This is part of a series exploring how Jesus is depicted in the Gospels. Many scholars have noted that John’s Gospel proclaims a majestically high Christology. Indeed some have seen in John a Christology that finds no parallel in the other Gospels.[ref]See e.g. Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, New Updated Edition, The Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 29-32.[\/ref] To put it simply, \u201cIf Jesus was as He is depicted in Matthew and Mark and Luke, He cannot have been as He is depicted in John. The two are incompatible.\u201d[ref]Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, New International Commentary on the New Testament, Gen. Ed. F.F. Bruce (Grand Rapids: Eerdman\u2019s, 1971), 45.\u00a0Morris states the maxim though he disagrees with it.[\/ref]<\/p>\n
But is this contrast between John and the Synoptics accurate? Does it give a fair reading to the Christological titles and roles assigned to Jesus by the other evangelists?<\/em><\/p>\n The purpose of this series is to explore the Christology of all four Gospels and determine if there is indeed such a rift between John and the Synoptics. For now we will limit ourselves to the depiction of Jesus in the opening scenes of each. While all four evangelists approach Jesus\u2019 coming into the world from a unique perspective, they all connect his entry into human history with the ministry of John the Baptist, culminating in their encounter at the Jordan.[ref]We must also put aside various questions in the text including authorship, audience, historicity, textual variants, and the Synoptic Problem. These, and other issues, will only be considered when they directly impact the question, \u201cDo the Synoptics as we currently have them present Jesus in the highest Christological terms from the outset or is this a unique feature of John\u2019s Gospel?<\/em>\u201d This series will answer this question by surveying the gospels in the order in which they were likely written (Mark<\/a>, Matthew, Luke, John). For a defense of this chronology see Raymond E. Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, The Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1997) 164, 217, 274, 368-371.[\/ref]<\/p>\n Theologian Ulrich Luz is correct that, \u201cMatthew\u2019s Christology is more than a semantic field structured by titles. Rather it is the story of a human being in whom God is and was \u2018with us\u2019.\u201d[ref]Ulrich Luz, Studies in Matthew<\/em>, trans. Rosemary Selle (Grand Rapids, MI, William B. Eerdman\u2019s Publishing Company, 2005), 96.\u00a0C.f. discussion of Christology and titles in France, 280-281.[\/ref]\u00a0Thus we will consider the broad motifs related to Jesus as they occur in the opening scenes of Matthew\u2019s narrative in order to sketch a portrait of the evangelists\u2019 Christological concerns.<\/p>\n Matthew begins, \u201cThe record of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah,[ref]NRSV, NASB have \u201cthe Messiah\u201d while NIV, NKJV have \u201cChrist\u201d.\u00a0The Greek is Christou<\/em> with no article supplied.\u00a0The title \u201cChrist\/Messiah\u201d occurs with the definite article just seven times in the Synoptics, six of them in Matthew.\u00a0When used in reference to Jesus the title should be understood as \u201can embodiment of the faith of the early church,\u201d Brian M. Nolan, The Royal Son of God: The Christology of Matthew 1-2 in the Setting of the Gospel<\/em>, Orbis Biblicus Et Orientalis, 23 (Fribourg, Switzerland: Editions Universitaires Fribourg Suisse, 1979), 116.\u00a0Brown understands \u201cJesus Christ\u201d (Matt 1:1, 1:18) to be almost a proper name, derived from the devolution of \u201cJesus the Messiah\u201d to \u201cJesus the Christ\u201d to \u201cJesus Christ\u201d in early Christian usage (Birth<\/em>, 59).[\/ref] the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.\u201d (Matt. 1:1) That Messiah<\/em> should be understood as referring to the \u201cMessianic King\u201d of Jewish expectation seems clear.