I was going through posts from many years ago and came across this one, on an issue I’ve always thought was unusually interesting: if the writer of the Gospel of Matthew (whoever that was) and the apostle Paul had been locked in a room and not allowed to emerge until they had hammered out a consensus statement on how one attains eternal life, would they still be in there, possibly with their skeletons locked in a mutual death grip? I didn’t put it that way when I posted this so long ago, but I was younger and milder then I suppose.
Here’s how I expressed it then. What do you think?
*****************************************************************
One of my major goals as a professor of New Testament is to get my students to understand that the NT is not a single entity with a solid and consistent message. There are numerous authors who were writing at different times, in different parts of the world, to different audiences, and with different – sometimes strikingly different – understandings about important issues. In fact, about key issues, such as who Jesus was and what his role was in salvation.
One of the assignments that I used to give was to have students compare Matthew’s view of salvation with that found in Paul. Specifically, what is the role of doing what the Law demands and of doing good deeds? If someone abides by the law and does good deeds for others – will that bring about salvation?
The way I get them to think about those questions is by looking at two passages, one in Matthew and the other in Paul. The first is Matthew’s version of the “rich young ruler” (he’s actually not a “young ruler” in any of the Gospel accounts; in one he’s young and in another he’s a ruler: but that’s just what the passage is typically called). According to this passage, how does one receive eternal life? Here’s the passage.
Interested in seeing what comes next? Join the Blog! It won’t cost much and you will receive five posts a week on intriguing topics connected with the historical Jesus, the writings of the New Testament, and the history of earliest Christianity. And every penny of your fee will go to help those in need. So why not?
“ you can’t get to heaven On your good deeds”
That’s what these people at Thornton Pool back in the early 60’s used to say everyday. They were there every day in the summer.
I figured out, even back then it was because they never did any good deeds. I never heard of them or recognized any of them other than them being there in the summer proselytizing ha
It would be so helpful if God, as the Divine Editor, would iron out all these differences by sending us a revised and updated revision of the Bible much as scholars do every few years or so with their textbooks.
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter. And the glory of kings to search it out….
Proverbs 25:2
Using the phrase “God concealing a matter” is a poetic attempt to justify intentional torture of human beings by this Creator/God keeping understanding of the natural world beyond the reach of human knowledge. Attempting to make our natural evolution a spiritually mysterious element inherent in a Diety’s plan —debases the long suffering, and bloody path that the human animal has experienced. Over time the mental capacity for reason became a primary characteristic of modern humans. Harnessed by cultural norms and driven by ever more sophisticated technology, we discover and invent our way to ever better understanding of the “matter”, the hiding of which the above writer describes as “God’s glory”. The price paid for this “glory of God” is measured in billions of lives and unimaginable magnitudes of human suffering (and the suffering of our pre-human ancestors over millions of years). The current pandemic is only the latest rendition of suffering based in lack of knowledge. Such is the Moral Bankruptcy of theist thought that it seeks to justify such an evil conception of a Cosmic Play by referring to it as “God’s glory”.
I have always thought that Jesus’ reply to the young man about selling all his wealth was to let him know that his unwillingness to give up his wealth meant that he valued his wealth more than obeying God, and thus he was violating the most fundamental of all the commandments which was to place God above everything else. For him his wealth was his God. I don’t think that there is any other passage in the Gospels where Jesus commands a wealthy person to divest himself of all his possessions and he does know other wealthy persons. While Jesus goes on in this chapter to tell how difficult is for a rich man (the eye of the needle comparison), he doesn’t say it is impossible, but adds, ” For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.”
Did the writer of Matthew know about Paul? Since Paul died more than 20 years before the Gospel was written. Could it be possible that the writer heard about Paul’s message and disagreed with him?
He gives no solid evidence he did, no. But it’s certainly possible.
The writer of “Luke” wrote a great deal about Paul in the book of “Acts”. Both writers of “Matthew” and “Luke” used the same source materials to write their Gospels. So I find it hard to believe that the writer of “Matthew” did not know of Paul and his messaging. Which makes me feel that he probably heard of Paul’s view on how one the attains eternal life.
I’d say there’s almost no evidence that *Luke* had read the letters of Paul we have, and actually good evidence that he did not.
Yes I know that the author of Luke wrote different accounts of Paul then that of his letters. So one could say that Luke did not read Paul’s letters. But regardless of that Paul is still mentioned in “Acts”. I debate myself sometimes if I should trust Paul’s own word at times in his letters or go with the outsider perspective on Paul in “Acts”, even if it’s pass down through oral tradition.
For example, look at Galatians 1:18-20. I don’t know that this is true but, I feel Paul may have exaggerated the truth here.
It goes deeper sir. I bet you have a brilliant way to.reconcile what is being said by Jesus here. Presuming the narrative is hinting at Jesus seeing into the man’s life.
How do your students attempt to make the Matthew and Paul passages consistent?
They say that when Jesus says follow him and you will have riches in heaven, he means what Paul means that you have to have faith.
