Hosea & Son of God in Mark 16_Goodwin_CBQ 67_2005

8/13/2019 Hosea & Son of God in Mark 16_Goodwin_CBQ 67_2005

1/20

Hosea and the Son of the Living God

in Matthew 16:16b

MARK J. GOODWINUniversity of Dallas

Irving, TX 75062

MATTHEWS GOSPEL IS UNIQUE among the canonical Gospels in using theepithet living God.1 The first occurrence of the epithet is found in Peters con-

fession at Caesarea Philippi (Matt 16:16b) and the second comes later in Jesustrial before the Sanhedrin (26:63). My primary interest is in the former occur-rence, since it presents a unique and rich christological formulation in whichPeter confesses Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God. Peters confes-sion in Matt 16:16 is widely recognized as pivotal in Matthews narrative, as it isimmediately and directly affirmed by Jesus himself in 16:17, And Jesusanswered him, Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has notrevealed this to you. Further, the pericope of which the confession is part, Matt16:13-20, is followed immediately by Jesus first passion prediction (16:21-23).

Although the significance of Peters confession in Matthew is widelyacknowledged, the confession of sonship in the latter part of 16:16 remains anenigma in scholarly discussion. This difficulty is due primarily to the confes-

This article is dedicated to the memory of my colleague and friend, Enrique Nardoni,19242001.

1 The epithet has numerous occurrences in the NT, e.g., 1 Thess 1:9; 2 Cor 3:3; 6:16; Rom9:26; 1 Tim 3:15; 4:10. The two occurrences in Matthew, however, represent the only uses in theGospel literature of the NT, although John has a variant form in 6:57, the living Father. It is also

possible that logion 37 of the Gospel of Thomas uses the expression Son of the Living One, buttext-critical issues make this reading uncertain. See Kurt Aland, ed., Synopsis Quattuor Evangelio-rum (Stuttgart: Wrttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1964) 522; Jacques-. Mnard, Lvangile selon


2/20

sions uniqueness within the NT. It consists of two christological titles, the secondof which is found nowhere else in biblical literature or Jewish tradition. As aresult, Peters confession of Jesus sonship in 16:16b remains inadequately con-

sidered in commentaries and other secondary literature. The prevailing tendencyin commentaries has been to view the Son of the living God as a variant of themore widely used Son of God; this approach presupposes that the epithet liv-ing God in 16:16b is incidental, having little or no substantive function in Petersconfession. The participle living is viewed as a mere stylistic element that givesthe confession more solemnity. Other interpreters offer sundry comments on theepithet living God and its biblical background, but they say little if anythingabout the function and significance of the whole formulation in 16:16b. Inter-

preters thus remain largely at a loss as to how to interpret Peters confession ofJesus sonship. A comment of Leopold Sabourin some years ago on Matt 16:16summarizes the current state of affairs: it is not easy to determine what the wordsSon of the living God signify in the mouth of Peter.2

Basic questions about the significance and function of Peters confession ofJesus sonship therefore remain to be addressed. For example, is there a specialsignificance in associating Jesussonship with the living God? How is the Son ofthe living God distinctive in comparison to the more common title Son of God?In addition, is there any biblical or Jewish background useful for illuminating the

confession of sonship? Finally, what is the narrative function of Son of the livingGod in connection with its setting in Matthew 16? In what follows I will addressthese questions by arguing that the key to understanding Peters confession ofJesus sonship lies in a better understanding of its biblical and Jewish back-ground. Specifically, my thesis is that the Son of the living God constitutes abiblical allusion to Hos 2:1 LXX and its formulation sons of the living God.The latter designates Gods promise of a renewed future Israel, a promise that wasremembered and reinterpreted in a variety of texts from the Second Templeperiod.

This biblical and Jewish background provides an important clue to the inter-pretation of Peters confession. It suggests that the living God, through Jesus, ful-fills the Hosean prophecy of establishing a future Israel. More specifically, Jesus,as the Son of the living God, is the representative or embodiment of that futureIsrael promised in Hosea. This role of Jesus as the representative of future Israel

266 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 67, 2005

2 Lopold Sabourin, S.J.,Lvangile selon Saint Matthieu et ses principaux parallles(Rome: Biblical Institute, 1978) 209. In 1968, Henry E. [H. Edward] Everding wrote a dissertation

at Harvard cataloguing the various uses of living God in the Bible, The Living God: A Study inthe Function and Meaning of Biblical Terminology (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1968). OfMatt 16:16 he observed the following: there is no indication that this epithet for God has any other


3/20


4/20

in the finely crafted narrative of Matt 16:13-20, which is a carefully structured lit-erary unit consisting of two subunits, vv. 13-16 and vv. 17-19, and a concludingv. 20. Matthew 16:17-19 has no parallel in Mark and is unique in the NT. There

are also distinctive Matthean elements in the unit of 16:13-16, which containsverses that are parallel to Mark 8:27-30. For example, in Matt 16:13 Jesus poses aquestion about his identity, employing the title Son of Man as a self-referent:Who do men say that the Son of Man is? Matthews use of the title Son of Manis typically identified as a Matthean addition, although interpreters are less cer-tain of its precise significance in the pericope.5

