I want to thank you for your thoughtful post. I love the spirit with which you communicated it, that is rarely seen around here much anymore. God bless you for your kindness and sense of decency.
I'm no theologian, but I'll try to answer your questions as best I can. I want to reiterate that this is only my interpretation or understanding. I am aware that there are others that good men hold. In no way do I want to seem as though my interpretation is a weapon to attack. In fact, my interpretation exposes my own sin and weakness, and my need to confess my sin and seek God's mercy. In addition, it disqualifies me from seeking any official position in the church. For this reason, it is not a comfortable position for me to hold by any means. If anyone here is hindered or humbled by this interpretation... I'm the first in line. It's not easy when one sees something in Scripture that condemns something they've done as sin. And so, I'm chief of sinners, so to speak, in desperate need of a Savior on this one. I don't know of anyone else's status, so I assure you, it isn't intended for anyone else specifically.
I'll now try to answer your very thoughtful questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tithesmeister
I'm not sure where you are getting that the audience was Jewish for Matthew, and not for Mark and Luke. It is my understanding that the gospels were a record of Jesus' life and ministry. His ministry was specifically to the Jews. Can you support this assertion? Because your doctrine seems to stand or fall on the assumption that the audiences were different. If Matthew was written to the Jews, Mark and Luke were to the Gentiles, according to your theory. Who was John written to? Not trying to be critical, I'm just trying to understand.
|
For the sake of time, I'll share something I Googled that expresses my understanding of the Gospels and their audiences. The source will be in a link at the bottom.
Gospel's Intended Audiences: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
Each of the four gospels in the Bible (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) can be understood individually, but sometimes it helps to see their intended audiences to get a full appreciation of them. Looking at the purpose and audience of each of the books will give a greater understanding of how they fit together to explain the life of Christ.
Matthew
The gospel of Matthew was written to prove that Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah of the Old Testament. It was written to a Jewish audience using many quotes from the Old Testament. The Jewish audience would have required the Old Testament to support Matthew's claims of Jesus as Messiah. The fact that Matthew wrote for the Jews is seen from the first chapter where he gives the genealogy of Jesus Christ. His family tree is traced back through David and Abraham. The promise to the Jews in the Old Testament was that the Messiah would come through the line of Abraham and later through David. The book of Matthew often refers to Jesus as the "Son of David." (Matthew 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; etc.)
Matthew's gospel talks about Jewish traditions without giving explanations of them. It is assumed that the readers of this gospel understand the traditions and customs of the Jews.
While other books contain portions of the Sermon on the Mount, none cover it as thoroughly as the book of Matthew. Christ's teachings in this portion of scripture (Matthew 5-7) contain elements that were specific to the Jews. Often Christ says in this sermon, "it was said by them of old time." He is talking about the Jewish traditions and Pharisaical laws that had crept into the Law as given by God through Moses. Prefacing all of that, Jesus expressly said that He did not come to destroy the Law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17).
Mark
The gospel of Mark is written to a Roman audience to show the accomplishments of Jesus Christ as the emperor of the world. The Romans would not have cared about the lineage of Jesus like the Jews did; therefore, no genealogy is given. Like any Roman emperor, there was more emphasis on what Christ accomplished rather than who He was in history. Since it would have meant little to the Romans, Mark didn't attempt to show Christ as the Messiah. Instead the book starts out calling Jesus "the Son of God" (Mark 1:1). This is a title that Roman emperors often used for themselves.
There are several Aramaic words and phrases in Matthew because the Jews would have known Aramaic. But in Mark those phrases are translated for the readers. The book of Mark uses the Latin phrasing of the Romans as opposed to the more common Greek phrasing used by Luke. Mark explains Jewish traditions with the assumption that the Roman audience would be less familiar with them (Mark 7:3, 4; 14:12; 15:42).
Mark records time in a Roman fashion in the book. The Jews indicated time by "hours" of the day and night, while the Romans marked time in "watches." (Matthew 20:3, 5; Mark 6:48)
In an attempt to show Christ as a man of action, establishing His credentials, Mark records more miracles than any other gospel. It is a short book full of immediacy and urgency. The word "immediately" occurs more than 40 times. Interestingly, the word "law" (very important to the Jews and the book of Matthew) does not occur at all in the book of Mark.
Luke
The language of the book of Luke suggests that his intended audience is Greek. The Greeks were the controlling people in the region before the recent arrival of the Romans. In some cases Luke uses the Greek names of places as opposed to the Roman names. For example Luke calls the place of the crucifixion of Christ, Calvary, while the other gospels call it Golgotha. Luke avoids certain Jewish words like "rabbi" and "Abba."
Luke was a medical doctor and appealed to the educated mind of the Greeks. He rarely quoted from the Old Testament, but when he did it was from the Septuagint version (Greek translation of the Old Testament). He seemed to write with details that the other gospels did not include. This was more satisfactory to the critical, philosophical mind of the Greeks.
In the first four verses, Luke states his purpose in writing the book. He says that he is attempting to cover the events of Jesus' life in an orderly sequence. Luke does not try to prove that Jesus is anything or anyone in particular (Messiah, King of Israel or Son of God), he is simply presenting the facts in a detailed manner to allow the reader to draw his own conclusions.
Unlike Matthew's genealogy, Luke traces Christ's heritage back to Adam. Luke establishes Jesus Christ as human. Many of the accounts in the early chapters (details of his family and birth) are to show that Jesus is the Son of Man.
John
The book of John was written many years after the events of the gospels occurred. It was written around 90 A.D. There is no attempt to prove a certain aspect of Christ to a certain group of people. Therefore John's gospel appeals to a universal audience. One would not need to understand Jewish tradition, Roman authority nor Greek philosophy to understand the book of John.
John teaches more about Christ and who He is in relation to history, the Old Testament and the future of the world than the other books. It is a book concerned about the teachings of theology rather than the events of Jesus' life. John states his purpose in writing is to show that Christ is the Son of God and how that believing on Him one can be saved (John 20:31, 31).
Conclusion
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have different audiences and different purposes. When studying these books it is good to see them as being written to four distinct people groups. Understanding the mindset of the audience and the proofs of the writers will help the reader understand the gospels as a group.
http://www.infobarrel.com/Gospel's_I..._Luke_and_John
I hope that helps as a brief description of why I believe the Gospels have different audiences, and how when interpreting them it is important to consider that fact. In relation to this topic, it explains why Matthew includes the "exception clause", while Mark and Luke do not. Matthew would have been concerned with clarifying the status of one using the writ of divorcement for his Jewish audience because a writ of divorcement was necessary to dissolve a betrothal. It is also important to note that those who were betrothed were called "husband" and "wife" during the betrothal period before the consummation of their marriage. Essentially, Matthew is saying that if a man puts away his wife, except for the cause of fornication (not adultery), and marries another, he commits adultery. We see this very thing taking place in the very same Gospel...
Matthew 1:19
Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
Keep in mind, Joseph and Mary were only betrothed at this point. The grounds of terminating the betrothal would have been "fornication", and Joseph could have gone on to marry another, because they had not consummated their union, sealing the covenant, yet.
This interpretation brings the meaning of what is being said in Matthew into complete agreement with what is stated in Gospels of Mark and Luke where no exception clause is found. And, as explained above, the Roman and Greek audiences wouldn't have cared much about the Jewish customs of betrothal, so Mark and Luke have no real reason to even mention it. So, they cut to the point.
Mark 10:11-12
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.
Luke 16:18
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
TO BE CONTINUED...