54 Brandon D. Crowe Attention to Matthew’s narrative structure further brings out the contrast between Jesus’ filial obedience and Israel’s filial disobedience. The two other references to Deut 32 noted above (12,39;17,17) are found in contexts that reveal the character of Jesus’ sonship. In Matt 12 the condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees, as representative of “this generation” of Israel in v. 39 is followed in v. 50 by a description of true sonship and Jesus’ revelation that whoever does the will of his Father is truly his brother, sister, or mother. Here Jesus refers to God as his Father, denoting his divine sonship, before stating the possibility that his disciples could share in that relationship (46). Thus, the sonship of Jesus is unique in that it is direct and unmediated, whereas the disciples’ sonship is derivative to that of Jesus (47). But the description in v. 50 that true disciples do the will of Jesus’ Father also assumes that Jesus was uniquely the doer of his Father’s will (48). In other words, the disciples’ ability to share in Jesus’ relationship to his Father was contingent upon their participation in the praxis of Jesus. In this way, Jesus and his disciples as children of God in 12,50 are contrasted with disobedient Israel in 12,39. The contrast between Israel’s sonship and Jesus’ sonship is also apparent in Matt 17. In 17,17 Jesus employs the language of Deut 32,5.20 to chastise his contemporary generation as “faithless and perverse”. The portions of the Song of Moses attributed to Jesus here speak of Israel’s rebellion in light of their sonship (49). Since these words are found on the lips of Jesus, who has just been revealed as God’s beloved Son in whom God was well-pleased (17,5) (50), it may be that Matthew, by including in v. 17 the portions of the Song of Moses that he did, intended to portray Jesus the faithful son as a foil to Israel the rebellious son. Israel’s disobedience is further emphasized when the pejorative sense attached to “this generation” in Matthew is considered. It is widely accepted that this phrase refers back to particular, well-known generations in Israel’s collective memory, such as the wilderness generation (51). Given the prevalence of Pentateuchal imagery in Matthew, it is reasonable to conclude that the wilderness generation is part of the proper background for understanding Matthew’s negative references to the generation of Jesus’ day, such as in 12,39;17,17 (52). Just as Israel’s hard-heartedness is in view (46) The phrase tou' patrov" mou, which highlights Jesus’ filial relationship to God, is a Matthean redaction. (47) So R.J. BAUCKHAM, “The Sonship of the Historical Jesus in Christology”, SJT 31 (1978) 248-250; H. PATTARUMADATHIL, Your Father in Heaven. Discipleship in Matthew as a Process of Becoming Children of God (AnBib 172; Rome 2008) 207-208. (48) This goes one step further than S.C. BARTON (Discipleship and Family Ties in Mark and Matthew [SNTSMS 80; Cambridge 1994] 189) who focuses on Jesus as the ultimate revealer of the Father’s will. (49) MT: ˆb (vv. 5.20); LXX: tejkna (v. 5); uiJoi, (v. 20). (50) This last phrase is another Matthean redaction, presumably referencing Jesus’ faithful obedience. It is also found in some manuscripts of Mark 9,7 (a1 D), but these have surely been influenced by Matthew, rather than the other way around. (51) E. LÖVESTAM, “The hJ genea; au{th Eschatology in Mk 13,30 parr.”, L’Apocalypse johannique et l’Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament (ed. J. LAMBRECHT) (BETL 53; Leuven 1980) 403-413. (52) Perhaps it is significant that the wilderness generation, like the generation of