Matthew is important because it records more of Jesus' words than any of the other three Gospels.
The book of Matthew, what is the importnce of it?
by bite me 30 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
JosephMalik
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:
Narkissos,
This is because it was still running and in force. Doing otherwise would be breaking it and committing sin. You strung out many verses to show this and that is fine. But it would go away in a very short time. Remember the Law, all of it not just some of it was until John. You can also show lawkeeping outside the Gospels as attempts to keep it later in time did occur but they were shown to be false teachings that needed correction. That is what I am bringing out.
Joseph
-
hmike
Narkissos,
Thanks for taking the time to put together a detailed reply. Maybe we put up too much since your previous post.
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).
I'm not sure there's that much difference. God requires mercy and compassion from people, and it's still something one must choose or agree to do, whether it be a Jew in the time of Jesus, or a Christian today. My understanding is that faith for the Jew meant to accept Jesus as one sent by God and authorized by Him to teach in His name. This was important because, although Jesus did not teach men to disregard the Law, he gave a new understanding of it. What he taught about mercy was already in the Scriptures, but it was different than what the people understood based on what was conveyed by the religious leaders. People would only accept this new understanding if Jesus was fully approved and authorized, and even on the level of God, because only God could make what would be perceived as changes to His Law. The miracles and control over nature was observable evidence that Jesus was authorized. For Paul, I see this as still true, but also that faith has value in itself of bringing righteousness, and that I don't see that in Matthew. This is where we have the problem, isn't it—what happens when one claims faith (and has positional righteousness) but does not live out compassion and avoidance of sinful practices (practical righteousness)? Paul also brings in the work of the Holy Spirit and the support of the church community as a guide and aid to the Christian whereas Matthew seems to leave it to the individual to do this on his own, which is why many Protestant teachers dismiss Matthew.
That people should repent, turn from sin, and practice mercy is the teaching of both Matthew and Paul (and the other writers). In Matthew, however, the Law and sacrifices are not done away with because there is no other provision for dealing with sins committed after baptism. For Paul, this problem is solved by the sacrificial atoning death of Jesus as foretold of God's servant in Isaiah 53.
-
Doug Mason
I find the most interesting discussion of Matthew is contained in "Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes", John Shelby Spong, pages 87 to 118 (Harper Collins).
Doug -
JosephMalik
Paul also brings in the work of the Holy Spirit and the support of the church community as a guide and aid to the Christian whereas Matthew seems to leave it to the individual to do this on his own, which is why many Protestant teachers dismiss Matthew.
Hmike.
Of course but we are talking about different times in history with a major event between them that made all the difference in how we were to proceed. Matthew was written while they were all still under Law which still governed even after Baptism. Paul served during the time the Law was fulfilled but still observed by many. Apostles now governed as did Our Lords teachings and commandments and not the Law. What else would we expect? But the prophetic projections were all there if we had the faith to accept them.
You said: That people should repent, turn from sin, and practice mercy is the teaching of both Matthew and Paul (and the other writers). In Matthew, however, the Law and sacrifices are not done away with because there is no other provision for dealing with sins committed after baptism. For Paul, this problem is solved by the sacrificial atoning death of Jesus as foretold of God's servant in Isaiah 53.
Sure, but baptism is not an instant cure-all anyway. It is a requirement for Christians but it is also a pickling process that includes other elements that take time to mature. This is true even for the Apostles. And it does not work for everyone. Some spoil, do not mature and are rejected. We see such ones in Paul’s letters. This is why I described three elements of baptism in one of my supplements. To dismiss verses because we do not understand them should ring off alarms right off.
There was one other thing discussed by someone here and that was Justification. It was not put in the place it really holds for us but it is a basic requirement for us just like the laying on of hands. Besides baptism that we should all have experienced, there is Justification without which second death does have authority over us. Little was revealed about something so important but it is there if we look carefully.
Joseph
-
hmike
Narkissos wrote:
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.
