Differences In Jesus’ Message From Judaism in The Gospel of Matthew

The issue between the Gospel of Matthew and Judaism is a convoluted one. The picture that emerges when talking about whether Jesus’s teaching is anti-Semitic or not becomes ambivalent and it is not easy to interpret, as Coogan has pointed out, “Matthew functions as a bridge between the two Testaments . . .”(Coogan, 1746). In the context of Jewish-Christian dialogue, the fundamental question is how much of Judaism’s principles and practices ascribed to Jesus are preserved from traditional Judaism? As much as Matthew’s Gospel has been considered to be an extremely anti-Semitic, especially in the Christian realm, there remains substantial evidence indicating how Jesus, as presented by Matthew, had preserved the quintessence of Judaism.

In this paper, there will be research on the Gospel of Matthew from Daniel Harrington’s commentary “The Gospel of Matthew”, This paper will explain the teachings of the “6 Antithesis” in chapter 5 verses 21-48, and the main point on “Jesus came not to abolish but to “fulfill” the Law and Prophets (Harrington 90).” This paper will also have Daniel Harrington interpretations of the writing of the gospel of Matthew. I believe that Jesus had a reason for his teachings and how he went forward to preach them to the congregation.

Matthew’s Gospel has been understood as Jewish-Christian in outlook. Matthew had a number of purposes for writing the Gospel. One was “to instruct and exhort members of his community.” He has two broad categories of material: narrative and discourse. Many scholars conclude “Matthew’s primary intent was to write a handbook for church leaders to assist them in preaching, teaching, worship, mission, and polemic.” In his Gospel, Matthew focused clearly on

The gospels Mathew and John contain distinct differences. According to the Gospel of John, Pilate brought Jesus out a second time to plead Jesus' innocence. The crowd demanded Jesus' death again. Also in John's gospel, the soldiers are sent to take down the bodies. Pilate's soldiers broke the legs of the two criminals. They "did not break [Jesus'] legs" because they thought he was dead (Jn 19:33 NAB). This detail is not mentioned in Mathew's gospel. Another difference was when Jesus was resurrected he said to his disciples "Peace be with you" (Jn 20:19 NAB). In Mathew, moments after Jesus death "the rocks split" (Mt 27:51 NAB). Johns gospel does not have an earthquake in it. Also, in Mathew, Simon helps Jesus carry the cross. Simon was "pressed

Craig Blomberg, New Testament Scholar and Professor at Denver Seminary, provides an insightful commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Blomberg investigates the text using a historical, literary, and theology analysis. The commentary begins with an introduction analyzing the following 7 topics regarding the entirety of the Matthean Gospel: (1) structure, (2) theology, (3) purpose and audience, (4) sources, (5) date, (6) author, (7) and historicity and genre. Blomberg, then, throughout the rest of the commentary, provides a verse by verse discourse on the text by breaking it down into 3 main sections: (I) Introduction to Jesus’ Ministry (1:1-4:16), (II) The Development of Jesus’ Ministry (4:17-16:20), and (III) The Climax of Jesus’ Ministry (16:21-28:20).

Two thousand years ago, the birth of Jesus, arguably the most influential man the world has ever seen, altered history forever. Christians know him as the Messiah, the son of God who came to save all of mankind, and for others, he may just be a great teacher and person of history. It is the latter that Reza Aslan attempts to shed an unbiased light on by comparing the Jesus that modern Christians believe in to the Jesus that Aslan believes would have fit into first-century Palestine: a violet revolutionary, dedicated to the eradication of the Roman government in Israel and the deposition of the rich priestly class. Aslan paints a portrayal of Jesus using knowledge of the time period, Scripture that has been taken out of context and misinterpreted, and most of all, the author’s imagination and powerful rhetoric to cover up his faulty argumentation. In his book Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, Reza Aslan recreates an interesting but purely speculative image of the historical Jesus through exploring the political and social history of first-century Palestine, the life and teachings of Jesus, and the development of early Christianity.

