Comparing Mark to Matthew

[rcwitness]

the thing about the gospels is that their portrayals of different characters are usually in the interests of their respective authors: particular themes which the Evangelists want to emphasize inform the way characters are portrayed in the gospels. I too have an issue with the usual analogy of four reporters. It is a favorite explanation, and it does have some truth in it, but I don’t think it completely and adequately explains the phenomenon we see in the gospels. No analogy ever could of course, but I think that the analogy can be and should be qualified further.

On the one hand, you have the ‘fact’, the what-happened, the historical reality, whatever you want to call it. On the other hand, you have four writers taking that ‘fact’ and retelling it from their own perspectives and on their own terms, adapting and refitting it to suit their purposes in the course of the retelling. A modern historian looking for ‘just the unvarnished facts’ will of course be frustrated at this, but the burden really lies in those who read the gospels ultra-literally as if they are mere dry transcripts of the ‘fact’ (in other words, as if something written by a modern historian ). This is why I believe that looking at the gospels simply as if they are reports while completely ignoring the fact that they are also literary works is to miss something crucial.

Again, this is due to the general emphasis Matthew places on the Church in his gospel. What Matthew wanted to show that just like the wise man who built his house on solid rock, Jesus built the Church with the disciples (particularly Peter, the “rock”) as the foundation. So what better way to emphasize how good the foundation is by casting the disciples in a more positive light. Also, as I mentioned earlier, Matthew sees a chain of continuity between Jesus and the Christians he is writing to, with the disciples as the link between the two. There is no discontinuity; the relationship between Master and disciple isn’t simply a thing of the past. Basically, what Matthew is trying to show is that the disciples have handed down the teachings of Jesus accurately and so, his audience can be assured that they have authentic, unsullied Tradition. In fact, in Matthew the word “disciple” does not refer to the Twelve only (as it is in Mark and Luke): it is used in a much broader sense. In fact, Matthew’s Jesus commands His disciples to “make disciples of all nations.”

If you’re asking me which of them is ‘true’, I’d say both of them are. If you’re asking me which of them is ‘factual’, I’d say what I just said: I could not be totally sure. I’d like to think that it maybe is a combination of both, but short of having a TARDIS or any other time-travelling device I could not make a definitive statement.

Well, i proposed the difference of the records of the “who do you say that i am” response of the Lord to Peter to my Archbishop. He gave his “25 cent” answer much like you convey here. He described the notion of different people writing their own concept of what they saw and were compelled to reveal. And i dont mean to describe Mark’s record as “different”, but lacking the full discourse. He likened it to the group of us in the room getting a visit from an alien and all sharing what we saw later. We would each, as individuals, observe and share different specifics.
I think you, Patrick, have addressed things in better detail, but under the circumstances he said the same thing. You have addressed the motives of Matthew’s focus on Church structure and relation. This, more directly, answers the point of my question.
That being said, I still dont understand why Mark, and Luke would leave out the rest of that meeting. I understand the event as a first council. Or perhaps a “simulated” council, with a proposed question/conflict and a need for a spokesman of the twelve to be established through this very foundational question, “Who do you say that I am?”. Nevertheless, Luke and Mark do convey the Question and the answer from Peter.
Bishop Jerome also described the life of the Church maintaining the office of Peter as a perpetual answer to this question. We say,“You are the Messiah, son of the living God”, in the very core of our Church faith.

Christ is Risen, sorry I wasnt able to bring the question of Andrew out, with others in the group having their own and time frame.

