MATTHEW 14:22-33 IN MATTHEAN CHRISTOLOGY

MATTHEW 14:22-33 IN MATTHEAN CHRISTOLOGY

__________________

An Exegetical PaperPresented to

Dr. Jonathan PenningtonThe Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

__________________

In Partial Fulfillmentof the Requirements for 22600

__________________

byAlexander Madison Long

[email protected]/07/2015

MATTHEW 14:22-33 IN MATTHEAN CHRISTOLOGY

TranslationAnd immediately Jesus compelled the disciples to get into

a boat and go ahead of him to the other side, until he sent away

the crowds. And after sending the crowds away, he went up to a

mountain by himself in order to pray. Now when evening came, he

was there alone. And the boat was already a great distance from

the land, being harassed by the waves, because the wind was

hostile. And he came to them at the fourth watch of the night,

walking on the sea. But the disciples, when they saw him walking

on the sea, were disturbed, saying that "It is a ghost," and they

cried out in fear. And immediately, he spoke to them, saying,

"Take heart, it is I, do not be afraid." And in reply, Peter said

to him, "Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the

water." And he replied, "Come." And after getting out of the

boat, Peter walked on the water and came to Jesus. But when he

saw the wind, he was afraid, and when he began to sink, he cried

out, saying, "Lord, save me!" And immediately stretching out his

hand, he caught him and said to him, "You of little faith, why

did you doubt?" And after they got into the boat, the wind

stopped. And those in the boat worshipped him, saying, "Truly,

you are the son of God." (Matthew 14:22-33, my translation1)1 The English translations examined (NASB95, HCSB, ESV) contained no

differences of significance from my translation1

IntroductionMatthew 14:22-33, the Matthean sea-walking narrative, is a

crucial passage in Matthew for understanding the divinity of

Christ in Matthean Christology and the Christology of the Early

Church. Matthew does this via literary structure that places the

pericope at a point where the identity of Jesus is in focus, as

well as through OT allusions connecting Jesus with Yahweh.

Patrick Madden, in his book on the sea-walking narratives,

provides a helpful history of exegesis section in which he breaks

down the work that has been done on the sea-walking narratives.2

This paper falls into the category of an ahistorical analysis of

Matthew’s version, though it borrows from works that cover all

three narratives. Most of the works that will be cited in this

paper seek to examine the origin of the sea-walking narratives by

looking at different texts that may be related to both their

genre and specific content, in order to determine what texts may

have influenced the Evangelist consciously or unconsciously.

However, for the purposes of this work, the background and genre

of the narrative will be examined in order to determine the most

likely specific allusions that the writer sought to bring to the

attention of his reader. The concept of divine sonship will also

be examined in light of its place and function in the Matthean

narrative.

2 Madden, Jesus’ Walking on the Sea; Mowery, “Son of God in Roman Imperial Titles and Matthew”; Novakovic, “Jesus as the Davidic Messiah in Matthew”; Pennington, “Lecture over Matthew 14-15”; Runge, Discourse grammar of the Greek New Testament; Scott, “Jesus Walking on the Sea”; Smit Sibinga, “Matthew 14”; Thimmes, Studies in the Biblical Sea-Storm Type-Scene; Verseput, “The Role and Meaning ofthe ‘Son of God’ Title in Matthew’s Gospel.”

