From Claude.ai 4/28/2025, based on the prompt: How do critical bible scholars explain the different understandings between Paul, Matthew’s Jesus, and the historical Jesus of what’s involved in being in right relationship with God. Cite all sources.
Understanding Different Views on Right Relationship with God: Paul, Matthew’s Jesus, and the Historical Jesus
This is a fascinating question that lies at the intersection of biblical studies, historical criticism, and theology. Critical biblical scholars have indeed identified significant differences in how Paul, Matthew’s Jesus, and the historical Jesus understood what constitutes a right relationship with God. Let me break this down systematically.
The Historical Jesus and Right Relationship with God
Most critical scholars suggest that the historical Jesus likely emphasized several key elements in right relationship with God:
1. Repentance and the Kingdom of God The historical Jesus appears to have focused on the imminent arrival of God’s kingdom. According to scholars like E.P. Sanders and John P. Meier, Jesus’s core message involved calling people to repentance in preparation for this kingdom.
From Mark 1:15: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.”
2. Ethical Behavior and Love – Many scholars suggest Jesus emphasized ethical behavior rooted in love of God and neighbor. His teachings often interpreted the Torah through the lens of compassion.
3. Direct Access to God – Jesus seems to have emphasized a direct relationship with God, frequently referring to God as “Abba” (father) and encouraging his followers to do the same.
4. Challenge to Ritual Purity Codes – The historical Jesus appears to have challenged some traditional ritual purity laws, suggesting that inner purity was more important than outer ritual compliance.
Albert Schweitzer, in his work “The Quest of the Historical Jesus” (1906), argued that Jesus was primarily an apocalyptic prophet concerned with the imminent end of the world. More recent scholars like John Dominic Crossan, in “The Historical Jesus” (1991), have emphasized Jesus’s role as a social prophet calling for radical inclusivity and egalitarianism.
Matthew’s Jesus and Right Relationship with God
Matthew’s Gospel presents Jesus in ways that sometimes differ from scholarly reconstructions of the historical Jesus:
1. Fulfillment of the Law – In Matthew, Jesus explicitly affirms the continuing validity of the Jewish law:
“Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.” (Matthew 5:17-18, ASV)
2. Righteousness Exceeding the Pharisees – Matthew’s Jesus demands a higher standard of righteousness:
“For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:20, ASV)
3. Judgment Based on Actions – Matthew’s Jesus emphasizes judgment based on actions and how one treats others, as seen in the parable of the sheep and goats (Matthew 25).
Amy-Jill Levine, in “The Misunderstood Jew” (2006), argues that Matthew presents Jesus as a new Moses giving the definitive interpretation of Torah. Similarly, Dale Allison in “The New Moses: A Matthean Typology” (1993) explores how Matthew portrays Jesus as a lawgiver like Moses but with greater authority.
Paul’s Understanding of Right Relationship with God
Paul’s understanding differs significantly from both the historical Jesus and Matthew’s portrayal:
1. Justification by Faith – Paul emphasizes that right relationship with God comes through faith in Christ rather than works of the law:
“Yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” (Galatians 2:16, ASV)
2. Death to the Law – While Matthew’s Jesus affirms the law, Paul speaks of believers as having died to the law:
“For I through the law died unto the law, that I might live unto God.” (Galatians 2:19, ASV)
3. Participation in Christ’s Death and Resurrection – For Paul, believers participate mystically in Christ’s death and resurrection:
“For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection” (Romans 6:5, ASV)
E.P. Sanders, in “Paul and Palestinian Judaism” (1977), argues that Paul’s focus was on “participationist” theology rather than merely legal justification. James D.G. Dunn, in his “The New Perspective on Paul” (2008), suggests that Paul was primarily concerned with the inclusion of Gentiles in God’s covenant, not with rejecting Judaism.
Explaining the Differences
Critical scholars explain these differences in several ways:
1. Developmental Theory – Scholars like Rudolf Bultmann suggested that early Christianity developed from the simple ethical teachings of Jesus into a more complex theological system under Paul’s influence. In his “Theology of the New Testament” (1951-1955), Bultmann argued that Paul essentially “invented” Christianity as we know it.
2. Different Contextual Concerns – Others, like Wayne Meeks in “The First Urban Christians” (1983), emphasize how different social contexts shaped these understandings. The historical Jesus addressed primarily Jewish audiences in rural Galilee, Matthew wrote for a Jewish-Christian community struggling with its Jewish identity, and Paul ministered to Gentile converts in urban settings across the Roman Empire.
3. Complementary Rather Than Contradictory – Some scholars like N.T. Wright, in “Paul and the Faithfulness of God” (2013), argue that these different understandings are complementary rather than contradictory. Wright suggests they represent different aspects of a coherent (though complex) understanding of God’s covenant relationship with humanity.
4. Changes in Historical Circumstances – Bart Ehrman, in “Jesus, Interrupted” (2009), emphasizes how changing historical circumstances affected these understandings. The historical Jesus taught before his crucifixion, while Paul and Matthew were responding to events after Jesus’s death and the delay of the expected end times.
Areas of Agreement
Despite these differences, critical scholars also note important commonalities:
- All three perspectives emphasize transformation of character
- All emphasize some form of divine initiative in the relationship
- All maintain the importance of responding to God’s initiative
Conclusion
The differences between these three perspectives reflect both the development of early Christian thought and the different contexts in which these ideas evolved. While the historical Jesus appears to have emphasized repentance, ethical behavior, and the imminent kingdom of God, Matthew’s Gospel portrays Jesus as affirming and fulfilling the Jewish law. Paul, meanwhile, developed a theology centered on faith in Christ and participation in his death and resurrection.
These different understandings continue to influence diverse Christian traditions today, with some emphasizing ethical behavior and obedience to divine law, while others focus more on faith and grace as the basis for right relationship with God.
