Matthew, Mark and Luke share in common a large number of stories about Jesus. This similarity distinguishes them from John, which recounts only a few of the same stories that are found in the other three Gospels. The close relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke naturally brings about comparisons between the ways in which they tell the same stories. We have examples dating from the second century showing that Christians were greatly intrigued and puzzled by the similarities and differences between these three Gospels. Since they are so often compared with each other, they are called the Synoptic Gospels. This title comes from the Greek word synoptikos: syn means "with" and optikos means "vision," so the term means "viewed together" or "common view."
Although through most of the history of the Church Christians commonly viewed Mark as an abbreviation of Matthew, most biblical scholars today believe that Matthew and Luke both used Mark's Gospel as a source of information about Jesus. Of the 609 verses that comprise Mark's Gospel, only about 20 occur in stories not found in either Matthew or Luke (Mark 3:20-21; 4:26-29; 7:31-37; 8:22-26; 9:49; 14:51-52). Matthew contains about ninety-two percent of the contents of Mark; and although the percentage is less in Luke's Gospel, the amount is still substantial. At times the wording of material found in all three of these Gospels is identical, and this high degree of verbal repetition indicates that there is some sort of direct literary relationship between them (compare, for example, Matt. 21:23-27; Mark 11:27-33; Luke 20:1-8 and Matt. 24:4-8; Mark 13:5-8; Luke 21:8-11). The sequence of events in the Gospels also points to Mark as the common source of Matthew and Luke.
Sections of Matthew and Luke that contain material found in Mark also share in common the same sequence of events. In other words, when these Gospels employ stories found in Mark, they tend also to follow Mark's outline. However, when Matthew and Luke both employ material not found in Mark, they differ substantially in where they place it in their narrative sequences. At times this material exhibits an almost word for word similarity (compare Matt. 3:7-10 and Luke 3:7-9; Matt. 6:25-34 and Luke 12:22-31; Matt. 7:7-11 and Luke 11:9-13; Matt. 11:4-6 and Luke 7:22-23; Matt. 12:43-45 and Luke 11:24-26; Matt. 24:45-51 and Luke 12:42-46). Yet in spite of the fact that Matthew and Luke frequently use the same non-marcan material, they often place it in very different positions in their Gospels. Matthew, for example, exhibits a tendency to gather together the teachings of Jesus into large blocks of discourse material (especially Matt. 5-7; 10; 13; 18; 23-25). Thus, the teachings that Matthew records in one section (for example, the Sermon on the Mount in chapters 5-7) are scattered over a much larger portion of Luke's Gospel.
Most of this non-marcan material contained in Matthew and Luke is discourse material with very little narration of events. A plausible theory, therefore, is that Matthew and Luke both used a non-marcan source composed almost entirely of sayings, teachings and parables. Scholars call this sayings source Q after the German word Quelle, which means "source," and a relatively recent archaeological discovery adds validity to the theory of its existence. In 1945, near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, two peasants quite by accident unearthed a jar containing a number of ancient Gnostic texts written on parchment. One of these documents, called the Gospel of Thomas, is a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus and has no narrative framework. The existence of this sayings source adds credibility to the belief that Matthew and Luke both used an "orthodox" sayings source when composing their Gospels.
We may speculate, therefore, that Matthew and Luke
had two common sources of information before them as they wrote their Gospels:
Mark and Q. Further study, however, shows that Matthew also contains
information not found in Mark or Luke, and likewise, Luke contains material
not found in Mark or Matthew. Thus, each of these Gospels employed sources
other than Mark and Q. The following diagram is often used to visualize
the literary relationships between the Synoptic Gospels.
Luke's writing style differs strikingly from that of Mark. Mark's prose bursts with action, stringing together sentence after sentence through the use of "and" to create a feeling of rapid movement and connection of events. His frequent use of present tense verbs causes his stories to simulate the non-formal, oral form from which they sprang. Luke, on the other hand, writes in a more formal style. A well educated man, he comfortably uses the literary conventions of his day to communicate his story of Jesus.
