Tag: Eschatology

Sunday Psalm Studies: 4QPs Eschatological Hymn

Additional Qumran Psalms

There are a few additional extra-canonical Psalms of note in the Qumran scrolls, besides those in the great Cave 11 Psalms Scroll (11QPsa) that we have already examined. For example, in the Cave 4 scroll 4QPsf there are two compositions in Columns IX and X, the first of which (in Col. IX) has been given the generic designation “Eschatological Hymn”, while the second (Col. X) is referred to as “The Apostrophe to Judah”. It is assumed that these represent two distinct compositions, but, since the opening lines of each (at the beginning of the column) are lost, it is not possible to be certain on this point. The meter of the “Apostrophe to Judah” does seem to be noticeably different from the somewhat more regular (generally 3+3) meter of the “Eschatological Hymn”. The two hymns do, however, have a similar eschatological emphasis.

Eschatological HYMN (4QPsf, Col. IX)

If the “Apostrophe to Judah” in Col. X is indeed a separate composition, then this hymn in Col. IX would seem to be relatively short. However, the actual size/scope and structure of the poem remains difficult to determine, due the fragmentary condition of the scroll at the beginning and end of the column. The first three lines are almost completely lost, with not enough surviving to allow for any kind of translation; it is also fragmentary, with additional lines lost, as the bottom of the column.

The Community of the Qumran texts, much like the earliest Christian communities, had a strong eschatological orientation to their religious self-identity. They viewed themselves as representing the righteous/holy ones of the end time, through whom God (and His messianic agent[s]) would usher in the New Age.

As always in these Qumran compositions, lacuna (gaps) in the text are indicated by square brackets; occasionally it is possible to fill in the gaps, particularly when only a single letter is missing. Plausible restorations have been established in the critical editions and standard translations (e.g., DSS Bible) and are followed here.

Metrically, this poem seems to follow a three-beat (3+3) couplet format.

Lines 4-8

“…many [. . . ]
and let them praise (the) name of YHWH!
[F]or He comes to judge every (thing) d[o]ne,
to carry away (the) wicked (one)s from the earth,
[(so) that (the) sons of] crookedness shall not be found!”

As mentioned above, the first three lines (of the column) are almost completely missing, and the fourth line also is fragmentary. It seems likely that lines 1-5a contained the first two couplets of the hymn, the second of which is partially preserved. For first line of this couplet, only the word <ybr (“many”) survives; the line may have contained a reference to the nations/peoples acknowledging YHWH as God, with the Psalmist calling on them to worship and give praise to Him (second line), cf. Ps 40:4[3]; 97:1. This is an eschatological theme that we find in a number of the canonical Psalms, particularly those emphasizing the universal Kingship of YHWH; see especially Pss 93-100 and the final Hallelujah collection (146-150).

Lines 5b-8a of the column seem to contain a tricolon (3+3+3) declaring the end-time Judgment of God upon humankind. The announcement that “He comes to judge…” is similarly found in Psalm 96 (v. 13) and 98 (v. 9)—both part of the Kingship collection (93-100) mentioned above. Here, it is said that YHWH will come to judge the deeds of human beings (“every deed”, “every [thing] done”); this is a basic principle characterizing the eschatological Judgment (and YHWH’s role as Judge)—cf. Ps 94:2; Dan 7:10; Joel 3:12ff; Matt 12:36; John 3:19ff; Acts 17:31; Rom 2:2ff; 14:10ff; 2 Cor 5:10, etc.

The Judgment will result in the wicked being “carried/taken away”. The verb used is hb*v*, which frequently refers to captives that are taken away (i.e., deported/exiled). The verb can be used specifically of the captivity/exile of Israel (e.g., Ps 106:46; 137:3), and almost certainly that allusion is intended here. The captivity of the nations (in the Judgment) mirrors the historical captivity of Israel/Judah; that earlier captivity reflected YHWH’s judgment(s) against His people, but it is the surrounding nations who will be “carried away” in the end-time Judgment (viz., the “Day of YHWH”). The wicked (also designated “sons of crookedness”) will no longer be found among the righteous; they will have been removed. The noun hl*w+u^ (“crookedness”) often carries the more forcefully negative connotation of “injustice, wickedness”; for the specific expression “sons of crookedness” (hl*w+u^ yn@B=), cf. 2 Sam 3:34; 7:10; Ps 89:23[22]; 1 Chron 17:9. As a designation for the wicked, the expression is comparable to “sons of worthlessness” (lu^Y~l!B= yn@B=, cf. the “Apostrophe to Judah below), with /B@ (“son”) used categorically for the characteristic behavior (and identity) of persons belonging to a particular group.

Lines 8-11

“[And will give (forth)] (the) heave[n]s their dew,
and there will be no scorchi[ng within t]heir borders;
and (the) earth [will give (forth)] her fruit in her time,
and not will be lean [(the) out]put coming from her!”

The Judgment results in punishment for the wicked, but blessing for the righteous. The end-time blessing is described here in terms of the fertility of the land (cf. Joel 3:19-27, etc.). The heavens will give forth water (lit., “dew”, but standing for “rain”, etc., cf. Psalm 133:3) plentifully, at the right time, to enable the growth of vegetation and crops. There will no longer be any scorching heat (/opD*v!) to dry up the vegetation. The third person plural suffix (“within their borders”), in context here, refers to “(the) heavens” (dual) in line 1—i.e., the earth lies between the bounds of the upper hemisphere (the ‘dome’ of the heavens). However, it also surely alludes to the righteous ones of God’s people, and to the borders of their land. The two-fold nature of the cosmos (“heavens” and “earth”) is reflected in the poetic parallelism of these two couplets. The heaven gives the rain, and the earth produces fruit. In the second line, the blessing is expressed in negative (privative) terms—there will not be any searing drought (from heaven) nor leanness of output (from the earth). The verb vj^K* properly means “be(come) lean”, but it can also carry a range of connotative and associated meanings: “deceive, delude, deny, contradict, feign/pretend”. For the use of this verb in the context of the failure of plants and crops to bear fruit, cf. Hos 9:2; Hab 3:17.

Lines 11-14

“(The) trees of fruit [will . . .] their vines,
and will not be le[an (the) out]put from them;
(the one)s pressed down will eat and be satisfied,
(those) fearing YHWH [. . . ]
….”

The promise of blessing (in terms of fertility) continues here, referring specifically to the fruit trees and vines. Again, it is declared that the output will not be lean (vb vj^K*); rather, the output will be abundant, so that the righteous will be able to eat their fill and be satisfied (vb ub^v*).

The righteous are characterized with traditional terminology, as those who fear (ar@y`, i.e., revere, honor, and obey) YHWH, but as also as ones who are “bent/pressed down (low)” (wn`u*). This term wn`u* (along with the related yn]u*) occurs frequently (especially in the Psalms) as characteristic of the righteous. It denotes a pressed-down and low(ly) state, with three distinct aspects of meaning: (a) poverty and need, (b) experience of affliction and oppression (often at the hands of the wicked), and (c) an attitude of humility and devotion (to YHWH).

Apostrophe to Judah (4QPsf, Col. X)

The poem in Column X is generally regarded as a separate composition distinct from the “Eschatological Hymn” of Col. IX (above); however, one should at least consider the possibility that it represents a continuation of the Col. IX Hymn.

Lines 5-6

“Then let (the) heavens and earth give praise as one,
now let (the) stars of (the) twilight give (out) praise!”

