or "string of
pearls," from Zech. xi. 12 and Jer. xix. 1, 2, 6, the valley of the son
of Hinnom being regarded as typical of "the field of blood." (2) That
in xxvii. 34, from Ps. lxix. 21. It is said that the evangelist, in
order to make our Lord's action correspond with the words of the
Psalmist, makes Him drink "gall" instead of "myrrh" (Mark xv. 23), and
thus represents the soldiers as cruelly giving Him a nauseating draught
instead of a draught to dull His pain. The argument will hardly hold
good, for the Greek word translated "gall" can also signify a
stupefying drug, and thus Matt. and Mark agree. (3) That in xxi. 2-7,
where our Lord is represented as making use of both an ass and a colt
for His triumphal entry into Jerusalem. The other Synoptists mention a
colt only, and it is supposed that the evangelist altered his narrative
of the fact in order to make it agree with a too literal interpretation
of Zech. ix. 9. It must be admitted that the account in Mark and Luke
has an air of greater probability, and it has the support of the brief
account in John. But there is not a decisive contradiction between
Matt. and the other Gospels, and it is therefore unreasonable to pass
an unfavourable verdict on any of them. The story in Matt. cannot be
discredited as containing an apocryphal miracle, and the mere fact that
it is so independent of the other Gospels suggests that it is really
primitive.

[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]

The chief characteristic of this Gospel is the representation of Jesus
as _the Messiah_ in whom was fulfilled the {42} Law and the prophets.
It was probably placed first in the New Testament because this
Messianic doctrine is the point of union between the old covenant and
the new. St. Matthew's representation of the Messiah is the result of
very careful reflection, and it shows that the evangelist wrote in a
spirit which was philosophical and in one sense controversial. He is
philosophic because he is not a mere annalist. He groups incidents and
discourses together in a manner which brings out their significance as
illustrating the Messiahship of Jesus and the majestic forward movement
of the kingdom of God. He is in one sense controversial because he
wishes his picture of Christ to correct that false idea of the Messiah
and His reign which was ruining the Jewish people. The best kind of
controversy is that which is intent upon explaining the truth rather
than eager to expose