Chapter 358 of 404

Notes to Chapter 19

1 Mack, Lost Gospel, 1-2.

2 Pope Benedict, Jesus of Nazareth, 186.

3 Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 650.

4 The storm could represent any test, but some suggest that, in the context of Jesus’ message, it points especially to the final Test, the day of judgment (e.g., Jeremias, Sermon, 8-9; cf. the test of the final tribulation in Jeremias, Parables, 169). The ultimate storm here may recall the flood that Jesus elsewhere uses to prefigure the final day (Matt 24:37-39//Lk 17:26-27; Schweizer, Matthew, 191, citing also Ezek 13:10-16; cf. 1 En. 94:7).

5 ARN 24A; a similar example in Bultmann, Tradition, 202.

6 Cf. Gundry, Matthew, 135.

7 Jeremias, Parables, 194; Argyle, Matthew, 64; Luz, Matthew, 452.

8 A demand to follow Jesus rather than other teachers (Meeks, Moral World, 138, regarding some of Jesus’ other teachings in Matthew).

9 For Q’s “high” Christology (i.e., Jesus is venerated as in other early Christian circles), see especially Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 217-57.

10 E.g., Ex 19:4; Deut 32:11; Ps 17:8; 36:7; 63:7; 91:4; 1 En. 39:7; Sipre Deut. 296.3.1; 306.4.1; 314.1.1-6.

11 Cf. 2 Bar. 41:4; ARN 12A; Sipre Num. 80.1.1; Gen. Rab. 47:10; Pesiq. Rab. 14:2.

12 See e.g., Kingsbury, Christology, 150. One could also argue that this occurs slightly earlier, at the triumphal entry (Burkill, “Strain”).

13 So Grant, Gospel, 193.

14 Schweizer, Matthew, 427.

15 Moule, Mark, 99; the usual rule seems to have been that the father honors a son of higher rank when in public settings (Aul. Gel. 2.2).

16 Jeremias, Theology, 259; France, Matthew, 321.

17 Lane, Mark, 435; cf. Ps 89:27; Is 9:7; 11:1; Jer 23:5-6.

18 Harrington, Matthew, 90; Argyle, Matthew, 170; Meier, Matthew, 260.

19 So e.g., Gundry, Old Testament, 200; Witherington, Christology, 190; pace Weeden, Mark, 133. Witherington, Christology, 190-91 responds to arguments against authenticity, noting e.g., that the play on words works in Aramaic as well as in Greek (amar marya le mari; but is a play on words central in the passage anyway?); there is no clear indication that Son of God displaces Son of David here (noting the antinomy above); and this is not the only place where Jesus takes the initiative (Mk 8:27- 30) or speaks allusively (cf. Matt 11:5-6//Lk 7:22-23).

20 Whether some Jewish people were interpreting Ps 110 messianically before Jesus is debated (Longenecker, Exegesis, 73 argues that some were), but Jesus’ specific application of the psalm here is new in any case, both by allowing “lord” to bear a meaning much higher than a Davidic king, and by applying it to himself by implication.

21 Including some allusions, see e.g., Acts 2:34-35; 7:55; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; Mk 16:19; Justin 1 Apol. 45.

22 Probably against Christian polemic, later rabbis applied Ps 110:1 to Abraham (e.g., b. Ned. 32b; Gen. Rab. 46:5; Lev. Rab. 25:6; Midr. Ps. 110); cf. Justin’s polemic against an application to Hezekiah (Dial. 32; cf. Williams, Justin, 175).

23 The language of divine adoption of kings appears elsewhere in the ancient Near East; thus the enthronement decree in Ps 2:7 resembles those in Assyrian and other texts (cf. ANET [1955], 267, 370, 383; Dahood, Psalms, 1:11-12; Gordon, Near East, 254), and an adoption formula (de Vaux, Israel, 112).

24 Cf. Hanson, Unity, 154. The early Christian picture of Jesus’ “Lordship” perhaps used Ps 110:1 at the earliest stage, and also draws on OT pictures of Yahweh; cf. further Marshall, Origins, 97-111; Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 109-18.

25 For this practice, see e.g., CD 7.15-20; Mek. Nez. 10.15-16, 26, 38; 17.17; Pisha 5.103. Paul also uses the method (with e.g., Plag, “Übernahme”), though Hays, Echoes, 12, correctly observes that the use of catchwords is a general method, not specifically rabbinic (for the narrower rabbinic sense, see Chernick, “Restraints”).

26 See Hengel, Son, 63; also a point emphasized in Pope Benedict’s portrayal of Jesus (Jesus of Nazareth).

27 Jeremias, Prayers, 57 (followed by e.g., Martin, Worship, 34-35; Bruce, Books, 56; cf. Hunter, Predecessors, 50) may have overstated the case for the title’s uniqueness, but his detractors on the issue have focused on exceptions rather than the preponderance of evidence (e.g., Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 210-13; a rare analogy hardly constitutes proof of vocative appellation; Jeremias himself noted this exception [“Abba,” 204, on b. Taan. 23b], explaining it differently).

