Abstract
Brandon Crowe’s The Obedient Son is a slightly revised version of his Ph.D. thesis submitted to the University of Edinburgh in 2010. He explores what ways, if any, Deuteronomy’s theme of Israel as obedient sons may have contributed to Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus. It is a worthwhile research question and although the results are somewhat ambiguous, the investigation is instructive at several points. The book is well researched and clearly written.
Crowe begins by documenting how influential the book of Deuteronomy was in Jewish and Christian late antiquity. He notes that in Matthew Deuteronomy is formally cited a number of times and is alluded to here and there. Crowe believes that Dt. 1.31, 8.5, 14.1, and 32.5, 19–20 are important for understanding the Matthean evangelist’s Christology. Passages in Matthew that come under scrutiny are 1.20, 3.15–17, 4.1–11, 12.46–50, 17.1–21, and 21.28–22.14.
The strongest part of his work is seen in his treatment of the three temptations (Mt. 4.1–11), in which Jesus responds to Satan with quotations from Deuteronomy. Given that the first two temptations begin with the words, ‘If you are the Son of God … ’ (Mt. 4.3, 6), one could argue that the Matthean evangelist is portraying Jesus as the obedient son envisioned in the book of Deuteronomy. But does the temptation story tell us much about Matthew’s christological distinctives? After all, the same material appears in Lk. 4.1–13. I have no doubt that the temptation tradition is compatible with Matthean theology, but does it bear the weight Crowe wishes to place upon it?
The other evidence for the thesis that Matthew has developed an obedient son Christology inspired by Deuteronomy faces similar difficulties. Crowe discusses the voice at the baptism: ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased’ (Mt. 3.17). Most commentators appeal to Ps. 2.7, Isa. 42.1, and/or Gen. 22. Crowe raises objections to these passages, finds the Aramaic paraphrase of Ps. 2.7 (which adds the adjective ‘beloved’) too late and too uncertain, and appeals instead to Dt. 32.5 and 32.19–20. I find it more than a little ironic that in justifying the appeal to passages from Deuteronomy Crowe calls our attention to Aramaic readings found in the Targums. Although he engages briefly some good scholarship at this point, Crowe’s discussion of the Targums lacks sophistication.
Many readers will probably find Crowe’s categories of ‘strong allusions’, ‘likely allusions’, ‘significant possibilities’, and ‘possible allusions’ imprecise. Indeed, under the heading of ‘strong allusions’ is discussion of explicit quotations from Deuteronomy.
These criticisms notwithstanding, Crowe has written a monograph that draws its readers into Matthew’s world of scriptural apologetic and creativity. Deuteronomy, along with a number of other important Scriptures, such as Isaiah and Psalms, played an important role in the emerging theology of the early Church, especially in its dialogue with the synagogue. Crowe’s study helps us better understand this important dialogue and may shed some light on Matthew’s contribution to it.