Wisdom literature has often been treated as an eccentric relative in the family of Old Testament texts. While there has been an outpouring of wisdom scholarship in recent decades, this scholarship is not well integrated into either recent or classic comprehensive Old Testament theologies.Footnote 1 Old Testament theology has customarily focused on the major events of salvation history: the exodus from Egypt, divine election, and covenant. The lack of attention to salvation history in wisdom literature as well as its emphasis on daily experience and openness to international influence makes it difficult to fit the texts of wisdom literature into cohesive systems formed from reflection on salvation history.Footnote 2 Consequently, Old Testament theologies either relegate wisdom literature to a minority status or treat it as a competing theological voice.Footnote 3 Important insights for understanding Israel's faith are lost, however, in positing a false contrast between wisdom literature and salvation history.
The lack of attention to salvation history in wisdom literature does not indicate a competing viewpoint and is not set in contrast to theology that emerges from reflection on exodus, divine election, and covenant.Footnote 4 Instead, the aim of wisdom literature is to deepen the relationship between Israel and God by integrating that relationship into the fabric of ordinary life. Wisdom literature recognizes daily life as the center of learning, knowledge, and revelation, and it values the connection between creation and salvation.Footnote 5
The neglect of wisdom literature in Old Testament theology has consequences for interpreting wisdom themes in the New Testament. While many recognize that wisdom themes are present in the New Testament, interpretation of the impact of these themes often neglects the deep connection between wisdom and salvation history. An example of this problem is seen in interpretations of Matthew 11:25–30.
While almost all interpretations of Matthew 11:25–30 recognize wisdom motifs throughout the passage, particularly through the link between Jesus and personified Wisdom, interpreters differ from one another regarding the significance of this connection.Footnote 6 Two important contemporary commentaries demonstrate these differences. Celia M. Deutsch, in her thorough analysis, sees the link between Jesus and the metaphor of personified Wisdom as the central point for interpretation.Footnote 7 W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison recognize this link but state that the equation of Jesus with Wisdom is only “at the periphery of Matthew's major concerns.”Footnote 8 Their analysis argues that Mosaic motifs are of primary importance.Footnote 9 Despite using different lenses for interpretation, these two exegetical opinions point to similar themes present in this passage. The emergence of similar themes, regardless of whether Mosaic or wisdom motifs are used as the primary lens for interpretation, suggests a connection between wisdom traditions and salvation history through the symbols, metaphors, and narratives of Second Temple Judaism and indicates that Matthew 11:25–30 provides fertile ground for exploring this connection.
This essay explores the interplay of Mosaic themes and personified Wisdom in Matthew 11:25–30. I begin with a discussion of the importance of symbol, metaphor, and narrative as tools for theological reflection. This is followed by analyses of Matthew 11:25–30 using two different lenses for interpretation: the first focuses on Mosaic themes, while the second focuses on wisdom themes. The essay concludes with a discussion of the implications for interpretation when the text is viewed as a convergence of both themes.
I. Symbol, Metaphor, and Narrative as Tools for Theological Reflection
Dale Allison points out that the Moses of Haggadah is nearly omniscient, described with traits usually reserved for God.Footnote 10 He gives this example:
Already the Exagogue of Ezekiel has Moses recount this: “I beheld the entire circled earth, both beneath the earth and above the heaven; and a host of stars fell at my feet, and I numbered then all;” and the text goes on to announce that Moses saw all “things present, past, and future.” Most startling here is the assertion, to my knowledge unparalleled, that Moses numbered stars. In Jewish tradition it was precisely this that human beings, with their comparatively feeble mental powers, cannot do. . . The rule is: only God can count stars. But in Ezekiel's Exagogue Moses is the exception.Footnote 11
Allison also provides a series of quotations from texts written after 164 BCE but before 70 CE that demonstrate a clear connection between Moses, knowledge, and wisdom.Footnote 12 A method for theological reflection is glimpsed in these texts, one that makes use of both metaphor and myth to express theological truth. Furthermore, the historical narrative of the person of Moses is the foundation and anchor for more abstract theological concepts. The great truths of creation, salvation, and eschatology are not merely speculative but are revealed through a historical person in a particular time through remembered historical events.