Another distinctive Matthean accent is noticeable in 16:14, which presentsthe disciples response to Jesus question. In contrast to Mark 8:28, the disciples

response in Matt 16:14 mentions four prophetic figures: Some say John the Bap-tist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets. The mentionof Jeremiah is unique to Matthew, and its significance remains elusive.6

For my discussion, however, the most significant Matthean touch comes inthe phrase the Son of the living God, a confession that is typically viewed asexpanding the shorter Marcan confession.7 The resulting confession in 16:16 is aunique combination of two titles, the Christ and the Son of the living God.Although there is a virtual consensus that Matt 16:16 is an expansion of theshorter Marcan confession, scholars disagree about the source of this addition.

Did the evangelist coin the Son of the living God, or did he find this formulationin already existing sources? Did he draw the formulation from Matthean tradi-tion? In the secondary literature there has been an extraordinary amount of specu-


York: Paulist, 1979) 106-15; Robert Gundry,Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theo-logical Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 328-35; Joachim Gnilka, Das Matthusevangelium(2 vols.; HTKNT; Freiburg/Basel: Herder, 1988) 2. 54, 59; and Ulrich Luz,Matthew 820 (trans.James E. Crouch; ed. Helmut Koester; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) 355.

5 On the title Son of Man, see Meier, Vision of Matthew, 108: Matthew may have made the

change for reasons of style and rhetoric: the change creates a play on words with men and Son ofMan. Recently, W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr. (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary onthe Gospel According to Saint Matthew [3 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1991] 2. 617) list seventheories concerning Matthews use of the title Son of Man in 16:13.

6 Ulrich Luz (Matthew 820, 361) observes: whether this prophet has a special meaningfor Matthew . . . must remain uncertain. For opinions on the significance of Jeremiah in 16:14, seeSchweizer, Good News According to Matthew, 340; Meier, Vision of Matthew, 108; Davies andAllison, Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2. 618-19; and Gnilka,Matthusevangelium, 2. 59.

7 Gnilka,Matthusevangelium, 2. 54; Schwiezer, Good News According to Matthew, 337,340; Meier, Vision of Matthew, 106-10. Luz (Matthew 820, 355) observes that Mark 8:27-30 is

the source for vv. 13-16, 20. The treatment is recognizable as Matthean almost throughout.Joseph A. Fitzmyer (A Christological Catechism: New Testament Answers [New York: Paulist,1981] 47) states that if Jesus had said all this (vv. 17-19) to Simon at Caesarea Philippi, how could


5/20

lation over hypothetical sources, but little effort has been given to investigatingthe formulations narrative placement and function. In the final form of theMatthean text, what narrative function does the Son of the living God have?

There is wide agreement that Peters confession of Jesus sonship in 16:16bfunctions in apposition to the preceding title, Christ, and interprets it.8 Thefunction of the Son of the living God is closely bound up with the assertion ofJesus messianic identity in 16:16a, and the importance of the latter is reinforcedby a second occurrence of the title Christ in 16:20, which reads: Then he strictlycharged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. This second use of thetitle Christ is unique to Matthew, as is clear from a comparison with Mark 8:30(And he charged them to tell no one about him). This dual use of the title Christ

in Matt 16:16, 20 suggests a primary christological accent on the Christ inPeters confession. Undoubtedly, the function of the Son of the living God isbound up with Jesusmessianic identity, which it clarifies in terms of sonship.9

In this light, then, it is understandable why scholarly interest has devotedmuch attention to discussing the title Christ in Matt 16:16a. The net result of thisemphasis is that Peters confession of Jesus sonship ends up being overlooked asperipheral to the confession of Jesus as Christ. The emphasis on the title Christcomes at the expense of a fuller appreciation of the title Son, which ends up beingdismissed as an odd and inessential quirk of Matthean redaction. Nonetheless,

commentators, in neglecting the Son of the living God, do manage to supplybrief comments about the formulation and thus provide some useful insights. Thetypical comments fall into the following three categories. First, there are com-ments that take the formulation as a variant of the title Son of God. This approachwill be discussed below. Second, some commentators devote themselves to spec-ulating on possible sources of the confession of sonship identified as a specialMatthean tradition or as a redactional creation based on the subsequent trial scenein Matt 26:63.10 Third, numerous commentators concentrate on the epithet liv-

HOSEA AND THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD 269

8 Davies and Allison, Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2. 621; Luz,Matthew 8-20, 361;Gundry,Matthew, 330; Meier, Vision of Matthew, 109; Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel ofMatthew (SacPag; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991) 247; Craig S. Keener,A Commentaryon the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) 425 n. 72. Thomas De Kruijf (DerSohn des Lebendigen Gottes [AnBib 16; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1962] 86) reflects thisview when he notes that Simon pronounces the confession of Christ as specified and elevatedthrough the additional Son of the living God.

