Peter, who had preached the Gospel of the Kingdom with signs following (Matt. 10) had evidently a gospel that

we could not preach today - for he knew nothing until the revelation of Matthew 16:21 of the very heart and core of

the gospel of grace. His reply to the Lord's revelation was `Be it far from Thee Lord' and was rebuked as `Satan'

and told that he savoured of men!

The ministry of the Son of God during the period covered by Matthew, was limited to Israel. No amount of

`explanation' can get past the explicit words `Go not ... but go rather' (Matt. 10:5,6) and to this limitation, Romans

15:8,9 testifies; the blessing of the Gentiles being consequent upon the death of Christ, which does not occur until

the end of the Gospel record.

While therefore Matthew's Gospel is a part of `All Scripture which is given by inspiration of God', like the bulk

of the Old Testament which it in part fulfils, it is primarily occupied with `the promises made unto the fathers'. Just

as the parables of Matthew 13 deal with the mysteries and secrets of the kingdom of heaven, so, after the revelation

of Matthew 16:21, the next set of parables deal with service in the absence of the Lord. These parables occupy

Matthew 16 to 25, the first and the last introduces the word `reckon, sunairo, and the whole set could be covered by

the words `occupy till He come'.

The great prophetic chapter, Matthew 24, speaks of the Second Coming of the Lord to fulfil the prophecies of

His Kingship. The Coming of Matthew 24 is tied to Daniel 9 (Matt. 24:15), to the great tribulation (Matt. 24:21)

and takes place immediately after the tribulation of those days (Matt. 24:29,30). The `Church' as is found in Paul's

epistles, and especially in Ephesians has no part or lot in this phase of the Lord's Coming. The church most

certainly looks for the Saviour, but in different connections and related to a different sphere. In the opening chapter

the Saviour is set forth as:

The Son of David

The Son of Abraham

The Son of Mary

Whose name was `Jesus', for He was sent to be a Saviour

But Who was Emmanuel, God with us (Matt. 1:1,20,21,23).

The Gospel of Mark omits the genealogy and stresses `service'. The Gospel of Luke takes the genealogy of the

Saviour back beyond David and Abraham, to Adam (Luke 3:38). lt would take us too far afield to attempt to set out

the distinctive features of Luke, as compared with Matthew, so we must mount another stair and give attention to:

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

This Gospel, according to Irenaeus, was written from Ephesus, and this statement is repeated by Eusebius and by

Jerome. The date of the Gospel is usually assigned to about A.D. 90. The words of John 1:11 :

`He came unto His own, and His own received Him not'

seem to demand that John wrote his Gospel after the rejection of Israel in Acts 28, and in John 12:39,40 he quotes

Isaiah 6:10 as does Paul in the last chapter of Acts.

That John had Gentile readers in view is evident:

No Jew needed the word `Rabbi' interpreted (John 1:38)

No Jew needed the word `Messiah' interpreted (John 1:41)

No Jew needed the word `Cephas' interpreted (John 1:42)

No Jew needed to be told about the feud between the Jews and the Samaritans (John 4:9)

No Jew needed to be told that the feast of Dedication was in winter (John 10:22), any more than a book

published in England would say `It was Christmas Day, and it was winter'.