Thanks Robert!
I appreciate the response. You’re exactly right about the disciples and Jesus himself anticipating the end was within their lifetime. I have struggled to articulate the erroneous interpretation found predominantly in Christianity which assumes a “line of authority” was bestowed upon Peter and has flowed ever since in an unbroken chain through a “sanctioned” vessel i.e The ‘Church’.
This topic of Apostolic succession is intriguing, as a few Christian denominations, and the mormons in particular, try to trace their ‘priesthood authority’ from Peter (though in their case, its Peter, James and John, the latter of whom according to lds theology has never tasted death and joined his fellow resurrected brethren to confer this authority to Joseph Smith) to try to stake their claim.
I wonder how these ‘called out’ or groups were seen in their own context as opposed to what we have in centuries since, especially in present day worship.
In physics it is possible to ask questions like “is the observable that the universe is very, very flat due to an early epoch of inflation near the big bang?” because there is hard evidence that can be examined that can eventually answer that claim. But, in the case of New Testament studies the evidence is hardly near that kind of satisfactory level. In fact, each generation comes along and thinks in different terms as to what evidence is significant. In such a situation we might be looking for certainty when in fact we should be proposing multiple models and not giving any confidence of their accuracy. At least not without more evidence.
For example, in this case we know that Peter took on a preeminent role early on. There is evidence that Jesus sent his disciples on missionary missions while he was alive, and we have evidence that others saw going to Jerusalem could result in martyrdom (since the shortest route to Jerusalem was blocked so he had to go through Bethany). Add to implementing the eucharist as the passover meal and we have a view of Jesus where maybe he saw himself as a social justice reformer who thought martyrdom was the only way to bring about God’s kingdom. Maybe he believed God would save him, or maybe he thought God maybe would not save him and thus the reason for the eucharist symbols (which might mean he had a plan for the church to carry on with what he started with perhaps even Peter at the helm). To be honest, Jesus’ actions remind us most closely with Dr. Martin Luther King who said:
“Well, I don’t know what will happen now. We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn’t matter with me now, because I’ve been to the mountaintop. And I don’t mind. Like anybody, I would like to live – a long life; longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land. So I’m happy, tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.”
Next day King was killed. What’s to say Jesus and King were not following similar paths? Without more evidence we really cannot make any solid conclusions. At least not a conclusion that will convince the next generation.
Robert said
Hi, harveyone.You may enjoy ** you do not have permission to see this link ** that seeks to ground the eucharist in the life of Jesus.
Thanks Robert. The one obstacle I find in the hypothesis that Paul instituted the Lord’s Supper is that the synoptic Gospels do not have a Pauline view of atonement and salvation which means Paul’s influence was not all that persuasive, or at least well known, to the early church. It is doubtful that a practice initiated by Paul would have been almost universally accepted as it was such that Matthew’s community, Mark’s community, and even Luke’s community would have adherred to it. Remember, Paul was a very controversial figure in the early church and it’s doubtful a Jewish Christian community like Matthew’s community would have accepted a Pauline tradition with so much universal acceptance. Especially one in which Jesus is seen as being behind it.
Robert said
Perhaps Peter had even visited their community at one time. If the community was located in or near Antioch, they may have pointed to Peter as a guarantor of their interpretation of the binding nature of Jewish food laws, perhaps contrary to the practice of more Hellenistic, gentile communities.
Matthew 15:11 “What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.” is a complete rejection of all the levitican food laws.
The only significant differences between Mark and Matthew’s versions are the explicit “purifying all foods” in Mark and Matthew’s ending of the passage by returning to the original question “These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them”.
Marks edits as a secondary writer are easily understood, putting in an explicit claim that all foods are clean and removing a line of possible confusion that Jesus is only talking about food eaten with unwashed hands.
But Matthew’s changes can’t be understood as secondary. If he has a problem with all foods being clean he should be editing the lines
“What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them” and
“Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body. But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person”
not just adding a weak ambiguous line at the end.
Elsewhere the only place the Matthew can be said to preaching adherence to the law is Matthew 5:17-20. This however is followed immediately by Jesus undermining the authority of the law; divorce is not right, swearing oaths is from the evil one, an “eye for an eye” is a false teaching.
Also Matthew 19:8-9 “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” ie – divorce was permitted by Moses but is not God’s law and not approved by Jesus.
What we get when we place Matthew before Mark is the historically correct subtle movement away from the law towards the outright rejection of it.
Matthew 23:2-3 means they hold political authority by sitting in moses seat and that is why you must obey them but not moral authority. The rest of the chapter describes the pharisees and scribes as blind glides who prevent others from entering the kingdom of heaven.
Parts of Matthews comments on the law can be said to be taking a stricter view but he says allowing divorce is a false teaching. Oath taking is from the evil one – the OT says fulfill your viws to the lord. This writer here is challenging the authority of the OT.
As I said before the general historical progression towards explicit christian rejection of the law does not prove matthean priority it just favors it.
Its not me limiting Moses’ authority its what chapter 23 means by sitting in the seat of Moses. It’s about christianity not be an insurrectionist movement – they obey the legal authorities. The pharisees sit in Moses seat so they should be obeyed. But that doesnt mean the legal authorities have moral authority. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cross sea and land to make a single convert, and you make the new convert twice as much a child of gehenna as yourselves.” Exactly what Paul would say.
Matthew’s Jesus occasionally interprets the law in a stricter manner but occasionally outright contradicts it. No divorce, no oath taking, nothing eaten can defile a person.