A similar move is made by New Testament writers. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza explores the use of mythic language in the Christological hymns of the New Testament to speak of Jesus of Nazareth. Noting that these hymns are “among the earliest Christological statements found in the New Testament,” Schüssler Fiorenza points out the strangeness of attaching the mythic language of preexistence, creation of the world, and exaltation over earthly and heavenly powers to a concrete historical person.Footnote 13 She argues that this connection did not come about through reflection on a single myth but through a theological method that she refers to as “reflective mythology,” which “uses mythical materials as thought categories for its own theological reflection and conception.”Footnote 14
Theological reflection that links the historic figures of Moses and Jesus with abstract theological concepts such as preexistence, creation, and exaltation recognizes the intimacy of the relationship between these historical figures and God, and that this intimacy is a source of revelation. This theological reflection reaches toward symbolic language that is not limited to the arena of reasoning, but engages the imagination and emotions as well.Footnote 15 While this theological reflection moves toward abstract concepts, it nevertheless remains rooted in tradition by using the symbols, metaphors, and narratives of Second Temple Judaism. Two symbols of Second Temple Judaism, the tensive metaphor of personified Wisdom and Mosaic typology, are used in Matthew as tools for theological reflection on the significance of Jesus.
As the metaphor of personified Wisdom is used as a tool for theological reflection in Matthew, the metaphor is transformed from revolving around the axis of Torah, as it does in Second Temple Judaism, to a focus on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. This transformation marks a shift in the symbolic center of theological thinking from the realm of Torah to the realm of Christology. Jesus is identified with revelation and becomes the definitive embodiment of Wisdom.Footnote 16
The transformation of this symbol in Matthew provides an illustration of theological reflection that seeks to understand Jesus through the vehicle of traditional metaphors that are tensive. A tensive metaphor is not limited or adequately expressed by one referent. Rather, it has a set of meanings and may shift and expand to include new content in the face of new experiences and in shifting historical contexts.Footnote 17 The use of these tensive but familiar metaphors opens up new meaning for the whole community by linking the new content with a familiar form and therefore providing stability in the midst of changing historical situations.Footnote 18
Mosaic typology is also used in Matthew as a tool for theological reflection on Jesus that links the future of the Christian tradition to the stability of the history of Israel. Allison provides numerous examples of Mosaic typology in Scripture and points to the reason for this widespread use of typology: to anchor the new in the stability of the old. “Typology, which puts its perceivers in two stories at once, can provide an instant history for a community.”Footnote 19 The new situation is seen in light of the old, and this confluence of stories appeals to the emotions, points to one God behind history, and gives birth to and nurtures a community's symbolic universe.Footnote 20
The use of personified Wisdom and Mosaic typology as tools for theological reflection on Jesus in Matthew demonstrates the importance of symbol, metaphor, and narrative in expressing theological truth. The two symbols of personified Wisdom and Mosaic typology converge in Matthew 11:25–30. This text focuses on the intimacy of the relationship between Jesus and God as a source of revelation. In order to provide both continuity and stability for the novelty of his theological reflection, Matthew reaches back to two symbols of Second Temple Judaism. The convergence of these two symbols points to integration rather than competition between these symbols in Second Temple Judaism. Before moving to a discussion of this convergence, some preliminary comments on this text are in order.
II. Preliminary Observations on Matthew 11:25–30
Matthew 11:25–30 begins with a prayer (vv. 25–26), followed by a revelation saying (v. 27), and concludes with an invitation (vv. 28–30).Footnote 21 The prayer and revelation saying (vv. 25–27) are Q material also found in Luke (10:21–22). In both Matthew and Luke, the prayer and revelation saying follow the woes addressed to the Galilean cities and are surrounded by themes of acceptance/rejection and revelation/hiddenness. In Luke, however, the motif of acceptance/rejection is focused on the mission of the disciples and the peoples' response to that mission, while in Matthew the focus shifts to the identity of Jesus and the significance of his words and deeds.Footnote 22
There are redactional differences between Matthew and Luke's use of Q material in these verses, but the most obvious and significant difference between them is the addition of the invitation (vv. 28–30) in Matthew.Footnote 23 Allison and Deutsch are in agreement regarding the importance of the addition of these verses, but each interprets the significance of this Matthean redactional change differently. Allison argues that the invitation contains Mosaic themes and is therefore a confirmation that the major motif behind Matthew 11:25–30 is Mosaic.Footnote 24 Deutsch claims that the invitation contains wisdom themes and highlights the wisdom context of the sayings in verses 25–27.Footnote 25 Both claims are worth exploring more thoroughly, and so I will view the text first through the lens of Mosaic themes and then through the lens of personified Wisdom.
