David Bercot Matthew Commentary

Welcome back to the Sound Faith channel. Today we wanted to share something exceptional with you: a gem that all serious Christians should have in their bookshelves, the historic Faith Matthew Commentary. First, I must inform you that in no way are we getting any kickback as a channel for promoting this book. While I was admiring David Berceau's personal library, I was humbled at not just the mere number of books he had, but that so many were related to church history in some way. These were not just for looks; as I got closer, I could see little sticky notes as page holders all through them. David is a devout man of God who is seeking the truth by studying church history and sparing no effort to find it.

David has authored or edited 13 books, of which his bestsellers are "Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up?" and "The Kingdom That Turned the World Upside Down." I also wanted to mention that I graduated from Bible College with a Bible and Missions major. I read many books and many parts of commentaries, but never did I find a commentary that made me want to read straight through it like this one. It was always just a reference, and often a questionable reference at that.

There are so many references within those commentaries that after looking half of them up, they're extremely questionable for supporting their conclusion. They were stated as facts, and many totally were out of context. Let me give you an example of another frustration avoided in this commentary. While in college, after much study of specific passages in many different commentaries, I would often find myself confused by the conflicting views between them and curious as to how both commentaries could be so confident of their view, both listing many secondary sources. I'm not saying there aren't commentaries out there worth reading from cover to cover, but I am saying this one is one of a kind and is definitely worth reading all the way through and a very good reference.

This Matthew commentary will debunk many myths brought about by lackadaisical commentators who did not go back to the primary source but just regurgitated what they read and maybe fallacious commentaries. This book gets to the nitty-gritty of what Jesus' teachings really meant.

The reason we can have so much confidence in this commentary is that David Berceau does not rely on his own understanding of what Matthew says. He spent decades, over 35 years, dedicating his life's work to the study of early Christians, going back to primary sources. Their quotes can be found scattered throughout every page, and their thoughts on passages often differ significantly from what we have heard in church and read in 20th-century commentaries. Instead of me talking about Matthew commentary in my own words, let David Berceau read a few minutes of the introduction section of his book called "What is the Difference about This Commentary?"

Many museums around the world contain Renaissance paintings of biblical scenes. These paintings are beautiful and reflect exceptional artistic skill. However, all the biblical characters in them wear Renaissance clothing, not the clothing of biblical times. If the early Christians had seen these paintings, they would have been startled at the novel clothing on the people.

Modern commentaries are often like those Renaissance paintings. The commentators are skilled communicators, masters of their art. Their verbal illustrations are engaging, and their explanations of Scripture resonate with 21st-century Christians. However, they close the teachings of Jesus and his apostles with ideas and viewpoints that were wholly foreign to the first century. They forced New Testament teachings into theological frameworks that didn't even exist until many centuries after the apostles had died.

If the early Christians had read these commentaries, they would have been startled at such novel explanations of Scripture. This new commentary on Matthew is designed to help readers see the Gospel of Matthew through the eyes of the Christians who lived in the early centuries after Christ. It brings Matthew to life not by garbing it in 21st-century clothes, but by clothing it in ancient garments. As a result, the reader is certain to find new insights—well, really ancient ones—in this commentary.

The objective of this commentary may sound exciting, but there's an element of inertia the reader must first overcome to benefit from this approach. Let's briefly return to the illustration of the Renaissance paintings. When Europeans of the Renaissance era viewed those paintings, they saw nothing strange about the clothes on the biblical characters. They thought they were seeing an accurate representation of life in the ancient world. In fact, if the Renaissance artists had painted their biblical subjects in a manner that was historically accurate, people would have objected to the strange clothing.

The same principle is true regarding Bible commentaries. We Christians living in the 21st century prefer to hear explanations of Scripture that resonate with our worldview and our theology. That's only natural. Yet what we need to be seeking are explanations that resonated with Christians who lived close to the time of the apostles.

And those explanations may not always be what we want to hear. Yet we're wise to humble ourselves and learn from those who lived close to the time of the apostles. They not only had the advantage of living in the same culture and speaking the same language as the apostles, but they received the commendation of the last living apostle, who was John. John lived until the dawn of the second century. What did he have to say about the state of Christianity at that time?

Well, just a few years before his death, he wrote a general letter to the whole church saying this: "I have written to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I have written to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have overcome the wicked one."

So just before the beginning of the second century, both the fathers in the faith and the young men were holding steadfastly to the apostles' teaching. The word of God remained in them, and they had overcome Satan. In other words, they were holding to the historic faith.

The fact that Christ's church was strong at the beginning of the second century should come as no surprise. Jesus had commissioned his apostles to make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe all things, whatever I have commanded you.

And behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. The apostles were not failures. They accomplished the task Jesus had given them. Jesus never abandoned them. The book of Revelation describes the apostles as the 12 foundation stones of New Jerusalem.

They were not the foundation stones of a church that crumbled as soon as the apostles died. When John spoke of those who were fathers in the faith, he may have been referring to men like Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement of Rome, among others.

Those men were leaders in various churches at the time he wrote his letter. They weren't fathers in the sense of having authority or inspiration like the apostles. Rather, they were fathers simply in the sense of being older men who were holding steadfastly to the historic faith. Those three men that I've mentioned have left us letters which witness to the faith that they held. After them, other faithful men left writings that testify to the historic faith.

All these men were not only close to the era of the apostles, but they lived long before the rise of church councils, theological systems, and state churches. They represent a fresh, primitive Christianity untainted by the corruptions of later ages.

Of course, none of these men were infallible, but they did remain faithful against both the persecution of Rome and the heresy of the Gnostics, whom John called the Antichrist. At the close of the second century, the Gnostics were still trying to corrupt the faith. They even claimed that the historic churches had departed from the faith.

Listen to Tertullian's response to them. Tertullian responded, "Suppose that the Holy Spirit, the minister of God and representative of Christ, neglected his office and permitted the churches to understand incorrectly and to teach differently than what he himself had been teaching through the apostles.

If that were the case, is it likely that so many churches would have gone astray into one and the same faith? No random departure by so many men ever results in their coming to one and the same result. Error of teaching in the churches would have necessarily ended up with differing outcomes."

When Tertullian wrote those words, there was still one single united church throughout the world. It was united because it was still holding on to the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. That unity continued through the next century. However, during the fourth century, Christians turned to the power of the state to enforce unity. After that, unity represented state power, not fidelity to the historic faith. When the unscriptural union of church and state finally ended in the 17th and 18th centuries, Christians divided into hundreds of denominations and independent churches.

Each group claimed to be holding to the historic faith, but they were utterly incapable of restoring the unity the church had experienced in the second and third centuries. Before long, each of those groups splintered into even more divisions.

The result is that today, Christ's body is fragmented into tens of thousands of denominations and independent churches. Yet, as Paul asked, "Is Christ divided?" Again, the early Christians were not infallible. They surely made mistakes. We're free to agree or disagree with their understanding of any given passage of Scripture.

Furthermore, they are not a source of authority in themselves apart from Scripture. Nevertheless, their value to the church today is incalculable, for they provide us with a witness as to how Christians understood the Scriptures when the church was still young and when it was still a single united church.

That witness is priceless. It is the height of folly for today's divided church to ignore their testimony.

My friend Dean Taylor, who is president of Satler College, often remarks that someone should publish an early Christian study Bible. For each passage of Scripture, there would be a footnote explaining how the early Christians understood that verse. For example, in Matthew 5:34, Jesus says, "I say to you, do not swear at all."

Now, in this hypothetical study Bible, there would be a footnote for this verse saying, "The early Christians understood this to mean, do not swear at all." In Matthew 5:39, Jesus says, "Whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." The footnote for this verse would say, "The early Christians understood this to mean that if someone strikes you on your right cheek, you should turn the other to him also."

And so on. In other words, an early Christian study Bible would explain each verse of Scripture to mean exactly what it says. Well, the same could be said of an early Christian commentary such as this one. The explanation for each passage of Scripture should be that it means exactly what it says.

And that is precisely what you will find in this historic faith commentary on Matthew. Of course, Jesus often uses metaphors and parables, so this commentary enables the reader to see how the primitive Christians understood those metaphors and parables.

When a Christian picks up the Gospel of Matthew, he or she has before him one of the most important books of the Bible, if not the most important book. The reason Matthew is so important is that it contains more of the key teachings of Jesus Christ than any other New Testament book.

Matthew is the New Testament book that the early Christians quoted from most often. Luke runs a distant second. In fact, the early Christians quoted from Matthew nearly three times as often as they quoted from Romans. The thought of presenting the Gospel to anyone without going to Matthew would have seemed preposterous to the early Christians.

And there are several reasons why. Number one, it was the first Gospel written. Number two, it contains the Sermon on the Mount. Number three, it emphasizes the kingdom of God more than all of the other books in the New Testament.

Number four, Matthew demonstrates that the Gospel of Jesus centers on practical discipleship. Number five, among the four Gospels, the Greek word for church, which is ecclesia, is found only in Matthew.

As you can see, this commentary is amazing, and I didn't even get to chapter one. If you want David to make more commentaries like this, write other books, CDs, or videos, please go to the Scroll Publishing website in the link below and support David. Also, share this video, like, and subscribe. One last thing, check out the Historic Faith Online Courses. And if you subscribe for just $10 a month, you can see many different courses David has made over the years. Thanks.