9 Meier (Vision of Matthew, 109) rightly notes that both christological titles in 16:16 arebeing brought together for mutual interpretation. Harrington (Gospel of Matthew, 247) observes

that the title Son of the living God corrects any false impressions related to Messiah.10 Davies and Allison (Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2. 620) comment that the Son ofthe living God either comes from Matthews special source (M) or is a redactional addition per-


6/20

ing God by itself, discussing its biblical and Jewish background, but they fail toconsider the biblical background of the whole formulation of sonship in 16:16b.11

Such comments are not without some usefulness, but they end up diverting

attention from the crucial issue of the formulations function and significance inthe final form of the Matthean text.

B. Matthew 16:16b Interpreted in the Light of 14:33

A second prevailing approach to Peters confession of Jesus sonship in Matt16:16b tends to present the confession as little more than a variant of the com-monly used title Son of God. In some cases, commentators almost unconsciouslyreduce the Son of the living God to the title Son of God and thereby neglect the

distinctive character of Peters confession of sonship.12 What influences thisapproach, among other factors, is the earlier confession in Matt 14:33, in whichthe disciples acclaim Jesus with the expression, Truly you are the Son of God.This earlier confession is thought to supply the key to interpreting Peters subse-quent confession in 16:16b, which is viewed as a reiteration of it.13 Combinedwith this view is the assumption that Peters confession of Jesus sonship is theproduct of redactional expansion in which the original title Son of God hasbeen augmented with the participle living. This approach deems the expansiona stylistic change that yields a more solemn formula, the Son of the living God,

but the latter remains essentially a confession of Jesus as Son of God.14Before critiquing this approach, I should acknowledge what is valid in it.


11 Davies and Allison (Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2. 620) supply a listing of wherethe phrase living God occurs in the NT, the LXX, and noncanonical Jewish literature. See alsoHarrington, Gospel of Matthew, 247; and Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel of Matthew (trans.Robert Barr; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) 158.

12 In discussing Matt 16:16b, numerous commentators refer to Peters confession of theSon of God. See, e.g., Schweizer, Good News According to Matthew, 340; Gundry,Matthew,

330; and Jack D. Kingsbury, Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom (Philadelphia: Fortress,1975) 67.

13 Kingsbury,Matthew, 67; Sabourin, vangile selon Saint Matthieu, 209; De Kruijf, Sohndes Lebendigen Gottes, 78; Luz,Matthew 820, 361; and Richard A. Edwards,Matthews Narra-tive Portrait of the Disciples (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997) 68. Davies andAllison (Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2. 621) observe of Peters confession: Because allthe disciples have already confessed Jesus to be the Son of God (14:33; cf. 11:27), one wonderswhy the present confession [16:16b] is treated as a breakthrough attributable only to divine revela-tion.

14 Oscar Cullmann (Peter, 177) expresses a view followed by many commentators, refer-

ring to the confession of sonship as an edifying liturgical paraphrase. Gnilka (Matthusevan-gelium, 2. 59) observes that the expression Son of God gains solemnity through the mention ofthe living God. Similarly, Luz (Matthew 820, 361) notes that the only difference between 14:33


7/20


8/20

as a narrative anticipation of the more climactic confession in 16:16.20 If Petersstatement of christology is fuller and more far-reaching, however, it stillremains to be shown how this is so. What is the distinctive christological force ofMatt 16:16b that surpasses the depth and richness of 14:33? This question leadsback to the fundamental issue concerning the function and significance of theSon of the living God.

II. Peters Confession of Jesus Sonship as an Allusionto Hosea 2:1 LXX

A. The Evidence: Linguistic Similarity and Matthews Use of HoseaThe key to interpreting the Son of the living God in Matt 16:16b lies in its

biblical background in a parallel formulation of Hos 2:1 LXX, sons of the livingGod. The Matthean formulation the Son of the living God is modeled on theHosean formulation, which is the basis for several reinterpretations attested inJewish and early Christian writings, for example, 3 Macc 6:26 andJub. 1:25.Taken against this biblical and Jewish background, Peters confession can beviewed as a transformation of Hos 2:1 LXX, formulated in a unified expression,rather than as a redacted confession in which the title Son of God was expanded

through the addition of the participle living (although the latter cannot be defi-nitely ruled out).

What is the evidence supporting this claim that the Hosean sons of the liv-ing God has influenced the formulation of the confession of sonship in Matt16:16b? Initially there is the patent linguistic similarity between the two formula-tions: a term for sonship (singular or plural) qualified by a genitive phrase, of theliving God. Surprisingly few commentators acknowledge this similarity in theirremarks on Matt 16:16, but the ones who do are worth noting. Joachim Gnilkaobserves that Peters confession is influenced by OT language, noting that thisformulation is presumably stamped by Hosea.21 Also, H. Edward Everdingobserves that the title Son of the living God is formally parallel to sons of theliving God addressed to Israel (Hos 2:1 [1:10]).22 This linguistic similarity,


20 De Kruijf, Sohn des Lebendigen Gottes, 77. Davies and Allison (Gospel According toSaint Matthew, 2. 510) describe the confession of 14:33 as reflecting a growth in the knowledgeof the disciples, a growth which will reach its pre-Easter maturity in 16:16.