III. Mosaic Themes in Matthew 11:25–30
Allison provides ample evidence supporting his view of Mosaic influence on the Matthew 11:25–30.Footnote 26 There are significant parallels between the prayer of Moses in Exodus 33:11–23 and the prayer of Jesus in Matthew 11:25–30. In both texts, reciprocal knowledge is declared in the form of prayer, and both texts introduce a promise of rest. The Exodus passage also influences the order of phrases in Matthew.Footnote 27 Mosaic influence on Matthew 11:25–30 is broader than its parallels with Exodus 33:11–23, however. In the Jewish tradition, Moses is associated with meekness and Torah, and Torah is associated with yoke. Seeing God, knowing God, and all things being handed over to a human being are associated with Moses.Footnote 28
Furthermore, the Mosaic themes that color Matthew's understanding of Jesus in Matthew 11:25–30 are not isolated occurrences in the Gospel. There is a developed Mosaic/Exodus typology that occurs in the first eight chapters of Matthew's Gospel, is picked up again in 11:25–30, and is evident in the account of the transfiguration in chapter 17.Footnote 29 Matthew reaches back to these Mosaic themes and uses them in his theological reflection on Jesus in three significant ways. First, Matthew is intent on presenting a continuity between the new law of Jesus and the law of Moses. Moses is associated with Torah, and associating Jesus with Moses is therefore a way to say to the church that the new law of Jesus is in continuity with the law of Moses. Second, the use of Mosaic themes in theological reflection on Jesus has eschatological implications. Knowledge of God and rest were expectations of the eschatological kingdom, and their association with Jesus in Matthew 11:25–30 indicates that Jesus is the herald of the eschatological community.Footnote 30 Third, the use of Mosaic themes in this passage points to the intimacy between God and Jesus as the source of revelation.
The intimacy of the relationship between God and Moses as a source of revelation is a theme that is prevalent in both Jewish and Christian theological reflections. Three Mosaic texts lie behind and form the foundation for Matthew's theological reflection on Jesus in these verses.Footnote 31 The three texts—Exodus 33:11–23, Numbers 12:1–8, and Deuteronomy 34:9–12—are linked both verbally and thematically. Verbally the texts are linked by the use of the phrase “face to face,” by the word “know,” and by reference to Moses as a prophet.Footnote 32 Thematically the texts are linked by a focus on reciprocal knowledge between Moses and God springing from the intimacy of their relationship. Matthew is not alone in linking these three texts; such a linkage also occurs in theological reflections on the subject of “seeing God” in the writings of Ecclesiasticus, Philo, the church fathers, and in rabbinic literature as well.Footnote 33 These three texts are foundational for understanding the relationship between God and Moses that Matthew and other Christian writers use to reflect on the significance of the intimacy between Jesus and God as the source of revelation. For this reason, further exploration is in order so that the rich nuance of Matthew's use of these texts for theological reflection on Jesus can be fully appreciated.
