On the premise of an early Matthew, how does the intertextual relationship with Matthew 20:20–28 inform our understanding of 1 Timothy 2:1–15?

Question

I have previously articulated my perspective that Matthew was written early, coincident with the events of Acts 10-11, and was employed by Paul during his missionary journeys (here, here, and here). This paradigm shift, relative to the common view that the Gospels, and particularly Matthew, were written well after most of the other NT writings, allows us to evaluate potential intertextual relationships between the epistles and Matthew, for example.

Accordingly, 1 Timothy 2 appears to demonstrate an intertextual relationship with Matthew 20:20–28.

In 1 Timothy, Paul applauds Jesus, “who gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:6), an apparent reference to the event in Matthew, where Jesus responds to the mother of James and John in Matt 20:28: “even as the Son of Man came … to give his life as a ransom for many.” Given this connection with the pericope in Matt 20, the similar interest in kings and rulers becomes noteworthy—whereas Paul urges “prayers … for kings” (1 Tim 2:1–2), Jesus is contrasting the expected behavior of Christian leaders with the “rulers of the Gentiles” (Matt 20:25). Thus, we have a secondary correlation between these passages, which should encourage the reader to begin watching for any implications of the “unquoted surrounding context.”¹

Therefore, on the premise of an early Matthew, published within 5–10 years of the resurrection (or even a Matthew published in the AD 50s), and on the acceptance of an intertextual relationship, my question to this community is: how does Matthew 20:20–28 inform our understanding of 1 Timothy 2:1–15? I have my own idea, but would be interested in what others perceive.

Further, what insights do we gain that would be missed under the proposition that Matthew was instead written after the pastoral epistles?

¹Daniel B. Moore, A Trustworthy Gospel: Arguments for an Early Date for Matthew’s Gospel (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2024), 133–134. See Turner for a discussion on identifying intertextual connections between biblical passages, and the subsequent assessment of the “unquoted surrounding context." Ian Turner, “Going Beyond What Is Written or Learning to Read? Discovering OT/NT Broad Reference,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 61, no. 3 (September 2018): 578.

Answer 1

There is a huge literature discussing the differences between the theology of Paul and the theology in the Gospels. Now, the OP wishes to assert a connection between 1 Tim and Matthew on the basis of two sets of related passages. The two sets are:

1. "Ransom" in Matt 20:28 and 1 Tim 2:6

There are a number of difficulties with this supposed relationship including:

• they use different words for "ransom, namely ἀντίλυτρον in 1 Tim 2:6 (a hapax legomenon) vs λύτρον in Matt 20:28
• The same verse also occurs (with the same word) in Mark 10:45
• Paul and Matthew record logically different ransom objects - Paul's divine ransom is for πάντων ("all") while Matthew records πολύς ("many"). [Calvinists make much of this difference.]

2. Kings/rulers in Matt 20:25 vs 1 Tim 2:1, 2

Again, I struggle to see the connection between these two verses for the following reasons:

• different language is used - Matthew uses ἄρχων ("ruler") vs Paul's language of "kings and all those being in authority" is very different
• Jesus' words as recorded in Matthew 20:25 puts the behavior of gentile rulers in a bad light, vs Paul encouraging Christians to pray earnestly for kings and all in authority

There are yet more difficulties associating Matthew's gospel with Paul's writings generally such as:

• Paul teaches several things about marriage (1 Cor 7) which he directly contrasts with that of Jesus in Matt 19; viz "I not the Lord".
• Paul commonly uses a number of words never used by Mathhew such as (and most conspicuously) χάρις ("grace"). [On the basis of the use of this word, Paul is far more dependent on Luke than Matthew because Luke uses "grace" at least 8 times, but Matthew never uses it.]
• The whole thrust of Matthew's gospel to portray Jesus as the promised and legitimate king of Israel as prophesied in the Hebrew scriptures (note how many times Matthew quotes "as it is written" specifically to prove this one point.) Now, while Paul quotes Scripture often, it is almost never to prove this point - Paul's emphasis is more on the Christian life as motivated by Grace as his magnum opus of Romans is at pains to point out. [On this latter basis, Apollos was more dependent on Matthew than Paul - see Acts 18:28.]

None of this suggests that Matthew was not early - it possibly was; but the OP's suggestions do not provide any evidence of such.