Matthew vs Paul: Signs Of Tension
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:39 pm
There may be no better example of early Christian communities judging in different
ways, and maintaining different positions, than the way the Judaic and nomistic Matthew
seems to polemicize against the antinomian teachings of Paul and the practices of the
Pauline churches.
Now scholars specializing in Matthean studies may not always think that Paul is the
object of Matthew's polemic against antinomianism (1), or that Matthew's Gospel
represents a Judaizing reaction to Paulinism (2), even if interpreters as early as Irenaeus
saw Matthew as on the whole having been aimed at a Jewish-Christian community, one
of "Hebrews"(3).
But the Matthean specialists do recognize that Matthew does
polemicize against bad teachers within the church, i.e. those who
teach others to break even the least commandments of the law
(5:19):(4).
And this last passage has indeed been considered as possible
polemic against Paul, as one who relaxes the commandments (4),and
several other passages serve to reinforce the impression of an ongoing
campaign of rhetoric coming out of the Matthean community and
aimed at the loose approach to the Mosaic Law taken by the Paulinists
and perhaps even at the personality of Paul himself.
At Corinth Paul contrasts himself with the "waterer" and "laborer"
Apollos by casting himself in the role of planter and master builder
(1Cor 3:10):(4:15), a role no one else can assume (5). But for Matthew
anything not "planted" by God was to be "rooted up"(15:13), while the
"seed" is planted by Jesus (13:37), the master builder of the church
(16:18). For Paul of course Christ is the only foundation upon which
the church may be built (1Cor 3:11), and the spiritual rock of Christian
faith (1Cor 10:4), while Matthew has no problem assigning this role to
Peter (16:18).
Paul of course rested his authority on an encounter with the
Risen Christ, from whom Paul received his gospel, and who for Paul
seems to have been the focus of the Christian message, while Matthew's
teaching seems to be more strongly grounded in the commandments
that came out of the Jesus ministry (28:19-20):(6).
And while Paul's encounter with the Risen Christ was followed
by a sojourn in the desert (Gal 1:12,16-17), Matthew warns about those
who claim to have had clandestine meetings with the Risen Christ in
the desert (24:26), with Mark and Luke not repeating this specifically
in their parallel versions, where the word "desert" is not found. Thus
the reference to the desert may be peculiar to Matthew because it's
author is again striving to immunize his readers against Pauline
antinomianism.
Likewise Matthew alone tells readers to call no one on earth
their father, for they have one Father in heaven (23:9), perhaps
because Paul considered himself a "father" to his congregations
(1Cor 4:15):(1Thess 2:11):(7).
Paul of course could make salvation sound easy if he wanted to,
assuring his flocks that if they confess with their mouth and believe
with their heart they will be saved (Rom 10:9). But Matthew seems to
warn that not everyone who confesses Jesus as Lord will enter the
kingdom of heaven (7:21):(8). And while Paul believed unbelievers
could be made holy through their spouses (1Cor 7:14), Matthew seems
to indicate that sanctity is not transferable (25:9), consistent with the
teachings of the prophets (Hag 2:12).
Now Paul believed in a proper order of resurrection, with Christ
rising first (1Cor 15:20,23), but Matthew claims that people had already
risen from the dead at the time Jesus was crucified (27:52-53):(9).
Also we may note that Paul swears an oath in his correspondence
with the Galatians that he is telling the truth (1:20):(cf.Acts 18:18),
but Matthew says that such swearing "comes from the evil one"(5:33-37).
And while Paul sometimes refers to his correspondents as "foolish",
(1Cor 15:36):(Gal 3:1), Matthew says that insulting a brother in such a
way exposes one to "hellfire"(5:22).
Lastly we may note that while Matthew may refer to gentiles as
"dogs"(7:6), Paul uses the same term in referring to Judaizers (Phil
3:2).
Notes:
1.Gundry "Matthew" p.133.
