The Song of Moses and Divine Begetting in Matt 1,20 55 in the Song of Moses, so is Israel in general portrayed as sinful and rebellious throughout Matthew. Indeed, in Matthew Jesus comes mainly to preach the need for repentance to Israel and only rarely veers off this path to the surrounding peoples (53). Thus it seems that Matthew was aware of Israel’s filial portrayal throughout the Song of Moses and understands Israel’s sonship there to be a foil to Jesus’ sonship. The reference to Deut 32,18 in Matt 1,20 recalls Israel’s disobedient sonship and anticipates Jesus’ obedient sonship — two themes that will be revisited throughout the gospel. d) New Creation Fourth, a reference to Deut 32 is appropriate in light of the creation motifs of Matt 1. The understanding of bivblo" genevsew" in 1,1 has been widely debated (54). One aspect of that debate is whether some notion of (new) creation is in view. If Deut 32 — a passage that echoes language from Gen 1 — has been employed in the account of Jesus’ conception, this would support the interpretation that Matt 1 evokes elements of creation from the Book of Genesis (55). Indeed, this connection with creation would also help explain how Deut 32,18 could be in view in Matt 1,20 since Matthew, unlike Deut 32, does not attribute the begetting to God, but to the Holy Spirit (56). However, this is ultimately not a problem when one considers in greater detail the role Matthew attributes to the Spirit. Stated briefly, among the Synoptics Matthew most closely associates the Spirit with God the Father (57). A survey of texts will illustrate this. In 4,1 it is the Spirit that leads Jesus into the wilderness. The verb ajnavgw here suggests a more personal agent than Mark’s ejkbavllw, as it recalls Yhwh’s personal direction in the wilderness wanderings (58). In 3,16 the divine Jesus’ day, also disbelieved in spite of signs and wonders. FRANCE (Matthew, 433, n. 47) observes that Deut 32.5 influences all the Matthean occurrences of “this generation” (11,16;12,41-42;23,36;24,34[?]). There is some debate concerning whether only the crowd or the crowd and the disciples are in view in 17,17. A number of commentators see the disciples’ lack of belief as representative of the disbelief of the entire generation (so DAVIES – ALLISON, Matthew, II, 724; NOLLAND, Matthew, 712), but it is probably best to maintain a distinction between the multitude and the disciples (so U. LUZ, Matthew 8–20. A Commentary [trans. J.E. CROUCH] [Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN 2001] 408). (53) See 4,17; 10,5. (54) This is true concerning both the referent of the term and the extent to which it applies. See the discussion in DAVIES – ALLISON, Matthew, I, 149-154. (55) For creation imagery in Matt 1, see DAVIES – ALLISON, Matthew, I, 154; FRANCE, Matthew, 28; A. PAUL, L’Évangile de l’Enfance selon Saint Matthieu (LiBi 17; Paris 1968) 48. Paul highlights the anthropological dimension of new creation: “La première création a pour terme le premier homme, la nouvelle création s’achève à l’Homme Nouveau”. For a different view, see J. NOLLAND, “What Kind of Genesis Do We Have in Matt 1.1?”, NTS 42 (1996) 463-471. (56) Following BROWN (Birth of the Messiah, 125) “(Holy) Spirit” is capitalized here in accord with recent Bible custom, without implying the passages in question necessitate a Trinitarian interpretation. (57) J. SCHABERG, The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Triadic Phrase in Matthew 28.19b (SBLDS 61; Chico, CA 1982) 24. She further notes the Spirit is also closely linked with Jesus, especially in the infancy narrative. (58) KEENER, Matthew, 137. Cf. Exod 15,22; Deut 8,2. Similarly, Luke 4,1 reads ajgw.