Matthew’a Divine Assumption (Guest Post: Dr. Wayne Baxter)

Last updated on: October 28, 2022 at 6:33 am by Nijay Gupta

Matthew’a Divine Assumption (Guest Post: Dr. Wayne Baxter) 2022-10-28T06:33:27-08:00 Nijay Gupta

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Matthew’s Divine Assumption

Divine Shepherd Christology in the Gospel of Matthew

Wayne Baxter

What do you get when you cross a shepherd with Matthew’s Gospel? You get a unique window into Matthew’s view of Jesus of Nazareth.

Well-known Bible scholar Bart Ehrman says, “Within three hundred years Jesus went from being a Jewish apocalyptic prophet to being God himself, a member of the Trinity.”[1] Ehrman is definitely not the first scholar to argue against the traditional, Christian position that Jesus is God; but with the advent of social media he has perhaps become the most recognized proponent of this “Low Christology” view in biblical studies: that Jesus’ first followers never considered him to be God, but only a special, human spokesperson for God. Belief in the deity of Jesus merely developed over time and did not originate with Jesus nor with the first generation of Christians. My book, Divine Shepherd Christology, speaks to this historic debate occurring among New Testament scholars, and more broadly, among different segments of Christendom.

When I first started writing on the shepherd metaphor for my Ph.D. dissertation, I focused on the implications of Matthew’s shepherd motif for the so-called Parting of the Ways debate (the question of whether the early Christians departed Judaism and forever went their separate ways). When I began to write Divine Shepherd, the idea was to revise my dissertation to introduce evangelicals to the Parting of the Ways debate. But as I worked through the material again, I began to see something that I had not seen before. Matthew’s unique appropriation of the shepherd metaphor actually reveals a “High Christology”: for the Gospel writer, Jesus was not merely a divine-like spokesperson for God; rather, Jesus was the God of Israel incarnate. Why do I think Matthew’s shepherd motif points us in this direction?

To understand more fully Matthew’s shepherd motif, it’s necessary to study it against the backdrop of the shepherd metaphor in related texts: the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, Second Temple Jewish writings (the so-called noncanonical Old Testament texts), and the New Testament. Each of these groups of authors appropriates the shepherd metaphor in very characteristic yet sometimes overlapping ways. The Hebrew Scriptures apply the metaphor to earthly rulers (such as kings) and to Yahweh. In the Hebrew Bible the shepherd metaphor is used with a fair bit of pastoral imagery, i.e., the shepherd leads, guides, rescues, pastures (etc.); and it also comes with overtones of Jewish-national restoration: it expresses concern for the political and/or spiritual welfare of the nation of Israel. Furthermore, the specific activity tied to shepherding is “ruling”: the shepherd rules; and when applied to Yahweh, Yahweh as shepherd “saves” his flock. Second Temple Jewish authors, for their part, largely follow the pattern set for them by the Scriptures: God is the ideal shepherd, to shepherd is to rule, and the metaphor is deployed with pastoral imagery. As for the New Testament, it routinely applies the metaphor to Jesus but usually without the stock pastoral imagery nor with overtones of Jewish-national restoration. Nor is the activity of shepherding restricted to ruling—these authors expand it to include teaching. So, where does Matthew’s shepherd motif fit into all of this?

We see a few different things going on with Matthew and his shepherd motif. While he, consonant with the other New Testament writers, applies the metaphor to Jesus as the Messiah, he stands quite apart from most of them in that he, like the Old Testament and Second Temple Jewish authors, associates “ruling” with the metaphor, and he also deploys it with pronounced pastoral imagery. As opposed to what we see with the New Testament, Matthew uses the metaphor with distinct Jewish-national overtones—similar to what is observed in the Scriptures and with Second Temple authors. In fact, Matthew’s important opening usage of the metaphor in the story of the magi, which draws a stark comparison between Jesus and King Herod, reveals a geopolitical dimension to Jesus’ shepherding/rule of Israel. Additionally, the Gospel writer attaches the activity of saving to shepherding—an activity reserved exclusively for Yahweh as shepherd in the Old Testament. Furthermore, quite apart from these other two groups of authors, Matthew never applies the term “shepherd” to earthly rulers or to assembly leaders. He reserves it strictly for Jesus—unlike with the other Christological titles that Matthew freely uses for both Jesus and for his followers. Only Jesus can be Israel’s “shepherd.” Because Jesus’ shepherding of Israel includes a geopolitical dimension, because he alone is called Israel’s “shepherd,” and because Matthew characterizes Jesus’ shepherding as “saving” Israel, when all of these strands are taken together, they demonstrate that Matthew believed that Jesus was not merely a divine-like spokesperson for God, but rather, Jesus was the Shepherding God of Israel.

My book concludes by engaging with the low-Christology–high-Christology debate. Critics tend to downplay Matthew’s high Christology by arguing, on the one hand, that the New Testament writers merely elevate Jesus in the same way that the authors in the biblical and Second Temple traditions elevated certain figures (like Adam, Moses, and others), who at times are depicted as being like God in some manner without in any way implying their divinity. Hence, just because Jesus does something that God does doesn’t mean that New Testament authors like Matthew thought he was God—but only that he was God’s representative on earth. By way of response, at least two things can be observed. On the one hand, these two notions are in fact completely compatible: Jesus is Yahweh’s divinely approved emissary precisely because he is Yahweh. On the other hand, what sets Matthew (et al.) apart from earlier “divine elevations” of human figures like a Moses is that Matthew’s Gospel is a Jesus-centric text. All the instances where the writer elevates him to divine/God status have to be synthesized with one another. Far from being merely a one-off—the way these kinds of elevations are in every single other biblical or Second Temple text in which they occur—Matthew’s story is all about Jesus. Necessarily, then, the various facets of his shepherd motif must be integrated with each other; and when they are, they produce his portrait of a divine shepherd.

[1] Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them) (New York: HarperOne, 2010).

Uncategorized

Previous Post

October 26, 2022

Gordon D. Fee (1934-2022): In Memory and Appreciation

Next Post

October 31, 2022 What's Your Recipe for Bible Reading? (Dr. Andrew Abernethy)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category (Mis)Understanding Philippians 10 Things I Can't Live Without 2023 New Books 30 OT HB Scholars to Read and Follow 5 Books Series 50-2-Follow Academia Christian Theologians to Read and Follow Cruciform Scripture: Contributor Reflections Crux Sola TV Editors Behind Great Books in NT Studies Education Gendering the Holy Spirit Gupta FB Live Lectures In Faith and Doubt In Their Own Words Living the King Jesus Gospel My Top 6 OT Commentaries New Testament Resource Guide New Word Biblical Themes Nijay's A Very Library Christmas Shopping Guide Notes from an Editor Notes on New Books NTRG OT in the NT Paul Seminary Now The Bible in God's World The Word Felt Among Us SPENCER Translating Philippians Uncategorized Why I Use Accordance Women in Ministry

Select a Month March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 May 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz