Matthew vs Paul: Signs Of Tension

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Tod Stites
Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:46 pm

Matthew vs Paul: Signs Of Tension

Post by Tod Stites »

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.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Matthew vs Paul: Signs Of Tension

Post by John2 »

That all more or less seems plausible to me, Tod. I'm big on the idea that pro-Torah Jewish Christianity, such as that expressed in the material that is special to Matthew (particularly the Hebrew versions), is more representative of the original version of Christianity than Pauline writings.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Matthew vs Paul: Signs Of Tension

Post by outhouse »

Tod Stites wrote: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.

.
Are you just proselytizing here or will you respond with another copy and paste job??? your not an authority here, just some guy who need to support his opinion with more then an appeal to old outdated authority figures.


It can be simply put that some Hellenistic communities early on in the Diaspora wanted to hold on to Judaic laws tighter then many more relaxed communities, which almost sums Pauline text up in a sentence.

Matthean communities, make no mistake were still full of gentiles and divorcing Judaism full speed ahead.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Matthew vs Paul: Signs Of Tension

Post by outhouse »

John2 wrote:That all more or less seems plausible to me, Tod. I'm big on the idea that pro-Torah Jewish Christianity, such as that expressed in the material that is special to Matthew (particularly the Hebrew versions), is more representative of the original version of Christianity than Pauline writings.
Your reply almost all fallacious.

The Hebrew version is late and was trying to reverse the theology, its non sequitur here.

I disagree, there was NO SUCH think as original Christianity, that is a fantasy of yours, and NOTHING resembles Galilean Aramaic apocalyptic Judaism which was Judaism not Christianity.

You need to understand Christianity factually was under the umbrella of Hellenism in the Diaspora by people divorcing Judaism.

Matthean communities were no different then Pauline communities, less a tighter adherence to "some" Jewish laws and customs. Details which matter very little in the overall scheme of things
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Matthew vs Paul: Signs Of Tension

Post by John2 »

I guess I'm in the camp that sees Matthew as Torah-keeping and non-Pauline. As Sim puts it here in Reconstructing the Social and Religious Milieu of Matthew (pg. 31):

Matthew was clearly non-Pauline, but he must have had some opinions about Paul, either positive or negative, and it is entirely legitimate to look for these in his Gospel. I have argued in a number of publications that the evangelist, who accepted that both Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus needed to observe the Torah in its entirety, stood diametrically opposed to the theological tradition of Paul, and that he saw fit to air his views within the context of his narrative.

https://books.google.com/books?id=CkRmO ... he&f=false


Regarding the Hebrew Matthews, I think Nehemiah Gordon makes a good case (building on Howard) in The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus that the Shem Tov version has some readings that make better sense than the canonical Matthew, with his main example being Mt. 23:3, in which Jesus says to do all that "he" (i.e., Moses) says and not what the Pharisees do (which is in keeping with the anti-Pharisaic tone of the rest of Matthew), unlike the Greek version, which says to do all that "they" (i.e., the Pharisees) say.

I've lately become more interested in the other Hebrew versions as well. As Trimm notes, the Du Tillet version has 42 names in the genealogy of Jesus instead of 41 in the Greek.
Now the DuTillet Hebrew manuscript of Matthew contains the missing Name "Abner" which occurs between Abiud and Eliakim in the DuTillet Hebrew text of Mt. 1:13.

In Hebrew and Aramaic "d" and "r" look very much alike and are often misread for each other. In this case a scribe must have looked back up to his source manuscript and picked back up with the wrong name, thus omitting "Abner" from the list. The Greek text must have come from a Hebrew or Aramaic copy which lacked the name "Abner." There is amazingly clear evidence for this. The Old Syriac Aramaic version of Matthew was lost from the fourth century until its rediscovery in the 19th century. This ancient Aramaic text has "Aviur" where the Greek has "Aviud" thus catching the error in a sort of "freeze frame" and demonstrating the reliability of the reading in the Hebrew.

http://nazarenespace.com/profiles/blogs ... hew-part-1
Last edited by John2 on Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:05 pm, edited 3 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Matthew vs Paul: Signs Of Tension

Post by John2 »

Another interesting element of the Shem Tov Hebrew Mt. 23:3 are the references to the takanot and ma'asim of the Pharisees:
Our Bibles (which are translated from the Greek Manuscripts) read in Mat 23:3 regarding the Pharisees as follows:

All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

The Hebrew Manuscripts of Matthew read the same verse as follows:

Therefore all that he says to you, diligently do, but according to their reforms (Takanot) and their precedents (Ma’asim) do not do, because they talk, but do not do.