Luke moves easily from a highly refined style, such as in the prologue to his Gospel (1:1-4), to a very Semitic sounding Greek that sounds like a literal translation of Aramaic or Hebrew. The latter resembles the syntax commonly found in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) made in Alexandria, Egypt beginning in the third century BCE. Because most of the Jews in Alexandria by that time had lost the ability to speak and read Hebrew, scribes translated the Scriptures into Greek. In the Pentateuch especially, most of the Hebrew syntax in the Septuagint is preserved in translation, producing very Hebraic sounding Greek.
When Luke describes events occurring in Jewish settings, such as in the Jerusalem temple in Luke 1, his language resembles septuagintal Greek. When, on the other hand, he describes events in Gentile settings, such as Paul's speeches toward the end of Acts, his language is refined and highly rhetorical. In patterning the language for the occasion, Luke follows an ancient tradition of the Greco-Roman world that one may trace back to the famous historian Thucydides (c. 472-395 BCE). In his History of the Peloponnesian War 1.22.1, Thucydides describes what is often called the historical speech, a literary device widely implemented by ancient authors. He explains his method as follows:
Ancient biographers as well as historians used the historical speech in their works, and understanding the difference between ancient biography and historiography is important in studying the Gospels. The following quotation from the famous biographer Plutarch (c. 46-120 CE) clearly reveals the different approaches taken when writing these kinds of literature.
Comparing the Gospels with ancient biographies and histories, therefore, helps us better understand their contents. Luke, for example, contains more material associated with biographies than does Mark, for he tells of the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth and briefly recounts an incident from his childhood. Like Mark, Luke arranges much of his material topically, with little concern for precise chronological ordering of events (for example, note the vague time references in 5:12, 17, 27; 6:1, 6, 12). In these ways Luke writes like a biographer. Yet he shows a definite interest in locating events in the broader context of world events (for example, 2:1-2; 3:1); and the fact that Luke-Acts forms one larger work shows that Luke deliberately intended to produce a kind of history of the early Christian movement. In short, Luke's Gospel does not conform exactly to either biography or history according to ancient parallels. He follows Mark's lead, but he goes beyond Mark's pattern in utilizing creatively the historical and biographical literary conventions of his day.
The structure of Luke's Gospel differs substantially
from Mark's. And although Luke uses many of the same stories as Mark, he
often employs them for different purposes. We must therefore be careful
not merely to interpret these stories in Luke in light of Mark's use of
them. Each Evangelist wrote for a different audience and had a different
agenda in writing.
Whereas the war which the Jews made with the Romans hath been the greatest of all those, not only that have been in our times, but, in a manner, of those that ever were heard of; both of those wherein cities have fought against cities, or nations against nations; while some men who were not concerned in the affairs themselves, have gotten together vain and contradictory stories by hearsay, and have written them down after a sophistical manner; and while those that were there present have given false accounts of things, and this either out of a humor of flattery to the Romans, or of hatred towards the Jews; and while their writings contain sometimes accusations, and sometimes encomiums, but nowhere, the accurate truth of the facts, I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and sent to the Upper Barbarians; I Joseph, the son of Matthias, by birth a Hebrew, a priest also, and one who at first fought against the Romans myself, and was forced to be present at what was done afterwards, [am the author of this work.] . . .
It is true, these writers have the confidence to call their accounts histories; wherein yet they seem to me to fail of their own purpose, as well as to relate nothing that is sound; for they have a mind to demonstrate the greatness of the Romans, while they still diminish and lessen the actions of the Jews, as not discerning how it cannot be that those must appear to be great who have only conquered those that were little; nor are they ashamed to overlook the length of the war, the multitude of the Roman forces who so greatly suffered in it, or the might of the commanders, whose great labors about Jerusalem will be deemed inglorious, if what they achieved be reckoned but a small matter.
However, I will not go to the other extreme,
out of opposition to those men who extol the Romans, nor will I determine
to raise the actions of my countrymen too high; but I will prosecute the
actions of both parties with accuracy. (War, Preface 1, 3-4.)
