Charlene McAfee Moss on the Lack of Wisdom Christology in Matthew 11:25-30

  

With respect to the question of Matthew's Christology in Matt 11.25-30, one finds that Wisdom claims are not overwhelmingly persuasive. For example, in contrast with Sirach, Jesus does not explicitly exhort (potential) disciples to strive to gain wisdom; rather, he exhorts them to become as children (cf. Matt 18.1-4). The Matthean Jesus never refers to his disciples as σόφοι; he uses νήπιοι (Matt 11.25) and similar terms. The context of Matt 11.25-27 militates against the understanding that revelation by God is here anything other than the revelation of Jesus himself as the Revealer of God; this is certainly not to be understood in a limited sense that Jesus is Wisdom Incarnate or a Teacher of Torah. God's will is that "all things" have been delivered to Jesus (Matt 11.26-27); the invitation, the call, is to come to Jesus, not to seek Wisdom. Furthermore, if some form of Wisdom Christology is the motivation behind Matthew's use of Matt 11.28-30, if Matthew's intention is to heighten the implicit Wisdom Christology of Q and to make it explicit in this section of the Gospel, then why the unexplained stark juxtaposition of the humble and lowly one in Matt 11.29 with the exalted Son of the Father in Matt 11.27? No one has yet proposed an adequate justification for reading here an allusion to the altogether foreign and hypothetical concept of humble Wisdom.

 

Scholars who claim that Wisdom Christology is strongly present in Matt 11.25- 30 do not always address adequately the exclusivity of Jesus' claim to be the revelation of God; indeed, some rather hurriedly move on to discipleship, defined in relationship to Wisdom, as "obedience to the Law as interpreted by Jesus" and "an understanding of the mysteries of the Kingdom as disclosed by him," or something similar. By contrast, the invitation from Jesus in Matt 11.25-30 is not primarily to learn a new interpretation of the Torah: the yoke and rest he promises, and the revelation of God he alone can grant, go far beyond a definition of the yoke of Wisdom or Torah. What Matthew's reader is invited to learn from Jesus is not a new school of thought; rather, one is invited to enter a transforming relationship with God, to be yoked with Jesus the humble Messiah.

 

If Wisdom is thought to be a major component of Matthew's Christology in this text because one assumes that the underlying source of the yoke imagery in Matthew must be from Wisdom literature, then the sonship imagery of Jesus in Matt 11.25-30 can be misinterpreted. Since Luke betrays no equivalent of Matt 11.28-30, it is reasonable to imagine that Matthew has refashioned the Q Wisdom material (Matt 11.25-27; Luke 10.21-22) so that the identity of Jesus as Son of God in Matt 11.25-27 is enhanced by his identity as the humble Davidic Messiah of Matt 11.28-30.

 

It is unnecessary to resort to Wisdom literature to find a concept of the yoke of Jesus in Matt 11.29. There is a Second Temple Jewish text that may indicate other traditions which might have served as background for Matthew's use of yoke imagery in reference to Jesus. The text in view has the advantage that it does not oblige one to attempt to reconcile the βασιλεύς πραϋς of Matt 21.5 with the hypothetical Σοφία πραϋς required by a Wisdom model of Matt 11.28-30.

 

(Pss. Sol. 17.29-30) He will judge peoples and nations in the wisdom of his righteousness ... and he will have Gentile nations serving him under his yoke (υπο τον ζυγον αυτου), and he will glorify the Lord ... and he will purge Jerusalem with holiness as it was even from the beginning ...

 

Psalms of Solomon 17 refers to the yoke of the king, the Son of David (cf. Pss. Sol. 17.21: 'Ίδέ, κύριε, καί άνάστησον αύτοις τόν βασιλέα αύτων υίον Δαυιδ, Behold, Lord, and establish for them their king (the) son of David). Nothing in this psalm suggests a connection with Wisdom or Torah in the interpretation of the yoke. The text does establish a precedent for conceptualizing the Messiah's yoke: the king to be raised up, who will have a yoke, is the Son of David, the Lord Messiah (καί βασιλεύς αύτων χριστός κυρίου, Pss. Sol. 17.32). The allusion in Pss. Sol. 17 to the yoke of the Son of David is compatible with Matthew's Son of David Christology.

 

If the yoke of Jesus is read as the yoke of the Davidic Messiah, then the theological implications of Matt 11.25-30 bear a striking similarity to those of Matt 21.5. Both texts embrace the paradox of an exalted figure who is τραυς. In the only two places in the Gospels where Jesus is described to as τραυς, his identity as Messiah in the face of rejection is at stake.