Davies and Allison "Gospel According To Saint Matthew" v.1,p.61n29, disagree with the
theory that Matthew even knew the Pauline epistles;p.147n126,they suggest one reason
why Matt shows no Pauline influence is because Paul did not succeed at Antioch;p.701,
Matthew's hand is evident in an apparent expansion of Q (7:15-23) which some think is
aimed at antinomians/Paulinists;v.2,p.652,while a few Matthean texts may be anti-
Paul, "we remain in the dark concerning Matthew's view on Paul".
2.Gundry "Matthew" p.6.
Dunn "Christianity In The Making" v.2,p.226/n278,thinks that if Matt 10:5 is dominical,
it's preservation in Matthew reflects the Matthean community's conservative attitude
towards the gentile mission.
Davies and Allison "Gospel According To Saint Matthew" v.3,p.702, think Paul is "neither
mentioned nor denigrated in" Matthew.
On the view of Irenaeus regarding Matthew's Gospel, see Eusebius "Historia Ecclesiastica"
5.8.2;cf.Gathercole "Composition Of The Gospel Of Thomas" p.174/n30.
3.Gundry "Matthew" p.83-4.
Van Voorst "Jesus Outside The New Testament" p.143-4, cites the opinion
of Streeter (1924) that the source material thought to have been used
exclusively by Matthew, the so-called "M" source, was a second generation
reaction to the Pauline law-free gospel, originating in Jerusalem and connected
to the attitude, if not the person, of James;p.143-8,Van Voorst however points
out that recent studies of "M" suggest that it was not a written source, with no
overall unified theological thrust, and if "M" was never a single source, much of
it's material may derive from oral tradition.
Bultmann "Theology Of The New Testament" v.1,p.273,thinks Matt 5:6 refers to
those who long for eschatological judgment to be pronounced in their favor, in
accordance with his "forensic" interpretation of Paul's justification theology. We
might suggest that Matt 5:6 may actually refer to, and approve of, the striving
for moral perfection, what Paul would refer to as establishing one's own right-
eousness (Rom 10:3), in order to refute Paul's forensic approach to justification.
Davies and Allison "Gospel According To Saint Matthew" v.1,p.124-5,on the recent
tendency to dismiss "M" as a document, and that much of what is peculiar to Matt
is seen as the product of Matthean redaction;p.497,they also think that Matt 5:19
was obviously formulated with laxness toward the law in view; we cannot exclude
the possibility that Paul was the intended target;p.504:"Matthew must have known
..that some Christian groups had gone too far in relativizing the Torah".
Compare also:Matt 5:22 vs Eph 4:26. We might also suggest that any perception
that the teachings of the Jesus ministry were being overlooked by Pauline Christians
(cf. 2 Cor 5:16), was addressed by Matthew's Risen Christ in the directive to teach
new Christians "everything" that had been unfolded during the ministry (28:19-20).
Dunn "Christianity In The Making" v.3,p.268n276,in sharp contrast to Davies and
Allison, thinks "Matthew openly and savagely attacks Paul and his law-
free gospel".
4.Brown "Introduction To The New Testament" p.469n7.
Bultmann "Theology Of The New Testament" v.1,p.16,54.
Vermes "Authentic Gospel Of Jesus" p.355,"it is an opinion held by
many New Testament interpreters that Matt 5:17-20 represents not
the stance of Jesus but the viewpoint of his Palestinian Jewish
followers in their polemic with Paul and the gentile Christian church".
Koester "Paul And His World" p.113/n22:"It is difficult not to recognize
here (Matt 5:17-19) a clear polemic against the Pauline Gentile mission
and it's thesis that "Christ is the end of the law"; likewise with Matt
7:23, which refers to "works of lawlessness";cf.Green "Interlinear
Bible" p.742.
Casey "Jesus Of Nazareth" p.40, thinks that Matthew "clearly argues
that Christianity ought to remain within the boundaries of Judaism"
(cf.23:2-3).
Painter in Neusner and Chilton "Brother Of Jesus" p.58-9:"The teaching
of Jesus at Matt 5:17-20..seems to be aimed at Paul"; and: " Clearly
Matt 5 and Epistle of James reflect conflict with the Pauline position".
