Translated from the Introduction to Prof, Robert Kübel’s Exegetisch-homiletischez Handbuch sum Evangelium des Matthäus.1
By H. B. Hutchins.
Taken from THE BIBLICAL WORLD - March 1893
1. The data contained in the
gospel of Matthew itself for answering the question as to its
fundamental thought and purpose:
a. Old Testament citations. It
is a familiar fact that Matthew and the other two
Synoptists differ very widely in
the number of their citations from
the Old Testament. Where the evangelist himself is speaking
citations occur in the following places in Matthew: i. 23; ii.
15, 18, 23; iii. 3; iv. 14-16; viii. 17; xii. 17-21; xiii.
35; xxi. 4 sq.; (xxvi. 56);
xxvii. 9 sq.; xxvii. 35 (not well
attested). In Mark, where he
himself is speaking, we find citations
only in i. 2 sq. (xv. 28 is not
genuine); in Luke, only in ii. 23; iii. 4.
Both Mark and Luke, for example, in the account of the
triumphal entry, omit even the very evident citation from Zech.
ix. 9, and in Luke even the narrative of the birth contains
no citations. In the discourses
of Jesus also, as reported by the
evangelists, Matthew has more citations than both the others.
Mark has no citations which are not found in Matthew (in a sense
xii. 29 is an exception); Luke has only iv. 25 sq. and
xxii. 37. Furthermore, in Matthew the citations contained
in the discourses of Jesus are in part especially significant;
thus, the word of Hosea (vi. 6) twice used by Jesus against the
Pharisees (ix. 13, xii. 7), is not found in the parallel
passages in Mark and Luke. The
same thing is true also in the case
of the second Old Testament example for Sabbath desecration.
Matt. xii. 5. As to the sermon on the mount, from which
v. 21 sq. might properly be considered here, we shall speak
at length further on. The manner also in which the
citations are made is
significant.
The formula which Matthew uses
almost constantly, “that it might be fulfilled,” and the
like, which also occurs in John
xii. 38, and xviii. 9, is never found in
Mark and Luke in their own discourse (Mark xv. 28, not
genuine). All this goes to show at least that to Matthew the
things of especial importance
are in general the confirmation of the
New Testament by means of the Old, and in particular the proof
that, and how, in Christ the Old Testament promise is fulfilled,
that is, has become a reality.
b. Expressions in this gospel
which clearly present in its contents, and especially in its
presentation of Christ, the
mental attitude of the evangelist
towards the Old Testament. The following data belong in line
with what has just been said, in
so far as they treat of the
relation to the Old Testament as
respects fulfilment. Matt. i. 1 is, to be
sure, not the superscription of the entire book but only of
chapter i. Yet the designation
“Jesus Christ, son of David, son of
Abraham,” shows at all events
the category under which the author
intends chiefly to place Jesus. In this connection compare Mark
i. 1 (where “Son of God” is not to be struck out) and the
whole of John i. 1 sq. Jesus the Christ the promised son of
David,” is undoubtedly the theme
of this gospel. With this view
agrees the fact that the
genealogy is carried back only to Abraham,
and also its conclusion, i. 16. But the fulfilment of the Old
Testament has also a negative side which is very prominent in
Matthew. That the thought of Christ and of this entire
gospel is first of all presented
in antithesis with that of the
scribes and Pharisees of the
time, who claimed to be the
representatives of the Old
Testament, that the apprehension and
fulfilment of the Old Testament correctly given by Christ is set
in sharp contrast to the apprehension of the scribes and
Pharisees, scarcely needs proof. The influence which the conflict
of Jesus with the Pharisees exerts upon the contents and
arrangement of the gospel is
sufficient evidence. Of the other
synoptists, it is true, Mark has nearly all, and Luke most, of
the sections bearing on this
point. But, besides what was quoted
above in relation to Matt. ix.
13, xii. 7, and xii. 5, it is
noticeable that only Matthew,
and he as early as ix. 34, reports a
case of calumniation by the Pharisees; only he brings forward
the sharp word against them in
xv. 13, 14 (Luke vi. 39 is
something entirely different),
the parable of the two sons, with
the biting word against the
Pharisees (xxi. 28-32), the
anti-Pharisaic discourse,
chapter xxiii., as one complete and definitive
testimony, and finally the narratives xxvii. 62 sq. and xxviii.
