9/6/23
Scholarly Observations
Painter, John. "Chapter Four: Matthew and John." in Sim, David C., and Repschinski, Boris (editors). Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries. London: T&T Clark, 2008, 66-86.
"Matthew and John have the dubious distinction of being recognized as two of the most anti-Jewish documents in the New Testament" (Painter 2008, 66). Painter notes that John is the one who shows Jesus calling the Jews children of the devil and blind, remaining in sin. They are repeatedly condemned, in no uncertain terms. The message of Matthew and of John is that of faith and a vision of the future. This is a sharp contrast to the Formative Judaism which arose around the time of their composition, between 80 and 100 (Painter 2008, 67).
Painter analyzes usage of "Jew" as opposed to "Israelite" especially in John's Gospel. He concludes that it is likely John had adopted the usage of the Diaspora in the narrative portions of his Gospel, but in the speech of the characters he used the characteristic language which those individuals would have used (Painter 2008, 67). Non-Israelites call people "Jews" but the Israelites refer to one another as Israel. Matthew, coming from the same period, shows a clear tension with the Pharisees (Painter 2008, 68-69). The work of rebuilding a Judaism without a temple led to some degree of heavy-handed nationalism which was not compatible with Christian thought. In Painter's estimation the conflict may or may not have created a permanent rift which separated a Matthean community from Jewish Chrsitianity (Painter 2008, 71).
Matthew takes a view of the Law which can be distinguished from the other evangelists. Painter uses, as an example, Matthew 15:1-20 as compared to Mark 7:1-23. Mark uses the situation to demonstrate that all foods can be clean, while Matthew uses the same event to demonstrate that the ceremonial uncleanness of hands doesn't defile a person (Painter 2008, 72). Painter draws a conclusion that in Matthew's community the dietary laws may have been practiced, but that the layers of customs piled up by the Pharisees were not. Matthew considers Jesus' mission to be wrapped up in fulfilling the Law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17) (Painter 2008, 73). Jesus' intent is to complete the required obedience to the Law and make it pass away. This is a sharp contrast to Formative Judaism. Painter also sees it as in contrast to Pauline Christianity (Painter 2008, 74). The Law is not abandoned. It is rather brought to completion. The objection to the Pharisees is that they fail to be concerned with the most important elements of God's Law (Painter 2008, 76).
Painter makes a brief comparison of Matthew and Q, which he views as "rather neutral" (Painter 2008, 77). In his opinion, Matthew tends to align Jesus more with the Old Testament prophets and John the Baptist to the new order. This, Painter thinks, may be a contrast with Q (Painter 2008, 78).
Compared to John, Matthew does not have as welcoming an attitude toward the Gentile mission. Matthew acknowledges there is a mission to all nations after the resurrection, but he limits it to the Jews prior to the resurrection (Painter 2008, 78). The mission, in Matthew 28:19-20, is to make disciples, baptize, and teach (Painter apparently does not take the participles as modifying the main verb, "disciple" but treats it as three separate actions) (Painter 2008, 79).
In contrast to Matthew's view of the Law, John makes a distinction between Jesus on the one hand and Moses and the Law on the other hand (Painter 2008, 80). John 1:17 draws this distinction clearly. Jesus, the one who replaces the Law, has come to dwell with His poeple (Painter 2008, 81). The Jews, who know the Law, have not kept it. This drives the hostility which they pour out on Jesus, who is confronting them with their failure (Painter 2008, 82). At the same time, with his different view of the Sabbath, Jesus seems to be breaking the Law. This moves the Pharisees to greater hostility toward Jesus (Painter 2008, 83).
Painter ties the sense of mission in John to Jesus' statements about the disciples doing things "just as" (καθώς) Jesus has. They love as he loves them, etc. (Painter 2008, 84). Just as the Father sent the Son into the world, the Son sends his disciples. The mission is clearly to the entire world, regardless of ethnicity (Painter 2008, 85).
In conclusion, Painter finds that Matthew and John are both full of Jewish character. While Matthew does not diminish the Law, he sees it fulfilled in Jesus, who cares for Jews and the whole world (Painter 2008, 86). John also sees a mission to the world and a Jesus who causes the Law to be needless.
