The book of Matthew, what is the importnce of it?

by bite me 30 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  CyrusThePersian

  Rub-a-Dub:

  The bit about the water into wine is in John -not Matthew.

  Burn The Ships:

  The interesting thing about Papias, as quoted by Eusebius, is that he calls Matthew's writing an "oracle"(logia). The work we today call "Matthew" is not an oracle, which would be a collection of sayings, similar to Proverbs. Instead, Matthew is a gospel, a term that was in use at the time of Papias, yet he did not use it in reference to this Matthean work, which leads some -but certainly not all- Bible scholars to speculate that Papias was not talking about the book we today call "Matthew."

  CyrusThePersian
• 

  Narkissos

  hmike,

  I don't remember any particular thread but the general issue (salvation through faith or works) comes up every other week, which is quite understandable for an English (i.e., mostly culturally Protestant) xJW forum.

  In short, my point is that much of what is specific to Matthew makes sense as a reply to Paulinism, especially in its "epistle to the Romans" form: is the Law still valid or terminated? does calling upon the name of Jesus as Lord save or is it a matter of what you do? What makes someone a child of God? On such questions "Matthew"'s stance is diametrically opposite to "Paul"'s -- this is also the case of the epistle of James but on the more limited issue of "faith vs. works" and from a different, Jewish-Hellenistic perspective.

  Of course Protestantism has a 5-century practice of explaining this radical divergence away -- incidentally, afaik Luther never thought of labeling Matthew a "straw Gospel," as he called James a "straw epistle"; maybe the first canonical Gospel was just too central to his Christian education for him to perceive its opposition to his own theses fully. As a result most Protestant readers have a ready "paratext" in mind to read Paul into Matthew (e.g. "I came not to abolish but to fulfill the Law" through my own sacrifice which then allows believers to be saved by faith alone; the italic part, which is alien to Matthew, is what I call the Protestant "paratext").
• 

  hmike

  Narkissos,

  Thank you very much for the reply. You could set up an independent thread on this topic. It's certainly worth it!

  For now, I'll leave it with this...

  Since we can assume that Paul's letters predate Matthew, this Gospel may indeed have been a reply to some of the problems that people saw with what Paul proposed, just as the epistle of James apparently was. I've never seen Matthew's Gospel as contradictory to Paul's or John's writings, but rather an elaboration on them (which I thought was what you were referring to by a Protestant understanding). The first step would have been to turn people from adherence to the ceremonial laws for salvation (in the case of Jews) or worship of other gods (in the case of Gentiles). But once you have faith, what do you do with it? How does it play out in life? Paul himself seems to have addressed these issues by expecting certain behavior, particularly with regard to other people, both in the church and outside. God would have standards of behavior that predate the Law, as evidenced by the Flood story. Paul explained that the Holy Spirit would guide the faithful to do the will of God. For people conditioned by a lifetime of self-centeredness, practical teaching would be necessary to retrain the mind at the conscious level, working from the outside-in, so to speak, while the Spirit works from the inside-out.

  When I read Matthew, I keep in mind that Jesus is speaking to people at that time, living under the Law, but in a time of transition brought about by the advent of John the Baptist. Luke gives us a little more of John's teaching about how confession and repentance should be followed by certain actions because they were repenting not only of past acts, but also of the attitudes that generated those acts.
• 

  Leolaia

  Cyrus....Also, while it may have been quite probable that there was an Aramaic source for the sayings tradition incorporated into Matthew, the book itself indicates that it was written in Greek with respect to its use of sources, including the LXX for a significant portion of the biblical allusions and Mark for the bulk of its narrative. Solving the synoptic problem in the favor of Matthean priority, moreover, would conflict imho even more with what Papias wrote about Mark. There were however several Jewish-Christian gospels that circulated in the second and third centuries both in Greek and in Aramaic that apparently used Matthew as a primary text. These attempted to pass themselves as the "original" Hebrew gospel but were (Ebionite or Nazorean) expansions of Greek Matthew.
• 

  JosephMalik

  In short, my point is that much of what is specific to Matthew makes sense as a reply to Paulinism, especially in its "epistle to the Romans" form: is the Law still valid or terminated? does calling upon the name of Jesus as Lord save or is it a matter of what you do? What makes someone a child of God? On such questions "Matthew"'s stance is diametrically opposite to "Paul"'s -- this is also the case of the epistle of James but on the more limited issue of "faith vs. works" and from a different, Jewish-Hellenistic perspective.