If you are familiar with what the Pharisees taught and believed you would know what “Takanot” and “Ma’asim” refer to. These are traditions and customs that they added into God’s Word (The Holy Scriptures). “Takanot” and “Ma’asim” were sometimes even regarded more important or higher than God’s Word. Examples for Takanot and Ma’asim are, the “Washing of Hands” mentioned in Mat 15:2 and “The Breaking of the Sabbath by plucking corn” mentioned in Mat 12:2. The Hebrew Matthew gives us a better understanding of what went on in such instances, while our own Bible translations are silent on these issues.

https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpres ... ag/maasim/
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
davidbrainerd
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: Matthew vs Paul: Signs Of Tension

Post by davidbrainerd »

John2 wrote:That all more or less seems plausible to me, Tod. I'm big on the idea that pro-Torah Jewish Christianity, such as that expressed in the material that is special to Matthew (particularly the Hebrew versions), is more representative of the original version of Christianity than Pauline writings.
I used to think that Mattew's gospel was the first written because it is the most Judaic. But then I began to realize two points that changed my mind:

(1) that the whole point of Jesus death, burial, and resurrection is that it was created by a subset of the Pharisees as a more solid way to establish a resurrection than trying to do it by contorting and twisting passages in the Old Testament (which is clearly a collection of Sadducean documents, with the sole exception of Daniel which was clearly written so late as to not be taken seriously by too many people). Twisting the story of God telling Moses at the burning bush "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" into somehow establishing a resurrection was just too hard; how much easier to make up a story of a god-man who came and died, was burried, and rose, specifically for the purpose of establishing a resurrection, and the logic of "since his physical body rose, it is unthinkable that his mystical body [his believers] will not also rise," precisely the logic of Paul in 1st Cor 15, and of John 11 "I am the resurrection and the life; He that believeth in me, though he dies, yet shall he live again" [notice this promise is only to the believer]. Here we have a clear purpose for the story of Jesus dying and rising, i.e. to establish the resurrection. What is the purpose of Jesus dying and rising in Matthew? Essentially nothing! Matthew's Jesus teaches the resurrection on the basis that Daniel said so, Daniel said both the just and unjust will rise, so so it will be because Daniel said so...so why does Matthew's Jesus need to die and rise? Because Paul's did and Matthew is mutilating Paul's gospel to turn it into something different. Paul's Christ had to rise to establish the resurrection because "by man came death, by man also had to come the resurrection" but in Mathew the resurrection is a done deal because Daniel promised it, so Matthew's Christ dies only in imitaion of Paul's Christ, nothing more. So Paul's Christ was clearly first. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble.

(2) Hell. There is no hell in John, Paul, or even Acts. Hell only exists in the synoptics, and that mainly in Matthew. I think even in Mark and Luke it is only there to harmonize them to Matthew, to create the synoptic illusion. Paul and John's Christ doesn't save from hell, but from death in the final sense, from dying and staying dead, from dying and ceasing to exist, because in Paul only those "in Christ" rise because the resurrection is promised by analogy to Jesus' resurrection, as his physical body rose so also must his mystical body [the church], ergo, only beleivers rise, and in John Jesus himself is depicted as promising only to beleivers "if a man beleive in me, though he die, yet shall he live again." So salvation is not from hell, but from the wages of sin, which is "death." Matthew changes it to salvation from "hell" precisely because he has botched up the resurrection. Because now Jesus didn't come to establish the resurrection, i.e. that was already established as a done deal by the book of Daniel, therefore Matthew had to invent something new for Jesus to do, hence he invents "hell." This also proves Paul and John came first, Matthew much later.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Matthew vs Paul: Signs Of Tension

Post by John2 »

Another interesting element of Mt. 23:3 is the expression "they talk but they do not do," which Gordon discusses in chapter nine of his book I mentioned above.
What did Yeshua mean when he said "they do not do"? What do they not do? When I first read the Hebrew it sounded like something was missing at the end of the verse. At the same time, something seemed familiar but I was not sure what it was. Over the next few weeks, I continued to mull over the words "because they talk but they do not do." Something was missing here but what? The answer came to me in an entirely unexpected way ... As I read the biblical account of the Samaritans I came across a verse which was difficult to understand. This Tanach verse was a synopsis of the Samaritans:

1. Until this very day they do according to their former ways,
2. they do not fear YHWH, and they do not do,
3. according to their statutes and judgments,
4. according to the Torah and commandments that YHWH commanded the children of Jacob. (2 Kings 17:34).

This is a literal translation of the verse as it appears in the Hebrew and clearly it does not make sense. It sounds as if the book of Kings is criticizing the Samaritans for not doing "according to their statues and their judgments" when in the beginning of the very same verse it criticizes them for doing according to their former ways. So what is going on here?

All the standard English translations simply glaze over this problem by roughly paraphrasing the verse. But if we stick to what it says in Hebrew we end up with this strange phrase "they do not do" which doesn't seem to fit into the verse. As I read this I knew that Hebrew syntax, the way sentences are structured, is quite different from English syntax. Sometimes one must read the Hebrew verse out loud several times to get the meaning. Having done this, the Hebrew made perfect sense, but had to be translated into English by re-ordering the four clauses of the verse as follows:

1. Until this very day they do according to their former ways,
3. according to their statutes and judgments,
2. they do not fear YHWH, and they do not do,
4. according to the Torah and commandments that YHWH commanded the children of Jacob. (2 Kings 17:34).

