MKonradtposts

Matthias Konradt on Jesus as Son of God by Birth and Son of David by Adoption

Posted by

0

In today’s post I will share another key quotation from this year’s BMSEC volume, namely Matthias Konradt‘s book Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew, which has been translated with great precision and elegance by Kathleen Ess. For my other posts on this book, see here. 

Since it is nearly Christmas, I have chosen a quotation from Konradt’s discussion of Matthew 1, and since it is rather long, I have decided to forgo my usual grammatical analysis. (For a related post on Romans 1.4, see Chris Tilling/Tom Wright here; cf. also Jens Schröter, From Jesus to the New Testament, p. 233, which compares Rom 1:3-4 and Acts 13.32-34, and Michael Wolter, The Gospel According to Luke, which develops a similar line of argument as Konradt in relation to Luke 1.32).

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew (p. 28-29; trans. K. Ess): With the correlation of Jesus’ divine and Davidic heritage that comes to light here—Jesus is, so to speak, the Son of God by birth, and the Son of David by “adoption”—Matthew is to be distinguished from other such correlations found in early Christian texts. In the Jewish-Christian tradition behind Rom 1.3-4, Jesus’ double sonship appears to be fixed in a two-level Christology, in which Jesus’ earthly mission is linked with his status as the Son of David, while his status as the Son of God is connected with his exaltation in the resurrection. Similarly, in conjunction with a quotation from Ps 2.7, Acts 13.33-34 (cf. Acts 13.23) links Jesus the Son of David’s divine sonship with his resurrection. In Ps 2.7 itself, God accepts as his son the king who sits on the throne of David in the sense of an “adoption” procedure (cf. Ps 89.27-28; 2 Sam 7.14). In Matt 1, however, we see an inversion of this process: rather than Jesus the Son of David being adopted as the Son of God, Jesus the Son of God is adopted as the Son of David. The status as Son of God, which expresses Jesus’ unique proximity to and affinity with God, takes precedence and appears as the overarching identity of Jesus. This appears, at first glance, to confirm Kingsbury’s approach. But Matthew does not thereby seek to diminish the value of the status as Son of David. Matthew 1 does not intend to express that Jesus is the Son of God and not just a son of David. Rather, the emphasis here lies on the assertion that Jesus the Son of God is integrated into the history of God’s promises to Israel and first makes his appearance as the Son of David—that is, he first has to fulfill the task that is assigned to him as the messianic Son of David. In other words, with the motif of the Davidic sonship, the fulfillment of the promises of salvation given to Israel emerges already in Matt 1 as a principal aspect of Jesus’ mission. One fundamentally misses the point of Matthew’s conception if the significance of Jesus’ divine sonship is pitted against that of his Davidic sonship. Indeed, already in Matt 1, the two sonships are positively correlated, whereby Matthew, as we have seen, takes up and modifies the Old Testament and Early Jewish tradition. At the same time, the inversion of the process of adoption goes hand in hand with the fact that Jesus’ status as the Son of God encompasses other and more extensive aspects than his Davidic sonship. The second framing text (22.41-46), where Jesus’ two sonships are again made the central theme, suggests this very idea. On the other hand, we must remain mindful of the fact that both titles form one conceptual nexus: behind Jesus’ appearance as Son of David lies his dignity and majesty as the Son of God, and conversely, the earthly ministry of the Son of God is centrally defined by the task assigned to him as the Davidic Messiah.