Peace,
Michael

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

Well, i proposed the difference of the records of the “who do you say that i am” response of the Lord to Peter to my Archbishop. He gave his “25 cent” answer much like you convey here. He described the notion of different people writing their own concept of what they saw and were compelled to reveal. And i dont mean to describe Mark’s record as “different”, but lacking the full discourse. He likened it to the group of us in the room getting a visit from an alien and all sharing what we saw later. We would each, as individuals, observe and share different specifics.
I think you, Patrick, have addressed things in better detail, but under the circumstances he said the same thing. You have addressed the motives of Matthew’s focus on Church structure and relation. This, more directly, answers the point of my question.
That being said, I still dont understand why Mark, and Luke would leave out the rest of that meeting. I understand the event as a first council. Or perhaps a “simulated” council, with a proposed question/conflict and a need for a spokesman of the twelve to be established through this very foundational question, “Who do you say that I am?”. Nevertheless, Luke and Mark do convey the Question and the answer from Peter.
Bishop Jerome also described the life of the Church maintaining the office of Peter as a perpetual answer to this question. We say,“You are the Messiah, son of the living God”, in the very core of our Church faith.

Christ is Risen, sorry I wasnt able to bring the question of Andrew out, with others in the group having their own and time frame.

Peace,
Michael

We know Luke wasn’t an original witness, but rather a faithful transcriper of the events that were passed down to him. His description of “Who do you say I am” is nearly identical to Mark’s. It is almost certain Luke had access to Mark’s Gospel and used it as a reliable source.

Mark 8

27 And Jesus went on with his disciples, to the villages of Caesare′a Philippi; and on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that I am?” 28 And they told him, “John the Baptist; and others say, Eli′jah; and others one of the prophets.” 29 And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.” 30 And he charged them to tell no one about him.

Luke 9

18 Once when Jesus[d] was praying alone, with only the disciples near him, he asked them, “Who do the crowds say that I am?” 19 They answered, “John the Baptist; but others, Elijah; and still others, that one of the ancient prophets has arisen.” 20 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered, “The Messiah[e] of God.” 21 He sternly ordered and commanded them not to tell anyone

Whether Luke had access to Matthew’s Gospel or not is a tougher question. An interesting one, but sort of beyond the scope of this conversation.

As to why Mark didn’t include the additional content in Matthew. I guess there are a few options.

• Mark’s source didn’t know/contain the extra details.
• Mark’s source did know the extra details but didn’t tell him.
• Mark knew the extra details, but didn’t write them down.

To me all three ultimately boil down to the same reality. Today the primacy of Peter is challenged by other Christian groups, it isn’t a given. In Apostolic times, it would seem like it wasn’t an issue. Even Paul in his letter to the Galatians after vigoursly asserting that his authority to proclaim the Gospel comes from no man, but Christ himself (as all Apostlic authority does) Paul still tells us he went to Jersulam twice to meet with Peter and James the Just (a parallel to Acts 15 mentioned by po18guy.)

Galatians 1

Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; 19 but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother

Galatians 2

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up in response to a revelation. Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain. 3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 4 But because of false believers[a] secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might enslave us— 5 we did not submit to them even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might always remain with you. 6 And from those who were supposed to be acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those leaders contributed nothing to me. 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars, recognized the grace that had been given to me, they gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 They asked only one thing, that we remember the poor, which was actually what I was* eager to do. **

My understanding may be incomplete, but seems that from the Biblical sources, even those that come from Paul (like Luke,) don’t argue that Peter had primacy. It may have been a given to the extent that Mark didn’t see it necessary to belabor the point. It was enough for the audience at that time, also being taught the Gospel through world of mouth from the Apostles, that Peter proclaimed him Messiah.

Just my 2 cents.*

 

[rcwitness]

To me all three ultimately boil down to the same reality. Today the primacy of Peter is challenged by other Christian groups, it isn’t a given. In Apostolic times, it would seem like it wasn’t an issue. Even Paul in his letter to the Galatians after vigoursly asserting that his authority to proclaim the Gospel comes from no man, but Christ himself (as all Apostlic authority does) Paul still tells us he went to Jersulam twice to meet with Peter and James the Just (a parallel to Acts 15 mentioned by po18guy.)

Galatians 1

Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; 19 but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother

Galatians 2

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up in response to a revelation. Then I laid before them (though only in a private meeting with the acknowledged leaders) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure that I was not running, or had not run, in vain.