11 sq. Still further, it must be taken into consideration that in
Matthew the sermon on the mount, entirely different from
the account of Luke (the Paulinist!), is controlled
almost throughout by the
opposition to the Pharisees and their
righteousness; v. 20-vi. 18 may
be said to be completely so
controlled. We are accordingly quite
justified in the assertion that
the diametric opposition between
Christ and the Pharisees is much more important to the purpose of
this gospel than to that of Mark or Luke. And certainly it
is worthy of remark that, since the opposition of John to the
Jews is at all events something similar to the opposition of
Matthew to the Pharisees, it is
precisely the two apostolic
evangelists who make that opposition
a matter of central importance for
their presentation of the gospel history. But the antithesis of
Christ in the gospel of Matthew relates not merely to the
Pharisaic conception of the Old
Testament, especially of its law. The
reformed - legal view, which Wichelhaus especially among the
later commentators on Matthew represents, is
thoroughly one-sided, and
therefore incorrect. According to this view, in
his opposition to the Pharisaic interpretation and application
of the law Jesus throughout completely acquiesced in,
recognized, and in no respect
whatever “ destroyed ” the Old Testament
law itself. To be sure, v. 17
sq., must be recognized as affirming
the positive, that is to say,
the spiritually positive, validity of
the law. And since to this
passage Mark has no parallel at all, and
Luke only a relatively weaker parallel, it therefore belongs
to those passages which show
with especial clearness Matthew’s
interest in exhibiting the
“fulfilment” of the Old Testament
through Christ. Add now to this, still from the sermon on the
mount. Matt. vii. 12, where the
confirmatory assertion, “This is
the law and the prophets,” has
likewise no parallel in Luke vi. 31
(still less in Mark). Moreover,
passages like Matt. xxii. 34 sq.
and its parallels must not be
forgotten, as they have a bearing
on the positive attitude of
Christ towards the law. But some sort
of antithesis to the Old Testament law is undoubtedly
presented in the opposition of
the phrases, “ It was said to those
of old time,” and, “ But I say,” which is found only in
Matthew—v. 21, 22, 27, 28, 31,
32, 33, 34 , 38, 39 , 43 , 44. For “It
was said” introduces without doubt, in this case at any rate,
words of the Old Testament, and to these words, not merely
to the Pharisaic interpretation of them, Christ opposes his “
But I.” Luke vi. 27 is of an entirely different nature. That
something similar is contained in the expressions regarding
Sabbath observance cannot be denied. In addition we have the
argumentum ex silentio, an argument truly significant in
the case of a Jewish Christian,
that this gospel contains not a
syllable to indicate that the
kingdom of heaven brought by Christ, or
rather to be brought by him, is such a kingdom of God as the law
affirms, and the prophets have for the most part painted
an Israelitish and externally splendid divine state under the
descendants of David. The word of the Lord, “My kingdom is
not of this world,” preserved, to be sure, not by
Matthew, but by the other
apostle among the evangelists, is
perfectly appropriate to the
Christ of Matthew. According to all that
we have just said the fulfilment which Christ brings to the Old
Testament is a fulfilment by means of which the Old
Testament, its law and its
prophecy, is raised to a new, even to the
spiritual, stage. Everything
concerning it and in it is
certainly affirmed, but only so
affirmed that it accords with this new
stage, that of the spirit..
Furthermore, it must be considered that
only in Matthew is the passing over of the kingdom of God from
the Jews to the Gentiles announced as early as viii. 11,
in the affair of the centurion,
the first man in regard to whom the
word “ faith ” occurs in Matthew (cf. Luke vii. 9; xiii. 28 sq.).