What matters is the language that is used “you have heard it said … but I say … “. Or “Moses permitted this …”
Contrast with quotations that should be taken as divine “David via the spirit calls him Lord saying … “
Robert said
Why do you think Moses’ authority in this context is only about Christianity not being an insurrectionist movement??? The scribes and Pharisees taught about so much more. And, by the time Matthew wrote his gospel many Judean authorities had actually supported the war against Rome as would the scribes and priests at Qumran.
The question is how can chapter 23 be interpreted in a consistent way. “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat therefore do and observe whatever they tell you” / “But woe to you scribes and Pharisees hypocrites! you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven.“
How can they lock people out of the kingdom of heaven if they are preaching with moral authority from Moses’ seat?
They only way to interpret this consistently is that Moses’ seat gives them temporal authority.
If you study other ‘rabbinic’ teachings about divorce and oath taking (eg, the house of Shammai and the Qumran ultra-pharisees), you will find similar interpretations of Mosaic law. They were not contradicting Moses but they were taking his teachings further. For example, Moses did not command people to get divorced, rather he allowed it, and he gave instructions about how it must be done if it is being done. Shammai, Qumran, and Jesus would only allow divorce with stricter interpretations of when it might be allowed, if at all. They were probably inspired by a common interpretation of the prophet Malachi saying that God ‘hates divorce’. Again, taking one statement from scripture and using it to interpret others, a most common rabbinic exegetical method. The Qumran ultra-pharisees even pointed to the same passage of Genesis that Jesus did in interpreting the more strict, ideal practice of the law about divorce. None of these people saw themselves as undermining or contradicting or rejecting Moses’ authority. Rather they would sometimes refer to this stricter manner of interpretation as building a fence around the Torah, ie, making it much less likely that any of Moses’ commandments would be violated.
Matthew’s Jesus might occasionally arrive at the same teaching as the house of shammai but that doesn’t mean they’re using the same process to get there. Rabbinic teachings must always be shown to be derivable from some Mosaic law but that’s not true with Matthew’s Jesus
“You have heard that it was said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but I say to you do not resist an evildoer, if anyone strikes you on the right cheek turn the other also“
This is just Jesus’s own moral teaching – there’s no attempt to show it comes from some earlier commandment. He’ll sometimes have stricter commands and sometimes contradict the law. “it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles.“
Robert said
Hi, harveyone.You may enjoy ** you do not have permission to see this link ** that seeks to ground the eucharist in the life of Jesus.
It seems logical given the circumstances that a Passover Seder could mutate into a liturgical meal in remembrance of Jesus’ death. However even Paul seems to be looking back through the lens of subsequent events. It would be interesting to consider how a Passover Seder was conducted in the first century. Is knowledge of the particulars lost to us? Does anyone write about such things? It would be fascinating to consider what materials the imaginations of the earliest Christians had to work on.
Robert said
Nope How do they ‘lock people out of heaven’ or ‘make the new convert twice as much a child of gehenna as themselves’. Is it because they ‘observe whatever the scribes and Pharisees tell them’, as the Matthean Jesus commands his own disciples to do? Or is it because they end up being as hypocritical as the Pharisees themselves, which the Matthean Jesus condemns? The latter is a completely consistent reading of Matthew 23 and it does not ignore or contradict the actual text of Matthew, thus it is a more consistent reading of Mt 23 than yours. For example:
“All things therefore whateverthey might say to you, you must do [plural imperative], but do not act like they do.”
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others.
The pharisees actively shut the door of the kingdom of heaven and do not permit others who are trying to enter it. It is not just their example or hypocrisy but it is their commands that prevent people from entering.
The Pharisees claim to be Rabbis but that is not what they are. They are blind guides/instructors/teachers. They have no moral authority whether or not they are sitting in Moses’s seat.
There is only one instructor or teacher, the Messiah. Matthew 23:10. All moral authority is derived from him. Occasionally he will agree with the law and occasionally against it.
Jesus “keep the commandments”
Young man “which ones?”
Jesus “you shall not murder you shall not commit adultery … “
Notice the response is not “All of them of course, they’re all from God!”
There’s no basis in Matthew’s text to limit the authority of the scribes and Pharisees to political matters relating only to insurrection. Quite the contrary, it is explicitly said to include non-political matters.
I’m not limiting their authority to political matters related only to insurrection. I’m saying the disciples are only being told to obey their commands so as not to be accused of insurrection.
Nope, again. Sorry! As I already said, Jesus and some at Qumran pointed to the exact same verse of Genesis to justify their teaching against divorce. That is not only the same process but also the same result. And while Jesus and other rabbis do indeed often point to Moses or the prophets or other scriptures to justify their teachings, they do not always do so, especially when they are building a fence around the Torah. One need only look to the fundamental laws of kashrut to see that this is certainly so.
It may look like the same process but its not. Jesus is quoting the verse in order to show a contradiction with Moses’s teaching. Jesus agrees with the teaching in Genesis and disagrees with Moses. Moses permitted divorce but its not god’s command.
The Quran 5.45 reinterprets a teaching of the law but does it in such a way as to preserve the moral authority of the law
“We ordained therein for them ‘Life for life eye for eye nose for nose ear for ear tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal’ But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity it is an act of atonement for himself.“
This is the process of house of shammai and qumran phrisees but not of matthew’s Jesus.
Jesus does away with this commandment in such a way as to undermine the moral authority of the torah.
“You have heard that it was said ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ but I tell you do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.“
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)