Introducing how Jewish and non-Jewish elements interact in Matthew's Gospel It is a fundamentally important area of ​​study whether the biblical scholar should succeed in appreciating the goals and values ​​of the evangelist and in gaining an understanding of the audience to whom they are addressed. This relationship between Jewish and non-Jewish elements becomes manifest through the author's presentation of the relationship between the teaching and ethos of Jesus and the way of the Torah, the way of Jewish law; as Tagawa argues, "...the law of Moses and, therefore, the problem of the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies is one of the most important problems for Matthew[1]." And a problem for Matthew translates into a problem for the biblical critic; How does Matthew present Jesus' relationship to Jewish law? What does this mean for our understanding of Matthew's person and his sitz in leben? It is these considerations that I hope to address throughout this essay; I will examine the presentation of Jesus' relationship with the Torah and the contribution it makes to the pattern of pro-Jewish, anti-Jewish, pro-Gentile, and anti-Gentile sentiments throughout Matthew. I will explore what we can glean from this in terms of the historical Matthean community and the situation of the early Church. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay First, I would like to offer an examination of the textual references to Torah observance and Jesus' relationship to the law of Judaism. . The large number of places in which Jesus preaches strict adherence to the Torah or emphasizes the Torah as a key topic of discussion testifies to his importance to the evangelist. Four of Matthew's five main discourses contain teaching on the Torah. Teachings regarding Jewish law also feature prominently throughout the Gospel; the Sermon on the Mount features a significant period of extended Torah teaching, emphasis on the law also appears during the Third Discourse on the Kingdom of Heaven, the Fourth Discourse, and the Eschatological Discourse. The final and climactic command to “teach all nations… teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you[2]” can be seen as a mission to preach and spread the word of Jewish law, albeit a newly interpreted one. , taking into account the fact that Jesus wants the disciples to spread everything he taught them and what he constantly taught them is the observance of the Torah. 5:17-20 is perhaps one of the most important, if not the most explicit, teaching moments regarding the law. ; We become aware, in this passage, of some key assertions regarding Torah observance, the first being the idea that Jesus does not come to replace or ignore Jewish scriptural law, he comes to offer a fulfillment of it. Jesus is an integral part of the Jewish faith, an essential element of the scriptural law that his accusers claim to reject. This idea of ​​Jesus' fulfilling role will be discussed in more detail later in this essay. At 5:18, Jesus remarks, "...truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until let all be accomplished[3]. The word “truly” could have been seen as significant in terms of validating Jesus' claim here regarding adherence to the law; “truly” translates the Greek word, a transliteration of the Hebrew, meaning “he is reliable, faithful, true.” The following verse“truly” seems to address the limitations of the Torah in terms of duration; the supposed time limit imposed on Jewish law is, however, widely debated. The expressions “until heaven and earth pass away” and “until all is accomplished” are ambiguous. Some have suggested that all would be accomplished at the death and resurrection of Jesus. Which should be interpreted as an apocalyptic event, Jesus signals the end of Jewish law and the coming of a new way. It seems, however, that this blatantly contradicts the message behind 5:17. If Jesus were to signal the end of Jewish law, Matthew would not have emphasized so clearly the idea that Jesus is not in the business of replacing it. Other interpretations suggest that Matthew is attempting to poetically suggest the eternal nature of the law; heaven and earth will not pass away (certainly not the heavens, anyway) and therefore neither will the law. Jewish eschatology and the idea of ​​the fulfillment of “all things,” however, seems to suggest some sort of end. Perhaps Jewish law must be maintained until the eschaton; “Jesus did not come to abolish the Torah at the time of his ministry, but it will end when all eschatological events are fulfilled... with the disappearance of the current world order[4]”. Whichever interpretation we adopt, it is clear in light of 5:19 that the Torah must be observed in its entirety until its end; Jesus is described as incredibly concerned about laxity in terms of faithfulness to scriptural commandments, no small commandment should be compromised; we might understand this emphasis on adherence to seemingly minor commandments as a reference to the rabbinic distinction between light and heavy commandments. 5:19 also encourages the preaching of the Torah; as Sim points out, “it is this verse in particular that demonstrates that obedience to the law was a practical concern of the Matthean community. Gospel readers are encouraged not only to obey the requirements of the law, but are also commanded to teach them to others.