The presentation of how Jewish and non-Jewish elements are related within the Gospel of Matthew is a fundamentally significant area of ​​studying whether the biblical scholar is to successfully appreciate the purposes and values ​​of the evangelist and understand the audience to which these are directed. 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 claims, '...the Law of Moses and consequently the problem of the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old Testament 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 with Jewish law? What does this mean for our understanding of the person of Matthew and his sitz in leben? These are the considerations I hope to address in this essay; I will examine the presentation of Jesus' relationship with the Torah and its contribution to the overall assortment of pro-Jewish, anti-Jewish, pro-gentile, and anti-gentile sentiments present in Matthew. I will explore what can be gleaned 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay First of all, then, I would like to offer an examination of textual references to Torah observance and Jesus' relationship to the law of Judaism. The sheer number of places where Jesus preaches strict observance of the Torah or emphasizes the Torah as a key issue of discussion testifies to its significance for the evangelist; four of Matthew's five main discourses contain teachings about the Torah. Teachings regarding Jewish law also have pride of place throughout the Gospel; the Sermon on the Mount features a significant period of prolonged Torah teaching, the emphasis on the law also occurs during the third discourse on the kingdom of heaven, the fourth discourse, and the eschatological discourse. The final and climactic command to 'instruct all the nations...teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you[2]' can be seen as a commission to preach and spread the word of Jewish law, even if recently interpreted, given 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 moments, if not the most explicit, of the teaching regarding the law; we become aware, within this passage, of some key statements about Torah observance, the first of which is 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 fulfillment of the very scriptural law that his accusers claim he rejects. This idea of ​​Jesus' fulfilling role will be discussed in more detail later in the essay. In 5:18, Jesus observes: '...truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not a letter, not a single stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until everything is accomplished[3] '. The word "truly" could have been seen as significant in terms of validating Jesus' statement about keeping the law; 'truly' translates the Greek word, a transliteration of the Hebrew, which means “he is reliable, faithful, true”. The verse that follows “truly” seems to address the limitations of the Torah in terms of duration; the alleged time limit imposed by lawHebrew is, however, widely debated. The phrases "until heaven and earth pass away" and "until all be accomplished" are ambiguous. Some have suggested that everything will be accomplished with the death and resurrection of Jesus which is to be interpreted as an apocalyptic event, Jesus marking the end of Jewish law and the inauguration 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 made so clear the point that Jesus is not meant to replace. Other interpretations suggest that Matthew is attempting to poetically suggest the eternal nature of the law; the heavens and the earth will not pass away (certainly not the heavens, at any rate) and, therefore, neither will the law. However, Jewish eschatology and the idea of ​​the realization of “all things” seem 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 will be fulfilled... with the disappearance of the current world order[4]». Whatever 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 depicted as incredibly concerned with laxity in terms of faithfulness to scriptural commandments, no little commandment is to 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. Readers of the Gospel are encouraged not only to obey the requirements of the law, but they are also commanded to teach them to others[5]. In addition to this obvious shift in emphasis on the commandments, Matthew also appears to add a wealth of material promoting Sabbath observance, arguably one of the foundational laws of Jewish culture and, moreover, the one that Jesus is accused of ignoring when performing miracles on the day. sacred. For example, 20:24 commands 'Pray to God that you will not have to run away 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 meaning for the evangelist; there is evidently a desire here to present Jesus as a devout follower of scriptural law. Some, Blanton for example, have argued that there appears to be an inextricable link between Torah teaching and acts of salvation; Matthew is perhaps illustrating