2

Literary Structure

Matthew 14:22-33 Within Matthew

There are two major ways to structure the Gospel of

Matthew, and in both of them, the placement of Matthew 14:22-33

reveals that the focus of the pericope is the unique identity of

Jesus. The first way is demonstrated by J. Martin Scott, who

divides the book into three sections: Section A (1:1-4:16),

Section B (4:17-25:46), and Section C (26:1-28:20).3 He does not

explain his reasoning in the article, but a cursory glance at the

overall layout of Matthew reveals that 1:1-4:16 seems to serve as

an introduction to the book and to the person of Jesus, while

26:1-28:20 seems to be a conclusion, with the intervening

material forming the main body of the book. This is a simple

introduction-body-conclusion layout, informed by the overall

literary character of each section. Having established this

outline, he connects elements from different narratives within

each section and shows how 14:22-33 connects with them as a pivot

point for the narrative and thematic development of Matthew. He

identifies the shared theme of Jesus’ identity as Son of God with

the Temptation narrative in 4:1-11, which in the context of

Matthew is important for introducing the person of Jesus.4 He

also identifies a similar continuity with Peter’s Confession at

Caesarea Philippi.5 His analysis reveals that 14:22-33 plays a

3 Scott, “Jesus Walking on the Sea,” 97.4 Scott, “Jesus Walking on the Sea,” 97.5 Ibid., 101–102.

3

major thematic role in advancing the theme of Jesus’ identity as

Son of God.

A second more detailed outline is a narrative-discourse

outline, which recognizes that while the narrative function of

the Gospel is important, the teaching of Jesus is the focus of

the main body of Matthew. This outline is structured around the

formula Καὶ ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, a repeated phrase that

provides a neat break between major discourse blocks and

narrative sections (although teaching certainly occurs within the

narrative blocks as well). The outline put forward by Jonathan

Pennington sees the discourses as primary, with corresponding

narrative sections that revolve around the themes of revelation

and separation. In this schema, the discourse on the parables

functions as a dividing line between those who have been given

divine understanding (11:25-27) and those from whom the mysteries

of the kingdom have been hidden. Jesus now actively functions as

the intermediary of the Father in hiding truth as well as

revealing it. The true identity of Jesus is one of the truths

that is hidden and revealed by Jesus. The narrative section

following the parabolic discourse begins with the rejection of

Jesus in his hometown, the place where he should have been known

best. Chapter 14 opens with the Herod’s confusion about the

identity of Jesus, which he resolves by deciding that Jesus is

John the Baptist, raised from the dead. The account of John the

Baptist’s death is offline material that explains why Herod would

4

think that Jesus was John the Baptist. This leads up to the

immediate context of 14:22-33.

The Structure of 14:13-36There seems to be a chiasm in 14:13-36, because of

linguistic and thematic parallels between vv. 13-14 and vv. 34-

36, and between vv. 15-23a and 23b-33. Before explaining the

reasons for observing a chiastic structure, it is necessary to

explain the above division of vv. 15-33. There are linguistic and

text-critical reasons for seeing verse 23b as the proper division

between the feeding of the five thousand and the walking on water

pericope. From a linguistic perspective informed by discourse

analysis, the specific function of δε within narrative argues

against beginning the walking on water pericope at v. 22.

According to Steven Runge, one of the functions of δε within

Koine Greek narrative is to mark distinct developments within the

narrative, moving it forward and making it easier for the

reader/hearer to process the narrative in smaller portions.6 As

opposed to δέ, καί does not semantically mark development, though

it can be used to advance the narrative.7 The above principle

does not necessarily mean that δέ must be used to begin a new

paragraph or pericope, but the lack of a δέ in vv. 22-23a may

indicate that it should be thought of as a conclusion to the

feeding narrative, or as a transition between the narratives.

6 Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 28–31.7 Ibid., 23.

5

Another linguistic argument is the conspicuous parallelism

used by Matthew in v. 15 and in v. 23b through the use of the

identical phrase ὀψίας γενομένης. Ὀψίας γενομένης, a temporal

genitive absolute, does not have to be construed as a structural

marker semantically, but there are two factors that argue for

this pragmatic structural use. The first is that the second use

of the genitive absolute is not necessary. The passage does not

record the passing of a day, yet the exact same temporal phrase

is used in v. 23b as in v.15. J. Martin Scott calls the second

usage ‘apparently superfluous’ and identifies it as creating a

parallel between v. 15 and v. 23.8 Secondly, the use of the

genitive absolute in connection with structural breaks is well

established in Matthew. The clearest example of this is in

chapters 1-2, where the entire infancy narrative is broken up

using the genitive absolute and δέ, similar to the present

narrative. Matthew’s careful attention to structuring his

narrative means that parallelism like this cannot be ignored, and

it likely serves to closely connect the pericopae of vv. 15-23a

and vv. 23b-33.

