Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [ematthew] Things

Expand Messages
  • Larry Swain
    Jason, Thanks for the note below, and apologies for taking so long to get back to you. Yes, I seem to have sent the note precipitously and unfinished. I had
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 17, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Jason,

      Thanks for the note below, and apologies for taking so long to get back to you. Yes, I seem to have sent the note precipitously and unfinished.
      I had intended to point specifically to the fourth point in the Deinde blog where the poster claims that Sims does not "appreciate" what Paul does with the Law and then points to passages in Romans.

      First, this assumes that some points of agreement must mean that there can not be significant points of disagreement.

      Second, most of the passages to which he points, save one, don't seem to me to address the issue the blogger desires: none of them are the defense of Torah or statements about its usefulness. So even if "Matthew" has read Paul's letter to the Romans, which in itself is doubtful, those passages are not going to warm the cockles of Matthew's heart. Even the passage in Romans 13 which Deinde (a team of bloggers, not sure who did that entry), points out is an agreement between Matthew and Paul (Paul's recitation of the "commandments" of which the greatest is love of neighbor as self) does not set these in the context of observing the Torah as Torah--in fact this proto-"love and do as you please" may in fact be read as "set aside the Torah IF you "love" for love fulfills the Torah (or "love is all you need" from the Boys from Liverpool). So rather than affirm Matthew's view of the Law, the statements in Rom 13:8-10 might despite their verbal similarity mean opposite things.

      Third, even if Paul and Matthew agree on the point of "love your neighbor as yourself" as the greatest commandment, it might be noted that so do the Pharisees. Yet, one can hardly claim that such agreement with the Pharisees means that these Pharisees, Matthew, and Paul have no sources of rather significant disagreement with one another.

      Fourth and lastly, I think the blogger at Deinde has forgotten or at least overlooked passages like Acts 21: 20-21 and further 21:28. The charge against Paul as preaching AGAINST the Torah seems not only a very real one, but Luke takes some pains to illustrate a) the Jerusalem churches' full blessing and acceptance of Paul's message to the Gentiles [note though that he does not here mention James or any other leader] and b) that he subsequently presents Paul as an observant Jew well versed in the Torah and "pirke avoth" to borrow a title. Luke, writing at least Acts after Matthew, is well aware of the attacks on Paul and the perception of Paul, not Paul's followers who are at issue here, but Paul himself. Such a testimony I think underscores the veracity of Sims reading of Matthew 7.

      Ok, sorry about being long winded, but since no one has responded, I thought I'd give a longer shot. We could discuss the other points raised in response to Sim too, but I hope that others will chime in.

      Larry Swain

      >
      >
      > Larry,
      >
      > Thanks for including this. By the way it doesn't appear to be complete--is
      > there more to it? (Cuts off after "one objection is that Paul like Matthew
      > has the")
      >
      > Cheers,
      >
      > Jason Hood
      >
      >
      > > From: "Larry J. Swain" <theswain@...>
      > > Reply-To: ematthew@yahoogroups.com
      > > To: ematthew@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: [ematthew] Things
      > > Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 01:32:22 -0000
      > >
      > > Hello all,
      > >
      > > I had meant to post some things about recent books/articles of
      > > interest. But the blogosphere has beaten me to it.
      > >
      > > Deinde has a 2 part post on Daniel Sims' latest article. I just read
      > > this over the weekend, but I'm one of those who while perhaps not
      > > going quite as far as Sims think that it is hard to read Matthew as
      > > pro-Pauline or reconcile some of Matthew's statements with Paul. The
      > > post is interesting in that it seeks to disprove Sims central thesis,
      > > that Matthew is writing directly against Paul and not those who have
      > > distorted Paul. IN my view though, the blogger raises some good
      > > issues, but in the end doesn't assail Sims position. For example, one
      > > objection is that Paul like Matthew has the
      > >
      > > Also at Deinde is a review of France's Gospel of
      > > Matthew.http://www.deinde.org/2007/08/22/r-t-france-the-gospel-of-matthew-nicnt
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > In addition, I've just found at the library a book from 2006, Matthew
      > > and the Didache. Haven't read it yet, and likely won't be able to now
      > > until Christmas. But I'd appreciate any thoughts on it.
      > >
      > > Larry Swain
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      > _________________________________________________________________
      > Get a FREE small business Web site and more from Microsoft® Office Live!
      > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/aub0930003811mrt/direct/01/
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >

      >


      --
      _______________________________________________
      Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
      Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com

      Powered by Outblaze
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.