Here is a conversation I had recently with Dr. Stan Porter on “The Stone Chapel Podcast.” That podcast is part of the ChurchLeaders Podcast Network.
Stan Porter
I’m Stanley Porter and I’m the President and Dean and Professor of New Testament at McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
David Capes
Dr. Stanley Porter, Stan. Good to see you. Welcome to The Stone Chapel Podcast.
Stan Porter
Thanks, David. Good to see you, too.
David Capes
It’s a pleasure to have you. I’ve been wanting to [have you on the podcast] for a while. I got your book, The Origins of New Testament Christology, the one you wrote with Bryan Dyer. And I’m very excited to be chatting with you today about it. Because you know, I love Christology. I just resonate with it. But for those who don’t know you, who is Stan Porter?
Stan Porter
Well, that’s a good question. I have a lot of things I could talk about. One of my main interests is Greek language and linguistics. That’s how I started out my career. I’m originally from the United States, and was educated, at least in part there. And then I did my PhD in Britain, at the University of Sheffield. And I’ve taught at a lot of different places. I taught in the States, I taught in Western Canada, and I taught in the UK. Now I’m in Canada. I’ve been in Canada since 2001. I’ve been at McMaster Divinity College, probably for the biggest part of my career, and it’s been great. I’ve been President at McMaster Divinity College, and we’ve had a great time working with a lot of great students in developing a lot of different programs. And they’ve been, I think, serving the church very, very well.
David Capes
Is there a denominational connection at McMaster?
Stan Porter
McMaster Divinity College, we’re a Baptist seminary. We’re connected with the Convention Baptists. It’s distinctly Canadian Baptist. We’re connected to the Canadian Baptists of Ontario and Quebec. About 10% of our students are Convention Baptists, but we have a lot of other students. We have close to 40 different denominations, from a lot of different places around North America and around the globe.
David Capes
It’s a great school. I’ve known a number of people to have gone there over the years. And it has a fantastic reputation in part because of your leadership there. And you’ve got a brilliant faculty as well.
Stan Porter
Thank you, David. Yeah, we’ve worked hard to develop a good faculty.
David Capes
That’s a big factor. And that attracts some good students, I would imagine over the years. Let’s talk about your book Origins of New Testament Christology. Here’s the subtitle, An Introduction to the Traditions and Titles Applied to Jesus. Now you wrote this, along with Bryan Dyer. How was it working with Bryan?
Stan Porter
Bryan’s a great guy. Bryan, I struck up a friendship and a working relationship. We edited a book on Paul and rhetoric. And I wrote this book on sacred traditions. Bryan contributed a chapter. And when we were working on that book, developing this notion of how important sacred traditions are, we got the idea of doing more, and that turned into the Christology book. It was a great experience working with Bryan.
David Capes
He’s a brilliant fellow. And I’m really grateful for him. Can you do a wrap it up in terms of the big focus of your book? (Now Christology means the doctrine of Christ, I guess is a simple way of putting it.) When you think about the person of Jesus, and the significance and those things, in a way you’re thinking Christologically. How does this book fit into other books about Christology? What’s the big idea of your book, Stan?
Stan Porter
Actually, it’s a pretty complex question, because Christology is a complex issue. There are a couple of things, I think, to your question that I could address. The big idea is that we’re trying to get out how is Jesus Christ depicted in the New Testament for who he is? What are the New Testament writers doing? And what kinds of ways of depicting him do they use? How do they go about doing this? What are they saying by doing this?
And hence, we have used a form of the titles approach. There have been important Christology books. Cullmann’s book, you know, is a well-known Christology in some ways. We patterned [our book] after that. Or at least think of it in terms of serving academia and the church in a similar kind of way. In other words, going through and not doing an exhaustive and comprehensive treatment, but a good solid treatment. Especially for students in seminary, or advanced undergraduates, of key ways that Jesus is depicted, we pattern the book then both in terms of the history of research like Cullmann and some of the others. Even at the end, in the last chapter, we position it in relationship to what some people would call the second history of religion movement, or this idea of “how Jesus became God” and try to address how it fits in there. But our primary task is to say, let’s take what the New Testament presents and show how Jesus is depicted.
David Capes
And that’s done, like you said, through a modified title approach. Because you don’t just do titles you do traditions and titles together. I like that. In fact, I was concerned a few years ago, when people seem to be abandoning Christological titles for other things. Those other things are good. But I didn’t feel honestly that we could divorce the titles from some of those other things, particularly narrative Christology, let’s say.
Stan Porter
Yeah, those are really good observations. David, I think you’re absolutely right. There was a push back against the tiles approach. And in some ways, I think it was warranted, because in a lot of treatments of titles, there tends to be a focus on particular wordings. And sometimes the wordings are not particularly Christological. And you get this problem of trying to do a kind of word theology that I think goes much too far. And it’s probably not a good responsible way of dealing with lexical items. And what we’re trying to do is to say you need some kind of an organizing principle. And yes, others have used other ways of doing that book by book narratively, etc.
But there are certain ways that Jesus is depicted or addressed by the New Testament authors. And we wanted to focus on those not trying to provide comprehensive treatments, for example, of every time a given lexeme appears in the New Testament. But when this particular set of wordings may be used, especially in these contexts that are theological, what is being meant by and that’s where the traditions part comes in. Because we found and are supporting the idea and trying to develop further, that a lot of these did not come from nowhere. But they are reflecting traditions that were found in the Jewish world and in the Greco-Roman world, and I don’t like to make a bifurcation between those two. But you know, Jesus lived within that wider thought world in which the New Testament was written. And we pick up on those particular kinds of wordings, and hence develop it along that way. That’s why it’s a bit of a modified titles approach, because the traditions help inform how this language came to be used and why it has significance in the New Testament.
David Capes
Sometimes people look at a particular word, and say I don’t find that word, therefore, the idea is not there. I feel like that’s overreaching. Yes, that word might not be there. But still, the same idea is being expressed, let’s say in the questions being asked, or the statements being made, or the claims being made about Jesus, for example.