Exodus 33:11–23 is not only the first text to which Allison points as background for the Mosaic images incorporated in Matthew 11:25–30. It is also of primary importance because the book of Exodus is one of the major narratives informing the symbolic universe of Matthew's theological reflection. Attention to the narrative context of Exodus 33:11–23 is therefore vital. The dialogue in this passage comes at a crucial time for the people of Israel, occurring between the sin of the people in chapter 32 and the renewal of the covenant in chapter 34. These chapters are fraught with both literary and theological tensions. While redaction of various traditions plays a role in the literary tensions of these chapters, that tension is not merely redactional.Footnote 34 Behind it, at the narrative root, lies a theological tension—namely, the uncertainty of the relationship between God and Israel.Footnote 35
The relationship between God and Moses is described in verse 11: “Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to his friend.”Footnote 36 Moses' prayer to God (vv. 12–17) further elaborates on the intimacy of this relationship. In that prayer, Moses makes two claims regarding his special status before God: God knows Moses by name, and Moses has found favor in God's sight (v. 12). Moses' special status before God is the thread that runs through this entire dialogue.Footnote 37 As the dialogue continues, however, it becomes clear that Moses is now unsure of the future and whether his status before God has changed. Israel's disobedience is the reason. The uncertainty in the relationship between God and Israel seeps into and colors the relationship between Moses and God.
Exodus 33 emphasizes Moses' special status before God, and that status involves the people of Israel. The people are central in the relationship between Moses and God from the beginning. In Exodus 3:4–14, when God first calls Moses by name, the reason for the call is given: “I have observed the misery of my people who are in Egypt” (3:7). Moses is given a responsibility to lead the Israelites into the Promised Land. When Moses questions his ability to perform such a task, he is given an assurance: “I will be with you” (3:12). Ever since the disobedience of the golden calf incident, however, God has threatened both to exterminate the people (32:9–10) and to no longer accompany them (33:3). Both aspects of the call to Moses—that he would lead the people of Israel and that God will be with him as he leads them—are threatened.
The tension in the dialogue in Exodus 33 is a tension rooted in the intimacy of the relationship between Moses and God, a relationship that includes the people of Israel but is also threatened because of their sin. Moses persistently inserts the people of Israel into the dialogue (vv. 13, 16), and with equal persistence God leaves them out.Footnote 38 While God has promised to start over with Moses, Moses insists on a continued relationship between all of Israel and God.
Remarkably, in verse 17, God agrees to do as Moses asks. He reassures Moses of his special status: “You have found favor in my sight and I know you by name.” A turning point has been reached: this paragraph forms the bridge between the disobedience of the people of Israel in chapter 32 and the renewal of the covenant between God and the people of Israel in chapter 34. Moses' special status before God is unique but not private. It is a relationship that has soteriological implications for the people of Israel.
Like Exodus 33, the focus of Numbers 12:1–8 is the unique status of Moses and the availability of God's presence to Israel through the intimacy of the relationship between Moses and God. The passage in Numbers comes in the context of several stories that follow the pattern of rebellion on the part of the people of Israel and eventual forgiveness through the intercession of Moses, the same pattern that operates in Exodus 32–34. In Numbers 11, 12–13, and again in 16–17, controversy emerges regarding the unique status and authority of Moses.Footnote 39 In the context of addressing questions about his legitimacy as the unique spokesperson for God, a characterization of Moses is offered: “Now, the man Moses was very humble, more so than anyone else on the face of the earth” (Num 12:13). This is one of the primary ways in which Moses is remembered by Israel and is also one of the key verbal links to Matthew 11:25–30.Footnote 40 It is therefore essential to determine what is meant by this designation.