My understanding may be incomplete, but seems that from the Biblical sources, even those that come from Paul (like Luke,) don’t argue that Peter had primacy. It may have been a given to the extent that Mark didn’t see it necessary to belabor the point. It was enough for the audience at that time, also being taught the Gospel through world of mouth from the Apostles, that Peter proclaimed him Messiah.

Just my 2 cents.

Thanks bro,
I agree. There was more of a sense of truth regarding the Apostles leadership and specifically Peter’s among them in their day. This would have been more obvious in the actual experience of seeing them teaching together. And notably, i think many protestants recognize a primacy, chief, authority in Peter from the scriptures. They only deny the succession of that office. As though it was neccessary then, but no longer.

I am at peace with the different accounts within the Gospels. I realize there are legitimate reasons, as we have discussed. And in reality, i dont think Mark and Luke recording the same commission from Jesus to Peter would make a difference to their respect for the communnion we have.

For me, the statements from Paul were important to understanding his need to be confirmed through Peter. Like Peter, even addressed, Pauls letters can be confusing, or difficult to umderstand. He had quite a job to do! He also needed to convict his audience of his direct revelation from Jesus, which to some (protestants) would take as meaning he did not give a proper respect to the foundational stone of Peter. Paul also knew the potential for any Apostle, even Peter, to not act according to the gospel they preached. Which is another aspect which is twisted for the protestant perspective. In this sense, Paul could truly say he was in no way inferior to the super apostles yet realized a definite foundation of the source of an unadultered gospel given through Peter.

Michael

 

[rcwitness]

Oh, btw…my bishop has some humor too. I told him my question wasn’t based on a sola scriptura perspective. After his answer, he said btw, we are sola scriptura also…with Tradition and Church teaching. He had me spun for a second

 

[po18guy]

We must remember that the four Gospels were written with different intended audiences. That fact alone means that some Gospels are Jewish heavy, while others, particularly Luke’s was intended for a Gentile audience, and had a Gentile author. Thus, certain Jewish things, or the assumed knowledge of Judaism that would not necessarily occur to Gentiles may have been omitted or reduced in stature, so to speak.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

Thanks bro,
I agree. There was more of a sense of truth regarding the Apostles leadership and specifically Peter’s among them in their day. This would have been more obvious in the actual experience of seeing them teaching together. And notably, i think many protestants recognize a primacy, chief, authority in Peter from the scriptures. They only deny the succession of that office. As though it was neccessary then, but no longer.

I am at peace with the different accounts within the Gospels. I realize there are legitimate reasons, as we have discussed. And in reality, i dont think Mark and Luke recording the same commission from Jesus to Peter would make a difference to their respect for the communnion we have.

For me, the statements from Paul were important to understanding his need to be confirmed through Peter. Like Peter, even addressed, Pauls letters can be confusing, or difficult to umderstand. He had quite a job to do! He also needed to convict his audience of his direct revelation from Jesus, which to some (protestants) would take as meaning he did not give a proper respect to the foundational stone of Peter. Paul also knew the potential for any Apostle, even Peter, to not act according to the gospel they preached. Which is another aspect which is twisted for the protestant perspective. In this sense, Paul could truly say he was in no way inferior to the super apostles yet realized a definite foundation of the source of an unadultered gospel given through Peter.

Michael

I think Peter’s quote about the difficulty in reading Paul’s epistles is both the most humorous quote in the NT (I think we all been there while reading Paul) and a very important warning. Paul like to use rhetorical arguing techniques. He uses a lot of dicatomies, where he seems to be taking one position…then turning the argument around to show its error. He will seem to be exalting himself, then reverse course to explain how nothing he has said is anything more than what Christ has demanded that he do. He will praise a community in one sentence, then turn around and rebuke them in the next.

All of this makes it VERY easy to take his comments out of context or simply miss the main points by getting bogged down in the rhetorical style. The quotes about Peter in Galatians are the perfect example as you explain.

Conversations like this still happen today. In 2004 Blessed John Paul II (the successor of Peter) transferred the relics of two important saints back to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (the successor of St. Andrew) and apologized for them being taken 800 years before.