As with the “Eschatological Hymn”, the opening lines of this “Apostrophe to Judah” are almost completely missing from the lost beginning of the column (only part of a single word remains from line four). The initial word of line 5 (apparently, “and from them”, <hmw) presumably represents the end of a couplet (and probably the first two couplets [?] of the composition), but the context cannot be determined. In the first surviving couplet, the Psalmist calls upon the entire universe (“heavens and earth”) to give praise to YHWH—an orientation that we find occasionally in the canonical Psalms, particularly those which focus on the universal Kingship of YHWH (cf. 69:35[34]; 89:6[5]; 96:11; 148:4), however the specific mention of the stars (and the expression “stars of twilight”) is more unusual (but see Ps 148:3; Job 38:7). A number of Psalms express the idea of nature (the heavens, etc.) speaking or singing out in praise (or witness) of YHWH’s greatness and righteousness, etc. (viz., His identity as Creator and King/Judge of the universe); cf. 19:1ff; 50:6; 97:6.

Lines 7-10

“Be glad (now), O Yehudah, in your (great) gladness!
Be glad (in) your gladness, twirl (with) your twirling!
Go round your festive rounds, fulfill your v[o]ws—
for no (longer) is Beliyya‘al in your midst!”

After the call for heaven and earth to give praise, the Psalmist calls on Judah to rejoice, giving forth expressions of praise and joy in light of the expected (end-time) blessings that are coming to her (cf. the “Eschatological Hymn” above). In the second line, this joy is further expressed in terms of spinning round (i.e., twirling, dancing), lyG]; this is a regular praise-term in the Psalms. The verbal root ggj^ has a comparable meaning (“go round”, i.e., in a dance, procession, or festal celebration), though the noun gj^ came to refer specifically to a religious festival—and to the pilgrimage festivals prescribed by the Torah (cf. Arabic ḥajj and ḥijjat). To preserve the connection with lyG! (in the previous line), I have translated the verb gg~j* simply as “go round”, with the plural of gj~ as “festive rounds”. For the faithful ones of Israel/Judah, their joy is expressed by fulfilling the religious obligations (such as regarding the festivals and vows) of the covenant (viz., the Torah precepts and regulations, etc.).

The reason for their joy is specified in the final line (of this quatrain): Belial is no longer “in their midst”. In light of the reference to the “sons of crookedness” in the “Eschatological Hymn” (see above), this mention of ‘Belial’ (lu^Y~l!B=) is perhaps to be understood as a shorthand for the expression “sons of worthlessness” (lu^Y~l!B= yn@B=), which occurs numerous times in the Scriptures. However, by the time that this hymn was composed, the noun lu^Y~l!B= had come to be used as a term for a personal (or personified) spirit of wickedness and corruption. This shift in meaning may already be evident in the Book of Jubilees (mid-second century B.C.), cf. 1:20 along with 15:33, but it had definitely occurred in the sectarian writings of the Qumran Community (e.g., the Rule [1QS], the War Scroll [1QM], and the Thanksgiving Hymns [Hodayot, 1QH])—in these writings “Belial” has become a proper name, just in the New Testament (2 Cor 6:15) and other early Christian (and contemporary Jewish) texts (e.g., the Sibylline Oracles 2.167; 3.63, 73; Martyrdom of Isaiah 1:8f; 2:4). With the coming of the end-time Judgment, the wicked (i.e., “sons of Belial”), along with the evil spirit that inspires their wickedness, are to be removed from the midst of the righteous.

Lines 10-13

“May your hand be raised high, your right hand be strong!
See—(the) hostile (one)s shall perish,
and shall be scattered, all (those) [mak]ing trouble!”

This tricolon (which could also be parsed as a quatrain) makes clear that the term lu^Y~l!B= (‘Belial’) in the previous line refers primarily to the wicked (viz., the “sons of Belial”, “sons of worthlessness” = “sons of crookedness [hl*w+u^]” in the Eschatological Hymn). The wicked will be removed from the midst of the righteous. In the prior Hymn, this was described in terms of captivity/exile (vb hb*v*), as it also is here with the verb dr^P* (“[be] spread out, scattered”). But, from the standpoint of the Judgment, this also (practically) means the death/destruction of the wicked, as expressed by the verb db^a* (“perish”). It is a general religious principle (emphasized especially in the Wisdom literature) that the wicked will ultimately perish, but here it finds eschatological realization (in the Judgment). The wicked are “hostile” toward the righteous, and thus are the enemies of God’s people, even as (historically) the surrounding nations have been adversaries of Israel/Judah. The call for Judah to have a (right) hand that is strong and raised/lifted high, suggests that the righteous ones (of Israel/Judah) may play a role in the defeat and expulsion/destruction of the wicked. The Qumran Community certainly held such an expectation as part of their own religious identity, as expressed most thoroughly (and vividly) in the War Scroll (1QM).

Lines 13-15

“But you, O YHWH, shall be unto (the) dista[nt] (future)—
your weight into (the) dista[nt (future) even ti]ll (the end)!
[Pr]aise YH(WH)!”

The hymn ends with this couplet of praise to YHWH, declaring that His Kingship will last into the far distant future (i.e., forever). The eternal life and existence of YHWH is contrasted with the brief life of the wicked that comes to an end with the Judgment (cf. the tricolon above). The temporal-durative expressions <l*oul= (“into/into [the] distant [future]”) and du^ (“until [the end]”) occur frequently in the Psalms.
The noun dobK* means “weight”, often in the sense of “worth, value”; as applied to God, it indicates that which makes Him worthy of praise—His greatness and holiness, His Divine splendor, etc. In terms of the Kingship of YHWH, it also specifically refers to His majesty. 

The work concludes with the traditional exhortation Hy` Wll=h^ (Halelû Yāh), “Praise YH(WH)!” This call to praise occurs a number of times in the canonical Psalms, most notably in the final collection (146-150) where it opens and closes each Psalm.

*     *     *     *     *

In the next study, we will look at the last of the extracanonical Psalms in the Qumran Psalm scrolls—namely, the three exorcism psalms that occur grouped together (along with Psalm 91) in the Cave 11 ‘Apocryphal Psalms’ scroll (11QPsApa [11Q11])

The reference “DSS Bible” is to The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, translated with commentary by Martin Abegg, Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich (HarperCollins: 1999).

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 149

Psalm 149

Dead Sea MSS: 11QPsa (vv. 7-9)

Psalm 149, like all of the Psalms in the final collection (146-150) of the Psalter, is a hymn of praise to YHWH that emphasizes His Kingship over the universe (and over all humankind). However, this hymn evinces a stronger eschatological orientation, focusing (especially in the second stanza) on the realization of God’s Kingdom among the nations. This eschatological framework took root during the exile and underwent considerable development in the early post-exilic period, as the ‘New Age’ of Israel’s restoration came to be viewed as a time when the surrounding nations would join the restored Israel/Judah in acknowledging YHWH and giving worship to Him (as the supreme God and Sovereign).

These Hallelujah Psalms, along with a number of others in the Psalter (esp. the collection 93-100), share this eschatological outlook with the Prophets of the exilic and post-exilic periods—most notably, the poems of Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah (chaps. 40-55, 56-66). Commentators have noted the many similarities of thought and expression between the Hallelujah Psalms and Pss 93-100, as also in relation to Isa 40-66. Hossfeld-Zenger (p. 647) have conveniently summarized these intertextual links for Ps 149 (see also Broderson, pp. 93-8), and they will be mentioned in the notes below as well. An early post-exilic date for this Psalm (as for the collection 146-150 as whole) would seem to be quite secure, though the dating in the Maccabean period (favored by some scholars) seems rather too late; a mid-fifth century date would be more probable and makes for a reasonable estimate.