the meaning and power of Torah observance by juxtaposing his preaching with positive effects. Blanton lists the numerous times that Torah teaching acts as a mode of salvation within the Gospel and concludes that it does so in 263 verses compared to the scant 59 verses in which Healing saves and only four that relate salvation to Death on the cross; "As indicated by the number of verses that constitute each category, Jesus' mode of salvation through Torah teaching far surpasses the other themes[6]..." Although Blanton's list demonstrates the frequency of teaching of the Torah in Matthew, is not necessarily a fair or sensible representation of what Matthew considers of primary importance. The death on the cross, for example, will obviously have fewer verses attached to it since it is a short and isolated event, the teaching of the Torah can take place throughout the entire ministry of Jesus and therefore there is more space for verses relating to it . Although we can't necessarily arguethat the number of verses translates into a degree of meaning, it is undeniable that there are numerous occasions when the preaching of the Torah saves and, once added the recognition that Matthew has added a great deal of this material agreement of his, his emphasis about it 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 the importance to the redactor. There seems to be nothing wrong, however, in simply suggesting that Matthew had numerous points of emphasis and that the teaching of the Torah as a healing mechanism was one of them and, therefore, so was the observance of Jewish law. Blanton argues that when one 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 emerges that Jesus' entire purpose is to encourage adherence to Scripture. If Blanton's definition is correct, then it seems that this would be how the verse would translate and the importance of adhering to the Torah would be further reinforced. It is worth, therefore, examining whether other possible definitions seem to make sense, thus making Blanton's translation imprecise. Repschinksi, for example, believes that sin involves the separation of God from human beings; God withdraws. However, as Blanton correctly points out, sin often has the opposite effect of bringing God closer to humanity for the purposes of divine judgment. Repschinski's idea (derived from his interpretation of 1:21) that the purpose behind Jesus' ministry is to heal the void between humanity and God, therefore appears to be inconsistent since his conception of sin is not fully consistent with other biblical texts. Carter offers a different definition by suggesting that sin can be defined as opposition to God's will; Roman imperial rule is the physical manifestation of sin as it represents a disregard for God's desires, Jesus offers salvation from sin through deliverance from Roman rule. However, "in no case is the terminology of 'sin' directly linked to Roman officials or Roman policies, nor is it linked to the elite provincial rulers of Judea with the status of Herod Antipas[7]". Sin defined as transgression of scriptural law appears to have substantial textual evidence to support it. The idea of ​​lawlessness seems closely tied to those who fail to meet the demands of Jewish law. 7:21-24 demonstrates this well; Jesus states that 'Not all who call me 'Lord, Lord' will enter the Kingdom of heaven, but only those who do what my Father in heaven wants them to do[8]', the will of the Father is what the law is written. We know this to be true as we learn that “everyone who hears these words and puts them into practice will be likened to a wise man who built his house on the rock.” The words referred to are clearly those spoken by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount as we see in 7:28 and 8:1 crowds following him down the hill. Jesus taught Torah observance on the mountain. The connection between sin and Torah observance is also evident when Judah 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 to support Blanton's conception of sin as the strongest of the definitions presented. If this is the correct definition of sin then we can interpret 1:21 in light of this fact. 1.21 is placed in a prominent position and refers to broader themes of the Gospel; the verse can be seen as a 'road map[9]' that the rest of the Gospel will followand the map seems to trace a path of strict observance of the Torah and preaching of the Jewish scriptures. Throughout the Gospel, Matthew not only highlights Jesus as a conformer and encourager of adherence to the Old Testament Scriptures, he also presents Jesus as the very fulfillment of the Scriptures within himself. From the beginning of his gospel, Matthew prepares the reader for Jesus' fulfillment of the Jewish scriptures; according to Micah 5:2 ("But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, although small among the capitals of Judah, from you will come to me one who will be ruler over