Israel, Kirche und die Völker im Matthäusevangelium (p. 30): Mit der hier zutage tretenden Zuordnung von Gottes- und Davidssohnschaft Jesu—Jesus is sozusagen von Geburt an Sohn Gottes, während er zum Sohn Davids durch Adoption wird—unterscheidet sich Matthäus von anderen Zuordnungen, die in frühchristlichen Texten griefbar sind. So erscheinen Davids- und Gottessohnschaft Jesu in der Röm 1,3f zugrunde liegenden judenchristlichen Tradition in eine Zweistufenchristologie eingespannt, in der Jesu irdisches Wirken unter dem Vorzeichen seiner Davidssohnschaft steht, während seine Gottessohnschaft mit seiner Erhöhung bei der Auferstehung verbunden erscheint. Ähnlich verknüpft Apg 13,33f im Zusammenhang einer Zitation von Ps 2,7 die Gottessohnschaft des Davidssohns Jesu (vgl. Apg 13,23) mit dessen Auferweckung. Blickt man auf Ps 2,7 selbst, so geht es hier darum, dass Gott den König auf dem Throne Davids im Sinne eines Adoptionsvorgangs als seinen Sohn annimmt (cf. Ps 89, 27f; 2Sam 7,14). In Mt 1 liegt dagegen ein umgekehrter Vorgang vor: Nicht der Davidssohn Jesus wird als Gottesohn adoptiert, sondern der Gottessohn Jesus als Davidssohn. Die Gottessohnschaft, die Jesu einzigartige Nähe zu und Verbundenheit mit Gott zum Ausdruck bringt, geht voran und erscheint als übergreifende Identität Jesu. Dies scheint prima facie Kingsburys Ansatz zu bestätigen. Aber Matthäus sucht damit gerade nicht die Davidssohnschaft abzuwerten. Aussageintention von Mt 1 ist nicht, dass Jesus nicht bloß Daviddsohn, sondern Gottessohn ist. Der Ton liegt hier vielmehr darauf, dass der Gottessohn Jesus in die Verheißungsgeschichte Gottes mit Israel eingestellt wird und zunächst wesentlich als Davidssohn, d.h. in seiner ihm als Davidssohn zukommenden Aufgabe in Erscheinung tritt. Anders gesagt: Mit dem Motiv der Davidssohnschaft lässt schon Mt 1 die Erfüllung der Israel gegebenen Heilsverheißungen als zentrales Moment der Sendung Jesu hervortreten. Man verfehlt Matthäus’ Konzeption grundegend, wenn man die Bedeutung von Davids- und Gottessohnschaft gegeneinander ausspielt. Schon in Mt 1 sind sie vielmehr positiv einander zugeordnet, womit Matthäus, wie gesehen, alttestamentlich-frühjüdische Tradition modifiziert aufnimmt. Davon bleibt unbenommen, dass die Inversion des Adoptionsvorgang damit einhergeht, dass die Gottessohnschaft Jesu noch andere und weiterreichende Aspekte umfasst als die Davidsohnschaft. Der zweite ‘Rahmentext’ 22,41-46, in dem Davids- und Gottessohnschaft Jesu erneut gemeinsam thematisiert werden, deuten ebendies an. Umgekehrt ist aber eben nicht weniger zu beachten, dass beide Titel einen konzeptionellen Zusammenhang bilden: Hinter Jesu Auftreten als Davidsohn steht seine Würde als Gottessohn, und umgekehrt ist das irdische Wirken des Gottessohn zentral durch die ihm als davidischem Messias zukommende Aufgabe bestimmt.

Substantive analysis

I like three things about this quotation. First, I think Konradt convincingly points out that in Matthew Jesus the Son of God is “adopted” as Son of David rather than vice versa. Secondly, I think he effectively shows both the problem with pitting the two sonships against each other and the value of fleshing out the particular associations of each sonship. Finally, while giving proper attention to the distinctive aspects of each sonship, I think Konradt rightly stresses the fact that the two titles belong to one conceptual nexus, so that they must be held together and allowed to mutually inform each other.

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For tips on how to use this blog, please see here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! Unfortunately, I have found it increasingly difficult to write a new post each Monday, but I hope to be able to write at least two or three Monday blog posts each month. We’ll see. Best, Wayne.

Matthias Konradt on the Soteriological Significance of Jesus’s Death in Matthew

Posted by

0

In today’s post I will look at another key quotation from this year’s BMSEC volume, namely Matthias Konradt‘s book Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew, which has been translated with great precision and elegance by Kathleen Ess. For my other posts on this book, see here.

As usual I will begin with the English translation so that the selective grammatical analysis can directly follow the German text.

Translation and Text

Israel, Church, and the Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew (p. 298; trans. K. Ess, bracketed material added by W. Coppins): While the soteriological dimension of the Matthean model of Jesus’ divine sonship is made clear already in 1.18-25 as well as in the pericope of Jesus’ walk across the water in 14.22-33, this dimension is emphatically reinforced in the Passion Narrative. Matthew concisely expresses the soteriological significance of Jesus’ death by adding εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν [for the forgiveness of sins] to the words of institution in 26.28. Matthew left out these very words in the portrayal of John the Baptist, in contrast with Mark 1.4. In Matthew, the forgiveness of sins is linked not with the baptism of John but with Jesus’ death. In the preceding narrative, this soteriological significance is reflected in the authority of the Son of Man to forgive sins in 9.6, as well as Jesus’ ministry to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” in general. Both elements together develop the basic christological statement of 1.21: “For Matthew the forgiveness of sins stands at the center of Jesus’ mission.” The connection between 1.21 and Jesus’ passion is not only achieved through 26.28 but also further substantiated in that the name Jesus, which in 1.21 is explained in the statement of salvation, is inserted in the titulus crucis in 27.37: the Markan ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων [the king of the Jews] becomes in Matthew οὗτός ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων [this is Jesus the king of the Jews]. It is plausible to assume that Matthew here creates an intentional reference to the interpretation of the name in 1.21, and thereby, in line with 26.28, connects Jesus’ death with the forgiveness of sins.

* The quoted sentence is from the translation of U. Luz’ commentary on Matthew 21-28 (p. 381 = p. 116 in vol 4 of the German version).