In the parable of the husbandmen also, though Mark xii. 9 and
Luke xx. 16 have the thought in
the parable itself, yet in the
speech of Jesus which is
connected with the parable and directed against
the Pharisees they do not have the express words, “The kingdom
of God is taken from you,” etc., Matt. xxi. 43. It forms a
sort of contrast to this
position, however, that Jesus’ prohibition
to his disciples to enter on any way of the Gentiles and
Samaritans (Matt. x. 5), as also
the word in answer to the Canaanitish
woman, “I am not sent,” etc., (xv. 24), are preserved only by
Matthew (cf. Mark vii. 27). On the other hand again, only
Matthew reports the universal
missionary command of the departing
Lord, xxviii. 19. For Mark xvi. 15 must be passed over
as
hardly genuine. Luke, indeed, on
his part has the event (xxiv. 47),
but he fails to give the solemn closing command. Another point
from the sphere of the difference between Matthew and the
other two synoptists which might be presented here will be
brought out later. If we gather together all that has been here
cited we shall perceive that Matthew aims to show that what
Christ brings is something new, and yet the old, the kingdom of
God promised by the Old Testament, which, however, breaks
through the Old Testament limitations. And it breaks through
these limitations, first in its
spirit and its teaching, in so far as
the law of Christ is the
spiritual law of life and not the law of the
letter,—then in its extent, in
so far as this kingdom was originally
offered to the Jews, but being rejected by them it passes over
to the Gentiles,—and lastly in
the manner and method in which Jesus
plants and extends it, in so far as he, first of all, for
purposes of teaching, held
himself within the Old Testament limits,
but with perfect clearness, from the very beginning, and more
distinctly from stage to stage,
he unfolded his conception of the
kingdom of God as the all- embracing kingdom of the spirit.
c. Views peculiar to Matthew.
Here we shall consider only three points, the
conceptions of the kingdom of
heaven and of righteousness, then the
(Christian) community, and finally a special feature of the
portrait of Christ. As is well known the name "the kingdom of
heaven” belongs exclusively to Matthew. Matthew brings this
name forward in part in the interest of a positive connexion
with the Old Testament—for it
reminds every reader immediately
of Dan. ii. 44, and chapter vii.
27, in part again in opposition
to Jewish ideas—for it checks
all expectation,
conceived in a merely temporal
earthly
fashion, of an externally
splendid Jewish Messianic
kingdom. How far, because of the
essentially eschatalogical
conception of the kingdom of heaven (cf.
especially iii. 2), the worldly expectations are justified, it
is not our purpose here to
investigate. For in this case the
question is not in regard to
something {peculiar to Matthew. On the
other hand again, the close connexion of the conception of
"righteousness” with the kingdom of God, and in general the
exalted significance of that
conception, is peculiar to Matthew.
The word "righteousness,” used of the good and of the
condition of the citizens of the New Testament kingdom, is
totally foreign to Mark and even
to the Pauline Luke (except i. 75),
while the latter has the verb "justify” in the Pauline sense
in xviii. 14 (the sense is different in Matt. xii. 37). In
Matthew the righteousness brought by Christ (v. 6) and
demanded by him (v. 20) comes into sharp opposition to the
Pharisaic righteousness. It has been remarked already that
righteousness of life, regarded
likewise by Matthew as the
fulfilment of the Old Testament
law of God, comes out much more clearly
than in Mark and Luke. In Mark the word "law” is
altogether wanting, and in the
conversation about the first
commandment xii. 28 sq., the
word of Jesus already quoted about the
whole of the law and the prophets’ (Matt. xxii. 40) is
not given. Luke puts "law” into the mouth of Jesus only
twice, xvi. 16, and xxiv. 44— both times of the book of the
law. The significance of the word
"church” in Matthew is something still more remarkable.
Only Matthew, as is well known, has the two expressions of
Christ in regard to his
community, xvi. 18 and xviii. 17. In the
first passage the lack of this word of Christ in Mark and Luke
is especially remarkable, because both nevertheless (Mark
viii. 27 sq., Luke ix. 18 sq.)
relate the occasion, the confession of
Peter. Even the " Interpreter of Peter,” Mark, says nothing of
the assignment of the keys of
the kingdom to Peter! Luke vii. 3
sq. has a short parallel to the second passage (Matt, xviii. 15
sq.); but he also says nothing
of the "church,” though it is the same
Luke in whose second writing, the Acts, the "church” is
nevertheless so frequently
mentioned.
But still further, the entire
section Matt, xviii., although
Mark and Luke contain some parallels,
has this peculiarity that only in Matthew is the purpose
clearly evident of collecting
here such words of Jesus as relate to the
inner circle of disciples or brethren and their duties. The
word and the idea “brethren,” as applied to the members of the
specifically Christian community, generally retreats into
the background in Mark and Luke in comparison with Matthew
(Matt. v. 22 sq., 47; vii. 3
sq.; xii. 48 sq.; xviii. 15, 21, 35 ;
xxiii. 8 ;—in Mark only iii. 34
sq.;— in Luke only vi. 42; viii. 21;
xvii. 3; xxii. 32, although the expression is frequent in the
Acts). We see that in the eyes
of Matthew the community of Christ
stands forth clearly as a distinct, organized union of
believers in Christ separating
itself from the Israelitish community.