It’s spooky that this post should arrive today as I was musing earlier whether, had St Paul somehow managed to attend (and speak at) the Council of Nicaea, (by time machine presumably), he would have been denounced as a heretic. As to the crux of this post, I, for one, cannot reconcile Jesus’s and Paul’s versions of the salvation criteria unless one argues that Jesus was talking pre-crucifixion and Paul was talking post-crucifixion. But then it would have be nice of Jesus to have made that clear.
Completely off-topic! Did you ever interact with Kurt or Barbara Aland with respect to the Western non-interpolations? Kurt was pretty negative regarding Westcott & Hort and it sometimes sounds like he strong-armed the GNT3 committee. Has your support for W&H won the day? Is there still (or perhaps even more of a) German/Europe vs US/English-speaking divide on this issue?
A bit. Kurt thought I was a dumb American whippersnapper. We only met once. But it did involve spending an evening in their apartment smoking cigars! Barbara and I had more contact over the years — she is a lovely person. She liked Orthodox Corruption but I don’t think we talked about teh non-interpolatinos. The reason they were so dead set against Westcott and Hort, in my opinion, is that the text they spent so many decades on based on so muhc more work and a somewhat different theory ended up looking almost exactly like Westcott and Hort’s. You gotta justify your work and all the hours and money that went into it!
The Bible seems to provide ways to avoid doing good acts. Most shocking is the rationalization that suffering prepares people for heaven. This was Mother Teresa’s rationale for allowing her poor, sick patients to suffer while she swam in the cash from charitable donations and jet-setted around the world. Another rationale that it seems many Christians use allows them to focus on weekly worship rather than good deeds. In the stories recorded in the Bible, Jesus himself fed some people and did a few healings but he didn’t do as much as one might think that a god could do. To have a message like “love thy neighbor” spread through the world and persist through generations, because of human nature, it can’t go as an unadorned message, it has to have a cult built around it, a cult that has a personality that will engage everyone who hears the message. Of necessity, the cult becomes bigger than the message. So, to your question Bart, I think the persistence of the cult is the primary concern of the cult and its messages are secondary therefore Paul’s message wins out.
The new testament is so shrouded in contradictions and vagueness that it can be interpreted a thousand different ways for a thousand people. It justifies a form of salvation based on faith alone, as well as a salvation based on super devoted worship. It’s such a brilliant marketing scheme that it’s hard to believe it wasn’t on purpose lol
When we look at the latter portion of Matthew 25, we find that those who did the acts listed (feed the hungry, etc) – will have “life eternal”.
Mat 25:45-46 KJV
Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
I see more Paul as the Vicomte de Valmont in Les Liaisons Dangereuses that tries to seduce the virtuous and difficult Madame de Tourvel (Matthew).
In a very famous scene of director Stephen Frears’s film adaptation, John Malkovich (Vicomte de Valmont) confronts Madame de Tourvel (Michelle Pfeiffer) with his vanity and sense of self-control and also, more important, with his honest love.
To all of Madame de Tourvel’s solicitations, appeals, and insults, he simply repeats obsessively: “It’s beyond my control.”
The Marquise de Merteuil had promised Valmont that if he seduced Madame de Tourvel and provided her with written proof of seduction, she would spend the night with him.
The Marquise de Merteuil represents the early church and is the puppeteer beyond Paul’s action and deeds (the later re-write obviously) but in his terrible defeat, the Vicomte de Valmont aims his gun to the Church vanity, its dishonesty.
Paul says: “As for this present infatuation, it won’t last; but for the moment, it’s beyond my control” a phrase that would be repeated later and thrown toward Madame de Tourvel and the later Church, for saecula saeculorum.
I would love feedback/criticism of this theory. There’s three things I would consider:
1. The language is different “keep” as opposed to “work”
In Luke 18:21 “keep” is G5442
in Matthew 19:17 “keep” is G5083
in Mark 10:20 “keep” is G5442
This is guarding and treasuring not just observance:
https://studybible.info/search-interlinear/strongs/G5442
https://studybible.info/search-interlinear/strongs/G5083
2. The Essene context that “works of the law” has https://www.jstor.org/stable/4193122 suggest this was obtaining salvation through observances and purity rather than Mathew’s list of substantial matters and heart/attitude conditions Matt 19:18-19 (Jesus the new covenant mediator focuses on heart: Matthew 5:38~, Jer 31:33)
3. Galatians is using “law” for “Sinai law.” Paul’s not comparing the “old” and “new” covenants but the unconditional-blessings given to Abraham with conditional-blessings at Sinai (which Israel broke). He’s using the covenant of Abraham as an analogy for repenting and accepting mercy (Jeremiah 3:12-14) with the work of Christ and grace compared with justifying yourself through “works of law” and being susceptible to Sinai curses: Gal 3:16-18, Gal 3:10-12, Deuteronomy 27:26. Likewise in Romans 10:5-10 Paul compares the Moab covenant to Sinai with quotes from Lev 18:5 and Deut 30:11-14. Some Jewish tradition considers Sinai lacking and hence the need for Moab: https://www1.biu.ac.il/indexE.php?id=15430&pt=1&pid=14638&level=0&cPath=43,14206,14376,14638,15430 Paul uses a similar analogy in Galatians 4:21~
Interesting points!
