Thursday Scholarly Notes
9/4/25
Kingsbury, Jack Dean. (1975). Chapter 3: The Christology of Matthew: Other Titles." in Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom. (pp. 84-127). Philadelphia: Fortress Press. (Personal Library)
In this chapter Kingsbury attempts to demonstrate that "Son of God" is the central title of Jesus in Matthew's Gospel and to do so by comparing it with other titles used for Christ (Kingsbury 1975, p. 84). He addresses twelve different titles, essentially in order from least to most important from a christological point of view.
The name "Jesus," essentially meaning "Savior," appears 150 times (Kingsbury 1975, p. 84). Matthew's use of the name strikes Kingsbury as pointing not to Jesus' majesty but to a definition of his mission. Of course, it does double duty as it is also his personal name (Kingsbury 1975, p. 85). The name is predominantly used simply as an identifier, rather than as a title.
Matthew uses "son of Abraham" once to describe Jesus. The significance of this as a designation of the heir of God's promises to Abraham would be hard to miss (Kingsbury 1975, p. 85). He is thus designated as the true Israelite as well as the one through whom the Gentiles are blessed. Kingsbury notes that, as Jesus is also designated as the Son of God, and as he directs his disciples to carry the gospel to the Gentiles, he is taking on divine authority to fulfill the promise made to Abraham (Kingsbury 1975, p. 86). This indicates to Kingsbury that the "Son of God" title is more important than that of "Son of Abraham."
Four times Jesus is referred to as "the Coming One" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 86). This title bears Messianic overtones, also suggesting that the "Coming One" performs divine actions. Due to the Messianic context, then, Kingsbury considers the title to point to the greater title, "Son of God." The title "Coming One" urges an understanding of the authority and divinity of the one expected.
Jesus is three times described as the "Shepherd." It is fair to add to these references the one use of a verb for herding and the eleven references to his sheep (Kingsbury 1975, p. 87). The Old Testament frequently identifies God as the shepherd of Israel, and the Messiah is the coming one who will actually engage in the work of the shepherd (Kingsbury 1975, p. 87). The Messianic symbolism thus appears strong. While Matthew frequently refers to Israel as a flock, he does not push the term of shepherd upon Jesus frequently. Rather, the term used frequently for Jesus the shepherd is "Son of God." When Jesus uses the term of himself it is in the context of his impending death, which Kingsbury notes is particularly as the "Son of God" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 88). Thus Kingsbury concludes that the term "shepherd" is of less centrality than "Son of God."
Kingsbury observes that the title 'prophet," while applied to Jesus in Matthew's Gospel, is applied broadly to others including the Old Testament prophets and John the Baptist (Kingsbury 1975, p. 88). Jesus' positive mentions of the prophets suggests that, as portrayed in Matthew, the term does not bear nearly the same importance as "Son of God." Kingsbury notes that even unbelieving crowds recognized Jesus as a prophet (Kingsbury 1975, p. 89). Kingsbury makes extensive comments regarding the comparisons made between Jesus and Moses (Kingsbury 1975, pp. 89-92). In all, while the similarities certainly exist, when Jesus does signs reminiscent of Moses, he is routinely referred to, or refers to himself, not as a prophet but as the "Son of God."
Jesus is addressed on occasions as "Rabbi" or "teacher," terms which Kingsbury takes to be used synonymously and to often be applied to any respected scribe or teacher (Kingsbury 1975, p. 92). It strikes Kingsbury as significant that Jesus' disciples do not use this term for him. Once again, we see that when Jesus is engaged in his teaching work, the important title for him is not "teacher" but "Son of God" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 93).
Kingsbury next addresses the term he translates as "servant" (παῖς), used once in Matthew, freely adapted from Isaiah 42 (Kingsbury 1975, p. 93). While I question the wisdom of woodenly using the term as "servant" I free grant that here it is the most appropriate understanding of the passage in Isaiah. Kingsbury observes that while the use of Isaiah in Matthew 12:18-21 speaks to actions and characteristics of Jesus, all are described elsewhere in Matthew in more detail and while identifying Jesus as "Son of God" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 94). He thus concludes that, as before, the primary christological title is "Son of God."