[5] a wealth of material promoting the observance of the Sabbath, arguably one of the most fundamental laws of Jewish culture and, furthermore, a law that Jesus is accused of breaking when performing miracles on the holy day. For example, 20:24 commands “Pray to God that you will not have to flee during the winter or on the Sabbath!” » 12:8 specifically states that "...the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." The fact that Matthew editorially adds these references to the Sabbath reveals their significance for the evangelist; there is obviously a desire here to present Jesus as the fervent follower of scriptural law. Some, Blanton for example, have argued that there appears to be an inextricable connection between Torah teaching and acts of salvation; Matthew perhaps illustrates the importance and power of Torah observance by juxtaposing his preaching with positive effects. Blanton lists the many times Torah teaching acts as a mode of salvation in the gospel and concludes that it does so in 263 verses, compared to a measly 59 verses in which healing saves and only four which connect salvation to death on the cross; "As indicated by the number of verses that constitute each category, Jesus' mode of salvation by teaching the Torah far exceeds other themes.[6]..." Although Blanton's list demonstrates the frequency of teaching of the Torah in Matthew, it is not It is not necessarily a fair or sensible representation of what Matthew considers to be primary. The death on the cross, for example, will obviously have fewer verses attached since it is a brief and isolated event, the teachingof the Torah can take place throughout Jesus' ministry and so there is more room for verses that relate to it. Although we cannot necessarily say that the number of verses translates into a degree of significance, it is undeniable that there are many occasions when the preaching of the Torah saves and, when added, it is recognized that Matthew added much of this material of its own. agreement, the emphasis he places there becomes clear. That said, Matthew also adds miracles and healings to his Gospel that do not appear in Mark, we cannot simply take this type of statistic as an accurate representation of importance to the writer. There seems, however, to be nothing wrong with simply suggesting that Matthew had many points of importance and that the teaching of the Torah as a healing mechanism was one of them, as was the observance of Jewish law. Blanton argues that when he interprets the Gospel in light of verse 1:21, keeping in mind the definition of "sin" as a deviation from the word of the Torah, it turns out that Jesus' sole purpose is to encourage adherence to Scripture. If Blanton's definition is correct, it seems that this would be how the verse would translate and the importance of adherence to the Torah would be further reinforced. It is therefore worth checking whether other possible definitions seem reasonable, thus rendering Blanton's translation inaccurate. Repschinksi, for example, considers that sin involves the separation of God from human beings; God withdraws. However, as Blanton rightly points out, sin often has the opposite effect, that of drawing God closer to humanity for the purposes of divine judgment. Repschinski's idea (derived from his interpretation of 1:21) that the purpose of Jesus' ministry is to fill the gap between humanity and God therefore seems inconsistent since his conception of sin is not entirely consistent with d other biblical texts. Carter offers a different definition suggesting that sin can be defined as opposition to God's will; Roman imperial rule is the very physical manifestation of sin since it represents a disregard for God's desires. Jesus offers salvation from sin by freeing himself from Roman rule. However, "in no case is the terminology of 'sin' directly linked to Roman officials or Roman politics, nor to the leaders of the Judean provincial elite with the status of Herod Antipas."[7] Sin, as defined as the transgression of scriptural law, appears to be supported by substantial textual evidence. The idea of ​​lawlessness seems closely linked to those who do not follow the requirements of Jewish law. 7:21-24 demonstrates this well; Jesus declares that “Not everyone who calls me “Lord, Lord” will enter the Kingdom of heaven, but only those who do what my heavenly Father wants them to do,”[8] the will of the Father is what is written in the law. We know this to be true because we learn that “everyone who hears these words and does them will be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock.” The words mentioned are clearly those spoken by Jesus during the Sermon on the Mount since we see in 7:28 and 8:1 crowds following him from the hill. Jesus taught Torah observance on the mountain. The connection between sin and Torah observance is also evident when Judas fears that he has sinned by shedding "innocent blood," a direct violation of God's commandments in the Torah. It appears, then, that there is significant evidence in favor of Blanton's conception of sin as the strongest of the definitions presented. If this is the correct definition of sin, then weWe can interpret 1:21 in light of this fact. 1:21 is placed in a prominent position