In his commentary on the Rule of Benedict, Terrence G. Kardong examines the biblical dimensions of the virtue of humility and makes an interesting observation. In his discussion of the two Greek words associated with an attitude of humility, tapeinos (humble) and praus (gentle or meek), he points to a difference in how these characteristics are perceived in Greek and Jewish culture. For the classical Greek writers, being tapeinos was not a quality valued in Greek society. In fact it was a quality associated with slaves, and “no Greek noble would want to think or act like a slave.”Footnote 41 On the other hand, Greek nobles were urged to act with gentleness, to be praus, toward their inferiors. Kardong notes that among Greek classical writers tapeinos and praus are never posited of one person. The two qualities were understood to be incompatible. This is not true of Jewish thinkers, however. Both praus and tapeinos occur together in the Septuagint translation of the prophet Zephaniah's description of returning exiles (Zeph 3:12).Footnote 42 Furthermore, the Messiah would be one who was kind to the weak (Isa 11:2–4) and also one whose character was marked by the quality of lowliness, being praus (Zech 9:9).Footnote 43
This observation of the difficulty of comprehending humility and meekness as qualities that belong together or that can converge in one person is an important one because it highlights the distinctiveness of the Jewish conception of leadership. The distinguishing characteristic of humility as a quality of leadership recognized both the transcendence of God and a limit imposed on the power of the leader. The leader of Israel did not have absolute power. Rather, that power was a gift from God to be used for the sake of the people. In Jewish tradition, Moses is identified as the existential model of a person who was shefal ruah (lowly of spirit), a person of utmost humility, and the basis for that identification is the description of Moses in Numbers 12:3.Footnote 44
Following the identification of Moses as “very humble, more so than anyone else on the face of the earth” (Num 12:3), he is described in exalted terms that point to the unique aspects of his relationship with God. Moses is not given visions or dreams like other prophets but speaks to God face to face (vv. 6–7). He is entrusted with all of God's house (v. 7). He beholds the form of God (v. 8). Philip J. Budd points out that this portrait of Moses shows a development that can be traced to Josiah's reign in the seventh century BCE. During this period, interest in the figure and function of Moses increases, and there is a movement from descriptions of Moses as a leader of the people during difficult times toward understanding him as the heroic savior of the nation. It is a development that moves toward depictions of Moses in Deuteronomy and ultimately toward Mosaic religion, which urges unquestioning allegiance to Moses as an authority figure and author of Mosaic law.Footnote 45 For this reason the book of Numbers' description of Moses as humble before God is crucial. While Mosaic religion emphasizes the authority of Moses because of his unique and intimate relationship with God, at the same time it remembers that Moses' relationship to God is characterized by humility. Ultimate power rests with God, and Moses receives his power for leadership as a gift owing to his intimate relationship with God. It is through Moses' humility that God's saving presence is available to the people of Israel (Num 11:2, 12:13, 16:48).
The third text linked with Exodus 33 and Numbers 12 is Deuteronomy 34:9–12. This text also focuses on the unique relationship between Moses and God and is especially poignant because it discusses that relationship on the occasion of Moses' death outside of the Promised Land. This text forms the conclusion of the book of Deuteronomy, a book dominated by Moses' figure and function.Footnote 46
Exploring the death report of Moses in Deuteronomy 34, George W. Coats finds three important motifs. The first motif is Moses' strength at the end of his life (Deut 34:7). The second is the description of Moses' spirit as a spirit of authority never to be equaled in the leadership of any other man (Deut 34:9). The third is the intimacy between God and Moses, an intimacy not known before Moses and not to be known again (Deut 34:10).
Coats points out that the final verses of Deuteronomy (vv. 10–12) depict Moses performing signs and wonders. In Exodus, the function of the signs and wonders of God is to make God known in all of Egypt.Footnote 47 At the close of Deuteronomy, the signs and wonders of God are identified as signs and wonders performed by Moses and seen by all of Israel. There is a blending of the functions of Moses and God in this passage.Footnote 48 Moses performs signs and wonders before the pharaoh, the people of Egypt, and all of Israel. The intimacy of Moses' relationship with God becomes a means through which God is known in all of Israel, and through the human words of Moses Israel receives God's blessing (Deut 33). On the occasion of Moses' death, it is remembered that his life, words, and actions mediated the life, words, and actions of God.Footnote 49
Exploring the relationship between God and Moses in Exodus 33:11–23, Numbers 12:1–8, and Deuteronomy 34:9–12—the texts that lie in the background of Matthew 11:25–30—yields important insights. All three are focused on the intimacy and uniqueness of Moses' relationship with God. It is clear, however, that the intimacy of the relationship between Moses and God is neither private nor unaffected by circumstances in the world. Rather, the relationship includes Israel, is disrupted by Israel's sin, and is ultimately for and on behalf of the people of Israel. While Moses is exalted in these texts—as one who persuades God, speaks to God face to face, is closer to God than any prophet, and mediates God's presence and forgiveness to the people of Israel—his humility is remembered as a distinguishing feature.Footnote 50 Humility marks Moses' attitude to God but is also a distinguishing quality in his relationship to the people of Israel. Time and again Moses takes up the cause of the people he is leading before God and insists on standing with them in their midst. Ultimately, with humility, Moses hands himself over to God and dies, but not without first continuing to serve the people through teaching and blessing them.