21 Gnilka,Matthusevangelium, 2. 59, esp. n. 49.22

Everding, Living God, 339 n. 3. Robert Gundry (Matthew, 330) comments that thedescription of God as living reflects Matthews practice of conforming to the phraseology of theOT, where we often read about the living God (cf. the possibility that 5:9 alludes to Hos 2:1 [1:10];


9/20


10/20

Of even greater significance, however, is the quotation of Hos 11:1 found inMatt 2:15: This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken through the prophet,Out of Egypt I have called my son (ejx Aijguvptou ejkavlesa to;n uiJovn mou).

Again Hosea is not explicitly identified in the introductory formula but referred toas the prophet, which suggests the audiences familiarity with Hosea. Whatmakes Matt 2:15 significant is that it introduces the terminology of sonshipderived from Hosea and applies it to Jesus, thus offering a potential parallel toMatt 16:16b. In its original biblical setting, Hos 11:1 designates Israel as theson who enjoyed Gods protective care in the exodus from Egypt. Matthew,however, transfers this sonship to Jesus, without argumentation or clarification,thus indicating a hermeneutical presupposition at work in the use of Hosea. The

presupposition is that, for Matthew and his community, scriptural languagespeaks about Jesus and so Jesus can be identified as the son who is Israel inHos 11:1.

The same kind of hermeneutical presupposition is at work in Matt 4:3, 6,which also identifies Jesus as the Son of God who is Israel tempted in the wilder-ness. In contrast to the exodus generation of Israel, Jesus is the faithful son whoacts in filial obedience to Gods will. Both Matt 2:15 and 4:3, 6 thus illustrate ahermeneutical perspective of Matthew in which the traditional scriptural designa-tion of Israel as son is applied to Jesus. This application of Hosean language of

sonship to Jesus supplies a significant analogue to the interpretation of Matt16:16b.

B. The Pre-Matthean Use of Hosea 2:1 LXX

There is additional evidence supporting the claim that Matt 16:16b consti-tutes an allusion to Hos 2:1 LXX. The Hosean formulation sons of the livingGod was a scriptural prophecy of considerable interest among Jews of the Sec-ond Temple period, as well as Christians. Familiarity with the Hosean formula-

tion sons of the living God in this period is amply attested in several Jewishtexts and one NT text as well, Rom 9:26. Jews and Christians found the Hoseanoracle to be useful in describing their identity as Gods people, enabling them toexpress their unique covenantal relationship to the living God of Israel with a tra-ditional biblical expression. In the Second Temple period, Hos 2:1 LXX was rein-terpreted and adapted by both Jews and Christians in defining their identity incontinuity with the heritage of Israel.

Before pursuing these Jewish and early Christian adaptations of Hos 2:1LXX, it will be instructive to examine the verse in its original biblical setting.

Hosea 2:1 functions as an oracle of future salvation following a sequence of judg-ment pronouncements made in Hos 1:2-9 LXX/MT. The oracle declares Gods



11/20

And the number of people of Israel is like the sand of the sea, which can be neithermeasured nor numbered; and it will be in the place where it was said to them, Youare not my people, there they shall be called sons of the living God (ejkei'klhqhv-

sontai uiJoi;qeou' zw'nto").

The formulation sons of the living God functions to reverse the pronouncementYou are not my people, pointing to a future time when the living God wouldrestore Israel to the covenantal status of my people. Hosea 2:1 envisions afuture time in which the living God will restore Israel as sons of the living God,the latter being synonymous with the covenantal term my people.

Jews of the Second Temple period found in this expression from Hosea aprophecy that had relevance to their present identity as Gods people. They rein-

terpreted the oracle and applied it in the light of new historical circumstances.This reinterpretation is seen in four specific texts ranging from the second centuryB.C.E. to the first century C.E.:Jub. 1:25 (And I shall be a father to them, and theywill be sons to me. And they will all be called sons of the living God); 3 Macc6:28 (Release the sons of the all-conquering living God of heaven who from thetime of our ancestors until now has conferred upon our estate an impregnable sta-bility with glory); Esth 8:12q LXX (We, however, find that the Jews . . . aresons of the living God, most high, most great, who has directed the kingdom forus . . .);Jos. Asen. 19:8 (And Joseph said to Aseneth, Blessed are you by the

Most high God, and blessed is your name forever . . . and your walls are adaman-tine walls of life, because the sons of the living God will dwell in your city ofrefuge).25 There is also the early Christian case of Rom 9:26, in which Paulquotes Hos 2:1 verbatim.

