to indicate a reference to a general prophetic theme rather than to a single text.¹⁰

Hagner describes at some length some of the problems connected with understanding what Matthew meant by the statement, "that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, 'He shall be called a Nazarene'" (Matt. 2:23-NASB).

In the fourth fulfillment formula quotation (and fifth OT quotation) of the nativity narrative, Matthew presents words not found in the OT or indeed in any pre-Christian extra-biblical writings known to us. It cannot be accidental that the introductory formula here is the most general of all the formulae used by Matthew. In five of the ten formulae quotations, Matthew gives a prophet's name; in the remaining five he invariably refers to 'the prophet'. Only here among the formula quotations does he use the plural 'the prophets,' perhaps implying that he has in view a motif common to several prophets (cf. 26:54, 56), although the specific wording is found in none (cf. the same phenomenon in Ezek 9:10-12; for rabbinic parallels, see Str-B 1:92-93). The proposal that Matthew quotes a source unknown to us, although possible, is hardly necessary. What is found in the prophets is generally, 'that he shall be called a Nazarene.' Matthew's introductory formula lacking the expected 'saying,' does not in fact point to a specific quotation consisting of the words 'he shall be called a Nazarene.' The 'that,' is thus not, as it is elsewhere (e.g., 4:6), a recitative that introduces quoted words. If Matthew is able eventually to account for Galilee (4:12-16) as the place of Jesus' ministry, he is able also to account for Nazareth as the place where Jesus lived. Here Matthew's ingenuity is impressive. The key to understanding what he says lies in the similarity between 'Nazareth,' and 'Nazarene.' The difficulty lies in discerning his intent behind 'Nazarene;' and this is further compounded by the serious uncertainty about the spelling of Nazareth.¹¹

THREE THEORIES REGARDING THE FULFILLMENT PASSAGE

Now we will examine three theories which are attempts to understand Matthew's meaning in Matt. 2:23. I will call these: The "Branch Theory," the "Nazarite Theory," and the "Despised Person Theory."

The Branch Theory - The word in Hebrew for "Nazareth" is closely connected to the word in Hebrew for "branch," which is netzer. For this reason, many people associate the word "Nazarene" with the Hebrew word for "branch." There is good biblical basis for saying that Jesus was called "the Branch" by "the prophets." The Old Testament has several references to the Messiah as "the Branch."

And there shall come forth a Rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots. And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon Him-the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD - (Isaiah 11:1-2 KJ21).

"Behold, the days come," saith the LORD, "that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch; and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth (Jeremiah 23:5 KJ21).

"Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou and thy fellows who sit before thee; for they are men wondered at. For behold, I will bring forth My Servant the BRANCH" (Zechariah 3:8 KJ21).

"And speak unto him, saying, 'Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, "Behold the Man whose name is The BRANCH! And He shall grow up out of His place, and He shall build the temple of the LORD'" (Zechariah 6:12 KJ21).

There is no great debate about whether or not "the Branch" in these Old Testament prophecies refers to the Messiah. Most people would agree that they do. Whether or not this is what Matthew had in mind in the reference in Matthew 2:23 is another question. The 19th century British Bible expositor Alexander MacLaren thought that it was -

The evangelist [had] a reference in his mind to the prophecy in Isaiah xi. 1, where Messiah is called 'a branch,' or more properly, 'a shoot,' for which the Hebrew word is netzer. The name Nazareth is probably etymologically connected with that word, and may have been given to the little village contemptuously to express its insignificance. The meaning of the prophecy is that the offspring of David, who should come when the Davidic house was in the lowest depths of obscurity, like a tree of which only the stump is left, should not appear in royal pomp, or in a lofty condition, but as insignificant, feeble, and of no account. Such prophecy was fulfilled in the very fact that He was all His life known as 'of Nazareth,' and the verbal assonance between that name, 'the shoot' and the word 'Nazarene,' is a finger-post pointing to the meaning of the place of abode chosen for Him.¹²