[ref]Craig S. Keener, Matthew<\/em>, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, ed. Grant R. Osborne, (Downer\u2019s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 52.[\/ref]\u00a0That it is equivalent to \u201cSon of David\u201d in the author\u2019s mind is also likely.[ref]Nolan, 149.[\/ref]\u00a0However Messiah should not be understood strictly as a title<\/em>, but in the broader context of what the gospel reveals about Jesus. For in Matthew Jesus ultimately exceeds all that the Jews expected of the Messiah. The title, while accurate, is thus inadequate.[ref]Brown, Raymond S. The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, New Updated Edition<\/em>, The Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 135-136.[\/ref] Its full meaning must be derived from the remainder of what is said about Jesus.[ref]R. T. France suggests that the Messianic secret for Matthew owes to the fact that Matthew wanted his audience to see Jesus as Messiah, but not strictly according to their Messianic expectations. France. Matthew: Evangelist & Teacher, New Testament Profiles<\/em> (Downer\u2019s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 282-283.[\/ref]<\/p>\n \u201cSon of David\u201d has a greater prominence in Matthew than in the remainder of the New Testament.[ref]Matthew uses the term 10 times (more than the remainder of the New Testament combined), Mark and Luke only 4, John does not utilize it (Brown, Birth<\/em>, 134).\u00a0Seven of his usages are unique to Matthew (France, 284).[\/ref]\u00a0But what does the title convey? To be sure the Son of David is the Messiah and the rightful heir to David\u2019s throne.[ref] Craig S. Keener, Matthew<\/em>, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, ed. Grant R. Osborne, (Downer\u2019s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 52. See also France, 286 and Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew<\/em>, Sacra Pagina Series, Volume 1, ed. Daniel J. Harrington (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1991), 32.[\/ref] However, Luz argues that the tradition history<\/em> of the phrase is insufficient to establish its meaning for Matthew. Rather, Matthew utilizes the phrase to make a connection with his audience, before pushing them to a much greater understanding of the term.[ref]Luz, 85ff.\u00a0Thus \u201cSon of David\u201d is connected with the extension of mercy and physical healing, activities not expected of him by the Jews (cf. Luz, 86-87). As a result the blind, religiously ignorant, and even foreigners recognize Jesus as the Son of David, while the religious elite reject Him (France, 285).[\/ref]<\/p>\n That Matthew\u2019s genealogy is highly selective and serves a deliberate theological purpose is obvious.[ref]France, 284.[\/ref] Hebrew genealogies were generally given in order to demonstrate identity via tribal origins, under gird one\u2019s official status (e.g. kings, priests), or underscore a collective personality.[ref]Brown, Birth<\/em>, 64-66.[\/ref] Matthew utilizes Jesus\u2019 genealogy[ref]Or, more technically, Jesus\u2019 genealogy via his \u201clegal\u201d father Joseph.\u00a0For a discussion of Joseph\u2019s \u201clegal\u201d vs. \u201cadoptive\/foster\u201d paternity of Jesus see Brown, Birth<\/em>, 138-139.[\/ref] in each of these ways, identifying Jesus as Son of David,[ref]France, 284.[\/ref] of the tribe of Judah, who would restore Israel and enlighten the nations.[ref]Nolan, 169.[\/ref]\u00a0Thus Jesus\u2019 lineage prepares the reader for the conclusion that He is the climax of Israel\u2019s national history, and has a Gentile-mission.[ref]Keener (Matthew<\/em>, 55) and Harrington (32).[\/ref]\u00a0He is the prophesied Messiah\/King and \u201cSon of David\u201d of 2 Samuel 7:13-14.[ref]Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel of Matthew<\/em>, trans. Robert R. Barr, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman\u2019s Publishing Company, 2002), 16.[\/ref]<\/p>\n If the genealogy communicates that Jesus was the Son of David<\/em>, the conception and birth stories proclaim that He is the Son of God<\/em>.