From the letter:
*
And now, some of their relics - remains of those bodies that have followed in the footsteps of Christ, have suffered persecution for his Name and have lived as temples of the Holy Spirit - return to Constantinople.*

In the transferral of such holy relics we find a blessed occasion to purify our wounded memories in order to strengthen our journey of reconciliation, to confirm that the faith of these Holy Doctors is the faith of the Churches of East and West. We also witness to a favourable moment to “show in word and deed today the immense riches that our Churches preserve in the coffers of their traditions”

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/2004/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_20041127_consegna-reliquie_en.html

Here you have two successors of the Apostles meeting, and the heir to the primate Apostle conceding a point to his fellow Apostolic heir. I think if people understood who the Pope is and what he represents these sorts of misinterpretations wouldn’t happen. Sadly, as long as people out of ignorance, and occasionally spite, misunderstand the Holy Father as a god on earth, or someone who can order all Catholics to wear blue socks, or is infallible in his wardrobe choices, we will face attacks from misuse of the Scripture.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

Another conversation about Matthew 16 going on in this thread

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10999254#post10999254

po18gy - part of the wonder of Scripture to me is that is still true to me today. I think each of us probably has a certain Gospel or Epistle that speaks most directly to our souls. I bet you can guess my favorite author based on the profile picture beside my screen name.

 

[po18guy]

Another conversation about Matthew 16 going on in this thread

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10999254#post10999254

po18gy - part of the wonder of Scripture to me is that is still true to me today. I think each of us probably has a certain Gospel or Epistle that speaks most directly to our souls. I bet you can guess my favorite author based on the profile picture beside my screen name.

And, you will note that, at various times in your life, other epistles or Gospels will become favorite - we are talking God as the Author, after all!

I love Peter’s epistles, as they are very doctrine-dense. Where did an illiterate fisherman get such eloquence?

 

[po18guy]

Another conversation about Matthew 16 going on in this thread

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10999254#post10999254

po18gy - part of the wonder of Scripture to me is that is still true to me today. I think each of us probably has a certain Gospel or Epistle that speaks most directly to our souls. I bet you can guess my favorite author based on the profile picture beside my screen name.

And, you will note that, at various times in your life, other epistles or Gospels will become favorite - we are talking God as the Author, after all!

I love Peter’s epistles, as they are very doctrine-dense. Where did an illiterate fisherman get such eloquence?

 

[rcwitness]

Another conversation about Matthew 16 going on in this thread

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10999254#post10999254

po18gy - part of the wonder of Scripture to me is that is still true to me today. I think each of us probably has a certain Gospel or Epistle that speaks most directly to our souls. I bet you can guess my favorite author based on the profile picture beside my screen name.

Who is that? Matthew? Im not too familiar w/images of the saints.

And, you will note that, at various times in your life, other epistles or Gospels will become favorite - we are talking God as the Author, after all!

I love Peter’s epistles, as they are very doctrine-dense. Where did an illiterate fisherman get such eloquence?

Peter’s is dense, your right! I feel like his sentances are run-ons that just pack in so much.
I love Acts for its coverage. How about a well done movie on Acts! And James for His wisdom.

 

[po18guy]

Peter’s is dense, your right! I feel like his sentances are run-ons that just pack in so much. I love Acts for its coverage. How about a well done movie on Acts! And James for His wisdom.

Well, the Hebrew language is a run-on language. It tends to be written like it is spoken. You notice from the OT and from our Lord’s discourses that certain phrases tend to be repeated, as was the custom. Even translated by Peter’s secretary into Greek, it probably contained the same run-on style - as much as Greek would allow.

An Acts movie would have to be done by Catholics, or else it would be heavily edited and protestantized. They would show James as head of the Apostles, due to his role as Bishop of Jerusalem in Acts 15, even though they may not like his works-heavy epistle all that much.

 

[patrick457]

I see the thread’s developing well enough.