Donald A. Hagner also favored this interpretation -

The most likely play on words in Matthew's mind is in the similarity between the Hebrew word for 'branch,' neser, and Nazareth. This view (Black, Aramaic Approach; Stendahl, School; Luz; Davies-Allison, but as a 'secondary allusion') traces Matthew's 'quotation' back to Isa 11:1: 'There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse and a branch [neser] shall grow out of his roots.' The distinct advantage of this view is the messianic content of the Isaiah passage, which in turn should be related to the quotation of Isa 7:14 in Matt 1:23. The messianic figure of Isa 11:1 is the Emmanuel of Isa 7:14. Phonetically, the Hebrew of Nasrat (Nazareth) and neser have the same middle consonant… The word neser, although only occurring in Isa 11:1, became an important designation of the Messiah in the rabbinic literature and targums, and was also interpreted messianically by the Qumran community (1QH 6:15; 7:6, 8, 10, 19). Other prophets also spoke similarly of a messianic 'branch' or 'shoot,' although using different words (cf. Jer 23:5; 33:15; Zech 3:8; 6:12). These words form a unified concept in looking to the fulfillment of the promises, and the mention of one doubtless brought the others to mind automatically (see Str-B 1:94). This may well be the explanation of the plural 'prophets' in Matthew's introductory formula.¹³

The Nazirite Theory - This theory notes the close association between the two words "Nazarene" and "Nazirite." According to this theory, Jesus was the fulfillment of the type presented by the Nazirite vow. The essence of the Nazirite vow was separation. This idea is certainly brought out in the verses below that describe the Nazirite vow -

And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying, "Speak unto the children of Israel and say unto them: 'When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazirite, to separate themselves unto the LORD, he shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes or dried. All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk. "'All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head. Until the days be fulfilled in which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow. All the days that he separateth himself unto the LORD he shall come near no dead body. He shall not make himself unclean for his father or for his mother, for his brother or for his sister when they die, because the consecration of his God is upon his head. All the days of his separation he is holy unto the LORD (Numbers 6:1-8 KJ21).

Jesus was not a Nazirite. That is plain in the following passage -

"The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!' But wisdom is justified by her children" (Matthew 11:19 KJ21).

Yet, Jesus was the fulfillment of the type of the Nazirite vow in that He was separate from all sin.

"For He hath made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Corinthians 5:21 KJ21).

"For we do not have a High Priest who cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15 KJ21).

H.A. Ironside suggests this view of Matthew 2:23 in his writings -

"'He came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth'… They returned, therefore, to their own former home town, and there Jesus grew from Childhood to Manhood. Because of His residence there He was called a Nazarene, a name [that] in a secondary sense might mean 'a separated one,' a Nazarite, as in Numbers 6:2, for Jesus was the true Nazarite, separated to God from His birth."¹⁴

Along this line of thought, some have seen Samson as a type of Christ. There is a verse in Judges about Samson that would seem to apply to Christ in this way -

"For, lo, thou shalt conceive and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head, for the child shall be a Nazirite unto God from the womb. And he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines" (Judges 13:5 KJ21).

Some parallels between Samson and Christ that would appear to make Samson a type of Christ can be noted.

1. Both Samson and Jesus were "set apart" from before the time when they were born. Samson was "a Nazarite to God from the womb." Jesus was separated to God in holiness from before the time of His birth.
2. Both Samson and Jesus were, each in his own sense, "deliverers." Samson was "to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines." Jesus was the great Deliverer, the Deliverer from sin, "the Savior of the world" (John 4:42; 1st John 4:14).
3. Both Samson's birth and Jesus' birth were announced to their parents beforehand by an angel.
4. Both Samson's parents and Jesus' parents were obedient to what God told them to do.
5. There is the similarity in statements, "The child shall be a Nazarite" (Jud. 13:5) about Samson, and "He shall be called a Nazarene" (Matt. 2:23) about Jesus.

Although Hagner favors the "Branch Theory," which we have already discussed, he explains the rationale for adopting the "Nazarite Theory" -

The meaning of 'Nazirite' (favored by Bonnard, Sanders, Schweizer, Schaeder, Zuckschwerdt, Davies-Allison) is dependent on the passage in Num 6:1-21 (cf. Judg 13:5, 7), where a person separates himself from others through a special vow involving abstinence from strong drink, not cutting his hair, and avoiding contact with the dead. Although the description may fit John the Baptist (cf. Luke 1:15), it seems singularly inappropriate for Jesus, who, according to Matthew, was accused of being 'a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners' (11:19) and who raised the dead by touching them (9:23-26). Because of a reference in Epiphanius (Haer. 19.6) to a Jewish sect of Nasaraioi deriving from the disciples of John the Baptist (and a related self-designation of the Mandaeans, nasorayya), it has been argued that Matthew's word originally described a larger movement… out of which Christianity eventually came; they were called Nazarenes because of the similarity of their perspective to that of John the Baptist.¹⁵

The Despised Person Theory - This theory emphasizes the fact that people from Nazareth were despised and looked down upon. Certainly we see this in Nathaniel's question in John -

Philip found Nathanael and said unto him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and the Prophets wrote: Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." And Nathanael said unto him, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" Philip said unto him, "Come and see" (John 1:45-46 KJ21).