There has been some debate among commentators regarding the structure of this Psalm, with some preferring a two-stanza division (vv. 1-4, 5-9) and others a triadic three-strophe division (vv. 1-3, 4-6, 7-9); Prinsloo’s peculiar suggestion (pp. 398ff) of a two-part division (vv. 1-5, 7-9), with verse 6 as a transitional ‘hinge’ joining the two sections, is not very convincing. My own outline is as follows:

    • Opening call to give praise/worship to YHWH (verse 1)
    • STANZA 1 (verses 2-4)
      • Call for the faithful/devout ones of Israel to Praise YHWH (vv. 2-3)
      • YHWH as King—in relation to His people (v. 4)
    • STANZA 2 (verses 5-9a)
      • Call for the faithful/devout ones of Israel to Praise YHWH (vv. 5-6)
      • YHWH as King—in relation to the nations (vv. 7-9a)
    • Conclusion (verse 9b)

This outline produces a pair of stanzas that are thematically, poetically, and syntactically similar. Each stanza begins with a pair of couplets in which the call to praise is governed by jussive verb forms. Moreover, the first couplet presents the basis for praise and its location (i.e., in YHWH’s glorious presence), while the second couplet describes the manner of praise (with instruments in the hands of the people). The second portion of each stanza is expository, describing the relationship of YHWH (as King) to humankind—with His chosen people Israel (v. 4), and then with all of the other nations (vv. 7-9a). Framing the two stanzas is an opening couplet (v. 1) and a closing line (v. 9b) referencing the setting of the hymn—viz., the assembly of the loyal/devoted ones (<yd!ys!j&).

Unfortunately, only a small portion of Psalm 149 survives among the Dead Sea scrolls, in the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa, where it follows immediately after Ps 143. However, it likely was also present in a fragmentary manuscript from Masada (MasPsb), where it would have followed Ps 148, as in the canonical Psalter.

Introduction: Call to Worship

Verse 1

Praise YH(WH)!
“Sing (now) to YHWH a new song,
His praise in (the) assembly of (the) devout!”

The Psalmist calls on the people to give praise to YHWH with an imperative-formulation (using the verb ryv!, “sing”), following the pattern of the initial Hy` Wll=h^ exclamation. All of the Psalms in the Hallelujah collection (146-150) begin and end with this praise-exclamation, Hal®lû-Y¹h, “Praise YH(WH)!”. The verb ll^h* is not used in the couplet, but the derived noun hL*h!T= (“praise”) is present, parallel to the noun ryv! (“song”).

This particular call to praise echoes the opening of Psalms 96 and 98, resembling also Isa 42:10 (cf. Judith 16:13). Clearly, the praise and worship given to YHWH is musical in nature, involving song (like the hymn of Ps 149 itself) and performed with various musical instruments (see v. 3 below); cf. the parallel in v. 6. It is also performed in a public gathering (lh*q*), in which God’s people are assembled together; it is assumed that those who are so gathered are the ones faithful and devoted (adj. dys!j*) to YHWH. From an eschatological standpoint, the Psalmist probably envisions that the entirety of the people will be faithful to YHWH.

This couplet has an extended 4+3 meter (though this is not apparent in my translation), matching the final four-beat line of v. 9b. The remainder of the Psalm is comprised of 3-beat (3+3) couplets (+ the line in v. 9a).

Stanza 1: Verses 2-4

Verse 2

“Let Yisrael be glad in (the One hav)ing made him,
let (the) sons of Ṣiyyôn be joyous in their King!”

This initial couplet describes the praise (given to YHWH, v. 1) as joyous in character, performed with an attitude and spirit of rejoicing. The verb jm^c* denotes being glad, while the parallel lyG] alludes to a joyfulness expressed through (loud) singing and dancing; the basic denotation of lyg seems to involve movement in a circle (i.e., twirling, spinning, dancing; cf. Arabic jwl). The people of Israel here are identified with the city of Jerusalem (Zion) and the central cultic site of the Temple sanctuary—symbolic and ritual dwelling-place of YHWH where He is enthroned as King. This close association is typical of the early post-exilic period and is reflected in a number of Psalms—especially in the Songs of Ascent (120-134) and other Zion-Psalms. The term “Zion” serves to represent the people as a whole—i.e., the faithful ones, those who devoutly worship YHWH and who honor the holy city (with its Temple sanctuary).

YHWH is identified as both the Creator of the universe (including all of humankind) and its King. These two thematic points of emphasis are closely related (see, e.g., Isa 43:15) and feature in all the Psalms of this final collection (as also in Pss 93-100, etc). The substantive verbal noun (participle) hc#u), “(one) making, maker”, from the common verb hc*u* (“make, do”), is a traditional way of expressing the idea of YHWH as Creator. Here, it is apparently a plural form (with suffix, wyc^u)), which, if so, can be understood as a comprehensive/intensive plural (like the plural noun <yh!l)a$) or as a plural of majesty, i.e., “great/supreme Maker”; cf. Isa 54:5; Job 35:10, also Eccl 12:1 (with the verb ar*B*). As noted by Goulder (p. 298; cf. Allen, p. 396), all of these apparent plural forms involve YHWH’s work as Creator. However, the form could also be explained as an archaic singular which preserves the original y of a h–l root (i.e., ycu > hcu); cf. GKC §124k; the archaism of this preserved detail may still reflect specific poetic traditions regarding the theme of YHWH as Creator (Deut 32:6, etc). While YHWH is the “Maker” of all humankind, He is particularly so for His people Israel, since He also formed them as a nation; cf. Psalm 95:6; 100:3; Isa 44:2; 51:13; 54:5.

The second line features the related theme of YHWH as King; and, indeed, the Kingship of YHWH is the prominent thematic emphasis in the Psalm (as throughout Pss 146-150). His Kingship is based upon His identity as the Creator. On the specific connection of YHWH’s Kingship with Zion, see esp. the prior references in Ps 146:10; 147:13.

Verse 3

“Let them praise His name with twirling dance(s),
let them make music to Him with tambor and harp!”

While the initial couplet alludes to the basis for the praise given to YHWH, and emphasizes that it occurs in His presence (i.e., in relation to the Temple sanctuary), here in the second couplet the focus is on the manner of the praise—specifically, that it is done with dancing and music (possibly alluding to Exod 15:20). The noun rojm* denotes a dance performed in a circle, from the verbal root lwj (“turn round [in a circle], spin, twirl”), cp. the use of lyg earlier in v. 2b. The musical instruments with which the people “make music” (vb rm^z`) to YHWH are represented here by the tamborine ([T)) and harp (roNK!); cf. 147:7; 150:3-4; note also Jer 31:3-4.

In line 1, the people are called to praise the name of YHWH, which, as I have discussed, means the same thing as praising YHWH Himself; the parallelism of the lines here makes that point quite clear. It is particularly through God’s name that His people relate to Him (in worship, etc.), all the more so in light of the ancient line of tradition connecting His name with the Temple sanctuary in Jerusalem (the name symbolizing the presence of YHWH). In this regard, cf. especially the references in the Prayer of Solomon (1 Kings 8), set at the dedication of the newly-built Temple, which I have discussed in an earlier set of notes. Compare the prior references to YHWH’s name in Ps 148:5, 13; cf. also the framing references in 145:1-2, 21.

The word order in my translation of v. 3 is meant to bring out the synonymous parallelism of the couplet; however, in terms of the Hebrew word order, the verse has a chiastic structure:

    • “Let them praise | His name
      • with twirling dance(s)
      • with tamborine and harp
    • let them make music | to Him”
Verse 4

“For YHWH (is One) taking delight in his people,
and He adorns with salvation (those) bent down!”

