Matthew 22:34-40: Narrational, Opening-Middle-Closing and Argumentative Texture
6.3 Comparison of Romans 13:8-14 and Matthew 22:34-44
6.3.2 Specific Texts
In this section, texts that reflect a possible agreement and disagreement will be compared based on the conclusions arrived at regarding these texts in the earlier chapters of this study. The texts are Rom 3:31, Rom 8:3-4, Matt 5:17, and Rom 10:4a; and Rom 13:8-10 and Matthew 22:34-40. Since each text has been thoroughly discussed in the previous chapters, the discussion will not be repeated. Instead a comparison will be made between the two authors.
6.3.2.1 Rom 3:31, Rom 7:4-5, Rom 8:3-4, 7:4-5 and Rom 10:4a seen against Matt 5:17-19
The view taken in this research with regard to Rom 3:31 is that Jesus followers continued obeying the Law through faith in Christ although Paul did not specify which commandments they continued to keep. Death to the Law (Rom 7:4-5) is understood as freedom from the condemnation that the Law of Moses levelled against sinners particularly the Jews (not abrogation of the Law) through union with the death of Jesus Christ which is the due penalty of sin. Through the death of Jesus Christ, God is able to punish the old person (sin in the flesh, Rom 8:3) and to create a union between Jesus and believers and to place them in the sphere of the Spirit. In light of this reading, Rom 8:3-4 is interpreted as those who walk in the Spirit and who do not walk according to the flesh, fulfilling the righteous requirement of the Law (as demanded by the Law) by virtue of their union with Christ and their status in the sphere of the Spirit. Living in the flesh is hostility to God which is tantamount to saying no to submitting to God’s Law is hostility to God and not to please God (Rom 8:7-8). Hence, for Paul the Jesus followers are those who united with Christ and live in the sphere of the Spirit and submit to God’s Law. In other words, they continue to obey all the righteous acts that the Law demands.
Matt 5:19 claims that a person who keeps and teaches the Law will be called great in the kingdom of heaven and that the disciples’ righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and the Pharisees in order for them to enter the kingdom of heaven. The righteous that excel will be the ones that obey the teachings of Jesus Christ. He who18 does relax the commandments of the Law and teach men will be least in the
kingdom of heaven.
18 Matthew used the Greek indefinite pronoun ὅς and has never defined the identity of the person who possibly relaxes the
182
Paul and Matthew converge on the concept that Jesus’ followers should obey the Law. But they diverge in that Matthew insists that every minute commandment must be obeyed and must be taught in order to be called great in the kingdom of heaven whereas Paul does not say anything about to what extent the Jesus followers should obey the Law and for what purpose they should do it. Paul is general in his statement whereas Matthew is specific in the extent and purpose of obedience to the Law and yet he demands perfection which goes beyond the demands of the Law.
Paul in Rom 10:4 claims that Christ is the τέλος of the Law. It is argued in this study that the word is ambiguous and can be interpreted either as “end” or “goal” but the context supports the interpretation that Paul is arguing that because of the ignorance of the righteousness of God and the desire to establish their own, the Jews did not submit to the righteousness of God that is witnessed by the Law and the prophets (3:21), furthermore, they refused to accept the Gospel (Rom 10:21). But Paul contends that the role of the Law as a special mark of God’s people for the Jews has ended, it is through faith in Jesus Christ that Jews will be re-engrafted as people of God.
If the two texts are contrasted in an atomistic way, they seem to be contradictory but since Paul is ambiguous in his usage of the term τέλος it is hard to say for certain that they are contradictory as Paul already confirms that the Law must be kept and not destroyed (Rom 3:31).
6.3.2.2 Romans 13:8-14 seen against Matthew 22:34-40
The two textual units have been discussed thoroughly in Chapters three and four respectively. Only the result of these discussions will be compared here.
(1) Convergence: (a) the source of the tradition of “love your neighbour as yourself” for both is Lev 19:18. (b) Both highlight the importance of love. (2) Divergence: (a) While Paul deals with only love for the neighbour, Matthew deals with love for God and love for one’s neighbour. (b) For Paul, the purpose is to present the commandments related to person-to-person relationship in a succinct form with the language of love with the content of the Law, Matthew’s concern is to show the existence of important commandments among the commandments of the Law. (c) Paul recommends loving one’s neighbour as the focus of the Law but Matthew argues that loving one’s neighbour is inadequate and restrictive and therefore must be amended by “love your enemies.” Furthermore, loving your neighbour is not the teaching of Jesus and does not lead to perfection. (d) For Paul loving one’s neighbour fulfils the Law, but Matthew argues that not only loving one’s neighbour but also loving God are the two important reasons for obeying all the Laws and the prophets. (e) For Paul, love leads the Decalogue and other
183
commandments in fulfilling the Law. But Matthew contends that the Decalogue and the love commandments can be obeyed by the Jews without being the disciple of Jesus (Matt 19:16-20) but perfection is following Jesus Christ (Matt 19:21). Therefore, for entering into the kingdom of heaven and attaining perfection one has to renounce everything and follow Jesus.
6.3.3 Section Summary and Conclusion
The comparison above on specific concepts and texts has shown that Paul in Romans and the Gospel of Matthew have some overlaps and differences in their understanding of the Law but that these differences are not contradictory. Rather, they are tensions arising due to differing emphases and issues that the books are addressing.