Biblica_1:Layout 1 21-11-2011 12:59 Pagina 407 407 “SEEK HIS KINGDOM” affirm Jesus as the obedient “Son of God”. Here, again, there is no mention of his identity as the persecuted, suffering or coming “son of man”. Q 10,22, the “Johannine thunderbolt”, illustrates the high authority of Jesus’ “Sonship”. Jesus is the one whom “prophets and kings” have longed to see (Q 10,23b-24). Jesus is the Son of God who defies Satan through his obedience to the will and word of God. He en- joys a uniquely authoritative relationship with the Father and pro- scribes divorce with an argument based on the renewal of the original design of creation (Q 16,18; Mark 10,2-9). Jesus’ message of God’s providence as Father (ἀββά) reverses expectations of “worldly wis- dom”. This portrayal of Jesus in Q is complementary to an Adamic christology 59. According to Genesis 3,17-21, God told Adam: Cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return. Jesus’ promise of God’s providence in Q 12,22b-31 seems to con- tradict the biblical narrative: where Genesis explicitly describes God’s displeasure with Adam and his decision that humanity will labor for their food, Jesus’ message of divine providence reverses the labor, “sweat” and toil and issues in a new era of human existence, an “es- chatological” reversal of the “fallen” condition of human life, a new “covenant” of divine providence: to live in the kingdom is to be “re- born” into a world where God took control of all of one’s affairs. Jesus, like Adam, is the “Son” of the “Father”. Adamic Christol- ogy seems to have been “widely current” in the 40s and 50s C.E. Adam “plays a larger role in Paul’s theology than is usually realized” and is “often misunderstood” 60. Adam speculation also seems to have 59 BULTMANN, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 120-121 (The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 115), argued that Q 11,49 documented a “myth of divine Wisdom” that paralleled a “myth of the Archetypal Man”. Bultmann was correct in noting these two streams of thought, but incorrect in using late sources to posit an early pan-Near Eastern background of a “Primal Man”/“gnostic redeemer” myth. 60 DUNN, Christology in the Making, 98-128, esp. 101, 114.