EXCELLENT!!!
Thanks for your consideration and considerable effort in your reply.
Tally HOOOOH, what a Site!
Re “Matthew’s view of salvation”
Matthew doesn’t give his “view of salvation”, he quoted Jesus.
You are also confusing, for whatever reason, the different meanings of the word “law.”
Jesus tested the rich man on his observance of the law. But what law was Paul and Jesus speaking of?
In the bible there are the Ordinances (dietary rules, Tabernacle, Holy days etc.), the Judgments (property, inheritance, divorce etc.) and the Commandments (the moral law regards stealing, killing etc.) Jesus preached only the Commandments and made them more onerous. As Jeremiah put it, the new covenant would be written in the heart, not in rules or symbols.
Thus there is “no law” in the NT, but over a thousand moral exhortations to obey. Half of every saying of Jesus and half of every verse of Paul’s speak to these requirements. Both men stated the Levitical and Deuteronomical commandments were not enough in themselves to be in Moses’ “book of life.”
And the story of the “rich man” shows this perfectly – he was a good man, clearly impressed by Jesus, but there was nothing written in his heart.
The way I interpret the author of Matthew’s view is that yes, Jesus died for our sins (the basis for Christianity), but that only counts if people live moral lives.
Paul also believed that Jesus died for our sins, but appeared to believe that only faith in Jesus mattered for salvation and that if works mattered then Jesus died for nothing.
I’m very curious how someone can reconcile these differing views.
I’ve given this some thought and have a slightly different view on it now. My thoughts on Matthew haven’t changed, but I think I have a better understanding on what he was saying.
Slaves of Righteousness
15 What then? Should we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that you, having once been slaves of sin, have become obedient from the heart to the form of teaching to which you were entrusted, 18 and that you, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. [Romans 6:15-18]
Paul appears to have believed that only faith in Jesus mattered for salvation, but that having faith in Jesus *causes* someone who become a slave of righteousness (i.e. live moral lives).
In my view, both Matthew and Paul are stressing that faith,works, grace, mercy keeping the law are all requirements in the person you become. In Matthew, Jesus sensed this rich ruler was cocky( prideful)and introduced abject poverty to him knowing he will not accept it.. For Paul, being an ex Pharisee, may still have believed in traditions of the fathers. Lev. 18; 5 So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them; I am the Lord. Ezek. 20;11 I gave them my statutes and showed them my ordinances, by whose observance everyone shall live. Israel for Paul, was disobedient throughout the past, so Jesus,for him, became a redeemer for all the sins we/he could not possibly overcome on our own and thus he thinks practicing a little bit of everything,faith, works, mercy and the Laws helps in your progress of a Christlike person. Similar Scriptures; Gal.2;16 Gal.3;10,12, Rom.2;13, Rom.3;20. For Paul the Law was a pre-requisite and still important, but Jesus became the Savior(ultimate sacrifice), the Grace we all needed. Matthew and Paul are reconcilable for me. Challenging post!
I don’t think the reconciliation is all that complicated. The authors of Matthew’s gospel and Paul’s letters wrote at different times to substantially different constituencies, when post-crucifixion Christian communities had widely varying beliefs, and neither author’s views would have been accepted as correct and complete by members of the other community. Each author and its community carried the Christian torch that made sense to them. Paul and the Matthew author almost certainly would never have come to an entirely aligned view, even if they could find some overlap, and their skeletons would likely still be locked in combat. That is a good thing. ‘The more diversity the more better.’
I think you’re explaining the *reason* for the contradiction, not resolving it.
If Paul and the Matthew author are at least partially reconcilable as to the required basis for achieving eternal life, it is only in the apparently shared belief (in total for Paul, but only a partial resolution for the Matthew author) that salvation derives from the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Paul would have to patiently ignore, as unnecessary, supplemental compliance by Matthew’s followers with the recited commandments for achieving a good life and becoming perfect. However, that limited reconciliation runs afoul of your instruction not to assume that the referenced excerpts use different words to say the same thing, and also requires the respondent to find other evidence outside the excerpts. Conclusion: a tenuous, limited reconciliation.
Back in my evangelical days I probably would have read this in my trusty Charles Ryrie NASB Study Bible, whose footnote for v.21 & 22 says
” The man was being asked to prove his claim to have kept the Commandments especially the one that says “thou shall love thy neighbour as myself“ His unwillingness to do so (v.22) belied his claim in verse 20 and showed him as a sinner in need of salvation. “
I probably would have taken this as an example that no one can keep the commandments , and so therefore the need to be saved through faith alone blah blah blah, and therefore voila! No contradiction between Paul and Jesus!
I think they would have agreed just fine because Paul too writes in 1 Cor 7:19 “Keeping God’s commandments is what matters.” Hence, “works of the Law” must refer to something else. Isn’t the context where Paul writes about it always the Covenant of Circumcision? I think Paul is actually saying that in the New Covenant faith — not circumcision — justifies man. That would also explain why it is only jews by birth who knows this: Gal 2:15 “We who are Jews by birth […] know that a man is not justified by works of the Law, but by faith in Jesus Christ.”