Finally, there is also an argument from textual criticism

against beginning the walking on water pericope in v. 22. In

verse 22, the reading εὐθέως is ommitted by two major codices (א*

and C*), and J. Smit Sibinga explains that there are two reasons

for this. The first is that εὐθέως does not accord with the style

of the miracle story.9 The second reason is that καὶ εὐθέως is 8 Scott, “Jesus Walking on the Sea,” 94.9 Smit Sibinga, “Matthew 14,” 23.

6

not ordinarily used by Matthew as a transition between pericopae,

which reveals that Smit Sibinga regards v. 22 as a transition

verse.10 In spite of the above reasons, he believes that the

majority reading εὐθέως is correct, likely because Matthew simply

copied it from Mark, even though ‘καὶ εὐθέως as the beginning of

an episode is unusual in Matthew.’11 Although Smit Sibinga

regards the reading as correct, in terms of Matthew, he deems it

an anomaly because of an assumption that v. 22 is the beginning

of the walking on water pericope. However, if one does not take

v. 22 as the beginning of the pericope, then Matthean style is

preserved, because καὶ εὐθέως would not begin the episode. For

all the above reasons, it seems that v. 23b should be understood

as the structural pericope beginning, not v. 22.

This leads into the argument for a chiastic structure.

14:13-14 and vv. 34-36 are related thematically. In both

passages, Jesus changes locations, the crowds recognize him, and

he heals them. They are linguistically different, but

thematically they are similar enough to form an inclusio for

14:13-36. It has already been shown that the feeding of the five

thousand and walking on water pericopae are related

linguistically, but they are also related thematically. Both are

miracle stories, and both involve Jesus demonstrating power over

the physical realm. The feeding narrative paves the way for the

10 Ibid., 23–24.11 Ibid., 24.

7

walking on water pericope, so that the latter provides a

conclusion to the identity question.12 The chiasm is as follows:

A: Crowds recognize him, he heals many of them, vv. 13-

14.

B: Miracle story, power over nature, vv. 15-23a

B’: Miracle story, power over nature, vv. 23b-33

A’: He crosses over, crowds recognize him, he heals many

of them, vv. 34-36.

Structure of Matthew 14:23b-33The passage demonstrates a structure within itself, a

story within a story. Verses 28-31 can be set off as a narrative

that parallels 24-27 in many ways. Matthew is the only Evangelist

who records the story of Peter walking on water in imitation of

Jesus, which can be explained by Matthew’s emphasis on

discipleship and what it means to follow Jesus. Peter initially

responds in faith, but upon seeing the wind, he wavers and begins

to sink, requiring Jesus to save him. Verses 25 and 29 parallel

each other in a chiastic manner, J. Smit Sibinga notes, as Peter

seeks to imitate Jesus by walking on the water.13 Verses 26-27

and vv. 30-31 also parallel each other linguistically in many

ways.14 In verse 28, Peter responds to Jesus’ self-identification

(ἐγώ εἰμι) by turning his words around (εἰ σὺ εἶ) to make his act

of faith contingent on the identity of Jesus. But Peter’s

12 Hagner, Matthew. 14-28, 421.13 Smit Sibinga, “Matthew 14,” 17.14 Ibid., 18.

8

response upon seeing the wind in verse 30 is fear, similar to the

disciples’ collective response at seeing Jesus (both include a

verb of seeing, in different tenses, as well as fearing verbs).

