Dating the Gospel of Matthew (AD 31-38

Mid-63 -------------- 1 Peter

Late 63 ------------- 2 Timothy

Late 64 ------------- Jude

Late 64 ------------- 2 Peter

Dating the Gospel of Matthew (AD 31-38)

As Frank Luke notes, “Matthew seems to view the city [of Jerusalem] as still intact when he writes that: For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day (Matt 27:8).” Thus, a pre-70 date for Matthew seems easily vindicated. And there is more evidence, both inside and outside Matthew which easily pushes the date two or three decades earlier.

For example, we could ask: Is there any evidence in Paul’s six earliest epistles (i.e., the ones written before AD 58) that he had read any of the four gospels? What about in his later epistles (after AD 58)? It would help us assign dates to the four gospels, especially in relation to Paul’s earlier writings, if we can find any definite quotes or allusions to the gospels in them. Here are some guidelines for our consideration:

1. There are no long quotes from any of the four gospels in Paul’s epistles. However there are some short phrases, several allusions, and one big parallel section, that appear to be pulled from some of the gospels. 2. The parallels between Matthew 24 and Paul’s two letters to the Thessalonians is a good place to start. When we have something as significant as this, we really do not need much else to prove that Paul was familiar with, and had access to the Gospel of Matthew before he wrote his two epistles to the Thessalonians. Even though that is not the only evidence, it is compelling enough to push way beyond probability to almost certainty. 3. One thing we need to establish right up front, is that Matthew appears to be the first gospel to be produced, followed by Mark, Luke, and John. We believe this because Luke quotes and alludes to both Matthew and Mark, showing that Matthew and Mark were already available; and Mark quotes from Matthew (and not from Luke), showing that Matthew was probably written before both Mark and Luke. Furthermore, John alludes to some unique material in

Luke, implying that John was written after Luke, making it the last of the four gospels. So, that appears to be the sequence in which they were written (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), based on a comparison and analysis of their similarities and differences. 4. Now let’s look at some of the more significant connections between Paul’s epistles and the gospel of Matthew specifically.

Dating Matthew with Paul’s Use of it in his epistles to the Thessalonians:

A. The Major Evidence First: 1 Thess. 4-5; 2 Thess. 2; and 1 Cor. 15:52 – many parallels with Matthew 24, and possibly with Mark 13 also (which would mean that both gospels were written before Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians). It is utterly astounding to see how few futurist commentaries are willing to explore the significance of this amazing connection. Don Preston and Mike Sullivan have both documented the linkage between Matthew 24 and 1 Thess. 4-5 (Preston: We Shall Meet Him in the Air, pp. 72-80, 171; Sullivan: House Divided, pp. 107-110). The similarities are so clear and strong, that it cannot be ignored or explained away. It certainly allows for the possibility that Paul had access to a copy of Matthew’s gospel while writing his two epistles to the Thessalonians and First Corinthians. Paul was obviously aware of everything Jesus had taught in the Olivet Discourse. The only question is whether he had a photographic memory from the oral teaching of the other apostles, or had direct revelation from Christ on this subject, or had access to a copy of Matthew’s gospel. And these three options are not mutually exclusive. It

20 could be all of the above. We have noted in the past that as soon as the Gentiles came into the Church (e.g., Cornelius in AD 38), and churches began to be established outside Palestine (e.g. Antioch in AD 41), there was an immediate need for written material to use in teaching the new Christians (esp. the Gentiles). We saw how that need was mentioned in Acts 11-13 at Antioch.

In view of the rumors of war generated by Caesar Gaius Caligula in AD 39-41, it is certain that the church would have needed clear teaching on the endtimes at that time. The Olivet Discourse would have been extremely important for them to know at that critical time when it looked like the abomination was about to be set up in the temple and the Jews were ready to break out in open revolt. Certainly the apostles would have been orally teaching them about it. The question is when that oral teaching about the Olivet Discourse would have been committed to writing. Certainly that scare with Caligula would have created a lot of concern and confusion, which the apostles would have needed to deal with quickly and thoroughly. It seems likely that Matthew, who had been a tax collector, and who therefore obviously had scribal abilities, would have been urged to write down all of Jesus’ teaching for the church, to clear the confusion and quiet their concerns. That is exactly how Paul uses this similar material in 1 Thess. 4-5. It was to help the Thessalonians see that the End had not yet arrived (as they had been told by some false teachers). There were still some big events yet to happen before the end arrived.