 

A question which has emerged from Jesus' self-description as τραυς(Matt 11.29) is whether this text is meant to prepare the reader for the portrait of Jesus as βασιλεύς πραϋς in Matt 21.5. Especially because Jesus is described in these two places (and nowhere else in the NT) as τραυς, it is possible that there is a cumulative intra-gospel effect of the word τραυςin Matthew. The contrast Matthew draws between the expected royal messianic figure and the humble Son of God, who came to reveal God to the νηπιοι, can be reinforced if the reader returns to read Matt 11.29 in light of Matt 21.5. But could Matthew have intended this effect?

 

When the Gospel is read linearly, subsequent passages can help fill out the author's earlier picture. A linear reading of the three τραυςtexts in Matthew yields these connections: (a) Matt 5.5 affirms that the τραεις will inherit the earth; (b) Jesus' claim to be τραυς in Matt 11.27-30 can be read back into Matt 5.5 - Jesus, as τραυς, is qualified to receive all the blessings of the Beatitudes (his claim that all things were given to him, that he knows the Father, and that he is τραυς, justifies this kind of reading); and (c) the Matthean account of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem as the βασιλεύς πραϋς (Matt 21.5) remains paradoxical, yet paradigmatic.

 

Because the expectation of a Messiah who is τραυς is found only in Zech 9.9, then the appearance of this prophetic text as a fulfillment citation reveals that it has been formative in shaping Matthew's Christology. Therefore, one can defend reading Matt 21.5 back into Matt 11.29 (and perhaps even into Matt 5.5).68 By this means, the impact of Zech 9.9 - in its juxtaposition of the exalted, yet humble, messianic figure- upon Matthew's τραυς texts, and upon Matthew's Christology, is substantial. Especially in the context of conflict over the identity of Jesus as the Messianic king, the quality Matthew insists upon is that Jesus is Βασιλεύς πραϋς. (Charlene McAfee Moss, The Zechariah Tradition and the Gospel of Matthew [Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 156; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008], 76-79)

 

 

Excerpts from Andrei A. Orlov, “The Veneration Motif in the Temptation Narrative of the Gospel of Matthew” (2016)

  

Satan’s request for veneration also can be a part of the evangelists’ Adam Christology: Satan, who lost his celestial status by refusing to venerate the first Adam, is now attempting to reverse the situation by asking the last Adam to bow down.

 

Although the tradition of Satan’s request for worship is also found in Luke, Matthew appears to reinforce this veneration theme further by adding the peculiar terminology of prostration and by concluding his temptation story with the appearance of servicing angels. It is possible that these embellishments are intended to affirm the traditions of devotion to and exaltation of the last Adam that are constructed both negatively and positively by invoking the memory of the first Adam’s veneration.

 

Scholars have noted wide usage of the formulae of worship and veneration in the Gospel of Matthew that appears to be more consistent than in the other Synoptic Gospels. In view of this tendency, the Adamic tradition of veneration of humanity might also be perceived in other parts of Matthew, including the magi story narrated earlier in the gospel. It is noteworthy that both the temptation and the magi narratives contain identical terminology of worship. First, in the magi story one can see repeated usage of the verb προσκυνέω (cf. Matt 2:2, 8, 11), which is also prominent in the temptation story (Matt 4:9, 10). In both accounts this terminology appears to have a cultic significance. Also, both in the magi story and in the third Matthean temptation of Jesus, one can find a distinctive juxtaposition of the expression “falling down” (πεσόντες/πεσών) with the formulae of worship (προσεκύνησαν/προσκυνήσῃς). (Andrei A. Orlov, “The Veneration Motif in the Temptation Narrative of the Gospel of Matthew: Lessons from the Enochic Tradition,” in Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels: Reminiscences, Allusions, Intertextuality, ed. Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Gabriele Boaccaccini [Early Judaism and its Literature 44; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016], 343-44)

 

 

The suggestion that the veneration motif found in the temptation story might be connected to the theme of worship of Jesus in Matthew is hinted by the usage of the verb προσκυνέω. Larry Hurtado (How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions about Earliest Devotion to Jesus [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005], 143) suggests that the “pattern of preference for προσκυνέω, with its strong associations with cultic worship, suggests that Matthew has chosen to make these scenes all function as foreshadowings of the exalted reverence of Jesus familiar to his Christian readers in their collective worship.… The net effect of Matthew’s numerous omissions and insertions of προσκυνέω in cases where Jesus is the recipient of homage is a consistent pattern. It is not simply a matter of preference of one somewhat synonymous word for others. Matthew reserves the word προσκυνέω for the reverence of Jesus given by disciples and those who are presented as sincerely intending to give him homage. As Günther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and Heinz Joachim Held concluded from their analysis of scenes where Jesus is the recipient of the gesture in Matthew, προσκυνέω is used ‘only in the sense of genuine worship of Jesus.’” (Ibid., 343-44 n. 21)