In all of this careful literary design, the takeaway is that

Jesus’ self-identification forms the center of the narrative,

while the confession of the disciples is the fitting

conclusion.15

Intertextuality and the Christology ofMatthew 14:23b-33

Introduction of Intertextuality

The topic of Jesus’ identity is also informed by the

careful and deliberate intertextual quotations and allusions to

the Old Testament. Intertextuality means that ‘every text is

related to other texts and that these relations are constitutive

for the generation of the meanings of the text.’16 In terms of

this paper, intertextuality is understood to be deliberate in

some cases, when the author uses quotations and allusions that he

knows will be understood by many of his readers as part of their

cultural encylopedia, influencing their perspective on the topic

as they relate the two texts.17 Quotations and allusions are two

of the ways that an author deliberately relates one text to

another text in order to influence his reader. Matthew as a

15 Ibid., 17.16 Alkier, “From Text to Intertext,” 2.17 The cultural encyclopedia is a concept developed by Umberto Eco, and it means that there is a shared body of cultural knowledge that the author of a text shares with his readers.

9

writer skillfully weaves quotations and allusions, primarily from

the OT, into his narrative. His context seems to be a primarily

Jewish Christian community in the late first century, given his

emphasis on Jesus’ relation to the Law, and fulfillment of the

Old Testament. As J. Martin Scott writes, ‘The many direct

quotations and implicit echoes from the Torah, the Psalms and the

prophets in the macro-narrative, indicate that the implied reader

knows ‘the scriptures.’18 In light of this, Matthew uses both

quotations and allusions to the OT and Second Temple literature

in order to inform his reader how he wants them to think about

Jesus and the disciples in light of his text and the intertext.

This is termed ‘production-oriented intertextuality’ by Alkier,

because the quotations and allusions are part of of the shared

cultural encyclopaedia common to the writer and reader.19 There

is a distinction between background, influence, and allusion.

Discovering the literary background of a text is attempting to

see how the text being analyzed relates to similar texts within

its cultural context, because no text arises within a vacuum.

Related, but distinct, is examining the literary background of a

text in order to determine what other texts may have influenced

its particular composition. Production-oriented intertextuality

examines the background of a text to discover the most likely

intentional allusions to other texts within the shared

encyclopaedia of the intended reader.

18 Scott, “Jesus Walking on the Sea,” 94.19 Alkier, “From Text to Intertext,” 4.

10

Genre of Matthew 14:23b-33While the background and genre of the narratives is not

the primary focus of this paper, it is helpful to examine the

potential genres in play, in order to discover similar texts that

the Evangelist may have consciously imitated in order to connect

his reader with different intertexts. Heil describes the literary

genre as a ‘sea-rescue epiphany.’20 Heil defines epiphany as ‘A

disposition of literary motifs narrating a sudden and unexpected

manifestation of a divine or heavenly being experienced by

certain selected persons, in which the divine being reveals a

divine attribute, action, or message.’21 This definition makes it

clear that if this genre is accepted, then the purpose of the

narrative must be understood as revealing the divine identity of

Jesus. Madden accepts Heil’s definition, but without the sea-

rescue element, because he thinks that the narrative does not

substantiate an emphasis on the rescue.22 Thimmes defines it as a

‘sea-storm type-scene’ and seeks to connect it with literary

conventions stretching back to the ANE and Graeco-Roman

background, as well as the biblical literature.23 The best

definition of the genre is that of an epiphany that incorporates

the element of rescue and also borrows from the biblical sea-

storm genre. There is significant overlap between all of these

20 Heil, Jesus Walking on the Sea, 17.21 Ibid., 8.22 Madden, Jesus’ Walking on the Sea, 87.23 Thimmes, Studies in the Biblical Sea-Storm Type-Scene, 175.

11

genres, as can be seen from the texts that Matthew most likely

wants his reader to consider.

Intertextual AllusionsWhile Matthew uses allusions to emphasize different themes

throughout the book, the specific focus of this narrative is the

identity of Jesus, and so most of the allusions relate to the

question of Jesus’ identity in some way.

Throughout the OT, it is clear that one of the chief

characteristics of God is his sovereign power over nature. The

sea was viewed with fear by many ancient peoples, and was a realm

in which only a divine being could thrive. This provides a

background to the many OT texts that speak of God’s power over

the sea. While there are specific texts that parallel the sea-

walking narrative more closely, the Evangelist also has in mind

the larger biblical background in which power over the sea is

only exercised by a divine being. In this context, specific

allusions may be evident, but even the overall theme demonstrates

a unique connection between Jesus and Yahweh.

The clearest allusions in the text make it plain that the

Evangelist wants his reader to connect Jesus with Yahweh. The

sea-walking narrative has as one of its clearest bases Job 9:8b,

which speaks about God ‘walking on the sea’ (περιπατῶν ἐπὶ

θαλάσσης in the LXX).24 The LXX possesses the clearest linguistic

parallel to Matthew 14:22-33, which makes allusion all the more

likely, since by the time Matthew was written the LXX was the 24 Davies and Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 2:504.

12

Bible of choice for Jews and Jewish Christians in the Roman

Empire. This verse makes the claim that Yahweh walks on the sea,

and in alluding to this verse, Matthew wants his Jewish Christian

readers to understand that Jesus is a divine being related to the

God of Israel.

Jesus’ self-identification in verse 27 is also an allusion

to the OT, though not simply to a specific text. Rather, the

allusion is to the divine name, which is often translated as

simply ‘ἐγώ εἰμι’ in the OT. One of the passages that it may

allude to, Isaiah 43:1-13, also possesses significant thematic

connections. The idea of going though the water is present,

alongside of the negative command prohibiting fear (Μὴ φοβοῦ,

similar to μὴ φοβεῖσθε in v. 27), which closely connects it with

14:23b-33. Isaiah 43:10b contains the divine self-identification

in the form that is present in v. 27, and this alongside of other

thematic and linguistic connections makes this a likely passage

for Matthean allusion.25 The allusion to the divine name is

accepted by most as clear, although R.T. France, commenting from

a more historical-grammatical perspective, downplays the

possibility.26 The divine name on the lips of Jesus was

undoubtedly intended by Matthew to connect Jesus with Yahweh.

Psalm 107:23-30 (LXX Psalm 106) is another text that can

be connected with Matthew 14:23b-33. In Psalm 107:23-30, a group

of sailors is described as going to the sea in a ship, and they

encounter a storm, which the Lord stills for them. The motifs 25 Heil, Jesus Walking on the Sea, 59.26 France, The Gospel of Matthew, 569, n. 14.

13

that are common to this narrative and the Matthean narrative are

the distress on the sea, and the stilling of the storm.

Commenting on the stilling of the storm, Achtemeier emphasizes

that Jesus is exercising a divine prerogative, because in the

Psalm it is God who stills the storm.27 This text forms an

important part of the background for the storm-stilling motif.

It may be correct to observe that the sea-rescue element

in the overall narrative is not emphasized, but in the mini-

narrative of vv. 28-31, there is a clear rescue element that

alludes to several Psalms. Psalm 69 describes the prayer of the

psalmist for deliverance, and the linguistic parallel is

striking.28 His cry for help in v. 2 uses the exact words (σῶσόν

με) that Peter uses in Matthew 14:30 when he begins to sink.

There is also a potential connection in the term that the LXX

uses for waters (ὕδατα), which is the same in Matthew 14:29 that

describes Peter’s walking on the water, even though the

consistent word used in the Matthean narrative is θαλάσσης (sea).

The shift in wording may be intended to call the reader to make a

connection between the Psalmist’s cry for deliverance and Peter’s

cry. There are other linguistic parallels. The use of

κατεπόντισέν in v. 3 is the same word that Matthew uses to

describe Peter’s sinking. In both places, the psalmist and Peter

cry out. The linguistic parallels make it a very likely

intentional allusion.

