[1] One only has to note the widely affirmative response received by the study of Kingsbury, J. D., Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976)Google Scholar, as is characterized by reviews such as Goulder, M. D. (JTS 28 [1977] 145):Google Scholar ‘in his central, Christological thesis he is plainly right’. With some modifications, the prominence of the Son of God title in Matthew's Gospel has subsequently been reflected in Meier, J. P., The Vision of Matthew (New York: Paulist, 1979) 1;Google ScholarHill, D., ‘Son and Servant: An Essay on Matthean Christology’, JSNT 6 (1980) 2–16;Google ScholarGerhardsson, B., The Mighty Acts of Jesus (Scripta Minora 1978–1979/1975; Lund: Gleerup, 1979) 88–91;Google ScholarBrown, R. E., The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1973) 133–7.Google Scholar

[2] This view has indeed achieved an impressive level of consensus among modern christologies: see e.g. Fuller, R. H., The Foundations of New Testament Christology (The Fontana Library; London: Collins, 1972) 192;Google ScholarCullmann, O., The Christology of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963) 294;Google ScholarHahn, F., Christologische Hoheitstitel (FRLANT 83; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964) 319;Google ScholarDunn, James D. G., Christology in the Making (Philadelphia: West-minster, 1980) 49–50.Google Scholar In addition, see also Pesch, R., ‘Der Gottessohn im matthäischen Evangelien-prolog (Mt 1–2)’, Bib 48 (1967) 395–420;Google ScholarNellessen, E., Das Kind und seine Mutter (SBS 39; Stuttgart Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969) 93–4;Google ScholarVögtle, A., Messias und Gottessohn (Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1971) 16–17;Google ScholarPrabhu, G. M. Soares, The Formula Quotations in the Infancy Narratives of Matthew (AnBib 63; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1976) 52–3;Google ScholarBrown, R. E., Birth, 133–8;Google ScholarLuz, U., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Mt 1–7)(Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchen, 1985) 105.Google Scholar

[3] See Pesch, R., ‘Gottessohn’, 397–8.Google Scholar The lack of direct reference in the Isaiah quotation to the creative conception of God or to a divinely related Sonship leaves it difficult to suppose that Matthew's readers would have caught the special significance to υπó κυρίου proposed by Pesch. The situation in Matt 1. 22–23 is unlike that of 2. 15 where the óιόν μου of Hos 11. 1 picks up the resonances of the ủπó κυρίου phrase. Indeed, so obscure is the alleged Sonship reference that various authors have desperately grasped after diverse and improbable explanations for Matthew's abstruseness (cf. e.g. Kingsbury, J. D., Structure, 50Google Scholar and Luz, U., Matthäus, 156).Google Scholar Is it not better to account for the ủπóκυρίου as an emphasis on the special care of God in a context where the will of God was of vital importance for defending the adoption of Jesus into the Davidic line?

[4] Dunn, J. D. G., Christology, 49–50.Google Scholar

[5] This view is particularly connected with Kingsbury, J. D. (‘The Title “Son of God” in Matthew's Gospel’, BTB 5 [1975] 3–31;Google ScholarStructure, 40–83; 96–103;Google ScholarMatthew [Proclamation Commentaries; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977] 34–40;Google Scholar‘The Figure of Jesus in Matthew's Story: A Literary-Critical Probe’, JSNT 21 [1984] 3–22);Google Scholar nor are this and the preceding view mutually exclusive: cf. e.g. Brown, R., Birth, 134–5.Google Scholar

[6] Of the three oft-quoted Qumran passages, 4QFlor 1. 10; 1QSa 2. 11–12 and 4QpsDanA^a, two are of questionable significance (cf. Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Study of the New Testament’, NTS 20 [1973–4] 391–40;Google ScholarVermes, G., Jesus the Jew [London: Collins, 1973] 198–9)Google Scholar and the third is scarcely a support for a titular usage. Moreover, the Son designation in 4 Ezra has long been dismissed as derivative from a servant appellation (e.g. Jeremias, J., ‘παις θεοū’, TDNT 5 ]1967[ 681 n. 196.Google Scholar

[7] Cf. e.g. Stendahl, K., ‘Quis et Unde? An Analysis of Mt 1–2’, Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche (ed. Eltester, W. BZNW 26; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1960) 101;Google ScholarVögtle, A., ‘Die Genealogie Mt 1, 2–16 und die matthäische Kindheitsgeschichte’, Das Evangelium und die Evangelien (Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1971) 65–75;Google ScholarJohnson, M. D., The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies with Special Reference to the Setting of the Genealogies of Jesus (SNTSMS 8; Cambridge: University Press, 1969) 146–89;Google ScholarBrown, R. E., Birth, 57–84.Google Scholar

[8] Schlatter's, A. (Der Evangelist Matthäus [6th ed.; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1963] 7)Google Scholar appropriate characterization of Matt 1. 18–25 as ‘Die Einpflanzung Jesu in das Geschlecht Davids’ has received general approval: e.g. Stendahl, K., ‘Quis et Unde?’ 101–2;Google ScholarVögtle, A., ‘Die Genealogie’, 70–3;Google ScholarSuhl, A., ‘Der Davidssohn on Matthäus-Evangeium’, ZNW 59 (1968) 62–7;CrossRefGoogle ScholarTatum, W. B., ‘“The Origin of Jesus Messiah” (Matt 1:1, 18a): Matthew's Use of the Infancy Traditions’, JBL 96 (1977) 531;Google ScholarBrown, R. E., Birth, 138–40.Google Scholar While some of the above authors want to find the divine Sonship in Matthew's birth narrative, all agree on the determinative Davidic connection between 1. 18–25 and the genealogy.

