What You Teach about Matthew’s Date Matters

Pastor, at some point this year you will be providing background context for the NT passage which you are about to preach, guiding your flock in properly visualizing the world of Jesus and the apostles, so that your people might better connect with the passage and also apply the background framework in their own studies. What will you teach them concerning the origin of the Gospels?

My goal in this article is to encourage you to pause and reflect on what will be said concerning the publication date of Matthew’s Gospel.

In seminary, we were taught that there are a variety of competing theories for how the Gospels originated. With respect to the Synoptic Gospels, the most popular view is that Mark was the first Gospel, published in the AD 60s, give or take a decade, and that Matthew and Luke were published years or decades later, leveraging Mark and other sources. A minority view is that Matthew was published first, followed by either Mark or Luke, with each leveraging the earlier Gospels. Another minority view is that the Gospels developed independently, without any literary connection. Modern three- and four-view books are available for wrestling with these competing theories. This should all be familiar ground.

Given the diversity of opinions amongst respected scholars, it may be tempting to not latch onto a particular view, especially since this is peripheral to the inspired and inerrant text itself, yes? I want to challenge this temptation.

I contend that what we choose to teach or not teach concerning the publication of the Gospels will implicitly impact (1) our collective trust in the witness testimony contained within the Gospels, (2) our interpretation and application of the NT, and (3) our ability to resist attacks on inerrancy. My own view is that Matthew was published first, within a decade of the resurrection, and in my writings elsewhere I have sought to demonstrate that this view is reasonable, defensible, and preferable, over the popular belief that the church instead waited for several decades before publishing the life and teachings of Jesus in written form.

Allow me to highlight what is at stake.

Our Trust in the Witness Testimony of the Gospels

The Gospels are trustworthy because we affirm the truthfulness of the God who inspired the authors.

Yet the apostles frequently made an additional assertion in their writings. Namely, that their writings should be judged as trustworthy because they are grounded in the eyewitness testimony of those who traveled with Jesus, who participated in the events described in the Gospels, and who sat under His teaching. Jesus told His disciples, “You also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning” (John 15:27 ESV). And this privileged status was repeatedly voiced by the apostles (e.g., Acts 2:32). (Daniel Moore, A Trustworthy Gospel, 2024; 147).

Hence, the NT presents both a supernatural and a non-supernatural basis for affirming that the Gospels are trustworthy.

But, if the earliest Gospels were not published until twenty to thirty to fifty years after the resurrection, then is it not natural to question the integrity of the eyewitness testimony, especially when it comes to the details? Many Christian scholars claim that the story and teachings of Jesus could have been preserved merely as oral traditions, without reference to published materials. However, the Gospels were written in an age when contemporary writers were concerned about aging memories and when the great orators themselves encouraged their students to be active writers. Indeed, the church was birthed into an era during which Moses was read in the synagogues, Jesus would read from Isaiah in the synagogue in Nazareth, Paul would write a letter summarizing his life story and core teachings within a short time after visiting the churches in lower Galatia, the Jerusalem council would issue an authoritative letter rather than having their message delivered merely by word of mouth, and the truth of Paul’s message would be judged based on a review of the Scriptures. We have strong grounds for arguing that an early publication of Matthew, written for the benefit of the Jews, would fit well into this world—without allowing for decades to pass before the followers of Jesus finally decided to publish what they might remember of His life and teachings.

Our Interpretation and Application of the New Testament

The acceptance (or rejection) of an early publication of Matthew’s Gospel will impact your exegesis and teaching of the NT. Here are but a few considerations.

When you introduce Matthew’s Gospel, will you characterize it as meeting the needs of the early Jewish converts who had been scattered as a result of the persecution following Stephen’s martyrdom? Or was it written well after Gentiles had already become a major contingent within the church? If published late, after most Jews had already resolutely rejected Jesus, then what is the purpose of Matthew’s genealogy and of the Messianic focus? If published late, then how should Paul’s view of the elect influence our reading of the Olivet discourse? Are we to understand that the church did not need something like a Gospel in the earliest decades? If a Gospel was not critical for the early church, then how reliant should we be today on the use of a written Gospel in our own evangelistic and discipling efforts?

When you introduce the Synoptic Gospels as a group, how will you explain the similarities and differences between the narratives? Did Matthew contrive the Sermon on the Mount as a collection of teachings taught at different times, as is asserted by some scholars? How will you explain the sequential differences between the narratives? Indeed, do any of the Gospels present a chronologically accurate account of the life of Jesus, or did all the authors take liberty in arranging their accounts topically? I suggest that if Matthew was published early, as an authorized biography rather than as a historical biography, then the audiences would have expected an account which aligned with their remembrance of the life of Jesus, and with their general expectations of the Old Testament, as being chronologically accurate. If a chronologically accurate Matthew was published first, then subsequent Gospel authors could have felt more justified in arranging their material topically.

When you teach through Acts and the expansion of the church, will you envision Paul as carrying and delivering a copy of a Gospel to the churches? When the Scriptures are examined in the synagogues, did this involve not only the OT writings, but also the examination of a Gospel? How will you explain Paul’s extreme irritation at John Mark’s early departure, if he was just along as an extra pair of hands? How will you explain why Paul speaks so little of the life and teachings of Jesus in his own writings? Again, what does this imply for our own evangelism and discipling?

When exegeting Galatians, how will you interpret the proegraphē in Galatians 3:1? Does it refer to Paul’s skillful preaching or does it refer to something previously written concerning the crucifixion of Jesus, which was physically presented before the eyes of the Galatians? Or when preaching through Paul’s other writings, will you be attentive to the broad reference (intertextual) relationships between Paul’s writings and Matthew’s Gospel, such as the connection between Romans 12 and the Beatitudes?

When Paul told Timothy to publicly read the Scriptures, to exhort, and to teach (1 Tim. 4:13), what Scriptures were in view? If Paul was so committed to the public reading of Scripture in his own ministry, then would he not have insisted on the early publication of a Gospel to facilitate the teaching, training, perfecting, and equipping of the Christian man of God, per 2 Timothy 3:16–17? Again, what is the implication to our own ministry efforts?

I could go on, but these examples should suffice to remind us that our views on the origin of the Gospels will influence our interpretation and teaching of the NT.

Our Ability to Resist Attacks on Inerrancy

Readers of Shaper Iron are no doubt aware of challenges recently raised against the traditional view of inerrancy, coming from those from within the evangelical camp. Some of these challenges are directly tied to late Gospel assumptions and the resultant errors which purportedly crept into the text, and thus resulted in the discrepancies between the Gospel accounts. In a sense, these kinds of assertions are not new. Yet, they are being raised by contemporary scholars and apologists who teach in Christian colleges and seminaries, and who are supported and sponsored by other supposedly reputable evangelical scholars—they have their podcasts, their YouTube channels, their journal articles, and their books.

My encouragement to us all, as we begin a new year, is to revisit our beliefs regarding Gospel origins, and to ensure that we’re being intentional about what we teach. Our church members need solid grounding, as they will be exposed to the teachings of these skeptics. We must address issues of Gospel origins—with humility and a recognition that we don’t have all of the answers, yet there is much that we do know. Revisit the testimony of the church fathers (see my web page and book for approaches which resolve some of their difficult statements). Consider God’s favored use of the written Word for speaking to His people in every generation since Moses. Even as Moses had Joshua to complete his writings and Jeremiah had Baruch, Jesus had Matthew. My hope is that you will join me in advocating for the belief in an early publication of Matthew’s Gospel—as being reasonable, defensible, and immensely preferable over the popular view that the church instead waited for decades before publishing the life and teachings of our Lord in written form.