You are on page 1of 20

Hosea and the Son of the Living God in Matthew 16:16b

MARK J. GOODWIN
University of Dallas Irving, TX 75062

MATTHEWS GOSPEL IS UNIQUE among the canonical Gospels in using the epithet living God.1 The first occurrence of the epithet is found in Peters confession at Caesarea Philippi (Matt 16:16b) and the second comes later in Jesus trial before the Sanhedrin (26:63). My primary interest is in the former occurrence, since it presents a unique and rich christological formulation in which Peter confesses Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God. Peters confession in Matt 16:16 is widely recognized as pivotal in Matthews narrative, as it is immediately and directly affirmed by Jesus himself in 16:17, And Jesus answered him, Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you. Further, the pericope of which the confession is part, Matt 16:13-20, is followed immediately by Jesus first passion prediction (16:21-23). Although the significance of Peters confession in Matthew is widely acknowledged, the confession of sonship in the latter part of 16:16 remains an enigma in scholarly discussion. This difficulty is due primarily to the confesThis 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; Rom 9:26; 1 Tim 3:15; 4:10. The two occurrences in Matthew, however, represent the only uses in the Gospel 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, but text-critical issues make this reading uncertain. See Kurt Aland, ed., Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (Stuttgart: Wrttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1964) 522; Jacques-. Mnard, Lvangile selon Thomas (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 136-37.

265

266

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 67, 2005

sions uniqueness within the NT. It consists of two christological titles, the second of which is found nowhere else in biblical literature or Jewish tradition. As a result, Peters confession of Jesus sonship in 16:16b remains inadequately considered in commentaries and other secondary literature. The prevailing tendency in commentaries has been to view the Son of the living God as a variant of the more widely used Son of God; this approach presupposes that the epithet living God in 16:16b is incidental, having little or no substantive function in Peters confession. The participle living is viewed as a mere stylistic element that gives the confession more solemnity. Other interpreters offer sundry comments on the epithet living God and its biblical background, but they say little if anything about the function and significance of the whole formulation in 16:16b. Interpreters thus remain largely at a loss as to how to interpret Peters confession of Jesus sonship. A comment of Leopold Sabourin some years ago on Matt 16:16 summarizes the current state of affairs: it is not easy to determine what the words Son of the living God signify in the mouth of Peter.2 Basic questions about the significance and function of Peters confession of Jesus sonship therefore remain to be addressed. For example, is there a special significance in associating Jesus sonship with the living God? How is the Son of the 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 living God in connection with its setting in Matthew 16? In what follows I will address these questions by arguing that the key to understanding Peters confession of Jesus sonship lies in a better understanding of its biblical and Jewish background. Specifically, my thesis is that the Son of the living God constitutes a biblical 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 was remembered and reinterpreted in a variety of texts from the Second Temple period. This biblical and Jewish background provides an important clue to the interpretation of Peters confession. It suggests that the living God, through Jesus, fulfills 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 future Israel promised in Hosea. This role of Jesus as the representative of future Israel
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 in the Function and Meaning of Biblical Terminology (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1968). Of Matt 16:16 he observed the following: there is no indication that this epithet for God has any other special connection with this christological setting.

HOSEA AND THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD

267

is closely linked to his status as the one whom the living God raises from the dead, an act that signals the dawning of future Israel. Through Jesus, the resurrected Son, the living God acts to fulfill Hos 2:1 LXX in the building of an ejkklhsiva (Matt 16:18). Moreover, there are hints from the narrative context of Matthew 16 that the dawning of future Israel, in fulfillment of Hosea, has a polemical edge. The living God, through the resurrection, vindicates his Son against Jewish authorities, portrayed in Matthew as rival claimants to the heritage of Israel. This article is organized into three sections. The first section presents a brief discussion of recent scholarly interpretation of the confession of sonship, seeking to summarize the prevailing approaches and the inadequacies of these approaches. The second section examines the evidence in favor of viewing Peters confession as a biblical allusion modeled on Hos 2:1 LXX. Not only is Peters confession of Jesus sonship linguistically similar to the Hosean formulation sons of the living God, but Matthews repeated use of Hosea strengthens the claim of an allusion. The third section explores the christological implications of interpreting the confession in connection with Hos 2:1 LXX. Peters confession of Jesus sonship carries the associations of Hoseas oracle and asserts that with Jesus comes the fulfillment of Hos 2:1 and the dawning of future Israel.

