Quarles, Charles L. Matthew. Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary. Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2022. xxiii+828 pp.; Hb.; $59.99. Link to Lexham Press
Charles Quarles is a research professor of New Testament and biblical theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He has previously contributed several books and articles on Matthew, including Sermon On The Mount: Restoring Christ’s Message to the Modern Church (B&H, 2011), A Theology of Matthew: Jesus Revealed as Deliverer, King, and Incarnate Creator (P&R, 2013, and Matthew (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (B&H, 2017, reviewed here). He recently co-authored 40 Questions about the Text and Canon of the New Testament (with Scott Kellum, Kregel 2023; reviewed here).
In his 104-page introduction, Quarles begins his discussion of the authorship of the first gospel by observing the author was certainly a Jewish Christian, probably from Galilee. The author seems favorable toward Galilee and negative towards Jerusalemites. “Due to early and unanimous testimony supporting Matthean authorship and the lack of internal evidence contrary to this testimony,” he accepts Matthew as the author. He does not argue this from apologetic or theological concerns, but after a “thorough survey of the evidence,” Matthew is simply the best conclusion (12).
Similarly, cumulative evidence favoring a pre-70 date raises concerns for confident claims Matthew wrote after A. D. 70. For him, the key evidence is the Gospel of Matthew and the so-called “parting of the ways.” For many, phrases like “your synagogues” or “your scribes” (4:23, 7:29) suggest Matthew had already separated from the synagogue when the gospel was written. Traditionally, the parting of the ways is dated at least to A. D. 85, after the so-called council of Jamnia. However, this date for the parting (and the whole idea of a council of Jamnia) as a watershed moment has been scrutinized and often abandoned. Quarles takes the Book of Acts seriously. Separation from synagogues is commonplace in the Pauline mission (for example, Corinth, Acts 18). What about the implied destruction of the temple? He takes the evidence as a foreshadowing of the temple’s destruction rather than an implication that the temple is no longer active. Many distinctive features of Matthew make the most sense if the original assemblies addressed were still participating in Temple worship.
He is much less certain about the provenance and destination of the gospel. There is not enough evidence to conclude where the gospel originated, although it is clearly addressing Jewish Christians. Likewise, it is not clear what the original language of the gospel was. As early as Papias, some early church writers assumed Matthew wrote first in Aramaic, which was later translated into Greek. However, Matthew used Mark and Mark is clearly written in Greek. It is impossible for someone to have translated Mark into Aramaic for Matthew to use and then translate Aramaic Matthew back into Greek. The parallels between Greek Matthew and Greek Mark are too exact to have passed through multiple translations. However, Quarles thinks some portions of Matthew were originally written in a Semitic language (31). However, evidence is lacking to reach a confident conclusion. What sections does he have in mind? One example: in Matthew’s genealogy, three sets of fourteen generations seem to be influenced by gematria based on David’s name, totaling fourteen in Hebrew or Aramaic. This does not work if one uses the Greek spelling of David.
Quarles follows the almost universal agreement that the gospels are ancient biographies. For him, this has important implications for how to read Matthew. Since the subject is Jesus, Matthew is a Christological document (34) and historically reliable. Quarles structures the gospel following Mark’s chronological and geographical pattern. This raises an issue that’s missing in this commentary. He assumes Markan priority (Matthew used Mark’s gospel). He does not argue this point in the introduction, nor does he raise the issue in the body of the commentary. Using the print library feature of Logos Bible Software, I searched for references to Q (or “sayings source”) in the commentary. Q only appears twice (once in a quotation of Davies and Allison in a footnote and another in the bibliography). Occasionally, footnotes discuss a difference between Mark and Matthew, but Quarles is only Matthew’s text. There is nothing on the synoptic problem, nor does he engage in source criticism or redactional analysis. I find this refreshing since he spends the entirety of his effort in the commentary itself on the text of Matthew, and other commentaries focus on redactional issues. I would, however, like to have a paragraph in the introduction stating his assumptions.
The bulk of the introduction (pages 45-104) covers fourteen theological themes in the Gospel of Matthew. Since he argues that Matthew’s gospel is a Christological document, all fourteen of these themes relate to Matthew’s presentation of Jesus. These themes are then woven into the commentary in the exegesis and his concluding theological reflections entitled “Bridge.”
The commentary moves through his outline of the book pericope-by-pericope, treating major paragraphs in a few pages. The commentary is based on the CSB translation provided at the beginning of each unit. Following the text, Quarles sets the context before moving to the exegesis. His exegesis is based on the English text (Greek words rarely appear). He does not deal with textual criticism and only rarely makes grammatical or syntactical comments. This is true even when there are bracketed verses in the text of Matthew (such as in 18:11). He makes connections with rabbinic sources when they shed light on the text (Matthew 22:23-33, for example).
Although the commentary is nearly 600 pages, Quarles is a master of the art of brevity. His explanations are very clear and readable. The focus is on explaining the meaning of the gospel. Although he interacts with secondary literature in the footnotes, this is not a commentary on what other commentaries have said.
The final section of each unit is entitled “Bridge.” These are canonical connections, often referring to the Old Testament but also to other New Testament passages and (occasionally) church history reception. Although these sometimes have contemporary applications, this is not the purpose of the section. He is bridging canonical connections, not bridging the ancient gospel with a modern context.
Conclusion. Quarles’s commentary is an exemplary contribution to the Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary series. Pastors and teachers will find this commentary to be valuable as they present the first Gospel.
Reviews of other Commentaries in this Series:
- David G. Firth, Joshua
- James M. Hamilton, Jr. Psalms (two volumes)
- Joe Sprinkle, Daniel
- Barry G. Webb, Job
- Matthew S. Harmon, Galatians
NB: Thanks to Lexham Press for kindly providing me with a review copy of this book. This did not influence my thoughts regarding the work.