The way the verse is structured in Hebrew lays emphasis on the Samaritans doing "according to their statutes and their judgments" but "they do not do" according to the Torah. When I finally understood this verse, it hit me that this was the solution to Matthew 23:3. Both verses had this seemingly inexplicable phrase "they do not do" which did not seem to fit. But it did fit when 2 Kings 17:34 was understood with correct Hebrew syntax. Yeshua was echoing the special style of 2 Kings 17:34 when he said about the Pharisees, "but according to their reforms (takanot) and their precedents (ma'asim) do not do, because they talk but they do not do." 2 Kings 17:34 records a very similar thing about the Samaritans who follow "their statutes and their judgments" but "do not do" Torah. Yeshua was saying that like the Samaritans of old, the Pharisees have their own statutes and judgments which they follow, while at the same time they talk Torah but they do not do Torah. To emphasize this, he borrowed the unique phrase from 2 Kings 17:34 talking about the sins of the Samaritans and applied this to the Pharisees.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Matthew vs Paul: Signs Of Tension

Post by John2 »

Tod wrote:
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.
I think an equally good example of this is in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which I suspect were written by pre-70 CE Jewish Christians. The pesharim and the Damascus Document refer to a figure called the Liar/Scoffer who rejected the Torah and founded his own congregation.

Lim notes that:
... the [Dead Sea Scrolls] sectarians and early church were the only ones to have used the concept of “the new covenant” from the prophecy of Jeremiah. Other Jews did not comment on “the new covenant” nor did they use it in their writings.

http://www.christianorigins.div.ed.ac.u ... t-seventy/
And Bauckham notes that:
Although the Qumran community and the early Christians were certainly not the only Jews to focus their hopes on the Isaianic picture of the way ... they are the only two groups we know to have applied the image of this way to their own way of life.

https://books.google.com/books?id=U7-Qe ... re&f=false
So in the pesharim and Damascus Document we have a community that practiced the Way and the New Covenant -and in a place called Damascus, no less- and the only other group we know of that did this were Christians.

It is remarkable to me then that these writings also refer to a figure called the Liar who rejected the Torah and founded his own congregation. For example, in 1QpHab col. 10 it says:
Interpreted, this concerns the Spouter of Lies who led many astray that he might build his city of vanity with blood and raise a congregation on deceit, causing many thereby to perform a service of vanity for the sake of its glory, and to be pregnant with [works] of deceit, that their labour might be for nothing and that they might be punished with fire who vilified and outraged the elect of God.
And in col. 2 it says:
[Interpreted, this concerns] those who were unfaithful together with the Liar, in that they [did] not [listen to the word received by] the Teacher of Righteousness from the mouth of God. And it concerns the unfaithful of the New [Covenant] in that they have not believed in the Covenant of God [and have profaned] His holy Name.
And col. 4 mentions, "the Liar who flouted the Law in the midst of their whole [congregation]."

That this refers to the written Torah is clear from the Damascus Document, which says:
This was the time of which it is written, Like a stubborn heifer thus was Israel stubborn, when the Scoffer arose who shed over Israel the waters of lies. He led them astray in a wilderness without way by bringing low the everlasting hills, and by causing them to depart from the paths of righteousness, and by removing the bound with which the forefathers had marked out their inheritance, that he might call down on them the curses of His Covenant and deliver them up to the avenging sword of the Covenant. For they sought smooth things and preferred illusions and they watched for breaks and chose the fair neck; and they justified the wicked and condemned the just, and they transgressed the Covenant and violated the Precept.


This reference to "smooth things" is arguably aimed at the Pharisees in the DSS, as Vanderkam, for example, notes:
"Seekers of smooth things" is the name the Scrolls community gave to their opponents, who are almost certainly the Pharisees ... it is likely that the word for smooth things (halaqot) is a word play for the Pharisaic term halakhot (laws).

https://books.google.com/books?id=i2i5h ... ot&f=false
With this in mind, it is worth noting that Paul was once a Pharisee (e.g., Php. 3:5).

So here we have a pre-70 CE community that practiced the Way and the New Covenant in a place called Damascus who were anti-Pharisaic and opposed by someone who rejected the Torah (who was also arguably associated with the Pharisees). If these were not Jewish Christians they were at least in a very similar situation as them.
Last edited by John2 on Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Matthew vs Paul: Signs Of Tension

Post by John2 »

Regarding "smooth things," Vanderkam also notes that:
..."smooth things" regularly has a negative connotation when it is connected to words and speaking. The term occurs in Prov 26:28 where it is a parallel of a lying tongue ("A lying tongue hates its victims, and a flattering mouth works ruin"), and Dan 11:32 attributes it to the enemy king who flatters with smooth words ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=i2i5h ... ls&f=false
In my view the ultimate "smooth thing" is the Pauline writings of the NT. Take Paul's position in Rom. 13, for example.
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
This position is in keeping with the Pharisaic doctrine that "the law of the state is law".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dina_d%27malkhuta_dina
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Post Reply