The final couplet is expository, explaining further the reason why the people give praise to YHWH. As their God, and within the covenant bond He has established with them, YHWH looks fondly on His people, taking delight (vb hx*r*) in them and in doing good on their behalf. This implies the many different blessings that YHWH provides for His people, insofar as they loyal to Him and faithful to the covenant (cf. Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28); see Psalm 147:11. These blessings include protection and deliverance (i.e., salvation, hu*Wvy+); YHWH will protect and rescue His people from all the dangers they might face (such as from the hostile nations, cf. Stanza 2 below). This salvation effectively serves as an adornment (vb ra^P*) that gives beauty and honor to the people; cf. Isa 60:9; 61:3 (rap specifically is connected with a headdress/turban). Quite often in the Psalms, YHWH is praised primarily because of salvation He has provided (whether to the individual righteous person or to the people collectively); particularly relevant are the references in Ps 96:2; 98:2f; and cf. Isa 44:23; 49:13.

Throughout the Psalms, the adjective wn`u` (cf. also yn]u*) is used as a designation for the righteous ones. It denotes a person who is “bent down”, either as the result of enduring affliction and oppression, or in terms of a characteristic humility and devout ‘lowliness’. Both aspects of meaning apply to the righteous, and both are likely in view here. The need for salvation implies some measure of oppression (from the nations, etc.), while the fact that YHWH acts to save them indicates that the people are demonstrating devotion and faithfulness. For this thematic motif, see esp. the earlier Ps 147:6, 11.

The participle (of the verb hx*r*) in line 1 can be understood in a simple active/dynamic present sense (“[He] is taking delight”), which might be translated in the present tense (“He takes delight”); however, such substantive participles, when applied to YHWH in the Psalms, often express a fundamental characteristic and regular/habitual behavior, and I have translated it above in that manner: “[He] (is the One) taking delight”.

While the first stanza (and esp. verse 4) certainly refers to past acts of deliverance on behalf of Israel, I do not find here a specific allusion to the Exodus (as a primary point of reference), such as Ceresko (pp. 181-4) suggests. The best argument in favor of the Exodus-proposal would be the possible allusion to Exod 15:20 in verse 3 (mentioned above).

Stanza 2: Verses 5-9a

Verse 5

“Let (the) devoted (one)s rejoice in weight (of honor),
let them ring out upon (the) places where they lay!”

This first couplet of the second stanza corresponds with v. 2 in stanza 1 (see above). However, the precise meaning (in relation to that earlier couplet) is uncertain. Particularly problematic is the mention of “places of laying-down/reclining” (bk*v=m!), usually understood in the sense of “beds, couches” (Ps 4:5[4]; 36:5[4], etc.), though such a meaning (at first glance) seems rather out of place here. Allen (p. 400) understands the locative noun here in the context of the righteous laying down (prostrate) in worship and humble devotion, either with specific reference to v. 4b or to the scene in v. 2 (i.e., worshiping in the presence of YHWH). While the latter would make for a rather fitting parallel to verse 2 (with the dobK* [“weight”] being that of YHWH), it does not particularly suit the parallelism of the couplet itself.
Ceresko (pp. 185ff) argues that verse 5 is the central ‘pivot’ verse of the Psalm, and that the noun dobK* (“weight”, i.e., honor, glory) stands at the very center of the composition, which would tend to confirm that this “weight” (of honor/glory) is that of YHWH rather than of the righteous (see below). He notes that there are 76 syllables prior to the word dobK* and 75 following it. Also, like Dahood (III, p. 357), Ceresko treats the noun as a Divine title (“Weighty [i.e., Glorious] One”), a suggestion originally made decades earlier by J. Böhmer. 

Another possibility is to view the reclining places (i.e., couches) as places of honor and prestige, in which the righteous are able to relax, having been delivered from the oppression of their enemies, etc. This would provide a fitting (if somewhat oblique) parallel to dobK* in line 1; in this case, dobK* would refer to the “weight” (i.e., of honor, glory, esteem) that God’s people have received (implied in v. 4).

For the many and varied attempts otherwise to explain the use of bk*v=m! here, see Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 642; Goulder, p. 299; and Broderson, pp. 101-3. Ceresko (p. 186f) takes bk*v=m! in its ordinary domestic sense (i.e., “bed”) and claims that the lines of the couplet represent a distinction (for the righteous) of public (line 1) vs. private worship. The idea that the devout ones will be faithful to YHWH, worshiping him even at night (in the privacy of their bedrooms), does appear as an occasional point of emphasis in the Psalms (cf. 4:5[4]). Ceresko points to Micah 2:1 (cf. Psalm 36:5[4]) where there is a contrast between the wicked planning evil “upon their beds” and the righteous in the assembly of YHWH (v. 5).

Verse 6

“(Let) high praises of (the) Mighty (One be) in their throat,
and (let there be) a two-mouthed sword in their hand—”

As Allen (p. 396) notes (citing Joüon §§155n, 163b), a nominal clause can have jussive force; in light of the tacit parallel with v. 3 in Stanza 1 (see above), I so understand and translate the verse.

There is no problem with the first line, which continues the focus on giving praise to YHWH—and, particularly, of singing praises loudly and jubilantly to Him (i.e., exalting praises are in the people’s throat [/orG`]). The difficulty comes in the second line: in what sense is the image of the “two-mouthed [i.e., two-edged] sword” to be taken? Is it a metaphor for praise? Has the scene suddenly switched to a military camp in which the people are preparing for holy battle? Is there an allusion to a ritual ‘sword-dance’, in the manner that many interpreters understand the reference in Song 7:1 [6:13]?

In verse 3, the people have musical instruments in their hands, while here, in the parallel couplet of the second Stanza, they hold swords—i.e., instruments of war. Yet the swords could also be used in a praise-context in a manner comparable to the tamborine, etc.—that is, used to make a loud ringing noise. Indeed, the parallel with verse 3 forces one to consider seriously the possibility that swords here serve strictly a symbolic and ritual purpose in the public assembly.

At the same time, there is unquestionably militaristic imagery that follows in vv. 7ff, and many commentators assume that the setting of the stanza (if not the entire Psalm) is that of an impending battle against the nations. However, if this is so, the battle must be understood in an eschatological context—that is, the great ‘day of YHWH’ when He brings judgment against the nations. It is perhaps assumed that God’s people (the righteous ones) will assist or otherwise act on YHWH’s behalf in bringing this about (through battle). Another possibility is that the sword represents the people’s solidarity with YHWH, giving praise to Him in anticipation of the judgment that He is about to bring against the nations. Almost certainly, the Psalm here is drawing upon ‘holy war’ tradition, in which the Israelite people would on occasions engage in bloody battle (with YHWH’s power working on their side) against other nations, but it is not entirely certain how concrete the imagery is meant to be applied in this instance. Cf. Mowinckel, pp. 295-6.

Verse 7

“(so as) to make retribution on the nations,
reprisals (in judgment) on the peoples;”

Verses 7-9 are expository, just like verse 4 was for the first stanza (see above). While verse 4 emphasized YHWH’s relationship to His people (Israel), here the focus is on His relationship to the surrounding nations. YHWH delivered His people (v. 4), ultimately restoring them (to their land, etc.) and ushering in a New Age. And, in this New Age, Israel’s restoration is to be following by the great Judgment—the day of YHWH—against all the other nations. Both of these eschatological events—the restoration of Israel and the judgment of the nations—demonstrate YHWH’s supreme power as King over the universe.

