The Life of Yeshua the Messiah from a Jewish Perspective Part 1

The Life of Yeshua
the Messiah
from a Jewish
Perspective
Part 1
Congregation Yeshuat Yisrael
Franklin/Nashville Tennessee
www.yeshuatyisrael.com

Congregation
Yeshuat Yisrael
Franklin/Nashville, Tennessee
www.YeshuatYisrael.com
YeshuatYisrael@gmail.com
©2011 Congregation Yeshuat Yisrael
All files use by permission only.
Email us for permission and it will be granted.
Please include this slide and give us credit.

Congregation Yeshuat Yisrael
www.yeshuatyisrael.com
Franklin/Nashville Tennessee
Life of the Messiah
Introduction
Various Views

Download the Harmony of the Gospels used in the Sermon Series.
Life_of_the_Messiah/Harmony_of_the_Gospels.pdf

Introduction and the
Pre-Existing Messianic Person

Making Sense of the Gospels

Website resources
www.YeshuatYisrael.com

Harmony
Mathew Mark Luke John

The Four Gospels
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John

1. The oral tradition theory.
Some have concluded that the basic sources for the
Gospels came from oral tradition, an oral testimony that
developed around Jesus the Messiah. Normally such a
testimony involved four steps: (1) The event occurred.
(2) The event was told and repeated often enough so that
it became widely known. (3) The event became fixed so
that it was then told exactly the same way. (4) The event
was written down in an account. This view accounts for
similarities in the stories but it fails to account for the
differences. Furthermore, why would an eyewitness of the
events limit himself to stories from oral tradition

2. THE “Q” theory.
A popular view today is that the biblical editors made use
of various written sources to compile their accounts. This
viewpoint usually posits the following: (1) The first
written account was the Gospel of Mark. A major reason
for this position is that only 7 percent of the Gospel of
Mark is unique, as 93 percent of Mark can be found in
Matthew and Luke. (2) In addition to Mark a second
written document existed which basically contained
discourse material. This document is known as “Q”, an
abbreviated form of the German word for source, Quelle.
The approximately 200 verses common to Matthew and
Luke which are not found in Mark must have come from
“Q”. (3) The editors used at least two other sources. One
source reflects verses in Matthew not found in either
Mark or Luke, and the other source reflects verses in
Luke not found in either Matthew or Mark. This theory
with its lines of dependence could be charted in this way:

Mark
“Q”
Matthew
Luke

This theory has several problems. First, it has difficulty
with tradition. Conservative scholars have generally held
that Matthew was the first of the written Gospels. While
not all conservatives agree, this tradition does have some
weight behind it and should not be shrugged off as “mere
tradition” as sometimes tradition is correct. Second, this
theory cannot account for the fact that occasionally Mark
made a comment that neither Matthew nor Luke included.
Mark wrote that the rooster crowed a second time (Mark
14:72), but neither Matthew nor Luke included that fact.
Third, if Mark were the first Gospel, written after Peter’s
death around a.d. 67-68, then Matthew and Luke would
probably have been written later after the destruction of
Jerusalem in a.d. 70.

One would then expect that destruction to have been
mentioned as a fitting climax to the Lord’s words in
Matthew 24-25 or Luke’s statement in 21:20-24;
however, neither mentioned the event. Fourth, the
greatest problem is the whole speculation about the
existence of “Q”.
If such a document existed and were
thought of so highly by Matthew and
Luke that they quoted extensively
from it, why did not the church also
regard it highly and preserve it

The Four Gospels
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
None of the human authors of the four Gospels
identified himself by name. But that does not
mean one cannot know who the authors were.
An author may indirectly reveal himself within
the writing, or his work may be well known in
tradition as coming from him.

Matthew-
Many early church fathers cited
Matthew as its author, including
Clement of Rome,
Polycarp,
Justin Martyr,
Clement of Alexandria,
Tertullian, and Origen.