Israel..."), Jesus is born in Bethlehem despite having origins in Nazareth, a clear indication of prophecyfulfillment. Furthermore, Jesus enters Jerusalem riding on a donkey to fulfill Zechariah's prophecy: 'Your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, humble, riding on a donkey, a donkey's colt[10]. ' Matthew also firmly establishes Jesus as the Son of David to affirm his connection to the royal Davidic line of the Hebrew 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 in harmony with the will of God; in fact, that the passion is equivalent to the fulfillment of the Scripture[11]". It seems that Matthew presents to his audience adherence to the Torah on two fronts: Jesus not only preaches the observance of the law but is its fulfillment and completion. Matthew probably could not have made the text more obviously Jewish. As Senior argues, “this turn of events was not, in Matthew's perspective, simply a tragic accident of history, but was intertwined with the mysterious will of God.” As the mission of Jesus fulfilled the Scriptures, so did all the events of the passion, up to the betrayal of Judas and the complicity of the leaders in the shedding of the innocent blood of Jesus[12].' However, in some places in the text, it sometimes seems that Jesus is overturning the law. Many often resort to so-called “antitheses” to support this point. Here Jesus offers a reflection on the written laws of the Pentateuch; for example he states that 'You have heard that in the past people were told: 'Do not commit murder; anyone who does so will be put on trial." But now I tell you: if you are angry with your brother you will be prosecuted, if you call your brother 'Good nothing!' you will be brought before the Council, and if you call your brother a senseless fool you will be in danger of ending up in hell fire[13].' They are phrases like "I'll tell you now" that initially seem like substitute phrases. This seems strange, however, given the emphasis placed 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 Torah law. I think it is, 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 Jesus' ethic of love had replaced the Torah formulations, neither of these opinions is correct, as the examination of the antitheses indicates looking with lust at a person who is not one's spouse is just as serious as committing the act of adultery; Jesus does not oppose what Moses taught, but simply adds to it, Matthew also presents Jesus as if he married a woman. more nuanced emphasis on the Torah; adherence to the Scriptures is a necessary but not sufficient condition for attaining eternal life, it is essentialfollow the Torah to the letter while keeping every instruction minor but one must also follow Jesus. Viljoen briefly summarizes Matthew's description of Jesus' relationship with the Torah: 'Matthew... presents Jesus as the true interpreter of the Law. It was important to Matthew's argument to defend his belief that Jesus gives the correct interpretation of the Torah. Jesus' relationship with the Torah constitutes a central motif in his Gospel. Therefore Jesus is seen as the last and greatest expositor of the Law[15]. This examination of Jesus' relationship with the Torah in Matthew feeds into the larger discussion of Jewish relations within the Gospel and, in turn, within the context of Matthew itself. The question becomes: what can we glean from these considerations in terms of Matthew's message regarding Jews and Gentiles within his own sitz im leben? As Viljoen argues, the Gospel «tells the story of Jesus, but in such a way that the history of the Matthean community can also be recognized in it. The past story of Jesus and his disciples contains within itself the story of the community's experience[16]". The Gospel introduces the controversy 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 in discussions of the role Jesus plays in relation to the Jewish religion. It is clear from our discussion of the Torah that Matthew, for some reason, wishes to keep Judaism within Christianity; Jesus' strict observance of the law and fulfilling nature are paramount to him. However, there is also decidedly anti-Jewish sentiment that should not be ignored. Jewish leaders are more deeply implicated in the condemnation of Jesus and act consistently with “evil intentions[17].” The Pharisees are constantly portrayed in a negative way, Matthew even removes the little bits of positivity we see in Mark. The Jewish people themselves are also strongly associated with guilt, this is not just a polemic against the Jewish authorities; people often respond to leaders' suggestions, and crowds are easily persuaded. Furthermore, in Matthew 26:57, the crowds seize Jesus, attacking him with force. In Mark they just take him away. There are also definite elements of what Przybylski calls the 'church-synagogue polemic[18]' manifested in the series of phrases designating the synagogue as 'they', thus establishing a