The Gospels were written primarily to show us Christ, the son of God, and by faith, we can have life in his name. John extolled this in chapter twenty verse thirty-one: “But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” However, the four Gospels were written at different times, by different authors, for different audiences; “different Christian communities each had need for a book about Jesus. For a variety of reasons, the gospel written for one community or group of believers did not necessarily meet all the needs of another community”1 In the following I will compare and contrast several themes undergirded in the Gospel of Mark with the Gospel of Matthew. Although countless books, essays, and dissertations have been compiled over the years on this subject, for the sake of brevity, we will focus on similarities in eschatology and prophecy and differences in hermeneutics and structure.
Both Gospels dealt heavily with the kingdom of God and his reign, both in Heaven and on Earth. This was common in all four Gospels; “fundamental to each was the attempt to set its witness to Jesus, whom each evangelist confessed as the Christ, within the context of the Jewish scriptures.2” This is what is known as the issue of eschatology; the eschatology in the Gospels centers on the breaking in of the kingdom of God.3” Mark has this in the opening of his Gospel: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15) In both Gospels they speak of not the end times as the Old Testament dealt with eschatology, but that God’s kingdom has arrived now, and is accessible to all who seek it.
Matthew also writes: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (4:17) The translation here is important because the Gospels (Mark and Matthew) are speaking of God’s kingdom or Governmental rule rather than a place. The Greek uses basileia which is translatable into Aramaic and Hebrew as reign, rule, or dominion.4 Common in both Gospels is the bringing of God’s rule and reign, into the daily lives of human existence, instead of waiting until death to experience God’s kingdom. This expression of God’s Kingdom is mentioned over one hundred times in the synoptic Gospels compared to a handful of times, combined, in the rest of the New Testament.
Another Kingdom of Heaven similarity in Mark and Matthew is the vision of God, the father, of the kingdom. In Mark fourteen, Jesus calls God “abba” translating into father from the original Aramaic.5 This is echoed in Matthew with the Lord’s Prayer: “Our father in Heaven, hallowed be your name.” (6:9) Throughout both Mark and Matthew, Jesus and his teachings often refer to God as a father-like figure that is attainable to all who seek him. This placed a real, live, interactive relationship with God attainable to the masses that was almost blasphemous to orthodox Jewish tradition.
Both gospels have a heaven use and emphasis on using parables to explain the mysteries and understanding of Jesus Christ’s ministry. Although the book of Matthew had twice as many parables, both books emphasized parables within the text. Some parables overlapped in both Gospels, as in The Mustard Seed and The Sower.6 These parables were an illustration of the Kingdom of God revealed to all mankind.
One last similar theme to note in Mark and Matthew is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Both Gospels showed the “coercive power of the Old Testament in establishing a comprehensive theological context from which to understand Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the divine promise to Israel.7” A great example of this is concerning Christ’s blood as the life of the flesh. This is foretold in the book of Leviticus: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.” (17:11) This may seem innocuously towards the Hebrews and sacrifice, it is the predicting of salvation for all mankind. We later see this, not only at the cross, but in Mark chapter ten verse forty-five: “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many,” and also in Matthew: “for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” (26:28) More prophecy pervades both gospels and that is what makes the Bible so unique and mysterious in nature.
While so many similarities make the Gospels so unique in origin and assemblage, there are some differences to note. Most of the incongruencies are benign in nature but they do have some scholars in question of their authenticity. Fist notable difference are semantical inconsistencies between the Gospels. Although most committed men/women of faith do not find this as a dividing point, both Gospels do have some discrepancies in relation to the unfolding of certain events. For example, Mark says Peter will deny Jesus before the cock crows twice, while Mathew says he will deny him before the cock crows. Mark’s Gospel has after the resurrection that when the women go to anoint the tomb they see a man, while Matthew’s Gospel says they see an Angel.8 These may seem like small variants in the storyline, but taken as a whole and in conjunction with other discrepancies in the other Gospels, cast great doubt in the minds of skeptics who have a hard time reconciling the canonization.