28 Many studies have been done on this motif; e.g., in Luke’s Gospel, see Chen, Father.

29 I provide surveys of the “father” title for God or deities in Keener, Matthew, 217-18; idem, John, 401-2, 877-79.

30 E.g., I. Eph. 101-4; Hom. Il. 2.371; 8.69, 245, 397; 10.154; 11.66, 80, 201, 544; 14.352; 15.637; 16.250, 253; 17.46, 645 (quoted in Longin. Subl. 9.10); 22.60, 209; 24.461; Od. 4.340; 5.7; 7.311; 12.63; 13.51; 14.440; 15.341; 16.260; 17.132; 18.235; 24.376, 518; Hesiod W.D. 169; Aeschylus Prom. 40, 53, 947, 984; Suppl. 139; Eurip. Med. 1352; Aristoph. Wasps 652 (“our father”); Hipponax frg. 62; Pindar Nem. 5.33; Ol. 1.57a; 2.28; 7.87-88; 14.12; Pyth. 3.98; 4.23; Aratus Phaen. 15; Pliny Ep. 1.7.1 (quoting Hom. Il. 16.250); Dio Chrys. Or. 12.75; Max. Tyre 11.12; Orph. H. 15.7; 19.1; as genn?t?r, e.g., Aeschylus Suppl. 206 (in a literal genetic way for the Danaids; such mythological examples of descent from Zeus could be multiplied, e.g., Philost. Hrk. 39.3).

31 E.g., Virg. Aen. 1.691; Georg. 1.121, 283, 328, 353; 2.325; Val. Flacc. 1.498; 3.249; Catullus 64.21; Sil. It. 3.137, 163; often as “omnipotent father,” Virg. Aen. 1.60; 3.251; 4.25; 6.592; 7.141; 7.770; 8.398; 10.100; 12.178; Ovid Metam. 1.154; 2.304, 401; 3.336; 9.271; as genitor, Virg. Aen. 12.843; Val. Flacc. 1.531; Sil. It. 4.417; 17.475; Statius Silv. 5.3.207; Theb. 5.146; Fronto De Fer Als. 3.8.

32 E.g., Hom. Il. 3.276, 320, 350, 365; 7.179, 202, 446; 8.236; 12.164; 13.631; 15.372; 17.19, 645; 19.270; 21.273; 24.308; Od. 12.371; 20.98, 112, 201; 21.200; 24.351; Soph. Oed. tyr. 202; Aristoph. Acharn. 223-225; Pindar Nem. 8.35; 9.53; 10.29; Isthm. 6.42; Ap. Rhod. 4.1673; Aratus Phaen. 15-16 (esp. 15); Sil. It. 10.432; Dio Chrys. Or. 36.36; see further discussion in Keener, Matthew, 217-18. So addressed by other gods, e.g., Hom. Il. 8.31; 22.178; Od. 8.306; 12.377 (even when they are his siblings, because it remains his title — e.g., Il. 5.757, 762; 19.121; Od. 13.128).

33 E.g., Hom. Il. 8.31 (“father of us all,” by a deity); (Ps.) Dion. Epideictic 2.262; Hor. Ode 1.12.13- 18; Plut. S.K., Alexander 15, Mor. 180D; Dio Chrys. Or. 74.27 (supplying “father” from the context); cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 36.35; Macrob. Sat. 4.5.4 (using Virg. Aen. 6.123; van der Horst, “Macrobius,” 226); syncretistically, PGM 22b.1-5. Among the philosophically inclined, see Plato Tim. 28C; Plut. Plat. Q. 2.1, Mor. 1000E-1001C (esp. 2.1, 1000E); T.-T. 8.1.3, Mor. 718A; Max. Tyre 2.10; 11.5, 9.

34 E.g., Hom. Il. 1.503, 534, 578-79; Phaedrus 1.2.13; Virg. Aen. 9.495; Ovid Metam. 2.848; 9.245; Val. Flacc. 4.1; Catullus 64.298, 387; Ovid Fasti 3.285; Sil. It. 5.70; 17.342. Thinkers could also call God “father of himself ” (Iambl. Myst. 8.2), i.e., “self-begotten” (cf. PGM 1.342-43; 13.62; Sib. Or. 1.20; 3.12). He is also “god of fathers” (Epict. Diatr. 3.11.5).

35 Hor. Ode 1.12.49; Plut. Alex. 27.6; Dio Chrys. Or. 12.74; Max. Tyre 41.2. Among Stoics, see Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus (Stob. Ecl. 1.1.12). The trees could also call Zeus their “father,” as their creator (Babr. 142.3).

36 E.g., Hom. Il. 1.544; 4.68; 5.426; 8.49, 132; 11.182; 15.12, 47; 16.458; 20.56; 22.103, 167; Od. 1.28; 12.445; Hesiod W.D. 59; Theog. 457, 468, 542; Shield of Heracles 27; Ovid Metam. 14.807; Diod. Sic. 1.12.1; Dio Chrys. Or. 2.75; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.30; even Philo Spec. Laws 2.165; cf. Phaedrus 3.17.10; for “father of gods and king of humans,” Virg. Aen. 1.65; 2.648; 10.2. Philosophers, perhaps especially Platonists, gave a philosophic interpretation of Homer’s phrase (Cornutus 9, p. 9.1 Lang [Grant, Gods, 78]; Max. Tyre 35.1; Iambl. V.P. 8.38). The conjunction of fatherhoods appears pre-Homeric, paralleled at Ugarit (Gordon, Civilizations, 233).

37 Dio Chrys. Or. 4.27.

38 Dio Chrys. Or. 4.19-21.

39 E.g., Mus. Ruf. 8, p. 64.14; Epict. Diatr. 1.6.40.

40 Stoics in Diog. Laert. 7.1.147; Marc. Aur. 10.1 (“begetter” of all).

41 E.g., Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus (Stob. Ecl. 1.1.12); Sen. Ep. Lucil. 110.10; Epict. Diatr. 1.9.4-5, 6, 7; 1.13.3-4; 3.22.82. Cf. Mus. Ruf. 18a, p. 112.23-25 (in van der Horst, “Musonius,” 309). Sen. Dial. 1.1.5 refers specifically to a good man (cf. Epict. Diatr. 1.19.9).