I. Recent Approaches and Interpretations


In the last one hundred years of NT scholarship, much has been written on Matt 16:13-20, concentrating on certain material within the pericope, especially vv. 17-19, which has been a bone of contention between Catholic and Protestant interpreters.3 Because of the enormous attention paid to Matt 16:17-19, Peters confession of Jesus sonship has remained something of a side issue, as will become clear in the following summary of recent scholarship on Matt 16:16.

A. The Son of the Living God as Redactional Expansion of Mark 8:29


The majority of recent interpreters approach Matt 16:16b as a redactional expansion of the earlier and shorter confession of Peter found in Mark 8:29. There is a scholarly consensus that Matt 16:13-20 is best explained as an expansion of Mark 8:27-30, and this consensus has made possible the identification of distinctive Matthean touches.4 These Matthean features are evident, for example,
3 For a history of interpretation, see Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr (rev. ed.; trans. Floyd V. Filson; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962). 4 Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew (trans. David Green; Atlanta: John Knox, 1975) 335-45; John Meier, The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church, and Morality (New

268

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 67, 2005

in the finely crafted narrative of Matt 16:13-20, which is a carefully structured literary unit consisting of two subunits, vv. 13-16 and vv. 17-19, and a concluding v. 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 contains verses that are parallel to Mark 8:27-30. For example, in Matt 16:13 Jesus poses a question 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 Man is typically identified as a Matthean addition, although interpreters are less certain of its precise significance in the pericope.5 Another distinctive Matthean accent is noticeable in 16:14, which presents the 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 Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets. The mention of Jeremiah is unique to Matthew, and its significance remains elusive.6 For my discussion, however, the most significant Matthean touch comes in the phrase the Son of the living God, a confession that is typically viewed as expanding the shorter Marcan confession.7 The resulting confession in 16:16 is a unique 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 the shorter 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 formulation in already existing sources? Did he draw the formulation from Matthean tradition? 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 Theological 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 of Man. Recently, W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr. (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew [3 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1991] 2. 617) list seven theories 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 meaning for Matthew . . . must remain uncertain. For opinions on the significance of Jeremiah in 16:14, see Schweizer, Good News According to Matthew, 340; Meier, Vision of Matthew, 108; Davies and Allison, 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 Mark (and Luke) have failed to find any trace?

HOSEA AND THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD

269

lation over hypothetical sources, but little effort has been given to investigating the formulations narrative placement and function. In the final form of the Matthean text, what narrative function does the Son of the living God have? There is wide agreement that Peters confession of Jesus sonship in 16:16b functions in apposition to the preceding title, Christ, and interprets it.8 The function of the Son of the living God is closely bound up with the assertion of Jesus messianic identity in 16:16a, and the importance of the latter is reinforced by a second occurrence of the title Christ in 16:20, which reads: Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. This second use of the title 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 in Peters confession. Undoubtedly, the function of the Son of the living God is bound up with Jesus messianic identity, which it clarifies in terms of sonship.9 In this light, then, it is understandable why scholarly interest has devoted much attention to discussing the title Christ in Matt 16:16a. The net result of this emphasis is that Peters confession of Jesus sonship ends up being overlooked as peripheral to the confession of Jesus as Christ. The emphasis on the title Christ comes at the expense of a fuller appreciation of the title Son, which ends up being dismissed as an odd and inessential quirk of Matthean redaction. Nonetheless, commentators, in neglecting the Son of the living God, do manage to supply brief comments about the formulation and thus provide some useful insights. The typical comments fall into the following three categories. First, there are comments that take the formulation as a variant of the title Son of God. This approach will be discussed below. Second, some commentators devote themselves to speculating on possible sources of the confession of sonship identified as a special Matthean tradition or as a redactional creation based on the subsequent trial scene in Matt 26:63.10 Third, numerous commentators concentrate on the epithet liv-

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 of Matthew (SacPag; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991) 247; Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) 425 n. 72. Thomas De Kruijf (Der Sohn des Lebendigen Gottes [AnBib 16; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1962] 86) reflects this view when he notes that Simon pronounces the confession of Christ as specified and elevated through the additional Son of the living God. 9 Meier (Vision of Matthew, 109) rightly notes that both christological titles in 16:16 are being 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 of the living God either comes from Matthews special source (M) or is a redactional addition perhaps inspired by the trial before the Sanhedrin.