One major overriding theme between the two scripts underlines the direction Jesus took toward the crucifixion. While Mark emphasized the way Christ’s life was lived out, Matthew put more focus on the words of the messianic message. “The central exegetical question of the Mark Gospel turns on explaining why the author would have recounted his story largely by means of pre-resurrection traditions in which Jesus’ secret identity had been concealed.9” Mark handles the tradition of the teaching of Christ and makes it abundantly clear that salvation through the resurrection of Christ is mankind’s gateway to everlasting salvation. “Matthew provides much more guidance than Mark concerning how to walk, namely, committing oneself to follow the words of Jesus, to live in line with his teaching.10”
There are strong structural differences between the two Gospels of Mark and Matthew. “Matthew’s Gospel contains a systematic arrangement of Jesus’ sayings, and Mark lacks this.11” Like the semantical argument mentioned earlier, this may not negate doctrine, but it does raise problems when interpreting them alongside. This is more prevalent when deciphering the two Gospels considering the Gospel of Matthew, used the Gospel of Mark as a witness or reference in writing his Gospel.12 Many scholars have asked why Matthew’s scripture refuses to use the position of an eyewitness as a staggering claim to its validity.
Although both Gospels give a clear picture of the life and teachings of Christ, the “problem of the messianic secret lay at the heart of Mark’s Gospel,13” in contrast to the Gospel of Matthew where “the major function of Jesus as Israel’s Messiah lies in the interpretation of the law.14” It is more complicated than deeds versus words however, Matthew used the Gospel of Mark to communicate Christ’s message to early Christian Jews who were struggling with opposition to Jewish law and persecution. While Mark focused on the Messiah concept of Christ, Matthew used Christ to address cultural and legalistic problems within the community. This is one reason why there are so many more parables in the Book of Matthew than in the Book of Mark.
The writings of Mark and Matthew are the cornerstone of the New Testament. They show the life and death of Jesus Christ in such a unique way that gives us more than just a simple biographical account can show us. Although they do have some differences, their similarities outshine anything that is of great importance. Moreover, I would conclude that these differences amplify certain messages and themes inherent in the two Gospels. They actually accentuate the power of Jesus Christ bringing into existence the Kingdom of Heaven into the metaphysical and naturalistic world of mankind.
Bibliography
Brooks, P. The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016. Eschatology
Childs, Brevard S. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011.
DeSilva, David Arthur. An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods, and Ministry Formation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Ehrman, Bart D. Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know About Them). New York: HarperOne, 2010.
Ladd, George. “Common Theological Themes in the Synoptic Gospels.” Reading. Accessed January 28, 2018. https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/common-theological-themes-synoptic-gospels/biblical-theology/van-pelt-blomberg-schreiner.
Marshall, I. Howard. New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods. Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock, 2006.
Palmer, Ken. “Parables of Jesus Christ.” Life of Christ. 2018. Accessed January 30, 2018. http://www.lifeofchrist.com/teachings/parables.
“Stepping into the Gospels.” Lecture. 2017. Accessed January 27, 2018. https://myclasses.southuniversity.edu/d2l/le/content/21123/viewContent/439197/View.
Footnotes:
1 “Stepping into the Gospels” (lecture), 2017, accessed January 27, 2018, https://myclasses.southuniversity.edu/d2l/le/content/21123/viewContent/439197/View.
2 Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 264.
3 P. Brooks, The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).
4 George Ladd, “Common Theological Themes in the Synoptic Gospels” (reading), accessed January 28, 2018, https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/common-theological-themes-synoptic-gospels/biblical-theology/van-pelt-blomberg-schreiner.
5 Ibid
6 Ken Palmer, “Parables of Jesus Christ,” Life of Christ, 2018, section goes here, accessed January 30, 2018, http://www.lifeofchrist.com/teachings/parables.
7 Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 265.