Israel, Kirche und die Völker im Matthäusevangelium (p. 320): Wurde bereits in 1.18-25 sowie durch die Seewandelperikope in 14.22-33 die soteriologische Dimension der mattäischen Profilierung der Gottessohnschaft Jesu deutlich, so wird dies durch die Passionserzählung mit Nachdruck untermauert. Die soteriologische Bedeutung des Todes Jesu findet bei Matthäus einen konzisen Ausdruck in der Hinzufügung von εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν im Kelchwort in 26.28. Ebendiese Worte hat Matthäus bei der Präsentation des Täufers gegenüber Mk 1,4 ausgelassen. Sündenvergebung wird von Matthäus nicht schon an die Johannestaufe, sondern an den Tod Jesu gebunden. In der vorangehenden Erzählung steht dem in 9,6 die Vollmacht des Menschensohns zur Vergebung der Sünden wie überhaupt die Zuwendung Jesu zu den “verlorenen Schafen des Hauses Israel” zur Seite. Beides zusammen entfaltet die christologische Basis-aussage von 1,21. “Die Vergebung der Sünden ist für Matthäus das Zentrum der Sendung Jesu”. Die Verbindung zwischen 1,21 und der Passion Jesu erfolgt dabei nicht allein durch 26.28, sondern wird noch dadurch untermauert, dass der Name “Jesus”, der in 1,21 durch die Rettungsaussage erläutert wird, im titulus crucis in 27,37 eingefügt ist: Aus dem markinischen ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων wird bei Matthäus οὗτός ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων. Die Annahme liegt nahe, dass Matthäus hier einen gezielten Rückvereis auf die Namensdeutung in 1,21 setzt und damit ganz auf der Linie von 26,28 den Tod Jesu als Ort der Sündenvergebung ausweist.

Grammatical Analysis

Rather than providing a selective analysis of the entire passage, let me now treat the last two sentences in detail as a model sentence: Die Verbindung … Jesu forms the subject of the verb erfolgt. Die Verbindung = the connection; zwischen = between + dative (1.21 und der Passion/the passion); Jesu is genitive (of Jesus); K. Ess has translated erfolgt with “is … achieved” rather than adopting a more wooden solution such as “takes place”. She appears to have left dabei untranslated (as I often do). nicht allein = not only. durch 26.28 = through 26.28 (it might have been preferable to write “is achieved not only through 26.28). sondern = but. I like the translation “is substantiated” for wird untermauert. She has rendered sondern … noch as “but also further”, which works well, since “not only” needs to be followed by “but also” in English. dadurch … dass has been translated with “in that”, which works well, though I might have gone with “but is further substantiated also by the fact that”. der Name Jesus / the name Jesus is the subject. It is modified by the non-defining relative clause der … wird: der = which; as usual the verb wird erläutert is moved to the end of the subordinate clause; durch die Rettungsaussage (acc) = “by the statement of salvation”. The verb of the main sentence, eingefügt ist has been moved to the end of the subordinate clause introduced by dass: I might have translated it with “has been inserted” rather than “is inserted” though I think it works well as it stands. In the German I would have expected (no doubt incorrectly!) the accusative (into the titulus crucis) rather than the dative im titulus crucis, which is correctly translated as “in the titulus crucis“. Aus X wird Y can be translated as “X becomes Y” (as K. Ess has done here). I always struggle with the translation of liegt nahe, and I might have rendered this phrase as “The assumption is suggested that” or “the assumption lies close at hand that”. But I much prefer K. Ess’s translation of this phrase as “It is plausible to assume”: dass introduces what is being assumed; that Matthäus … setzt und … ausweist. The object of setzt/creates is einen gezielten Rückverweis/an intentional reference, which is probably better than adopting a more expansive solution such as “an intentional reference back”. auf = to + die Namensdeutung/the interpretation of the name (accusative). damit is always troublesome. As K. Ess has done, I often translate it with “thereby”, which I think works well here, though I have increasingly begun to leave it untranslated or use “in this way”. K. Ess has left ganz untranslated, writing “in line with 26.28” rather than adopting a more cumbersome solution such as “completely in line with”. She has translated the last part of the sentence freely with “connected the death of Jesus with the forgiveness of sins” rather than adopting a more wooden translation such as “and thereby designated the death of Jesus as (the) place of the forgiveness of sins”, which might be preferable insofar as it retains the emphasis on place in the German.

Substantive analysis

I found this quotation to be a wonderfully compact presentation of the soteriological significance of Jesus’ ministry and death in Matthew. And for me at least Konradt’s interpretation of the significance of Matthew’s addition of Jesus’ name to the titulus was both convincing and new (it does not, however, appear to be a new idea as such; in his footnote to this point, Konradt writes: Compare Senior 1985, 131; Heil 1991a, 80; Luck 1993, 305; Repschinksi 2006, 264 (= CBQ 68); and Herzer 2009, 139).

Let me conclude this post by thanking Jason Maston again for interviewing me last week about the BMSEC series at Dunelm Road!

Facebook Page: To receive notifications of future blog posts, please subscribe to this blog and/or like my facebook page here.

For a complete list of my blog posts, please see here.

For tips on how to use this blog, please see here.

German Mondays: Thank you for making it to the end of this blog post! Unfortunately, I have found it increasingly difficult to write a new post each Monday, but I hope to be able to write at least two or three Monday blog posts each month. We’ll see. Best, Wayne.