And Trypho answered, “The Scripture has not, ‘Behold,
the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,’ but, ‘Behold, the young woman
shall conceive, and bear a son,’ and so on, as you quoted. But the whole
prophecy refers to Hezekiah, and it is proved that it was fulfilled in
him, according to the terms of this prophecy. Moreover, in the fables of
those who are called Greeks, it is written that Perseus was begotten of
Danae, who was a virgin; he who was called among them Zeus having descended
on her in the form of a golden shower. And you ought to feel ashamed when
you make assertions similar to theirs, and rather [should] say that this
Jesus was born man of men. And if you prove from the Scriptures that He
is the Christ, and that on account of having led a life conformed to the
law, and perfect, He deserved the honour of being elected to be Christ,
[it is well]; but do not venture to tell monstrous phenomena, lest you
be convicted of talking foolishly like the Greeks.” (Ante-Nicene
Fathers)
21 See, Lord, and raise up for them their king, the son of David,
to rule over your servant Israel in the time known to you, O
God.
22 Undergird him with the strength to destroy the unrighteous
rulers,
to purge Jerusalem from gentiles who trample her to destruction;
23 in wisdom and in righteousness to drive out the sinners
from the inheritance;
to smash the arrogance of sinners like a potter's jar;
24 To shatter all their substance with an iron rod;
to destroy the unlawful nations with the word of his mouth;
25 At his warning the nations will flee from his presence;
and he will condemn sinners by the thoughts of their hearts.
26 He will gather a holy people whom he will lead in righteousness;
and he will judge the tribes of the people
that have been made holy by the Lord their God.
27 He will not tolerate unrighteousness (even) to pause among
them,
and any person who knows wickedness shall not live with them.
For he shall know them that they are all children of their God.
28 He will distribute them upon the land according to their tribes;
the alien and the foreigner will no longer live near them.
29 He will judge peoples and nations in the wisdom of his righteousness.
Pause
30 And he will have gentile nations serving him under his yoke,
and he will glorify the Lord in (a place) prominent (above)
the whole earth. And he will purge
Jerusalem (and make it) holy as it was even from the beginning,
31 (for) nations to come from the ends of the earth to see his
glory,
to bring as gifts her children who had been driven out,
and to see the glory of the Lord with which God has glorified
her.
32 And he will be a righteous king over them, taught by God.
There will be no unrighteousness among them in his days,
for all shall be holy,
and their king shall be the Lord Messiah.
33 (For) he will not rely on horse and rider and bow,
nor will he collect gold and silver for war.
Nor will he build up hope in a multitude for a day of war.
34 The Lord himself is his king, the hope of the one who has
a strong hope in God.
He shall be compassionate to all the nations (who) reverently
(stand) before him.
35 He will strike the earth with the word of his mouth forever;
he will bless the Lord's people with wisdom and happiness.
36 And he himself (will be) free from sin, (in order) to rule
a great people.
He will expose officials and drive out sinners by the
strength of his word.
37 And he will not weaken in his days, (relying) upon his God,
for God made him powerful in the holy spirit
and wise in the counsel of understanding, with strength and
righteousness.
38 And the blessing of the Lord will be with him in strength,
and he will not weaken;
39 His hope (will be) in the Lord.
Then who will succeed against him,
40 mighty in his actions and strong in the fear of God?
Faithfully and righteously shepherding the Lord's flock,
he will not let any of them stumble in their pasture.
41 He will lead them all in holiness and there will be no arrogance
among them,
that any should be oppressed.
42 This is the beauty of the king of Israel which God knew,
to raise him over the house of Israel to discipline it.
43 His words will be purer than the finest gold, the best.
He will judge the peoples in the assemblies, the
tribes of the sanctified.
His words will be as the words of the holy ones,
among sanctified peoples.
44 Blessed are those born in those days to see the good fortune
of Israel
which God will bring to pass in the assembly of the tribes.
45 May God dispatch his mercy to Israel;
may he deliver us from the pollution of profane
enemies;
46 The Lord Himself is our king forevermore. (Ps. Sol.
17:21-46)
Translation from The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,
vol. 2, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1985), pp.
667-669. See also 1 Enoch 46:4-5; 2 Esdras 11:37-46; 12:31-34 for material
on Messiah.