Our analysis of these texts also reveals a trajectory that moves from understanding Moses as the leader of the people to associating him increasingly with qualities normally reserved for God. This trajectory continues and is evident in extracanonical texts.Footnote 51 The basis for this trajectory lies not only in the desire for authority and certainty of revelation but also in the theological reflection that occurs as faith is lived day by day. Inevitably, lived faith confronts questions of a more speculative nature. Why is there suffering? Why is there evil? Why is God's presence hidden? How can we find God's presence?Footnote 52 The intimacy of Moses' relationship with God is the source of revelation, and revelation is tied not only to God's salvation of Israel but also to broader, more abstract theological concepts concerning good and evil, creation, and eschatology.
Matthew 11:25–30 emphasizes the continuity between Jesus and Moses. Like Moses, Jesus has an intimate and unique relationship with God. Just as Moses is known by God and finds favor with God, Jesus is known by God and finds favor with God. The intimacy of this relationship is linked to revelation, since “no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (v. 27). Furthermore, the humility and meekness that are characteristic of Moses as the revealer of God are also characteristic of Jesus as the Son of God. Like the relationship between Moses and God, the relationship between Jesus and God is unique but not private; it is for the sake of the people who will accept him. Even though sin and rejection cause disturbance in the relationship between the people and God, Jesus, like Moses, stands on the side of the people, mediating, at great risk to himself, on behalf of them before God. The continuity between Moses and Jesus in Matthew's Gospel provides stability for Matthew's community, appeals to their emotions, points to the one God behind history, and gives birth to and nurtures their symbolic universe.Footnote 53 Matthew reaches back to traditions about Moses in order to understand the theological implications of the new experience of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
IV. Wisdom Themes in Matthew 11:25–30
Support for the use of wisdom themes as the predominant lens for understanding Matthew 11:25–30 can be found in the explicit wisdom motifs in Jesus' invitation (vv. 28–30). That invitation, “Come to me … and learn from me” (vv. 28–29), echoes invitations to study wisdom found throughout wisdom literature. These invitations are issued by the sages and even by Wisdom herself.Footnote 54 Those who accept Wisdom's invitation wear her yoke; accepting that invitation and wearing her yoke are associated with rest.Footnote 55 Deutsch claims that the explicit wisdom motifs in verses 28–30 confirm the more implicit depiction of Jesus as personified Wisdom in verses 25–27. While never using the word Sophia, the portrayal of Jesus in verses 25–27 mirrors the portrayal of personified Wisdom. Deutsch notes: “Wisdom is hidden, transcendent, known only to God. So, too, Jesus is known only to the Father and to those chosen to become privy to that knowledge. Wisdom is God's child. Wisdom knows the hidden things of God, and mediates that knowledge to the wise. So, too, Jesus is God's son. He alone knows the Father and mediates that knowledge to others.”Footnote 56
We have already noted that in the Gospel of Matthew the metaphor of personified Wisdom that once centered on the axis of Torah is transformed to revolve around the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The use and transformation of the metaphor of personified Wisdom have their roots in the theological reflection of Israel. The speculative questions that emerge as Israel attempts to live in daily obedience to Torah are addressed in wisdom literature. In a way similar to the reflection that emerges concerning Moses, the theological reflection concerning wisdom follows a trajectory that moves from descriptions of wisdom as expertise or perceptiveness to the development of the metaphor of personified Wisdom to the association of Wisdom with qualities generally reserved for God.Footnote 57 As the metaphor of personified Wisdom is used and transformed in the theological reflection of Israel, an implied narrative develops. This implied narrative influences Matthew's use of this metaphor in his theological reflection on Jesus.Footnote 58
In Second Temple Judaism the implied narrative of personified Wisdom involved the divine and yet hidden nature of Wisdom, its revelation by God, the human person's active search for Wisdom, and the drama of Wisdom's acceptance or rejection by human beings. The dominant theme of the implied narrative of personified Wisdom is that “transcendent Wisdom is immanent in creation, in history and in Torah.”Footnote 59 As Deutsch puts it, “The many ways in which Wisdom's myth—her ‘story’—is recounted, tell us that she is preexistent, transcendent. After all, she is God's Wisdom. And yet she is immanent, active in the work of creation, to be found in the created order, in Torah and in the sages' instruction. The quest for Wisdom is a paradox—at once labor and rest.”Footnote 60