To go back to topic, a core difference between Mark and Matthew is that Mark loves ambiguity and Matthew loves clarity. We’ve already seen this in Mark’s thick, idiotic disciples and in Matthew’s more capable, knowledgeable disciples.

Matthew basically has a sort of dualistic worldview where either you listen to Jesus or you do not, where either you are ‘inside’ or ‘outside.’ (Contrast this with Mark, who likes to disorient the reader by blurring the concept of what constitutes ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ as soon as his Jesus introduces it.) Look at various sayings and parables in Matthew such as the narrow and the wide gates, the house built on rock and the house built on sand, the wheat and the weeds, the foolish and wise bridesmaids, the sheep and the goats. In each cases Matthew divides humanity into neat pairs. There is no third option: you either belong here or there.

“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

For Matthew’s Jesus, it was not just enough to point out the obvious (building a house on a shaky foundation such as sand is less desirable and just plain stupid), He intensifies the difference by pointing out the destruction of the sand-based house. This is another common theme in Matthew: punishment and reward reinforce one another, and Matthew rarely includes one without the other.

One of the particular quirks of Matthew is the pet phrase “weeping and gnashing of teeth,” which appears six times throughout the gospel (8:12; 13:42; 13:50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30). This phrase ties in perfectly with Matthew’s dualistic worldview and emphasis on reward and punishment. Strangely enough, however, one of the instances in which this phrase appears is at the end of a story that does not easily lend itself to punishment - the parable of the wedding feast (22:1-14; cf. Luke 14:16-24). There we can notice the Matthean reward and punishment motif: the ones who rejected the invitation meet a nasty, if somewhat disproportionate, end for their refusal - not only were the ungrateful guests killed, their city was also burned (!) In fact, the disproportionate response goes both ways: whereas in Luke, the guests simply offer different excuses for not going to the banquet, in Matthew the guests kill the messengers (for inviting them to a wedding feast?), which prompts the king to slaughter them in turn.

The Matthean version also ends in a rather odd note, about a man who was bounced out of the party “into the outer darkness” (another Matthean pet phrase, which accompanies “weeping and gnashing of teeth” at least thrice; 8:12; 22:13; 25:10) for not following the party dress code. The ending raises a few intriguing questions: if “many are called but few are chosen,” why then invite them to a party where they are going to be thrown out? Where was this person supposed to get a garment? Did he even know that he needed to wear one? We cannot answer these questions right now, but simply raising them indicates the general framework of Matthew’s storytelling. Even if the narrative logic does not call for a clear delineation of outsider from insider, Matthew crafts his episodes such so that the dualistic framework remains intact.

 

[patrick457]

Matthew’s gospel, stylistically speaking, creates a taxonomy of good and evil. For Matthew, there is no middle way: you either follow Jesus (in which case you are blessed) or you don’t (which means bad luck for you). This viewpoint, as mentioned, makes his gospel different in tone from that of Mark, even though they share much of the same content. Whilst Mark thrives in enigma and ambiguity, Matthew emits earnestness and certainty.

We can also observe this sharp distinction in the way characters in the narrative address Jesus. In Matthew’s version of the Last Supper, when Jesus announces to His disciples that one of them will hand Him over, they begin to ask Him: “Is it I, Lord?” After giving a clue as to who the betrayer would be, it is Judas’ turn to ask. “Is it I, Rabbi?” Jesus then gives an oblique answer to Judas (“You have said so”), abruptly ending the scene. (26:20-25)

This is a unique characteristic of Matthew: he has different characters address Jesus using different titles, depending on whether they have a positive or negative role in the story. Those who willingly follow Jesus address Him almost always as Kyrios, “Lord” (8:2-8; 9:27-31; 14:28; 17:4; 20:30), which emphasizes the authority of Jesus and the divine power at work in Him. By contrast, those antagonistic to Jesus address Him as “teacher,” which in Matthew is a designation never used by Jesus’ followers (8:19; 12:38; 17:24; 19:16; 22:16). Indeed, Matthew has Peter and the two blind men address Jesus as “Lord” when Mark has Peter and Bartimaeus saying “Rabbi” (17:4; 20:33; cf. Mark 9:5; 10:51); the other instance where Peter calls Jesus “Rabbi” in Mark (when he finds the fig tree withered; 10:51), meanwhile, is simply not found in Matthew’s gospel.

