Here’s an overview of the many astute observations made by your classmates this week.

Question 1 – Use of the Jewish Scriptures in Matthew & Luke

Mark O. (2:00) and Abby S. (3:30) assess how Matthew and Luke used the Jewish Scriptures differently but effectively to target the intellectual and spiritual needs of their respective audiences.  Andre B.-P. (2:00) finds Matthew’s approach more persuasive in convincing his audience that Jesus is the Messiah, especially for an audience well-versed in the Jewish Scriptures.  A.J. P. (3:30) suggests that the degree of previous familiarity with the Jewish Scriptures and the different intention of the authors help explain why Matthew and Luke treat the Jewish Scriptures differently.

Question 2 – Jesus’ Approach to the Jewish Law in Matthew

Meaghan F. (3:30), Enrique M.M. (2:00), Brian S. (2:00), Eddie H. (3:30), Nathan V. (2:00) , Selina W. (2:00), Erin P. (2:00), René S. (3:30), Mia H.-D. (3:30), and Emily S. (3:30) highlight how Jesus builds on (but does not abolish) the standards of the Law of Moses.  Caroline C. (3:30) observes that Jesus in some cases adds detail to older laws, and in other cases modifies them more radically.  Isaac W. (3:30) and Candace C. (2:00) declare that it is precisely through establishing higher standards for his followers that Jesus fulfills the Jewish Law.  Nick T. (3:30) and Conor K. (3:30) suggest that Jesus seems to have higher expectations than God did in the Old Testament.  Patrick T. (3:30) contrasts Jesus’ attitude toward the Law with that of the Pharisees.  Jessica B. (2:00) compares Matthew’s approach to that of a skilled attorney; he does not critique the Law directly but subtly refines it where he perceives it to be lacking.  Ryan B. (3:30) employs the analogy of a traffic camera used to catch speeding drivers.  Drivers may slow down as they approach the camera to follow the rules but neglect the deeper meaning behind the speed limit; Jesus urges his followers to focus on the deeper meaning of the law rather than outward actions to avoid.

Chris B. (2:00) sees in Jesus’ stance toward the Law the beginning of a break from the election theology underlying the commandments of Moses to a more inclusive stance that can encompass Gentiles as well.  Katie D. (3:30) places Jesus’ concern for the Law in the larger context of Matthew’s interest in social discipline among the emerging Christian communities.  Phil G. (3:30) reflects on how concern for blessings in the life after death might have provided different motivations for Jesus’ followers than for people in Moses’ time with respect to keeping the Law.

Cynthia S. (2:00) proposes that, “Jesus hopes that through new interpretation of the Ten Commandments and Jewish law the Jewish people will achieve a moral modesty, while still following the Jewish law.”   Brianna B. (3:30) sees the laws of the Old Testament as a deterrent from hell while the laws of the New Testament provide more specific advice on growing in holiness and getting to heaven.  Michael M. (2:00) and Diana H. (2:00) conclude that Jesus opts to focus on larger categories of promoting goodness and happiness rather than long lists of “dos” and “don’ts.”

John C. (2:00) points out that “Jesus  . . .  wants us to not be merely “not bad” people, but he wants us to be actively good, peaceful, helpful, and generous people.”  Quentin M. (2:00) reads this text as Jesus saying that following the Law is good, but having an inner sincerity behind your outward actions is better and more worthy of reward from God.  Allie G. (3:30) also explored Jesus’ concern with the intentions or motivations people have for keeping the Law (as opposed to superficially fulfilling all its requirements perfectly).  Jake M. (3:30) sums up Jesus’ stance toward the Law this way:  “Matthew clearly respects the Jewish Law, but feels that the world is expected to reach a higher standard of love that has its basis in the Laws given to Moses.”  Jessica S. (2:00) and Adam P. (3:30) identify loving God and loving others as the fundamental core of Jesus’ advice to his followers.

Brian M. (3:30) uses the Beatitudes and the Golden Rule to illustrate how Jesus “improves and updates” the Law given by Moses.  Ryan S. (3:30) compares the tone of the Beatitudes to an idea raised in the Book of Job:  those who suffer in this life will be rewarded, even blessed.

Matthew F. (2:00) concludes that Jesus is critiquing not the principles of the Law itself, but the way the Jewish people (especially the “upright” of society) were practicing their faith in relation to the Law.  Norman M. (2:00) sees in Jesus’ interpretation of the Law a way for all people (not just Jews as the original chosen people) to keep God’s Law and thereby attain salvation.

Question 3 – Luke’s Appeal for Gentiles, Outcasts, and those on the Margins

Rebecca R. (2:00) notes that a Gentile audience might naturally be attracted to a Gospel that showed Jesus’ own people rejecting him while others (even Gentiles!) more readily recognized him as the Son of God.  Isabel F. (3:30) and Syazana M.Y. (2:00) think about how specific stories in Luke’s Gospel might have resonated with a primarily Gentile audience.  Anthony T. (2:00) notes that Jesus’ rejection by the people at Nazareth might remind Gentiles and others on the margins that acceptance in human circles is not the criterion for God’s acceptance.  Monica S. (2:00) reads Luke as a “Gospel of the people” that stresses the universality of God’s offer of salvation.