[ref]Harrington, 36.\u00a0Cf. France, 297.[\/ref]\u00a0Indeed, Brown sees in the announcement of the angel of the Lord (Matt. 1:20)\u2014and not the baptism scene\u2014the first time in Matthew that God calls Jesus \u201cSon.\u201d[ref]Brown, Birth<\/em>, 135 where he argues that in light of the Old Testament the \u201cangel of the Lord\u201d should be understood as God\u2019s presence in the earth.\u00a0Connected to this however is Brown\u2019s speculative assertion that the growth of Christological understanding in the early church can be traced through Acts\/early epistles (God naming Jesus Son at resurrection) to Mark (God naming Jesus Son at baptism), to Matthew & Luke (God naming Jesus Son at conception), to John\/Christological hymns (God naming Jesus Son in pre-existence).\u00a0This theory of Christological development colors Brown\u2019s entire treatment of the gospel (Brown, Birth<\/em>, 140-142).\u00a0One obvious objection to such a notion is that according to Brown Luke reflects a later<\/em> development in Christological understanding than Acts, although according to Brown (c.f. Intro<\/em>, 319-327) Luke was likely written earlier<\/em> than Acts by the same author![\/ref]\u00a0The conception by the Spirit and the virgin birth serve Matthew\u2019s ultimate goal to \u201cexplain and exalt the character of the Lord,\u201d[ref]Keener, Matthew<\/em>, 64.[\/ref] and demonstrate that Jesus\u2014unlike all those who came before in His genealogy\u2014is the product of divine, not natural, begetting.[ref]Brown, Birth<\/em>, 138-143.[\/ref]<\/p>\n Jesus\u2019 name is explicitly given salvific force in Matthew. We have noted that Jesus means literally \u201cGod\/Yahweh saves\u201d[ref]Schnackenburg, 19.[\/ref], but here the saving activity is explicitly assigned to Jesus, \u201cfor He<\/em> will save His<\/em> people from their sins.\u201d[ref]Italics mine.\u00a0This verse harks back to Moses, another deliverer of God\u2019s people spared from the massacre of infants carried out by an evil king.\u00a0But it also reminds the reader of Joshua, the eponymous savior of Israel who led them from wilderness to Promised Land (c.f. Brown, Birth<\/em>, 137-138).[\/ref] Brown sees allusions to numerous Old Testament texts here including Ps. 130:7-8, \u201cthe LORD\u2026will redeem Israel from all his iniquities.\u201d[ref]Brown, Birth<\/em>, 152.[\/ref] This further enforces the notion that in Jesus God is uniquely at work in the earth, as expressed in the name \u201cImmanuel.\u201d<\/p>\n Scholars disagree on Matthew\u2019s intention in his use of the Immanuel passages (Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 8:8-10). For New Testament scholar Rudolf Schnackenburg it means \u201cIn Jesus God is helping, redeeming, protecting his people.\u201d[ref]Schnackenburg, 19.\u00a0See also, Nolan, 131.[\/ref] Biblical scholar Raymond Brown insists that we understand Immanuel to mean that in Jesus God\u2019s eschatological\u2014not personal\u2014presence has come.[ref]Brown, Birth<\/em>, 150-153.\u00a0Again, this owes entirely to Brown\u2019s presupposition that incarnational theology evolved after the writing of Matthew and is unique to John, a contention that is hardly incontrovertible.[\/ref]\u00a0Luz goes further in saying that Jesus is, \u201cthe new and definitive form in which God<\/em> is present with his people.\u201d[ref]Luz, 85.\u00a0For Luz \u201cImmanuel Christology\u201d frames the entirety of Matthew\u2019s gospel (85), which taken together with other elements results in a \u201chigh\u201d Matthean Christology, \u201cfrom above\u201d (94).[\/ref] Richard France however claims that Matthew\u2019s use of \u201cGod with us\u201d, rather than the weaker \u201cGod is<\/em> with us\u201d to render the name \u201cat least leaves open the startling idea that this baby is himself God, present among men.\u201d[ref]France, 312.[\/ref]\u00a0Craig Keener asserts that \u201cImmanuel\u201d is an example of Matthean Christology recognizing Jesus as God.