Paul and Matthew on the Law: comrades or foes?

It can be stated that an important difference between Matthew and Paul is their understanding of the Law. Studies on Paul’s and Matthew’s understanding of the Law support this fact.4 _{How the differences are}

interpreted, however, depends on one’s interpretive lens. Most of the studies on Paul’s and Matthew’s understanding of the Law and their relationship are based on comparing the theological angles of Matthew and Paul. Yet, no consensus has been achieved in such studies.

Since David Sim (2002) has given a review of the studies on the topic, there is no need to belabour the point. Sim and others summarised the major positions: (1) Matthew is an anti-Pauline text (Sim, 2002; Brandon, 1957). Brandon first conceived this position with which Sim agrees. (2) Matthew and Paul are theologically close to each other. Scholars who consent with this position, despite differences in their arguments, are Davies (1990), Goulder (1974) and Meier (2009). (3) Matthew and Paul were different, but complementary: Mohrlang (1984), France (1987) and Luz (1993) hold this position (Sim, 2002:772– 774).

Recently, Sim (1998:188–211; 2002:774–781; 2007:325–343; 2008:377–392) has vehemently contended that Matthew is anti-Paul. In doing so he admits that his proposal is a renaissance of Brandon’s thesis. Considering that it is David Sim who has resurrected and extended the thesis of Brandon, this section will focus on his articles. His articles have contributed to placing the issues in the limelight of

4 _{E.g. (Brandon (1957); Sim (2002; 2007; 2008; 2009); Davies (1990); Goulder (1974);Mohrlang (1984); France (1987);}

16

scholarly discussion. In his articles (except in the first one), Sim strongly argued that Matthew is anti- Pauline with regard to their respective perspectives on the Law.

Sim claims that Matthew was propagating a Law-observant mission to both the Jews and the Gentiles, while Paul, on the other hand, was promoting a Law-free mission among the Gentiles (Sim, 2008:390). He writes, “Matthew was engaged in a bitter and sustained polemic against Paul himself” (Sim, 2002:777). His arguments hinge on three texts from the Gospel of Matthew: Matt 5:17-19, Matt 7:13-23, and Matt 16:17, and on his reconstruction of the history and social setting of the Matthean community. For Matthew, according to Sim, every part of the Law is valid and therefore must be obeyed and taught until the parousia whereas, for Paul, the Law is functional until the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Sim, 2002:779). Consequently, Matthew and Paul are theologically antagonistic, particularly in light of Matt 7:13- 23, which for Sim, demonstrates Matthew’s anti-Pauline stance. Coupling Matt 7: 24-23 with Matt16:17, Sim (2002:779) advances his cases by ascribing the rock to Peter (Matt 16:17). The two houses in Matt 7:24-23 refer to the two traditions. That is, the house built upon the rock represents the Petrine tradition or the law-observant community whereas the house which is built on the sand represents the Pauline tradition or law-free community. He arrives at the conclusion that “the evangelist [Matthew] sought to challenge or deny Paul’s claim that he was divinely commissioned to conduct a mission independently of the Jerusalem church. Matthew portrays Peter instead as the recipient of a divine revelation and as the foundation of Jesus’ church with the authority to match. The result is that Paul’s later claim to have had a similar experience to that of Peter looks hollow, implausible and derivative” (Sim, 2009b:418).

Although Sim’s conclusion might be conceivable, his arguments are not convincing. At least four reasons can be noted for Sim’s unconvincing arguments. First, Sim does not define his understanding of the term

Torah. Since he argues that Matthew is a sect (Sim, 1995:36), he should have explained how Matthew

understands the Torah differently from other sects. If the Matthean community is one of the sects that differs from and avoids those of “formative Judaism”, and stands against Paul, then what is the Torah in the light of Matthew’s Gospel? If the Matthean community conceded to the validity of the Torah, why would Mathew’s community reject the coalition in “formative Judaism”? In fact, Sim has pointed out that “the Matthean community follows the interpretation of Jesus who came to fulfil the Law and not to abolish it (5.17) …and messianic exegesis of Jesus is guided by the principle of love of God and neighbour (22.34-40; cf 7.12)” (Sim, 1995:37). Yet, he does not discuss the implication of this statement and its difference from the Pauline definition of Torah in his arguments in his later articles. E. P. Sanders

17

(1992:257) writes, “… this [Matt 7.12] is meant to epitomize the whole law, though in terms of content it summarises only the second table.” If this is so, what was Matthew’s concept of Torah? Sim’s argument that Matthew demands “the observance of the Mosaic Law in full” (Sim, 2008:388) is also questionable, because no empirical evidence is given to demonstrate the claim and no convincing explanation concerning the meaning of observing the law in full is offered.

The second problem is methodological. Sim’s approach to the issue is to focus on selective texts that seem obviously to be contradicting some Pauline teachings. He also did not demonstrate how the whole teachings of Matthew’s Gospel are organized against Pauline teachings. He did not discuss the texts he selected in terms of Matthew’s interpretation of Torah. Instead, he compared and contrasted texts that seem to be contradicting Pauline texts. As a result, in his arguments the agreement between Matthean texts and Pauline texts is ignored.

Third, Sim interprets the relationship of Matthew and Paul through the window of first century conflicts, contentions, and arguments. He does not seem to be open to the possibility of concession being made between first-century communities of Jesus followers. Other scriptural narrations demonstrate that concessions were made (e.g. in Acts 15). Paul, for example, also affirms that what he preached and what other Apostles preached is the same Gospel (1 Cor 15:11). In Galatians 2, Paul argues that an agreement had already been reached between him and the Jerusalem church and that he had received a confirmation from the pillars of the church about his teaching. Paul further rebuked Peter for his hypocritical actions and not for the kind of Gospel he preached. Paul opposed their apparent hypocrisy because it damages their credibility (Gal 2:13). Therefore, Sim does not give adequate weight to the possibility of an agreement among Matthew and Paul’s followers or interpreters.

Fourth, Sim did not discuss the genres and the mega-theme of each book and their effects on interpretation. There is no explicit evidence that substantiates the idea that the central issue for Matthew in his Gospel is Paul’s teaching of the Law, as Matthew predominantly focuses on the person and the work of Jesus, the Messiah. From Sim’s argument, it however seems that Paul’s theology is at the centre of Matthew’s Gospel. Therefore, all of the above drawbacks in the discussion of the articles call for a deeper study on the interpretation and understanding of the Law on the part of both Matthew and Paul.

It is understood that the debate above is the result of the major interpretive assumption started by Augustine and standardised by Bultman, Käsemann and Bornkamm. Notwithstanding the different conclusions arrived at by each scholar, the underpinning assumption is that grace and the Law are in an antithetical relationship. Particularly in the works of Sim this assumption is clear. For Sim, Matthew

18

proclaimed a Law-observant mission whereas Paul proclaimed a Law-free Gospel. This is tantamount to saying that the antithesis of grace is the Law. This a priori theologically guided interpretation is so ingrained in scholarly discussion of the Law that it has obfuscated the role of the Law particularly in identity construction in the Gospel of Matthew and Paul.