Have you ever asked the question, “was Jesus intending to describe how to inherit eternal life?” Or was he solely asking these questions to get to the very internal issue related to the rich young ruler’s heart? Like many other times, Jesus knee the man’s heart and the very issue related to this man. His tight grip on his worldly possessions. The man approached Jesus as a rich young ruler, he left understanding himself to be a slave to his material wealth. That’s the purpose of this story, not to describe how to inherit eternal life. There’s no discrepancy here.
Right, maybe Jesus decided he didn’t want to answer the question!
What publisher you use for indonesia version?
I don’t use a publisher. A publisher arranges for a translation and then does it, without consulting me at all. So far as I know, the only book I ahve that has been translated into Indonesian is Misquoting Jesus, though of course I do not know what it’s title in translation is.
Furthermore, you’re exemplifying the very reason why Christians CAN NOT view the New Testament as anything less than a complete work. The Bible must be interpreted as a whole. If the nature and completion came about by people carried along by the Holy Spirit, it must be viewed as a whole. You can point out that Matthew’s gospel doesn’t address the question about how a person becomes right with God, but you can’t say it’s a discrepancy. It’s only a discrepancy because of your methodology. If you change your methodology, the way you view the Bible, there’s no contradiction. Just because Paul writes deep theology doesn’t make him at odds over Matthew. That is an enormous reach. Matthew May have never been given the theological revelation and given the mysteries of God, that Paul was afforded. Matthew was called to write his gospel exactly as is. You must take the Bible as a whole.
“You must take the Bible whole.” bible anthology of 66-73 books, history, letters, etc. who can understand that all. We are humans & not divine.
from undergrad, expelled from the church i grew up in, i made commitment to learn the bible so well no one could cheat me out of it.
&to that i began a decade later in Shanghai. but upon returning toSF BayArea 3+ yearsago, this society creates problems & strife not endured inChina- where i could bebetter. here it’s help i fallen & i can’t get up!
“If God doesn’t punish America, He’ll have to apologize to Sodom&Gomorrah”
She was probably thinking of a passage in Ezekiel where God tells why He brought those cities to ruin. “Now this was the sin of … Sodom: She &her daughters were arrogant, overfed &unconcerned; they did not help the poor &needy. They were haughty &did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen”
I wonder what Ruth would think of America if she were alive today. In the years since she made that remark, millions of babies aborted & nation seems largely unconcerned. Self-centered indulgence, pride, &lack of shame over sin now emblems of the American lifestyle
I think I would need to understand what Paul meant by “justification”. In Mathew Jesus is asked what is necessary for eternal life and the answer is, keeping a specific set of commandments. Paul is not using the term “eternal life” but “justification”. Should we understand justification and eternal life to be the same things? Why doesn’t Paul refer to eternal life? So, insufficient data. I’d never be able to pass your course.
Try this: if justification is equivalent to eternal life then contradiction. If justification is a prerequisite for eternal life, then contradiction. If justification is equivalent to Mathew’s perfection, no contradiction but then we ask, what sort of eternal life is available to those who only keep the law?
And when you add “faith without works is dead”, the picture gets even more “through a glass, darkly”. To me, Paul’s outreach to the Gentiles made it imperative to minimize the Law and maximize faith. So what do we do with Jesus’ teachings on who will be gathered on the ‘right” side in heaven…those who feed, clothe and care for his sheep. Seems this does more to advance the Kingdom than a statement of faith…..
It seems as though a central difference is that Jesus talks about attaining eternal life, while Paul talks about justification. Could you please explain what Paul means when using the word “justified”?
It means being given a “right standing” before God, which is the only way a person, for Paul, can have salvation and eternal life.
Thank you for that clarification. So then to answer your question, I’d have to say that they clearly don’t agree. That seems obvious. What I find interesting is that we’re really encountering two different Jesus figures here – one living and speaking for himself and one dead/resurrected and purportedly speaking through Paul. So I could see how a theologian might want to say something like, well when JC was living and teaching, the way to salvation was as it is recorded in Matthew, but *after* the resurrection the rules changed and now Paul’s way is right. But we’re not doing theology here, and despite Matthean soteriology, we still need to acknowledge that we’re comparing a direct quote from Jesus vs a direct quote from Paul. So that being said, I will plant my feet firmly on the side of disagreement. To do otherwise would be taking liberties in which dutiful historians can not indulge.
I’d go even farther and say we have at least three: the living speaking Jesus; Jesus as he was living and speaking in Matthew’s version of his life; and Paul’s understanding.
Much has been said by the Doctors of the Church like Aquinas on Grace and salvation but, the two views still persist and boil down to a matter of conscience. Can Jesus “wash away your sins” or does it take following the laws and making amends, confession, and restitution? Or can you pick and choose verses to follow? For Jews, there is no heavenly kingdom thus, the Law is what is important.
Doesn’t Matt 19:16-22 collide with Matt 25:31-46 (The Sheep and Goats) where just keeping the commandments was not how the goats were separated for eternal punishment? If Jesus (through Matthew) believed that faith alone was necessary, why bother talking about inaction and not doing enough with the bounty that you were given (story just prior to the goats)?