Matthew has thus provided a clue for his audience as to where a given character’s loyalty lies. To a discerning ear, Judas has basically ‘outed’ himself by his noun choice: “Rabbi,” which also happens to be one of the titles for which Matthew’s Jesus has condemned the scribes and the Pharisees (23:7-8). The following episode in Gethsemane is thus highly ironic:

While he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I will kiss is the man; seize him.” And he came up to Jesus at once and said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” And he kissed him. Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you came to do.” Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him.

It is as if Matthew’s Jesus doesn’t need to exercise any supernatural ability to read Judas’ intentions; his words serve as code language that signifies his treachery. To the arrest party, Judas gives a kiss as an agreed-upon sign, but for Jesus (and by extension, the audience) he gives no less a sign - the word “Rabbi.” Judas is the only character in Matthew to use either one. In other words, Judas speaks like the enemies of Jesus, failing to perceive his Master’s true identity.

 

[patrick457]

In fact, I would say that the reward-punishment motif permeates Matthew’s treatment of the disciples! Matthew’s disciples are, as mentioned, generally capable and knowlegeable - and Jesus rewards them for it. (cf. Peter in Matthew 16) Here we see a distinction between the disciples who have ‘heard’ Jesus (who are rewarded) and Jesus’ opponents (who have punishment in store for them).

This brings us really to the ‘dark’ side of Matthew: his treatment of the Jews antagonistic to Jesus.

Matthew’s earnestness can pose a difficulty for modern readers of the gospel. Because of his clearly-defined, dualistic worldview, his narrative needs ‘enemies’ in order to draw his Protagonist and his disciples more sharply. Most often, the characters who fill in this role are Jewish authority figures like the Pharisees or the chief priests. Matthew is absolutely certain that Jesus is the fulfillment of Judaism and makes his case for it (the “Jewish Jesus” motif - I’ll go into depth later); for him, rejection of Jesus is the rejection of the correct understanding of Judaism.

Not all of the people within the gospel, not to mention later Jewish readers of Matthew, are convinced, however. Matthew was probably written around the time when the tensions between Christians and other, non-messianic Jews were reaching to a point: by the time the Temple was destroyed in AD 70, Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism (the spiritual descendant of the Pharisaic schools, all the other ‘Judaisms’ of the Second Temple period having gone extinct), twins of the same womb, have started to go their separate ways. Both laid claim over the heritage of Israel and struggled to define themselves in the context of the turmoil of the era and over against each other. The more Christians argued in the context of the synagogue that Jesus is the Messiah, the more non-messianic Jews found it impossible to put up with them. The end result was that Christians were finally expelled from the synagogue and were labeled by their colleagues as minim, ‘heretics’. (e.g. the Birkat ha-Minim) In this context, the gospel has been interpreted as reflecting the struggles and conflicts between Matthew and others of his ilk and other Jews.

There are times within the gospel when Matthew’s earnestness and surety could become sharply polemical. Matthew contains some of Jesus’ most virulent statements in all the New Testament: for instance, Jesus’ haranguing the scribes and the Pharisees in chapter 23. Judas’ identification of Jesus as “Rabbi” could even be seen in this light. Not to mention that the gospel contains the most infamous line within the Christian Scriptures: “his blood on us and on our children.” (27:25) Another overarching theme throughout the gospel is the rejection of Israel’s Messiah. Prior to Jesus’ crucifixion the Jews are mainly called Israelites, the honorific title of God’s chosen people (cf. 8:10; 9:33; 10:6; 10:23; 15:24, 31; 19:28); after it, they are called Ioudaioi “Jews” (28:15), a sign that through their rejection of the Christ the “kingdom of Heaven” has been taken away from them and given instead to the new Israel, the Church, which is open to both Jew and gentile alike. (The reward-punishment motif all over again!) There is also a shade of the “retreating Jesus” motif (another one for later): in Matthew, Jesus retreats from the Jewish people (cf: 23:39) into the circle of His disciples, and then intensifies His mission (which was originally directed only towards the “house of Israel”) by ordering His followers to “make disciples of all nations.” (28:19)