42 Mus. Ruf. 16, p. 104.30; Epict. Diatr. 1.3.1; 1.19.12; Dio Chrys. Or. 4.22.

43 See Jeremias, Prayers, 12; especially Chen, Father, 73-111.

44 Spec. Laws 2.165.

45 Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.241.

46 E.g., Apoc. Mos. 35:2 (God so addressed by angels).

47 Creation 135; Conf. 170; Moses 2.238; Decal. 32, 51, 105, 107; Spec. Laws 1.14, 22, 32, 41, 96; 2.6, 165; 3.178, 189; Virt. 64, 77, 218; Praem. 24; Cont. 90; Aet. 13; Leg. 115, 293; cf. perhaps Q. Gen. 2.60. For the Logos as father of humanity, cf. Conf. 41.

48 God as “begetter” in Sib. Or. 3.296, 604, 726; 5.284, 328, 360, 406, 498, 500.

49 PGM 22b.1-26 (Pr. Jac. 22.4-5).

50 Sib. Or. 3.278; cf. Spec. Laws 2.165.

51 E.g., Theoph. 1.4; Athenag. 13; 27.

52 See Wisd 2:16; 3 Macc 5:7; 6:8; 7:6. For one survey, see Chen, Father, 113-43; note also observations in Levine, Misunderstood Jew, 42-44.

53 E.g., m. Sot. 9:15; tos. Ber. 3:14; B.K. 7:6; Hag. 2:1; Peah 4:21; Sipra Qed. pq. 9.207.2.13; Behuq. pq. 8.269.2.15; Sipre Deut. 352.1.2; b. Ber. 30a, bar.; 30b; 32b; 35b; 57a; Shab. 116a; 131b; Pes. 85b; 112a; R.H. 29a; Yoma 76a; Suk. 45b; Meg. 13a; 14a; Sot. 10a; 12a; 38b; B.B. 10a; Sanh. 94a; 101b; 102a; 102b; A.Z. 16b; Zeb. 22b; p. Sanh. 10:2, §8; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:9; Lev. Rab. 1:3; 7:1; 35:10; Song Rab. 7:11, §1; Tg. Neof. 1 on Deut 33.24; Tg. Ps.-Jon. on Ex 1:19 (with note in trans. p. 163 n. 38). The phraseology must predate later rabbinic sources (cf. Mk 11:25; Lk 11:13), but in the NT appears especially in Matthew, the source closest to rabbinic usage (Matt 5:16, 45, 48; 6:1, 9, 14 [= Mk 11:25], 26, 32; 7:11 [= Lk 11:13], 21; 10:32-33; 12:50; 15:13; 16:17; 18:10, 14, 19, 35; 23:9).

54 Goshen-Gottstein, “God the Father” (excepting Jesus’ special sonship).

55 Boer, Fatherhood, 25.

56 Jub. 1:25, 28; Tob 13:4; Wisd 11:10; Jos. Asen. 12:14 MSS; Test. Job 33:3 MSS, 9; cf. Test. Ab. 16:3, 20:12, 13 A; Pr. Jos. 1. For the righteous as a child of God, see Wisd 2:13, 16.

57 If one counts references in Matthew, Luke, and John, one could add over thirty more instances, but while it is implied in Mark’s “Abba,” it does not appear as “my Father” in Mark.

58 The supposition that it goes back specifically to the Lord’s Prayer (e.g., Hunter, Predecessors, 50; Ridderbos, Galatians, 158), however, remains undemonstrated (see e.g., Lull, Spirit in Galatia, 67).

59 Jesus and Judaism, 41-42.

60 Jeremias, Prayers, 57, 60, 109-10; Bruce, Time, 21-22.

61 Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 210-13; idem, Jesus and Judaism, 42; Borg, Vision, 45.

62 Vermes (Jesus and Judaism, 42) cites b. Taan. 23b. Besides being late, the exceptions are quite rare (see Klausner, Jesus, 378; Stanton, Gospel Truth, 153).

63 Syriac versions also sometimes use “Abba” even though it was foreign to normal Syriac (Jeremias, Prayers, 64-65). That the Gentile churches may have treated it as an ecstatic palindrome (Aune, “Magic,” 1550) is rendered less probable by the translation accompanying it (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6).

64 For “Abba” in Paul as an echo of the “Jesus tradition,” see e.g., Dunn, Theology, 192-93; Dunn, “Tradition,” 168. Many associate it more specifically with the Lord’s Prayer, since Jesus taught this prayer to his followers (e.g., Cullmann, Worship, 13; Hunter, Predecessors, 50; Ridderbos, Galatians, 158; Stuhlmacher, Romans, 129), but it could have stemmed from his example. Cf. Jn 10:14-15; 16:13-15 (with 15:15).

65 Pace Bultmann, Tradition, 159. Vermes, Religion, 160 doubts that Jesus believed the Father would hide anything from him; but is it not less likely that the church believed he would? Further, his argument that God consults rather than withholds information from his angels (ibid. n. 9) is too sweeping; in Jewish literature God did not reveal everything (including about the time of the end) even to them. Thus most accept the verse’s point, though some reject its wording (Dunn, Jesus and Spirit, 34-35; cf. Barrett, Jesus and Tradition, 25).

