Loading...In the last post I tried to show that Matthew’s Jesus (remember: I’m not talking about the historical Jesus here; I’ve been referring to Jesus as he is presented in Matthew – a very different thing!) does indeed seem to think that his readers should follow not just the ethical aspects of the Jewish law, but the cultic aspects as well – keeping Sabbath, tithing, and so on. At the same time, it appears that Jesus in Matthew thinks that his opponents are wrong in placing the highest priority on keeping these cultic requirements, rather than on emphasizing the commandment to love that lies at its core.
This becomes especially clear in two stories that Matthew took over from Mark, but modified. The first is Mark’s account of the call of Levi the tax collector (Mark 2:13-17; in Matthew’s account, it is the call of Matthew!). When the Pharisees see Jesus eating in Levi’s home with “tax collectors and sinners,” they disparage him for mixing with such tainted company. Evidently their own emphasis on ritual purity before God precludes their eating with others who were not equally pure. In Mark, Jesus replies that it is the sick who need a physician, not the well, and that he has come to call sinners, not the righteous. In Matthew, Jesus’ reply includes an appeal to the Scriptures: “Go and learn what this means, `I desire mercy, not sacrifice’ [Hos. 6:6]. For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners” (Matt. 9:13). Thus according to Matthew, the Pharisees are more concerned with proper observance of the food laws of the Torah than with helping others; Jesus, on the other hand, is principally concerned with reaching out to those in need.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!!
Hello!
Fascinating!
“Even though a similar view was propounded by other rabbis of Jesus day, it stands at odds with the religion advocated by Jewish leaders as portrayed in the Gospel of Matthew.” Can you elaborate a bit on why Matthew does this?
How far Jewish traditions went with the idea of love as the greatest commandment? Was the idea of “turning the other cheek” supported as well? How popular these ideas were among the Jew at the time?
Regards,
Andrejs
Yes, the love commandment was often seen as the most important. I’ll be talking about “jewish leaders” in Matthew in a subsequent post.
But who *were* the “Christians in [Matthew’s] community”? Is there any way of knowing their ethnicity, what region they lived in, whether they were being urged to follow those dietary and similar laws, whether there was controversy about it? Was the target audience of this Gospel different from that of the others, or was it only the author whose focus was different?
I’m getting to that!
I’ve really appreciated this series of posts on the Jesus of Matthew; I hope you make time at some point to do similar series on the Jesus of the other gospel writers.
When it comes to the Jesus of Matthew, what is that Jesus’ role in human salvation? Or, to put it another way, why keep the ethical and cultic practices of the law? Does that “save” the practioner?
I don’t think one could be saved for matthew without Jesus. But being saved by Jesus did not absolve someone from the need of keeping the law.
Why did one keep the law then? I’m really curious 🙂
I suppose if God told you to do something, you’d want to do it!
Do you agree that “table fellowship” (with “sinners” and marginal people) was part of historical Jesus ministry ? In such case, how this fit with Jesus’ obedience to the Law and purity rules? And how to blame Paul for the incident at Antioch?
Yes, I do. But the Torah never forbids table fellowship with sinners.
So, Paul rightly opposed Cephas at Antioch (Galatians 2:11-13).
Eating with Gentiles (as well as sinners) is not forbidden by the Torah, and – most important – table fellowship (with sinners) was a particular aspect of Jesus ministry.
According to Paul, also Cephas was eating with Gentiles before people from Jerusalem came. And this was probably in line with what Cephas saw Jesus doing with sinners.
The problem with eating with Gentiles is that it might force one to eat non-kosher food. But in any event, yes, Paul certainly thought he was right. And, well, Cephas did not. 🙂 We don’t know if Cephas made a connection to what Jesus was doing, but it’s an interesting idea.
Hey, you cannot easily assume that Paul and/or Cephas were eating non-kosher food! 😀
According to Paul, he and Cephas were eating *with* Gentiles (not *like* Gentiles) and that was the “problem” for orthodox Jews. However, Cephas saw Jesus eating (kosher) with sinners so he did the same…
I think it’s usually assumed that if they were eating with Gentiles that meant they were eating in Gentiles homes, and that almost certainly would mean non-kosher.
Hi Dr. Ehrman! Thank you for your exposition. I have and off-topic question. One theology professor in my conservative “University X” told in the class (because I use some “critical” arguments to counter some of his views) that “Bart Ehrman himself said that his ultimate goal is to destroy the Bible”. I want to know if you has said those words or somenthing similar like that. To me, it doesn’t sound like you and could be some “ad hominem” argument to my questions, but I can be wrong.
That is an absolute falsehood!! I think you should “out” your professor and indicate his/her name.
Is mostly possible that you don’t know him because it’s a University of my country Puerto Rico. Thank you for your clarification! Now I know how “reliable” are the professor’s arguments and views.
Dr. Ehrman, I’ve always been confused about the name of Matthew / Levi. If they are one and the same person, why would Mark call him “Levi, son of Alphaeus” then later list him as “Matthew”? Mark even goes so far as to call James the son of Alphaeus, but there’s really nothing in the gospel of Mark that would signify to us that Levi and Matthew are the same guy. I understand why the two have been conflated, thanks to the gospel of Matthew, but It sure looks fishy to me. Have you written about this before? Thanks! -matt
Yup, there’s nothing in the Gospel to make one think that Matthew is Levi; they are different people. The Gospel of Matthew changes the calling of Levi to the calling of Matthew (9:9), so that he doesn’t ever name a Levi. Neither one, therefore, identifies Levi with Matthew. And the idea that “Matthew” wrote Matthew because the name is changed in 9:9 doesn’t make any sense either. When you read Matt 9:9, there is absolutely nothing to make you think the author is talking about himself….
Thanks Dr. Ehrman, do you think there’s any significance to the name “Alphaeus”? Was Mark trying to tell his readers something by using that name (for Levi & James’ father)? Is there any truth to the apologetic claim that Levi and Matthew are Greek/Hebrew variations of the same name?
I don’t know!