According to Luke 2:4, Joseph had kinfolk in Bethlehem; and Mediterranean norms of hospitality would insure that he and Mary would be received by some of them. Also, it is very doubtful that a small town the size of Bethlehem, close to Jerusalem and with only around 100-200 residents, would even have a commercial inn. The term kataluma in 2:7, which is frequently translated "inn" because of the pressure of Christian tradition, should be translated guest room. When Luke designates a commercial inn, he uses the term pandocheion, as in 10:34 to specify where the good Samaritan takes the injured man to recover. When Luke uses kataluma he means guest room, as in 22:11 where Jesus says, "Where is the guest room (kataluma) where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?" Commercial inns in Judea at that time were rather notorious for vice, and not the sort of place where an honorable man would take his wife.
Guest rooms, however, were built onto some homes
in Palestine. Therefore, the comment in Luke 2:7 that the guest room was
full probably indicates that someone else of higher status (i.e., older)
already occupied it. So Jesus was born in a manger, which was in fact part
of the furniture in peasant homes. The average peasant home was a kind
of split level arrangement, with one room occupying about 80% of the area.
This space was used for cooking, eating, sleeping, etc. The remaining 20%
was lower, reached by a few stairs, and that is where the few animals owned
by the family spent the night. Each morning the animals were taken outside,
their space cleaned, and then the other chores of the day began. Between
the living area for the family and the bedding area for the animals was
a feedbox called the manger. Thus the manger was in the actual living space
of the home, and it would provide a natural place for the women to assist
Mary with the birth of her child.
Yet because Christians for so long have read the
story of Jesus' birth in light of their own cultural assumption that a
manger is obviously located in a barn, the stable is a standard feature
of nativity scenes. So is the unconcerned innkeeper who sends the
desperate couple to the stable because there is no room in what is depicted
as a cold and unfriendly town far away from home (quite the contrast to
what we know of Jewish hospitality for kinfolk!). For that matter the donkey
that so much Christian art depicts Mary as riding is never mentioned in
Luke's account. Unfortunately, some of the details that are commonly
added to the Christmas story originate with a second-century document called
"The Protevangelium of James," a wildly fanciful account designed primarily
to exalt Mary.
In this bizarre text Joseph is an old widower
who is supernaturally chosen to take Mary, who is described as the darling
of all Israel and has grown up in the temple in Jerusalem. Joseph
protests vigorously that he has grown children and that he will be a laughing-stock
for taking her (note how many nativity sets depict Joseph as an old, bald
man). When the time comes for Jesus to be born, Joseph is leading
a donkey on which Mary is riding, and he takes her to a cave near Bethlehem
and runs to seek a midwife. Joseph notices that suddenly everything
on earth stops, the birds motionless in mid-air, etc. And then a
blinding light appears in the cave, and there is Jesus by Mary, whose birth
canal is unused. Ironically, further legends became attached to the
story of Jesus' birth to such an extent that Christians today find it difficult
not to see Mary on a donkey, almost bursting with child when she reaches
Bethlehem, and giving birth in a stable because no one would provide room
for her. [The full text of the "Protevangelium of James"
may be read in a book found in most college and university libraries: New
Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1, ed. by E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963), pp. 374-388.]
Both Romans and Jews considered it noble to be willing to die for one's beliefs. Seeking after martyrdom, however, was tantamount to desiring to die, or suicide. Plato records the poignant story of Socrates refusing to flee from Athens to preserve his life after his opponents accused him of corrupting the youth with his philosophy. Socrates died for his philosophy, and Greeks and Romans respected such courage. Similarly, Jewish martyrdom accounts glorify bravery that inspires men and women to suffer and die rather than deny their ancestral faith (see, for example, the graphic detail in 4 Maccabees of the immense suffering endured by faithful Jews).
Luke describes Jesus' death as a martyrdom. Jesus does not seek death: He asks God to avert it, but fearlessly follows the will of God despite the consequences (22:41-46). There is no pained prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane, no agonizing on the cross. Jesus' concern is for his disciples in the Garden, that they enter not into temptation (22:40, 45-46). On the way to Golgotha he shows no fear for himself but lectures the bystanders on how hard it will be for them in the future (23:28-31). On the cross he prays for others (23:34), talks to a thief about being in Paradise that very day (23:43), and finally, with a note of triumph, commits his spirit to his Father (23:46). The dreadful loneliness expressed by a Jesus in agony in Mark's account is entirely missing. He knows his task and accepts it as a model martyr. His followers can look to his example as they face the possibility of losing their own lives in missionary service.