and relates to broader gospel themes; the verse can be seen as establishing a "road map[9]" that the rest of the Gospel will follow and the map appears to chart a route of strict Torah observance and preaching of the Jewish scriptures. Throughout the Gospel, Matthew not only emphasizes Jesus as a conformist and an encouragement to adherence to the Old Testament scriptures, he also presents Jesus as the very fulfillment of scripture in him -even. From the beginning of his gospel, Matthew prepares the reader for Jesus' fulfillment of the Jewish scriptures; In accordance with Micah 5:2 (“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, although you are small among the clans of Judah, from you will come for me the one who will rule over Israel…”), Jesus was born in Bethlehem. although he hails from Nazareth, a clear indication of prophecy fulfillment. Furthermore, Jesus rides to Jerusalem on the back of a donkey to fulfill the prophecy of Zechariah: “your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey[10] . 'Matthew also firmly establishes Jesus as the Son of David in order to affirm his connection to the Davidic royal lineage of the Jewish scriptures. The passion of Christ is presented as a key point in the fulfillment and completion of the Jewish texts; as Buck notes, “Matthew, even more than the other evangelists, emphasizes that Jesus' suffering is consistent with God's will; in fact, that passion amounts to a fulfillment of Scripture[11]'. It seems that Matthew is presenting to his audience adherence to the Torah on two fronts: Jesus is not only preaching observance of the law, but he is its fulfillment and completion. Matthew probably could not have made the text more overtly Jewish. As Senior argues, “this turn of events was, in Matthew's view, not simply a tragic accident of history, but was closely connected with the mysterious will of God. Just as Jesus' mission fulfilled Scripture, so did all the events of the Passion, even Judas's betrayal and the leaders' complicity in the shedding of Jesus' innocent blood.[12] However, at times in the text it sometimes appears that Jesus is overturning the law. Many often turn to so-called “antitheses” to support this point. Here, Jesus offers a reflection on the written laws of the Pentateuch; for example, he states: “You have heard that in the past, people were told: 'Don't commit murder; anyone who does so will be brought to justice. But now I tell you: if you are angry with your brother, you will be judged, if you call your brother: “You good-for-nothing!” you will be brought before the Council, and if you call your brother a worthless idiot, you risk going to the fires of hell[13].' It's expressions like "now I tell you" that initially seem like replacement expressions. This seems strange, however, given the emphasis earlier in the Gospel on adherence to the law and Matthew's obsession with placing Jesus firmly in the context of Jewish fulfillment theology. Furthermore, the preceding verses offer the most obvious proclamation possible that Jesus is absolutely not overturning the law of the Torah. This is, I think, as Blanton notes when he says, "although the antitheses are sometimes taken as evidence that Matthew's community no longer valued strict Torah observance, or that the Jesus' ethic of love has supplanted the formulations of the Torah, neither of these views is correct, as the examination of the antitheses indicates[14].' Instead, we can interpret theantitheses as Jesus refining, clarifying or expanding elements of the Torah. The adultery commandment, for example, now specifies that even viewing a person other than one's spouse with lust is as bad as committing the act of adultery; Jesus does not oppose what Moses taught, he simply adds to it, interprets it. Matthew also presents Jesus as putting a more nuanced emphasis on the Torah; Adherence to the Scriptures is a necessary but not sufficient condition for achieving eternal life, it is essential to follow the Torah to the letter by keeping every minor instruction but it is also necessary to follow Jesus. Viljoen succinctly summarizes Matthew's description of Jesus' relationship with the Torah: “Matthew...presents Jesus as the true interpreter of the Law. For Matthew's argument, it was important to defend his belief that Jesus gives the correct interpretation of the Torah. Jesus' relationship with the Torah constitutes a central motif of his Gospel. Thus, Jesus is considered the last and greatest exponent of the Law[15]. The question becomes: what can we glean from these considerations in terms of Matthew's message regarding Jews and Gentiles in his own sitz im leben? As Viljoen argues, the Gospel “tells the story of Jesus, but in such a way that the story of the Matthean community can also be recognized there.” The past history of Jesus and his disciples includes the history of the community's experience.[16] The Gospel introduces the troubles between Israel and Galilee and between the synagogue and the Christian Church; Matthew manifests the dispute in debates over the interpretation of the law and discussions over the role Jesus plays in relation to the Jewish religion. It is clear from our discussion of the Torah that Matthew is keen to keep Judaism within Christianity for some reason; Strict adherence to the law and the nurturing nature of Jesus are key for him. However, there is also a distinctly anti-Jewish sentiment that should not be ignored. Jewish leaders are more deeply involved in condemning Jesus and acting consistently with “evil intentions.”