Paul never references such parables in his writing. One wonders if he referenced any of them during his preaching. It’s hard to imagine Paul being an effective recruiter without the stories and teachings, but it’s interesting that we get the sense that he doesn’t know them. Perhaps this was an evolution of Christianity…..from the kingdon is coming soon to more of a call to action with the later Gospels. Yes, Jesus brought salvation, but how you lived your life still mattered.
The same story exists in Mark and Luke. Would you say that there is a significant difference between the three passages with respect to the question you discuss in this post (i.e., what is needed for eternal life)?
If there is one I do not see it. If there is no significant difference, why do you focus on Matthew?
Yes, as it turns out, I have my students do a careful, word for word analysis of the way the passage is worded in all three Gospels as an excercise. There are really significant differences. Notice, for example, what the man calls Jesus and how his question is exactly worded in each, and which commandments are listed.
By “the commandments”, do you think he meant just the Ten commandments or all the moral parts of the Law (as opposed to the ritual laws and kosher laws)? Because Paul seems to think that it’s important to keep the moral laws as well – I don’t see him saying “stealing and fornication are alright as long as you believe in Christ.” (And which set of Ten commandments, there are two versions).
And in Matthew 25:35-36 ( For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’) there seems to be no requirement to even worship God. So is Matthew even internally consistent or could this be an example of two sources being spliced together and the seams showing, like with John?
Unfortunately, he doesn’t say! But he certainly doesn’t list laws involving kosher foods, festival observance, circumcisionm or oxes goring one’s neighbor….
““stealing &fornication are alright as long as you believe in Christ.” that is ridiculous! those that spout this ned to get to know what is required to be an overcomer [as those mentioned in book of Revelation]!
that’s how usa evangelists [not Christians] elected trump. with their perverse& distorted reasonings. A few years ago, ODB preacher spouted this: it is OK to sin as long as U are walking with God.
My cult real aunt says: i wasn’t walking with God [in the light]. I told her certainly not! i know not to disobey the 10 commandments, sermon on the Mount/Plain; & if i have a contrary feeling, that feeling is NOT the Holy Spirit!
Lord promised the Laodiceans, “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, & am set down with my Father in his throne”
Good question Bart;
– though are you asking whether Paul regards the commandments of the Law as normative for all followers of Christ (whether Jew or non-Jew); or are you asking whether, by seeking to fufill the commandments, Jew and non-Jew may attain eternal life?
On the first form of the question, surely Romans 13:8-10 is almost word for word the same as Matthew 19? Paul does indeed expect non-Jews who are followers of Christ to follow the commandments of the Law. As indeed he does himself..
The second form of the question has been variously understood; but Paul does seem to distinguish between those followers of Christ, like him, who are Jews ‘by nature’ (Galatians 2:15), and those who are grafted onto the Law ‘against nature’ (Romans 11:24). The former can indeed attain eternal life simply by full obedience to the Law; and Romans 11 says that will be true (eventually) of the whole of faithful Israel. God does not go back on his promises. But those (unlike Paul) grafted onto the Law ‘against nature’ can only attain eternal life through the Grace of Jesus Christ (Romans 7 21-25).
Great article Dr. Ehrman!
I stumbled upon this today: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/12/what-did-paul-know-about-jesus-not-much/
This is an article I can’t believe it’s written by a scholar favoring traditional Christianity!
I think the same website where Mr. Randy Alcorn posted Dr. Ehrman’s book review.
Coming back to this article, in the end, Bob Seidensticker (presumably a christian author) writes, ‘The Gospel of Paul is more evidence that the Jesus story is a legend that grew with time.’
!!Christian author seems to say Paul’s Jesus is legendary or if that line alone is read without reading the whole article, he says the story of Jesus itself is legendary!
Back to Dr. Ehrman’s proposal to analyse the contradiction between Matthew’s Jesus and Paul’s, I think Paul’s view of Jesus is somewhat straight forward – no mention of miracles, or virgin birth but salvation by believing Jesus died for our sins. But it’s perplexing how the gospel writers (Mathew here) manage to get both the views approved among believers! That is, salvation through good works in the beginning of the narrative where Jesus speaks and the same salvation only by believing that Jesus died for our sins or both I think from the start of the Crucifixion narrative!
I’m sorry, Bob Seidensticker had described himself as an atheist. My bad, I got it wrong as I saw his post on a christian website. But his posts are interesting! He explores intellectual arguments in favor of Christianity (Christian apologetics) from an atheist perspective.
A link just in case to see his interview as proof that he’s an atheist: http://www.seattleatheists.org/membership/featured-member/bob-seidensticker/
He’s an active member of the blog!!
Is this a question that is answered by covenantal nomism? That Jews enter the covenant by virtue of their ancestry to Abraham (who obtained salvation by faith) but remain in the covenant through obedience to the law.
The rich young ruler is Jewish, so he is already within the covenant. For him to remain in it, and thus to have eternal life, he must keep the commandments.