270

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 67, 2005

ing God by itself, discussing its biblical and Jewish background, but they fail to consider 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 in the 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 Matt 16:16b tends to present the confession as little more than a variant of the commonly used title Son of God. In some cases, commentators almost unconsciously reduce 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 this approach, among other factors, is the earlier confession in Matt 14:33, in which the 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 subsequent confession in 16:16b, which is viewed as a reiteration of it.13 Combined with this view is the assumption that Peters confession of Jesus sonship is the product of redactional expansion in which the original title Son of God has been augmented with the participle living. This approach deems the expansion a 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.14 Before 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 where the phrase living God occurs in the NT, the LXX, and noncanonical Jewish literature. See also Harrington, 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 the Son 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, Sohn des Lebendigen Gottes, 78; Luz, Matthew 820, 361; and Richard A. Edwards, Matthews Narrative Portrait of the Disciples (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997) 68. Davies and Allison (Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2. 621) observe of Peters confession: Because all the disciples have already confessed Jesus to be the Son of God (14:33; cf. 11:27), one wonders why the present confession [16:16b] is treated as a breakthrough attributable only to divine revelation. 14 Oscar Cullmann (Peter, 177) expresses a view followed by many commentators, referring to the confession of sonship as an edifying liturgical paraphrase. Gnilka (Matthusevangelium, 2. 59) observes that the expression Son of God gains solemnity through the mention of the living God. Similarly, Luz (Matthew 820, 361) notes that the only difference between 14:33 and 16:16b is that the latter is formulated more fully and solemnly.

HOSEA AND THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD

271

Certainly, Peters confession in 16:16b is a confession of sonship that stands in some kind of relation to the preceding confession of 14:33. This relation between the two confessions enables interpreters to see that certain aspects of the theme of sonship in 14:33 are carried over to 16:16b.15 For example, 16:16b is viewed as an assertion of Jesus divine power or deity in the light of 14:33.16 In addidion, there is wide agreement that Matt 16:16 reflects confessional language of the Matthean church, a thought that is likely reinforced by its linkage with 14:33.17 The problem with stressing the continuity between the two confessions of sonship, however, is that the distinctive character of the Son of the living God is often overlooked and the title is assumed to be synonymous with Son of God in 14:33. What is neglected, then, is the Hosean background of the Son of the living God, a background not relevant for 14:33. Against this approach, interpreters need to take 16:16b at face value, attempting to explore the distinctive association of Jesus, the Son, with the living God. The significance of this distinctive association is appreciated by John Meier, who notes of 16:16b that it has a Christological depth and richness to it which far surpasses the previous occurrences of either Messiah or Son of God in the gospel.18 Meier is right, and the christological depth and richness become clear from a perusal of each confessions narrative setting. The confession of sonship in 14:33 stands alone, unconnected to any other christological formulations and with no subsequent beatitude from Jesus affirming its validity. By contrast, Peters confession in 16:16b evokes Jesus solemn response (16:17-19). Moreover, Peters confession occurs in a pericope that is juxtaposed to the first passion prediction in Matthew (16:21-23), which indicates some kind of link with the event of Jesus death and resurrection. By virtue of its narrative position, then, Peters confession can be viewed as more pivotal in the Matthean narrative. Again, Meiers observations are perceptive: the profession of Peter in 16:16 is not rendered superfluous by this acclamation in 14:33. As we shall see, Peters statement of Christology will be fuller and more solemn; and the ecclesiological ramifications are made more specific and far-reaching.19 On this basis, it can be concluded that the confession in Matt 14:33 functions
Commentators widely acknowledge the ecclesial function of both confessions; see, e.g., Francis Wright Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981) 352-53; Schweizer, Good News According to Matthew, 323; Gnilka, Matthusevangelium, 2. 54; Luz, Matthew 820, 361; and Schnackenburg, Gospel of Matthew, 145. 16 E.g., Sabourin, vangile selon Saint Matthieu, 209; Davies and Allison, Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2. 510; and Meier, Vision of Matthew, 100. 17 The scene in 14:22-33 is typically viewed as a parallel to the earlier stilling of the storm in 8:23-27, the ecclesial interpretation of which is often carried over to 14:21-33. 18 Meier, Vision of Matthew, 109. 19 Ibid., 100.
15