66 So also Wenham, Bible, 46; Gundry, Matthew, 218, 492; Stanton, Gospel Truth, 153; cf. Glasson, Advent, 93.

67 Witherington, Christology, 229-30.

68 See e.g., Bonsirven, Judaism, 178; Morris, Apocalyptic, 46-47; cf. Test. Ab. 7.16B; Gr. Ezra 3:3-4.

69 E.g., b. Pes. 54b, bar.; Sanh. 97a; Num. Rab. 5:6; see Moore, Judaism, 2:231; Daube, NT and Judaism, 289-90; cf. 2 Bar. 21:8.

70 B. Sanh. 99a; Blau and Kohler, “Angelology,” 586.

71 4 Ezra 4:52.

72 Witherington, Christology, 232 (comparing divine Wisdom). Perrin, Language, 86, relates the absolute use of “Son” here to the same sayings-source behind Matt 11:25-27/Lk 10:21-22.

73 Among the Gospels, “Son of God” becomes particularly prominent in John and Matthew. Kingsbury, Matthew, 40-83, sees “Son of God” as Matthew’s primary christological title; Hill, “Son,” challenges this centrality of the title.

74 Cf. Manson, Sayings, 79; Jeremias, Theology, 59.

75 Cf. Vermes, Jesus and Judaism, 48.

76 So e.g., Hagner, Matthew, 317-18; pace Bousset, Kyrios Christos, 83-85.

77 Witherington, Christology, 224.

78 E.g., Stauffer, Jesus, 165-66; Grant, Gnosticism, 152; Suggs, Christology, 71-108; Yamauchi, Gnosticism, 35; Witherington, Christology, 221-22.

79 Jeremias, Theology, 57; cf. idem, Prayers, 45-48; idem, Message, 24.

80 Dunn, Jesus and Spirit, allows that Jesus may have spoken the passage but remains uncertain. Vermes, Religion, 162, while agreeing that the Q logion behind Matt 11:25-27//Lk 10:21-22 has a Palestinian origin, doubts its authenticity because he says receiving and transmitting revelation (here and Matt 16:17) is foreign to Jesus’ teaching. But if Jesus’ contemporaries could apply this language to the mysteries of Wisdom (and Vermes admits they could; cf. also n. 12, where he cites 1QS 1.9; 5.9; 8.1; 9.13; CD 15.13; 1QpHab 2.2-3; 7.5-6; 4Q 381 1.1-2), Vermes can exclude the possibility of Jesus the sage speaking likewise only by circularly excluding the evidence of this passage. If, as we argue, Jesus spoke also as a prophet, the language of “revealing” ought not be excluded.

81 E.g., Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:283.

82 Jeremias, Theology, 58-61; idem, Message, 25; Borg, Conflict, 232. One might appeal here to Wisd 2:13, 16, 18 (cf. 7:27), in which Wisdom makes people “children” of God; but while this may constitute a primary background, it does not limit how Jesus could have reapplied the expression, especially if he functions here as the divine revealer, hence as Wisdom herself. A Jewish audience would recognize Wisdom as God’s child; partly because Wisdom was a female figure (cf. the term’s gender but also her figurative portrayals, e.g., Prov 8-9), partly because later rabbis usually reserved the “son” image for Israel, Wisdom/Torah became God’s “daughter” (e.g., Sipre Deut. 345.2.2; b. Sanh. 101a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 26:9).

83 Schweizer, Matthew, 271.

84 Gundry, Matthew, 217-18.

85 Such as a new Moses (Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:283-87).

86 Cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:296-97; Deutsch, Wisdom, 143.

87 Witherington, Christology, 227. Suggs, Christology, probably did overstate the case in Matthew (see Pregeant, “Wisdom Passages”), but it should not for that reason be dismissed entirely. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:222-25, 231 find the language of “exclusive and reciprocal divine knowledge” in the figure of Moses (Ex 33-34; Num 12; Deut 34; also Allison, “Notes”). They acknowledge the Wisdom language in the context, but seek to keep both backgrounds by noting the idea of the king as embodying a living law (Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:228-29, citing three references in Stobaeus and Moses as living Torah in Philo Mos. 1.162; cf. 2.3-5). We suspect, however, that Wisdom language, which is closer and more widespread in this exalted form, would strike Jesus’ hearers first.

88 Hengel, Son, 21-23.

89 See (some from Longenecker, Christology, 97), e.g., Ex 4:22-23; Hos 11:1; Is 1:2; 30:1; 63:16; Jer 3:19-22; Tob 13:4; Sir 4:10; Ps. Sol. 13:9; 17:27-30; 18:4; Jub. 1:24-25; 2:20; 1QH 9.35-36; Wisd 11:10; m. Ab. 3:15; Sipra Behuq. pq. 2.262.1.9; Sipre Deut. 43.16.1; 45.1.2; 96.4.1; 308.1.2; 352.7.1; ARN 35, §77; 44, §124 B; b. Shab. 31a, 128a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:5; 14:5; Ex. Rab. 46:4-5; Num. Rab. 5:3; 10:2; Deut. Rab. 1:6; 3:15; 7:9; Lam. Rab. proem 23; Lam. Rab. 3:20, §7; Pesiq. Rab. 27:3. Besides these, cf. the singular in Ex 4:22; Hos 11:1; Wisd 18:13; Sipre Deut. 43.8.1; b. Shab. 31a; Yoma 76a; Ex. Rab. 15:30; Lev. Rab. 10:3; Num. Rab. 16:7; Deut. Rab. 2:24; 10:4; Lam. Rab. proem 2; Lam. Rab. 1:17, §52; Song Rab. 2:16, §1; Pesiq. Rab. 15:17.