 

 

 

The story of the magi speaks of mysterious visitors from the East who came to pay homage to the newborn king of the Jews. Some details of the account suggest that one might have here not simply the story of veneration by foreign guests, but possibly the theme of angelic reverence. Some scholars have pointed to the angelological details of the narrative. For  example, it has been observed that the mysterious star, which assists the magi in their journey to the Messiah, appears to be an angel, more specifically a guiding angel whose function is to lead the foreign visitors to Jesus. Other features of the story are also intriguing, as they, like the details of the temptation narrative, seem to betray some traces of apocalyptic traditions. It is also possible that, here, as in the temptation story, one can see a cluster of Adamic motifs. The baby Jesus, for instance, might be depicted as an eschatological counterpart of the first human, and, just as in the creation of the protoplast, which in the Primary Adam Books is marked by angelic veneration, the entrance of the last Adam into the world is also celebrated by a similar ritual of obeisance.

 

Let us now explore more closely other possible Adamic allusions in the story of the magi. First, the origin of the magi from the East (ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν) might show a possible connection with Eden, a garden that according to biblical testimonies was planted in the East. Gifts of the magi, including frankincense and myrrh, which were traditionally used in antiquity as ingredients of incense, bring to mind Adam’s sacrifices, which according to Jewish extrabiblical lore, the protoplast was offering in the garden of Eden in fulfillment of his sacerdotal duties. Such sacrifices are mentioned in Jub. 3:27, a passage depicting Adam as a protological high priest who burns incense in paradise. In view of the possible cultic flavor of the magi story, Jesus might be understood there not simply as the last Adam but as a priestly eschatological Adam in a fashion reminiscent of the book of Jubilees. In the context of these traditions, the magi could be understood as visitors, possibly even angelic visitors, from the garden of Eden, once planted in the East, who are bringing to a new priest the sacerdotal tools used in the distant past by Adam. This exegetical connection is not implausible given that some later Christian materials, including Cave of Treasures, often associate the gifts of the magi with Adam’s sacrifices

 

Moreover, it appears that other details of the magi narrative, including the peculiar juxtaposition of its antagonistic figure with the theme of worship, again bring to mind the protoplast story reflected in various versions of the Primary Adam Books, with its motifs of angelic veneration and Satan’s refusal to worship the first human. Recall that Matthew connects the main antagonist of the magi story, Herod, with the theme of veneration by telling that the evil king promised to worship the messianic child.

 

The magi narrative demonstrates that the veneration motifs play an important role in the overarching theological framework of Matthew’s Gospel. The cultic significance of the veneration motif can be further illustrated in Matthew’s transfiguration story in chapter 17. There, at the end of Jesus’s transfiguration on the mountain, the already familiar veneration motif is evoked again when the disciples, overwhelmed with the vision, throw themselves down with their faces to the ground. It is noteworthy that this depiction of the disciples’ prostration at Jesus’s transfiguration is strikingly absent from both Mark and Luke. In Matthew this motif seems to fit nicely in the chain of previous veneration occurrences, thus evoking the memory of both the falling down of the magi and Satan’s quest for prostration—traditions likewise absent from other Synoptic accounts. (Andrei A. Orlov, “The Veneration Motif in the Temptation Narrative of the Gospel of Matthew: Lessons from the Enochic Tradition,” in Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels: Reminiscences, Allusions, Intertextuality, ed. Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Gabriele Boaccaccini [Early Judaism and its Literature 44; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016], 344-48)

 

Robert L. Reymond (Presbyterian) on the Use of Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15

  

Then, with his authoritative “Brothers, hear me,” James began to speak, declaring that the words of the Old Testament prophets “are in agreement with [symphonousin]” the missionary activity Peter conducted at Caesarea in connection with Cornelius’s conversion and those that Paul and Barnabas had been conducting among the Gentiles. He then cited Amos 9:11–12 as a composite prophetic summary description of what God had declared in Old Testament times that he would do in behalf of the Gentiles in this present age:

 