These adaptations of Hos 2:1 LXX offer a useful interpretive context withinwhich to understand Peters confession of Jesus sonship in Matt 16:16b. First,they indicate the availability of and interest in Hoseas sons of the living Godamong Jews and Christians during the Second Temple period. Second, each of theexamples uses the expression sons of the living God in an ecclesial sense,designating the community of Gods elect, which enjoys a close covenantal rela-tionship with the living God. Although the expression is not used in exactly thesame way in each of the examples, in each case the phrase does carry the associa-tion of Gods covenantal people in some aspect, either as the existing DiasporaJewish community or as a future community of the restored Israel. In 3 Macc 6:28


25 English translations of these texts are found in OTP, 1. 527 (3 Macc 6:28); 2. 54 (Jub.1:25); and 2. 233 (Jos. Asen. 19:8). For a translation of Esth 8:12q LXX, see Carey A. Moore,

Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions: A new translation with introduction and commen-tary (AB 44; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977) 233. Also see my discussion of these texts inMark J. Goodwin, Paul, Apostle of the Living God: Kerygma and Conversion in 2 Corinthians


12/20

and Esth 8:12q LXX, the formulation functions to designate the presently exist-ing Jewish community, which, in contrast to Gentiles, enjoys a close covenantalrelationship with the living God as father (cf. 3 Macc 7:6). InJub. 1:25 andJos.

Asen. 19:8, however, the formulation designates Israel as a future entity, an idealcommunity to be instituted by the living God.

Pauls use of Hos 2:1 LXX in Rom 9:26 also illustrates the ecclesial dimen-sion of the oracle with particular application to Christian communities of Paulsday. In this case, the Hosean formulation designates Christian converts as sonswho constitute the future Israel that dawns through the power of the gospel. InRom 9:26, Paul quotes Hos 2:1 as part of a scriptural chain that runs from 9:25 to9:29 and consists of passages from Hosea and Isaiah. The first part of the chain(9:25-26) consists of two citations from Hos 2:25 LXX and 2:1 LXX, both ofwhich document the claim of 9:24 that God has called us from both Jews andGentiles. Romans 9:26 reads: And in the very place where it was said to them,You are not my people, they will be called sons of the living God (ejkei'klhqhv-sontai uiJoi;qeou'zw'nto").

Romans 9:26 thus functions as scriptural documentation of Gods plan ofelection involving both Jews and Gentiles. Commentators point out that sons ofthe living God may constitute a specific reference to the Gentiles previouslymentioned in 9:24, but a more general reference to Jews and Gentiles togethercannot be excluded.26 Hosea 2:1 LXX, then, allows Paul to document the emer-gence of Christian communities as the fulfillment of scriptural promise. Thewords of Hos 2:1 reach their fulfillment in the existence of sons of the livingGod found among the Jewish and Gentile converts in Pauls church communities.For Paul, the future Israel, envisioned by Hosea, now dawns through the forma-tion of Christian communities called into being through the gospel.

Moreover, Paul uses the Hosean texts in Rom 9:25-26 in a manner that sug-gests a traditional function in early Christian circles. In documenting the claim of9:24, Paul merely cites the Hosean texts in 9:25-26 as proof texts without expla-

nation, and he expects his readers to find in them the warrants he is seeking. Inother words, Paul does not argue the connection between the Hosean texts and theecclesial claim of 9:24 because the connection is likely familiar to his Romanaudience. This handling of Hos 2:1 LXX in Romans thus suggests its traditionalfunction as a scriptural warrant documenting the origins of the Christian ejkklh-siva in fulfillment of Gods plans.27 Further, this traditional use of Hos 2:1 LXX in


26 Nils Dahl (Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission [Minneapolis: Augs-burg, 1977] 145-46) has rightly observed that in Rom 9:25-26 it is not likely that he [Paul] has

overlooked that in Hosea the symbolic names refer to Gods mercy toward rejected Israel. As arule, Paul reserves the designation people of God for Israel.27 This claim is supported by 1 Pet 2:9-10, which offers a parallel use of Hos 2:25 that


13/20

Rom 9:26 indicates its wider currency within circles of early Christianity andsuggests a possible source that would have been familiar to Matthew and his com-munity.

To summarize: The cumulative weight of three types of evidence supportsthe claim that the Son of the living God in Matt 16:16b is modeled on the for-mulation of Hos 2:1 LXX, sons of the living God. First, there is the linguisticsimilarity of Matt 16:16b and Hos 2:1 LXX; second, there is Matthews familiar-ity with and distinctive use of the text of Hosea in his gospel narrative (9:13; 12:7;2:15); third, in the Second Temple period there was strong interest in the interpre-tation of Hoseas sons of the living God, as illustrated in several Jewish textsand Rom 9:26. This use of Hos 2:1 LXX attests a fundamental ecclesial dimen-sion of the formulation sons of the living God, designating members of Godscovenantal people. Even more significantly, early Christian application of Hos2:1 LXX indicates a connection between the Hosean sons of the living God andthe Christian ejkklhsiva. The existence of the Christian ejkklhsiva, consisting ofbelieving Gentile and Jewish converts, fulfills the vision of Hosea concerning therestoration of Israel as sons of the living God.