Dunn "Christianity In The Making" v.3,p.190-1, however opposes the
idea that Paul changed the "good news" taught by Jesus into good news
ABOUT Jesus, preaching only the cross and minimalizing the dominical
logia.
5.White and Yarborough "Social World Of The First Christians" p.131.
6.Dunn "Christianity In The Making" v.3,p.200n55,notes the view that:
"For Matthew, it is theologically decisive that all church preaching
orients itself to the earthly Jesus and has no other content but his
words and actions".
7.Jeremias "Jerusalem In The Time Of Jesus" p.260,the Essene
"mebaqqer" was a spiritual "father to his community"(Damascus
Document 13.9).
Horsley and Draper "Whoever Hears You Hears Me" p.253, claims to
being "children of Abraham" appear from sources relatively late in
Israel's history and were apparently made by the elite by way of
self-legitimation (cf.Luke 3:8):(Matt 23:2-3).
Support for the authenticity of Matt 23:9 may come from Mark (10:29),
where those who have left family for the sake of Jesus are to be
recompensed with a hundredfold "brothers and sisters, mothers and
children"-but no "fathers";cf.Schussler-Fiorenza "In Memory Of Her"
p.147.
Boring,Berger and Colpe "Hellenistic Commentary To The New
Testament" p.508,Paul's references to himself as a "father" to his
congregations could be seen from either a Judaic or a Hellenistic
perspective: those who sponsored initiates into the Hellenistic
mystery cults were called "fathers"; but the later rabbis held that "a
proselyte who embraces Judaism is like a newborn child"(Bavli
Yebamot 48b).
8.Davies and Allison "Gospel According To Saint Matthew" v.1,p.714n35,
Manson thought Matt 7:21 was aimed at the Paulinists, and Rom 10:9
in particular;p.718-9,"anomia" as "lawless"(7:23) should not be pressed
in order to posit polemic against antinomian Christians.
9.See Koester "Ancient Christian Gospels" pp.424-6.
Michel in Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament v.4,p.681n5.
Oepke in Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament v.2,p.338,
suggests that the phrase "after his resurrection"(Matt 27:53) is a later
correction made under the influence of 1Cor 15:20.
ways, and maintaining different positions, than the way the Judaic and nomistic Matthew
seems to polemicize against the antinomian teachings of Paul and the practices of the
Pauline churches.
Now scholars specializing in Matthean studies may not always think that Paul is the
object of Matthew's polemic against antinomianism (1), or that Matthew's Gospel
represents a Judaizing reaction to Paulinism (2), even if interpreters as early as Irenaeus
saw Matthew as on the whole having been aimed at a Jewish-Christian community, one
of "Hebrews"(3).
But the Matthean specialists do recognize that Matthew does
polemicize against bad teachers within the church, i.e. those who
teach others to break even the least commandments of the law
(5:19):(4).
And this last passage has indeed been considered as possible
polemic against Paul, as one who relaxes the commandments (4),and
several other passages serve to reinforce the impression of an ongoing
campaign of rhetoric coming out of the Matthean community and
aimed at the loose approach to the Mosaic Law taken by the Paulinists
and perhaps even at the personality of Paul himself.
At Corinth Paul contrasts himself with the "waterer" and "laborer"
Apollos by casting himself in the role of planter and master builder
(1Cor 3:10):(4:15), a role no one else can assume (5). But for Matthew
anything not "planted" by God was to be "rooted up"(15:13), while the
"seed" is planted by Jesus (13:37), the master builder of the church
(16:18). For Paul of course Christ is the only foundation upon which
the church may be built (1Cor 3:11), and the spiritual rock of Christian
faith (1Cor 10:4), while Matthew has no problem assigning this role to
Peter (16:18).
Paul of course rested his authority on an encounter with the
Risen Christ, from whom Paul received his gospel, and who for Paul
seems to have been the focus of the Christian message, while Matthew's
teaching seems to be more strongly grounded in the commandments
that came out of the Jesus ministry (28:19-20):(6).