Stan Porter
Yeah, absolutely. There’s that kind of thing, or just because a particular word might be used, I suppose you could say, I don’t know I’m just thinking for an example the word ‘son”. Every time “son” is used, it’s got to have some kind of theological significance to it. It’s a term that does sometimes in contexts have that theological meaning as we want to talk about that, but not do an exhaustive study of the lexeme. And all of its different uses.
David Capes
You and Bryan did 11 chapters on it. Let me just read the names of the chapters. And I’m going to ask in a second about the order you guys chose. Number one, Jesus the Lord. Number two, Jesus the Prophet. Number three, Jesus, the Son of Man. Number four, Jesus, the Son of God. Five, Jesus, the Suffering Servant. Six, Jesus, the Passover Lamb. Seven, Jesus the Messiah. Eight, Jesus, the Savior. Nine, Jesus, the LastAdam. Ten, Jesus, the Word and Eleven, Jesus, the High Priest. is there anything significant about that order, or was that just something you came up with as a way of getting all those titles and traditions represented,
Stan Porter
It’d be great and clever if we said that it’s really some kind of a hidden code that spells Bryan’s middle name or something, but it’s not! That’s a good question, David. We actually debated the order. We debated whether there should be other chapters in the book. And once you open that up, you can find lots of other possibilities. You’ll notice, for example, that in dealing with “Jesus as the Word” I think we have wisdom in there. And we put those together. We maybe could have had a separate chapter or, do Moses or, there’s all sorts of things like that. But I think what we tried to do—and I’m not sure that you can ever do this in an entirely consistent way—was to have several different things going on. One starting with the broader and most well known kinds of titles.
And so especially with “Jesus is Lord”, that’s a really important one, especially throughout the New Testament. And then we start with that one, it has a lot of implications regarding who Jesus is, as God. They move on to some of the other ones that are perhaps more specialized, but often thought of as important. Now “prophet” is interesting. Because if you say Jesus is Lord, well, then you have the prophets proclaiming the Word of the Lord. And so, you know, Jesus comes along and so “prophet” seems a natural thing. But then if you get into things like “Son of Man” and “Son of God”, “Son of Man” is pretty much a Gospel’s only kind of title.
But when people think in terms of depicting Jesus, it seems to be the way that Jesus thought of himself often refers to that and is big in the Gospels. It needed to be probably near the top of things. “Son of God” is one of those that reaches into the Greco Roman world, in a big way. It ties in with some of the traditions concerning how especially Eastern rulers were thought of. So, there’s a long history there and we tried to tease that out. And then after that, you get into some of the perhaps even more specialized titles if you get into “Passover lamb”, there are a few places in the desert, but it’s predominantly John’s Gospel that depicts that and then you get some that are probably less overtly divine Christological titles. Some more human ones. You have the “Suffering Servant”, although that’s got some interesting things to it and “Messiah”, perhaps could have been put earlier.
But on the other hand, there’s a lot of debate about what were the theological implications of Messianism at the time. We tend to take a more diverse view of Messianism than a lot of people are doing these days. Right now, there’s a lot of depiction in terms of the Davidic line. And the King Jesus ideas, the way of defining Messiah. But we take a little bit of a broader view, recognizing that was probably broader terminology. So, it fits then within certain other kinds of things. It will have some ties to priest, perhaps, as well. And so, you have “high priests“ there near the end, giving you a little bit of an idea of, at least how I can think of it in terms of once we settled on the order, but we did think about that.
David Capes
Yes, some [scholars] distinguish between human titles, the human Jesus, his humanity and then the Divine. I don’t think there’s always a good clean line, sometimes between those. Let me ask you this, because I’m curious. Among the earliest Christians, they’re trying to sort out Jesus in the first century, having not had a New Testament. But what they had was the Old Testament. What they had was their culture at the time. I’m wondering what you and Bryan are thinking about the doctrine of Christ today. Is it a settled matter? Has it been settled? Or do you see things in culture or maybe in the churches that seemed to be detracting from the person and the work of Jesus these days?
Stan Porter
It’s a live topic. It’s a hot topic. That’s part of reason we wrote the book, and you’ll see that the way we framed it we talk especially in terms of adoptionism as one of the big issues. And I mentioned earlier some of those who’ve been discussing this whole concept of the “How Jesus became God” debate that’s tied in with that whole thing. I think we frame it near the end. There’s the question of, if that’s an issue how and when. And those are big, big debates, right? Was it something that took place much later and the church bestowed? Or was it something that was there from the start? And so, in that sense, Christological issues, I think, are a very, very big issue, and are constantly being debated.
So, some would conclude in the Jesus became God debate, it’s right from the beginning. There’s the sense in which Jesus was regarded as divine, and then the church’s language was just unfolding. Others would say, we can point to a place or a time or an event or something that occurred where some in the church people decided, that is when Jesus became regarded as divine. We don’t get as involved in that debate, as others have, as I said, in the final chapter, we try to place our work within that larger context.
Our primary focus is to see how the New Testament authors depict Jesus. And I think our own conclusions might be called and it’s traditionally been called a High Christology, emerges from that. From what we can see in the earliest documents, there’s a sense of Jesus being in some way divine. We want to take that seriously, and are less concerned for teasing out the rest of it. So, in that sense, we are not part of the adoption as a group, and no, we’re not. But we’re not overtly making an argument against it so much as trying to take the text as we see them. And then let others do that.
David Capes
I think you’re right. The other thing I’ve notice as I run into Christians who have a sense that Jesus was a prophet, he was this and that, but he wasn’t really God. That was just something that was added later. The other thing that I’m seeing, and I have noticed, it seems like there’s an abiding Gnosticism. That in the church, a sense that Jesus was never fully human. So, we get the divinity of Jesus [early], but the full humanity of Jesus was never really established. If you look up Gnostic Christianity on the Internet, there’s websites where people today are still calling themselves Gnostics. And I don’t know if that’s a thing in Canada, if that’s just a thing down here in the States or not.
Stan Porter
I think you’ll find that in a lot of different places. But yes, you’re absolutely right. And I think some of the pushback that’s occurred in some circles, to the High Christology probably has gone too far. In emphasizing Jesus’ humanity, in an effort to make sure that we don’t forget that he’s human, I would like to think our book does address that, in some ways. All the titles probably fit into the larger picture of who Jesus is. And that overall is a High Christology, but not every one of them, is a way of naming him as God in the same way as all the others are. And so, I think we’ve tried to maintain that balance, and so that you can appreciate fully his humaneness whilst seeing how that fits within the larger picture of his divinity.
