Israel standing with Israel: The Baptism of Jesus in Matthew's Gospel (Matt 3:13-17)

Catholic Biblical Quarterly

Volumn 64, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 511-526

  Gibbs, Jeffrey A ^a  

^a NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67650472434     PISSN: 00087912     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. T. C. de Kruijf (Der Sohn des lebendigen Gottes: Ein Beitrag zur Christologie des Matthäus-evangeliums [AnBib 16; Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1962] 44) says that the word from heaven in Matt 3:17 "den Höhepunkt der Taufgeschichte bildet."
2. Cf. D. J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew (SacPag 1; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991) 62.
3. R. T. France (The Gospel According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary [Tyndale New Testament Commentaries; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985] 96) flatly states that the words from heaven in Matt 3:17 "are generally understood to be drawn from Psalm 2:7 . and Isaiah 42:1.";
4. cf. J. D. Kingsbury, Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1975) 49-50;
5. B. M. Nolan, The Royal Son of God: The Christology of Matthew 1-2 in the Setting of the Gospel (OBO 23; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979) 170.
6. After arriving at my own tentative conclusions, I read D. C. Allison, "The Son of God as Israel: A Note on Matthean Christology," IBS 9 (1987) 74-81;
7. cf. J. P. Meier, The Vision of Matthew (Theological Inquiries; New York: Paulist, 1978) 58.
8. F. W. Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew: Translation, Introduction, and Commentary (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1981) 100;
9. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1.339;
10. P. Gaechter, S.J., Das Matthäus Evangelium: Ein Kommentar (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1963) 104.
11. For a study of the ironic contrast between the two kings in Matthew 2, see D. J. Weaver, "Power and Powerlessness: Matthew's Use of Irony in the Portrayal of Political Leaders," in SBL 1992 Seminar Papers (ed. E. H. Lovering, Jr.; Atlanta: Scholars, 1992) 456-60.
12. For a thorough study of "new Moses" typology, see D. C. Allison, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 142-65.
13. B. Gerhardsson, "The Christology of Matthew" in Who Do You Say That I Am? Essays on Christology in Honor of Jack Dean Kingsbury (ed. M. A. Powell and D. R. Bauer; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1999) 14-32, esp. 22;
14. D. Verseput, "The Role and Meaning of the 'Son of God' Title in Matthew's Gospel," NTS 33 (1987) 532-56, esp. 532-33.
15. J. D. Kingsbury, Matthew as Story (2d ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 54.
16. R. T. France (Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989] 297) writes: "The virginal conception, even if not the explicit basis of the use of 'Son of God,' is a part, and not an unimportant part, of Matthew's whole christological viewpoint. Indeed perhaps the 'casual, almost inadvertent manner' in which the title 'Son of God' is first introduced in 2:15 is to be accounted for precisely by the fact that Matthew has already established Jesus' right to this designation in 1:18-25."
17. See Kingsbury, Matthew as Story, 54, for "numerous indications," prior to Jesus' baptism, that Jesus is the son of God.
18. A similarly unbalanced treatment occurs in J. Fossum, "Son of God," ABD 6.128-37, esp. 128-29.
19. For a much more balanced treatment of "son of God" motifs in the OT, see F. Lentzen-Deis, Die Taufe Jesus nach den Synoptikern: Literarkritische und gattungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (Frankfurter theologische Studien 4; Frankfurt am Main: Josef Knecht, 1970) 183-84.
20. G. Fohrer, TDNT, 8.340-54, esp. 351. Not all of the citations given by Fohrer or by Allison ("Son of God," 81) specifically speak of Israel as God's son; many refer to the Israelites as "sons" of God. Some, moreover, do not expressly name Israel as "God's son," but only imply the image by describing God as Israel's "father." Texts in the LXX that do preserve an explicitly singular image of the nation as "son" include Exod 4:22-23; Deut 8:5; Jer 3:4, 19; 38:19-20; Hos 11:1. Interestingly, some texts vacillate between a plural and a singular: e.g., Deut 32:6, "Do you (plural) in this way pay back these things to the Lord, O foolish people and not wise? Did not he himself, your (singular) father, acquire you (singular)? Did he not make you (singular) and create you (singular)?"; cf. Deut 1:31; Jer 6:26.
21. See further J. D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993) 36-42.
22. W. L. Kynes (A Christology of Solidarity: Jesus as the Representative of His People in Matthew [Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1991] 28) further notes that "of the seven places in the Old Testament in which is used of God taking pleasure in a person or in people, three refer to Israel," and he cites Pss 43(44):4; 149:4; Isa 62:4.
23. It might be of some significance that, where in the LXX Rachel is weeping over "her sons", Matthew reads "her children". Has Matthew deliberately altered his citation, in order to keep Jesus as the only "son" in Jeremiah 38? This change, however, is by no means the only variation between Matt 2:18 and LXX Jer 38:15, so this may be reading too much into Matthew's wording. See M. J. J. Menken, "The Quotation from Jeremiah 31 (38).15 in Matthew 2.18: A Study of Matthew's Scriptural Text," in The Old Testament in the New Testament: Essays in Honour of J. L. North (ed. S. Moyise; JSNTSupp 189; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000) 106-25, esp. 117; he argues that was present in the revised LXX text used by the evangelist.
24. Beare, Matthew, 82;
25. E. Garland, Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel (Reading the New Testament; New York: Crossroad, 1993) 38-39.
26. Allison, "Son of God," 79.
27. I have written about the primacy of the nation as God's son "in the scriptural story" to avoid any confusion between modern evaluations and dates assigned to OT sources and strata, on the one hand, and the perspective that Matthew's Gospel has of the OT, on the other hand. The results of modern critical scholarship regarding the dates of various sources for the OT narratives are a part neither of the worldview of the human author of this Gospel nor of the "narrative world" created by the implied author of the Gospel. On the importance of avoiding such "unexpected" readings of Matthew's Gospel, see M. A. Powell, "Expected and Unexpected Readings of Matthew: What the Reader Knows," Asbury Theological Journal 48 (1993) 31-51, esp. 42;
28. cf. Harrington, Matthew, 62.
29. Kingsbury, Matthew As Story, 51;
30. F. D. Coggin, "Note on St Matthew iii.15: ExpTim 60 (1948-49) 258.
31. On the other hand, D. A. Carson ("Matthew," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984] 8.93), commenting on Matt 2:15, states that "for Matthew Jesus himself is the locus of true Israel";
32. cf. Cullmann, Christology, 53-54.
33. Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 229.
34. R. Beaton, "Messiah and Justice: A Key to Matthew's Use of Isaiah 42:1-4," JSNT 75 (1999) 5-23.
35. For discussion and defense of the reading, see E. R. Ekblad, Jr., Isaiah's Servant Poems According to the Septuagint: An Exegetical and Theological Study (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 23; Leuven: Peeters, 1999) 68-70.
36. Menken, "Quotation from Isaiah 42:1-4," 264.
37. Weaver, "Power and Powerlessness," 458.
38. F. W. Beare, Matthew, 111.
39. E. Krentz ("The Extent of Matthew's Prologue: Toward the Structure of the First Gospel," JBL 83 [1964] 409-14, esp. 414) has noted in similar fashion, "But where Israel had failed, Jesus, the beloved Son, emerges victorious with Moses on his lips. He is what Israel should have been. With that demonstration of Sonship, Jesus is ready for his public preaching ministry."