It seems to me that Paul is drawing his information about this from Matthew’s gospel. Paul wrote this first letter to the Thessalonians while he was at Corinth on his second missionary journey (AD 51- 52). This means that Matthew was most likely written before Paul left on his second journey, and that Paul probably saw a copy of it in Jerusalem when he went there for the Jerusalem Council (AD 49), and made a copy for himself to take with him on his journeys (a part of his collection of “books and parchments” that he carried with him). The church in Antioch most likely had a copy of Matthew at this time also. This very effectively fixes the date of Matthew no later than the Jerusalem council (AD 49), and probably before the Caligula crisis as well (AD 39-41). This allows an earlier date for the gospels of Mark and Luke, and maybe for the gospel of John also.

B. Another significant connection with Matthew: 1 Thess 1:10; 3:3; 5:9; (destined for tribulation, not wrath, and for obtaining salvation) – Matt. 24:9, 21-22, 29 (they will deliver you to tribulation... those days will be cut short, so that the elect will be saved from the wrath to come); cf. Acts 14:22 (through much tribulation we must enter the Kingdom); Mt. 13:21 (when tribulation arises...). All of these passages have significant similarity with each other, again suggesting that Paul was framing his remarks to the Thessalonians about the coming tribulation in conformity with how

Matthew 24 teaches it.

C. Other less significant allusions to the gospels in Paul’s epistles:

1. Allusions in Earlier Epistles (AD 51-58)

• Acts 13:51 (they shook off the dust of their feet) – Mt. 10:14 (shake the dust off your feet); cf. Mark 6:11 and Luke 9:5 and 10:11. This was on the first missionary journey (AD 45-48) before the Judaizer controversy and the Jerusalem council (AD 49). Barnabas had probably heard this teaching from the apostles in Jerusalem, and shared it with Paul. It does not demand that

Paul had seen the gospel statements about it, but it certainly would allow for that possibility, especially if Barnabas already had his own personal copy of Matthew’s gospel in his possession (as tradition suggests). This brings up the further question about what else Paul might have learned from the apostles in Jerusalem through Barnabas and Silas, without having read the gospel accounts. Plus we need to remember that Paul claimed that he had direct revelation from Christ Himself on a number of these things. • Rom. 3:31 (Do we then nullify the Law through faith) – Matt. 5:17 (Do not think that I came to

21 abolish the Law) – The words “nullify” and “abolish” are two different Greek words, even though the thought and intent are very similar. The Judaizers probably accused Paul of abolishing the

Law, which they knew Jesus had not told them to do. The Judaizers had either heard Christ say those things, or else had heard the apostles teaching it. There is no demand here that

Paul was referencing the written statements in Matthew 5. However, when we remember that

Paul is writing to Roman Christians who had not been taught by Jesus or the apostles, the possibility surfaces that they may have been troubled by Judaizers there in Rome who were making reference to the written words of Jesus in Matthew’s gospel, of which the Roman church by this time (AD 58) could easily have had a copy. • Rom. 2:27 (the uncircumcised ... will he not judge you who though having ... circumcision are a transgressor of the Law) – Mt. 12:41 (The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah) • 1 Cor. 10:27 (“eat anything that is set before you”) – Lk. 10:7-8 (“eating and drinking what they give you” and “eat what is set before you”) - As we said before, this does not demand that Paul had read Luke’s gospel, but it does suggest that Paul was aware of what Jesus had taught on this, either through Barnabas, Silas, or the teaching of other apostles, or even by direct revelation from Christ Himself. • 1 Cor. 9:9; 9:14; and 1 Tim. 5:18 (“you shall not muzzle the ox” and “the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel” and “the laborer is worthy of his wages”) – Lk. 10:7 (“the laborer is worthy of his wages”); Mt. 10:10 (“for the worker is worthy of his support”); cf. Lk. 9:1-5; 10:1-12 • 1 Cor. 11:24-26 (“do this in remembrance of Me” and “you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes”) – Lk. 22:16-19 (“I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God” and

“do this in remembrance of Me”); Matt. 26:29 (“I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom”); Mk. 14:25 (“I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God”) • 1 Cor. 15 - Paul alludes to things mentioned in the gospels (witnesses of the risen Christ) • 1 Cor. 7:10-15 (to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband ... and that the husband should not divorce his wife”) – Matt. 5:32, 19:6-9;