272

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 67, 2005

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

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


A. The Evidence: Linguistic Similarity and Matthews Use of Hosea
The 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 living God. The Matthean formulation the Son of the living God is modeled on the Hosean formulation, which is the basis for several reinterpretations attested in Jewish and early Christian writings, for example, 3 Macc 6:26 and Jub. 1:25. Taken against this biblical and Jewish background, Peters confession can be viewed 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 definitely ruled out). What is the evidence supporting this claim that the Hosean sons of the living God has influenced the formulation of the confession of sonship in Matt 16:16b? Initially there is the patent linguistic similarity between the two formulations: a term for sonship (singular or plural) qualified by a genitive phrase, of the living God. Surprisingly few commentators acknowledge this similarity in their remarks on Matt 16:16, but the ones who do are worth noting. Joachim Gnilka observes that Peters confession is influenced by OT language, noting that this formulation is presumably stamped by Hosea.21 Also, H. Edward Everding observes that the title Son of the living God is formally parallel to sons of the living 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 to Saint Matthew, 2. 510) describe the confession of 14:33 as reflecting a growth in the knowledge of 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 the description of God as living reflects Matthews practice of conforming to the phraseology of the OT, where we often read about the living God (cf. the possibility that 5:9 alludes to Hos 2:1 [1:10]; you are the sons of the living God).

HOSEA AND THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD

273

however, is not exact in the Greek, as a comparison of two formulations shows. First, there is the obvious difference of the singular son in the Matthean confession that distinguishes it from Hos 2:1 LXX. The Matthean the Son of the living God is a unique christological formulation that goes well beyond the plain sense of the Hosean sons of the living God. Second, the Hosean formulation sons of the living God in Greek is an anarthrous formulation consisting of three terms, uiJoi; qeou' zw'nto" (reflecting the Hebrew construct chain yjAla ynb). In using an anarthrous form, the Hosean formulation in the LXX differs from the Greek of Matt 16:16b, which employs a fuller form involving three articles, oJ uiJo;" tou' qeou' tou' zw'nto". How is one to account for this difference? A number of factors may be operative. For example, Matthews fuller formulation may reflect the function of a communal confession within the Matthean church, although this explanation is rendered less likely by the earlier confession of 14:33, which is anarthrous. A simpler explanation may be that Peters confession begins in 16:16a with the title Christ in its full articular form; Jesus is the Christ (oJ cristov").23 This title has likely influenced the fuller articular formulation in 16:16b, the Son of the living God. Whatever may be the reason for the articular form employed in Matt 16:16, the Matthean formulation still preserves the recognizable form of Hos 2:1 LXX, involving the Greek terms sons (uiJoiv) and living God (qeou' zw'nto"). One may, however, rightly wonder if this general linguistic similarity by itself is a sufficient basis for arguing a Hosean influence on Matt 16:16b. Could the linguistic similarity be coincidental rather than evidence of a Hosean influence? This suggestion of a coincidental linguistic similarity loses its force when one realizes that the Book of Hosea was familiar to and used by Matthew.24 Matthew quotes Hosea in three specific cases, each of which is unique to Matthew within the Synoptic tradition. The words of Hos 6:6 LXX are cited twice. In Matt 9:13, Jesus says, Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice; and Matt 12:7 reads, If you had known what this means, I desire mercy and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the guiltless. In both cases, the language of Hos 6:6 is quoted without an introductory formula and without identification of the prophetic source. This absence of explicit introductory formulas suggests that the evangelist could assume his audiences familiarity with the Hosean source.
Gundry, Matthew, 330. An allusion to Hos 2:1 is possible in Matt 5:9, Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. The latter expression, for they shall be called sons of God parallels Hoseas for they shall be called sons of the living God. Gundry (Matthew, 330) acknowledges the possible parallel, which is noted also in Novum Testamentum Graece (ed. E. Nestle and K. Aland; 27th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993) 9, 798.
24 23

274

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 67, 2005

Of even greater significance, however, is the quotation of Hos 11:1 found in Matt 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 to as the prophet, which suggests the audiences familiarity with Hosea. What makes Matt 2:15 significant is that it introduces the terminology of sonship derived from Hosea and applies it to Jesus, thus offering a potential parallel to Matt 16:16b. In its original biblical setting, Hos 11:1 designates Israel as the son 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 language speaks about Jesus and so Jesus can be identified as the son who is Israel in Hos 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 wilderness. In contrast to the exodus generation of Israel, Jesus is the faithful son who acts in filial obedience to Gods will. Both Matt 2:15 and 4:3, 6 thus illustrate a hermeneutical perspective of Matthew in which the traditional scriptural designation 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 Matt 16:16b.