Syntactically, the two couplets of vv. 7-8, as well as the closing line of v. 9a, take the form of infinitive purpose/result clauses—i.e., “in order to…”, “so as to…”. The syntactical connection between vv. 7ff and the previous line (in v. 6b) certainly seems to suggest that God’s people (i.e., the righteous ones) will use the ‘two-edged sword’ in their hands to execute the judgment against the nations. Whether an actual, concrete military battle—between Israel and the nations—was envisioned by the Psalmist is harder to say.

The noun hm*q=n] can mean “vengeance, revenge”, but it can also carry the more juridical sense of “retribution”; given the judgment-context of these verses, I have rendered it here as “retribution”. In Israelite historical tradition, hm*q=n] occurs on several occasions in reference to Israel’s execution of vengeance (and judgment) against the wicked/oppressive nations (Num 31:2-3; Judg 11:36; 2 Sam 22:48). It occurs more frequently in the book of Jeremiah (9 times), and particularly within the oracle of judgment against Babylon (50:16, 28; 51:6, 11, 36); cf. also the nation-oracle references in Ezek 25:14-15, 17. These exilic-era references illustrate the seminal eschatological theme of the “day of YHWH”, in which, with the coming of the New Age (of Israel’s restoration), YHWH will judge all of the nations; this theme would undergo considerable development in the post-exilic period—a development that is surely reflected here in Ps 149. The noun hm*q=n] occurs three other times in the Psalms: in 18:48[47] (par 2 Sam 22:48), where it is the Davidic king specifically who acts to bring judgment/vengeance on the nations; 79:10, where it is declared that YHWH will avenge the violence perpetrated against His people (and the poor/righteous ones); and, finally, at the beginning of Ps 94 (v. 1), which is very close to the thematic context of Ps 149—expressing the eschatological expectation that YHWH, as King, will exercise judgment against all the nations (and their kings).

The parallel noun (in line 2) is hj*k@oT, from the verb jk^y` (“argue, dispute, prove [right/wrong],” often, “reprove, rebuke”). The common sense of “rebuke” can carry the harsher negative/penal meaning of “punishment”, such as is the case here; I have translated the plural above as “reprisals”. The related noun tj^k@oT occurs more frequently, especially in Proverbs in the disciplinary sense of a corrective rebuke, but also (occasionally) in a judgment-context—cf. Ezek 5:15; 25:17. The specific noun hj*k@oT occurs just three other times in Scripture (2 Kings 19:3 / Isa 37:3; Hos 5:9), all of which refer to judgment against Israel, while here it is to judgment against the nations; perhaps there is an implicit allusion to vindication against the nations for their role in the judgment(s) brought upon Israel/Judah.

For the idea of the eschatological Judgment on the nations specifically as a “day of vengeance”, see Isa 61:2; 63:4; cf. also Mic 5:14.

Textual Note on v. 7b

The WLC and BHS editions of the text read <yma lB (“not peoples”), while the Aleppo Codex parses differently, <ymalB (“on [the] peoples”). This confusion, due to the fact that the nouns hM*a% and <a)l= both essentially mean “(group of) people, tribe, nation”, also seems to occur in Ps 44:15[14]; 57:10[9]; 108:4[3]. Here, the parallelism of the lines in v. 7 argues strongly—one might say, decisively—in favor of the reading <ymalB: that is, the plural noun <yM!a%l= with the prefixed preposition B=. However, <yma lB (“not peoples”) is certainly the more difficult reading (lectio difficilior) and therefore should not be summarily dismissed. Possibly the Psalmist is employing a bit of wordplay that might allow for recognitions of both ways of reading the text. Insofar as <yma lB is to be regarded as valid, the implication may be that the other nations, because of their wickedness, are to be considered non-peoples, their status as such being confirmed by YHWH in the Judgment. On the idea of the nations—i.e., those worshipping ‘idols’ and deities other than YHWH—as non-peoples, cf. Deuteronomy 32:21. See the discussion by Broderson, pp. 104-5.

Verse 8

“to bind their kings with (heavy) fetters
and their weighty (one)s with bonds of iron;”

If there is a military battle whereby the nations are subdued, the Psalmist makes no mention of it, except allusively by way of suggestion; instead, he moves immediately to the result (i.e., result-infinitive) of the subduing judgment-action. The kings and other rulers/leaders of the nations are taken prisoner, bound (vb rs^a*) with heavy chains. This is certainly to be understood as an important stage, or aspect, of the eschatological judgment—cf. Isa 24:21-22; 41:15ff; note also the language in Nahum’s judgment oracle against Assyria (Nineveh), 3:10. There may be a specific allusion here to Psalm 2:2-3.

In the second line, the substantive verbal adjective (pass. participle), “weighty [i.e., honored] (one)s”, from the verb db^K*, is parallel with “kings” in line 1. Possibly, the two terms are precisely synonymous (i.e., both referring to the kings); more likely, however, the pairing is a merismus that covers all of the nation’s leading/prominent individuals. Clearly, there is an intentional echo of the use of the related noun (dobK*) in v. 5. The “weight” (i.e., glory/honor) given by the nations to their leaders is contrasted with that of the King YHWH (and His people).

Verse 9a

“to make on them (the) judgment (that is) written!”

This concluding line echoes verse 7, thus forming an inclusio for vv. 7-9 as a poetic unit. The specific idiom of “make judgment” (vb hc*u* + fP*v=m!) means execute judgment, i.e., acting to establish justice and right order (cf. Ps 9:5[4]; Lam 3:59). The passive participle of the verb bt^K* (“write”), i.e., “(hav)ing been written”, functions as a modifying adjective—i.e., a judgment that has been written. This presumably refers to the judgment of the nations as a decree issued by YHWH (as King and Judge), which then the holy/righteous ones will carry out (v. 6b ff). There are allusions to such a role for the righteous in the Prophetic texts (e.g., Isa 26:5-6; 41:15; Ezek 25:13-14; Mic 4:13; Zechariah 9-12), though the idea becomes more prominent subsequently in Jewish eschatology and apocalyptic, as (for example) in 1 Enoch 48:9; 91:12 and, notably, the Qumran War Scroll; cf. Hossfeld-Zenger, p. 650.

Conclusion

Verse 9b

“A splendid honor this (is) for all (the) devout (one)s!”
Praise YH(WH)!

The second line of verse 9 can be understood two ways: (1) in connection with the judgment of the nations in Stanza 2, whereby one could read v. 9 as a couplet (with v. 9b corresponding to v. 5); and (2) as a conclusion to the Psalm as a whole, in which case the line corresponds to the opening call to praise in verse 1. The parallel with v. 1 is established by the use of the substantive plural adjective <yd!ys!j&, “(the) devoted (one)s”, rendered above (in v. 1) as “(the) devout. This is a regular designation for the righteous ones of Israel, those who are faithful/loyal to YHWH and devoted to the covenant. The setting of the Psalm is the congregation/assembly of the righteous ones of Israel; though, as I noted above, within the eschatological orientation of the Psalm, the composer presumably expects the entire people to be righteous/devout.

Just as the past acts of protection and deliverance (salvation), performed by YHWH on behalf of His people, result in their honor/glory (vv. 4-5), so it will be for them with regard to the judgment of the nations. In the previous world order, the nations and their kings held greater positions of honor and power; this will no longer be so in the New Age, as the restored Israel (i.e., the Community of the righteous) will hold the highest position of honor/power over the nations that have been defeated/subdued in the Judgment.
In verse 5, the noun is dobK*, while here in v. 9b it is rd*h*; in the context of the Psalm, these are nearly synonymous terms, as both essentially mean “honor”. The noun rd*h* also suggests the idea of beauty and adornment, echoing the use of ra^P* in verse 4; this aspect of meaning is often translated as “splendor”. But rd*h* also can connote the idea of “majesty”, which is fully in keeping with the theme of YHWH as King; by extension, this sense of Divine royalty comes to be applied to the restored (and righteous) people of God in the New Age.