As Mark before him, Luke carefully designs his story
of Jesus to communicate effectively to a chosen audience. He writes to
persuade, to inspire people to action. And his story of Jesus is incomplete
without the second half of his work, the book of Acts. In Acts the vindication
of Jesus by God comes fully into focus. The Church is God's creation. God
unleashes a mighty force onto the world when the spirit-empowered followers
of Jesus proclaim his message of salvation beginning at Jerusalem and finally
ending up at Rome, the center of the Roman world. Luke tells the story
of the Church as one of triumph through suffering, and Jesus is the model
for his followers as they face persecution by those who reject the message
of the Kingdom of God.
Unlike the Gospels of Mark and Luke, the Gospel of Matthew addresses a Jewish Christian audience. The Jewishness of Matthew may readily be seen in the way the author does not explain Jewish customs or interpret Aramaic expressions as do Mark and Luke (compare Matt. 15:1-2, 5 with Mark 7:1-5, 11; and notice the lack of explanations in Matt. 5:22; 23:5, 27; 27:6). In addition, Matthew places a greater emphasis on the use of Old Testament quotations and allusions, most of which reveal how Jesus Messiah fulfills OT prophecies (See R. H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew's Gospel [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967], for a complete study). Matthew is also fond of using Jewish circumlocutions for God so as not to speak the divine name directly. Whereas Mark and Luke speak of the "Kingdom of God," Matthew nearly always says "Kingdom of Heaven." And Matthew devotes special material to addressing issues of extreme importance to Jewish people, such as the three pillars of Jewish piety in 6:1-18: almsgiving, prayer and fasting.
In keeping with its Jewish setting, the Gospel of Matthew presents Jesus as the authoritative interpreter and teacher of the Mosaic Law. Not only does this theme frequently appear, but the very structure of the Gospel reveals the serious pursuit of this subject. Matthew differs strikingly from Mark's predominantly narrative form containing few discourses. Devoting a great deal of space to the words of Jesus, Matthew exhibits a major concern to record his teaching. This may be seen most clearly in the way the Gospel is arranged into large sections of discourse material, such as the Sermon on the Mount.
Even Matthew's use of the Gospel of Mark reveals a tendency to reduce the descriptive elements of the stories and expand the amount of space devoted to Jesus' teaching. At times he reduces them to a mere question posed to Jesus, followed by Jesus' lengthy reply (compare, for example, Mark 9:33-50 and Matt. 18:1-9). Matthew's emphasis on the words of Jesus seems to lie behind the literary structure of the Gospel, an alternating sequence of six narrative and five discourse sections with the following arrangement:
First Narrative (1-4)
First Discourse (5-7)
Second Narrative (8-9)
Second Discourse (10)
Third Narrative (11-12)
Third Discourse (13:1-52)
Fourth Narrative (13:53-17:27)
Fourth Discourse (18)
Fifth Narrative (19-22)
Fifth Discourse (23-25)
Sixth Narrative (26-28)
The delineation of these sections may be seen clearly in the way Matthew consistently ends his discourse sections with a formulaic expression: "when Jesus finished these sayings, . . ." (Matt. 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). Functionally, Matthew's discourse sections serve to tie together the narrative sections. By containing elements pertaining to both the preceding and subsequent narratives, the discourses function to "interpret the previous narrative and prepare for the next" (D. L. Barr, "The Drama of Matthew's Gospel: A Reconsideration of Its Structure and Purpose," Theology Digest [1976]: 353).
Sometimes the distinctions between narrative and discourse are not very pronounced. Matthew tends to focus on Jesus' teaching even in the narrative sections, and some contain substantial discourses. For example, the fifth narrative section has three lengthy parables (20:1-16; 21:33-46; 22:1-14). Furthermore, two discourse sections contain limited narrative elements (13:10, 36; 18:1, 21). Yet the alternating narrative-discourse arrangement of the Gospel is quite distinct and clearly reveals a deliberate structuring of the material to conform to this pattern.