Narkissos and Joseph,
Concerning John the Baptist, he preached confession, repentance, and baptism for forgiveness of sins. He did not direct anyone to go to the Temple and offer animal sacrifices. Wouldn't this have been necessary under the Law? Also, under the Law, weren't there some sins for which no restoration was possible—the offender would be permanently and irrevocably excluded from the community? It appears John was offering these people an opportunity to enter the coming kingdom by a means that was outside the Law, meaning that he was teaching that this kingdom was not simply an extension of the present system that the Law was part of. It shouldn't be surprising that religious leaders would be skeptical.
Can you tell me what the rabbinical literature from before the time of John says about how the "tax collectors and sinners" (e. g., prostitutes) who were remorseful could be accepted into the community with blessing—if that was even possible?
Narkissos, I notice that none of the passages you quoted apply to offering animal sacrifices for sin. Perhaps it was only this aspect of the Law that was at issue. God desired "mercy, not sacrifice"—meaning, change your heart and don't sin in the first place, rather than sin and cover it up. Other requirements of the Law, such as firstfruits or grain offerings, were not a problem. Under the New Covenant, these would all be done away with as requirements so everything would be done as an expression of gratitude and desire to give.
-
Narkissos
hmike,
1. Imo the sectarian texts from Qumran may shed some light on the baptism of John, in spite of its possible differences. In the Qumran sect, the temple priesthood, liturgical calendar and services were regarded as invalid, and water rituals (including baths and aspersions) were provided as an alternative way of cleansing for the members of the community, awaiting the restoration of a pure temple service. Whence also the emphasis on other non-sacrificial rituals like the "sacrifice of praise" and communal meals. But this is not a rejection of sacrifices per se.
2. One passage I didn't mention (because it is not formally different from Mark and Luke, although Matthew may have read a different meaning into it) is the command to the leper: "go, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them" (8:4). This did include a sacrifice for "sin" (Leviticus 14:19).
-
JosephMalik
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.
Narkissos,
Because that is what was being taught by the verses. Perhaps the entire context of it would clear this up. Matt 11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. 13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. 14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. 15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. The days of John the Baptist were the turning point for this Law as a means of access into this Kingdom. The days of John changed the Law by this violent overthrow of this older means of access. Now OT prophecies were in fulfillment to the very letter as shown since Elias had now come. The same is true later in Matthew when we look at both verses here: Matt. 5:.17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. And it was fulfilled as promised during the time of Elias shown to be John. Entry into this Kingdom would not be dependent upon this Law anymore. That is what the Law and its many features was about anyway during the time of its existence.
Can we be sure? You were showing how words can be interpreted differently by different people. But this is why we have so many views and so much false doctrine floating around. The scriptures had a greater theme running through them as its foundation and we should have stayed with it. This is what keeps our feet on the ground. The apostle Paul a one time Law keeper did not keep the Law after his conversion and almost lost his life because of it. Christian Jews tried to force him to do it. Acts 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. It took a massive effort to finally catch the attention and support of Peter, James, Jude and John to correct this error. We see this everywhere in NT writings. No longer would the Law forgive sin. Not even what we may have thought were irrevocable parts of it. From now on it was forgiven by the divine nature we embrace. 1 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. Peter continued and said: 1 Peter 1:9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. 10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: 11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. This is the way it is done now. So I am sure.
Joseph
-
JosephMalik
Concerning John the Baptist, he preached confession, repentance, and baptism for forgiveness of sins. He did not direct anyone to go to the Temple and offer animal sacrifices. Wouldn't this have been necessary under the Law?
hmike,
Baptism would now be the new way to enter the Kingdom as heirs. There are other ways for the Nations but not for the Faith. The Law would no longer serve this purpose for the faith under Law in the days of John. The statement was general and does not give a specific date but is still true. It is one of the things we do to be born again since baptism has facets we are not considering here. Not that baptism violated the Law at the time but it would replace it shortly and started to serve this purpose even before the Law ended. Forgiveness of our sins is another way of saying we qualify to enter the Kingdom. So things that do not seem to apply are actually what is really meant in a hidden way.
Joseph
-
ex-icoc
thanks for the great discussion.