[9] Rothfuchs, W. (Die Erfüllungszitare des Matthäus-Evangeliums [BWANT 5/8; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1969] 36) is correct in emphasizing that Őλον conceives of the entire reported event as a unit. The virgin birth (vv. 18, 20) forms a direct link between the Matthean story and the Isaianic quotation, while the Emmanuel prophecy correspondingly reflects the election by God of Jesus for the mission of salvation (v. 21).Google Scholar

[10] Stendahl, K., ‘Quis et Unde?’ 97–100. We may well see in the move from the Davidic town of Bethlehem to Nazareth a note of apology on behalf of a Galilean Messiah, inspired most likely by controversy with Jewish opposition (cf. John 1. 45–56; 7. 41–42).Google Scholar

[11] On the Davidic resonances of the Shepherd theme in Matthew, see Martin, F:, ‘The Image of the Shepherd in the Gospel of St. Matthew’, ScEs 27 (1975) 261–301.Google Scholar

[12] There is in Matthew's Gospel an attempt to identify the royal Messiah, rather than to defend a royal messianic expectation against other possibly competing messianic ideas. The title óχριστός is for Matthew thoroughly rooted in the Davidic hope (cf. Ps Sol 17–18).

[13] Matthew's representation of the magi as Gentiles is confirmed by their expression ‘King of the Jews’ (by Gentiles, 27. 11, 29, 37; cf. 27. 42). The very fact that Matthew has the Gentiles worship (2. 11) and prayerfully address (15. 22: κύριε) Jesus under the rubric of the Davidic Messiahship, points to more than just a historicizing trait in the portrayal of Israel's blindness: Matthew's church with its growing Gentile element remained deeply respectful of the Davidic confession. Indeed, the Davidic traits in the judgment scene of 25. 31–46 make it clear that a future exercise of Jesus' kingly authority was still awaited (see Friedrich, J., Gott im Bruder? Eine methodenkritische Untersuchung von Redaktion, Überlieferung und Traditionen in Mt 25, 31–46 [Calwer Theologische Monographien 7; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1977] 174–219 on the Son of Man/ Messiah relationship).Google Scholar

[14] Schniewind, J., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (13th ed.; NTD; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984) 37, 106.Google Scholar

[15] Matt 9. 27–31 has recognizable parallels with the pericope Matt 20. 29–34/Mark 10. 46–52/Luke 18. 35–42, as does 9. 32–34 with Matt 12. 22–24/Mark 3. 22/Luke 11. 14–15;yet obviously neither account can justify its present form and position solely from traditional usage.

[16] The final three pericopes of the miracle chapters 8–9 clearly are designed to emphasize the spreading fame of Jesus and in a climactic manner (cf. 9. 26, 31) to propel the action into the ensuing chapters. The Davidic claim made here (9. 27) is further reflected in the (Davidic) shepherd imagery of v. 36 which in turn introduces the discourse on the sending of the Twelve to the ‘lost sheep of the house of Israel’ (10. 6). It is then this same publicly proclaimed Davidic Messiahship which is again picked up in 11. 2 (τἕργα τοū χριστουū) to summarize the whole of Jesus' deeds in chapters 5–10 and provide the claim against which Israel reacts. Could the enigmatic Matthean mention of two blind men in both 9. 27–31 and 20. 29–34 (cf. parallels) be due to the accentuation of their capacity as witnesses to the Davidic claim (Deut 19. 15), occurring at highly crucial locations: 9. 27–31 closing the summary of Jesus' ministry in chapters 5–9 and looking ahead to chapters 11, 12, while 20. 29–34 introduces the final conflict which leads to the cross? If so, our understanding of the role of 9. 27–34 is strengthened. (Cf. Braumann, G., ‘Die Zweizahl und Verdoppelung im Matthäusevangelium’, TZ 24 [1968’ 261–6.)Google Scholar

[17] Since Bornkamm, G. (‘End-Expectation and the Church in Matthew’, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew [Philadelpia; Westminster, 1963] 41–3)Google Scholar first observed in dependence on Foerster, W. (‘κύριος’, TDNT 3 [1965] 1093)Google Scholar how Matthew carefully protects the title κύριος from profane lips, this has been one of the most often repeated facts of Matthean scholarship. In the light of this usage, the point made by Kingsbury, J. D. (Structure, 102)Google Scholar and Brown, R. E. (Birth, 134) that the Son of David title is never used confessionally loses all significance, for it is coupled repeatedly with the believing cry κύριε (9. 27–28; 15. 22; 20. 30, 31).Google Scholar

[18] That Matthew enthusiastically connects the Davidic motif with healing (9. 27–31; 11. 2–5; 12. 22–23; 15. 21–28; 20. 29–34; 21. 14), does not require a theme of Solomon-as-exorcist (suggested e.g. in Duling, D. C., ‘The Therapeutic Son of David’, NTS 24 [1977–1978] 407–9)Google Scholar, but is, rather, reflective of the fulfilment motif (8. 17; 11. 5) which portrays Jesus as the one expected by Israel – and in Matthew's eyes that is none other than the Davidic figure.