III. Implications for Matthean Christology

A. Jesus and Future IsraelWhat, then, are the implications of the foregoing discussion for interpreting

Peters confession of Jesus sonship in Matt 16:16b? First and foremost, the evi-dence suggests that Peters confession is modeled on the words of Hos 2:1 LXX,linking Jesus identity to the fulfillment of the Hosean oracle. In terms of compo-sitional history, it is possible to view the confession as either deriving from a sin-gle integral (Hosean) expression or resulting from an expansion of an originaltitle Son of God. Whatever may be the compositional origins of the confession,Hosean influence is likely. Further, although the confessions compositional ori-gins remain uncertain, it likely originated in the Matthean community. The con-fession is found nowhere else in the NT, which indicates its special Mattheansignificance and provenance. In addition, Peters words likely reflect the confes-sional language of a church community, as was previously noted. Where and howthe Matthean community came up with this confession is unclear, but some inter-preters attribute it to a tradition of Peter encountering the risen Jesus in a resurrec-tional setting.28


28 Rudolf Bultmann (The History of the Synoptic Tradition [trans. John March; NewYork/San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1963] 258-59) gave a classic articulation of this position.


14/20

A second conclusion emerges about Peters confession of sonship. If,indeed, it is modeled on and influenced by the wording of Hos 2:1 LXX, then italso represents a transformation of all previous uses of Hos 2:1 LXX, whether

Jewish or early Christian. At first glance this transformation may appear to beminimal, since it involves only a minor change from the plural sons of the livingGod to the singular Son of the living God. However, this minor change fromthe Hosean sons to the singular Son in Matthew constitutes a radical changein the sense of the Hosean oracle. Where the Hosean sons of the living Godoriginally designated future Israel (sons of the living God), Matt 16:16b is fun-damentally christological. Peters confession of Jesus sonship represents aunique christological expression that goes beyond the original Hosean reference.

The circumstances of this transformation are lost to us, but it does makesense within a Matthean christological framework in which scriptural notions ofIsraels sonship are transferred to Jesus. The transformation reflects a Mattheanchristological hermeneutic in which Jesus sonship is linked to that of Israel andin which the future Israel is envisioned in Hosean terms. A similar hermeneutichas already been seen in the earlier references to sonship in Matt 2:15 and 4:1-10,where terminology of sonship that originally referred to Israel has been trans-ferred to Jesus, who is thought to sum up and represent Israel. Peters confessionin 16:16b undoubtedly stands in continuity with these earlier references to son-

ship, thus reinforcing the probability that Son of the living God carries a similarreference to Israel. Put another way, the Matthean Son of the living God retainsthe corporate significance of the Hosean plural sons as designating the futureIsrael.

Understood in this way, however, Peters confession of Jesussonship repre-sents a quantum leap beyond the original sense of Hos 2:1 LXX by asserting thatIsraels destiny is fulfilled and summed up in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.Peters confession indicates that with Jesus comes the fulfillment of Hoseaspromise that the living God is acting to restore Israel. The confession of sonship

in Matt 16:16b explicitly identifies Jesus with the future Israel. Moreover, Petersconfession also clarifies the significance of the preceding title Christ in 16:16a,giving it a specifically Hosean twist. Peters confession redefines Jesus mes-sianic identity by linking it with Gods act of establishing the future Israelpromised in Hosea. As the Messiah and Son of the living God, then, Jesus mes-sianic status is linked to the living Gods action of inaugurating the future Israel.

If, therefore, Matt 16:16b asserts Jesus identity in connection with the for-mation of the future Israel, what is the nature of Jesus role in this enterprise? Canmore be said about Jesus role as the Son of the living God in establishing the


risen Jesus. He concludes that it is doubtless the risen Lord who speaks in Matt 16:17-19, sug-


15/20

future Israel? Matthew gives no explicit answer to these questions; however, thereare some hints that suggest a possible approach. Both the biblical background ofthe epithet and the narrative context of Matthew 16 suggest a particular role of

Jesus as the Son of the living God, which stands closely linked to his conflict withJewish authorities and his resurrection from the dead. In terms of the conflict withJewish authorities, the link is a narrative one. It is no coincidence, in my view,that Peters confession, employing the epithet living God, occurs for the firsttime in Matthew 16 in a setting of escalating conflict between Jesus and Jewishauthorities.29 On this theme, Jack Dean Kingsbury points out that the portrayal ofconflict in Matt 11:2-16:20 stands linked to the wider theme of Israels repudia-tion of Jesus, and he further observes that the conflict in 11:2-16:20 rapidlyescalates to the point where it becomes mortal and will henceforth remain assuch.30 The narrative placement of Matt 16:13-20, then, suggests a connectionwith the theme of conflict.

What it suggests is that Jesus conflict with the Jewish leaders will ulti-mately lead to his death on the cross, but in the midst of this hostility, Peter, in16:16b, can confidently confess what the Matthean church in the postresurrec-tional period already knowsthat Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God,who will overcome suffering and death through the life-giving action of the livingGod in the resurrection. In the narrative setting of conflict with Jewish authori-ties, Jesus, as Son, enjoys the special favor of the living God, who stands withJesus and vindicates him ultimately through the resurrection, of which there arehints in the narrative context, including the reference to the sign of Jonah in16:4 (cf. 12:38-42) and the reference to resurrection in the first passion predictionof 16:21.