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


There is additional evidence supporting the claim that Matt 16:16b constitutes an allusion to Hos 2:1 LXX. The Hosean formulation sons of the living God was a scriptural prophecy of considerable interest among Jews of the Second Temple period, as well as Christians. Familiarity with the Hosean formulation sons of the living God in this period is amply attested in several Jewish texts and one NT text as well, Rom 9:26. Jews and Christians found the Hosean oracle to be useful in describing their identity as Gods people, enabling them to express their unique covenantal relationship to the living God of Israel with a traditional biblical expression. In the Second Temple period, Hos 2:1 LXX was reinterpreted and adapted by both Jews and Christians in defining their identity in continuity with the heritage of Israel. Before pursuing these Jewish and early Christian adaptations of Hos 2:1 LXX, 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 judgment pronouncements made in Hos 1:2-9 LXX/MT. The oracle declares Gods intent to reverse judgment with a promise of future restoration:

HOSEA AND THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD

275

And the number of people of Israel is like the sand of the sea, which can be neither measured nor numbered; and it will be in the place where it was said to them, You are not my people, there they shall be called sons of the living God (ejkei' klhqhvsontai uiJoi; qeou' zw'nto").

The formulation sons of the living God functions to reverse the pronouncement You are not my people, pointing to a future time when the living God would restore Israel to the covenantal status of my people. Hosea 2:1 envisions a future 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 a prophecy that had relevance to their present identity as Gods people. They reinterpreted the oracle and applied it in the light of new historical circumstances. This reinterpretation is seen in four specific texts ranging from the second century B.C.E. to the first century C.E.: Jub. 1:25 (And I shall be a father to them, and they will be sons to me. And they will all be called sons of the living God); 3 Macc 6:28 (Release the sons of the all-conquering living God of heaven who from the time of our ancestors until now has conferred upon our estate an impregnable stability with glory); Esth 8:12q LXX (We, however, find that the Jews . . . are sons of the living God, most high, most great, who has directed the kingdom for us . . .); 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 adamantine walls of life, because the sons of the living God will dwell in your city of refuge).25 There is also the early Christian case of Rom 9:26, in which Paul quotes Hos 2:1 verbatim. These adaptations of Hos 2:1 LXX offer a useful interpretive context within which 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 God among Jews and Christians during the Second Temple period. Second, each of the examples uses the expression sons of the living God in an ecclesial sense, designating the community of Gods elect, which enjoys a close covenantal relationship with the living God. Although the expression is not used in exactly the same way in each of the examples, in each case the phrase does carry the association of Gods covenantal people in some aspect, either as the existing Diaspora Jewish 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 commentary (AB 44; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977) 233. Also see my discussion of these texts in Mark J. Goodwin, Paul, Apostle of the Living God: Kerygma and Conversion in 2 Corinthians (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2001) 46-62.