The metaphor of personified Wisdom functioned as a means of addressing critical questions that emerged in Israel's confrontation with history. The turbulence of history challenged Israel to reflect on why Israel suffered and why at times God appeared to be absent. Wisdom's withdrawal therefore became an important element of the implied narrative of Wisdom. In this implied narrative the problem of Wisdom's hiddenness is not the result of transcendence; Wisdom, in fact, seeks a dwelling with human beings. Wisdom's withdrawal is the result of sin. Wisdom is forced to withdrawal because human beings have chosen iniquity over Wisdom. Despite this forced withdrawal, Wisdom, while difficult to find, is nevertheless available to those who seek her. Deutsch notes further:
The mythical imagery of these writers does indeed objectify and distance Wisdom from the human person, and it emphasizes the difficulty in finding knowledge or understanding of God. However, the terms of that imagery (daughter, bride, mother, lover, teacher, savior, etc.) equally suggest intimacy, affective attraction, and solidarity. Wisdom is not only free, transcendent, difficult to find, but she is near as nurturer and instructor, engaging the commitment of those who seek her. Free gift, she is also the sure reward of those who engage themselves in quest of her.Footnote 61
The theological reflection of Israel that we see in the implied narrative of personified Wisdom clearly differs from the theological reflection associated with the figure of Moses. While the story of Moses begins with historical persons and events and moves later to address speculative theological questions, the narrative of personified Wisdom emerges from the lived experience of the corporate personality of Israel as they encounter mystery in the midst of ordinary life and seek to anchor questions of a more speculative nature in creation and history. Despite this major difference, however, there are interesting parallels between the two traditions. Intimacy with God as the source of revelation and life is emphasized in both traditions. Furthermore, while more explicitly stated in Mosaic traditions, the understanding that God is revealed and is related to Israel through Torah is assumed by both strands of theological reflection. In both traditions, obedience to Torah and humility are qualities associated with leadership, teaching, and discipleship. Leaders and teachers nurture their disciples, mediate for them with God, and promise rest to faithful followers.
Exploration of theological reflection using the tensive metaphor of personified Wisdom and culminating in the transformation of that metaphor to describe Jesus in Matthew's Gospel leads to several important interpretive insights. Jesus is identified as Wisdom who functions in the role of prophet, teacher, preacher, and the doer of mighty deeds. Just as Wisdom is rejected, Jesus is rejected. Despite this rejection, Jesus offers an invitation to all who will come. Like Wisdom, Jesus is the source of revelation and mediates between God and human beings through teaching. Like the sages, Jesus urges his followers to observe Torah. His reinterpretation of Torah highlights the identification of Jesus with Wisdom. As Wisdom is the source of Torah, so Jesus is the source of Torah reinterpreted. Jesus is the source of revelation because of the quality of his relationship with God, and it is this relationship that lies at the heart of his teaching as well. His relationship to God is as a son who is meek and humble; that relationship is mirrored in his relationship with his disciples. He is not like the Pharisees, who lay heavy burdens on the people but refuse to share those burdens; rather, it is like Wisdom and gives his own yoke to them, one that is light and gives rest. Most importantly, to view Jesus as personified Wisdom emphasizes God's immanence. Jesus is God-with-us and is promised to disciples until the end of time. Deutsch states that it is the quality of immanence that is most emphasized in Matthew's transformation of the metaphor of personified Wisdom.Footnote 62
V. Convergence of the New Moses and the Wisdom of God
While important insights emerge when Matthew 11:25–30 is read either in light of Mosaic themes or through themes associated with personified Wisdom, recognizing that a convergence of these themes occurs in Matthew's text deepens these interpretive insights. This essay will conclude with some important observations that are gained by viewing the text as embodying this convergence.