Matthew's Use of the Old Testament
Matthew's use of Scripture (Old Testament) often poses a puzzle to twentieth-century people, and the key to solving it is to understand something about biblical interpretation employed during the first century. During Matthew's time, eschatologically oriented Jews commonly employed a method of biblical interpretation called pesher. The term arises from the Aramaic peshar'), meaning "interpretation" (the Hebrew form, pronounced pa' sher, also means "interpretation"). This word is frequently used, for example, with Daniel's explanations of the meanings of dreams (Daniel 5:15-17, 26; 7:16, etc.), and eschatological Jews used it with reference to events pertaining to their own time. Because they believed they were living in the time immediately preceding the ushering in of the Age to Come, they concluded that all Scripture was written for their time, and they interpreted it accordingly. In other words, all Scripture referred in a veiled way to their situation, so they needed divine help to understand its secret meaning that was formerly hidden but is now revealed to one of God's special servants.
Examples of this kind of biblical interpretation abound in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the Habakkuk commentary, for example, the author first quotes an Old Testament passage, then he gives the interpretation (peshar) of how the passage refers to some specific person or event of his own time. Because the scrolls are often damaged due to their extreme age, the translator has to decide by context which words are missing and supply them. These sections are set apart by brackets.
[Oracle of Habakkuk the prophet. How long, O Lord, shall I cry] for
help and Thou wilt not [hear]? (i, 1-²). [Interpreted, this concerns
the beginning] of the [final] generation . . .
[For the wicked encompasses] the righteous (i, 4a-b). [The wicked is
the Wicked Priest, and the righteous] is the Teacher of Righteousness .
. .
[Behold the nations and see, marvel and be astonished; for I accomplish
a deed in your days but you will not believe it when] told (1, 5). [Interpreted,
this concerns] those who were unfaithful together with the Liar, in that
they [did] not [listen to the word received by] the Teacher of Righteousness
from the mouth of God. . . . And likewise, this saying is to be interpreted
[as concerning those who] will be unfaithful at the end of days. They,
the men of violence and the breakers of the Covenant, will not believe
when they hear all that [is to happen to] the final generation . . . .
For behold, I rouse the Chaldeans, that [bitter and hasty] nation (i,
6a). Interpreted, this concerns the Kittim [who are] quick and valiant
in war, causing many to perish. [All the world shall fall] under the dominion
of the Kittim, and the [wicked . . .] they shall not believe in the laws
of [God . . .]. (Translation by Geza Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in
English, 2nd ed. [New York: Penguin Books, 1975], pp. 235-36).
The Dead Sea Scroll commentary on Habakkuk clearly shows how a pesher reveals the secret of how a saying written centuries earlier mysteriously refers to the time of the author. Thus, in the Habakkuk commentary the Chaldeans, the Babylonians about whom Habakkuk wrote, are interpreted to mean the Kittim, a designation for the Romans. By taking this pesher approach, eschatological Jews found cryptic references to their own time throughout the Scriptures.
Early Christians also implemented this approach to Scripture. Acts 3:24, for example, records Peter as saying, "And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came afterwards, also proclaimed these days." Also Paul emphatically states in 1 Corinthians 10:11: "Now these things . . . were written down for our instruction, upon whom the end of the ages has come." So although Matthew's citations of biblical passages as Messianic prooftexts differ in form from the line by line interpretations seen above in the Habakkuk Commentary, the approach to Scripture does not differ substantially. We might say that Matthew and other early Christians read the Old Testament through Christ-colored glasses, seeing references to Jesus throughout the Scriptures as the ultimate fulfillment of God's dealings with his people.
Jesus and the Law of Moses
The issue of Jesus' attitude toward the Mosaic Law would be extremely important to Matthew's Jewish Christian audience. The Law occupied so central a place for Jews that they could imagine neither past, present, nor future without it. W. D. Davies points out that the Rabbis believed the Law was pre-existent "and instrumental in the creation of the world. . . . As the ground plan of the universe it could not but be perfect and unchangeable . . . no prophet could ever arise who would change it, and no new Moses should ever appear to introduce another Law to replace it" (The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964], pp. 157-158).
Basing their thoughts on the personification
of Wisdom in Proverbs 8:22-31, the Rabbis connected the Mosaic Law with
this description of Wisdom's role in the creation of the world. Using architectural
imagery, Rabbi Hosha`ya explains how he believes God used Torah:
When a king builds a palace, he does not do it himself, but with the
help of `the knowledge of a master builder'. And the master builder in
turn considers plans and drawings: in just the same way, `God looked into
the Torah' when he created the world (from Martin Hengel, Judaism and
Hellenism, vol. 1 [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974], p. 171).