8 Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know about Them) (New York: HarperOne, 2010).
9 Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 266.
10David Arthur. DeSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods, and Ministry Formation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), pg. 234.
11 Ibid, 195.
12 Ibid, 234
13 Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 265.
14 Ibid, 274.
R-Rated Religion 
Another example of Gospel revisionist history which substitute the gospel for the T’NaCH narrative as primary: Luke 19:41-42
The noun peace does not correctly translate the verb shalom. Shalom stands upon the foundation of trust. Peace reflects ancient Greek philosophical rhetoric; where undefined key terms which require the listeners fuzzy logic to define – these essential undefined terms – like shalom, upon which all later ideas thereafter hang upon.
Herein defines the classic use of Greek rhetoric by which a person controls and directs the masses. The City of David represents the rule of fair and righteous Judicial common law justice. It has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with the revisionist history of the imaginary physical history of Jesus the imaginary myth Son of God – man.
“Shalom” carries far more than the modern Western notion of “peace.” In Hebrew, shalom implies completeness, wholeness, harmony, security, and a just, equitable social order rooted in mutual trust; deeply tied to emunah (faith/trust) and mishpat (justice).
By contrast, the Greek eirēnē—translated into English as “peace”—more passive, & static, whereas shalom utterly dynamic. And when the Gospel of Luke (originally written in Greek) uses eirēnē, translators historically rendered it as “peace” in English, which utterly obscures the Hebrew mindset behind Jesus’ (the Son of God character’s) lament over Jerusalem.
Greek rhetoric originally employed as a tool for crowd control. Rhetoric sophistry, and later Stoicism or Platonism, deeply shaped and influenced early Christian theology. These systems often pivot on undefined abstractions—”Logos”, “Peace”, “Salvation”, etc.—easily manipulated by rhetoric design, without grounding in lived experience or legal precedent (as Hebrew law absolutely demands).
Revisionist history and the mythologizing of Son of God Jesus. This aligns with the view that the Gospels understood as a allegorical political theology, where the imaginary mythical character of Son of God “Jesus” represents, not a literal historical figure but a narrative device or archetype for deeper sociopolitical critique—especially of Roman occupation and corrupt legal systems.
So if we read Luke 19:42 not as a personal lament by a mythological Son of God Jesus, but rather as a legal or prophetic indictment of Jerusalem’s Torah leadership and their collective failure to uphold mishpat (justice) and trust-based shalom, the entire tone and meaning of the text radically shifts, the Torah becomes demoted in priority – cast under the shadow of the Son of God narrative.
Torah, in point of fact, and not the gospel rhetoric narrative, less about emotion and more about the oath brit alliance, the prophetic mussar which rebukes the leaders of the chosen Cohen nation for their failure, sworn at Sinai, their conscious corruption which pursues opportunistic political power over the righteousness of enforced judicial justice.
Shalom functions as a legal-communal framework, rather than merely a trick of rhetoric where mood or emotion dominates the direction taken by the blind mob masses. It reflects a system of relationships rooted in fidelity to the oath brit alliance and reciprocal trust (emunah). In that sense, shalom simply not something felt, but something upheld—a real social order built on mishpat (justice) and righteousness (tzedek), as found in the Torah and enforced by judges (shofetim) and prophets (nevi’im).
When shalom becomes translated into Greek as eirēnē, the foundational juridical content gets lost in abstraction. Eirēnē leans more toward inner tranquility or absence of conflict—passive, internal, de-prioritized obligations to pursue fair compensation to those who suffer damages. Peace reflects a word that fits into a philosophical or imperial religious context, not a oath brit alliance by and through which the Torah defines the term brit; a Sinai commitment לשמה.
Greek thought, expressed in the new testament purposely neutralizes\whitewashes the legal and relational substance of Hebrew term Shalom, by absorbing Shalom into idealized peace categories. This Greek rhetoric technique then detached the gospels from historical accountability.