David Capes
And the church does deal with these things and puzzles them out, in a sense over many decades, centuries. They’re trying to sort out what they find there in the earliest texts themselves. We’re talking to Dr. Stanley Porter about his book with Bryan Dyer, The Origins of New Testament Christology: An Introduction to the Traditions and Titles Applied to Jesus. It’s a brilliant book. I’m going use this as a textbook next time I teach Christology, because I think that it handles so many of the important issues. Dr. Stan Porter, thanks for being with us today on The Stone Chapel Podcast.
A Nugget of Wisdom from Stan Porter
One of the things that I often talk with my students about is that we work in a discipline [theology/biblical studies] that tends to emphasize the individual scholar. But I’ve had great pleasure over the years of working collaboratively with somebody else. And sometimes we wonder why is it that science seems to make so much progress. And one of the things I observe is that scientists often work collaboratively and you get the dynamic and synergy and the kind of excitement that comes from a lot of people sharing the abilities that they have. And I would like to encourage a lot of us within the field of Biblical Studies to think of working together. And I think there’s a lot of potential and a lot of good that we can do in the work that we do if we think in those terms.
Dr. Ben Witherington III argues passionately against burnishing the nativity stories of Luke and Matthew with unfounded speculation and mistranslations. He gives particular attention to the story of Jesus’ birth in Luke 2:7. Prof. Witherington is the Jean R. Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary and is an emeritus professor of New Testament at St. Andrews University, Scotland. He has published widely including commentaries on every book of the New Testament. Two of his books won the Christianity Today annual top biblical studies book award: The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth and The Paul Quest: The Renewed Search for the Jew of Tarsus. His Biblical Theology; The Convergence of the Canon (Cambridge) won the Prose Prize National Book of the Year award in 2020 for books in religion and philosophy.
Recently, David Capes was on the campus of Wheaton College in Wheaton IL. He had the chance to sit down with Dr. Dan Treier, head of the PhD program in Biblical and Theological Studies at Wheaton College.
Dr. Treier has written a terrific new book entitled Lord Jesus Christ in a new series by Zondervan Academic. The series is called New Studies in Dogmatics. We welcome Dan for his first appearance on The Stone Chapel Podcasts.
Who Is Dan Treier?
Dan Treier grew up on a farm in Ohio and memorized thirteen books of the Bible in his teenage years. Not little books mind you. But big ones like Romans, John, Matthew and 1 Corinthians. Dan confesses that this one discipline has been formative in his life.
His did his PhD under Kevin VanHoozer at Trinity Evangelical Theological Seminary in Deerfield IL. For twenty-three years he has taught Theology at Wheaton College. He’s the author of other books, which you can find under “More Resources” below.
Lord Jesus Christ
Like any good book, this one has been in process for several years. It is a contemporary, reformed reading of biblical Christology.
So Dan begins with exegesis. He selects ten of the most important passages for Christology in the New Testament. He reads them through the church fathers, the reformation, and theological insights of the church.
Dan writes this book for pastors, students, and anyone interested in understanding how we arrived at the Orthodox Christology of Nicea and beyond.
Though Dan did not hear much emphasis on Christology in preaching in his early years, he is convinced that Christology is very “preachable.”
He is concerned that many evangelical churches today have a deficient understanding of Jesus’ person and work. When that is lacking, so many other aspects of Christian faith will be lacking as well.
Scholars review Lord Jesus Christ
Here is what Daniel Hill of Truett Seminary, Baylor University, has to say about Dr. Treier’s book:
“Christian theology, if it is worth anything at all, must continually return to the scandalous claim that Jesus Christ is Lord. Daniel J. Treier’s Lord Jesus Christ is an outstanding and illuminating examination of Christology in light of Holy Scripture’s dramatic arc from God’s life in himself to creation’s eschatological communion with God.
Rooted in a series of characteristically brilliant theological expositions of the names of Christ, this is a book you will find yourself reading and rereading to great benefit. It is a book that will drive you to the text of Holy Writ to hear anew its affirmation of the risen Lord. One would expect nothing less from a theologian of his caliber.”
I published the following article in 1999, but I have requests for it from time to time. I hope you find it helpful. Unfortunately, in the version that came across the Greek has been turned into English characters. One day I’ll go in and clean it up, but not today!
Bulletin for Biblical Research 9 (1999) 37-49
Intertextual Echoes in the Matthean Baptismal Narrative
DAVID B. CAPES
Matthew’s story of Jesus’ baptism provides evidence of an “Immanuel” (“God with us”) Christology. In particular the first evangelist redacts Mark’s account and envisages Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet according to the order of Ezekiel. Moreover, the opening of the heavens anddescent of the SpiritechoIsaiah63-64andportrayJesusasGod’sanswertothepetition longingfor hispresence andredemption. Thedove image appears to have two intertextual functions: (1) to construe Jesus‘ baptism as the end of judgment and the beginning of new creation through the recollection of Noah’s deliverance, and (2) to signal Jesus’ role as suffererthrough a lesser knownimageofthedoveasasymbolforGod‘ssufferingpeople.
In The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew Ulrich Luz suggests that the First Gospel should be read as an extended inclusio bracketed at the beginning by the “Immanuel” motif, “God with us,” and at the end by Jesus’ promise, “behold, I am with you always.”1 The Immanuel motif, he notes, demonstrates that Matthew’s Christology takes on a coherent, narrative shape that cannot be contained in static titles or concepts; it is worked out through the story itself. In the end, Luz believes, Matthew’s Gospel advances a Christology “from above”- namely that, in Jesus, God acts. For Matthew, Luz writes,”Jesus is an occurrence of God.”2
Luz presents a persuasive argument, particularly when inter preting the Gospel canonically. He isable to show how the Immanuel
Ulrich Luz, The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew (trans. J. Bradford Robinson; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1995) 4-5.
Ibid., 31-33.
38 Bulletin for Biblical Research 9
motif influences the pericope and drives.Matthew’s portrait of Jesus. Yet due to the nature of Luz’s book, the author can give only scant attention to any story. His proposal, therefore, begs treatment on the level of individual episodes.