[ref]Keener, Matthew<\/em>, 64.[\/ref]<\/p>\n It is our view that one must first impose a low<\/em> Christology on the gospel[ref]As, for example, Brown does with his theory of Christological development (c.f. Brown, Birth<\/em>, 140-142).[\/ref] in order to not see an exalted<\/em> one here in Matthew\u2019s opening scenes. This Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of David, conceived in a virgin by the Holy Spirit. His two names proclaim that He will save His people from their sins, as He<\/em> is God<\/em> with them. The equivalence suggested here between Father and Son is assumed throughout Matthew\u2019s gospel as Jesus acts in God\u2019s place, taking on divine prerogatives, receiving worship, and fulfilling Old Testament Scriptures that spoke exclusively of Yahweh.[ref]France, 308-311.[\/ref] Thus in Jesus God is personally<\/em> with us.<\/p>\n It is sufficient to note that \u201cKing of the Jews\u201d (Matt. 2:2) was understood to mean both Messiah,[ref]C.f. Matthew 2:4. This Messiah would be a \u201cruler\u201d and \u201cshepherd\u201d to the people of Israel (c.f. Matt 2:6).\u00a0The identification of Bethlehem as the Messiah\u2019s birthplace is unequivocal (Schnackenburg, 23).[\/ref] and a usurper to Herod\u2019s throne, as \u201cKing of the Jews\u201d was Herod\u2019s official title.[ref]Harrington, 42.[\/ref]\u00a0Thus Herod understandably considered Jesus to be a threat to his unpopular rule.[ref]Brown, Birth<\/em>, 170. Herod\u2019s massacre of the innocents then, however horrific to us today, is in line with his insecurity and his cruel personal nature (c.f. Nolan, 150-154).[\/ref]<\/p>\n The coming of the magi[ref]Keener sees the pilgrimage and homage of the nations vis a vis<\/em> Ps 72:10, Is 60:6 (Keener, Matthew<\/em>, 67) while for Brown it anticipates the coming of the Gentiles to faith in Christ (Brown, Birth<\/em>, 169).[\/ref] is a striking scene, in which Gentile astrologers travel long distance to prostrate in worship[ref]Gk. prosekunesan<\/em>.[\/ref] before the infant Jesus.[ref]Keener (Matthew<\/em>, 67) and Schnackenburg (24) both see genuine worship here, contra Harrington (42) who seems more comfortable with \u201chomage.\u201d[\/ref]\u00a0It is important for our study to note that no player in John\u2019s gospel worships Jesus until He works miraculous signs as an adult.<\/p>\n John\u2019s ministry in Matthew serves much the same purpose as in Mark. He functions like an Old Testament prophet, proclaiming the coming work of God, in this case the arrival of a Messiah\/Judge figure whose presence calls for repentance and cleansing from sin.[ref]Keener, Matthew<\/em>, 75-81.[\/ref] The \u201csuperhuman\u201d rank of the One he foretells is made explicit in John\u2019s unworthiness to \u201cremove his sandals.\u201d[ref]Matthew 3:11. C.f. Keener, Matthew<\/em>, 83.\u00a0In John\u2019s time servants removed sandals and Old Testament prophets could rightly call themselves the servants of God.\u00a0But John is not even worthy to be servant\/slave to the coming One (c.f. Harrington, 54 and Schnackenburg, 32).[\/ref]\u00a0John\u2019s proclamation of a coming One who would pour out the Spirit<\/em> and act as Judge<\/em> prepares for the coming of God Himself, these are things that only God can do.[ref]See e.g. Keener (Matthew<\/em>, 83), Harrington (54), and Schnackenburg (33).[\/ref]<\/p>\n Jesus\u2019 submission to John\u2019s baptism is part of Matthew\u2019s concern to describe Him as the righteous Son of God.[ref]Luz, 93.[\/ref]\u00a0The opening of the heavens prepares for future revelation or deliverance [ref]C.f. Isaiah 64:1.[\/ref] and the dove may recall the life and salvation offered after the flood.[ref]Keener, Matthew<\/em>, 85-86.[\/ref] The voice from heaven, along with the Scriptures and the Baptist, acts as a third direct witness to Jesus\u2019 identity.[ref]Ibid., 86.\u00a0If the angel of the Lord\u2019s proclamation is considered, this would be the fourth witness.