27 Achtemeier, “Person and Deed,” 174.28 Heil, Jesus Walking on the Sea, 61–62.

14

There is also a potential connection between the

deliverance of Peter in v. 31 and two psalms: Psalms 18:17 and

144:7.29 In Psalm 18:17 (LXX Psalm 17:17), the psalmist records a

time when God rescued him (προσελάβετό) from ‘many waters’

(ὑδάτων πολλῶν). The word that the Psalmist uses to describe the

Lord drawing him out of the waters is related to the word that

Matthew uses to describe Jesus catching Peter (ἐπελάβετο), and it

emphasizes the personal action of the deliverer. The word for

waters is also the same as the word used to describe the water

that Peter is walking on in v. 29. In Psalm 144:7, there is an

additional connection, because the psalmist implores Yahweh to

extend his hand (τὴν χεῖρά) and deliver him. The significance in

these allusions is that Jesus is exercising a delivering power

ascribed to Yahweh by the Psalmist. So it can be seen that the

sea-rescue epiphany can at least be applied to the vv. 28-31 as a

story within the overall narrative, and it further demonstrates

that Jesus is being connected with Yahweh.

Another potential allusion within the sea-rescue narrative

in vv. 28-31 is the sea crossing motif. Although he ultimately

fails, Peter is initially enabled by Jesus to cross the sea, a

common OT motif for salvation arising from the story of the Red

Sea crossing in Exodus 14. Many texts in the OT use this as a

metaphor for salvation, including Isaiah 51:9-10, where God is

said to make ‘the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to

pass over.’ Peter’s initial walk echoes this text, and because

Jesus is the one who enables him to make his initial sea 29 Ibid., 62–63.

15

crossing, he is a picture of the deliverer who enables the new

people of God to cross over the sea.

The author of Matthew uses these intertextual allusions,

some of which are clearer than others, to draw upon the shared

cultural encyclopedia of his Jewish Christian context in order to

make a clear connection between Jesus and Yahweh.

Worship And Confession in theChristology of the Pericope

Any discussion of this passage in connection with Jesus’

identity must take into account the response of the disciples in

vv. 33, both their action and their words. The responsive action

of the disciples to the stilling of the storm is worship

(προσεκύνησαν). The word for worship can have two different

objects. Even in Jesus’ day, it was used to describe homage paid

to both gods and earthly kings, often with the literal sense of

bowing down. In Matthew, it takes on both meanings. In Matthew 2,

the Magi pay homage to Jesus (προσεκύνησαν), but only as the king

of the Jews, they are not aware of his divine origin. The key to

the usage of the word in this context is its use in Matthew 4:10

(an important Sonship passage), where Jesus unequivocally says

that worship is due to God alone. This is not to be understood as

simple obeisance towards an earthly king, the Evangelist wants

his readers to understand that Jesus is to be worshipped as

divine.

The disciples’ verbal response to the stilling of the

storm has been the subject of much debate. While it may be an

16

important study to examine what the disciples may have meant by

the phrase ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς εἶ, that is not the focus here. Here,

the primary concern is to place the confession in the literary

and cultural context of Matthew, in order to understand what the

Evangelist meant to convey by the title ‘Son of God.’ It seems

that Matthew intends the title to be a unifying confession that

both Jew and Gentile can understand.

The title ‘Son of God’ is a multifaceted one. In the OT,

Israel is often referred to with the language of divine sonship.

The king of Israel was often referred to this way as well (this

was an ANE practice all around). In terms of Messianic usage, the

promised Davidic king of 2 Samuel 7:14 is referred to with

sonship language. By the Second Temple period, the divine sonship

of the king in general was downplayed, but there seem to have

been a sense that the Messiah would be a ‘son of God,’ especially

at Qumran (4QFlor 1:10-11).30 In this sense, then, the title

would have conveyed Messianic overtones to the Jewish Christians

in the Matthean community.