Paul is addressing Gentiles and is discussing entry into the covenant (justification). Elsewhere in Galatians and his other epistles, Paul stresses the need to lead an ethical life (by following the ethical commandments), at points saying outright that those who do not, will not inherit the kingdom of God (1Cor6:9-10 and Gal5:19-20).
Interesting idea. The problem is that Paul decidedly did *not* think that Jews were in the covenant still if they rejected Jesus, God’s messiah; and doing the law would never help them. Thus his letters to the Romans and, esp. Galatians (1-4)
I’m open-minded on this because Paul goes back and forth on it several times, but I’m slightly more inclined to think that Paul taught Jews who did not follow Jesus were still in the old covenant, and thus would be resurrected and judged according to their deeds, but those who follow Jesus into the new covenant would be judged according to his righteousness – thus guaranteeing salvation.
Romans 11:1-12 (esp. v11) seems to side with this interpretation, that they have stumbled, but not fallen. That the old covenant is their backstop against total condemnation, but not guaranteeing salvation, as that would depend on how ethical they led their life (judged according to their deeds).
Of course, they could guarantee salvation by placing their faith in Jesus – but if they didn’t, they wouldn’t automatically be condemned. That would depend on their deeds – their ethical behaviour in this life.
The Matthew comment does not seem to say anything about a crucifixion.
Paul believing the Cross to be centerpiece logically rejects that the law brings salvation because, by his own words, Jesus would have died for nothing,
The crucifixion narrative is the elephant in the room. Paul back-engineered the “salvation by the blood of Jesus” “method” because, like he says, the Crucifixion otherwise doesn’t make any sense. We should be questioning Paul’s logic for it is this that makes no sense — salvation by Crucifixion. The idea is preposterous, yet seems to have been just the right medicine for brining pagans, but not Jews, into the flock.
Tried to comment on this but access was denied.
Not sure what you mean!
I think the tension between them here is seen even within their own writings. The both believed christ had to die to save the world and that therefore the law alone couldn’t bring salvation. But that didn’t mean the whole of the law could be completely ignored. You still have to do good.
Jesus in Matthew is asked what commandments to follow. His response is not “all of them” but a select few that we’d still agree on today. The yoke or burden of the law is unnecessary.
Sort of an aside, I guess, but once again I am struck by how for a guy who allegely did not believe in heaven or hell, Jesus sure spent a lot of time explaining how to get into or avoid getting into them.
He talks a *lot* about the Kingdom of God; and he describes the “destruction” for those who will not enter. But in neither case is he talking about a place your soul goes to when you die. Read my book!
I hope to read your book soon, but may I ask if it deals with the interpretation of what the Kingdom is by the grandchildren of Jude? When Domintan questioned them about it, they answered “it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude,_brother_of_Jesus#Descendants)
If 1st century Christians within 50-60 years of Christ held this interpretation, perhaps this was how it was conceived within the first generation of Christians? That they expected a heavenly (rather than earthly) kingdom to be established at the apocalypse where Christ would personally govern.
No, I don’t recall ever dealing with the issue in writing. I’ts an intriguing passage though. You may want to read it in its original source instead of a snipped off a webpage — that usually helps.
While both views have Jesus’ death as being similar, the two views are obviously different. My question is that since we say that Paul influenced the way the gospels were written, why does Matthew and the other gospels have a different view than Paul?
Actually, I don’t think Paul influenced the way the Gospels were written.
Ah! Ok. I thought I had remembered you mentioning that since Paul’s writings were before the gospels, that even if the gospel writers did not have access to Paul’s writings, there still would be some influence since it was primarily Paul’s teachings that won out rather than Jesus and his apostles’ teachings.
They were definitely before the Gospels, but there’s no clear evidence that they influenced teh Gospels; the best case could be made for Mark, which has a similar view of Jesus’ death; and Matthwe could be a reaction against Paul, but it *could* be a reaction against others who had a similar view. In all cases, we just don’t know Paul’s views didn’t win out until much later.
I’m not sure these are the best translations, and realize that focusing only on single verses can be problematic, but Paul also says: “If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing” and “if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing”
If giving everything you own to the poor can amount to nothing, that seems like a disagreement with Matthew. Apparently having faith to move mountains can also amount to nothing. Is faith then, even for Paul, really enough? It seems that for Paul, how one treats others matters a lot.
This is like comparing Apostles to OrQs. In the excerpts you are referring to they may be primarily making relative points rather than absolute ones. Also, as always, you are trying to look at it from a supposed historical standpoint rather than a literary one. As far as what “Matthew” wrote, it is based mainly on what his source “Mark” wrote so it’s difficult to distinguish how much of the excerpt is mainly because it was in his source (and as far as we know GMark was the only Gospel narrative that existed at the time) and how much was because it was what “Matthew” believed.
The original story in GMark has a primary literary theme of irony. By giving up your assets in this world you will have assets in the next world (just sounds like a broker to me). The point is clear in GMark since it is made at the end with no qualifications and then a Micah drop (Per Micah/Isaiah/Jewish Bible good deeds is what’s important). “Matthew” qualifies with adding following Jesus so it’s unclear if following The Jewish Bible is enough. Sounds like Paul (Paul has implications that it is enough for Jews).