The idea is similar to that of John, the other apostolic
evangelist, who, it is true,
does not speak of the “church,” but does
emphasize brotherly love. The words of Christ bearing on this
point are also especially
important to Matthew.
Finally, there is a feature of
the portrait of Christ which is
peculiar to Matthew, and which
leads us to an entirely
different point. It may now be briefly
touched upon. We do not now refer to the fact that Matthew
uses for Jesus, “son of David,”
as also “king,” sometimes alone, as
in xxv. 34 sq., sometimes with “of Israel,” etc., much more
frequently than do Mark and
Luke. Compare the interesting
parallels Matt. xxi. 5; Mark xi.
10; Luke xix. 38. But the following
points are especially
significant. Only Matthew (viii. 15) sets
down the healing work of Jesus as fulfilling Isa. liii. Only he
in general (cf. with Mark and Luke) transfers to Christ the
Isaianic idea of the “Servant of God.” Luke, however,
frequently employs this idea in the Acts. And the
description of Jesus as the
tender shepherd of the flock of the
people—a description especially enjoyed by Matthew and
frequently given in
detail—agrees well with this idea (Matt. iv.
23 sq., cf. Mark i. 39; Matt.
ix. 35 sq., cf. Mark vi. 34 ; Matt.
xv. 29 sq.). At the same time
this description comes into rugged
contrast with the rejection of Jesus on the part of Israel,
whose terrible word (xxvii. 35)
Matthew again is the only one to
report. It is precisely the servant and the shepherd
rejected by his own people who
gathers to himself a new flock from
among the Gentiles who have been hitherto shut out from the
kingdom of God.
d. The sections and the most
important single words peculiar to Matthew. Chapters i. and ii.:
the genealogy (cf. Luke as above), the birth, the Magi, the
flight into Egypt, the return,
the settlement in Nazareth; all
permeated with Old Testament
citations, and obviously subservient
to the chief point of view already presented, “Jesus the
promised Messiah,” iii. 14, 15—a conversation between Jesus and
John ; note especially, “to
fulfill all righteousness,” iv. 13-16—a
citation from Isa. ix.; iv.
23-25 (already treated), also chapters
v.-vii.; not only does this as
one great discourse from the
standpoint of “righteousness” in
the sense spoken of above occur only
in Matthew, but in it are also several passages which are
peculiar to him; note v. 5, 7,
8, 10 (several beatitudes), 13 (in
part), 14, 16, the children of
light, 17-20 (already treated, the
fulfilment of the law), 21,
etc., “it was said to them of old time,
but I say,” etc. (already
treated), 21-24, the fifth commandment,
27-32, the sixth commandment (Mark and Luke have parallels,
not to this passage, but to
Matt, xix.) ; vi. 1-8, 14-18, alms,
prayers, fasting; vii. 6,
“thatwhich is holy” and “the dogs,” I2
(already treated), 14b, 15, l6a, the narrow way and the false
prophets; viii. ii, 12 (already treated), 17 (already treated);
ix. 13 (already treated); ix. 27-38, the two blind men, the
dumb man, the first insult by the Pharisees, etc.; x., the
discourse on sending out the apostles; not only does this
great unified discourse occur as
a whole only in Matthew, but there
are in it also several passages which are peculiar to him ; note
x. 5, 6 (already treated), 8, “freely,” 16, wise and harmless,
23, nearness of the Parousia, 25, if they have called me
Beelzebub, etc.; xi. 28-30,
invitation to the weary; xii. 5, 7, 17
sq. (already treated), 36, 37,
the idle word, 40, the sign of Jonah
(different from Mark and Luke) ; xiii. 24-30, 36-43,
parable of the tares, 35,
citation relating to parables, 44-52,
parables of the treasure, the
pearl, the net, final word; xiv. 28-31,
Peter on the water; xv. 13, 14,
24, 29-31 (already treated) ;
xvi. 17-19 (already treated),
28, observe the announcement of the
future in Matthew as compared with Mark ix.
1 and Luke ix. 27;
Matt. xvii. 20, because of your unbelief (little faith), 24-27,
narrative of the stater; xviii.