In the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa, there is a couplet rather than a single line here for v. 9b (which would match the couplet in v. 1):

“A splendid honor this (is) for all (the) devout (one)s,
for (the) sons of Yisrael (the) people of His holiness!”

    • References marked “Dahood, I”, “Dahood, II” and “Dahood, III” above are to, respectively, Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms I: 1-50, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 16 (1965), Psalms II: 51-100, vol. 17 (1968), and Psalms III: 101-150, vol. 17A (1970).
    • Those marked “Allen” are to Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101-150 (Revised edition), Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 21 (Zondervan: 2002/2014).
    • Those marked “Hossfeld-Zenger” are to Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101-150, translated by Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 2011).
    • Those marked “Goulder” are to Michael D. Goulder, The Psalms of the Return: Book V, Psalms 107–150, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 258 (Sheffield Academic Press: 1998).
    • Those marked “Broderson” are to Alma Broderson, The End of the Psalter: Psalms 146-150 in the Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Septuagint, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [BZAW] 505 (Walter de Gruyter: 2017).
    • Those marked “Ceresko” are to A. R. Ceresko, “Psalm 149: Poetry, Themes (Exodus and Conquest),” Biblica 67 (1986), pp. 179-94. 
    • Those marked “Prinsloo” are to W. S. Prinsloo, “Psalm 149: Praise Yahweh with Tambourine and Two-edged Sword,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft [ZAW] 109 (1997), pp. 395-407.
    • Those marked “Mowinckel” are to Sigmund Mowinckel, Psalm Studies, 2 volumes, translated by Mark E. Biddle from the original German publications, Psalmenstudien [6 vols] (1921-4). Society of Biblical Literature [SBL] History of Biblical Studies 2 (SBL Press: 2014).

“Who Is This Son of Man…?”: Conclusion

Conclusion

We have now reached the end of this series on the New Testament use of the expression “the son of man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou). The series was introduced during Holy Week this spring, and has continued throughout the summer. It is now time to draw the most pertinent conclusions, based on our studies.

To begin with, I should point out again the two main explanations, offered by scholars, for the origin of the expression “the son of man” in the Gospel Tradition. One explanation is that the expression is primarily derived from its use in Daniel 7:13, where the heavenly figure of the vision is described as “(one) like a son of man” (Aramaic vn`a$ rb^K=). The New Testament occurrences of the expression “(the) son of man” thus serve as a shorthand reference for the figure in the Daniel 7 vision. Such a derivation would be particularly plausible if the New Testament usage represented a Christological construction by early believers, rather than authentic usage by Jesus himself. Early Christians, following a Messianic interpretation of Dan 7:13-14, would have identified Jesus with that heavenly figure, and used it of him throughout the Gospel Tradition, particularly in reference to the end-time appearance (return) of Jesus from heaven. However, some scholars see no reason why Jesus could not have made such an association himself, identifying himself with the Messianic “son of man”, much as we see in the case of Enoch in the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71). On the Similitudes, and their possible influence on the Gospel Tradition, see the recent study.

The second explanation points to the ordinary use of the Aramaic (and/or Hebrew) expression as a means of self-reference. On the presumption that Jesus (and many of the earliest Christians) did most of the teaching and preaching in Aramaic, the expression would have been [a]vn[a] rb, as in Dan 7:13. In Aramaic, as in Hebrew (<da[h] /b), the expression simply means “a human being”, or, generically, “a person”; even in Dan 7:13, “(one) like a son of man”, means nothing more than that the heavenly figure resembles a human being (cp. 1 Enoch 46:1). An author/speaker can use the expression “(the) son of man” in a self-referential way, by applying the generic usage (viz., ‘a person’) to one’s own situation or circumstances. We see this even in English, when one says, proverbially, “a man…” or “a person…”, even though the speaker is actually referring to him/herself; the German use of “man” provides an even closer parallel. For more on this usage, see the discussion in the Introduction.

In my view, the evidence far favors this second explanation. As was discussed and demonstrated throughout our studies (especially those on the Synoptic sayings), Jesus seems to be using the expression “the son of man” primarily as a self-reference. In most of the sayings, there would be relatively little difference in meaning if Jesus had used the first person “I/me” instead of the third person “the son of man”. That the first and third person is virtually interchangeable in this regard, can be seen by the variant formulations in Matt 5:11/Lk 6:22, Mk 8:29/Matt 16:13, and elsewhere.

The Synoptic sayings in Mark 2:10, 28 [study] would seem to be particularly instructive, as regards Jesus’ use of the expression. In each of these sayings, “the son of man” fundamentally means “a human being”, according to the ordinary Semitic usage (see above). However, Jesus is also, quite clearly, referring to himself, specifically—viz., as the one who has authority on earth to forgive sins, and as the person who is truly “Lord” of the Sabbath. Both aspects of meaning are captured if one treats the definite article in the expression essentially like a demonstrative: “th(is) son of man”, i.e., this human being, this person—namely, Jesus himself. Moreover, in nearly every other saying, the meaning is likewise clarified and enhanced when the expression is translated similarly as “th(is) son of man”.

Beyond its use by Jesus as a self-reference, the expression also takes advantage of a key connotation, derived from occurrences of the expression in Old Testament and Jewish (poetic) tradition. As discussed in the Introduction, “(the) son of man” (Heb <d*a*-/B#), in parallel with “man” (<d*a*, vona$, vya!, or rb#G#), in poetic and wisdom texts, tends to emphasize the weakness and limitation of the human condition (including human mortality)—in contrast to the Divine. Throughout the Gospel sayings, in different ways, Jesus is identifying himself with the human condition (cf. Matt 8:20; 11:19). This is particularly true with regard to the Passion references (Mark 8:31/9:31/10:33 par; 10:45; also 14:21, 41 par [study]), where the expression “the son of man” is specifically associated with Jesus’ suffering and death. The same is true for a number of the Johannine sayings (see below).

At the same time, the sayings in Mark 13:26; 14:62 par [study] do allude to Daniel 7:13f (cf. above); this may reflect a fortuitous circumstantial correspondence. Jesus was already disposed to use the expression “the son of man” as a self-reference (i.e., “this son of man”, this person), but, as it happens, the same (Aramaic) expression was also used in Daniel 7:13f in reference to a heavenly figure—one who would play a key eschatological role, in connection with the Judgment and the coming New Age for God’s people. Given the Messianic interpretation of Daniel 7 that was in existence during the first century (as attested by the Similitudes of Enoch and 2/4 Esdras [chaps. 11-13], see the recent study; cf. also the Qumran text 4Q246), the expression also, in this context, could carry a Messianic significance (see the figure-types discussed in Parts 6-8 and 10 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”). To the extent that Jesus would have had his own resurrection (and exaltation) in mind (cf. the Passion predictions), he could have identified himself with the exalted (heavenly) figure in Dan 7:13-14. This would be the explanation for commentators who regard the saying in Mark 14:62 par as authentic. There can be little doubt that it is Jesus’ exaltation (following his death and resurrection) that is primarily in view in this saying, as is particularly clear from the Lukan form (22:69) of the saying, and its fulfillment in Acts 7:55-56 [study]. Only secondarily, it would seem, was the Dan 7:13f tradition applied to the return of the exalted Jesus to earth (from heaven); cf. below on Mk 13:26 par and the eschatological sayings as a whole.