After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent [his royal house in the Old Testament, Messiah’s church in the New]. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men, even all the Gentiles who bear my name, may seek the Lord, says the Lord who does these things that have been known for ages. (Robert L. Reymond, “The Presbytery-Led Church: Presbyterian Church Government,” in Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity, ed. Chad Owen Brand and R. Stanton Norman [Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2004], 100)

 

Reymond notes the difference between the LXX and MT of Amos 9:11 (Ibid., n. 27:)

 

James cited here a version of Amos 9:11–12 which reflects more closely the Septuagint version than the present-day Massoretic Text. The latter can and probably should be emended in the following ways to conform to the Hebrew text which doubtless underlay James’s cited Septuagint translation:

 

1.         In 9:12 the verb “possess” should be emended to “seek”—the change of the yodh to the daleth.

2.         The sign of the accusative ’eth—clearly suspect as an indicator that “remnant of Edom and all the Gentiles …” are direct objects inasmuch as a single ’eth never introduces two direct objects—should be emended to othi “me,” referring to the Lord, or “the Lord,” construing the yodh as a hypocoristic abbreviation for [weh] yodh he).

3.         The proper noun “Edom” should be emended to “adham” (“men”), a mere repointing of the word.

 

What is the result of these slight emendations? Instead of reading, “that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the Gentiles who bear my name,” the text now reads, “that the remnant of men, even all the Gentiles who bear my name, may seek the Lord,” precisely the words Luke quotes James as saying.

 

Because some dispensational scholars have maintained that “dispensationally, [James’s summary speech] is the most important passage in the N.T.,” describing, they say, the final regathering of Israel into the reestablished Davidic kingdom after this present age (see Scofield Reference Bible [New York: Oxford, 1917], 1169–70), they have insisted that the verb symphonousin, in Acts 15:15 has the connotation, “are in agreement with,” not “speak about,” and simply indicates that the missionary policies being observed in connection with Gentile evangelism in the present age are harmonious with the policies that will be followed in the future Jewish kingdom age—the real referent of Amos’s prophecy.

 

Aside from the fact that such an interpretation imposes an inanity on the text since the Jerusalem assembly hardly needed to be informed that God’s prescribed missionary policies throughout history are consistent with each other from age to age, this is a classic example of theological “reaching” in order to avoid the obvious. If there is no connection between the cited “words of the [Old Testament] prophets” and the missionary activity of this present age beyond the mere fact that the character of the church’s present missionary activity among the Gentiles “fits with” the character of Jewish missionary activity among the Gentiles in the reputed future millennial age, one is left with no acceptable explanation for James’s citation of the Amos prophecy in this context. In fact, by this line of reasoning James is made to introduce an irrelevancy on the issue before the assembly.

 

Leslie Baynes on the Relationship Between Luke 16:19-31 and Si-Osiris

The following comes from:

 

Leslie Baynes, “The Parables of Enoch and Luke’s Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus,” in Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels: Reminiscences, Allusions, Intertextuality, ed. Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Gabriele Boaccaccini (Early Judaism and its Literature 44; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 148-50

 

Luke 16:19-31	Si-Orisis
There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and linen and who made merry during his life.	A rich man receives a splendid burial shrouded in fine linen.
And at his gate lay a poor man by the name of Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man’s table; And even the dogs would come and lick his sores.	There is no connection between the rich man and the poor one.
The poor man died and was borne away by the angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried.	A poor man is buried ignominiously but receives a place of honor in the underworld (Amenti), with the ruler of the underworld, Osiris.
In Hades, where he was being tormented, he lifted his eyes and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus in his bosom.	The rich man is tormented in the underworld.   The rich man’s torment is a door hinge through his eye. He does not see the poor man in Amenti, and vice versa; they are both observed by third parties, Si-Osiris and his father.
He called out, “Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in this flame.”	The rich man never begs for mercy. He does not suffer flames.
But Abraham said, “Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony.   Besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.”	The moral of the story: good deeds must outweigh bad in order to enjoy peace in the afterlife.*
He said, “Then, father, I beg you to send him to my father’s house—for I have five brothers—that he may warn them, so that they will not also come into this place of torment.” Abraham replied, “They have Moses and the prophets; they should listen to them.” He said, “No, father Abraham; but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.” He said to him, “If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”	Si-Osiris has returned from the dead, but in a manner completely unrelated to any request from the tormented rich man.   Si-Osiris’s father takes to heart the negative example he observed in Amenti.