[19] (This pattern emerges upon the recognition of the following: 1) Matthew's accentuation of the Jewish opposition which results in Jesus' rebuke – (a sequence occurring in 11. 16–24 and 12. 23–45; 2) the presentation of the eschatological mission which elicits that opposition in 11. 2–15 and 12. 22; and 3)the Sabbath controversies of 12. 1–14 as primarily a closer description of Jesus' yoke, connecting the call of the humble Saviour in 11. 28–30 with the picture of his gentle ministry given in 12. 15–21. See Verseput, D., The Rejection of the Humble Messianic King: A Study of the Composition of Matthew 11–12 (Frankfurt a. Main: Lang, 1986).Google Scholar

[20] The Davidic nature of the χριστός title already evident in chapter 2 is here again contextually confirmed by the transition from 9. 27–34. The phrase τργα τοū χριστοū (not shared by Luke), indeed encapsulates the whole of Matt 5–10 (so e.g. Held, H. J., ‘Matthew as Interpreter of the Miracle Stories’, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963] 251–2;Google ScholarMeier, J. P., ‘John the Baptist in Matthew's Gospel’, JBL 99 [1980] 392).Google Scholar

[21] The μήτι in the crowd's question appears to express what Suhl, A. (‘Davidssohn’, ZNW 59 [1968] 72)Google Scholar calls ‘fragende Vermutung’, testifying to the truth with a distinct uncertainty. In the words of Klostermann, E. (Das Matthäusevangelium [4th ed.; HNT 4; Tübingen: Mohr, 1971] 107): ‘nicht am Glauben werden sie irre, sondern an ihrem bisherigen Unglauben’.Google Scholar

[22] Zahn, T., Das Evangelium des Matthäus (Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 1; Leipzig: Deichert, 1903) 454 n. 71.Google ScholarSchmid, J., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (3rd ed.; RNT 1; Regensburg: Pustet, 1956) 211;Google ScholarHummel, R., Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthäusevangelium (BEvt 33; Munich: Kaiser, 1963) 123.Google Scholar

[23] See n. 16.

[24] See n. 17.

[25] The phrase taken from Isa 62. 11 εïπατε τθυγατρι Σιών which replaces Zech 9. 9 χαιρε σΦόδρα, θύγατερ Σιών ‘makes the following an evangelistic challenge to unconverted Israel’: Gundry, R. H., Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 408.Google Scholar

[26] Is Matt 21. 14 directly linked to the Davidic motif in 2 Sam 5. 8? See e.g. Schweizer, E., The Good News According to Matthew (Atlanta: John Knox, 1975) 408. In any case, the authorities' reaction to the children's Davidic identification remains a central element and a wholly Matthean insertion.Google Scholar

[27] Dahl, N. A., ‘The Passion Narrative in Matthew’, Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976) 45: ‘As in the other Gospels, so in Matthew: the passion story is dominated by the conviction that Jesus suffered as the Messiah.’Google Scholar

[28] The quotation of Hos 11. 1 by Matthew does not introduce Jesus as the divine Son, but on the basis of that Sonship makes the application of an OT parallel to Jesus as a confirmation of the divine plan. See n. 50.

[29] But see n. 6.

[30] Matthew's Sonship language contains an unmistakable focus upon the relationship to the Father which is, strictly speaking, absent from the Messianic designations.

[31] Matthew's lack of interest in the unity of Sonship and Davidic themes à la 2 Sam 7 and Ps 2 is most evident in his version of the voice from heaven: whereas Mark and Luke read συ είóυιός μου (cf. Ps 2. 7: υιός μον είσύ), Matt 3. 17 has οỷτός έστιν óυιός μου.

[32] Hengel, M. (The Son of God [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976’ 43)Google Scholar speaks of an ‘“angelic” character’ to the usages in Joseph and Asenath, associating them with Abraham, T. 12 and Levi, T. 4. 2; Sänger, D. (Antikes Judentum und die Mysterien [WUNT 2/5; Tübingen: Mohr, 1980] 199–204)Google Scholar on the other hand, sees Joseph primarily as the bearer of Wisdom being called ‘son of God’. Holtz, T. (‘Christliche Interpolationen in “Joseph and Asenath”’, NTS 14 [1967–1968] 494–6) eliminates most of the occurrences as Christian interpolations.Google Scholar

[33] Hengel, M. (Son, 46–8) points the way to a possibly deeper meaning in terms of divine nature in the figure of Metatron (3 Enoch 2. 2; 3. 2; 4. 1, 10); yet, although this observation may be of interest for tracing early christological reflection, it scarcely helps in establishing the typical Jewish response to the Son of God language.Google Scholar

[34] Przybylski, B., ‘The Role of Mt 3:13–4:11 in the Structure and Theology of the Gospel of Matthew’, BTB 4 (1974) 223–5;Google ScholarWilkens, W., ‘Die Versuchung Jesu nach Matthäus’, NTS 28 (1982) 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[35] Matthew emphasizes the closeness of the Father-Son relationship with his typical πάτηρ μου.

[36] See below, n. 79.

[37] See below, n. 80.

[38] The ‘our Father’ of 6. 9 is clearly no exception, for Jesus does not include himself, but gives the disciples instruction on how they are to address God.