And while Paul's encounter with the Risen Christ was followed
by a sojourn in the desert (Gal 1:12,16-17), Matthew warns about those
who claim to have had clandestine meetings with the Risen Christ in
the desert (24:26), with Mark and Luke not repeating this specifically
in their parallel versions, where the word "desert" is not found. Thus
the reference to the desert may be peculiar to Matthew because it's
author is again striving to immunize his readers against Pauline
antinomianism.
Likewise Matthew alone tells readers to call no one on earth
their father, for they have one Father in heaven (23:9), perhaps
because Paul considered himself a "father" to his congregations
(1Cor 4:15):(1Thess 2:11):(7).
Paul of course could make salvation sound easy if he wanted to,
assuring his flocks that if they confess with their mouth and believe
with their heart they will be saved (Rom 10:9). But Matthew seems to
warn that not everyone who confesses Jesus as Lord will enter the
kingdom of heaven (7:21):(8). And while Paul believed unbelievers
could be made holy through their spouses (1Cor 7:14), Matthew seems
to indicate that sanctity is not transferable (25:9), consistent with the
teachings of the prophets (Hag 2:12).
Now Paul believed in a proper order of resurrection, with Christ
rising first (1Cor 15:20,23), but Matthew claims that people had already
risen from the dead at the time Jesus was crucified (27:52-53):(9).
Also we may note that Paul swears an oath in his correspondence
with the Galatians that he is telling the truth (1:20):(cf.Acts 18:18),
but Matthew says that such swearing "comes from the evil one"(5:33-37).
And while Paul sometimes refers to his correspondents as "foolish",
(1Cor 15:36):(Gal 3:1), Matthew says that insulting a brother in such a
way exposes one to "hellfire"(5:22).
Lastly we may note that while Matthew may refer to gentiles as
"dogs"(7:6), Paul uses the same term in referring to Judaizers (Phil
3:2).
Notes:
1.Gundry "Matthew" p.133.
Davies and Allison "Gospel According To Saint Matthew" v.1,p.61n29, disagree with the
theory that Matthew even knew the Pauline epistles;p.147n126,they suggest one reason
why Matt shows no Pauline influence is because Paul did not succeed at Antioch;p.701,
Matthew's hand is evident in an apparent expansion of Q (7:15-23) which some think is
aimed at antinomians/Paulinists;v.2,p.652,while a few Matthean texts may be anti-
Paul, "we remain in the dark concerning Matthew's view on Paul".
2.Gundry "Matthew" p.6.
Dunn "Christianity In The Making" v.2,p.226/n278,thinks that if Matt 10:5 is dominical,
it's preservation in Matthew reflects the Matthean community's conservative attitude
towards the gentile mission.
Davies and Allison "Gospel According To Saint Matthew" v.3,p.702, think Paul is "neither
mentioned nor denigrated in" Matthew.
On the view of Irenaeus regarding Matthew's Gospel, see Eusebius "Historia Ecclesiastica"
5.8.2;cf.Gathercole "Composition Of The Gospel Of Thomas" p.174/n30.
3.Gundry "Matthew" p.83-4.
Van Voorst "Jesus Outside The New Testament" p.143-4, cites the opinion
of Streeter (1924) that the source material thought to have been used
exclusively by Matthew, the so-called "M" source, was a second generation
reaction to the Pauline law-free gospel, originating in Jerusalem and connected
to the attitude, if not the person, of James;p.143-8,Van Voorst however points
out that recent studies of "M" suggest that it was not a written source, with no
overall unified theological thrust, and if "M" was never a single source, much of
it's material may derive from oral tradition.
Bultmann "Theology Of The New Testament" v.1,p.273,thinks Matt 5:6 refers to
those who long for eschatological judgment to be pronounced in their favor, in
accordance with his "forensic" interpretation of Paul's justification theology. We
might suggest that Matt 5:6 may actually refer to, and approve of, the striving
for moral perfection, what Paul would refer to as establishing one's own right-
eousness (Rom 10:3), in order to refute Paul's forensic approach to justification.