Matthew’s story of Jesus’ baptism (3:13-17) provides an excellent laboratory to test Luz’s proposition. If forMatthew Jesus is an oc currence of God and this Christology is worked out in narrative and not titles, readingMatthew’s episode from this perspective may yield rich results. In what follows, this article will analyze Matthew’snar rative of Jesus’ baptism with a view to its Immanuel Christology. In particular, it will concentrate on the visionaryaspects of the passage namely, the opening of the heavens and the descent of the Spirit like a dove. In recognition ofthe important role played by scripture in apocalyptic visions and dreams, it will investigate these theophanic symbols as possible “echoes” of OT-and perhaps other-passages and images.3 Assuming Marean priority, it will show that the evan gelist alters Mark by utilizing an established “symbolic field” co6.ified in Israel’s scripture.Through the recollection of Israel’s past, its antic ipated future, and their linkage with the story of Jesus as “Imman uel,” the reader can appreciate more fully the narrative’s evocations.
I
The Synoptic Gospels relate the story of Jesus’ baptism at the begin ning of his public ministry (Matt 3:13-17; Mark1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22). While the Fourth Gospel (John 1:29-34) does not contain this account, it neverthelessappears implicitly in the Baptist’s witness to Jesus as the one upon whom the Spirit descends from heaven like a dove and remains. The absence of this narrative in John may be deliberate, as Stephen Gero notes, given the author’s interest in decreasing the significance of the Baptist.4 At any rate, for the evangelists, Jesus’ baptism marks the turning point in his life. Moreover, the opening of the heavens, the descent of the Spirit, and the heavenly voice’s dec laration 0f his Sonship proclaim God’s election of Jesus as his escha tological emissary of theKingdom.
The baptismal story has been interpreted in a number of ways. There are variations on these, of course, but discussion here will focus on two. First, some interpret this account as an historical event
Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale Uni versity Press, 1989), offers an importantmodel for this study.
Stephen Gero, “The Spirit as a Dove at the Baptism of Jesus,” NovT 18 (1976) 17-35.
CAPES: Intertextual Echoes 39
which the church embellished with mythological details (e.g., the opening of the heavens, the descent of the dove, the divine voice). These symbols serve to infuse the account with power, mystery and transcendence, magnifying the significance of Jesus to its implied audience.5 To my mind there are few serious objections to the con clusion that John did baptize Jesus and that this event did propel him into public, itinerant ministry.6 This is all the more likely given the apparent embarrassment that a lesser, John, baptizes one greater, Jesus. The absence of Jesus’ baptism by John in the Fourth Gospel as well as John’s initial statement forbidding it (Matt 3:13-14) appear to testify to this uneasiness. Second, others interpret this account as an historical event in which Jesus had an apocalyptic vision.7 Following his immersion, he saw the heavens opened and God’s Spirit descend in dove-like fashion on him and he heard a heavenly voice. James Dunn suggests that Jesus’ baptism occasioned an experience of God which, for Jesus, had immense import, themost striking of which was the Nazarene’s experience of the Spirit and cognizance of his unique t Sonship.8
There appears to be no route through the impasse. Either you
have an ecclesiastical invention designed to enlarge the stature of Jesus or you have an apocalyptic Jesus, a seer and transmitter of visions.9 Both conclusions offer significant discomfort for reading communi ties, be they conservative Christians or the Jesus Seminar. But dis comfort has never stopped the academy before, and it is not likely to stop it now.
The present investigation is not so much addressed to the Jesus of history or the Jesus of the nondescript early church; it is intended rather, to reflect on the account as narrated in the Matthean Gospel. In Matthew these fabulous, attendant phenomena arise as divine manifestations within an apocalyptic vision. It is this reading which provides the most satisfying and coherent narrative. This is not to say that Jesus himself was a thoroughgoing apocalypticist or that the early church wished to portray him as such. But it is to say thatthe
F. W. Beare, The Gospel according to Matthew (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981) 99, remarks that these elements derive from the “realm of myth” and reflect a naive cosmology.
James Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Expe rience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975) 62.
Ben Witherington, The Christology o!Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 148-49.
Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 65.
Witherington, The Christology of Jesus, 151-52. If this is the content of an apoc alyptic vision, it must go back to Jesus himself.
40 Bulletin for Biblical Research 9
NT documents “suggest that on certain.occasions Jesus did receive vi sions which resemble the visions ofapocalyptic.”10
As is well known, the apocalyptic literary genre eludes adequate definition or illustration. To address this issue, in 1979 John J. Collins edited volume 14 of Semeia entitled, Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre. Therein Collins and a number of others grappled with the elusive nature of apocalyptic thought en route to a useful definition. Collins offered the following comprehensive definition:
“Apocalypse”is agenre ofrevelatory literaturewith anarrativeframework,in whicha revelationis mediatedby anotherworldly beingto ahuman recipient, disclosingatranscendentrealitywhichisbothtemporal insofarasitenvis ages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, super natural world.11
This definition appears well suited to the present study and suggests that one should see Matthew’s baptismal narrative as a piece of apocalyptic literature. First, the account is clearly mediated through a narrative framework both within and without the pericope. Sec ond, it provides revelation to Jesus of Nazareth and those who wit nessedhis baptism. Third, otherworldly entities-that is, the Spirit and the heavenly voice-convey the revelation. Fourth, the baptism and vision occur within a narrative framework which from first to last envisages God’s actions in Jesusto offer eschatological salvation. Fifth, it portrays the above-below spatial dichotomy via the descent of the Spirit and the voice from above. Since the Gospel baptismal narrative contains these elements, one may reasonably classify this story as one example of early Christian apocalypses.
Visions provide the landscape of apocalyptic literature. Among the fifteen Jewish apocalypses studied in Semeia14, fourteen contain visions.12 In the NT, Revelation, the only thoroughgoing apocalyptic book, contains numerous visions leading up to God’s final visitation. But within these visions, what is seen, how it is understood, and how it isconveyed often originate from the pages of the Hebrew Bible. Although apocalyptic literature contains few explicit quotations, it
10: Christopher Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Ozristianity (New York: Crossroad,1982) 358. On another occasion (Luke 10:17- 20) Jesus sees a vision in which Satan falls from heaven. On apocalyptic beliefs, prac tices, and literature in Jewish, Greek, and Roman contexts during the hellenistic era, see David Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987) 226-40.