The Johannine Usage

The “son of man” sayings in the Gospel of John generally follow the usage of the expression in the Synoptics; however, there also a number of distinctly Johannine theological (and Christological) associations which were noted and examined (in our studies on these sayings). Essentially, the Johannine use of the expression may be summarized as follows: it refers to the earthly life and ministry of the incarnate Son. Three aspects, in particular, are emphasized in the Johannine sayings:

    • The heavenly origin of Jesus, whereby the Son “stepped down” (vb katabai/nw) to earth, from heaven, in the person of Jesus (viz., the incarnation, 1:14ff, etc)—cf. the sayings in 3:13; 6:62, and the context of 6:27.
    • Upon the completion of his earthly mission, the Son “steps (back) up” (vb a)nabai/nw) to heaven; this fundamentally refers to the exaltation of the incarnate Son (Jesus), a process that begins with his suffering/death, and concludes with his departure back to the Father. In addition to the verb a)nabai/nw, the key verbs u(yo/w (“raise/lift high”) and doca/zw (“[give] honor”) are used for the Son’s exaltation. Cf. the sayings in 3:14; 6:62; 8:28; 12:23; 13:31.
    • It is, in particular, the incarnate Son’s death that is in view, and which marks the end of his earthly mission and the beginning of his exaltation. The Passion context of 12:23 and 13:31 is clear, and is certainly key to the sayings in 3:14 and 8:28 (cf. 12:32-34). Moreover, the significance of Jesus’ death, in terms of his human “flesh”, is central to the saying in 6:53, which comes at the climax of the chap. 6 Bread of Life Discourse (vv. 51-58).

Mention should also be made of the saying in 5:27 [study], which appears to be in line with the Synoptic eschatological sayings (cf. below) by emphasizing the role of the “son of man” in the end-time Judgment (with possible allusions to Dan 7:13f). However, the entire eschatological theme of the Judgment has been given a radical re-interpretation in the Johannine Gospel. The end-time Judgment effectively takes place in the present, based on how one responds to the (Gospel) message regarding who Jesus is. The one who trusts in Jesus (as the Son sent from heaven by the Father) is saved (even now) from the Judgment, while those who fail/refuse to trust are already judged. This helps to explain the use of the expression in the confessional context of 9:35 [study]. As a fundamental confessional point, Jesus is the incarnate Son, the Son in human flesh (i.e., “the Son of man”).

The Expression “the Son of man” and Orthodox Christology

As should be clear, the Johannine usage of the expression is more or less in accordance with orthodox Christology. By using the expression, the Johannine Jesus identifies himself as the pre-existent Son of God, who has come to earth (born) in human flesh (doctrine of the Incarnation). It would be natural for orthodox Christians to approach the Synoptic “son of man” sayings in much the same light. According to such an interpretative approach, in all of the sayings—even those which otherwise refer to Jesus’ earthly life and human weakness/suffering—Jesus is referring to himself as the incarnate Son. This means that he is effectively identifying himself with a Divine/heavenly figure such as the “son of man” in Daniel 7:13f (see above). Jesus is not simply identified with this figure by way of his resurrection/exaltation (cf. above on Mark 14:62 par), but as the pre-existent Son.

The problem with reading the Synoptic sayings through this lens is that a pre-existence Christology is virtually absent from the Synoptic Gospels, in marked contrast with the Gospel of John where it is prominent (as also in Hebrews, 1:2-4ff, etc; cf. the study on 2:6). In working with the Synoptic Gospels, one should take care to study them on their own terms, focusing first (and foremost) on how the original authors (and their communities) understood and dealt with the Gospel Tradition. And, from this standpoint, the Synoptics are fundamentally rooted in an exaltation Christology—whereby the Sonship of Jesus is defined primarily in terms of his resurrection and exaltation (to the right-hand of God in heaven). The Lukan treatment of this theme, in association with the expression “the son of man”, blending together the Messianic Dan 7:13-14 and Psalm 110:1 traditions, is particularly noteworthy (cf. again the study on Acts 7:55-56).

The Eschatological “Son of Man” Sayings

Of all the Synoptic “son of man” sayings, it is the eschatological sayings—those which either refer to Jesus’ end-time return or to his role (as “the son of man”) in the Judgment—which are most problematic, especially if one wishes to consider them as authentic sayings by Jesus. It is worth summarizing the main lines of interpretation available to commentators when dealing with these eschatological sayings:

    • The eschatological sayings are not authentic, but are creations by the early Christian Community, reflecting their belief in the exalted Jesus’ end-time return (and role in the Judgment). According to this line of interpretation, it is much easier to explain the expression “the son of man” in these sayings (beginning with Mark 13:26 par) as being derived from Daniel 7:13f.
    • The eschatological sayings are authentic sayings by Jesus, but, in using the expression “the son of man”, Jesus is not referring to himself, but to a separate figure (usually assumed to be the heavenly/Messianic figure of Dan 7:13f) who will appear at the time of Judgment.
    • The sayings are authentic, and Jesus is referring to himself—viz., his own return (following his exaltation) and role in the end-time Judgment.
    • The sayings are authentic, but their application to the future return (parousia) of the exalted Jesus represents a secondary development by early Christians.

In my view, only the last two lines of interpretation are tenable options. The problem with the third option, treating all of the eschatological “son of man” sayings as authentic without qualification, is that, by all accounts, such sayings would have been largely unintelligible to the original hearers. If, in Mark 8:38 or 13:26 (pars), for example, Jesus was originally referring to his return to earth from heaven (after his death and resurrection), what sense would this have made to his disciples at the time? Indeed, the saying in Mk 8:38 occurs just moments after Jesus introduced the idea of his impending death (and resurrection) to his disciples for the first time; so how could they have understood any reference to his return?

Perhaps the easiest solution to this problem would be to locate most, if not all, of the eschatological sayings, to a time after Jesus’ resurrection, rather than in their current Gospel locations (prior to the resurrection). Another option would be the fourth line of interpretation outlined above—namely, that the eschatological sayings originally referred to Jesus’ exaltation, and only secondarily were adapted and set in the context of the exalted Jesus’ return to earth. In the case of Mark 13:26 par, this would be possible if the Eschatological Discourse is viewed as a literary arrangement of eschatological material; taken out of this context, the saying would essentially match that of Mk 14:62 par, where it could be understood strictly in terms of Jesus’ exaltation (as in the Lukan version of this saying, 22:69; Acts 7:55-56). Sayings such as Luke 9:26 par could be similarly explained. However, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the use of the expression in Luke 12:40 and 17:22, 24, 26, 30 (pars) requires a reference to the parousia (second coming) of Jesus, at the time of the Judgment.

There remains no entirely satisfactory solution to the inherent difficulties surrounding these eschatological “son of man” sayings, especially for those who would otherwise affirm the authenticity of the sayings. They all make perfect sense for early Christians, after the resurrection (and departure/ascension) had taken place, but would surely have been confusing (if not unintelligible) for people prior to Jesus’ own death and resurrection. The reaction by Jesus’ hearers in John 12:34 perhaps leaves open the possibility that people could have initially understood the expression “the son of man”, in the eschatological sayings, as referring to someone other than Jesus. Only after Jesus’ death and resurrection, did the disciples fully understand that, in these sayings, “the son of man” really did refer to Jesus himself—to the impending end-time appearance of their exalted Lord.

Final Comments

Perhaps the most striking feature of the expression “the son of man” is the utter lack of its use by early Christians. Outside of the Gospel Tradition, it scarcely occurs at all in the New Testament. Indeed, as discussed in the recent study, even the occurrences in Acts 7:56 and Rev 1:13 [cf. verse 7]; 14:14 are essentially dependent upon the Gospel Tradition (Mk 13:26; 14:62 par). All of this argues strongly against the theory that “the son of man” represents a Messianic (and Christological) title, under which influence early Christians shaped the “son of man” sayings. If it really were a Christological title, one would expect to find some use of it in the New Testament writings (it is completely absent, for example, from Paul’s letters).