Mark 10:7-9, 11-12; Luke 16:18 • 2 Cor. 10:1 (“I urge you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ) - Mt. 11:29 (“I am gentle and humble in heart”)

2. Allusions in Later Epistles (AD 60-64):

• 1 Tim. 5:17-18 – (Deut. 25:4 and Lk. 10:7) • 1 Tim. 1:15 (Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners) - Lk. 19:10 (“For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” - this was added into Mt. 18:11 later, not original to Matthew, original to Luke only); Mt. 9:13 (I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners); • 1 Tim. 4:8 (godliness is profitable for all things, since it holds promise for the present life and for the one about to be - this is a trustworthy statement); Mk. 10:29-30 (he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age... and in the coming age, eternal life); Lk. 18:30 (receive many times as much at this time and in the age to come, eternal life); cf.

Matt. 5-7 (Sermon on Mount); 1 Cor. 3:22; 1 Tim. 6:19; • Heb. 13:20 (the great shepherd of the sheep) – cp. Jn. 10:11,17 (the good shepherd who gives his life for the sheep) • Acts 21:13 (What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart?) – Mk. 5:39 (Why make a commotion and weep?) • Acts 10:21 – Mt. 26:50 and Jn. 18:4-6

22 D. Even though all this does not give us a precise date for Matthew and Mark, it does push the date of Matthew back before the Jerusalem council in AD 49, which is extremely helpful. This opens up a longer period of development for the other three gospels of Mark, Luke and John, so that they do not have to be compressed into a very short period of time between 58 and 64 AD. Luke and Acts were probably not written until after Paul and Luke reached Rome (AD 61-62). This would harmonize well with the supposition that Matthew was written before the

Jerusalem Council, at which time Barnabas and Paul may have received copies of it to take with them on their missionary journeys.

E. The gospel of Matthew was evidently written before the Jerusalem Council. There is evidence (both internal and external) that Luke and Paul had access to the gospel of Matthew at the same time Barnabas and Mark did, since Paul’s two epistles to the Thessalonians (AD 51-52) show amazing familiarity with and similarity to the Olivet discourse in Matthew 23-25. Several conservative evangelical writers have noticed this connection, and have used it to date Matthew’s gospel before Paul’s second missionary journey when he wrote the

Thessalonian correspondence (e.g., see the “Thessalonians and Matthew” paper by Michael

M. Canham at the 2012 ETS in Milwaukee, as well as the articles by Don Preston, and Mike

Sullivan). See the similar suggestions of Greg Beale in his various works. These commentators have noted the dozens of allusions to and similarities between Paul’s Thessalonian epistles and the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 23-25, implying that Paul had a copy of Matthew available to him before he wrote to the Thessalonians in AD 51-52. If not a decade earlier, Paul would at least have had access to a copy of Matthew in Jerusalem on the council trip (AD 49), at the same time Barnabas did, and could easily have made a copy of Barnabas’s personal copy of it after returning to Antioch just before he left on his second journey. This easily pushes the date of Matthew back before the Jerusalem council in AD 49. This early date for Matthew explains how Paul was so familiar with “the word of the Lord” (1

Thess. 4:15) regarding the Parousia. Matthew uses the word “parousia” four times in chapter 24. Both futurist and preterist expositors have noted the numerous parallels between Matthew 23-25 and 1 Thess. 4-5 (and 2 Thess. 2), again implying that Paul had seen Matthew’s gospel before he wrote First and Second Thessalonians in AD 51-52. Either Paul had a direct revelation from God that was exactly parallel with the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 23-25), or he had heard the apostles in Jerusalem explain all these things to him while he was there at the festivals, or he had access to the gospel of Matthew at the time he wrote First Thessalonians (AD 51-52). Any one or all three of these scenarios is possible, therefore we have to consider the probability that

Matthew was already written before Paul went on his second missionary journey in AD 50. There is a tradition which says that Barnabas had a copy of the gospel of Matthew with him when he took Mark with him to Cyprus in AD 50, after they had returned from the Jerusalem council. This would push the date of Matthew back to at least the first missionary journey of

Paul (AD 45-48), before Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem for the council in AD 49. If the trip to Jerusalem for the council in AD 49 was the occasion when Barnabas received his copy of

Matthew’s gospel, then the gospel had to have been written before the council (i.e., before AD 49). This would mean that Barnabas had a copy with him when he went back to Antioch, as well as later when he took Mark to Cyprus (AD 50). This explains how Mark had access to Matthew on Cyprus, and how he could have used Matthew’s gospel to compose his own gospel account (AD 55). The inspired gospel of Matthew may have been the catalyst for the production and circulation of other written documents, such as the Didache and the Decrees from the Jerusalem council.