Matthew-
Internal evidence also supports the fact that
Matthew was the author of the First Gospel. This
book has more references to coins than any of
the other three Gospels. In fact this Gospel
includes three terms for coins that are found
nowhere else in the New Testament: “The twodrachma
tax” (Matt. 17:24); “a four-drachma
coin” (17:27), and “talents” (18:24). Since
Matthew’s occupation was tax collecting, he had
an interest in coins and noted the cost of certain
items. The profession of tax collector would
necessitate an ability to write and keep records.
Matthew obviously had the ability to write a book
such as the First Gospel.

Mark-
The unanimous testimony of the early church fathers is
that Mark, an associate of the Apostle Peter, was the
author. The earliest known statement of this comes from
Papias (ca. a.d. 110), who quoted the testimony of John
the elder, probably an alternate designation for the
Apostle John. Papias’ quotation named Mark as author
and included the following information about Mark: (1)
He was not an eyewitness follower of Jesus. (2) He
accompanied the Apostle Peter and heard his preaching.
(3) He wrote down accurately all that Peter remembered
of Jesus’ words and works “but not in order,” that is, not
always in chronological order. (4) He was Peter’s
“interpreter,” probably meaning he explained Peter’s
teaching to a wider audience by writing it down rather
than translating Peter’s Aramaic discourses into Greek or
Latin. (5) His account is wholly reliable

Mark-
Internal evidence, though not explicit, is
compatible with the historical testimony of the
early church. It reveals the following information:
(1) Mark was familiar with the geography of
Israel, especially Jerusalem (cf. Mark 5:1; 6:53;
8:10; 11:1; 13:3).
(2) He apparently knew Aramaic, the common
language of Israel (cf. 5:41; 7:11, 34; 14:36).
(3) He understood Jewish institutions and
customs (cf. 1:21; 2:14, 16, 18; 7:2-4).

Mark-
In light of both external and internal evidence it is
reasonable to affirm that the “John/Mark” in Acts and the
Epistles authored this Gospel. He was a Jewish Christian
who lived in Jerusalem with Mary his mother during the
early days of the church.
Their home was an early Christian meeting place (cf. Acts
12:12). It is possible it was the location of Jesus’ last
Passover meal (cf. comments on Mark 14:12-16). Mark
was probably the “young man” who fled away naked after
Jesus’ arrest in Gethsemane (cf. comments on 14:51-52).
Peter’s calling him “my son” (cf. 1 Peter 5:13) may mean
Mark became a Believer through Peter’s influence.

Luke-
The two books attributed to Luke (Luke and
Acts) make up about 28 percent of the Greek
New Testament. Luke is not mentioned by name
in either book. The only places where his name
occurs in the New Testament are in Colossians
4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11; and Philemon 24. Luke
also referred to himself directly in the “we”
sections of Acts (16:10-17; 20:5-21:18; 27:1-
28:16).

Luke-
Some conclude Luke must have been a Gentile
for Paul differentiates him from the Jews (Col.
4:10-14). Paul wrote that, of his fellow-workers,
Aristarchus, Mark, and John were the only ones
who were Jews. The others (Epaphras, Luke, and
Demas) were therefore probably Gentiles.
Although if he was a Gentile he probably was a
proselyte to Judaism before he became a
believer. His view of Jerusalem and his
understanding of Jewish idioms and customs
would indicate that he had extensive knowledge
of Jewish practices. Often referring to “GOING
UP” to Jerusalem.

Luke-
Paul referred to Luke as a physician (Col. 4:14),
a fact which many try to corroborate from
passages in Luke and Acts.
Until modern times church tradition uniformly has
held Luke to be the author of Luke and Acts.
According to tradition Luke was from Antioch.

