I’m responding to this post because it just arrived in summary form in my inbox today. Let me try to answer your questions:
-
I am not sure what you mean by “a lot”. Can you please provide the references.
-
Your interpretation of this episode in the story of Jesus is very much over literal. Conceptualization of “all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor” does not require a literal seeing of them. Jesus is tempted to use his powers for earthly kingdoms. He rejects that temptation. Unfortunately, many humans don’t. They send thousands of people off to their deaths for their dreams of controlling the world. Just look at the world today.
-
Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:17 following are:
17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Mat 5:17-19 NIV)
Scholars interpret these words very differently. Some, (eg J P Meir), do not see “fulfil” as meaning obey, but rather fulfil in the sense that the Law is a pale shadow of Jesus’ own teaching. You get the same idea in St Paul (Colossians 2:17) and in the Epistle to the Hebrews:
“Since the law has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the true form of these realities, it1 can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered year after year, make perfect those who approach.” (Heb 10:1 NRS)
St Paul wrote rather disparagingly of the things of the law of Moses. In Philippians 3:8, after listing some prescriptions of the Law of Moses, Paul says:
“More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ. (Phi 3:8 NRS)
Please note that the word translated as “rubbish” in various modern English translations has been softened for public reading in church worship. If we follow the BDAG Greek Lexicon, the word is most accurately translated as “crap”. Paul would not have been able to hold such an authoritative position in the early church if his thinking were at odds with those of Jesus.
One needs also to understand that some sections of the early church found it difficult to accept that the Good News of the Gospel was meant for others beyond Jews. Matthew may represent such a faction. Each of the Gospel authors tweaks their representation of Jesus to reflect their own theology. For example, in Matthew 10:5-6, Matthew has Jesus say that he has only come to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel”. However, as Matthew would have it, this people of Israel excludes both Gentiles and Samaritans (verse 5). The problem for Matthew is that recent Biblical research has shown that the Samaritan claim to be the descendants of the northern Israelites, who had avoided deportation by the Assyrians in 722 B.C., is true. In other words, the Samaritans are Israelites too. They are part of the people of Israel. Matthew’s exclusion of the Samaritans from the people of Israel reflects a particular faction amongst 1st century Jews. In this, he is at loggerheads with the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles (both written by Luke).
Matthew uses the same expression of “the lost sheep of the people of Israel” in Matthew 15:21; his version of the story of the Syro-Phoenician woman in Tyre. A comparison with the equivalent story in Mark 7:24-30 does not show reference to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel”. Furthermore, in Mark, only the woman portrays herself as being a dog under the family table. However, Matthew has Jesus refer to the woman as a dog. Matthew has turned a playful story into a piece of factional racism.
It is no surprise that, in Matthew’s account of the resurrection appearance in Matthew 28:16-20, “some doubted”. But what is it they are doubting? It is hardly the fact of the resurrection, for all the Gospels take this as a fact without which there would never have been a Christian church. The jolt for Matthew and his community is that the risen Jesus’ command is to take the good news of the gospel to all nations, when all previous mentions in the Gospel were exclusive to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel”. In other words, some in Matthew’s community struggled to believe that the risen Christ had given this command. Those present had little choice to believe this, but those who heard it second hand can’t quite get their head around it.
The point of all this is that Matthew’s Gospel must be read taking into account that there is a struggle going on in Matthew’s community, and in Matthew himself. In their selective memory, they continue to paint Jesus in the stance of their faction until the very end where it becomes impossible.