90 Wisd 2:13, 16, 18; 5:5; cf. 4Q416 fr. 2 (+4Q417) 1.13 (in Wise, Abegg and Cook, Scrolls, 384); 4Q418 frg. 81, line 5; Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 195-97. Favorite members of Israel, e.g., Moses, could be called God’s “son” (Sipre Deut. 29.4.1, a parable; cf. possibly 1 En. 105:2, but it probably [106:1] refers to Enoch’s son). In later rabbinic texts, a heavenly voice identifies a beloved rabbi as his son (b. Ber. 7a; p. M.K. 3:1, §6; cf. b. Ber. 19a; Suk. 45b; p. Taan. 3:10, §1). On “charismatic rabbis,” see Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 210-11; but Witherington, Christology, 153, correctly notes that the expression when applied to “charismatic rabbis” is not used as distinctively as in early Christianity.

91 Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 200.

92 Later rabbinic polemic explicitly emphasizes that the “son” of Dan 3:25 was merely an angel (p. Shab. 6:9, §3).

93 So also Hengel, Son, 24, on Greek usage.

94 Hooker, Preface, 55-65, sees this sense (which is plausible) rather than Messiahship in Paul, but the options are not mutually exclusive (cf. Rom 1:4).

95 See Harvey, History, 172-73.

96 Cf. 1 Chron 17:13; 22:10; 28:6.

97 Dahood, Psalms, 11-12; cf. De Vaux, Israel, 109; Harrelson, Cult, 86-87.

98 See Bright, History, 225.

99 Cf. Jer 23:5-6, but note Jer 33:16; Zech 12:8. Given the prevalence of ascribing divinity to kings in parts of the ancient Near East (De Vaux, Israel, 111; even Akenaton in “The Amarna Letters,” 483-90 in ANET, passim), one sin to which Israel’s and Judah’s rulers had not succumbed (De Vaux, Israel, 113), one may question whether Isaiah would have risked implying that God would be Israel’s ultimate Davidic king if that was not what he meant (pace Berger and Wyschogrod, Jewish Christianity, 43; on the structure cf. De Vaux, Israel, 107; Kitchen, Orient, 110). This idea admittedly lacks parallels elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, but explicit Messianic material is scarce in it to begin with. (Tg. Is. on 9:6 deliberately alters the grammar to distinguish the Davidic king from the Mighty God.)

100 Before the Qumran texts, in fact, scholars generally agreed that first-century Judaism did not employ “son of God” as a messianic title, in contrast to some Old Testament usage (see Conzelmann, Theology of Luke, 76-77; Jeremias, Parables, 73; Montefiore, Gospels, 1:85; Stevens, Theology, 104-5). Bultmann, Theology, 50, does recognize its use in OT messianic vocabulary before its later hellenistic “mythological” sense.

101 4QFlor 1.10-11; 1QSa 2.11-12; see Longenecker, Christology, 95; Stanton, Gospels, 225; García Martínez, “Sonship”; further on 4QFlor, see Brooke, “4Q174.” Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 198-99, rightly notes that 1QSer(a) (=1Q28a) 2:11-12 is not as clear as 4QFlor; Hengel, Son, 44, also cites a Daniel apocryphon as yet unpublished at the time of his book. 4Q174 3.10-11 uses 2 Sam 7:11-14 in an explicitly messianic context (4Q174 3.11-13; the passage may also stress, as Bergmeier, “Erfüllung,” argues on 4Q174 2.17-3.13, the eschatological elect and their temple).

102 See Evans, “Son”; idem, “Prayer of Enosh” (including 4Q458); Abegg, “Introduction to 4Q369,” 329.

103 Collins, “Son of God”; and, noting also the close parallels with Lk 1:33-35, both Evans, “4Q246” and Kuhn, “Son of God.” Fitzmyer, “4Q246,” applies it positively to a coming ruler, but not in a messianic sense.

104 Recovery of the context in the latter case (4Q246 1.5-9; 2.2-3) suggests to some that 4Q246 is simply polemic against pagan claims for divine sonship (Fabry, “Texte”; Cook, “4Q246”).

105 Cf. Bons, “Psaume 2.” Ps. Sol. 17:23 uses Ps 2:9 in a messianic passage, although “son” (2:7) is not mentioned. Gero, “Messiah,” finds “son of God” in 4 Ezra (cf. also 13:37, 52), but more scholars think the Greek behind the passage read “servant” (Jeremias, Parables, 73 n. 86); the Ethiopic, an Arabic version, and the Armenian omit “Son” (OTP 1:537, note e).

106 See Hurtado, “Homage.”

107 See especially Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ.

108 For elaboration, see e.g., Keener, John, 281-320, 360-63, and passim on relevant passages.

109 This is not certain; simply because John writes a story independently of Mark does not mean that he had not heard Mark (in fact, I believe that he almost surely had heard Mark). His independent telling, however, increases the likelihood of multiple attestation here.

110 Robinson, Studies, 13. Although Mark freely blends texts (Is 40:3; Mal 3:1) in the standard Jewish manner (linking them by means of the common phrase, “prepare the way,” Longenecker, Exegesis, 138), naming the more well-known prophet in his composite quotation, Matthew simplifies Mark’s citation by including only the quotation actually from Isaiah (cf. Meier, Matthew, 23).

111 1QS 8.13-14; cf. Brownlee, “Comparison with Sects,” 71; Brown, “Scrolls,” 4.

112 1QS 8.15-16.