[39] The Matthean is contrasted with those giving only lip allegiance to Jesus, óλέγων μοι κύριε, κύριε, the contrast itself making clear that those doing the Father's will are those actually practising the allegiance to the Son which they profess (cf. Luke 6. 46 ἄλέγω). This is again made clear by the connection to 7. 24: πᾱς ỷν ίστιςακούει μου τοỷς λόγους τούτους και ποιει αύτούς. Cf. Schneider, G., ‘Christusbekenntnis und christliches Handeln: Lk 6, 46 und Mt 7, 21 im Kontext der Evangelien’, Der Kirche des Anfangs: Für H. Schürmann (ed. Schnackenburg, R., Ernst, J. and Wanke, J.) (Freiburg i.B.: Herder, 1977) 15–16.Google Scholar

[40] Matthew makes clear that it is the disciples to whom Jesus refers when pointing to his ‘true’ family (12. 49 cf. Mark 3. 34). This then supplies the content to the ‘will of the Father’. Those who would like to find the reverse to be true, i.e. the ‘will of the Father’ defines discipleship (e.g. Trilling, W., Das wahre Israel [Munich: Kösel, 1964] 30;Google ScholarFrankemölle, H., Jahwebund und Kirche Christi [Münster: Aschendorff, 1974] 179) overlook the fact that the phrase ‘the will of the Father’ (Matt 6. 10; 7. 21; 21. 31; 26. 42) does not have a fixed content in Matthew's Gospel and that the context of 12. 46–50 has to do not with defining discipleship but with identifying the true people of God.Google Scholar

[41] Matthew has certainly exalted the majesty of Jesus, a fact which is well known (cf. e.g. Allen, W. C., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1977] xxxi–xxxiii;Google ScholarRigaux, B., The Testimony of St. Matthew [Chicago: Franciscan Herald, 1968] 181–5). Particular attention might be drawn to the analogy in Matt 18. 20 with the Shekinah in m. ΆAbot 2. 2, as well as the cultic usage of and the christologization of κύριος.Google Scholar

[42] Cf. ποστελλειν of John (Matt 11. 10) and of the prophets (23. 27) and ἕρχεσθαι of John (11. 14, 18; 17. 10–12; 21. 32).

[43] If indeed Matthew has made a change in his source at 23. 24 (cf. Luke 11. 49), then we can only conclude that he recognized the equation between Jesus and Wisdom, without being concerned to pass it on to his readers (cf. Johnson, M., ‘Reflections on a Wisdom Approach to Matthew's Christology’, CBQ 36 [1974] 54–5).Google Scholar Other supposed Wisdom allusions such as 11. 19c, 25–26, 28–30 (cf. Suggs, M., Wisdom, Christology, and Law in Matthew's Gospel [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard, 1970] 31–98;CrossRefGoogle ScholarChrist, F., Jesus Sophia [Zürich: Zwingli, 1970] 75–7, 93–7, 100–19;Google ScholarHamerton-Kelly, R. G., Pre-existence, Wisdom, and the Son of Man [Cambridge: University Press, 1973] 67–71) rest at best on strained parallels in isolated Wisdom passages.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[44] E.g. Michel, O., ‘Der Abschluss des Matthäusevangeliums’, EvT 10 (1950–1951) 21;Google ScholarBornkamm, G., ‘Der Auferstandene und der Irdische: Mt 28, 16–20’, Zeit und Geschichte: Dankesgabe an Rudolf Bultmann zum 80. Geburtstag, ed. Dinkler, E. (Tübingen: Mohr, 1964) 173;Google ScholarTrilling, W., Das wahre Israel, 21.Google Scholar

[45] On the basis of Eusebian quotations as well as other considerations, it has been argued that the triadic phrase was originally absent from the Matthean text: Conybeare, F. C., ‘The Eusebian Form of the Text Mt. 28:19’, ZNW 2 (1901) 275–88;CrossRefGoogle ScholarLohmeyer, E., ‘“Mir ist gegeben alle Gewalt.”’ In Memoriam Ernst Lohmeyer, ed. Schmauch, W. (Stuttgart: Evangelisehes Verlagswerk, 1951) 33;Google ScholarKosmala, H., ‘The Conclusion of Matthew’, ASTI 4 (1965) 132–47;Google ScholarFlusser, D., ‘The Conclusion of Matthew in a New Jewish Christian Source’, ASTI 5 (1966–1967) 110–20.Google Scholar But the lack of all textual evidence in support of an elimination has rendered the argument highly speculative: cf. esp. Hubbard, B. J., The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning: An Exegesis of Matthew 28:16–20 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974) 151–75.Google Scholar

[46] Cf. particularly, triadic expressions in the baptismal context: Acts 2. 38; 1 Cor 6. 11; 1 Pet 1. 2; Titus 3. 4–6; Eph 2. 13–22. For other triadic texts with the names given in tight sequence, cf. 1 Tim 5. 21; Luke 9. 26; also e.g. 2 Cor 13. 14; Jude 20, 21. An exception is, of course, the Johannine literature which customarily employs the Father-Son motif.