In the passage about the origin of Jesus, the term "Emmanuel" is used of him (Kingsbury 1975, p. 95). Though the significance of Jesus as "God with us" is enormous, the word is not even used as his actual proper name. The role of the person Jesus is certainly that of "God with us." However, it is played out under the different christological title, "Son of God" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 96).
The remaining titles Kingsbury discusses he considers major christological terms (Kingsbury 1975, p. 96). He first deals with "Messiah" ("Christ"), which can also be interpreted as "King." Kingsbury observes that the Messiah is Jesus, who brings history to a head, making either salvation or damnation available (Kingsbury 1975, p. 97). The title can be qualified to indicate the "King of the Jews" or the 'Son of God." In Matthew 16:16 and 26:63, Jesus ties the term directly to the "King of the Jews" and the 'Son of God" (Kingsbury 1975, pp. 97-98). Kingsbury is inclined to see the title used at times to distance Jesus from the association of the suffering servant idea (Kingsbury 1975, p. 98).
Related to the concept of Jesus as a king is that of him as the "Son of David" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 99). While the term is important, Kingsbury does not take it to have as great a significance as "Son of God." In terms of conceptual categories, "Son of David" belongs with "Son of Abraham" and likely serves to direct attention to Jesus as the king who provides blessing to the nations (Kingsbury 1975, p. 100). These titles are used with a narrow scope, involving some healings and Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. Kingsbury takes the people healed by Jesus as an indication that Jesus' role is as a humble king (Kingsbury 1975, p. 101). This further advances his theory that the "Son of David" title is less important than "Son of God."
The title "Κύριος" ("Lord") is frequently held forth as the primary title for Jesus (Kingsbury 1975, p. 103). The work of G. Bornkamm has played a leading role in these conclusions. Kingsbury reviews Bornkamm's work in some detail. He identifies three levels of usage of the term in Matthew. First, it is frequently used in a "conventional fashion" as a title of respect, such as "sir" in English (Kingsbury 1975, p. 105). In many instances, it is also used as a denotation of "God." The third use, and the one most closely related to Kingsbury's argument, is the use with christological significance (Kingsbury 1975, p. 106). For this analysis, Kingsbury looks at the use of "Lord" in the parables. Within the parables, the word is used, normally in the vocative case, in an interpersonal manner (Kingsbury 1975, pp. 106-107). In effect, we see Jesus as "Lord" but the term does not normally bear the weight used for "Son of God." Kingsbury considers the relationship of "Lord" to other titles, finding that proximity and use in apposition tie it most closely to "Son of David" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 110). Ties to other christological terms are not as strong.
The references to Jesus as "Son of Man" are the final ones used for examination in this chapter. Kingsbury observes that "Son of Man" is related, in Matthew, to Jesus' "public ministry; to his suffering, death, and resurrection; and to his parousia" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 113). He considers Matthew to have actively increased the use of "Son of Man" references "available to him from the tradition" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 114). He further considers the references to be associated with reference to 'Son of God" and, further, to have a "public" character in which anyone would feel free to refer to Jesus as the "Son of Man" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 115). Despite the public nature of the title, it is used, especially by Jesus, as bearing authority. Kingsbury briefly entertains the theory that, especially in what he considers redactional passages, uses of "Son of Man" are simply to be understood as a personal pronoun (Kingsbury 1975, pp. 118 ff). In his estimation, they are stronger and more laden with christological significance than if they were intended as personal pronouns. He concludes that "Son of Man" is a public title equivalent to "Son of God," which is a private title (Kingsbury 1975, pp. 121-122).
Kingsbury briefly concludes that in Matthew Jesus is presented, above all, as the Son of God. All other titles are subservient to that one (Kingsbury 1975, p. 126).