113 Is 40:3-5 depict readying roads for the king’s arrival, hence the coming of God’s kingship (cf. 52:7); heralds would go before him announcing the good news as he led his people forth (60:6; 61:1).

114 As commentators regularly note (e.g., Hooker, Message, 9; Hengel, Leader, 36).

115 Saldarini, Community, 131 suggests an allusion to Lev 23:3, a “Sabbath to the Lord,” i.e., Yahweh. Equally speculatively, Witherington, Christology, 246 (who regards Mk 2:28 as redactional summary — p. 67) suggests a contrast with the evil figure who changes times and law in Dan 7:25 (cf. Jos. Ant. 10.276).

116 E.g., Montefiore, Gospels, 1:44; Borg, Conflict, 155.

117 Cf. Smith, Tannaitic Parallels, 138; Jeremias, Theology, 18; Vermes, Religion, 24; pace Witherington, Christology, 68.

118 E.g., 2 Macc 5:19; 2 Bar. 14:18; Deut. Rab. 3:1; Pesiq. Rab. 23:9. Witherington, Sage, 169 suggests that Jesus’ statement in Mark 2:27 may counter the sort of saying that appears in Jub. 2:18ff.

119 Cf. Pope Benedict, Jesus of Nazareth, 110-11, engaging Neusner, Rabbi.

120 Gundry, Old Testament, 214.

121 E.g., God’s yoke (Ps. Sol. 7:9); that of the law (Jer 5:5; 2 Bar. 41:3; m. Ab. 3:5; Sipra Sh. pq. 12.121.2.5; Sipre Deut. 344.4.2); and that of his kingdom (m. Ber. 2:2, 5; Sipra Behar par. 5.255.1.9, 11).

122 Smith, Tannaitic Parallels, 153.

123 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:289.

124 Pace Stanton, “Salvation”; idem, New People, 366-77; and Gundry, Matthew, 220, though Gundry’s own evidence points to Matthew’s changes of Sirach.

125 Cf. Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-Existence, 68; Meier, Matthew, 127.

126 Hagner, Matthew, 323 sees in 11:28 an allusion to Yahweh giving rest (Ex 33:14) that goes beyond Wisdom. This is possible, but the language can be explained simply as an allusion to divine Wisdom.

127 Ridderbos, Paul and Jesus, 102; cf. Ellis, Matthew, 28; Danker, “Perspectives.”

128 1QS 6.3, 6; CD 13.2-3; B. Ber. 6ab; Meg. 23b; p. Meg. 4:4, §5; Reicke, Era, 121.

129 M. Ab. 3:2, 6; Mek. Bahodesh 11.48ff; cf. m. Ber. 7:3.

130 Which presumably predates Jesus’/Matthew’s saying, since the rabbis would not likely borrow it from Christian sources (cf. Smith, Tannaitic Parallels, 152-53; Meier, Matthew, 206; Barth, “Law,” 135; Sievers, “Shekhinah”). Cf. Ziesler, “Presence,” comparing Jesus’ presence with Yahweh’s in the Old Testament.

131 E.g., Sib. Or. 3.701; 3 En. 18:24; m. Ab. 2:9, 13; 3:14; tos. Peah 1:4; 3:8; Shab. 7:22, 25; 13:5; R.H. 1:18; Taan. 2:13; B.K. 7:7; Sanh. 1:2; 13:1, 6; 14:3, 10; Sipra VDDen. pq. 2.2.4.2; 4.6.4.1; Sipra Sav Mekhilta deMiluim par. 98.7.7; Shemini Mekhilta deMiluim 99.1.4, 5, 7; 99.2.2, 3; 99.3.9, 11; 99.5.13; Sipra Qed. par. 1.195.2.3; pq. 7.204.1.4; Sipra Emor pq. 9.227.1.5; Behuq. pq. 5.266.1.1; Sipre Num. 11.2.3; 11.3.1; 42/1/2; 42.2.3; 76.2.2; 78.1.1; 78.5.1; 80.1.1; 82.3.1; 84.1.1; 84.5.1; 85.3.1; 85.4.1; 85.5.1; Sipre Deut. 1.8.3; 1.9.2; 1.10.4; 2.1.1; 11.1.1; 21.1.1; 24.3.1; 26.4.1; 28.1.1; 32.3.2; 32.5.8; 33.1.1; 37.1.1, 3; 38.1.1, 3.

132 Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:790, with most scholars (e.g., Stanton, Gospel Truth, 60), regard the saying “as an utterance of the risen Lord” (i.e., not “authentic” in the sense of deriving from Jesus before the resurrection). At the same time they concede that they cannot be dogmatic; was Paul the only person to speak “of being spiritually present with others”? But Matt 18:20 means far more than 1 Cor 5:3-5 (which, pace Fee, Corinthians, 205, communicates merely epistolary presence — cf. 1 Thess 2:17; Col 2:5; Isoc. Nic./Cypr. 51-52, Or. 3.37; Sen. Ep. Lucil. 32.1). If Jesus did offer this saying in anticipation of his resurrection, he communicated a point to his disciples the full impact of which they were unprepared to grasp.

133 One may exclude this saying from the words of the historical Jesus (e.g., Flusser, Judaism, 515) if one a priori assumes that wisdom christology (here, Shekinah christology) originated among Jesus’ followers after his departure; but one must exclude a number of Jesus’ sayings (e.g., Matt 23:34; 24:36) to support this approach. Witherington, Sage, contends that wisdom christology originated with Jesus; while the thesis does not match traditional modern theories of christology’s evolution, those theories have problems with earlier Pauline evidence.