The end result of this is, ironically, that one of the most Jewish of the four gospels has been used as a proof-text for many of the atrocities perpetrated against Jews throughout history. (The other Jewish gospel, John, has also been subject to the same abuse.)

 

[patrick457]

In fact, I would say that the reward-punishment motif permeates Matthew’s treatment of the disciples! Matthew’s disciples are, as mentioned, generally capable and knowlegeable - and Jesus rewards them for it. (cf. Peter in Matthew 16) Here we see a distinction between the disciples who have ‘heard’ Jesus (who are rewarded) and Jesus’ opponents (who have punishment in store for them).

This brings us really to the ‘dark’ side of Matthew: his treatment of the Jews antagonistic to Jesus.

Matthew’s earnestness can pose a difficulty for modern readers of the gospel. Because of his clearly-defined, dualistic worldview, his narrative needs ‘enemies’ in order to draw his Protagonist and his disciples more sharply. Most often, the characters who fill in this role are Jewish authority figures like the Pharisees or the chief priests. Matthew is absolutely certain that Jesus is the fulfillment of Judaism and makes his case for it (the “Jewish Jesus” motif - I’ll go into depth later); for him, rejection of Jesus is the rejection of the correct understanding of Judaism.

Not all of the people within the gospel, not to mention later Jewish readers of Matthew, are convinced, however. A current opinion has it that Matthew was probably written around the time when the tensions between Christians and other, non-messianic Jews were reaching to a point: by the time the Temple was destroyed in AD 70, Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism (the spiritual descendant of the Pharisaic schools, all the other ‘Judaisms’ of the Second Temple period having gone extinct), twins of the same womb, have started to go their separate ways. Both laid claim over the heritage of Israel and struggled to define themselves in the context of the turmoil of the era and over against each other. The more Christians argued in the context of the synagogue that Jesus is the Messiah, the more non-messianic Jews found it impossible to put up with them. The end result was that Christians were finally expelled from the synagogue and were labeled by their colleagues as minim, ‘heretics’. (e.g. the Birkat ha-Minim) In this context, the gospel has been interpreted as reflecting the struggles and conflicts between Matthew and others of his ilk and other Jews.

There are times within the gospel when Matthew’s earnestness and surety could become sharply polemical. Matthew contains some of Jesus’ most virulent statements in all the New Testament: for instance, Jesus’ haranguing the scribes and the Pharisees in chapter 23. Judas’ identification of Jesus as “Rabbi” could even be seen in this light. Not to mention that the gospel contains the most infamous line within the Christian Scriptures: “his blood on us and on our children.” (27:25) Another overarching theme throughout the gospel is the rejection of Israel’s Messiah. Prior to Jesus’ crucifixion the Jews are mainly called Israelites, the honorific title of God’s chosen people (cf. 8:10; 9:33; 10:6; 10:23; 15:24, 31; 19:28); after it, they are called Ioudaioi “Jews” (28:15), a sign that through their rejection of the Christ the “kingdom of Heaven” has been taken away from them and given instead to the new Israel, the Church, which is open to both Jew and gentile alike. (The reward-punishment motif all over again!) There is also a shade of the “retreating Jesus” motif (another one for later): in Matthew, Jesus retreats from the Jewish people (cf: 23:39) into the circle of His disciples, and then intensifies His mission (which was originally directed only towards the “house of Israel”) by ordering His followers to “make disciples of all nations.” (28:19)

The end result of this is, ironically, that one of the most Jewish of the four gospels has been used as a proof-text for many of the atrocities perpetrated against Jews throughout history. (The other Jewish gospel, John, has also been subject to the same abuse.)