[\/ref]<\/p>\n Matthew\u2019s picture of Father, Spirit and Son at the baptism anticipates Jesus\u2019 final words (Matt. 28:19) and underscores the Son\u2019s special relationship with the Father. As with the other evangelists, particularly John, \u201cThe presentation of Jesus as the Son of God is central to Matthew\u2019s theological enterprise,\u201d and the voice at the baptism is clearly, \u201ca declaration that Jesus is the Son of God.\u201d[ref]France, 293.\u00a0Jesus\u2019 divine Sonship had been implied by the conception account (Matt 1:18ff) and intimated by the flight from Egypt (Matt 2:15).\u00a0Here it is stated explicitly.\u00a0If Schnackenburg is right that we should understand the voice as God\u2019s and not the traditional bath qol<\/em> (\u201cdaughter\/echo of the voice\u201d) then the theophany is considerably strengthened (Schnackenburg, 35).[\/ref] The background for the words spoken to Jesus is a compilation of Old Testament texts[ref]Psalm 2:7, Isaiah 42:1, 2 Samuel 7:16.[\/ref] that combine to convey the intended point.[ref]Keener, Matthew<\/em>, 86.[\/ref]\u00a0Matthew\u2019s depiction of Jesus as Son of God demonstrates the unique relationship<\/em> between Father and Son, and points forward to the unique status<\/em> of the Son who receives worship, has all authority, and is named alongside Father and Spirit.[ref]France, 292-298.\u00a0C.f. Luz (93), \u201c[Son of God] denotes Jesus\u2019 special and unique relation to God and his unique God-given status.\u201d[\/ref] In Matthew only God can reveal Jesus as His Son, as He does here at the baptism.[ref]Luz, 93.\u00a0C.f. Matthew 1:22-23, 2:15, 3:17, 11:25-27, 16:17, 17:5.[\/ref]<\/p>\n For Matthew Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, from the opening scenes (Matt. 1:1 3:17) to Peter\u2019s confession (Matt.16:16) to Jesus\u2019 own testimony under oath (Matt. 26:63-64). This Jesus who is by human lineage the descendant of David, is by spiritual lineage the Son of God, indeed, He is God with<\/em> us. And He is the One who promises to be with<\/em> His disciples, \u201ceven to the end of the age.\u201d[ref]Matthew 28:20. C.f. France, 312 and Brown, Birth<\/em>, 153.[\/ref] Thus Matthew can be seen as presenting not only an exalted<\/em> Christology but an incarnational<\/em> one as well.[ref]C.f. Luz, 96 who points out that Matthew\u2019s combination of Son of Man and Son of God motifs throughout his gospel \u201canticipates remarkably closely the doctrine of the two natures in the later church.\u201d[\/ref]<\/a><\/p>\n As a believer who has been\u00a0recreated to lead<\/a>\u00a0through Christ, it is important to recognize that\u00a0you are also a theologian<\/a>. Theology gives you the tools to examine your own beliefs about God, and also helps you communicate Christian beliefs in a meaningful way that others can understand. You can become better equipped in your daily influence for Christ by taking advantage of the following resources:<\/em><\/p>\n Background and Scope This is part of a series exploring how Jesus is depicted in the Gospels. Many scholars have noted that John’s Gospel proclaims a majestically high Christology. Indeed some have seen in John a Christology that finds no parallel in the other Gospels.[ref]See e.g. Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":240,"featured_media":6477,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"sync_status":"","episode_type":"","audio_file":"","castos_file_data":"","podmotor_file_id":"","cover_image":"","cover_image_id":"","duration":"","filesize":"","filesize_raw":"","date_recorded":"","explicit":"","block":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[73,560],"tags":[161,95,384,395,77,398],"yoast_head":"\nMatthew<\/h2>\n
The Record<\/h3>\n
Son of David<\/h3>\n
The Genealogy<\/h3>\n
Child of the Holy Spirit<\/h3>\n
Jesus, Immanuel<\/h3>\n
Scholarly Debate<\/h4>\n
King of the Jews<\/h3>\n
They Fell to the Ground and Worshiped Him<\/h3>\n
John\u2019s Proclamation<\/h3>\n
Encounter at the Jordan<\/h3>\n
This is My Beloved Son\u2026<\/h3>\n
Summary<\/h2>\n
\nPDF Original Version<\/a><\/h5>\n
\n