 

All of the stories we have considered here give different rationales for the rich man/men suffering in the afterlife, a detail Luke does not explicitly articulate. Much ink has been spilled trying to explain the reason for Dives’s torment, but I agree with Bauckham that it is clear, like it or not: the rich man received good in his life, and Lazarus did not. I go beyond Bauckham (“Rich Man and Lazarus,” 232–33) in using internal context clues to infer that Dives’s earthly treatment of Lazarus was callous—literally damning—indifference to him. We do not know if Dives built his wealth unjustly on the backs of the poor, as the rich in the Parables and Epistle of Enoch did. Active oppression of the poor is one important reason for the rich suffering the flame of Sheol in both those books, while the Parables also emphasizes arrogant refusal to acknowledge God and his Chosen One.

 

As the chart demonstrates, the story of Si-Osiris is not a perfect match with Luke 16:19–31. But while it is always possible that Luke did not know this story, either in a written or an oral form, and used instead texts based on it that are no longer extant, or related ideas “in the air” of a common milieu, I believe the text we have at hand precludes the necessity to peer into the void speculating about (currently) nonexistent alternatives. Hence in addition to the Epistle and the Parables of Enoch, I think it is likely that Luke was influenced by the story of Si-Osiris as well.

Charlene McAfee Moss on Matthew 2:23

  

On the one hand, from the biblical texts themselves, there are no compelling reasons to adopt a Nazirite interpretation. First, nowhere in the LXX is Nazirite rendered Ναζωραιος. Second, a Nazirite explanation simply does not fit the Matthean Infancy narrative in its own context, nor is it supported by the picture of Jesus elsewhere in Matthew, Matt 11 presents a notable example:

 

ήλθεν γάρ Ίωάννης μήτε έσθίων μήτε πίνων, καί λέγουσιν· δαιμόνιον έχει. ήλθεν ό υίός του άνθρώπου εσθίων και πίνων, και λέγουσιν· ίδου άνθρωπος φάγος και οινοπότης, τελωνών φίλος και άμαρτωλών.

(Matt 11.18-19) For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, "He has a demon." The Son of Man came (both) eating and drinking, and they say, "Look, a glutton and drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners."

 

On the other hand, Davidic Branch - 'Ανατολή connections, which complement the Davidic messianic themes prominent in Matthew's first chapter, have also been discerned in Matthew's second chapter. Furthermore, the prophetic plurality of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Zechariah, from which the unified concept of נַצֶר and צֶמַח, as interchangeable Messianic Branch terms, may also account for the unusual fulfillment formula in Matt 2.23, in which the indirect speech citation, οτι Ναζωραΐος κληθήσεται, fulfills τό ρηθέν διά των προφητών. The prevalence of Davidic imagery, as well as the lacking of convincing Nazirite material, confirms that the Nazareth-Ναζωραιοςwordplay in Matt 2.23 must refer to Jesus as the Davidic Branch, the נַצֶר who came from Nazareth. (Charlene McAfee Moss, The Zechariah Tradition and the Gospel of Matthew [Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 156; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008], 39-40)

 

 

Phineas Wolcott Cook (1819-1900) on the Failure of William Miller's Prophecy Concerning the Second Coming Taking Place in 1844

  

It was the year that the Prophet Miller prophesied the end of the world about the idle of October 1844. [On the predicted day] there was a very singular appearance in the air. It was a cloudy, foggy day and objects such as trees looked red as though the shadow of fire was in the air. Many thought the Day of Judgment had surely come, but soon it passed off and all was natural again. I did not believe Millerism, consequently I was not afraid. Many went crazy and many died with fear or it caused their death. (Phineas Wolcott Cook, Journal, 1844, in Phineas Wolcott Cook: A Legacy of Faith [Phineas Wolcott Cook Family Organization, 2022], 40, comment in square brackets in original)

 

 On whether Joseph Smith prophesied the Second Coming taking place in 1890/91, see the articles at:

Resources on Joseph Smith’s Prophecies

Book of Mormon in Irish (An Leabhar Mhórmoin: Tiomna eile ar Íosa Críost)

A friend of mine here in Ireland has completed a translation of the Book of Mormon into Irish. One can purchase it on Kindle and in paperback:

An Leabhar Mhórmoin: Tiomna eile ar Íosa Críost

As an aside, a friend of mine has produced a fresh translation of the Gospel and Epistles of John from Greek into Tagalog. I am currently reviewing it (*), and it is really good. I hope he will publish it in the near future, so look out for that, too.

(*) for those curious, I have a working knowledge of several languages, both ancient and modern.