Luke-
Luke claimed to be a historian (Luke 1:1-4). He
carefully researched his material for specific
reasons. He consulted eyewitnesses for
information (1:2). He may have gathered certain
details, such as facts on Jesus’ youth, from Mary
herself (cf. 2:51). Luke also seemed to have had
contacts with the Herodian court (cf. 3:1, 19;
8:3; 9:7-9; 13:31; 23:7-12). Scholars do not
agree on which sources Luke used in writing his
Gospel. He may have reworked various source
materials at his disposal in order to create a
unified whole, written in his style, which reflected
his rpose. All this, of course, was done under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit

John-
Internal evidence supplies the following chain of
connections regarding the author of the Fourth Gospel.
(1) In John 21:24 the word “them” refers to the whole
Gospel, not to just the last chapter.
(2) “The disciple” in 21:24 was “the disciple whom Jesus
loved” (21:7).
(3) From 21:7 it is certain that the disciple whom Jesus
loved was one of seven persons mentioned in 21:2
(Simon Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the two sons of
Zebedee, and two unnamed disciples).
(4) “The disciple whom Jesus loved” was seated next to
the Lord at the Last Supper, and Peter motioned to him
(13:23-24).

John-
(5) He must have been one of the Twelve since only they
were with the Lord at the Last Supper (cf. Mark 14:17;
Luke 22:14).
(6) In the Gospel, John was closely related to Peter and
thus appears to be one of the inner three (cf. John 20:2-
10; Mark 5:37-38; 9:2-3; 14:33). Since James, John’s
brother, died in the year a.d. 44, he was not the author
(Acts 12:2).
(7) “The other disciple” (John 18:15-16) seems to refer
to the “disciple whom Jesus loved” since he is called this
in 20:2.

John-
(8) The “disciple whom Jesus loved” was at the cross
(19:26), and 19:35 seems to refer to him.
(9) The author’s claim, “We have seen His glory” (1:14),
was the claim of someone who was an eyewitness (cf. 1
John 1:1-4).
Putting all of these facts together
makes a good case for the author of
the Fourth Gospel having been John,
one of the sons of a fisherman named
Zebedee.

This is a Greek text called the Bodmer Papyrus. It dates
from around 200 A.D. The text is John 1:1-13, plus the
first word of verse 14.

Gospel
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Theme
King of the Jews
Servant of God
Ideal Man
Son of God
Written to
The Jews
Romans
Greeks
The Church

Concept of each Gospel
Matthew-
Yeshua King of the Jews
If Yeshua was the King of
the Jews, why was the
Kingdom not set up.

Concept of each Gospel
Mark-
Yeshua the Ideal Servant
Command received,
Command carried out.

Concept of each Gospel
Luke-
Yeshua the Ideal Human
Human Development and
Achievement.

Concept of each Gospel
John-
Yeshua the Son of God
What Yeshua said over what
He did.

Concept of each Gospel
John-
Also developing a theme of
LIGHT VS DARKNESS

John- Theme of “Sevens”
Seven Signs or Miracles
1. Changing water into wine 2:1-11
2. Healing an official’s son 4:46-54
3. Healing an invalid at the Pool of Bethesda 5:1-18
4. Feeding the 5,000 near the Sea of Galilee 6:5-14
5. Walking on water 6:16-21
6. Healing the man born blind 9:1-7
7. Raising of Lazarus from the dead. 11:1-4

John- Theme of “Sevens”
Seven “I AM” Statements
•I am the Bread of Life – John 6:35
•I am the Light of the World – John 8:12
•I am the Gate for the Sheep – John 10:7
•I am the Good Shepherd – John 10:11
•I am the Resurrection and the Life – John 11:25
•I am the Way, Truth and the Life – John 14:6
•I am the True Vine – John 15:1

Gospel
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Concept
Why was the Kingdom not set up
Command Given, Command Carried out
Human Development
What Jesus Said and
Light Versus Darkness

Next week – The Pre-Existing Messiah and the
Genealogy of Yeshua

Download the Harmony of the Gospels used in the Sermon Series.
Life_of_the_Messiah/Harmony_of_the_Gospels.pdf

The Aaronic Benediction
Numbers 6:24-26
.*r,m]v]yIwÒ y:yÒ *k]r,b;yÒ
.+;N