So central was Torah in the thinking of the Rabbis that they made no allowance for any alteration of it. In the literature of the intertestamental period, evidence exists to show that many Jewish people expected Messiah to be taught by God and rule with great wisdom (Psalms of Solomon 17:31, 35, 42). There exists no indication that they expected Messiah to bring a new Law.
There are indications, however, that first-century Jews realized the need for a new interpretation of the Law to clarify unresolved questions. Like people today, they found the task of understanding many OT passages to be extremely difficult; and they looked forward to the time when all would be clarified. For example, 1 Maccabees 4:41-46 reveals an expectation of a prophet who would come to resolve some issues of interpretation. And the Dead Sea Scroll community at Qumran believed that a new interpretation of the Law would be a mark of the Messianic Age. In the Age to Come people would study the Law better, interpret it more correctly, observe it more fully, and even the Gentiles would reverence it (Davies, pp. 147-149; see 1QS iv. 18-26; ix. 9-11; CD vi. 14).
Since Matthew presents Jesus as the long-awaited
Messiah, his Jewish readers naturally want to know Jesus' view of the Law.
Matthew describes him as the one who brings a new and authoritative interpretation
of the Law, not as one who brings a new Law. Nowhere does Matthew use terms
like "new teaching" as in Mark 1:27. He demonstrates in Jesus' life and
teaching that Jesus fulfills the Law's demands for righteousness (see,
for example, 3:15). Thus, in 5:17-19 Jesus affirms the abiding validity
of the Law and pronounces authoritatively in 5:21-48 that his teaching
represents the true will of God.
Of course, the non-Christian Jews in Matthew's
community rejected his claim that Jesus is Messiah, and their teachers,
the Pharisees, posed a threat to his credibility. The Gospel of Matthew
therefore consistently demonstrates that these rival teachers of the Law
do not understand the Bible and their righteousness is substandard. Thus,
in 5:20 Jesus asserts that the righteousness of his followers must exceed
that of the Pharisees; and in the passages that follow he shows how this
is to be accomplished.
Leaving the Synoptic Gospels and entering the Fourth Gospel in some ways is like entering a different world. Whereas the Synoptics share in common much of the same material and produce similar portraits of Jesus, John follows a completely different agenda. Only a few of the stories in John are also found in the Synoptics, such as the cleansing of the temple (2:13-22) and the feeding of the five thousand (6:1-21). And John uses these stories in very different ways: the cleansing of the temple is located at the beginning of Jesus' ministry instead of during the final week as in the Synoptics, and the multiplication of the loaves is a prelude to a discourse on Jesus as the true bread from heaven (6:25-71). In John there is no mention of Jesus' birth, temptation by Satan in the wilderness, or the last supper where he says "This is my body . . . ." John does not even specifically mention Jesus' baptism or agonized prayer in Gethsemane.
In the Synoptics Jesus spends most of his ministry time in Galilee and makes only one fateful trip to Jerusalem which culminates in his crucifixion and resurrection. In John he makes numerous trips with his disciples back and forth from Galilee to Jerusalem. Encounters with demoniacs are frequent in the Synoptics, but there occurs not a single account of Jesus encountering or casting out a demon in John. And whereas parables are a major source of Jesus' teachings in the Synoptics, John records not a single parable, although Jesus does employ highly symbolic speech in the Fourth Gospel.
John's Jesus delivers lengthy discourses in which the style of speaking is quite distinct from the other Gospels. And instead of focusing on the Kingdom of God as he does in the Synoptics, Jesus' discourses in John focus on his own identity and his relationship to God, his Father. Indeed, the description of Jesus' public ministry in John 1-12 contains no explicit ethical teaching; every story in these chapters focuses on his identity as the Son of God who descended from heaven (compare this, for example, with the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 for a striking contrast). The theme of Jesus' descent to earth and ascent back to heaven plays a dominant role in the Johannine narrative.