[17] The Pharisees are constantly portrayed in a negative way, Matthew even removes the small elements of positivity that we see in Mark. The Jewish people themselves are also strongly associated with blame; it is not only a polemic against the Jewish authorities; the people often respond to the suggestions of leaders, and crowds can be easily persuaded. Furthermore, in Matthew 26:57, the crowds seize Jesus and attack him with force. At Mark's house, they just take him. There are also specific elements of what Przybylski calls the "church-synagogue polemic"[18] which manifests itself in the series of phrases referring to the synagogue as "theirs", thus establishing an environment filled with "us and them" tension. , for example “Jesus crossed Galilee”. , teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom[19]'. There is also a distinct pro-Gentile vibe throughout the text (the Gentiles recognize Jesus as the Son of God, show their belief throughout in the healing power of Jesus, and are endeared to the reader by the reluctance of Pilate and his woman to kill Jesus); these elements might require explanation, although it is possible that the Gentiles are simply being used as a foil for the Jews in order to reinforce the negativity of the Jewish people and increase the force of the controversy. After all, the only people who can serve as a foil to Jews are anyone who is not Jewish. Still, some noted Matthew's desire to keep the group at arm's length; Senior quotes Sim on this subject sayingthat “far from being a pro-Gentile gospel, “Matthean Jewry largely avoided contact with surrounding Gentile society and had good reason to do so.”[20] we have an interesting juxtaposition between anti-Jewish polemic and a distinct pro-Judaism which manifests itself in a strict insistence on adherence to the Torah, as well as a pro-pagan atmosphere and the possibility of a desire to keep them from a distance. What can we learn from these facts about the Matthean situation? Many scientific theories have attempted to channel these observations about Matthew into a clear theory that takes them all into account; I don't have space to go through them all here, only to highlight the one that makes the most sense to me. Viljoen paints a picture of the Matthean community, a predominantly Judeo-Christian group in tension with traditional Judaism and excommunicated from the synagogues; there was a climate of threat emanating from the Gentiles because they were Jews and from the Jews because they were followers of Christ. The atmosphere is clearly defensive. Viljoen then observes that “factions have developed systems to justify their own existence and to define and protect the group's internal values. In this process, these groups would often openly oppose outsiders. Stereotypical terms have been repeatedly used as "buzzwords" to justify oneself...and to denounce other groups...Matthew frequently refers to the righteous...while denouncing this lawless villain .generation and the Pharisees and the teachers of the law as hypocrites. Such terms were often used in a polemical sense to distinguish the internals as a minority group from the outsiders who controlled them.[21] Matthew's polemic was aimed at those who rejected the Matthean community's interpretation of Scripture and Jesus. Correct interpretation of the law became a competition between rival religious groups, hence Matthew's emphasis on presenting Jesus as the most accurate interpreter of the Torah and why so much emphasis is put on this idea of ​​interpreting Scripture. Matthew uses the Gospel to express the “right interpretation” in the interpretive battle within his own Sitz im leben. Matthew also responds to accusations that Jesus superseded the law, made evident by his blatant specification of it in 5:17. This statement seems too specific and corrective not to be a response to an accusation. Buck, I think, largely agrees with this view, asserting that "Matthew's Church is a minority in danger either of being swallowed up by Judaism or of being deprived of the right to regard itself as part of the true Israel. The Church of Matthew is fighting for its very existence, and in such a fight one does not always observe the rules of gentlemanly sport.[22]' Hence the controversy. In conclusion, it is clear that Matthew places considerable emphasis on the observance of the Jewish scriptures and Jesus' strict adherence to and fulfillment of them. There is also a strong claim that Jesus' is the only correct interpretation; he is the interpreter and ultimate fulfillment of the Scriptures, not their replacement. This Torah observance fits into a broader theme of preserving Judaism and helps stimulate debate between Jewish leaders and Jesus throughout the text, which, in turn, generates Matthew's polemical tone against the Jews. The combination of the evangelist's pro and anti-Judaism attitude and pro and less pro attitude toward the Gentiles is fascinating. It is interesting to explore the ways in which we might explain all of these different themes as manifestations of a situation, 1986)