276

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 67, 2005

and Esth 8:12q LXX, the formulation functions to designate the presently existing Jewish community, which, in contrast to Gentiles, enjoys a close covenantal relationship with the living God as father (cf. 3 Macc 7:6). In Jub. 1:25 and Jos. Asen. 19:8, however, the formulation designates Israel as a future entity, an ideal community to be instituted by the living God. Pauls use of Hos 2:1 LXX in Rom 9:26 also illustrates the ecclesial dimension of the oracle with particular application to Christian communities of Pauls day. In this case, the Hosean formulation designates Christian converts as sons who constitute the future Israel that dawns through the power of the gospel. In Rom 9:26, Paul quotes Hos 2:1 as part of a scriptural chain that runs from 9:25 to 9:29 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 of which document the claim of 9:24 that God has called us from both Jews and Gentiles. 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' klhqhvsontai uiJoi; qeou' zw'nto"). Romans 9:26 thus functions as scriptural documentation of Gods plan of election involving both Jews and Gentiles. Commentators point out that sons of the living God may constitute a specific reference to the Gentiles previously mentioned in 9:24, but a more general reference to Jews and Gentiles together cannot be excluded.26 Hosea 2:1 LXX, then, allows Paul to document the emergence of Christian communities as the fulfillment of scriptural promise. The words of Hos 2:1 reach their fulfillment in the existence of sons of the living God found among the Jewish and Gentile converts in Pauls church communities. For Paul, the future Israel, envisioned by Hosea, now dawns through the formation of Christian communities called into being through the gospel. Moreover, Paul uses the Hosean texts in Rom 9:25-26 in a manner that suggests a traditional function in early Christian circles. In documenting the claim of 9:24, Paul merely cites the Hosean texts in 9:25-26 as proof texts without explanation, and he expects his readers to find in them the warrants he is seeking. In other words, Paul does not argue the connection between the Hosean texts and the ecclesial claim of 9:24 because the connection is likely familiar to his Roman audience. This handling of Hos 2:1 LXX in Romans thus suggests its traditional function as a scriptural warrant documenting the origins of the Christian ejkklhsiva 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: Augsburg, 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 a rule, 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 grounds the origins of the Christian community in the fulfillment of scriptural promise.

HOSEA AND THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD

277

Rom 9:26 indicates its wider currency within circles of early Christianity and suggests a possible source that would have been familiar to Matthew and his community. To summarize: The cumulative weight of three types of evidence supports the claim that the Son of the living God in Matt 16:16b is modeled on the formulation of Hos 2:1 LXX, sons of the living God. First, there is the linguistic similarity of Matt 16:16b and Hos 2:1 LXX; second, there is Matthews familiarity 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 interpretation of Hoseas sons of the living God, as illustrated in several Jewish texts and Rom 9:26. This use of Hos 2:1 LXX attests a fundamental ecclesial dimension of the formulation sons of the living God, designating members of Gods covenantal people. Even more significantly, early Christian application of Hos 2:1 LXX indicates a connection between the Hosean sons of the living God and the Christian ejkklhsiva. The existence of the Christian ejkklhsiva, consisting of believing Gentile and Jewish converts, fulfills the vision of Hosea concerning the restoration of Israel as sons of the living God.

III. Implications for Matthean Christology


A. Jesus and Future Israel
What, then, are the implications of the foregoing discussion for interpreting Peters confession of Jesus sonship in Matt 16:16b? First and foremost, the evidence 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 compositional history, it is possible to view the confession as either deriving from a single integral (Hosean) expression or resulting from an expansion of an original title Son of God. Whatever may be the compositional origins of the confession, Hosean influence is likely. Further, although the confessions compositional origins remain uncertain, it likely originated in the Matthean community. The confession is found nowhere else in the NT, which indicates its special Matthean significance and provenance. In addition, Peters words likely reflect the confessional language of a church community, as was previously noted. Where and how the Matthean community came up with this confession is unclear, but some interpreters attribute it to a tradition of Peter encountering the risen Jesus in a resurrectional setting.28

Rudolf Bultmann ( The History of the Synoptic Tradition [trans. John March; New York/San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1963] 258-59) gave a classic articulation of this position. Bultmann holds that 16:17-19 is the original conclusion to Peters confession and stems from the

28

278

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 67, 2005

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 it also 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 be minimal, since it involves only a minor change from the plural sons of the living God to the singular Son of the living God. However, this minor change from the Hosean sons to the singular Son in Matthew constitutes a radical change in the sense of the Hosean oracle. Where the Hosean sons of the living God originally designated future Israel (sons of the living God), Matt 16:16b is fundamentally christological. Peters confession of Jesus sonship represents a unique christological expression that goes beyond the original Hosean reference. The circumstances of this transformation are lost to us, but it does make sense within a Matthean christological framework in which scriptural notions of Israels sonship are transferred to Jesus. The transformation reflects a Matthean christological hermeneutic in which Jesus sonship is linked to that of Israel and in which the future Israel is envisioned in Hosean terms. A similar hermeneutic has 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 transferred to Jesus, who is thought to sum up and represent Israel. Peters confession in 16:16b undoubtedly stands in continuity with these earlier references to sonship, thus reinforcing the probability that Son of the living God carries a similar reference to Israel. Put another way, the Matthean Son of the living God retains the corporate significance of the Hosean plural sons as designating the future Israel. Understood in this way, however, Peters confession of Jesus sonship represents a quantum leap beyond the original sense of Hos 2:1 LXX by asserting that Israels destiny is fulfilled and summed up in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Peters confession indicates that with Jesus comes the fulfillment of Hoseas promise 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, Peters confession also clarifies the significance of the preceding title Christ in 16:16a, giving it a specifically Hosean twist. Peters confession redefines Jesus messianic identity by linking it with Gods act of establishing the future Israel promised in Hosea. As the Messiah and Son of the living God, then, Jesus messianic 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 formation of the future Israel, what is the nature of Jesus role in this enterprise? Can more 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, suggesting that the whole narrative in Matthew 16 may have originated as an Easter story.