John's uniquely different portrait of Jesus represents a later perspective on the significance of Jesus Messiah. From Acts 1-15 it is clear that the early Christians required substantial time to understand the person and ministry of Jesus. And extended reflection on the significance of Jesus affects the way in which one tells the story of his earthly life. Consider, for example, some important event that happened in your life during your early teenage years, such as a broken romance. Your perspective on that event today probably differs substantially from your response to the situation at the time it actually occurred. If you were to tell someone that story today, you would most likely focus on what you learned from the circumstance. But right after it happened, you probably focused on the pain of the experience and the despair you felt. Distance from a situation changes our perspective on what we consider important and changes the details we choose to recount.
Similarly, when the Apostles went through the dark days immediately following Jesus' crucifixion, they did not see the significance of that terrible event. They saw only the pain and disappointment, and when telling the story at that time, of course these factors would dominate. But later, in light of Easter they understood the sacrificial nature of Jesus' death and the mighty victory won by his hideous suffering, and their telling of the story changed substantially. When they came to the realization that Jesus was the pre-existing Son of God who descended into history in human form, this belief entered into their telling of the story of Jesus. Now they focused on the plan of God working through the death and resurrection of Jesus, not just the details of the suffering.
John's Gospel represents such a telling of the story of Jesus from a later perspective, even more obvious than in the Synoptics. By the time it was written (the majority of scholars date it around 90-95 CE), many years had elapsed since Jesus' earthly existence, and his disciples had reached many conclusions about the Son of God. These conclusions are apparent as one reads John, for the story reflects an understanding about Jesus that his disciples did not yet have during Jesus' actual time on earth. Thus, later understandings of the significance of Jesus' existence are woven into the story itself, allowing the reader to see deeper meanings. Note, for example, the more obvious indications of this in the narrator's explanations:
As in the other Gospels, the author of John does not identify himself. He does, however, provide a statement of purpose for his work:
John 1:1-18: Prologue
This highly theological prologue stresses the eternal existence and
identity of Jesus. Quite possibly it is based upon a hymn about Christ
sung in the Johannine community, for some of the lines are poetic in structure
and present very carefully worded, creedal type formulations. Note the
strophic composition of 1:1-5 in the following, very literal translation,
which shows the approximately equal length of the phrases, the repetition
of words and phrases, and the structure of the statements.
He was in the beginning with God;
all things through him came to be,
and without him came to be not one thing.
What came to be in him was life,
and the life was the light of men;
and the light in the darkness shines,
and the darkness did not overcome it.
The practice of using parts of hymns to aid in expressing theological points is not uncommon in the New Testament. As pastors today use the words of hymns in their sermons, so the New Testament authors sometimes used hymns to help establish their points. Paul, for example, quotes a hymn in Philippians 2:6-11 that presents the same sort of theology as John 1:1-18, explaining succinctly how Christ humbled himself from a heavenly existence to become a man and then was exalted back to his glorious heavenly existence (other instances of hymnic material may be seen in such passages as Colossians 1:15-20, 1 Timothy 3:16, and Hebrews 1:2-5). Thus, instead of beginning with a birth narrative to reveal something about Jesus' parents and the events surrounding his birth, John begins with a hymn of praise, showing the eternal existence and glory of the Word become flesh.
A great deal of research has been devoted to understanding what John intended to communicate by using Word (logos) as a title. Commentaries on the Fourth Gospel usually contain a section attempting to explain this concept. Some explain logos in light of Greek philosophy, because ancient Greek philosophers used logos to express important concepts pertaining to the relationship of divine order and thought with the physical world. Increasingly, however, scholars have seen affinities between John's use of logos and the thought world found in Jewish writings such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. [An investigation of the many uses of logos in antiquity lies outside the scope of the present book, but you may consult a wealth of information by reading articles in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Kittel, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, edited by Colin Brown, explanations in commentaries, for example, "Appendix II: The `Word,'" in Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII, The Anchor Bible (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1966), pp. 519-24, etc. Keep in mind, however, that the Word becomes flesh in John 1:14, and this radically distinguishes the content of the Fourth Gospel from Gnostic redeemer myths of a divine revealer and Docetic beliefs that the Christ never actually had a physical body. The eternal Word dwells on earth for a time in human form, even though John's Gospel presents a more spiritual portrait of Jesus than do the other Gospels.]