Further, an allusion to Jesus resurrection in Matt 16:16b is suggested alsoby the background of the epithet living God in Jewish and early Christian tradi-tions, examples of which have already been noted in 3 Macc 6:28;Jos. Asen.19:8; andJub 1:25. Matthew is heir to Jewish traditions in which the living God is

the creator who has power over life and death and is the source and giver of life,for example, Bel and the Dragon 5 Th; 1 Enoch 5:1; and also the tradition behindActs 14:15.31 The living God gives life not only in the biological sense but also inthe fuller sense of creating and sustaining a covenantal people, Israel, Gods son.In the Hebrew Bible and the LXX, the epithet living God sometimes designates


29 For a useful discussion of the theme of conflict in Matthew, see Jack Dean Kingsbury,The Developing Conflict between Jesus and the Jewish Leaders in Matthews Gospel, CBQ 49(1987) 57-73.

30

Ibid., 69.31 Goodwin, Paul, Apostle of the Living God, 65-85, 117-22. Along these lines, Meier(Vision of Matthew, 109) points out that in the OT the epithet living God signifies that God has


16/20

a God who is active in the history of Israel, a God who rescues his people fromtheir enemies and frees them from Egyptian tyranny, as in Deut 4:33-34; 5:26;Josh 3:10; 2 Kgs 19:4, 16; Hos 2:1; etc. Moreover, early Christians connected the

living God to Jesus resurrection, as attested in 1 Thess 1:9-10, in which Paulemploys a kerygmatic formulation that associates the living God, the resurrec-tion, and Jesussonship.32

These biblical ideas of the living God, coupled with the observations fromthe Matthean narrative context, form an interpretive framework which suggeststhat Jesus, as Son of the living God, is the one raised from the dead, the recipientof the living Gods life in the resurrection. Peters confession expresses an affir-mation that Israels living God will deliver the Son through resurrection fromthe dead.33

B. JesusRole as Agent of the Living God

If the interpretation of Matt 16:16b offered here is correct, then what does itsuggest about Jesus role in establishing the future Israel? Again, Matthew doesnot supply an answer, but there are hints that suggest one. Jesus, the Son of theliving God, is not only the one raised from the dead; he is also the agent of the liv-ing God, who gives life resulting in the establishment of the future Israel. As theliving God raises Jesus to life, vindicating him from his enemies, so too will the

living God raise up a future Israel through the agency of the risen Son. Such anotion is implicit already in the theme of sonship itself, in which the Son is uni-fied with the Father in purpose and does the Fathers will.34 I suggest, then, thatJesus role as Son in Matt 16:16b marks him as the agent of divine life giving,which has as its goal the renewal of Israel, in fulfillment of Hos 2:1 LXX.

This role of Jesus is suggested by the narrative setting of Matt 16:13-20, in


32 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10: For they themselves report concerning us what a welcome wehad among you, and how you turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God, and to wait

for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead. There is also evidence of the linkbetween the living God and Jesus resurrection in the Acts of Paul and Thecla, e.g., 7.2. On thelatter passages, see Goodwin, Paul, Apostle of the Living God, 110-16, 122-27.

33 Scholars generally view Peters confession of Jesus sonship in connection with Jesusresurrection. For example, Beare (Gospel According to Matthew, 353) observes that the Son of theliving God defines what messiah has come to mean to Christians in the light of the resurrectionof Jesus from the dead. Schnackenburg (Gospel of Matthew, 158) comments that the expressionis a profession of Jesus as the one standing with God in fullness of life, and as the vessel of salva-tion on the strength of that fullness, surely in virtue of his anticipated resurrection. See alsoFitzmyer, Christological Catechism, 46.

34

Donald J. Verseput, The Son of God Title in Matthews Gospel,NTS 33 (1987) 542.Warren Carter (Matthew and the Margins: A Sociopolitical and Religious Reading [Maryknoll,NY: Orbis, 2000] 333) comments that Peters confession underlines both Jesus function as


17/20

which the narrative elements are closely interwoven. More specifically, Petersconfession of sonship in 16:16b stands in juxtaposition with 16:17-19, whichindicates some kind of connection between the two texts. It is arguable that Matt

16:17-19 constitutes the earliest and best commentary on Peters confession, aview that is supported by recent narrative-critical studies of Matt 16:16-19. Theserecent studies demonstrate the tightly woven narrative interconnections betweenv. 16 and vv. 17-19.35 For example, v. 16 and v. 17 begin with identical phrasingthat suggests their close interrelation. The phrase that introduces v. 16, AndSimon Peter replied (ajpokriqei;" de;Sivmwn), is paralleled by the phrase at thebeginning of v. 17, And Jesus answered him . . . (ajpokriqei;" de; oJ !Ihsou'").There is also the interrelation suggested by you are . . . in both verses (You arethe Christ . . . You are Peter . . . ). Moreover, the full name Simon Peter isalready given in v. 16, anticipating the mention of Sivmwn Bariwna' in v. 17 andPevtro" in v. 18.36