First, the confluence of themes is not coincidental; it points to an association between wisdom traditions and salvation history that is often underplayed. The two traditions evolved as Israel, trying to live its life in obedience to Torah, encountered sin, suffering, trial, mystery, and an often turbulent history. As Israel encountered new and often painful life experiences, tensive metaphors and traditions were remembered and appealed to in order to interpret and understand these new experiences and to provide stability in the midst of changing history. Theological reflection done in light of changing experiences was not limited to rational thinking but also appealed to the imagination and the emotions. Therefore a convergence of symbols and metaphors is not only possible but likely, as Matthew reflects specifically on the intimacy of the relationship between Jesus and God as the source of revelation.Footnote 63
Second, it is important to note that both Moses and personified Wisdom are associated with revelation that arises from an intimate relationship with God and is offered to the people of Israel. In both traditions, a desire to link abstract theological concepts with historical persons and events or with a personified metaphor is present. This desire is born from recognition that knowledge of God involves all aspects of theological inquiry: creation, theodicy, salvation and eschatology—ideas that transcend history and yet are also rooted in and affected by history.
Recognizing that God's revelation in Jesus is a mystery both transcending and occurring within human experience, Matthew uses traditional tensive metaphors in order to emphasize that while the revelation of God's salvation in Jesus Christ is new, it is grounded in and continuous with salvation history. At the same time, this mystery transcends former expression. By describing Jesus as both a new Moses and personified Wisdom, Matthew imaginatively combines the symbolic worlds evoked by these two metaphors. The convergence of these symbolic worlds assures that Christological reflection moves beyond the familiar and is open to the mystery of God's revelation in Christ.
Third, the mystery of God's revelation in Christ has a soteriological purpose. An intimate relationship with God dominates both the Mosaic tradition and the wisdom tradition, and yet in both, Israel's sin causes disturbance and tension in the relationship. But all is not lost; even though there are consequences associated with sin and despite the tension created by sin, Wisdom continues to offer guidance to those who will seek her, and Moses continues to stand with the people and faithfully take up their cause before God. While Mosaic symbols and the metaphor of personified Wisdom color Matthew's theological reflection concerning Jesus, God's immanence with Jesus for the sake of Jesus' followers dominates that reflection. Jesus as God-with-us does not disregard the consequences of sin or rejection but enters into history despite sin and rejection, offering life to all who respond to his invitation, at great cost to himself.
Finally, these verses serve as an invitation to discipleship. The convergence of Mosaic and wisdom themes in this invitation deepens our understanding of both the nature of discipleship and the nature of God. The Mosaic imagery in the invitation draws attention to the teaching of Jesus and the way that teaching is embodied by Jesus. Jesus is Torah incarnate; he is to be learned and followed in the way Torah was learned and followed in Israel.Footnote 64 The wisdom themes deepen and enrich this Mosaic typology by drawing it into the realm of relationship. The relational imagery of Wisdom awakens awareness to the surpassing abundance and gift of this relationship that can only be entered into as a response to an invitation. The convergence of themes highlights the particularity and exclusive demands of following Jesus but situates these demands in the deeper, wider, and broader context of the mystery of communion with God in the person of Jesus Christ.
By situating discipleship in the wider context of communion with God in the person of Jesus Christ, Matthew indicates that the nature of discipleship is revelatory of the nature of God. Jesus describes his relationship to disciples and to God using the relational virtues of humility and meekness. These relational virtues are also prominent in both Mosaic and wisdom traditions. Humility and meekness are characteristic of Moses as the revealer of God, are associated with the sages, are seen in Wisdom's nurturing guidance of her followers, and are characteristic of Jesus as the Son of God. It follows that gentleness and meekness are also revealed to be a characteristic of God who empties himself to be God with us and for us. It is God's presence in Jesus that lies at the heart of the rest that is promised to all those who will respond to the invitation “Come to me … and learn from me.”