Jesus, as the suffering Servant of Yahweh, was certainly despised -

He is despised and rejected of men, a Man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief. And we hid as it were our faces from Him; He was despised, and we esteemed Him not (Isaiah 53:3 KJ21).

But I am a worm and no man, a reproach of men and despised by the people (Psalms 22:6 KJ21).

This is the view adopted by quite a few Bible expositors and commentators. We look at a few. The first is from G. Campbell Morgan -

What is the meaning here of this word Nazarene? It is a term of contempt. We must first get back into the historic setting, and understand the story as Matthew wrote it, and as the men of the day understood it. To have lived then, and to have said that a man was a Nazarene, would have been to use a term of contempt… And so this little town, high up off the main roads at the foot of the mountains… was held in contempt… And there is that thought in the quotation, 'He shall be called a Nazarene;' a Man belonging to the city that is not worth naming; a Man off the highways of life… The prophecy declared that when Messiah comes He shall be despised, counted nothing worth.¹⁶

A.C. Gaebelein, the 19th century Bible expositor, also agreed with this view of Matthew 2:23 -

Where it is written, or in what prophet is it written, that Messiah should be called a Nazarene? It does not say here that it is written by one prophet, but by the prophets. Therefore all the prophets have spoken of Him as being a Nazarene. A Nazarene is an inhabitant of Nazareth. That city is in Galilee, which is called Galilee of the Gentiles, because so many Gentiles lived there. The Pharisees and scribes in Jerusalem hated and despised Galilee, and especially was Nazareth despised. The inhabitants were called Am-horatzim, that is ignorant men. Even the Galileans looked down upon the town and despised everybody who lived there. The ruin and corruption was there the greatest. Therefore we read in another Gospel: 'Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?' ... Now, this is spoken by all the prophets, that the Messiah, the Saviour, was to be rejected by men… How true, He was despised and rejected of men.¹⁷

The Chinese pastor and teacher, Watchman Nee, also took this view of Matt. 2:23 -

In the entire Old Testament there is not a single place where the Messiah is called the Nazarene. Yet Matthew said: 'that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets ... Since Nazareth means a sprout, which is an entity that is exceedingly small, it fits with what Nathaniel was to say later about Nazareth, as recorded in John's Gospel, to the effect that the town was greatly despised. The people of that day looked down upon Nazareth, they saying, 'Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?' (John 1:46) It was a despised and rejected place, and hence, by extension, the Lord, too, was despised. In the Old Testament there are many prophecies about the shame and reproach which the Messiah would suffer; so in the New Testament period the Lord Jesus was contemptuously called the Nazarene. What the prophets had prophesied about the Messiah being despised and rejected found their fulfillment in His being called a Nazarene by those of the New Testament period. Many passages like Matthew 2.23 have to understood according to their contemporary circumstances.¹⁸

Lutheran commentator R.C.H. Lenski also espoused this view. In my opinion, however, his explanation reflects an uncomfortable degree of Anti-Semitism, which I find personally offensive and uncalled for -

Jesus lived in Nazareth in order to fulfill the prophets; and the evidential reason, by which we ourselves can see that his living in Nazareth fulfilled the prophets, is that afterward, due to his having lived there, he was called 'the Nazarene.' We may add that even his followers were called 'Nazarenes.' Matthew writes nothing occult or difficult. A Nazarene is one who hails from Nazareth. Matthew counts on the ordinary intelligence of his readers, who will certainly know that the enemies of Jesus branded him the "Nazarene,' that this was the name that marked his Jewish rejection and would continue to do so among Jews. They put into it all the hate and odium possible, extending it, as stated, to his followers. And this is 'what was spoken through the prophets.' One and all told how the Jews would despise the Messiah, Ps. 22:6; Isa. 49:7; 53:3; Dan. 9:26; every prophecy of the suffering Messiah, and every reference to those who would not hear him, like Deut. 18:18. The Talmud calls Jesus Yeshu Hannotzri (the Nazarene); Jerome reports the synagogue prayer in which the Christians are cursed as Nazarenes: 'and the Notrim and the Minim may suddenly be destroyed; may they be blotted out of the book of life and not be written with the just.' Compare Acts 24:5, 'sect of the Nazarenes,' and Paul's characterization. If Jesus had been reared in Jerusalem, he could not have been vilified as the Nazarene. It was God who let him grow up in Nazareth and thus furnished the title of reproach to the Jews in fulfillment of all the reproach God had prophesied for the Messiah through the prophets.¹⁹