[47] That there is indeed a connotation of divinity given by this triad is evident from comparison of such triads as Luke 9. 26 and 1 Tim 5. 21 where the presence of ‘the holy (chosen) angels’ in the triad excludes such an implication – in such passages the angels are deliberately placed at the end of the sequence. But no one would argue that God's Spirit – whether a separate person or not is unimportant – was ever considered by Judaism or Christianity to be less than a full expression of God himself, so that Kruijf, T. De (Der Sohn des lebendigen Gottes [AnBib 16; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1962] 147) has a valid point, ‘Man kann sich nicht vorstellen, daß Mt mit der Taufformel gemeint haben sollte: tauft sie im Namen des Vaters (= Gottes), und des (menschlichen) Messias, und des heiligen Geistes (Gottes).’ The place of the Son in the triad in yet closer relationship to the Father than the divine Spirit is implication enough of Matthew's christology.Google Scholar

[48] Cullmann, O., Christology, 277;Google Scholar cf. Hummel, R., Die Auseinandersetzung, 115.Google ScholarGerhardsson, B. (Mighty Acts, 90) speaks more appropriately of the epiphanic character of the scene.Google Scholar

[49] Matthew expands the words of Caiaphas with the solemn oath formula, , and then chooses the more customary title, óυίος τοū θεοū, over Mark's archaic óυίος τοū εύλογητοū (Mark 14. 61). The result is an emphatic and explicit reference to the christological claim which is the heart of Matthean theology. Nor is the σỷ εἰπας response of Jesus in v. 64 to be interpreted as anything less than assent (cf. Mark's ), witnessed not only by Caiaphas' reaction (v. 65), but also by the parallel taunts at the crucifixion (27. 39–44). On the connection between the Jewish trial scene and the crucifixion taunts, see Klostermann, E., Das Matthäusevangelium (HNT 4; Tübingen: Mohr, 1971) 223;Google ScholarSenior, D. P., The Passion Narrative According to Matthew (BETL 29; Gembloux: Duculot, 1975) 283;Google ScholarHummel, R., Die Auseinandersetzung, 115–16.Google Scholar

[50] Matthew does not appear to be using the quotation of Hos 11. 1 to prove or proclaim Jesus' Sonship (as Vögtle, A., Messias und Gottessohn, 73)Google Scholar, but rather to confirm the hand of God in the Egyptian sojourn. In so doing, he uses a clearly nonprophetic passage in a somewhat typological manner – not in a full parallel Israel-Jesus (as Strecker, G., Der Weg der Gerechtigkeit [FRLANT 82; Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962’ 58)Google Scholar but in a narrower sense of Israel as son-Jesus as Son (cf. Gundry, R. H., The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew's Gospel [NovTSup 18; Leiden: Brill, 1967] 93).Google Scholar

[51] Many have unjustifiably seen the Matthean τ Óργα τοū χριστοū (11. 2) and (11. 19 cf. Luke 7. 35: ) as an inclusio: e.g. Lagrange, M.-J., Evangile selon Saint Matthieu (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1948) 223;Google ScholarStrecker, G., Weg, 102;Google ScholarRigaux, B., Testimony, 44;Google ScholarSuggs, M. J., Wisdom, 38.Google Scholar But insofar as the works of wisdom in 11. 19 include the mission of John as part of the divine plan, there is no equation of Jesus with Wisdom, but rather a defence of God's wise purposes in carrying out the eschatological programme. Cf. Mussner, F., ‘Der nicht erkannte Kurios’, Bib 40 (1959) 611–12;Google ScholarTrilling, W., ‘Die Täufertradition bei Matthäus’, BZ 3 (1959) 254.Google Scholar

[52] The abrupt change in direction from invective to prayer is further accented by the Matthean αποκριθείς which is here probably intended to represent Jesus' ensuing words as a ‘response’ to the opposition of Israel: Weiss, B., Das Matthädus-Evangelium (9th ed.; MeyerK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910) 224–5;Google ScholarSchumacher, H., Die Selbstoffenbarung Jesu bei Mat 11, 27 (Luc 10, 22) (Freiburg: Herder, 1912) 108;Google ScholarBonnard, P., L'Evangile selon Saint Matthieu (CNT 1; Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestle, 1963) 167;Google ScholarOgawa, A., L'histoire de Jésus chez Matthieu (Frankfurt a. M.: Lang, 1979) 192.Google Scholar

[53] We must not limit ταῡτα simply to the ‘mighty works’ of Jesus in 11. 20–24 (as e.g. Νeile, A. H. M, The Gospel According to St. Matthew [London Macmillan, 1915] 161;Google ScholarHill, D., The Gospel of Matthew [New Century Bible; London: Oliphants, 1972] 205)Google Scholar nor ought we to expand the meaning to ignore the distinct antecedents given in the Matthean arrangement and composition (as e.g. Schniewind, J., Matthäus, 149);Google ScholarLuck, U., ‘Weisheit und Christologie in Mt 11, 25–30’, Wort und Dienst 13 [1975] 48 n. 46.Google Scholar Recognition of the key structural role given these verses by Matthew demands the ταῡτα to be understood in relation to the entire segment, 11. 1–24, including the significant work of both John and Jesus – in short, the eschatological plan of the divine wisdom.