In Matthew, however, the title does not seem to be the

primary emphasis. Donald Verseput rightly notes that the care

that the Evangelist gives to the topic of Jesus’ Messiahship

precludes any analysis that emphasizes the “Son of God” title.31

This is not to diminish its importance, simply to say that it is

not a point of contention, but is rather assumed. This is against

30 Novakovic, “Jesus as the Davidic Messiah in Matthew,” 154.31 Verseput, “The Role and Meaning of the ‘Son of God’ Title in

Matthew’s Gospel,” 533.17

J.D. Kingsbury, who claims that it is the most important

Christological title in Matthew.32 While the title occurs at key

points in the narrative, including Peter’s confession, a close

reading of Matthew reveals that the titles ‘Christ’ and “Son of

Man” have as much, if not more claim to central importance.

Peter’s confession includes the appellation χριστὸς in addition

to ‘Son of God.’ In the only place where Jesus actually

acknowledges the validity of the title when applied to him,

26:63-64, he is not merely affirming the title ‘Son of God,’ but

χριστὸς as well.33 The designation ‘Son of God’ is a term that

conveys Messianic overtones, but is not the central focus of the

gospel.

The title may also function as a title for Jesus that

would convey truth about his identity to both Jew and Gentile. It

has already been shown in this paper that Matthew uses

intertextual allusions to connect Jesus with Yahweh, but then the

question arises about how he may have made similar information

about Jesus accessible to Gentile readers. Certainly, by the time

the gospel was written and circulated, there would have been at

least some Gentiles in the audience who likely would not have

understood the deep Old Testament connections of Matthew. Add to

that the fact Matthew seems to write in such a way as to affirm

that the gospel is extended to the Gentiles, even at the expense

of the Jews. He likely would have had Gentiles in his community,

32 Kingsbury, “The Title ‘Son of God’ in Matthew’s Gospel,” 30–31.33 Novakovic, “Jesus as the Davidic Messiah in Matthew,” 168.

18

even if it was primarily composed of Jewish Christians. While

Matthew was almost certainly Jewish in background, he lived in a

Roman imperial context in which there were certain intrusions of

Roman imperial policy and culture that could not be avoided.

Therefore, he would have had some encyclopedic points of contact

with the Gentiles in his community and potential audience that

may have served him in writing a work that Gentiles could access

at some level. An example of this may be found in 15:29-31, which

Jonathan Pennington says could be a narrative recapitulation of

the discourse-heavy chapters 5-9 specifically for Gentiles (the

key phrase is ἐδόξασαν τὸν θεὸν Ἰσραήλ).34 If this is a

legitimate example, then it would prove that Matthew did indeed

make concessions for his Gentile readers.

In the Roman imperial encyclopedic context of Matthew, the

title ‘Son of God’ would have evoked a different idea for Gentile

readers than for Jewish readers. R.L. Mowery demonstrates that by

the time that Matthew was writing, there was an established

tradition of calling the emperor a divi filius (‘son of a divinized

man’), because beginning with Julius Caesar there was a practice

of consecrating the deceased emperor as a divus (‘divinized

man’).35 In Greek, the distinction was lost between divus and deus,

so that the title was translated as θεοῦ υἱὸς.36 In terms of NT

usage, the only record of the title ‘Son of God’ in the order

34 Pennington, “Lecture over Matthew 14-15.”35 Mowery, “Son of God in Roman Imperial Titles and Matthew,” 101.36 Ibid.

19

found in most Roman imperial inscriptions is in Matthew.37 Mowery

makes the argument that Matthew intentionally ordered the phrase

in this way to evoke the Roman imperial usage for his Gentile

audience.38 From an intertextual perspective, this could have

served a similar function to the OT allusions, conveying the

truth that Jesus is the unique Son of the true God.