A POSSIBLE CONCLUSION

Having examined these three theories, I conclude that, in my own relatively uninformed opinion, since I can read neither Hebrew nor Greek with any proficiency, the third option, which I call the "Despised Person Theory," seems to be the most plausible. The reason I favor the "Despised Person Theory" is that, if it is indeed true that to be called "a Nazarene" was the modern equivalent of being labeled "a hick," "a hillbilly," or, more kindly, "a country bumpkin," then certainly there is some contempt in being "called a Nazarene." Jesus, being known in this way, would naturally have been looked down on as uneducated, ignorant, and backward. In brief, he would have been despised. Isaiah's portrait of the suffering Servant of Yahweh includes this description -

"For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground. He hath no form nor comeliness, and when we shall see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him. He is despised and rejected of men, a Man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief. And we hid as it were our faces from Him; He was despised, and we esteemed Him not" (Isaiah 53:2-3 KJ21)

And David, writing prophetically in Psalm 22, said this -

"But I am a worm and no man, a reproach of men and despised by the people. All they that see Me laugh Me to scorn; they shoot out their lip, they shake their head…" (Psalms 22:6-7 KJ21).

So this seems to make the most sense to me. But, again, either or both of the other two views are also tenable.

---

NOTES

1. James Strong, A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek New Testament with Their Renderings in the Authorized English Version (McLean: MacDonald, 1980) 58.

2. W.E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, vol. 2 (Old Tappan: Revell, 1981) 135.

3. R.T. France, Matthew: Evangelist & Teacher (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1989) 167.

4. France, 185.

5. France, 207-208

6. Craig L. Blomberg, The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22 (Nashville: Broadman, 1992) 68.

7. Donald A. Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 1-13, vol. 33A (Dallas: Word, 1993) 38.

8. Albert Barnes, Notes, Explanatory and Practical on the Gospels: Designed for Sunday School Teachers and Bible Classes, vol. 1 (New York: Harper & Bros., 1863) 37.

9. R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel (Columbus: Wartburg Press, 1960) 87.

10. France, 171.

11. Hagner, 40.

12. Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture: The Gospel According to Matthew--Chapters I to VIII (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1905) 37-38.

13. Hagner, 41.

14. H.A. Ironside, Expository Notes on the Gospel of Matthew (Neptune: Loizeaux Bros., 1989) 22-23.

15. Hagner, 41.

16. G. Campbell Morgan, The Gospel According to Matthew (Westwood: Revell, 1929) 18-19.

17. A.C. Gaebelein, The Gospel of Matthew: An Exposition (New York: Our Hope Pub., 1910) 55-56.

18. Watchman Nee, Interpreting Matthew (New York: Christian Fellowship Pub., 1989) 25.

19. Lenski, 88-89.

---

Bibliography of Works Cited in This Paper

Barnes, Albert. Notes, Explanatory and Practical on the Gospels: Designed for Sunday School Teachers and Bible Classes. New York: Harper & Bros., 1863.

Blomberg, Craig L. The New American Commentary: Matthew. 22 vols. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.

France, R.T. Matthew: Evangelist & Teacher. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1989.

Gaebelein, A.C. The Gospel of Matthew: An Exposition. New York: Our Hope Pub., 1910.

Hagner, Donald A. Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew 1-13, 33 vols. Dallas: Word, 1993.

Ironside, H.A. Expository Notes on the Gospel of Matthew. Neptune: Loizeaux Bros., 1989.

Lenski, R.C.H. The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel. Columbus: Wartburg Press, 1960.

MacLaren, Alexander. Expositions of Holy Scripture: The Gospel According to Matthew--Chapters I to VIII. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1905.

Morgan, G. Campbell. The Gospel According to Matthew. Westwood: Revell, 1929.

Nee, Watchman. Interpreting Matthew. New York: Christian Fellowship Pub., 1989.

Strong, James. A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek New Testament with Their Renderings in the Authorized English Version. McLean: MacDonald, 1980.

Vine, W.E. Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. 3 vols. Old Tappan: Revell, 1981.

HEALING | REBEKAH - SHE WHO WENT THE SECOND MILE | WHATEVER WORKS, DO IT! - SOME TIPS FOR THOSE WHO WISH TO WRITE CHRISTIAN FICTION | HOW BELIEVERS ARE SET APART BY THE LORD | BEING A GODLY WITNESS | FULFILLING THE DECLARATION IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW | THE GLORY OF LOVE | THE GREAT AMERICAN AWAKENING | THE RISE AND FALL OF CHRISTIANITY IN TURKEY | HOME PAGE | CONTACT EDITOR