HOSEA AND THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD

279

future Israel? Matthew gives no explicit answer to these questions; however, there are some hints that suggest a possible approach. Both the biblical background of the 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 with Jewish authorities and his resurrection from the dead. In terms of the conflict with Jewish 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 first time in Matthew 16 in a setting of escalating conflict between Jesus and Jewish authorities.29 On this theme, Jack Dean Kingsbury points out that the portrayal of conflict in Matt 11:2-16:20 stands linked to the wider theme of Israels repudiation of Jesus, and he further observes that the conflict in 11:2-16:20 rapidly escalates to the point where it becomes mortal and will henceforth remain as such.30 The narrative placement of Matt 16:13-20, then, suggests a connection with the theme of conflict. What it suggests is that Jesus conflict with the Jewish leaders will ultimately lead to his death on the cross, but in the midst of this hostility, Peter, in 16:16b, can confidently confess what the Matthean church in the postresurrectional 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 living God in the resurrection. In the narrative setting of conflict with Jewish authorities, Jesus, as Son, enjoys the special favor of the living God, who stands with Jesus and vindicates him ultimately through the resurrection, of which there are hints in the narrative context, including the reference to the sign of Jonah in 16:4 (cf. 12:38-42) and the reference to resurrection in the first passion prediction of 16:21. Further, an allusion to Jesus resurrection in Matt 16:16b is suggested also by the background of the epithet living God in Jewish and early Christian traditions, examples of which have already been noted in 3 Macc 6:28; Jos. Asen. 19:8; and Jub 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 behind Acts 14:15.31 The living God gives life not only in the biological sense but also in the 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 life in himself, and he alone gives it to others.

280

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 67, 2005

a God who is active in the history of Israel, a God who rescues his people from their 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 Paul employs a kerygmatic formulation that associates the living God, the resurrection, and Jesus sonship.32 These biblical ideas of the living God, coupled with the observations from the Matthean narrative context, form an interpretive framework which suggests that Jesus, as Son of the living God, is the one raised from the dead, the recipient of the living Gods life in the resurrection. Peters confession expresses an affirmation that Israels living God will deliver the Son through resurrection from the dead.33

B. Jesus Role as Agent of the Living God


If the interpretation of Matt 16:16b offered here is correct, then what does it suggest about Jesus role in establishing the future Israel? Again, Matthew does not supply an answer, but there are hints that suggest one. Jesus, the Son of the living God, is not only the one raised from the dead; he is also the agent of the living God, who gives life resulting in the establishment of the future Israel. As the living 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 a notion is implicit already in the theme of sonship itself, in which the Son is unified with the Father in purpose and does the Fathers will.34 I suggest, then, that Jesus 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 we had 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 link between the living God and Jesus resurrection in the Acts of Paul and Thecla, e.g., 7.2. On the latter 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 Jesus resurrection. For example, Beare (Gospel According to Matthew, 353) observes that the Son of the living God defines what messiah has come to mean to Christians in the light of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Schnackenburg (Gospel of Matthew, 158) comments that the expression is a profession of Jesus as the one standing with God in fullness of life, and as the vessel of salvation on the strength of that fullness, surely in virtue of his anticipated resurrection. See also Fitzmyer, 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 Gods agent and his intimate relationship with God.