9/4/25
Kingsbury, Jack Dean. (1975). Chapter 3: The Christology of Matthew: Other Titles." in Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom. (pp. 84-127). Philadelphia: Fortress Press. (Personal Library)
In this chapter Kingsbury attempts to demonstrate that "Son of God" is the central title of Jesus in Matthew's Gospel and to do so by comparing it with other titles used for Christ (Kingsbury 1975, p. 84). He addresses twelve different titles, essentially in order from least to most important from a christological point of view.
The name "Jesus," essentially meaning "Savior," appears 150 times (Kingsbury 1975, p. 84). Matthew's use of the name strikes Kingsbury as pointing not to Jesus' majesty but to a definition of his mission. Of course, it does double duty as it is also his personal name (Kingsbury 1975, p. 85). The name is predominantly used simply as an identifier, rather than as a title.
Matthew uses "son of Abraham" once to describe Jesus. The significance of this as a designation of the heir of God's promises to Abraham would be hard to miss (Kingsbury 1975, p. 85). He is thus designated as the true Israelite as well as the one through whom the Gentiles are blessed. Kingsbury notes that, as Jesus is also designated as the Son of God, and as he directs his disciples to carry the gospel to the Gentiles, he is taking on divine authority to fulfill the promise made to Abraham (Kingsbury 1975, p. 86). This indicates to Kingsbury that the "Son of God" title is more important than that of "Son of Abraham."
Four times Jesus is referred to as "the Coming One" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 86). This title bears Messianic overtones, also suggesting that the "Coming One" performs divine actions. Due to the Messianic context, then, Kingsbury considers the title to point to the greater title, "Son of God." The title "Coming One" urges an understanding of the authority and divinity of the one expected.
Jesus is three times described as the "Shepherd." It is fair to add to these references the one use of a verb for herding and the eleven references to his sheep (Kingsbury 1975, p. 87). The Old Testament frequently identifies God as the shepherd of Israel, and the Messiah is the coming one who will actually engage in the work of the shepherd (Kingsbury 1975, p. 87). The Messianic symbolism thus appears strong. While Matthew frequently refers to Israel as a flock, he does not push the term of shepherd upon Jesus frequently. Rather, the term used frequently for Jesus the shepherd is "Son of God." When Jesus uses the term of himself it is in the context of his impending death, which Kingsbury notes is particularly as the "Son of God" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 88). Thus Kingsbury concludes that the term "shepherd" is of less centrality than "Son of God."
Kingsbury observes that the title 'prophet," while applied to Jesus in Matthew's Gospel, is applied broadly to others including the Old Testament prophets and John the Baptist (Kingsbury 1975, p. 88). Jesus' positive mentions of the prophets suggests that, as portrayed in Matthew, the term does not bear nearly the same importance as "Son of God." Kingsbury notes that even unbelieving crowds recognized Jesus as a prophet (Kingsbury 1975, p. 89). Kingsbury makes extensive comments regarding the comparisons made between Jesus and Moses (Kingsbury 1975, pp. 89-92). In all, while the similarities certainly exist, when Jesus does signs reminiscent of Moses, he is routinely referred to, or refers to himself, not as a prophet but as the "Son of God."
Jesus is addressed on occasions as "Rabbi" or "teacher," terms which Kingsbury takes to be used synonymously and to often be applied to any respected scribe or teacher (Kingsbury 1975, p. 92). It strikes Kingsbury as significant that Jesus' disciples do not use this term for him. Once again, we see that when Jesus is engaged in his teaching work, the important title for him is not "teacher" but "Son of God" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 93).
Kingsbury next addresses the term he translates as "servant" (παῖς), used once in Matthew, freely adapted from Isaiah 42 (Kingsbury 1975, p. 93). While I question the wisdom of woodenly using the term as "servant" I free grant that here it is the most appropriate understanding of the passage in Isaiah. Kingsbury observes that while the use of Isaiah in Matthew 12:18-21 speaks to actions and characteristics of Jesus, all are described elsewhere in Matthew in more detail and while identifying Jesus as "Son of God" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 94). He thus concludes that, as before, the primary christological title is "Son of God."