[54] So Schlatter, A., Der Evangelist Matthäus (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1933) 384;Google ScholarSchumacher, H., Selbstoffenbarung, 159–78;Google ScholarSchniewind, J., Matthäus, 150;Google ScholarMertens, H., L'hymne de jubilation chez las synoptiques (Matthieu XI, 25–30 – Luc X, 21–22) (Gembloux: Duculot, 1957) 49–50;Google ScholarDe-Kruijf, T., Sohn, 73;Google ScholarKingsbury, J. D., Structure, 65;Google ScholarLange, J., Das Erscheinen des Auferstandenen im Evangelium nach Matthäus (Würzburg: Echter, 1973) 166.Google Scholar

[55] Acting upon the authority announced in v. 27, Jesus suddenly lifts his voice in 11. 28–30 to a missionary call (although Stanton, G. [‘Salvation Proclaimed: X. Matthew 11:28–30’, ExpTim 44 (1982) 7]Google Scholar curiously desires to make this a call to those who are already disciples). To those still labouring under the yoke of the Jewish tradition (cf. e.g. Klostermann, E., Matthäusevangelium, 103;Google ScholarBarth, G., ‘Matthew's Understanding of the Law’, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963] 148 n. 2.Google ScholarStrecker, G., Weg, 173;Google ScholarLégasse, S., Jésus et l'enfant [EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1969] 235;Google ScholarFrankemölle, H., Jahwebund 98–9), the rest of salvation is promised under the ‘easy’ (i.e. merciful) yoke of submission to the humble and gentle Son.Google Scholar

[56] The two Sabbath controversies of 12. 1–4 portray the new yoke of the Messiah against the backdrop of Jewish legalism. The opposition faced by Jesus in these verses is not like that of the preceding (11. 16–19) and following (12. 22–24, 38) sections, for Jesus' mission is not called into question, but rather the element of antagonism serves primarily to draw out the new teaching of the gentle Son – the ‘yoke’ offered in 11. 28–30. Cf. Lategan, B. C., ‘Structural Interrelations in Matthew 11–12’, Neotestamentica 11 (1977) 121.Google Scholar

[57] In the pericope 12. 15–21, including the fulfilment quotation from Isa 42, represents with unusual clarity the figure of a retiring and gentle Messiah carrying out his merciful mission in complete obedience to the prophetic programme of God. By this means the adjectives πραüς and ταπεινÓς τκαρδίᾳ of 11. 29 are shown to be consistent with the divine purpose, already revealed in the OT. Thus, the relationship of 12. 18–21 to the preceding is much more tightly woven than with the following context, where the controversy surrounding Jesus' Davidic Messiahship begins anew. Contra Cope, O. L., Matthew: A Scribe Trained for the Kingdom of Heaven (CBQMS 5; Washington D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1976) 32–52.Google Scholar

[58] Matthew strategically positions the request for a sign at the end of Jesus' forceful reply in 12. 25–37, thereby displaying it as a brazen response of unbelief. Furthermore, the request is introduced by the words τότε άπεκρίθηςαν αύτῷ, emphasizing the obdurate nature of the challenge: cf. Klostermann, E., Matthäusevangelium, 111;Google ScholarGrundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (THKNT 1; Berlin; Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1968) 333;Google ScholarLövestam, E., Spiritus Blasphemia (Lund: Gleerup, 1968) 12;Google ScholarHummel, R., Die Auseinandersetzung, 126.Google Scholar

[59] Matthew has not only enhanced the climactic positioning of the parable of the unclean spirit's return (cf. Luke 11. 24–26), but he has also added the interpretative key of v. 45d, clearly pointing to the unholy end of this generation. Cf. Cope, O. L., Matthew, 44;Google ScholarHummel, R., Die Auseinander setzung, 123.Google Scholar

[60] The introduction of the Fatherhood language into Matt 12. 50 is not to be dismissed lightly as ‘merely’ a typical Matthean trait, for it is precisely such a trait which reveals the Matthean accentuation of the Son of God motif. And by making Jesus explicitly point out his ‘disciples’ as his mother, brothers and sisters (cf. Mark 3. 34), Matthew thus designates those who follow Jesus as belonging to the family of him who uniquely calls God ‘Father’ – they, and not obdurate Israel, do the will of God.

[61] Matthew 13. 54–56 does not ask, as Mark, about the nature of Jesus' powers (τίς: Mark 6. 2), but concentrates the question around the matter of source (πόθεν), repeating the question twice (Matt 13. 54, 56), at the beginning and end of the series.

[62] Rather than asking ‘Is this not the carpenter?’ as in Mark 6. 3, Matthew forms the question, ‘Is this not the carpenter's son?’ (13. 55), drawing a direct relationship between the source of Jesus' powers and his paternity.

[63] From 16. 4 on, throughout the remainder of the narrative section, Jesus concentrates upon his disciples. Léon-Dufour, X. (‘Vers l'annonce de l'Eglise: Matthieu 14:1–16:20’), in Etudes d'Evangile [Paris: Seuil, 1965] 245–50Google Scholar drew particular attention to the sequence of withdrawals as a key to the structure of the section. These transitions from opposition to ministry fit the Matthean pattern already seen in 12. 15–21 and are characteristic of Jesus' obedience to his gentle mission. We must agree with Murphy-O'Connor, J. (‘The Structure of Matthew XIV–XVII’, RB 82 [1975] 372)Google Scholar that the departure of 16. 4 has a more absolute quality to it, being a turning away in judgment. Murphy-O'Connor is, however, generally misled when he arbitrarily picks 15. 12–14 as the centrepoint, and sees in the crowds of 14. 13–21, 34–36; 15. 29–31, 32–39 a strangely ‘threatening neutrality’.

[64] Both are uniquely Matthean.