I think Matthew and Paul, tho the former used phrase “eternal life” and the latter “justification”, both meant “correct relationship with God”
It is too much of a stretch to think Matthew’s Jesus was in any manner implying “immortality on earth” .
I think that is indeed what he was saying — not eternal life for your soul in heaven. But Paul was also talking about immortality on earth.
Dr. Ehrman,
How would you translate Romans 6:2? The KJV translators translated it as “God forbid”. Modern translations vary such as “Absolutely not”, “By no means”, etc. Paul poses the question, “Shall we go on sinning, so that grace may increase?”. The Greek text reads mh genoito. There’s a lot of debate about the best rendering.
Literally it means “May it never be!” I had a friend at Wheaton who like to say “God’s Teeth, NO!”
To whom were they speaking? Jesus was speaking to a Jewish rich young man and told him the minimum of what was necessary to be saved: follow the commandments. By telling him to sell what he had Jesus pointed out that he had not followed them because he loved his riches more than God. To reach the stage of being perfect the man would have to follow Jesus. it was at this point that Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. When gaining wealth is the focus then loving God and loving your fellow man take the backseat if they remain significant to the rich at all.
Paul on the other hand was talking to Christians, most likely Jewish converts because he spoke of the LAW. They had already accepted the teachings of Christ and as a result should be attempting to reach the perfection which Christ spoke about. They would be justified by attempting to live as Jesus taught, and NOT the minimum of living by the Law..
Bart: I’d like to raise a somewhat related question regarding salvation. In the Gospel of John, Chapter 4, Jesus meets the Samaritan woman at the well and at one point, he says to her: “Salvation is from the Jews.” Could you explain what Jesus may have meant by “salvation”? Is it something here on earth, or does he mean the afterlife? I believe Christians have traditionally interpreted this to mean the afterlife, but Jesus may have meant something else entirely.
Regarding Paul in particular: Paul seems to imply that it is faith, and faith alone, that guarantees eternal life. My personal opinion is that if someone has been a good person their entire life and has dedicated themselves to helping others, and if God were to deny eternal life to that person on the basis that they do not have faith in Jesus, if that is indeed what Paul preaches, then this is a heinous teaching and Paul’s god is not worth worshiping.
In the context of the Gospel of John, he is referring to “eternal life”
I think Jesus intended to be the king in Gods kingdom on earth, rather than be executed. He would have been shocked that people believed he died for their salvation, and even more so that his death made Jewish law obsolete. Both Matthew and Paul were wrong.
Both Paul [Gal. 15. 13] and Matthew [several places] speak of loving your neighbor as encapsulating the “law.” And it seems to me that both Paul and Matthew emphasize the importance of God’s grace [although Matthew says forgiveness rather than grace]. But the conditions to receive God’s grace are very different. In Paul the condition to receive God’s grace is to have faith in Christ’s atoning death and resurrection [and be baptized]. But Matthew’s Jesus, at the end of the Lord’s prayer [Mt. 6, 14-15], says “if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.”
Someone raised the question as to whether Matthew was aware of Paul. I’d guess yes, on the grounds that the controversy between Paul and the “Judaizers” must have been well known. And and he was certainly influenced by Paul through Mark, where Paul’s influence seems quite direct IMO.
When I was a believer, the way it was taught to me was that Jesus underscored that the law was ultimately in force, it must be fulfilled, then he himself fulfilled it in his life and sacrificial atonement. Why? Because the law cannot possibly be fulfilled by any human being, which is why Jesus asks “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good…” Then Paul unpacks it for us after the fact. If you’re a Christian who believes that God orchestrated all of this, it fits together rather well. Once you recognize that there is no God, it’s far easier to see the cracks. My favorite question to ask people lately is, “Do you want to believe what is true? Or simply what you want to believe?”
Why does Jesus, in Mt. 22:37, call, ” Loving God with all your heart, soul and mind; the great and first commandment.” Yet when in Mt. 19:17ff, Jesus says, “If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” And the young man says, “Which?” Here Jesus includes only, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But he leaves out the far more important and foundational, “You shall love the Lord Your God with all your heart soul and mind.” Does it have anything to do with Matthew’s big emphasis as in Mt. 7:21 [of *actually* doing the will of the Father] as opposed to just saying “Lord, Lord?” One might say, ritual observance and concern for religious standing as opposed to actually loving your fellow human beings. If this is the case, then I don’t see any conflict with Paul. In fact, I see in Matthew, shades of James, as in Js. 2:17, “So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.” It seems like the young man in Mt. 22 was captive to meaningless score keeping and Jesus was trying to “shake” him out of this bondage.