In the passage about the origin of Jesus, the term "Emmanuel" is used of him (Kingsbury 1975, p. 95). Though the significance of Jesus as "God with us" is enormous, the word is not even used as his actual proper name. The role of the person Jesus is certainly that of "God with us." However, it is played out under the different christological title, "Son of God" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 96).
The remaining titles Kingsbury discusses he considers major christological terms (Kingsbury 1975, p. 96). He first deals with "Messiah" ("Christ"), which can also be interpreted as "King." Kingsbury observes that the Messiah is Jesus, who brings history to a head, making either salvation or damnation available (Kingsbury 1975, p. 97). The title can be qualified to indicate the "King of the Jews" or the 'Son of God." In Matthew 16:16 and 26:63, Jesus ties the term directly to the "King of the Jews" and the 'Son of God" (Kingsbury 1975, pp. 97-98). Kingsbury is inclined to see the title used at times to distance Jesus from the association of the suffering servant idea (Kingsbury 1975, p. 98).
Related to the concept of Jesus as a king is that of him as the "Son of David" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 99). While the term is important, Kingsbury does not take it to have as great a significance as "Son of God." In terms of conceptual categories, "Son of David" belongs with "Son of Abraham" and likely serves to direct attention to Jesus as the king who provides blessing to the nations (Kingsbury 1975, p. 100). These titles are used with a narrow scope, involving some healings and Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. Kingsbury takes the people healed by Jesus as an indication that Jesus' role is as a humble king (Kingsbury 1975, p. 101). This further advances his theory that the "Son of David" title is less important than "Son of God."
The title "Κύριος" ("Lord") is frequently held forth as the primary title for Jesus (Kingsbury 1975, p. 103). The work of G. Bornkamm has played a leading role in these conclusions. Kingsbury reviews Bornkamm's work in some detail. He identifies three levels of usage of the term in Matthew. First, it is frequently used in a "conventional fashion" as a title of respect, such as "sir" in English (Kingsbury 1975, p. 105). In many instances, it is also used as a denotation of "God." The third use, and the one most closely related to Kingsbury's argument, is the use with christological significance (Kingsbury 1975, p. 106). For this analysis, Kingsbury looks at the use of "Lord" in the parables. Within the parables, the word is used, normally in the vocative case, in an interpersonal manner (Kingsbury 1975, pp. 106-107). In effect, we see Jesus as "Lord" but the term does not normally bear the weight used for "Son of God." Kingsbury considers the relationship of "Lord" to other titles, finding that proximity and use in apposition tie it most closely to "Son of David" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 110). Ties to other christological terms are not as strong.
The references to Jesus as "Son of Man" are the final ones used for examination in this chapter. Kingsbury observes that "Son of Man" is related, in Matthew, to Jesus' "public ministry; to his suffering, death, and resurrection; and to his parousia" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 113). He considers Matthew to have actively increased the use of "Son of Man" references "available to him from the tradition" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 114). He further considers the references to be associated with reference to 'Son of God" and, further, to have a "public" character in which anyone would feel free to refer to Jesus as the "Son of Man" (Kingsbury 1975, p. 115). Despite the public nature of the title, it is used, especially by Jesus, as bearing authority. Kingsbury briefly entertains the theory that, especially in what he considers redactional passages, uses of "Son of Man" are simply to be understood as a personal pronoun (Kingsbury 1975, pp. 118 ff). In his estimation, they are stronger and more laden with christological significance than if they were intended as personal pronouns. He concludes that "Son of Man" is a public title equivalent to "Son of God," which is a private title (Kingsbury 1975, pp. 121-122).
Kingsbury briefly concludes that in Matthew Jesus is presented, above all, as the Son of God. All other titles are subservient to that one (Kingsbury 1975, p. 126).
RSS Feed