10, the angels of the children,
15-35 (already treated); xix. 10-12, eunuchs; xx. 1-16, the
workers in the vineyard; xxi. 4, 5 (already treated); xxi. 10,
ii, the people acknowledge Jesus as the prophet, 16, citation
from Ps. viii. 28-32, 43
(already treated) ; xxii. 6, 7 (cf. Luke
xiv. 16 sq.) reference to the
destruction of Jerusalem—chapter
xxiii., not only does this great
unified discourse, concluding the
anti-Pharisaic contest, occur as
a whole only in Matthew, but there
are in it also several passages which are peculiar to him, e.
g., 2, 3; note especially, "What
they say, that do, but . . . also 5,
8-11, 15-22, 24, 28; xxiv. 10-12, 20, neither on the
Sabbath, 29, immediately, 30,
sign of the Son of man; xxv. 1-13, the
ten virgins, 14-30 (? cf. Luke xix. 12 sq.), 31-46, the
judgment discourse ; xxvi. 15,
the thirty pieces of silver, 63 cq., the
oath administered by the high
priest to Christ, 72, the first oath of
Peter’s denial; xxvii. 3-10, the death of Judas (cf. Acts i. 16
cq.), 19, the wife of Pilate,
24, 25, Pilate’s hand-washing and the
outcry of the people, 51b-53,
the earthquake and the appearance of
the dead after the death of Christ, 62-66 and xxviii. 11-15,
watchers at the tomb; xxviii. 2-4, the angel rolls the
stone away, 9, 10; the meeting
of Jesus and the women, 16-20, the
final appearance and the last word of Christ.
Now this collection, in which
of course we could not consider
the minor verbal variations from
Mark and Luke or one of them,
gives occasion for the following
reflections: The number of
sections and words peculiar to
Matthew is relatively not very
great. If all the passages were
arranged consecutively we should
have six or seven chapters of
the average length of the
chapters of Matthew—that is, not
quite one-quarter of the whole
Gospel. The greatest peculiarity
is to be found in the discourses
and parables. Luke indeed has
more parables peculiar to him than Matthew
has. And as to the discourses,
it is to be carefully noted that it
is not the amount of material
contained in Matthew which is
the most significant peculiarity
of the gospel, but rather the
collection ^into long connected
discourses of material which in the
others, especially in Luke, is scattered through the entire
book. We cannot here discuss further the bearing of this
point on the question of the
author and style of the gospel. The
point which we now emphasize is that the gathering together of
these long discourses and discourses of the character of
these is indicative of Matthew’s
chief thought and purpose. In an
expressly doctrinal discourse at
the very beginning (v.-vii.) Jesus
expounds the program of his kingdom and its righteousness in
opposition to the Pharisees; in an expressly missionary
discourse (x.) we have the
calling and lot of his disciples; in a long
chain of parables (xiii.) he
shows, on the one hand, again his
kingdom and its development,
and, on the other, how the knowledge
of it is a mystery for the great mass of obdurate people; in a
series of connected discourses (xviii.) he depicts the life of
his "church”; in a great
decisive discourse (xxiii.) he breaks
with the Pharisees and the
Judaism led by them ; in an
eschatological discourse running
through two chapters (xxiv., xxv.) he
teaches how his community must
prepare itself for the Parousia.
Thus there is given a formal,
thorough, and comprehensive
"teaching” concerning the truths which, as we have already
observed, are the most important for Matthew. If we can gather
these points together somewhat as follows, "The relation
positive and negative of that
which Christ brings to the Old
Testament, especially the
negative in opposition to the Pharisaic
Judaism; the kingdom of heaven, not an external Jewish kingdom,
appearing, however, at the Parousia as a kingdom of glory;
the "righteousness” of the citizens of the kingdom; the
Christian community which they
form as "brethren” in especial
communion with one another; all
of which is lost to the Jews,
because they have rejected the
tender shepherd and the servant of
God”: then all that is necessary
is to show, in regard to some of
the passages quoted as peculiar
to the Gospel, how they fit in with
this point of view. In the Magi (ii.) the first Gentiles adore a
Messiah, unrecognized by Jerusalem, its king, its scribes, and
its people. At the baptism (iii.
15)
Jesus says to John, “ It
becometh us to fulfil all
righteousness.” To the Old Testament prophecies
referring to Jesus belongs also " the sign of Jonah,” which is
at the same time, however, a
sign of judgment against Israel, xii.