  Narkissos,

  Sorry but I do not buy into this explanation that: Matthew"'s stance is diametrically opposite to "Paul"'s." Protestants can do and say whatever they want but Matthew did not disagree with Paul as you suggest. Matthew was written for Jews and did not have to elaborate for the benefit of Gentiles. So it could say: Mt 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Now did that mean that the Law would continue as a vehicle for salvation after our Lord’s sacrifice which was when it was fulfilled? No! Italic comments or not it meant this: Mt 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. The days of John was when the Law would end. Not a precise date but a very precise generation marked by John in time. This is the same thing Paul was teaching. And all this business of works. The word meant different things to Jews and Gentiles. Jews took it as works of Law, sacrifices, cleanliness, vows, legal requirements written into the texts of Moses. This would no longer save them and was no longer required for salvation. Gentiles took it as their efforts in propagating the faith. Such works were of course a natural feature of such Faith and were of course required for salvation. Protestants get tangled in the contextual use of such words as did Jews back then and we may see many views offered but this does not mean as you say that: "Matthew makes sense as a reply to Paulinism, especially in its "epistle to the Romans" form: is the Law still valid or terminated?" What it does mean is: Mt 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. This is because Christian Jews still did not all get it right and it pit them against each other which would take many years, in fact nearly all the years covered by all the NT texts to resolve. By the time John wrote it was still a crisis to the point that John called such teaching antichrist.

  Matthew recorded that Jesus had a view of works that went like this: Mt 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. And with these Paul agreed for he said: 1Co 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. This is why when Paul used "works" the more contextually driven word you see his writings turn negative because he usually meant works of Law and would say things like this: Ro 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; His target was the Jewish Christian in Rome because they were still keeping this Law. He did this elsewhere as well such as: Ga 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. And finally when James gave in and repented we see him now say: Jas 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. And so that we are sure what he now means: Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. Jas 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. Jas 2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. James changed his teachings over what we find in Acts chapter 15 and 21 and we can see it here in his letter to Jews scattered about. He targeted them for this reason. That this has caused a lot of confusion over the years leading to wrong conclusions is no surprise. But Matthew supports what Paul taught and disagrees with what Jewish Christians including some Apostles were doing for many years afterwards.

  Joseph
• 

  hmike

  I find Matthew and Paul in agreement:

  Matt. 22:34-40...

  MT 22:34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"

  MT 22:37 Jesus replied: " `Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: `Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

  Romans 13:8-10...

  RO 13:8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

  No doubt there were people who took the message of faith and concluded they could just claim faith and do whatever pleased the flesh. After all, it didn't matter since faith and the sacrifice of Jesus took care of everything. Paul would never approve of the irresponsibility, and makes it clear in several places that what one has done with his life is important to God. In Matthew, Jesus makes it clear that righteousness goes beyond keeping the Law and making the proper sacrifices. Sin has to dealt with at the core of being. I think Matthew 5-7 serves the purposes of not only saying that it's not a matter of keeping the Law (addressing the Jews then, and later the legalists), but also that there is a moral responsibility (addressing those who had no regard for how they lived).

  I see Paul and John stressing acceptance of Jesus as Messiah, Son of God, and Lord. What does that involve? Keeping to his teachings, particularly of mercy and compassion as outlined in Matthew (insofar as we can apply them in our lives and time).
• 

  JosephMalik

  but also that there is a moral responsibility (addressing those who had no regard for how they lived).

  Hmike,

  Yes, it all goes to human decency not the legal obligations of the time now ending. A good and working conscience that we should all have. This is the basis for how anyone will be saved into the Paradise the thief was also promised. And where do we find this? In Matthew Chapter 25 of course when the world of the living and dead are separated into sheep and goats. 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. This is how the Nations get in. But anyone seeking the Kingdom as a disciple has to do this and more and this does involve doctrine and how we introduce the Faith to others. Too bad for those people or religions that abuse others and do not even display such simple human traits. There are other texts that deal with them.

  Joseph
• 

  hmike

  Thank you, Joseph.

  I notice the teaching in Matthew 5-7 is not being given to the Jews in general, but rather to disciples (5:1)—those who were following him and at least according him the respect of a holy teacher, perhaps more, considering he had already been preaching and healing in Galilee. Peter, Andrew, and the sons of Zebedee were impressed enough to leave their fishing trade. If John the Baptist has openly identified Jesus as the "one to come who is more powerful," and if we allow for the account of what the Baptist said in the Gospel of John, and the account in Luke 4 where Jesus announced himself as the fulfillment of Isaiah 61:1,2, then we can fully expect he may already be considered the Son of David. My point is that these disciples were already expressing some measure of faith in Jesus. Where John's Gospel states in words that Jesus is the Son of God, Matthew, Mark, and Luke do it by showing what he did. So Matthew does teach faith.