     Matthew next describes Jesus through his passionate and loving ministry. The many stories of his work among the people are evidence of who he was as a person. He was a teacher, preacher, and healer to everyone who knew of God’s righteousness. Jesus had strong faith in his Father, and it was important to him that others did as well. Jesus spoke of the proper way to live life in order to be granted eternal life. Some of the first teachings that Matthew mentions in his gospel are of Jesus’

God’s goodness and mercy far transcends the comprehension of the most brilliant human mind! He “who stoops down to look on the heavens and the earth”(Psalm 113:6).Yet in His infinite love for us He stoops down to reveal Himself to us by a multitude of illustration, types, and shadows, so that we may learn to know him. This paper will describe what is meant by the Kingdom of God; examine the religious philosophy of the various sects of Judaism during the Second Temple period: Pharisee, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots, describe the religious philosophy and political philosophy of each sects, it will also describe how the Messianic expectation differ from the Messianic role that Jesus presented, and include an exegesis of

important and who are wondering how Jesus fits into history of the Jewish people. This problems means that Matthew’s community was largely Jewish Christian and needed to be reassured that being a Christian did not separate then from the Jewish heritage.

The books of Matthew and John though have many similarities, also have many differences due to the goals that they are trying to achieve and the importance of points/events they are trying to get across. The reason behind the initial portrayals of Jesus helps achieve the goals of each book; whereas Matthew’s book tries to ‘convince’ the educated readers and quarrelers (Pharisees), John’s book does not care much about reputation per se. For example, Jesus turns on the Jews who believe in him to generate a readers response to him as the definitive expression of God 's will or revelation as opposed to Matthew’s intentional readers response to God 's will as expressed in the Mosaic Law. While there are many qualities I could delve into regarding the difference in characters of Jesus, my essay in particular will look at what each book views is especially important with regard to Jesus and his intentions. Specifically, my main focus will be on the presentation of Jesus and reasons for doing so; setting in context what the book is basically about.

So when Herod was king of Judah and his position was in jeopardy, he wanted to kill Jesus, who was born king of Judah. The Gospel of Matthew says, "The real king of Judah is not Herod, but Jesus." On the other hand, all the events reported by John are events of Jewish Jesus and his Jewish disciples in Galilee and Judea. Especially the events in the southern Jewish land. Above all, the interplay with Judaism in the Gospel of John is prominent, and it shows the richness of Judaism's institutions, customs, theological categories, and concepts.

Jesus' decision to physically cast out the moneylenders from the temple stands as one of the most interesting events of his life, because it represents what seems to be the only moment in the Gospel narratives where he becomes visibly angry to the point of physical action. While one could argue that Jesus is frequently (and justifiably) angry with the disciples from time to time, this is the only moment that Jesus' anger moves him to physical force. Although the event is recorded in all four of the Gospels, this study will focus specifically on its rendering in Matthew, because when considered in the context of Matthew's larger narrative, one can see how Jesus' decision to cleanse the temple does not represent an aberration in either his character or theological message, but rather the natural culmination of Jesus' life and works prior to that point, and demonstrates a kind of revolutionary, anti-authoritarian element of Jesus' message of salvation that is all too often overlooked by Christians and critics alike.

In this article Harold Attridge examines Luke’s background, the scriptures Luke wrote, Jesus’s values, the context and purpose of Luke’s gospel and the treatment of Christians at the time of Luke’s writings. The article expresses that Luke’s Gospel was written before the destruction of Jerusalem and at a time when Christians were being persecuted for practicing their faith so consequently the purpose of his Gospel was to show an ethical example and imply that Christians could be good citizens. This source is relevant to the topic as it suggests the purpose of Luke's Gospel and the treatment of Christians before the fall of Jerusalem. A limitation of the website is that it has not been recently published, it’s publish date is April 1998 so it may not be up to date with the latest, accurate information. Nonetheless, this source is very beneficial and appropriate to the task as it provides facts and research on the chosen sacred text. This source will not be the cornerstone of my research but will add a good understanding to the purpose of the sacred text.

The Book of Matthew, he said, is the most complete account of Jesus’ life on earth, and of His message to the world. The professor says that Gospel of Matthew was written for the conversion of the Jews. He further stated that the writer of this book was obviously interested in the establishment and maintenance of the Church, and the coming of Christ. Hence, the presenter was quite adamant about his

The parable of the Pharisee and tax collector in Luke 18 is a cautionary story that Jesus teaches to a specific crowd of people. In it he deals with humility, righteousness, and justification. The parable describes two different types of people whose occupations are very familiar to any of Jesus’ audience, a Pharisee and a tax collector. The significance of this parable is that it is aimed at a certain type of person, which gives it the ability to be applied outside of Jesus’ immediate context. The type of audience described in this passage has two parts. The first is “those who trusted in themselves that they were righteous”, and the second: “and regarded others with contempt” (Luke 18:9).