John J. Collins, Apocalypse: Morphology of a Genre (Semeia 14; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979) 9, italics theirs.
Ibid., 28.
CAPES: Intertextual Echoes41
abounds in symbols and imagery drawn from the OT and reinvested with significance for the present.13 As Rowland writes:
This shows how a mind saturated in the scriptures can utilize the imagery to express the character of thevision. There is no conscious attempt to quote Scripture. It is just the case that the many facets of the Bible, especially those with a visionary content, tend to determine the way in which the visionary expresses his experience verbally.14
Since Matthew’s account of Jesus’ baptism represents an apocalyptic vision and since apocalyptic accounts mine the OT for imagery and symbols to express the vision’s content, what Jesus saw, how he under stood it, and how he conveyed it must be interpreted in light of its intertextual relationships.
II
It is likely that Mark contains the earliest, original story of Jesus’ bap- t tism which the other Gospelwriters know and use with slight alterations. While Matthew’s and Mark’s version agreesignificantly, there are a few differences worthy of notation including: (1) Matthew adds t8ou(“Behold!”) to the visionary aspects of the story; (2) he changes Mark’s ax1t;oµevooc; woe; oupavouc;(“the heavens were split”)
· to 1′)vi:cpx011aav oi oupavoi (“the heavens were opened”); (3) he writes that Jesus saw the “Spirit of God”while Mark simply has the “Spirit”;
(4) he alters Mark’s phrase, the Spirit comes down “into him” (de; au- 1:6v), to say that the Spirit comes upon him (i’m’ au1:6v); and (5) he changes the heavenly voice to say, “This is my Son, the beloved, in whom I am well pleased” from Mark’s more personal “You are my Son, the beloved, in you I am well pleased.” This latter change, prob ably the most well known, functions within the story to direct the voice to spectators in attendance at Jesus’ baptism. In effect, God de clares to them that Jesus is his beloved Son. But for Matthew’s read ers and hearers in the first century and beyond, it functions as a declaration of the ongoing significance of Jesus as Immanuel, “God with us,” the one who promised to be “with you always, even to the end of the age.”
The Matthean alterations noted above were not stylistic matters. The evangelist was not merelyattempting to smooth out Mark’s brash
N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1991) 280-81. Krister Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968; reprint, Ramsey, N.J.: Sigler, 1991) 158.
Rowland, Open Heaven, 361.
42 Bulletin for Biblical Research 9
and exaggerated approach; rather they carried significant intertex tual import. Matthew, it seems, deliberately changes Mark’s state ment, axti;;oµevouc; ·rnu<;otipavou<; (“the heavens were split”), to read TJVEQlX0ricrav oi otipavoi (“the heavens were opened”). The reason for this: Matthew envisages Jesus’ experience as an apocalyptic seer against the record of another prophet and seer, Ezekiel.15 Numerous verbal and conceptual links draw these accounts together so they can be read against the other. First, both apocalyptic moments take place beside a river (Ezek 1:1: tn’t 10u 11:01aµou 10u Xo ap; Matt 3:13: tnl 10v ‘Iopocivriv). Second, both take place against the backdrop of exile (Babylonian for Ezekiel; Roman for Jesus). Third, both visionary ac counts begin similarly:
Ezekiel: Matthew:
iJvoixericrav Ol otipavoi, KUL dfov opci.crct<; 0EOU T]VEQlX0TJcrav oi otipavoi., Kal Ei8Ev nvEuµa 0rnu
Fourth, in both accounts the seers receive the revelatory w rd of God (Ezekiel 1: Eyevno A6yo<; Kupiou; Matt 3:17: <pcov17 EK,wv otipavwv). Therein, Ezekiel is addressed as “the Son of man” (2:1); Jesus is introduced as “the Son of God.” Fifth, the Spirit comes upon both men (Ezek 2:1: tn‘ tµe 11:VEiiµa; Matt3:16: nvi::uµa 0rnu … En’ ati16v). Finally, for both men this experience alters the directions of their lives; hereafter both will preach and perform through prophetic actions God’s message to Israel (Ezek 2:3: “the house of Israel”; Matt 10:6: “the lost sheep of the house of Israel”). Matthew, it seems, desires to relate the inauguration of Jesus into public life via reflection on the record of Ezekiel.
This perspective accounts for another change; Matthew adds the interjection “Behold!” (lfou) to thevisionary account twice to accord with its frequent occurrence in Ezekiel’s vision (e.g., Ezek 1:4, 15, 25). Inaddition to its intertextual significance, the word serves to enliven the narrative and underscore this new andextraordinary moment for the Nazarene.
Ezekiel, of course, had already become the prototype seer and the phrase “the heavens opened” had become well entrenched in visionary texts (Isa 64:1; Acts 7:56; 10:11; Rev 4:1; 19:11; 3 Mace 6:18; T. Levi 18:6-7; T. Jud. 24:2). This perspective was no doubt available for Matthew to use in his rendering of Jesus’ experience to his commu nity. It appears, in fact, that this formula had developed into a topos andcontained the following elements: (1) a passive verb or verbal of civoiyco with no agency expressed,certainly divine agency implied;
Robert Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution (2d ed.; Grand Rapids,Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994) 52.
CAPES: Intertextual Echoes 43
(2) a reference to heaven or the gates of heaven in singular or plural form; and (3) a verb form of seeing,doov or 81:wpiw, representing the seer’s experience. Attendant with this basic description might also havebeen reference to a heavenly voice and/or the word loou, mark ing this as a significant moment in the narrative. So it appears that these elements became a formula used customarily to convey a vision. Itoriginated-in Greek at least-with Ezekiel’s initial vision. If this is so, Matthew, cognizant of this ongoingpractice, renarrates Mark’s account to accord with this (Ezekielian) tradition.16
Ezekiel does not appear to be the only textual influence upon Matthew’s account. Isa 63:7-64:12 with itspleading for God to “open heaven,” come down, and restore Israel in hope of a new exodus may also resonate in Matthew’s scriptural memory. This psalm of praise and intercession begins (63:7-14) with a recollection of God’s gra cious deeds and acts of steadfast love, especially Israel’s deliverance from Egypt. Isa 63:9 reads (NRSV):
It was no messenger or angel but his presence that saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemedthem;
he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old.17
The poem records that it had been God’s presence that saved them and nothing else. Yet God’s presence is no longer with them due to their sins. It asks (63:llb-13a):
Where is the one who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of his flock?