134 Wisdom was often portrayed as water (Philo Flight 166; Worse 117; Sib. Or. 1.33-34; cf. Sir 24:21). This connection is relevant to this passage because wisdom sits by God’s throne (Wisd 9:4) and a stream of wisdom teaching did identify God’s Spirit with his wisdom (Wisd 9:17; cf. Wisd 1:6-7; 7:22; for Philo, Isaacs, Spirit, 54-55; cf. also Keener, John, 963-64).

135 As is widely agreed (Haenchen, Acts, 184 n. 5; Dupont, Salvation, 22; Zehnle, Pentecost Discourse, 34; Pao, Isaianic Exodus, 231-32; Marshall, “Use of OT,” 536, 543).

136 See especially Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 198-99, who suggests that this belongs to a very early ritual of confessing Jesus (cf. 1 Cor 1:2; 12:3). Paul elsewhere applies earlier biblical language for God to Jesus, e.g., Is 45:22-23 in Phil 2:10-11.

137 Cf. e.g., Knights, “Faces.”

138 See Glasson, Advent, 161-79; followed also by Robinson, Coming, 140-41.

139 Fee, Corinthians, 839.

140 Ladd, Theology, 416-17. See further Longenecker, Christology, 136. Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 114, plausibly objects that “Mar” is also a human form of address, appropriate for rulers, and suggests (p. 127) that in the earliest traditions, the title was probably applied to Jesus as a teacher. Yet a prayer to “Come” (rather than a prayer to God to send him) suggests more. This tradition was undoubtedly established before Paul; why else would he teach a Diaspora congregation an Aramaic prayer?

141 Although 1 Cor 8:6 may represent the Corinthian position (Willis, Meat, 84-87, 95), Paul himself clearly accepts Wisdom Christology (1 Cor 1:30; cf. Willis, Meat, 96; Hamerton-Kelly, PreExistence, 130).

142 Paul modifies Hellenistic (see Nock, Gentile Christianity, 34; Koester, Introduction, 1:162; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 145) — both Stoic (Moffatt, 1 Corinthians, 106; Hamerton-Kelly, PreExistence, 130; Meeks, Urban Christians, 91) and Platonic (cf. Grant, Gods, 48; Horsley, “Formula”) — and Hellenistic Jewish (Lohse, Colossians, 50; cf. Sib. Or. 3.277-78; Grant, Gods, 84-85) language here; his wording probably represents an adaptation of the Shema (Goppelt, Theology, 2:83; Héring, 1 Corinthians, 69; Bruce, Corinthians, 80), which is attested early, e.g., the Nash papyrus (2d century BCE); m. Ber. 2:5.

143 Some have seen elements of an Adam Christology (e.g., Martin, Carmen Christi, 116-18; idem, “Morph?”; Hunter, Predecessors, 43; Johnston, Ephesians, 41; Beare, Philippians, 80; Ridderbos, Paul, 74; Furness, “Hymn”); others have denied it (e.g., Glasson, “Notes,” 137-39; Wanamaker, “Philippians”; Bornkamm, Experience, 114) or held that Paul revised an earlier Adam Christology (Barrett, Adam, 71). Regardless of possible allusions to Adam as God’s image (e.g., Philo Creation 69; 4 Ezra 8:44; 9:13; Life of Adam 37:3; 39:3; Apoc. Moses 10:3; 12:2; 33:5; m. Sanh. 4:5; b. Sanh. 38a, bar.; Gen. Rab. 8:10; Eccl. Rab. 6:10, §1), Wisdom was God’s image in the ultimate sense (Wisd. 7:26; Philo Plant. 18; Confusion 97; 147; Heir 230; Flight 101; Dreams 1.239; 2.45; Spec. Laws 1.81), which this text distinguishes from the human sense (Phil 2:7-8), especially in presenting Jesus’ divinity (cf. Phil 2:10- 11 with Isa 45:23). Paul here assumes Christ’s preexistence (Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-Existence, 156-68; against Talbert, “Problem”); on other christological hymns stressing Christ’s preexistence, see Martin, Carmen Christi, 19.

144 This passage is frequently regarded as hymnic (e.g., Schweizer, Colossians, 63; Lohse, Colossians, 41; Beasley-Murray, “Colossians,” 170; Martin, “Hymn”; Schweizer, “Christ in Colossians”; Pöhlmann, “All-Prädikationen”; McCown, “Structure”; Gibbs, Creation, 95; Hamerton-Kelly, PreExistence, 168-69; cf. O’Brien, Colossians, 40-42, who accepts it as a hymn but thinks it may be Pauline) and as containing Wisdom traditions (Bandstra, “Errorists,” 332; Johnston, Ephesians, 58; May, “Logos,” 446; Manns, “Midrash”; Kennedy, Epistles, 156-57; Longenecker, Christology, 145; Moule, Birth, 167; Glasson, “Colossians”). Prose rhetoric could reuse hymns (Menander Rhetor 2.4.393.9-12); nevertheless, it also could employ a “grand” (an epideictic style for the sublime) or even rhythmic style without necessarily entailing hymns (cf. Dion. Hal. Lit. Comp. 25; Cicero Orator 20.67; 50.168-69.231; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.16.1-2; Rowe, “Style,” 154; Harvey, Listening, 4).

145 Is 13:6, 9; Ezek 13:5; 30:3; Joel 1:15; 2:1, 11, 31; 3:14; Amos 5:18, 20; Obad 15; Zeph 1:7, 14; Mal 4:5. 2 Thess 2:2 in context implies the same (cf. 2 Thess 2:1); cf. 2 Pet 3:10, 12.