40. Although he is as Son of God free, he submits himself to
the duty of paying the temple tax, xvii. 24 sq. He is to come
as the glorified king of the
kingdom, xxiv., XXV., and he will
come soon, xxiv. 29. Finally, he acknowledges himself as the Son
of God, xxvi. 64; even Pilate’s wife confesses him, xxvii. 19;
through him the bodies of the Old Testament saints come to
life, xxvii. 51 sq; as Lord of
the world he gives his final
command, xxviii. 16 sq. It is
evident that the fundamental point of
view already given in i. 1 is
determinative for all these points.
Besides the points already discussed at length, xxvii. 62 sq.
and xxviii. 11 sq. also belong
to the conflict with the Pharisees.
Even their last device against Christ fails. Then, besides the
points already touched upon, the following points also are
necessary for the depicting of
the righteousness of his kingdom,
both as to the manner in which one enters it, and as to the
manner in which one conducts
himself in it: The exposition of
the commandments, etc., v. 21
sq. vi. I ff, vii. 14 sq., the
invitation, xi. 28 sq., the
parables, xiii. 44 sq., the passage regarding eunuchs,
xix. 10 sq. Concerning the disciples of Christ, their call and
their lot in the world note, v.
14 sq. vii. 6, x. 5 sq., 16, 25, xx.
1
sq. But Christ finds ‘little
faith,’ and ‘ no faith,’ even in the circle
of the apostles, although he has been solemnly confessed.
Although Mark has preserved the strongest expressions in regard
to the hardness of the
disciples’ hearts (vi. 52, etc.), yet the
words in Matt. xvii. 20, the
accounts of Peter, xiv. 28 sq. xxvi. 72,
and single expressions from the warning example of Judas, xxvi.
15, xxvii. 3 sq. are peculiar to Matthew. Although the disciples
formed a peculiar band of brethren, they were,
nevertheless, still thought of
as Jews, xxiv. 20, “neither on the
Sabbath”—according to the usual
conception. of this passage; moreover,
the question here is only in regard to the Palestinians. On
the other hand, as has been shown, the passing over of the
kingdom of God from the Jews to the Gentiles is a matter of
especial importance to the
author.
With the destruction of
Jerusalem, this passing over
ensues as the final rejection of the Jews
(though not without hope of future restoration, xxiii. 39).
We come now to a quite special
point, which perhaps enables us from the intimations already
gained respecting the purpose of
the gospel to reach a definite
conclusion as to the time-relations of the author. Only Matt. xxii. 7, in
the parable of the marriage of
the king’s son (Luke xiv. 16 sq.),
gives the reference to the destruction of Jerusalem. Only he has
“immediately,” xxiv. 29. The difference between Matt. xxiv.
15 and Luke xxi. 20 is obvious. And if here Mark xiii. 14 also
goes along with Matthew, even with the parenthetical
challenge, “Let him that readeth
understand,” which surely in both
gospels proceeds from the writer
and not from Jesus, it follows that
the expression of the latter, “standing in the holy place,” is
more precise than the “standing where it ought not” of the
former. If we take all these
things together, and in addition
consider such passages as xxvii.
25, viii. II, xxi. 43, then—whatever
may be the case with Mark and Luke—it can be said of Matthew
at any rate (setting aside first the question of sources), that
he wrote at a time when the destruction of Jerusalem was
immediately impending, and it
was especially important not merely
to give his readers instruction for their behavior in this
crisis, but to show to them how
it was now evident that the destruction
of the Jewish theocracy was a righteous judgment of God, and
the passing over of the kingdom of God from Israel to the
Gentiles, even as it was sealed
by this destruction, was the just
consequence of the rejection of Jesus by his own people. We need
not here discuss other questions suggested by the passages
cited [e. g. “immediately”), which are of such special
significance for the relation of
the destruction of Jerusalem to the Parousia. All we need to note is that the “immediately” (and
passages like x. 23) show that Matthew deemed it especially
important, in the manner of an Old Testament 'prophet,
e. g.
Joel, to teach the reader to recognize in the great events of the
time, which prove the justice of God, the immediate harbingers of
the day of the Lord and the completion of the kingdom.
[Continued in next issue.]
|
|
1) All quotations from the Greek have been translated into English.
|