 

[rcwitness]

Thanks for picking us back out of the slough of despond Patrick. While the cat’s away, the mice will play.

Some things that stuck out to me in your last discourse:

“Weeping and gnashing of teeth”
-You seem to imply this phrase means both reward and punishment…? I see it as just the agony and absence of peace of not accepting Jesus and being in Him.

“Dress code” at the wedding feast.
-this was interesting to see the two different approaches to the parable. Seems like Matthew again takes things further. To draw in more relation to a life in Jesus. You propose the curiosity one might ask, “where were we to get the garment, how were we to know we needed a certain garment?”
Both these aspects of preparing ourselves for heaven and some being rejected reminded me of Revelations 22:12-15

12)“Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense (reward/punishment) with me. To repay everyone for what he has done. 13) Iam the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
14)Blesses are those who wash their robes (garments), so that they may have the right to the tree of life (supper of the Lamb)and that they may enter the city (Kings house) by the gates (Church/Sacraments). Outside, are the dogs, sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood (weeping and gnashing of teeth).

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

Who is that? Matthew? Im not too familiar w/images of the saints.

Peter’s is dense, your right! I feel like his sentances are run-ons that just pack in so much.
I love Acts for its coverage. How about a well done movie on Acts! And James for His wisdom.

Here is a bigger version of the mosiac.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Sadly, it seems the link to my original is dead now, but it reads Pavlvs across the top. I can really relate to the self-proclaimed “Least of the Apostles.” He takes a very rational approach to his discovered faith, but makes no mistakes the wisdom of God he proclaims will be seen as foolish to the “wise” of that time (and our own.)

In St. Paul, I see one of the first true converts; a man that gave up a pretty good material life to suffer for Christ and the true Gospel. He lead a hard life because of his faith, and based on his Epistles and Acts, wasn’t always the easiest person to get along with. None the less, when I read his Epistles, I feel he is writing directly to me. Such is the wonder of Scripture, it speaks to us as directly today as it did to those yesterday.

 

[patrick457]

Thanks for picking us back out of the slough of despond Patrick. While the cat’s away, the mice will play.

Some things that stuck out to me in your last discourse:

“Weeping and gnashing of teeth”
-You seem to imply this phrase means both reward and punishment…? I see it as just the agony and absence of peace of not accepting Jesus and being in Him.

And that’s basically the punishment. In the Matthaean worldview, punishment is often characterised by being “thrown out” into “the outer darkness” where there is “weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

P.S. Are you familiar with the “teeth will be provided” joke?

 

[patrick457]

Here is a bigger version of the mosiac.

http://www.heiligenlexikon.de/Fotos/Paulus.jpg

Sadly, it seems the link to my original is dead now, but it reads Pavlvs across the top. I can really relate to the self-proclaimed “Least of the Apostles.” He takes a very rational approach to his discovered faith, but makes no mistakes the wisdom of God he proclaims will be seen as foolish to the “wise” of that time (and our own.)

In St. Paul, I see one of the first true converts; a man that gave up a pretty good material life to suffer for Christ and the true Gospel. He lead a hard life because of his faith, and based on his Epistles and Acts, wasn’t always the easiest person to get along with. None the less, when I read his Epistles, I feel he is writing directly to me. Such is the wonder of Scripture, it speaks to us as directly today as it did to those yesterday.

You can pretty much identify Paul in early Christian artworks even without a trained eye since he is always portrayed the same: a guy with a receding hairline and a long, pointy beard. In fact, he and Peter (short, curly hair + short beard) are the only two persons who are portrayed consistently by different artists. Not even the depictions of Jesus (which varied so much at that time) show a consistency as theirs do.

 

[rcwitness]

P.S. Are you familiar with the “teeth will be provided” joke?

I did read that in your past posting

Your a cool dude. Above my intellect, though that doesnt matter, as long as you’re gracious Our gifts we all must corral towards the building up of our Lords kingdom.