I think the only way to reconcile the two, is by looking at the audience. Matthew is copying Jesus’ words to the Jews; Paul is writing to Gentiles. Here’s another way to ask your question that makes my brain hurt: Does pre-death Jesus agree with post-death Jesus on salvation standards? Matthew 25 is most likely something Jesus as it meets the criteria you discuss often. Paul swears on God in Galatians that he was chilling with Jesus in Arabia for 3 years, and that’s where he picked up the philosophy he writes about. If both sources are historically credible (at least as far as Paul believes he was with Jesus), then one of the following is the case: 1) Jesus has different standards for Jew and gentile, 2) Jesus’ ethereal transition enlightened to new ideas 3) Paul’s a liar 4) Paul was fooled by an imposter
To me, much in Matthew has to do with *what it means* to follow Jesus (in the broadest sense of the word.) And what life in the kingdom looks like. (Hence all the “kingdom” parables.) Eternal life seems to be simply (but in a profound way) an extension of life in the kingdom. In Matthew, Jesus seems to be saying that eternal life isn’t a goal or a destination, but a relationship; with God and with ones fellow man. The young man seems to be oblivious to this foundational truth. He’s overlooking how he should be living in the here and now; loving God and loving his neighbor, (Mt. 22:37-40). Instead, he’s hung up on checking off items on a moral “to do” list in order to *have* eternal life. Jesus says what he says, in order to shake the young man loose from his smug complacency.
Lest there be any misunderstanding as to what ultimately *saves* you or brings you to eternal life, Matthew states, Mt. 1:21. *He* (Jesus) will save his people from their sins.” And in Mt. 19:25, “With *man* this is impossible, but with *God* all things are possible.”
“What good deed must I do to have eternal life?” This question contains an assumption that the doing of (certain) deeds will get the man eternal life. If that assumption is incorrect, I would expect Jesus to clear that up with his response or validate the assumption by not addressing it, but Jesus just asks the man a question in return that seems almost unresponsive, more of a “how do YOU know what is good?” However, we do get what seems to be a direct response to the question (but without a clarification of the man’s assumption). “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” The man goes on to ask “which ones”, but Jesus has answered him and the answer was: if you wish to enter life, keep the commandments. Is this given as a sufficient condition or just a necessary one? I don’t know that there’s enough here to answer that.
The man doesn’t seem convinced that keeping the commandments is all he needs to do, however, because he basically follows up with a “ok, and what else?” His follow up contains an assumption that there IS more so I would expect Jesus to either…
…validate the assumption by not addressing it or correct the man’s assumption. Jesus says, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions…” Jesus seems to be saying you must be perfect to have eternal life since the question which prompted the response is [“what do I still lack” to have eternal life, other than keeping the commandments]; unlikely Jesus is making a non sequitur here. So, it seems Jesus is saying you have to be perfect to enter eternal life and the way to be perfect is to keep the commandments, give all possessions to the poor, and follow me. Each are necessary but none are sufficient.
In Galatians, Paul speaks about being “justified”, which I assume means attaining a state sufficient to receive eternal life. Paul says a person does not achieve this state through Path A, but through Path B, that the state is achieved by Path B and not by Path A, and no one achieves this state by Path A. This clearly suggests Path A is not sufficient BUT could the way Paul states it leave room for Path A still being necessary, maybe an integral part of Path B?
Mr ehrman I would like to be your partner in distributing your book to be translated in Indonesian language, because it’s no longer available I guess it’s very rare, Indonesian is one language taht your book been translated into
I don’t have any say about who tranlsates my books; an Indonesian publisher would need to initiate the translation, so you would have to be in touch with them.
I was wondering if you could comment on the scholarship of John Spong.
He placed heavy emphasis on the Jewishness of the gospel authors, on Jesus and his early followers and events that happened during the first century of the common era.
He says that without viewing events through a “Jewish lens”, one could never hope to understand what was happening.
Thanks.
Peter
Bishop Spong is not a biblical scholar but an observer of scholarship who has a very fine ability to connect with the broader public. But he is not trained int he field or published in it, as a scholar. The Jewishness of Jesus is of utmost important; I do not think, though, that the Gospel writers were necessarily Jewish; I’m sure Luke was not and am pretty sure about Mark and John.
Hey Professor Ehrman,
I was just wondering, weren’t the “works of the law” for Paul works that concerned the jews? Didn’t Paul teach that one also had to live a decent life and refrain from sin in order to gain a right standing with God? I know you probably have already thought of this, but would Matthew really be contradicting Paul if that was Paul’s view?
Paul’s thought is very complicated on this point. The briefest version I can come up with is this: A person is made right with God only by believing in Jesus’ death and resurrection, not by keeping the requirements of the law. God’s requirements cannot be kept by anyone who does not have the Spirit of God in them. WHen someone believes and is baptized, they receive God’s spirit, so then they are enabled to refrain from sin (but not before). So one simply cannot escape the power of sin without faith and baptism in Christ.
Dr. Ehrman, do you think perhaps the rich young ruler did as Jesus said?
See Mark 14:51
A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52 he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.
Just an idea…
-matt
The second man appears to be being introduced for the first tie in ch. 14; I don’t see anything in the text to suggest it was the other fellow.
I thought I was on to something. Jesus told the ruler to rid himself of everything and “follow me.” Then this mysterious guy shows up, following Jesus until the last possible moment, and leaves his (presumably) last remaining possession at the scene of the arrest. At any rate, it appears as though Matthew and Luke did not know what to make of this mysterious naked guy either! Thanks for your time, Dr. Ehrman!
-matt