tension-filled 'us and them' environment, e.g. Jesus went throughout all Galilee" , teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the Kingdom[19]' There is also a clear pro-gentile atmosphere throughout the text (the Gentiles recognize Jesus as the Son of God, they show believe everywhere in the healing power of Jesus and are endeared to the reader by Pilate and his wife's reluctance to kill Jesus); these elements may require explanation, although it is possible that the Gentiles are simply being used as an obstacle for the Jews to reinforce the negativity of the Jewish people and increase the strength of the controversy. After all, the only people who can act as an obstacle to the Jews are all those who are not Jews. However, some have noted Matthew's desire to keep the group at arm's length; Senior quotes Sim in this regard as saying that 'far from being a pro-gentile gospel,' the Matthean Jewish community largely avoided contact with the surrounding Gentile society and had good reason to do so.[20]'' It seems, then, that we have an interesting juxtaposition between an anti-Jewish polemic and a clear pro-Judaism manifested through a strict emphasis on adherence to the Torah, as well as a pro-gentile atmosphere and the possibility of a desire to keep them at arm's length . What can we glean from these facts about Matthew's situation? Numerousacademic theories have attempted to channel these observations about Matthew into one clear theory that explains them all; I don't have space to go through them all here, just to point out which one I think makes the most sense. Viljoen paints a picture of the Matthean community, a predominantly Jewish-Christian group in tension with traditional Judaism and excommunicated from synagogues; there was a climate of threat coming from the Gentiles because they were Jews and from the Jews because they were followers of Christ. The atmosphere is clearly defensive. Viljoen later observes that “factions have developed systems to justify their existence and to define and protect the group's internal values. In this process such groups often openly oppose outsiders. Stereotypical terms were repeatedly used as "buzzwords" to justify themselves... and to denounce other groups... Matthew often refers to the righteous... while denouncing this wicked lawless generation and the Pharisees and doctors of the law as hypocrites. Such terms were often used in a polemical sense to distinguish insiders as a minority group from outsiders who controlled them[21].' Matthew's polemic was aimed at those who rejected the Matthean community's interpretation of Scripture and Jesus. The correct interpretation of the law became the 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 placed on this idea of ​​interpreting the Scriptures. Matthew uses the Gospel to give voice to the “correct interpretation” in the interpretive battle within his Sitz im leben. Matthew is also responding to charges that Jesus superseded the law made evident by his blatant specification of this in 5:17. This statement seems too specific and corrective not to be a response to some accusation. Buck, I believe, largely agrees with this view arguing that "Matthew's church is a minority in danger of being swallowed up by Judaism or of being deprived of the right to consider itself part of the true Israel." The Church of Matthew fights for its existence, and in this fight the rules of gentlemanly sport are not always observed[22]". Hence the controversy. In conclusion, it is clear that Matthew places considerable emphasis on the observance of the Hebrew Scripture and Jesus' strict adherence and fulfillment of it. There is also a strong claim that Jesus' is the only correct interpretation; he is the interpreter and ultimate fulfiller of the Scriptures, not a substitute for it. This Torah observance feeds into a larger theme of the preservation of Judaism and helps to 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 stance and pro- and less-pro stance towards Gentiles is fascinating, and it is interesting to explore the ways in which we might explain all these various themes as manifestations of a situation within the Gospel of Matthew. community itself.[1] Tagawa, K., 1970. 'Persons and Community in the Gospel of Matthew,' New Testament Studies 16[2] Matthew 28:19[3] Matthew 5:18[4] Sim, DC The Gospel of Matthew and Judaism Christian: The History and Social Context of the Matthean Community (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1998)[5] ibid.[6] Blanton, T. R. IV. “Saved through Obedience: Matthew 1:21 in Light of Jesus' Teaching on the Torah,” JBL 132 (2013)[7] ibid.[8] Matthew 7:21[9] Blanton, TR IV. “Saved by Obedience: Matthew 1:21 in Light of Jesus' Teaching on the Torah,” JBL 132 (2013)[10] Zechariah 9:9[11] Buck, E. “Anti-Jewish Sentiments in Matthew's Passion Narrative” , in Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity Vol. 1: Paul and the Gospels,, 1986)