In the context of Matthew, ‘Son of God’ is rarely used,

which leads one to question what place it has in the narrative.

It is possible that ‘Son of God’ is the title that the Evangelist

uses to bring Jew and Gentile together in one confession. Two

arguments support this. First, Matthew does not develop the

concept of divine sonship very much, leading one to believe that

it is assumed by his community as a common confession.39 Second,

Matthew’s established skill as a communicator precludes the idea

that he would have simply ignored the Gentile readers in his

audience. R.T. France, in his article on formula quotations, puts

forward the idea that texts can contain both a ‘surface meaning’

and ‘bonus meaning.’40 In other words, Matthew’s text may be

understood on different levels by different readers, a function

of excellent communication.

37 Ibid.38 Ibid., 110.39 Verseput, “The Role and Meaning of the ‘Son of God’ Title in

Matthew’s Gospel,” 537.40 France, “The Formula-Quotations of Matthew 2 and the Problem of

Communication,” 240–241.20

ConclusionWithin the book of Matthew, narrative drives theology, so

it is important to understand the place of a pericope within the story in order to understand its function. Matthew 14:22-33 is clearly focused on the question of Jesus’ identity. Matthew also demonstrates an early belief in Jesus’ divinity through his use of allusion, and his ‘Son of God’ language is a Christological confession intended to unite his Jew and Gentile readers.

21

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Achtemeier, Paul J. “Person and Deed : Jesus and the Storm-TossedSea.” Interpretation Apr 1962, April 1, 1962.

Alkier, Stefan. “From Text to Intertext: Intertextuality as a Paradigm for Reading Matthew.” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 61, no. 1–2 (March 1, 2005): 1–18.

Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Vol. 2. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988.

France, R. T. “The Formula-Quotations of Matthew 2 and the Problem of Communication.” New Test. Stud. New Testament Studies 27,no. 02 (1981).

———. The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Pub., 2007.

Hagner, Donald Alfred. Matthew. 14-28. Dallas, Tex.: Word Books, 1995.

Heil, John Paul. Jesus Walking on the Sea: Meaning and Gospel Functions of Matt. 14:22-33, Mark 6:45-52, and John 6:15b-21. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981.

Kingsbury, Jack Dean. “The Title ‘Son of God’ in Matthew’s Gospel.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 5, no. 1 (1975): 3–31.

Madden, Patrick J. Jesus’ Walking on the Sea: An Investigation of the Origin of theNarrative Account. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1997.

Mowery, R. L. “Son of God in Roman Imperial Titles and Matthew.” Biblica 83, no. 1 (2002): 100–110.

22

Novakovic, Lidija. “Jesus as the Davidic Messiah in Matthew.” Horizons in Biblical Theology 19, no. 2 (December 1, 1997): 148–91.

Pennington, Jonathan. “Lecture over Matthew 14-15.” Class Notes presented at the Matthew Class, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, March 19, 2015.

Runge, Steven E. Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers Marketing, 2010.

Scott, J Martin C. “Jesus Walking on the Sea: The Significance ofMatthew 14,22-23 for the Narrative Development of the Gospel.” In Narrativity in Biblical and Related Texts, 91–104. Leuven: Leuven Univ Pr, 2000.

Smit Sibinga, Joost. “Matthew 14:22-33: Text and Composition.” InNew Testament Textual Criticism; Its Significance for Exegesis, 15–33. Oxford: Clarendon Pr, 1981.

Thimmes, Pamela Lee. Studies in the Biblical Sea-Storm Type-Scene: Convention and Invention. San Francisco; Lewiston, NY, USA: Mellen Research University Press ; Order fulfillment, E. Mellen Press, 1992.

Verseput, Donald J. “The Role and Meaning of the ‘Son of God’ Title in Matthew’s Gospel.” New Testament Studies 33, no. 04 (October 1987): 532–56. doi:10.1017/S0028688500020993.

23