[65] This composite confession, including both Messiahship and divine Sonship, is of course a well-known Matthean innovation. Luke, however, provides a tantalizing parallel in his ‘You are the Christ of God’ (Luke 9. 20), especially since this same form is re-used in 23. 35 along with the definition óέκλεκτός, in a position reminiscent of Matthew's use of ‘Son of God’ at the crucifixion. If our understanding of Peter's confession in Matthew is correct, then the addition óυίος τοū θεοū το ζūντος is indeed not far removed from what Luke attempts to express with his genitive, τοū θεοū – ‘a special relationship of Jesus as Messiah to the Father’ (Fitzmyer, J. A., The Gospel According to Luke (I-IX) [AB 28; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981] 774).Google Scholar

[66] Matthew's insertion of v. 17 cannot be seen on the level of the completed text to apply solely to the Sonship element in Peter's confession. It is methodologically suspect to read only the Matthean additions, while considering the traditional confession, ‘You are the Christ’, to be inert (as e.g. Bieneck, J., Sohn Gottes als Christusbezeichnung der Synoptiker [ATANT 21; Zürich: Zwingli, 1951] 50 n. 15.Google ScholarCullmann, O., Christology, 280;Google ScholarLövestam, E., Son and Savior [ConNt 18; Lund: Gleerup, 1961] 103).Google Scholar Decisive against this view is the fact that 11. 25 considers even the Messiahship (cf. τ ἕργα τοū χριστοū 11. 2) to be a matter of revelation. Moreover, the warning of 16. 20 implies an unmistakable acceptance of the χρίστος predicate (cf. Hummel, R., Die Auseinander setzung, 113).Google Scholar

[67] Matthew has compressed the account of 21. 12–23 ff. to include only two visits to the temple. That fact, together with the Matthean additions in 21. 14–16, connects the ταūτα of the Jewish leaders' question (21. 23) more closely to the Davidic reminiscences accentuated by Matthew (21. 5, 9, 14, 15).

[68] Dillon, R. J. (‘Towards a Tradition-History of the Parables of the True Israel [Matthew 21: 33–22:14]’, Bib 47 [1966] 6)Google Scholar calls them ‘the core of the Matthean case against Judaism’. See also Trilling, W., Das wahre Israel, 55–66;Google ScholarStrecker, G., Weg, 110–13;Google ScholarZumstein, J., La condition du croyant dans l'Evangile selon Matthieu (Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1977) 353–62, 371–81.Google Scholar

[69] Cf. Jülicher, A., Die Gleichnisreden Jesu (Tübingen: Mohr, 1899) 390–2;Google ScholarJeremias, J., Die Gleichnisse Jesu (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970) 69–70.Google Scholar

[70] Jeremias, J., Gleichnisse, 71;Google ScholarGrundmann, W., Matthäus, 462;Google ScholarSchweizer, E., Matthew, 414;Google ScholarBeare, F. W., Matthew, 429–30.Google Scholar

[71] Matthew's account apparently begins with two questions; but the first (τί ỷμīν δοκεī περι τοū χριστοū) is completely of an introductory nature to the second.

[72] A widely recognised point: e.g. Wrede, W., ‘Jesus als Davidssohn’, in Vorträge und Studien (Tübingen: Mohr, 1907) 174;Google ScholarHummel, R., Die Auseinandersetzung, 121;Google ScholarKingsbury, J. D., Structure, 101–2;Google ScholarNolan, B. M., The Royal Son of God (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979) 223;Google ScholarGibbs, J. M., ‘Purpose and Pattern in Matthew's Use of the Title “Son of David”’, NTS 10 (1963–1964) 461;Google ScholarSuhl, A., ‘Davidssohn’, ZNW 59 (1968) 61.Google Scholar

[73] Note the Semitic use of ‘son’ to denote ‘the relationship which determines the nature of a man’ (Lohse, E., ‘υιός’, TDNT 8 [1972] 358–9). The matter cannot be limited to a question of genealogy, but moves on to the issue of character.Google Scholar

[74] Mark 12. 35–37 uses only a single question repeated twice (λέγουσιν οι γραμματεīς Őτι óχριστÓς υίος Δαυίδ στιν and αỷτÓς Δαυίδ λέγει αỷτÓν κυρίον και πόθεν αỷτοūστιν υιός) both before and after the quotation of Ps 110. 1. Luke 20. 41–44 even more clearly reveals the repetition of a single question (i.e. How is he David's son?).

[75] Daube, D. (The New Testament und Rabbinic Judaism [LondonAthlone, 1956] 160) suggests that Jesus was posing a rabbinic style question in which an apparent contradiction between two OT passages is brought forth for resolution.Google Scholar

[76] These words are uniquely Matthean and reveal the decisive nature of Jesus' revelation at this climactic moment. From then on the Jews are forced to respond to Jesus as the Davidic Messiah and Son of God (26. 63; 27. 39–44).

