After reading Matthew’s Gospel, it seemed to me that his attitude towards the Jewish Law is very serious and respectful. It also seemed as though Matthew’s attitude towards the Jewish law is that it is somewhat dated, old-fashioned, or in need of renovation. Like a skilled attorney, he carefully chooses his words. He does not directly criticize the law, or call it wrong or invalid, but the reader of Matthew’s gospel can sense an underlying distaste for the rigidity with which the Jewish community adheres to the Law of Moses. Matthew clearly echoes the style of his master (Jesus). In the same way the Lord explained, “I have come not to abolish but to fulfill (the law of the prophets)”. Matthew manages to show his respect and does not contradict the Jewish Law in his writing.
In contrast, Matthew’s attitude toward certain Jewish leaders, which also seems to contain some underlying distaste, is more direct and critical. He shows outward disdain toward individuals whom he calls out as hypocrites, and he implicates some scribes and pharisees as examples. The standards established by the Law of Moses differ from the expectations Jesus has for His followers in several ways. Before Jesus came, the Jewish people alone were given the title of the chosen people of God. Suddenly, it is clear that salvation is now for everyone (including gentiles). “Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19). Likewise, in Matthew 5:14, it becomes clear that the chosen people are no longer a select few. In the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, He further startles the crowd by redefining the Law of Moses in each of the beatitudes.
jbertino21 
I agree with your ideas concerning Matthew’s view of Jewish law. His writing portrays a sense of reverence for the Law but with the small undertone of “distaste” that you mentioned. I think part of this comes from the fact that he respects the Law, as he knows he should, but also that if he were to disrespect the Law, it may take away his credibility and his readers wouldn’t read on, especially if they were fervent in their practice of religious tradition. I like your emphasis on the fact that it does seem as though Matthew does see the Jewish leaders as hypocrites and almost corrupt at some points.
I like your parallel of Matthew to a skilled attorney. I think it really hits the nail on the head as to Matthews goals as a writer and the points he’s trying to get across. I think often times we’re so focused on the content of the gospels that it’s interesting to take a step back and ask ourselves about the author’s identity as a writer. Indeed, I think Matthew calls a lot of skillfully made points to mind and gives the audience a lot to think about.
Your comparison of Matthew to a skilled attorney is an apt one; Matthew does have to walk a fine line in demonstrating Jesus’ continuity with Judaism but also his somewhat radical reinterpretation of some of its basic principles. The idea that the commandments provide good rules but don’t have a lot of specifics re: how to apply them in particular cases is a good way to sum up the motivation behind Jesus’ long speech in Matthew 5-7 contrasting the way of the old Law of Moses with the new spin on it that Jesus gives. If you remember from last week, the Pharisees in particular had lots of rules about how to apply the Law in particular cases; Jesus’ central argument throughout much of this Gospel is that these rules inadvertently make it difficult and burdensome to keep the Law. On the other hand, keeping to the deeper intention of the Law can be really simple. (E.g., want to avoid murder? Then check yourself when you begin to get angry at someone.)
[…] 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 […]