I
still do not understand about the order of the Synoptic. Why modern scholars
disagree that Matthew was written to be the first even though the church
fathers and early church Christian believers regarded that Matthew was written
to be the first and most important. Why they do not follow the tradition of the
early church about it? According to R.T. France, Apostolic Fathers, when they
referred to the teaching of Jesus, it was almost exclusively derived from
Matthew. There are many evidences of earlier time of the church treat the
Matthew importantly. Why modern understanding makes differently? And it is more
difficult to accept that the possibility of the Q document, and giving
authority to it. It does not include in the Bible, and there is no evidence
about the existence of Q.
I agree with that to approach “Matthew
without a firm conviction either of the priority of Mark or of that of Matthew
does not prevent one from listening to his gospel as whole, allowing it to make
its own distinctive impact through its structure, its selection of themes, and
its recurrent emphases.” And I like what France wants to make that wants to
give some indication of the appreciation of Matthew’s theology by this book for
his readers. I can feel that the author wants to make us focus on the book of
Matthew itself without and assuming that to consider Matthew as ‘revised
version of Mark.’ I am glad about it. Exactly, it is what I want to know and
learn.
After, France tackles about the
Markan priority, Matthian priority, Q and others, he speaks about the
authorship of Matthew. He says that the traditional understanding of the early
church makes more sense that the tax collector Matthew is the author of
Matthew. And he talks about
the date of the gospel, the place of origin, the relation to Judaism,
Matthew’schurch, and the purpose of the gospel in chapter three.
In this chapter he gives us good
information about the Matthew’s church that they see themselves as the true
fulfillment of the Old Testament people of God. It doesn't mean that they were
pure Jewish people, rather they will included with the Gentile believers also.
But still the majority were in Jewish.
And the author refers the different
perspective between Matthew’s theology and Paul on the Sermon of Mount. And he
suggests that the difference of them is not the opposition. For this he cites
Davies that Matthew does not display it against Paul or Paulineism. I agree
with this, but I don’t know how we can match their different perspective that
seems opposites each other. Interestingly, France suggests that Matthew is far
more conservative than Paul. But it is true, and I agree with him. And France’s
solution is that both of them used the key terms such as ‘fistis’ and
‘dikaiosuve’, and their understanding of the nature of salvation and of
discipleship is undeniable, but the area of the ethics is different. And
interestingly, he guesses that Matthew was unhappy with the degree of Paul’s
influence and wanted his gospel to couter it.
France’s speaking about the purpose
of the book of Matthew also different with other authors. He simply says that
‘gospel’ is a book about Jesus. The book of Matthew was written to say about
Jesus that Matthew believed to be important, and was ‘angled’ at many points to
situations “to which he felt he had something to say.”
Chapter five through eight, the
author covers the Matthew’s using of the Old Testament. And its typological
fulfillment in the Christ Jesus. In this part, the expression of France that “fulfillment
and history are not in conflict rather the fulfillment takes place in the
history” is impressive. And he also acknowledges that it is not easy to see
what the fulfillment might mean if there is no actual history in which the
pattern is fulfilled.
In here, France mentions about the
theme of Jesus as ‘Israel’. He said Israel is Jesus Himself. But I didn’t fully
understand about it. And then he mentions about the negative side of Matthew’s
Israel theology, to the theme of Israel’s failure.
In the last two chapters, he mentions
that Matthew’s teaching of the Church and the Matthew’s Gospel. It is helpful
to understand France’s explanation about the term, ‘dicaisune’,’righteousness’.
He tells us by citing Strecker that “Matthew’s use is quite different, in that
for him ‘dicaisune’ is an ethical quality, a way of life, and is not to be
interpreted on the basis of its Pauline use to demote God’s saving action. It is
demand upon man, not a gift from God.” France insist that Matthew’s using of
‘dicaisune’ is different with Paul. Because Matthew believed that the salvation
is the gift of God, people cannot earn it by their effort. I think it is a good
point of him.
I think France is really an expert guide
of the study of the book of Matthew. I satisfied while I briefly read this
book. I would like to read it again with enough time to digest it.
Written By Sue.
댓글
댓글 쓰기