The literary efforts of the apostles, which ultimately produced the NT canon, appear to have been well underway by this time (AD 48). Matthew and Mark may have been two of the books (Gk. biblia, scrolls) and parchments (Gk. membranas, codices?) mentioned by Paul in 2 Tim.

4:13, which he carried with him on his missionary journeys.

F. In view of all the above considerations, it appears that the most likely date range for the composition of the gospel of Matthew can be narrowed down to:

AD 31-38 – Gospel of Matthew was definitely written before the Jerusalem Council (AD 49) and Paul’s second missionary journey (AD 50-53), during which Paul wrote Galatians and 1 & 2 Thessalonians. The Thessalonian letters contain numerous parallels and allusions to material in Matthew 24, implying that he had seen the gospel of Matthew before he wrote to the Thessalonians in AD 51-53. We have looked at those parallels above. Note what Eusebius says regarding the gospel of Matthew: 3Euseb. 24:6 For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence. [Ecclesiastical History Book 3 Ch. 24 Sect. 6]

This suggests that the gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew for the benefit of his fellow Jewish believers there in Judea, and then later translated into Greek for the benefit of the Gentile believers. The Jewish believers in Judea tended to be Judaizers (Ebionites and Nazarenes), who would have taken that Hebrew version of the gospel with them to Pella when they fled there later). However, such a Hebrew version of Matthew’s gospel has never been found, even though there are references to its existence in the first two centuries.

Matthew’s gospel was clearly written with a Hebrew Jewish audience in mind, while Mark’s gospel was written from more of a Hellenistic perspective. Matthew writes as if he is not aware of any uncircumcised Gentile believers, nor writing with their perspective in mind. He does not explain things for the Gentiles, like Mark and Luke did. Everything he says is coming from a Jewish perspective, and written to Jewish people who did not need an explanation for all those things. This implies that Matthew wrote at a time before the uncircumcised Gentiles (e.g., Cornelius) had been brought into the Church, when the Church was still totally Jewish (i.e., before AD 38).

This also implies that Mark and Luke were written after the Gentiles had become a part of the church (i.e., after Cornelius in AD 38), and probably after the crisis with Caligula subsided and evangelism among the Gentiles was less dangerous and more acceptable (after 41).

Notice that Eusebius says Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew for the Judean Christians before he left to go on his missionary journeys outside Palestine. We do not see him mentioned by name as being present in Jerusalem in the book of Acts after the arrest of all the apostles in Acts 5. He did not appear at the Jerusalem Council in AD 49. So it is quite likely that he left on his missionary journey before the council, and maybe even before Cornelius was converted (AD 38).

Notice that it says he went to “other peoples”. This could mean that he went to the Diaspora Jews or to Gentiles outside Palestine. Such an enterprise could have occurred as early as right after the stoning of Stephen (AD 31), or as late as the conversion of Cornelius and the first Gentiles (AD 38), just before Caligula threatened to put his statue in the Temple in AD 39. Anywhere in that range (AD 31-39) would have been a great time for Matthew to leave Jerusalem and go do mission work in the Diaspora.

There are two early and strong traditions (besides Eusebius) stating that Matthew made a personal copy of his gospel and gave it to Barnabas before Matthew left to go on his missionary venture. Since Matthew does not show up in the Acts record after chapter 5, it implies that he left Jerusalem before the Acts 15 council at a time while Barnabas was still there and had not yet been “sent off to Antioch” (Acts 11:22) in about AD 41. It is certainly possible that Barnabas took his personal copy of Matthew’s gospel with him when he went to Antioch in AD 41. This would date Matthew’s gospel before AD 41. Some think Matthew probably left Jerusalem after the death of Stephen (Acts 8:1), in connection with the persecution that was stirred up at that time