Where is the one who put within them his holy spirit
Who caused his glorious arm to march at the right hand of Moses,
Who divided the waters before them to make for himself an everlasting name,
Who led them through the depths?
Clearly, for the poet God is no longer with his people. He is distant, nowhere to be found. In 63:15-19 the intercessor pleads with God to look down from heaven, be a father again to his people, and turn back to redeem Israel from the afflictions of its enemies. Central to this petition is Isa 64:1 (LXX 63:19) which begs God to open heaven (fov avoi nc; -cov oupav6v) and cause the mountains to tremble as they did at Mt.Sinai. The presence of God would guarantee the safety
The Greek OT contains only two references to the opening of heaven in this way (Ezek l:lff.; Isa 64:1). The translation of Isa 64:1 into a similar formula may result from this influence. Since other NT and noncanonical texts utilize this pattern, I con clude it originates with the translation of Ezekiel’s account.
The Greek text reads similarly: “In their afflictions, no messenger, no angel saved them, but the Lord himself through his loveand compassion for them.” John F. A. Sawyer, Isaiah: Volume 2 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984) 199-20.
44 Bulletin for Biblical Research 9
and security of God’s people and Jerusalem once again. Yet the inter cessor recognizes God’s righteous anger and surrenders again to the will of the Lord, “our Father.” He writes (64:8): “we are the clay, and you are our potter; we are all the work of your hand.” The prayer ends, wondering if God will continue to be silent and thereby punish his people. •
For Matthew and his church, the prayer for God’s visitation is satisfied by Jesus, the Immanuel presence of God, the one who promises to be with them until the end of the age. Therefore, in the openingof the heavens and the descent of the Spirit Matthew envi sions Jesus’ baptism as God’s answer to the prayer of Isaiah 63-64, a prayer pleading for God’s intervention to bring about marvelous deeds like he did of old. Through Jesus this hope, left unsatisfied for so long, had become God’s “Yes” to the prayer ofdeliverance.
This “new exodus” perspective accords well with Matthew’s in terest in displaying Jesus as a new Moses. Already in the birth nar ratives the evangelist recorded that like Moses the infant Jesus is imperiled by the decree of a king. Already Matthew had chronicled the family’s journey into Egypt and return as thefulfillment of Hos 11:1, “out of Egypt have I called my Son” (cf. Exod 4:22). Later in the Gospel, Jesus, like Moses, will ascend the mountain to deliver his teaching on the will of God for his disciples. Yet, as UlrichLuz points out, Matthew’s story of Jesus not only overlaps, it also subverts the story of Moses:
Egypt, formerly the land of suppression and persecution, is now a land of refuge. It is the King of Israel whonow takes on the role of Pharaoh. The pagan magi, formerly members of Pharaoh’s retinue, are given new rolesand now pay homage to the infant Jesus as the King of Israel. In any event, readers note that Matthew is notsimply retelling the Moses story in a new variant. Instead, the story of Jesus really is a new story; Jesus is at once new Moses and the inverse of Moses.18
In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus represents the Immanuel presence of God. He is more than Moses; he is more akin to the one who opened the heavens, came down on Mt. Sinai, and caused the earth to quake. For Matthew, Jesus’ baptism answers the prayer of Isaiah 63-64 and becomes that moment when God’spresence again visited his people. This reading of Matthew is confirmed by the episodes which follow,episodes which both parallel and subvert Israel’s story. Israel leaves Sinai to spend forty years wandering in the wilderness where God provides bread from heaven to sustain them. Jesus enters the wilderness, where for forty days and nights he fasts and experiences temptation (4:1-2). Though famished, unlike Israel herefuses to eat
Luz, Theologi; of Matthew, 24-25.
CAPES: Intertextual Echoes 45
the bread of miracle in preference for the tn;_e food of God’s Word (4:3-4; quoting Deut 8:3). In thewilderness Israel consistently tested God and refused to follow him. In contrast Jesus refused to put God to the test (4:7; quoting Deut 6:16). Israel went after other gods in their wanderings (e.g., Exodus 32). Jesus, on the other hand, repudi ates the worship of any except the true, living God (4:10; quoting Deut 6:13). It is not coincidental that, in responding to the tempter, Jesus quoted Deuteronomy, a text based on the exodus, Sinai, and wilderness experiences. These quotations suggest that Jesus’ temp tation report continues the new exodus motif and should be read against the narrative of Israel’s exodus and wilderness experience. Jesus, as both a new Moses and one greater than Moses, seems to pro vide an antithetical reading of Israel’s period in the wilderness and concurrently subverts its story. As God’s Son, he is morethan Israel; he transcends Israel as the one truly obedient Son of God.
This motif appears to continue in the Sermon on the Mount, the first extended discourse by Jesus.Therein he teaches his disciples to” address God in prayer as “our Father” (min,p 11µolY). This address of course is not new; it is contained in the new exodus petition and prayer of Isaiah 63-64. Note Isa 63:17 (NRSV):
For you are our father (LXX [63:16]: i’]µiilv d na1:f]p),
though Abraham does not know us and Israel does not acknowledge us;
you,0 LORD, are our father (LXX: na1:f]p i’]µiilv); our Redeemer from of old is yourname.
Again, the prayer continues (Isa 64:8):
Yet,0 LORD, you are our Father (LXX [64:7]: na1:f]p i’]µiilv), we are the clay, and you areour potter;
we are all the work of your hand.
It must be remembered that the Hebrew Bible seldom addresses God as “father.”19 Nevertheless, the “our Father” address in the prayer of Isaiah 63-64 may have influenced the model prayer offered by Jesus (Matt6:9), for ifl Luke’s parallel account, God is addressed simply as “Father” not “our Father.” One may well conclude that in the model prayer Matthew’s Gospel continues to echo the Isaianic plea, by addressing God as “our Father.”
Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40-66: A CommentanJ (OTL; Philadelphia: Westmin ster, 1969) 393, believes the reason thatpreexilic texts do not call God “father” has to do with the fact that in ancient mythology gods often father children via humans. The OT offers an alternative reality wherein mankind is creature not a child. The Isaianic prayer (chaps. 63-64) evidences the apparent liftingof such a theological barrier.
46 Bulletin for Biblical Research 9
III
For all its ubiquity in Christian iconography and modern Christian art, the dove continues to evade interpreters. Throughout church history the dove represents the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of Jesus and the church, yet the only reference to a dove in the NT oc curs at Jesus’ baptism. In the vision Jesus “saw the Spirit of God de scending as if it were a dove and it comes upon him” (Matt 3:16).20 Many interpreters have offered possible sources for this imagery, but consensus has not been achieved. John Moorhead proposes that the descent of the Spirit as a dove recalls Sinai where in the LXX the same word Ka,a aivoo describes God’s descent on the mountain (Exod 19:llff .).21 Moorhead, however, does not answer the question, why a dove? Rowland interprets the dove image in light of new creation imagery. He points to the Babylonian Talmud and Simeon b. Zoma’s meditation on Gen 1:2 (b. I;Iag. 15a) in which the rabbi describes the hovering of the Spirit over the waters as a dove. For Rowland, the new creation motif satisfies the eschatological framework of John, Jesus and the early church; it also appears to explain the dove’s pres encein Jesus’ baptism, since this event inaugurates the new creation.22 Rowland’s proposal is attractive, but the latedate of the sources poses a critical problem to this explanation. Stephen Gero, noting extra biblical traditions, argues that two sources come together in the Gospel baptismal record. First, there existed a pre-Marean baptismal story eventually codified in the Gospel of Hebrews, which makes no reference to a dove. Second, there also existed another account which included the dove but with no connection to the Spirit (Odes Sol. 24). The Marean redactor, Gero argues, had both at his disposal when composing his Gospel and, wanting to retain all the details, merged them into one story. The dove image, he believes, can be ex plained by the recognition that Near Eastern legend and folklore often contain accounts of the descent of birds.Gero, however, never answers the question, why a dove?23 Robert Gundry provides another explanation. Observing that there lacks any accepted interpretation, he favors understanding the dove image as “historical tradition over ecclesiastical invention.”24 Again, however, unless Jesus saw a dove
Matthew changes Mark’s cii (“as”) to ciiod (“as if”). This change suggests that the dove refers adverbially to the manner ofdescent and not to the visible appearance of the Spirit. See Gundry, Matthew, 52.
John Moorhead, “The Spirit and the World,” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review (Spring-Summer 1983) 114.
Rowland, Open Heaven, 361. See also Dale Allison, “The Baptism of Jesus and a New Dead Sea Scroll,” BARev 18 (March-April 1992) 58-60.
Gero, “Spirit As a Dove,” 18-19.
Gundry, Matthew, 52.
CAPES: Intertextual Echoes 47
in his vision, why did he refer to the Spirit’s descent “as a dove” and not some other bird?
Since the dove remark appears in a report of an apocalyptic vision and since the source of imagery for a vision originated often within the symbolic world of scripture, the OT itself provides the most favorable answer to the question, why a dove?
Within the biblical record the first mention of a dove occurs in the flood story (Genesis 8).25 Over fourteen days Noah sends out a dove three times to determine if the waters had subsided. The first time the dove returns, finding no place to land. God’s judgment still had not ended. The second time the dove returns with a freshly plucked olive leaf, heralding the nearness of their deliverance. The third time the dove fails toreturn, announcing to Noah and his family that their exile from earth had ended. This story continues to resound in the memories of early Jewish Christians, for in 1 Pet 3:20-21 the author finds in Noah’sdeliverance from the water a prefiguration (civ,humov) of Christian baptism. Furthermore, since God’saddress to Noah’ (Gen 9:1, 7) resembles his commands to the first humans at creation (Gen 1:28), the flood narrative could be construed as a new creation account. As a result, Christians late in the first century interpreted their salvation, actualized in baptism, in light of Noah’s story of de liverance and new creation. Perhaps Jesus, the evangelists, and the early church utilized the dove, resonating within the denouement of Noah’s story, to construe Jesus’ baptism as the end of judgment, the reversal of exile, the new creation, and the opportunity to herald the good news of God’s presence and Kingdom.
Another possibility exists to explain the presence of the dove in Jesus’ apocalyptic vision. Yet it doesnot arise from a coherent story. It arises from various suggestive texts in Jewish tradition regarding the dove. The locus for one such example is Psalm 74, a communal lament pleading with God to remember hiscongregation. A foe had vanquished them and razed the temple to the ground. Now the con gregation begsGod to regard the covenant and reverse the shame of his people. The key verse for consideration here is74:19:
Do not deliver the soul of your dove to the wild animals; Do not forget the life of your poor forever.
In this poignant passage God’s harassed people are called “your dove” and “your poor.” Enemies had overpowered them, subjugating and humiliating them in the face of the nations. Now rather than suffer
Jehuda Feliks, “Dove,” EncJud 6.184-85, mentions other scriptural significance including: (1) the law permits the eating of doves, (2) the law prescribes the dove as the offering of the poor and the Nazirites (Lev 5:7; Num 6:10), and (3) the dove symbolizes beauty, innocence, and purity (e.g., Cant 1:15; 2:14; 5:2).
48 Bulletin for Biblical Research 9
any longer, God’s dove, God’s poor cry out to him: “Have regard for your covenant” (Ps 74:20).