146 Especially in Rom 9:5. With varying degrees of certainty, see Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 233-38; Cullmann, Christology, 313; Cranfield, Romans, 2:467-68; Longenecker, Christology, 138; Harris, Jesus as God, 143-72; Moo, Romans, 565-68; Jewett, Romans, 567-68. That the language is praise may make Paul’s interest devotional rather than dogmatic (Burridge and Gould, Jesus, 94), but this does not appreciably lessen the import. In Pauline literature, cf. also Tit 2:13.

147 E.g., Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2. In other ancient literature, see e.g., Pliny Ep. 10.1.2; Fronto Ad M. Caes. 3.9.1; Horsley, Documents 2, §21, pp. 63-67; so also the Jewish “wish-prayer” shalom; early interpreters recognized the connection (e.g., Theodoret of Cyr Comm. 1 Cor. 166), as have some modern ones (e.g., Hunter, Predecessors, 80; Aune, Environment, 193; Kelly, Peter, 45). Some have found early prayers to Jesus on Palestinian Jewish ossuaries (Sukenik, “Records”; Gustafsson, “Graffiti,” assigning them to the early 40s; but c. 50 CE may be closer [Bruce, Documents, 95], hence not far removed from Paul’s time).

148 Texts like 1 Cor 12:4-6 and especially 2 Cor 13:13[14], which many see as proto-trinitarian (see discussion in Fee, Presence, 839-42; Thrall, 2 Corinthians, 920-21; Thiselton, Corinthians, 934; Grieb, “People”; Watson, “Identity”).

149 Cf. Sir 24:19; 51:23-28; Meier, Matthew, 127; cf. Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-Existence, 68; Stein, Method and Message, 3; on Sir 51, contrast Stanton, “Salvation”; cf. Gundry, Matthew, 220. Multiple points of contact likely suggest that Sir 51 is in view, though by itself this could support a sage christology and not just a wisdom christology.

150 See e.g., Keener, John, 300-2, 350-63; Witherington, Sage, 368-80; Epp, “Wisdom”; Dunn, “John,” 314-16.

151 I would argue that if anything Mark tones down the divine Christ for the genre of philosophic-type biography, to appeal to a hellenistic audience, rather than that divine christology in the NT reflects a late and hellenistic theology.

152 Jms 2:1 (lit., “lord of glory,” as in 1 Cor 2:8, treated as an adjectival genitive); cf. Ps 24:7-10.

153 Although our best evidence for this is later, Simon, Sects, 94-95, argues that some strands of first-century Judaism also hypostatized divine attributes as distinct. On Jewish monotheism in this period, see especially Hurtado, One God; Bock, Blasphemy, 112-83 (on exalted figures); more briefly, e.g., Wright, People of God, 248-59; Ashton, Understanding, 159.

154 Later Judaism became far more precise in its definition of monotheism, perhaps under the influence of Maimonides’ use of Aristotelian metaphysics borrowed from Muslim Arabs (which affirmed a monotheism so rigorous that it could define even divine attributes as entities distinct from the Deity; Moore, Judaism, 1:437). Even later Judaism, however, regarded Gentile (as opposed to Jewish) adherence to Trinitarian views as Shittuf (partnership) rather than idolatry (cf. Falk, Pharisee, 33-35; Borowitz, Christologies, 32; Berger and Wyschogrod, Jewish Christianity, 33; Schoeps, Argument, 16-17).

155 Cf. Moses in the probably Hellenistic Jewish long version of Orphica 25-41 (though missing in the short version); Aristob. frg. 4 (in Euseb. P.E. 13.13.5); Meeks, Prophet-King, 103-6.

156 E.g., 11Q13 2.10 (using Ps 82:1); perhaps a divine king appears in 4Q491 manuscript C, frg. 11, 1.18, but probably it is meant in a relative sense.

157 See Hayman, “Monotheism,” though he probably overstates the case for the pervasiveness of dualistic monotheism. Cf. Fauth, “Metatron”; Abrams, “Boundaries”; Alexander, “3 Enoch,” 235; for other discussions of Metatron, see e.g., Orlov, “Name”; Septimus, “Mttrwn.”

158 With Bauckham, Crucified, 2-4, 27-28, who believes Jesus in early Christian texts functions like wisdom, being within the unique divine identity (26-42).

159 Pritz, Nazarene Christianity, 110; Flusser, Judaism, 620, 624. Barrett, John and Judaism, 48- 49, thinks rabbinic teaching on God’s unity reflects some polemic against Christianity.

160 See e.g., Albright, Stone Age, 304; Johnson, Possessions, 45.

161 For detailed argument, see most fully Bauckham, Crucified, 2-15, 26-42; cf. Dunn, Theology, 35; Wright, Paul, 63-72.

162 The only evidence we could find of groups claiming to be Christian yet playing down Jesus’ deity would come from mirror-reading, which is notoriously fallible (see esp. Sumney, Opponents). Witherington concludes, in Christology, that Jesus would not have claimed deity in a way that confused him with the Father, which is how his contemporaries would have heard a claim to deity. At the same time, Witherington continues, some of Jesus’ claims, including the claim to be David’s Lord, suggest that he held a more transcendent self-image, so he believes that Raymond Brown is correct in thinking that Jesus would have been comfortable even with the Johannine exposition of his identity had he confronted it (Witherington, Christology, 276, citing Brown, “Know,” 77-78). Stuhlmacher, “Son of Man,” appeals to other evidence for Jesus’ awareness of deity in some sense.

163 Judaism, 620.

↑ Back to top