72 oLeGS ANdreJeVS seems logical to coordinate both compositional units in Q2’s Christo- logical framework. It is necessary at this point to address Kloppenborg’s remaining “pro-nomian” Q3 texts. Aside from the Torah’s use in 4,1-13, which, as I hope to have shown, certainly does not appear to be the main pur- pose of that text, Kloppenborg’s pro-nomian Q3 hypothesis rests on the premise of a zealous scribe adding two glosses to presumably danger- ous statements in 11,42c and 16,17. As shown by Ulrich Luz, how- ever, Q 11,42c may not be quite as abnormal as Kloppenborg sees it 29. The reading of Q 16,17 as secondary with respect to 16,16 is also questionable. Here, it seems more likely that the author of 16,16-17 creates an intentional inclusio (employing no,moj in 16,16a and 16,17b) to show that despite the struggle met by John and Jesus, viz. the king- dom’s most recent envoys, God’s law ultimately endures unchanged. If these arguments are correct, this leaves no further Q3 texts in Klop- penborg’s compositional model and consequently no reason for that stratum to exist. It therefore appears best to retain 11,42c in the Q2 compositional layer (where it belongs with the judgment speech in 11,39b-52) and 16,16-17 in Q1 (where it belongs with the block of sayings in 16,13-17,2). III. Son of God Christology in 6,20b-49 I now turn to the document’s most elaborate portrayal of Jesus as ku,rioj, the sermon in 6,20b-49. In the remainder of this essay it will be shown that this portrayal relies on the concept of divine sonship expressed in the Q2 texts 4,1-13 and 10,21-22. Along the way, I will also highlight certain form-critical and polemical features which 6,20b-49 shares with Q2. While I second IQp’s reconstruction of the sequence of 6,20b- 49 30, I arrange the Q sermon’s structure differently: (1) an exordium consisting of the beatitudes and a command to love enemies (6,20b- 28), (2) the Imitatio Dei section (6,35c-d; 6,29-36), (3) an accusation speech against a judging disciple (6,37-42b), (4) a parable illustrating the lesson of the accusation speech (6,43-45), (5) another accusation and a related parable illustrating the consequences of not following Jesus’ commands (6,46-49). The opening section is programmatic; it 29 KLoppeNBorG VerBIN, Excavating Q, 212; Cf. U. LUz, Matthew 21–28. A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN 2005) 122-123. 30 roBINSoN – HoFFMANN – KLoppeNBorG, Critical Edition of Q, 44-101.