Davies and Allison "Gospel According To Saint Matthew" v.1,p.124-5,on the recent
tendency to dismiss "M" as a document, and that much of what is peculiar to Matt
is seen as the product of Matthean redaction;p.497,they also think that Matt 5:19
was obviously formulated with laxness toward the law in view; we cannot exclude
the possibility that Paul was the intended target;p.504:"Matthew must have known
..that some Christian groups had gone too far in relativizing the Torah".
Compare also:Matt 5:22 vs Eph 4:26. We might also suggest that any perception
that the teachings of the Jesus ministry were being overlooked by Pauline Christians
(cf. 2 Cor 5:16), was addressed by Matthew's Risen Christ in the directive to teach
new Christians "everything" that had been unfolded during the ministry (28:19-20).
Dunn "Christianity In The Making" v.3,p.268n276,in sharp contrast to Davies and
Allison, thinks "Matthew openly and savagely attacks Paul and his law-
free gospel".
4.Brown "Introduction To The New Testament" p.469n7.
Bultmann "Theology Of The New Testament" v.1,p.16,54.
Vermes "Authentic Gospel Of Jesus" p.355,"it is an opinion held by
many New Testament interpreters that Matt 5:17-20 represents not
the stance of Jesus but the viewpoint of his Palestinian Jewish
followers in their polemic with Paul and the gentile Christian church".
Koester "Paul And His World" p.113/n22:"It is difficult not to recognize
here (Matt 5:17-19) a clear polemic against the Pauline Gentile mission
and it's thesis that "Christ is the end of the law"; likewise with Matt
7:23, which refers to "works of lawlessness";cf.Green "Interlinear
Bible" p.742.
Casey "Jesus Of Nazareth" p.40, thinks that Matthew "clearly argues
that Christianity ought to remain within the boundaries of Judaism"
(cf.23:2-3).
Painter in Neusner and Chilton "Brother Of Jesus" p.58-9:"The teaching
of Jesus at Matt 5:17-20..seems to be aimed at Paul"; and: " Clearly
Matt 5 and Epistle of James reflect conflict with the Pauline position".
Dunn "Christianity In The Making" v.3,p.190-1, however opposes the
idea that Paul changed the "good news" taught by Jesus into good news
ABOUT Jesus, preaching only the cross and minimalizing the dominical
logia.
5.White and Yarborough "Social World Of The First Christians" p.131.
6.Dunn "Christianity In The Making" v.3,p.200n55,notes the view that:
"For Matthew, it is theologically decisive that all church preaching
orients itself to the earthly Jesus and has no other content but his
words and actions".
7.Jeremias "Jerusalem In The Time Of Jesus" p.260,the Essene
"mebaqqer" was a spiritual "father to his community"(Damascus
Document 13.9).
Horsley and Draper "Whoever Hears You Hears Me" p.253, claims to
being "children of Abraham" appear from sources relatively late in
Israel's history and were apparently made by the elite by way of
self-legitimation (cf.Luke 3:8):(Matt 23:2-3).
Support for the authenticity of Matt 23:9 may come from Mark (10:29),
where those who have left family for the sake of Jesus are to be
recompensed with a hundredfold "brothers and sisters, mothers and
children"-but no "fathers";cf.Schussler-Fiorenza "In Memory Of Her"
p.147.
Boring,Berger and Colpe "Hellenistic Commentary To The New
Testament" p.508,Paul's references to himself as a "father" to his
congregations could be seen from either a Judaic or a Hellenistic
perspective: those who sponsored initiates into the Hellenistic
mystery cults were called "fathers"; but the later rabbis held that "a
proselyte who embraces Judaism is like a newborn child"(Bavli
Yebamot 48b).
8.Davies and Allison "Gospel According To Saint Matthew" v.1,p.714n35,
Manson thought Matt 7:21 was aimed at the Paulinists, and Rom 10:9
in particular;p.718-9,"anomia" as "lawless"(7:23) should not be pressed
in order to posit polemic against antinomian Christians.
9.See Koester "Ancient Christian Gospels" pp.424-6.
Michel in Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament v.4,p.681n5.
Oepke in Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament v.2,p.338,
suggests that the phrase "after his resurrection"(Matt 27:53) is a later
correction made under the influence of 1Cor 15:20.