HOSEA AND THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD

281

which the narrative elements are closely interwoven. More specifically, Peters confession of sonship in 16:16b stands in juxtaposition with 16:17-19, which indicates 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, a view that is supported by recent narrative-critical studies of Matt 16:16-19. These recent studies demonstrate the tightly woven narrative interconnections between v. 16 and vv. 17-19.35 For example, v. 16 and v. 17 begin with identical phrasing that suggests their close interrelation. The phrase that introduces v. 16, And Simon Peter replied (ajpokriqei;" de; Sivmwn), is paralleled by the phrase at the beginning of v. 17, And Jesus answered him . . . (ajpokriqei;" de; oJ !Ihsou'"). There is also the interrelation suggested by you are . . . in both verses (You are the Christ . . . You are Peter . . . ). Moreover, the full name Simon Peter is already given in v. 16, anticipating the mention of Sivmwn Bariwna' in v. 17 and Pevtro" in v. 18.36 Further, commentators have long acknowledged thematic links between the confession of sonship in 16:16 and the final clause of 16:18, in which the powers of death will not prevail against the church (kai; puvlai a{/dou ouj katiscuvsousin aujth'"). Robert Gundry, for example, observes that Peters confession prepares for the assurance that the Gates of Hadesi.e., deathwill not prevail against the 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. Matthew 16:16b can also be viewed as preparing for the words of 16:18 that Jesus will build my church. In v. 18, Jesus promises, And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church [kai; ejpi; tauvth/ th'/ pevtra/ oijkodomhvsw mou th;n ejkklhsivan] and the powers of Hades shall not prevail against it. Several points indicate a thematic link between Peters confession and the reference in 16:18 to Jesus building his ejkklhsiva. This association is supported not only by the connections of literary sequence but also by the traditional background of the two terms, the living God and ej k klhsiv a . First, it is widely acknowledged that the term ejkklhsiva in the LXX and the NT designates the congregation of Israel (e.g., Deut 4:10; 9:10; 18:6; Acts 7:38). Early Christians appropriated 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 pericope 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 Narrative Portrait of the Disciples, 68. 36 Gundry, Matthew, 330. Also Davies and Allison, Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2. 621. 37 Gundry, Matthew, 330; see also Meier, Vision of Matthew, 109.

282

THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 67, 2005

identity as a counterpart to the Sinai-congregation.38 Second, I have already noted that the Hosean formulation sons of the living God carries an ecclesial dimension 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 Peters confession of Jesus sonship in Matt 16:16b designates Jesus role in the founding of this future Israel, then a reference to the Christian ejkklhsiva in 16:18 fits well because it is implied in the earlier confession of 16:16b. Third, the NT attests a specific link between the living God and the early Christian ejkklhsiva. Of particular interest here are two Pauline expressions from 2 Cor 6:16 and 1 Tim 3:15 that refer to the early Christian community with ecclesial terms qualified by the epithet living God. Both expressions occur in hortatory contexts, grounding exhortation in the holy life. In 2 Cor 6:16, the community 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 community as an ejkklhsiva of the living God? In both 2 Cor 6:16 and 1 Tim 3:15 the genitival expression of the living God likely designates the activity of the living God in creating the Christian community.39 The phrase church of the living God likely designates a church that has its origins in the creative activity of the living God. 2 Corinthians 6:16 and 1 Tim 3:15 thus attest a link in early Christianity between 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). Both verses supply an interpretive framework for viewing Matt 16:16b, 18 in continuity with an early Christian tradition that attributed the origins of the believing community to the creative activity of the living God. Both verses supply a framework for linking Peters confession of Jesus sonship in v. 16b and the ecclesial language 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 promise in v. 18 that he will build an ejkklhsiva. What this indicates is that the living God, acting through Jesus, who will build an ejkklhsiva, has brought to fulfillment the promise of a future Israel. The living God, in fulfillment of Hoseas prophecy, acts to restore Israel in and through the life of his Son. Peters confession of sonship, then, may express the notion of Jesus lifegiving agency, which brings about the formation of the ejkklhsiva, a formation
38 39

Davies and Allison, Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2. 629. Goodwin, Paul: Apostle of the Living God, 198-207.

HOSEA AND THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD

283

that is associated with the establishing of the future Israel. The confession in Matt 16:16 proclaims Jesus unique role as the agent of the living God, who builds an ejkklhsiva that brings the restored Israel into existence. It should finally be stressed that Peters confession of Jesus sonship remains utterly unique in the NT, owing to its explicit assertion of a christological medium for the living Gods activity in the formation of the community. Where early Christian tradition accepted a general link between the living God and the formation of the ejkklhsiva, Matthean tradition saw Jesus as the unique mediator of that formation.

You might also like