Further, commentators have long acknowledged thematic links between theconfession of sonship in 16:16 and the final clause of 16:18, in which the powersof death will not prevail against the church (kai;puvlai a{/dou oujkatiscuvsousinaujth'"). Robert Gundry, for example, observes that Peters confession preparesfor the assurance that the Gates of Hadesi.e., deathwill not prevail againstthe church (v. 18).37 As the Son of the living God, Jesus gives life to the church,

enabling it to stand against the powers of death. Implicit in this thematic link,however, is another connection largely neglected by commentators. Matthew16:16b can also be viewed as preparing for the words of 16:18 that Jesus willbuild my church. In v. 18, Jesus promises, And I tell you, you are Peter, and onthis rock I will build my church [kai;ejpi;tauvth/ th'/ pevtra/ oijkodomhvsw mou th;nejkklhsivan] and the powers of Hades shall not prevail against it.

Several points indicate a thematic link between Peters confession and thereference in 16:18 to Jesusbuilding his ejkklhsiva. This association is supportednot only by the connections of literary sequence but also by the traditional back-

ground of the two terms, the living God and ejkklhsiva. First, it is widelyacknowledged that the term ejkklhsiva in the LXX and the NT designates the con-gregation of Israel (e.g., Deut 4:10; 9:10; 18:6; Acts 7:38). Early Christiansappropriated this term from biblical and Jewish tradition in describing their self-


35 Davies and Allison (Gospel According to Saint Matthew) stress the unity of the peri-cope and its finely crafted structure (2. 605) and note the parallelism between 16:16a and 16:17a(2. 621). See also Gundry,Matthew, 331; Luz,Matthew 820, 354; and Edwards,Matthews Nar-

rative Portrait of the Disciples, 68.36 Gundry, Matthew, 330. Also Davies and Allison, Gospel According to Saint Matthew,2. 621.


18/20

identity as a counterpart to the Sinai-congregation.38 Second, I have alreadynoted that the Hosean formulation sons of the living God carries an ecclesialdimension in the Second Temple period, designating Gods covenantal people(3 Macc 6:28; Esth 8:12q LXX;Jub. 1:25;Jos. Asen. 19:8; Rom 9:26). If Petersconfession of Jesussonship in Matt 16:16b designates Jesus role in the foundingof this future Israel, then a reference to the Christian ejkklhsiva in 16:18 fits wellbecause it is implied in the earlier confession of 16:16b.

Third, the NT attests a specific link between the living God and the earlyChristian ejkklhsiva. Of particular interest here are two Pauline expressions from2 Cor 6:16 and 1 Tim 3:15 that refer to the early Christian community with eccle-sial terms qualified by the epithet living God. Both expressions occur in horta-

tory contexts, grounding exhortation in the holy life. In 2 Cor 6:16, thecommunity is described as the temple of the living God (nao;" qeou'zw'nto")and, more significantly, 1 Tim 3:15 speaks of the church of the living God(ejkklhsiva qeou'zw'nto"). What precisely does it mean to describe the commu-nity as an ejkklhsiva of the living God? In both 2 Cor 6:16 and 1 Tim 3:15 thegenitival expression of the living God likely designates the activity of the livingGod in creating the Christian community.39 The phrase church of the livingGod likely designates a church that has its origins in the creative activity of theliving God.

2 Corinthians 6:16 and 1 Tim 3:15 thus attest a link in early Christianitybetween the living God and the ecclesial reality of early Christian communities,suggesting that the living God was creator of the early Christian communities,calling them into being through the power of the gospel (cf. Rom 9:24). Bothverses supply an interpretive framework for viewing Matt 16:16b, 18 in continu-ity with an early Christian tradition that attributed the origins of the believingcommunity to the creative activity of the living God. Both verses supply a frame-work for linking Peters confession of Jesus sonship in v. 16b and the ecclesiallanguage of v. 18. In light of this framework, vv. 17-19 would indeed seem to

function as a commentary that elaborates what is implicit in Peters confession.The fulfilling of Hoseas prophecy (v. 16b) arguably links up with Jesus promisein v. 18 that he will build an ejkklhsiva. What this indicates is that the livingGod, acting through Jesus, who will build an ejkklhsiva, has brought to fulfill-ment the promise of a future Israel. The living God, in fulfillment of Hoseasprophecy, acts to restore Israel in and through the life of his Son.

Peters confession of sonship, then, may express the notion of Jesus life-giving agency, which brings about the formation of the ejkklhsiva, a formation


38 Davies and Allison, Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2. 629.


19/20


20/20

Hosea & Son of God in Mark 16_Goodwin_CBQ 67_2005

Documents

Transcript of Hosea & Son of God in Mark 16_Goodwin_CBQ 67_2005