Brenda Lister emailed me some questions and comments that I thought would be helpful to post here. I have a feeling that others have the same concerns. So with Brenda's permission, here are her comments:
It does give me a bit of "heartburn" to have you use "pseudepigrapha" which is translated "false writing" and was not considered as worthy of being canon-ized as a basis for explaining the meaning of Jesus' teaching on hunger and thirst after righteousness. I think the example of what this means is found in Jesus Himself when confronted with Satan in the wilderness, after being without food and water for 40 days, still used Scripture (not pseudepigrapha) as a basis of defeating Satan. This says to me that it is better that we desire God (and His righteousness, that is, what He says is right) more than we would desire food and water if totally deprived of it.
Also, I contend that the account in Matthew''s Gospel is directed to the believing Jews to whom Matthew and the 12 (after Judas was replaced) were sent (see Matthew 10:5). Thus, the salvation message of belonging to the kingdom is for the Jew to whom Christ came to fulfill the prophecies and promises of the OT. In His earthly ministry, Christ directed His message to the Jews, "the lost sheep of Israel" and not to Gentiles (see Isaiah 53 which prophesizes to whom Messiah was sent).
Dan, will you draw this distinction, in teaching this class? Put simply, if every letter of Paul were torn from the Bible, would a person reading the OT and the Gospels in this day (in this dispensation) know how to be saved? I say no, for the finished work of Christ on the Cross, sufficient for the sin penalty, and Christ's resurrection, which is our means of being raised from the power of sin, is not found except in the Pauline epistles because it was only revealed to him by Jesus Christ Himself after He was ascended. Matthew taught about the "kingdom" whereas we are taught in Paul's teaching that Jesus Christ is not the King of the church, but rather, He is the Head and we are part of His body. This is unlike any Old Testament teaching, again because it was revealed to Paul alone.
I therefore was a bit confused when I heard members of class talking about the Sermon on the Mount emphasizing the way "in" the church. Perhaps the discussion focused on "church" as meaning the assembly of Jews, who began to believe that Christ was Messiah. These are the same Jews to whom Peter preached in Acts 4-6 and continued by Stephen in Acts 7. Both preached to law-keeping Jews the message of salvation by accepting that Jesus Christ was Messiah. So the church in which Peter, Stephen, and James preached was made up of the Circumcision and Gentiles who converted to Judaism. Paul spoke directly against this practice of forcing Gentiles to become, in effect, circumsized law-observers in Galatians.
Brenda, thanks for this.
ReplyDeleteFirst, on the Pseudepigrapha. The Jewish writings we have in the volume entitled "Pseudepigraph" have one thing in common. They are said to have been written by an author that could not have written them. Take for instance the Testament of Levi. The first verse states, "The testament of Levi the third son of Jacob and Leah." This is obviously false since the document was written somewhere between 200 BC and 200 AD. Thus, "Pseudepigrapha" reflects the falsehood of the authorship, not the falsehood of what was written in these documents. The reason I point to these documents in class is because it allows us to engage in the conversation of the time. If we just had the OT then we would be missing out on the world and context of the NT. I am not suggesting that these documents are inspired, I am just trying to bring us into the context of the first century Jew. (Also note that Jude 1:14–15 is probably a quote from 1 Enoch. The point is, the NT writers were not writing in a vacuum. They were engaging the literature of their time as well as the OT.)
Second, on your comments on Matthew and Paul. I do not think that Matthew and Paul would disagree on "how one is saved." Both would have acknowledged the way it has always been: election on God's part and faith on our part.
I also think Matthew and Paul would agree on what it looks like to be a child of God. For instance: On speaking the truth see Matt 5:33–37 and Eph 4:25. On loving ones neighbor see Matt 5:43–48 and Eph 4:25, 32; 1 Cor 13. On resisting anger see Matt 5:21–26 and Eph 4:31. On divorce see Matt 5:31–32 and 1 Cor 7:10–11. On adultery see Matt 5:27–30 and Rom 13:9. On murder see Matt 5:21–26 and Rom 1:29; 13:9; Jas 2:11; NB 1 John 3:12.
Using murder for another example, notice that in Rom 1:29 murder is what characterizes those who are not a people of God, while in 13:9 murder is what those who are a new creation are supposed to avoid.
I don't think anyone will suggest that Paul is giving these qualification and regulations as a way of conversion. Rather, these practices are what reflect a child of God. This is the same thing that I am arguing in Matthew. Matthew is not concerned with conversion. He is concerned with identification.
Third, on your comments about Matthew' mission solely to the Jews. This will have to wait for class. This is something that I am still wrestling with and will probably be wrestling with for a long time.
My sentiments exactly: Matthew and the gospels present the life of Jesus and His earthly ministry which reflected how kingdom people are SUPPOSED to act. The standard of holiness is a high and lofty one that can only be embodied in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The Pharisees were great at DOING but their BEING reflected their corruption and hypocrisy to the core. How do we get to place where we understand that hatred and speaking ill of someone is just as bad as outright murder until we enter this age of grace? Paul was chosen by the ascended Christ to take the message of salvation/conversion by faith alone in the finished work of Christ through His death, burial, and resurrection, to pay for and cancel out our trespasses and sins, once and for all, if we will only believe. Jew or Gentile now has this privilege to accept the gift of salvation. But even we in the natural are woefully inadequate to live out the model in the Sermon on the Mount without having the indwelling Spirit of God (God the Holy Spirit) inside us to teach, instruct, guide, and convict.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Matthew and the gospels are concerned with identification of all who believe that the One Whom the Old Testament prophets and Psalms pointed to, who would save Israel from her "enemies" (spoken by Zacharias, father of John the Baptist in Luke 1:71. Note he did not say: save us from our sins.)was Jesus of Nazareth, God the Son in flesh. All who believe that this Jesus is the Son of God, belonged in the kingdom of God promised to the Jews.