  I'm curious about your understanding of Matthew 25. Do you consider the "brothers" of Jesus that the sheep help and the goats do not to be disciples, or people of the world in general? It seems to me that because Jesus refers to them as brothers, and because there was a great emphasis on people in the churches helping fellow believers in need, they are disciples. It seems that by helping fellow believers in need, you were demonstrating faith by supporting the cause. It seems to be assumed that if you believed, you were in agreement and would give support. If you did not believe, of course you would not be interested in supporting disciples of Jesus.
• 

  Narkissos

  The dichotomy of ceremonial vs. moral Law is a convenient way to explain the difference away but I don't think it really applies to either Matthew's or Paul's doctrine.

  Hierarchising the Torah commands by putting love of God and of one's neighbour first is indeed common to Matthew and Paul (and, actually, also to Pharisaic Judaism outside of Gospel caricature) although it serves antagonistic strategies. To Matthew it works as a method leading to the actual observance of the Law; without this hierarchy the most important things will be lost for the details. To Paul it serves as a justificationa posteriori of the "faith" attitude which, although forsaking the principle of Law observance, will end up in fulfilling the "main" commands of the Law (but only those).

  That Matthew doesn't disregard ceremonial Law, including sacrifices and tithes to the temple and priesthood, although he considers it secondary to the commands of love, is clear from a number of passages; for instance:

  5:17ff: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

  5:23f: "So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift."

  5:33ff: "Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, 'You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.' But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let your word be 'Yes, Yes' or 'No, No'; anything more than this comes from the evil one."

  23:2f: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach."

  23:16ff: "Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the sanctuary is bound by nothing, but whoever swears by the gold of the sanctuary is bound by the oath.' You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the sanctuary that has made the gold sacred? And you say, 'Whoever swears by the altar is bound by nothing, but whoever swears by the gift that is on the altar is bound by the oath.' How blind you are! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So whoever swears by the altar, swears by it and by everything on it; and whoever swears by the sanctuary, swears by it and by the one who dwells in it; and whoever swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by the one who is seated upon it.

  23:23: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others."

  Otoh Paul's rejection of the Law doesn't limit itself to ceremonial commands; it is the very principle of doing things because they are legally required as a way to justification which is questioned. In Romans 7:7ff, as an example of that he quotes, not a ceremonial command but a moral one: the 10th command about covetousness, which can only produce the knowledge of (in that case, moral) sin but not freedom from it.

  To Joseph Malik: I can't see how you can infer from Matthew 11:13, "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John came," to the idea that the Law would come to an end (which would be the exact opposite of 5:17ff), unless you are reading Luke's very different wording ("The law and the prophets were in effect until John came") into it.
• 

  JosephMalik

  I notice the teaching in Matthew 5-7 is not being given to the Jews in general, but rather to disciples (5:1)

  hmike,

  And our Lord sent them out by two’s to teach others. Mr 6:7 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits; So this is the way our Lord carried the message further. He had to start somewhere but this does not alter the information he offered to everyone on earth including these Jews He chose in the beginning.

  You said: My point is that these disciples were already expressing some measure of faith in Jesus. Where John's Gospel states in words that Jesus is the Son of God, Matthew, Mark, and Luke do it by showing what he did. So Matthew does teach faith.

  Indeed it does. But this does not mean that even His disciples knew everything properly. Remember in Acts after teaching them about the Kingdom for 40 more days they still asked Him: 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? They had to be corrected at that time also. Powerful men like James could still trip them up. Not even their positions as Apostles helped them grasp that the Law was fulfilled. Salvation was no longer dependent upon it. They had both Faith and Law on their side they believed. And this teaching became so imbedded it went everywhere Jews lived and Paul had to correct it. No one seems to grasp that our Lord picked Paul because he would do it where his disciples would not. It took a special person not someone like Matthias still keeping the Law in Jerusalem. No wonder nothing more was said about him. They had a lot of power in the Faith but should have realized that they could only appoint another apostle to represent themselves like some did in Antioch to Paul who also represented them. Not even an apostle could appoint another apostle for Jesus Christ. Only He could do that which He did personally.

  You said: I'm curious about your understanding of Matthew 25. Do you consider the "brothers" of Jesus that the sheep help and the goats do not to be disciples, or people of the world in general?

  They are the world in general living or dead, the Nations as they were identified in verse 32. Jesus did not die just for a few Jews. We know that 1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. So everyone living or dead was His brother. He sacrificed himself for their sins as well. As decedents of Adam they inherited the knowledge of good and evil, something we call conscience. And He could now select from them as sheep or goats, wheat or weeds based upon their use of it. This is resurrection time hmike a very big one at that which includes all the Nations and it is not limited to just a few fellow believers. Not everyone will be found in the book of life and these verses tell us why and support that as well.

  Joseph