[77] The πάντες of 26. 1, unparalleled in Matthew's four previous usages of this formula (cf. 7. 28; 11. 1; 13. 53; 18. 1) most likely refers backwards to the sum total of Jesus' teaching which is now complete. So e.g. Weiss, B., Matthäus, 445;Google ScholarSenior, D. P., Passion Narrative, 13.Google Scholar Thus, the time for teaching is past, and the additional passion prediction inserted by Matthew in 26. 2 serves as a cue for the crucifixion drama to commence, as it immediately does with the τότε of 26. 3. See Dahl, N. A., ‘Passion Narrative’, 46;Google ScholarSenior, D. P., Passion Narrative, 19, 21;Google ScholarLohmeyer, E., Das Evangelium des Matthäus (MeyerK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956) 347.Google Scholar

[78] It is difficult to see how G. Barth (‘Law’, 144 n. 1) can comment that Matthew has suppressed the Markan theme of Jesus' prophetic foreknowledge, when in fact the First Evangelist reflects a significant expansion of this theme. Not only are the Markan incidents retained (Matt 26. 12, 21, 24, 29, 31–32, 34, 45), with the exception of the details given in Mark 14. 13, but Matthew has added the passion prediction of 26. 2, the affirmation, ‘My time is at hand’ in 26. 18, the direct reference to Judas (26. 25) and the story of his fate in fulfilment of Jesus' words (27. 3–10), the awareness of Judas' mission (26. 50), and the linkage of the whole arrest scene to the fulfilment of Scripture (26. 54). Furthermore, in Matthew's Gospel the Jews appear uniquely aware of Jesus' resurrection predictions (27. 63). Jesus is in Matthew's Gospel fully conscious and in control of the fate which lies before him. Cf. Dibelius, M., Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (Tübingen: Mohr, 1966) 198–9;Google ScholarDahl, N. A., ‘Passion Narrative’, 45–6;Google ScholarGerhardsson, B., ‘Jesus ausgeliefert und verlassen – Nach dem Passionsbericht des Matthäusevangeliums’, in Redaktion und Theologie des Passionsberichtes nach den Synoptikern, ed. Limbeck, M. (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981) 268–9;Google ScholarVanhoye, A., ‘Structure et théologie des récits de la Passion dans les évangiles synoptiques’, NRT 89 (1967) 138;Google ScholarStrecker, G., Weg, 182;Google ScholarSenior, D. P., Passion Narrative, 9, 63, 75, 396Google Scholar. Even Barth, however, recognizes the voluntary nature of Jesus' self-sacrifice as a legitimate Matthean emphasis (pp. 143–4).

[79] In contrast to Mark, Matthew cites two separate (26. 39, 42) prayers; the second, with its negative protasis and shift in request from παρελθάτω π' μοū τóποτήριον τοÓτο to γενηθήτω τóθεοήμά σου reveals a greater degree of resolution to obedience than does the first (with the Markan parallel), which expresses merely a concession to the Father's will. Cf. Klostermann, E., Matthäusevangelium, 211;Google ScholarStrecker, G., Weg, 183;Google ScholarSenior, D. P., Passion Narrative, 112.Google Scholar

[80] The Matthean expression ϕκεν τóπνεῡμα is generally considered to be an accentuation of the voluntary self-sacrifice of Jesus: e.g. Klostermann, E., Matthäusevangelium, 224;Google ScholarTaylor, V., The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1952) 596;Google ScholarGerhardsson, B., ‘Jesus ausgeliefert’, 275.Google Scholar

[81] See Trilling, W., Das wahre Israel, 66–75;Google ScholarStrecker, G., Weg, 115–17Google Scholar, Walker, R., Die Heilsgeschichte in ersten Evangelium (FRLANT 91; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967) 46–8;Google ScholarSenior, D. P., Passion Narrative, 219–62.Google Scholar

[82] Cf. Mark 15. 32. Senior, D. P., Passion Narrative, 285:Google Scholar ‘The ironic affirmation of the Jewish leaders is made both more insulting and more ironically ‘prophetic’ by the explicit declaration of their statement: “he is the King of Israel”.’

[83] While Jesus has in his controversy with Israel pointed to his divine Sonship (21. 37–39; 22. 41–45), the Jews do not show any reaction to this claim until the Passion narrative. At 22. 46 it in fact leaves them stunned and without response. But in the passion narrative, they have rallied and, accepting Jesus' redefinition of the Messiah as Son of God, they crucify him precisely on the basis of this claim. Thereby, Matthew assures his readers that the Jews do ‘understand’ Jesus' claim, but still refuse it, much as they ‘understood’ the resurrection predictions and yet declined belief (cf. 27. 63–64).

[84] It is not necessary to see in this verse a direct allusion to Wisd 2. 17–20, but rather a common understanding of the implications of being ‘God's Son’. This mocking challenge of disbelief is in Matthew's eyes dramatically answered by the awesome signs at the moment of Jesus' death (27. 51–54).

[85] Mark 14. 39 has the centurion's declaration as a response őτι οüτως ξέπνευσεν referring back to the loud cry and death of Jesus in v. 37 (Pesch, R., Das Markusevangelium 2 [HTKNT 2; Freiburg: Herder, 1977[ 499–500)Google Scholar, while Luke 23. 47 uses more general language (ιδὠν … τóγενόμενον), but with a similar reference to the cry and expiration and including possibly the darkness as well (Schweizer, E., Das Evangelium nach Lukas [NTD 3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982] 241).Google Scholar

[86] The obvious parallel between the Jewish leaders' taunt (27. 43) and the guards' declaration (27. 54), coupled with Matthew's portrayal of the latter declaration as a response to the miraculous signs awakened out of fear (a common motif of divine epiphany), points primarily to the guards' confession as witness to the vindication of God. Thus, it is somewhat misleading to speak of these words as representing the conversion of the Gentiles, as e.g. Dahl, N. A., ‘Passion Narrative’, 49;Google ScholarKingsbury, J. D., Structure, 77.Google Scholar