Scholarly Observations
Painter, John. "Chapter Four: Matthew and John." in Sim, David C., and Repschinski, Boris (editors). Matthew and His Christian Contemporaries. London: T&T Clark, 2008, 66-86.
"Matthew and John have the dubious distinction of being recognized as two of the most anti-Jewish documents in the New Testament" (Painter 2008, 66). Painter notes that John is the one who shows Jesus calling the Jews children of the devil and blind, remaining in sin. They are repeatedly condemned, in no uncertain terms. The message of Matthew and of John is that of faith and a vision of the future. This is a sharp contrast to the Formative Judaism which arose around the time of their composition, between 80 and 100 (Painter 2008, 67).
Painter analyzes usage of "Jew" as opposed to "Israelite" especially in John's Gospel. He concludes that it is likely John had adopted the usage of the Diaspora in the narrative portions of his Gospel, but in the speech of the characters he used the characteristic language which those individuals would have used (Painter 2008, 67). Non-Israelites call people "Jews" but the Israelites refer to one another as Israel. Matthew, coming from the same period, shows a clear tension with the Pharisees (Painter 2008, 68-69). The work of rebuilding a Judaism without a temple led to some degree of heavy-handed nationalism which was not compatible with Christian thought. In Painter's estimation the conflict may or may not have created a permanent rift which separated a Matthean community from Jewish Chrsitianity (Painter 2008, 71).
Matthew takes a view of the Law which can be distinguished from the other evangelists. Painter uses, as an example, Matthew 15:1-20 as compared to Mark 7:1-23. Mark uses the situation to demonstrate that all foods can be clean, while Matthew uses the same event to demonstrate that the ceremonial uncleanness of hands doesn't defile a person (Painter 2008, 72). Painter draws a conclusion that in Matthew's community the dietary laws may have been practiced, but that the layers of customs piled up by the Pharisees were not. Matthew considers Jesus' mission to be wrapped up in fulfilling the Law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17) (Painter 2008, 73). Jesus' intent is to complete the required obedience to the Law and make it pass away. This is a sharp contrast to Formative Judaism. Painter also sees it as in contrast to Pauline Christianity (Painter 2008, 74). The Law is not abandoned. It is rather brought to completion. The objection to the Pharisees is that they fail to be concerned with the most important elements of God's Law (Painter 2008, 76).
Painter makes a brief comparison of Matthew and Q, which he views as "rather neutral" (Painter 2008, 77). In his opinion, Matthew tends to align Jesus more with the Old Testament prophets and John the Baptist to the new order. This, Painter thinks, may be a contrast with Q (Painter 2008, 78).
Compared to John, Matthew does not have as welcoming an attitude toward the Gentile mission. Matthew acknowledges there is a mission to all nations after the resurrection, but he limits it to the Jews prior to the resurrection (Painter 2008, 78). The mission, in Matthew 28:19-20, is to make disciples, baptize, and teach (Painter apparently does not take the participles as modifying the main verb, "disciple" but treats it as three separate actions) (Painter 2008, 79).
In contrast to Matthew's view of the Law, John makes a distinction between Jesus on the one hand and Moses and the Law on the other hand (Painter 2008, 80). John 1:17 draws this distinction clearly. Jesus, the one who replaces the Law, has come to dwell with His poeple (Painter 2008, 81). The Jews, who know the Law, have not kept it. This drives the hostility which they pour out on Jesus, who is confronting them with their failure (Painter 2008, 82). At the same time, with his different view of the Sabbath, Jesus seems to be breaking the Law. This moves the Pharisees to greater hostility toward Jesus (Painter 2008, 83).
Painter ties the sense of mission in John to Jesus' statements about the disciples doing things "just as" (καθώς) Jesus has. They love as he loves them, etc. (Painter 2008, 84). Just as the Father sent the Son into the world, the Son sends his disciples. The mission is clearly to the entire world, regardless of ethnicity (Painter 2008, 85).
In conclusion, Painter finds that Matthew and John are both full of Jewish character. While Matthew does not diminish the Law, he sees it fulfilled in Jesus, who cares for Jews and the whole world (Painter 2008, 86). John also sees a mission to the world and a Jesus who causes the Law to be needless.
RSS Feed