Greek rhetorical systems—especially sophistry and later Platonic-Christian syntheses—weaponized undefined key term peace. Love, for example: later the church authorities turned to Greek agape as its definition. Such critical abstractions create semantic fog, where critical abstract terms, their most essential intent meanings, they float above the replaced Hebrew verbs with meaningless noun names. The Torah defines the verb love as “ownership”. A man does not love that which he does not own. Hence the mitzva of kiddushin requires that the man acquires the Nefesh O’lam Ha’bah soul of his wife – meaning the children produced through this oath alliance brit union.
Whereas the writers of gospel and new testament narratives, those in power who chose to supplant the TNaCH with their New Testament/Old Testament religious rhetoric, like as did Muhammad’s koran replaced the new testament and the Book of Mormon replacement holy book of Mormon equally deprioritized the T’NaCH and new testament and koran forgeries.
These replacement holy books seized power, they edit and control the new moral gospel narrative through subtle re-defined definitions. “Salvation,” “grace,” “faith,” Yishmael replaced Yitzak at the Akadah, and even “God” become perverted into malleable terms. Monotheism rapes the 2nd Sinai commandment. Rather than precise sworn oaths which define intent of Judicial common law. The sworn oaths got totally whitewashed from the original T’NaCH prophetic mussar. Swept away in the new creed theologies which define how Man must believe in these New Gods dolled up as the T’NaCH God of Sinai.
This Greek rhetorical shift, makes room for imperial theology, where obedience to Rome’s version of peace (Pax Romana) wolf in sheep clothing, rebranded as the kosher spiritual obedience, and where Jerusalem’s failure totally ignores judicial justice in the oath sworn Cohen lands of inheritance replaced by theological belief systems in the messiah or strict monotheism.
This new testament justification for Jerusalem’s destruction consequent to the Jewish revolt in 66CE totally and completely ignores the prophetic mussar of the NaCH which warned of the destruction and exile of both Israel & Judah by the g’lut exile carried out through the Divine agents of both the Assyrian and Babylonian empires within the mussar of the T’NaCH itself.
Return the Gospel narrative to its roots of Hebrew common law jurisprudence, strip away the Greco-Roman mythologizing that turned the gospel narrative into its own separate religion, into an abstract religion of personal piety and internal peace. This new testament socio-legal drama, with its son of God figure lamenting the collapse of Jerusalem over its failure to recognize the Son of God true messiah. Greek replacements—eirēnē, pistis, charis, logos—introduce semantic drift. That drift allows imperial theology to abstract away historical responsibility, essentially laundering injustice through feel-good metaphysics.
The Case Luke 19:42 nstead of a legal rebuke grounded in prophetic precedent (like those of Yirmiyahu or Yeshayahu), it’s reframed as a personal emotional lament by a deified character, whose authority derives from myth rather than brit law. It bypasses the system of shofetim and nevi’im who were accountable to the Torah and for the community.
The gospel narrative replaces the oath sworn dedication to pursue justice within the borders of the chosen Cohen oath brit lands, replaced by a foreign idea of a passive messiah who brings peace to the Goyim people incorporated as part of the chosen Cohen people. This narrative totally ignores the teshuva made by HaShem where on Yom Kippur HaShem annulled the vow to make of Moshe’s seed the chosen Cohen people. This Divine t’shuva utterly rejects the later replacement theologies and holy books witch violate the commandment — do not add or subtract from this Torah.
According to prophetic mussar, neither Babylon nor Rome destroyed Jerusalem. The failure of the chosen oath alliance brit, directly comparable to the sin of the Golden Calf, where the chosen Cohen people fail to obey the terms of the Sinai oath alliance. Herein defines the basis for the destruction of Jerusalem and the g’lut exile of the Jewish people by the Assyrian, Babylonian and Roman empires. And before these g’lut exiles the Egyptian exile, the cruel oppression of Israelite slaves – caused by the betrayal and sale of Yosef by his jealous brothers.
LikeLike