Second Esdras uses the dove image in similar fashion. In the second vision (5:21-6:34), the seercomplains that God has delivered Israel over into the hands of its enemies. He characterizes Israel using symbols derived from the OT. He likens Israel to a tree, a lily, a river, a city. Then he writes (5:26): “from all birds that have been created you have named for yourself one dove, and from all the flocks that have beenmade you have provided for yourself one sheep.” He con- tinues (5:28): “And now,0 Lord, why have youhanded the one over to the many, and dishonored the one root beyond the others, and scattered your only one among the many?” Here the seer refers to Israel as the one dove, the one handed over to the many, and asks, “Why, Lord?” In both Psalms and 2 Esdras, the dove becomes a sym bol of God’s injured, desperate people, handed over to its enemies. The dove, though pure and innocent, cannot withstand the power of its adversaries. Interestingly, another, later Jewish text ech’oes the same view: “There is none among the birds more persecuted than doves” (b. B. Qam. 93a).
The dove therefore came to symbolize Israel in all its sufferings at the hands of its enemies. If Jesus and the evangelists are aware of this representation, the dove’s presence in the baptismal story signals for Jesushis role as sufferer. Only he sees the Spirit’s flight as a dove. While the crowds in Matthew hear the heavenlyvoice declaring him God’s Son, Jesus alone sees the vision. Jesus alone catches its sig nificance; He willsuffer at the hands of his enemies, the one will be handed over to the many. If Jesus personifies Israel-as Matthew apparently signals in 2:15, “Out of Egypt I have called my Son”-he must then live his life in congruity with Israel, God’s suffering people. For Jesus to fulfill Israel’s story, there can be no other path except suffering. As the Gospel record will show, he will suffer and be rejected by his enemies, yet also in the plan of God.
This reading makes perfect sense of all that follows. The Spirit drives Jesus into the wilderness for fasting and the adversary tempts him to bypass his appointed task. Yet Jesus refuses to veer off course and abandon the road of suffering lying ahead. He addresses his dis ciples warning them of persecutions and mistreatments like Israel’s prophets had faced. At the high watermark of the Gospel, when the disciplesconfess him to be “Son of the living God” (Matt 16:16), Jesus remarks that this is not theirs; it is the Father’s revelation. As the hu man voice of the disciples echoes the heavenly voice at baptism, Jesus remembers his vision, sees again the Spirit descend like a dove, and recalls his appointed path of suffering. Consequently, Jesus begins to declare to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem, be rejected and
CAPES: Intertextual Echoes 49
mistreated at the hands of elders, chief priests, and scribes. As the story unfolds, Jesus travels willingly toward Jerusalem and the suf fering that awaits him.
IV
For Matthew the life of Jesus represents a new work of God in recent history. Yet the evangelist sees it as part of a continuum of divine activity, indeed the fulfillment of Israel’s hopes and aspirations. The opening of the heavens and the Spirit’s descent as a dove in Mat thew’s baptismal story are best understood aselements of an apoca lyptic vision which reoriented Jesus’ life. These images belonged originally to thesymbolic world of Israel’s sacred texts. Matthew in tentionally alters Mark’s account, thereby amplifying his own pro phetic voice via linkage with the OT story. Utilizing a recognized vision formula, the evangelist portrays Jesus as the end-time, apoc alyptic prophet according to the order of Ezekiel. He sees visions, preaches and acts out his message to a rebellious people. At the same time he understands the Nazarene to beGod’s answer to the petition of Isaiah 63-64, a prayer yearning for the heavens to open and God’s presence to once again visit Israel as in the days of Moses. For Mat thew Jesus is “Immanuel,” “God with us,” the divine “Yes” to human longings. Furthermore, because the hope for a new exodus perme ates the prayer in Isaiah 63-64, Jesus not only represents Israel and Moses, he transcends them by his righteous obedience. This new exodus perspective carries through the Gospel in other accounts and sayings of Jesus, particularly the “Our Father” of the Sermon on the Mount. The Spirit’s descent as a dove continues to echo OT and extra canonical passages. The dove appears to recall the final episode of Noah’s deliverance, announcing the end of God-imposed exile and ushering in the new creation. For the evangelist, the arrival of Jesus sounded the final chords of judgment and heralded the beginning of God’s new creation. Accordingly, the story of Noah’s ark became inextricably linked with Christian baptism. Moreover, biblical and extrabiblical sourcesreveal that the dove could symbolize God’s suf fering people and likely signaled to Jesus his role as sufferer. In the final analysis this investigation supports Luz’s contention that the Immanuel motif governs the First Gospel and that the evangelist expresses his Christology “from above” through a story embedded with scripture and not merely through titles.
David Capes and Michael Bird have been friends for many years. And they share some common academic interests. Recently, Mike released an important new book. He joined David Capes from his home in Australia to talk about it on the Stone Chapel Podcasts.
He loves the Bible and takes delight in calling himself a Bible nerd. Mike has a wonderful sense of humor, and he knows more about American politics than most Americans.
He loves tennis, and he hates coffee. Mike is the author of lots of books. You can find many of them at the Lanier Theological Library.
He dedicated it to David for the years of friendship and his contributions to Christology.
In the book Mike looks at the question: what does it mean to call Jesus “God” or “god”? That may seem self-evident 2000 later, but the question is more complex.
Bart Ehrman’s work encouraged Mike to look into this question. What he found is a spectrum of divinity from unbegotten and absolute gods. To begotten gods, who were often people elevated to some divine status or deity, like Caesar or Heracles.
So did this way of thinking influence early Christians as they were struggling to express the significance of Jesus?
More topics in the discussion
The conversation weaves through a number of topics including whether monotheism is a term that is useful or should it be retired.
And the depth of Hellenistic culture in the Bible, and the unlikely prospects that Judaism and Hellenism are petitioned off and did not influence one another.
The book is fascinating and a must read for anyone interested in understanding the earliest Jesus communities.
Jesus among the God endorsed by Capes
David Capes endorsed the book before he knew Michael was going to dedicate it to him:
With his characteristic good humor and judicious attention to detail, Michael Bird pushes the conversation regarding early Christologies in new and constructive directions.
Having an ear attuned to both Jewish and Greco-Roman voices, Bird offers a straightforward taxonomy of what constituted ‘divinity’ in the ancient world and makes a serious case that elements of early Christologies are inherently ontological.
David B. Capes, Director, Lanier Theological Library
Additional Resources
You can watch Michael Bird’s lecture, An Invasive Story: Paul’s Theology Between Messianic Event and Salvation History at the Lanier Theological Library in 2016 by clicking here.
A Word in Edgewise 
You must be logged in to post a comment.