Katie A. (3 :30) provides examples of Jesus’ words addressed to various categories of people and ties the overall message to a familiar Notre Dame landmark- a statue of Jesus with the inscription Venite Ad Me Omnes (“Come to Me, All”).  Dara M.  (2:00) cites specific examples that demonstrate how Luke teaches his readers to be like the addressee of his Gospel, Theophilus – friends or lovers of God; for example, Luke gives important information through women and Luke’s Jesus comes to seek and save all the lost (not just the “lost” among the original chosen people, Israel).  Krista R. (2:00) detects Jesus’ ministry in this Gospel as consciously directed toward all people and places, not just “those who welcome him or to those familiar to the faith.”

Grace L. (2:00), Sarah Z. (2:00), Mary-Kate B. (2:00), Irene K. (2:00), Monika B. (3:30), and Alexandra B. (2:00) catalog instances in Luke’s Gospel of Jesus’ ministry to and for the poor, outcast, and marginalized.  Moe L. (3:30) considers Luke’s Gospel as good news for the “underdogs” in life.  Mike D. (3:30) remarks that Jesus welcomes and eats with sinners; Jesus’ ministry around all sorts of dinner tables with all sorts of companions seems very important to Luke.  Margot H. (2:00) stresses the humility of Jesus and the humble backgrounds of many of his first disciples.   Angela D.-C. (3:30) discusses how Luke’s Gospel brings “hope to those who may be seen as lowly and undeserving of the blessings of Christ and the Kingdom of Heaven”—in this life and the next.

Joe P. (2:00) and Austin H. (2:00) emphasize Jesus’ parables in Luke as offering a message that God’s salvation is available to all who sincerely seek it with faith.  MaryBeth C. (3:30) analyzes the parables of the Good Samaritan and the Lost (Prodigal) Son as examples that one’s social position does not matter in the kingdom of God; what is important is how individuals love, serve, and forgive others.  Emma R. (3:30) analyzes the significance of the wording related to the covenant in the Last Supper accounts of Matthew and Luke, finding Luke’s version more inclusive.  Meaghan H. (3:30) focuses on stories of Jesus forgiving and welcoming all sorts of people.  Lindsay K. (2:00) noticed that Jesus not only ministers to women but also accepts them as disciples (see, e.g., Luke 8:3).

Adam S. (2:00) reflects on the metaphor of journeying with Jesus in Luke’s Gospel as a comfort to repentant sinners; Evan W. (2:00) sees it as an incentive for Gentiles to join in Jesus’ mission as the kingdom of God unfolds, step by step.

Question 4 – Parables of Feasts

Ena S. (2:00), Ryan M. (3:30), Sara C. (3:30), and Erin W. (3:30) conclude that Luke’s version of this story retains its original function as a parable (i.e., the full social context and one central comparison are intact) whereas Matthew’s version has become an allegory.  Matt G. (2:00),  Cam F. (3:30), and Camille M. (3:30) read allegorical significance in both versions; the ones invited first avoid God while the ones who are eventually welcomed to the feast are the less fortunate (i.e., the target of Jesus’ ministry) who realize their need for God’s mercy.  Ijeoma O. (3:30) identifies a common theme in both versions:  “The Kingdom of Heaven is there for those who do not turn away from the invitation.”

Morgan F. (2:00), Dan F. (3:30), Laura S. (2:00), Sarah S. (2:00), and Frank C. (2:00) drew attention to differences in detail between the two accounts that contribute to a much harsher tone in Matthew’s version.  Elli M. (3:30) observes the stronger sense of judgment in Matthew’s version, evident especially in the idea that not everyone who finally shows up to the feast is found worthy to attend (illustrated especially through the ejection of the man not wearing a wedding garment).  Pat H. (3:30) explores how both versions of the parable present those considered unworthy by most as the ones who ultimately accept the dinner invitation.  Emma F. (2:00) observes that, in Luke, “The difference in the process of invitation comes in the intentionality of the guests.”    Derek P. (3:30) concludes that:  “Both of the parables portray [in different ways] the idea that although many are invited, only some are worthy for the kingdom of heaven.”  Alyson H. (2:00) suggests that the Pharisees and chief priests addressed in Matthew’s version of the story could have easily identified with the king because they too held positions of power in society.

Erin K. (3:30), Cat M. (2:00), and Tom B. (3:30) consider how some of the differences in detail may be directed toward the different audiences of Matthew and Luke.  Jen F. (2:00) also hints at how the story could be applied to different audiences in the early Church and in modern times.