Given this evidence, the Gospel Tradition ought to be taken at face value: the “son of man” sayings represent a distinctive and authentic usage of the expression by Jesus himself. Most likely, the expression in Aramaic, [a]vn[a] rB, was translated into Greek (quite literally) as o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou. The definite article could be indicative of the emphatic state in Aramaic (av*n`[a$] rB^), or it might simply indicate that early Christians recognized that the expression was being used to refer to a specific, definite individual—namely, Jesus himself. Possibly, there were some who, hearing this usage, found it ambiguous or confusing (cf. John 12:34); however, on the whole, it would seem that early Christians, from the beginning, understood it clearly as a manner of self-reference by Jesus.

By way of summary, the following points can be made regarding the expression “the son of man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou) in the Gospels:

    • It is used primarily as a self-reference by Jesus
    • Jesus refers to himself as a very particular human being (“th[is] son of man”)
    • By using this expression, Jesus is identifying himself with the human condition, especially in regard to its weakness, suffering, and mortality (viz., the Passion of Jesus)
    • This can be understood in the deeper theological sense of the incarnation of the Son (of God) in the person of Jesus; this is particularly emphasized in the Gospel of John, according to the Johannine theology.
    • If the human condition involves suffering (and death), it also holds the promise of exaltation (cf. the use of Psalm 8:4ff in Heb 2:6-8); in association with the use of the expression in Dan 7:13f, it was also used in connection with the exaltation of Jesus (to heaven) after his death (cf. the parallel with Enoch’s exaltation [as the “son of man”] in 1 Enoch 70-71).
    • From his exalted position in heaven, Jesus further fulfills this role of the heavenly figure in Dan 7:13-14, through his expected return to earth (from heaven) at the time of the eschatological Judgment. This represents, in large part, a thematic development of the “son of man” tradition by early Christians (cf. Rev 1:7; cp. Mk 13:26 par), but it can still be maintained as an aspect of Jesus’ own usage of the expression (cf. the discussion above).

The expression “the son of man” is not a Messianic title per se; however, in light of a Messianic interpretation of Dan 7:13-14, it did come to take on a certain Messianic significance—as we see in the Similitudes of Enoch and 2/4 Esdras. In point of fact, the expression does not function as a title at all—neither the Aramaic (in Dan 7:13), nor the Greek version in the Gospels (in spite of its formal similarity to “the Son of God” [o( ui(o\$ tou= qeou=]), nor the (Ethiopic) formulations in the Similitudes.

Yet the expression, as it occurs in the Gospels, is fundamentally Christological. As a self-reference by Jesus, it refers to the person of Jesus Christ—Jesus, the Messiah and Son of God. Moreover, in the Gospel of John, is serves unquestionably to answer the fundamental question of who Jesus is—namely, the incarnate Son of God, who came to earth from heaven, born in human flesh, in the person of Jesus. A true trust in Jesus thus means a trust in Jesus as the “Son of man” (Jn 9:35). The terminology of Johannine essential predication is used both to pose the essential question—

“Who [ti$] | is [e)stin] | this son of man?” (12:34)

and to answer it:

“…(Jesus) | is [e)stin] | (the) son of man.” (5:27)

 

 

“Who Is This Son of Man…?”: Daniel 7:13-14 (Part 2)

In the first part of this study, examining the influence of Daniel 7:13f on the use of the expression “the son of man” in the Gospels, the literary context, background, and interpretation of that passage were surveyed briefly. It remains to consider the evidence regarding the extent of the possible influence. As we have discussed, there are certainly allusions to Dan 7:13f in the Synoptic “son of man” sayings in Mark 13:26 and 14:62 pars, but how does the usage in Dan 7:13 relate to the collection of “son of man” references as a whole?

There are a good number of scholars who view Dan 7:13f as the principal source of influence for the eschatological sayings, if not the entire Gospel usage. However, as support for this view, much depends on whether—or to what extent—Jews and early Christians, in the early-mid first century A.D., would have understood the expression “the son of man” (in Greek or in Aramaic) as a reference to the figure described in Dan 7:13-14. Based on the line of interpretation established by the analysis in Part 1, this means that the expression would refer to a heavenly being who would rule over the kingdom of God (and the “holy ones”) in the New Age. The eschatological setting and focus is clear enough in the context of Daniel, and it certainly seems to have prevailed for the interpretation and application of the passage in the Qumran Community as well (for the influence of Daniel 7 on the Qumran text 4Q246, see Part 1, and my earlier study on this passage). For the Qumran Community, as for early Christians, the eschatological outlook cannot be separated from their Messianic expectations. If “the son of man” is taken to refer to an eschatological figure, who will deliver God’s people (the “holy ones”) at the end-time and rule over the Kingdom of the New Age, then this corresponds quite closely to several of the Messianic figure-types attested among Israelites and Jews during the first centuries B.C./A.D.—including the royal/Davidic figure-type.

If Jesus, and/or the early Christians who made use of the expression “the son of man”, understood it fundamentally as a Messianic reference (or title), based on a Messianic interpretation of Daniel 7:13-14, then one must assume that many readers/hearers of the time would have been expected to understand it in much the same way. What evidence is there for such an understanding of the expression in the first century? It is actually very slight. In spite of the eschatological (and Messianic) significance of the book of Daniel for the Qumran Community, there is no indication that “(the) son of man” was ever used as a Messianic reference. As for other Jewish texts, written during the first centuries B.C./A.D., there are only two—the Similitudes of Enoch and 2/4 Esdras—which make use of the expression in such a way. For scholars who would argue that “the son of man” in the Gospels is likewise rooted in a Messianic/eschatological interpretation of Dan 7:13f, these two writings are essential.

The Similitudes of Enoch

The Similitudes (or Parables) of Enoch refer to chapters 37-71 of the book of 1 Enoch (Ethiopic Enoch). These chapters are not among the portions of 1 Enoch found in the Qumran caves, and scholars are in general agreement that they represent a distinct (and separate) work that was later included in the book of 1 Enoch. The date of the Similitudes, however, continues to be disputed. This is significant with regard to the use of the expression “the son of man”. If the Similitudes are to be utilized as evidence for a Messianic use of the expression “the son of man” at the time of Jesus (and/or among early Christians), then it is more meaningful if the Similitudes are dated to the early- or mid-first century (at the latest).

Most scholars today would date the Similitudes to the first-century A.D., though there is less agreement when attempts are made to narrow this window to a more a precise date. Nickelsburg, in his critical commentary (1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 37-82, Hermeneia [Fortress Press: 2011]), dates it to the late first-century (as does Bauckham, in his “Son of Man”, Volume 1: Early Jewish Literature [Eerdmans: 2023]); however, other commentators prefer an early first-century date. There has recently been a shift toward favoring an early date; this can be seen from the 2005 Enoch Seminar (in which the Similitudes were the focus, with essays published in Boccaccini, Enoch and Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables [Eerdmans: 2007]), and also, for example, in the Charlesworth-Bock collection of essays Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift (T&T Clark Jewish and Christian Texts Series, Bloomsbury: 2013).

Part of the difficulty with judging the relation of the expression “the son of man” to the Similitudes is the language (Ethiopic, Ge‘ez) of the work as it has come down to us. It is generally agreed that the Ethiopic is a translation of, most likely, an Aramaic original, possibly through an intermediary translation in Greek. As it happens, there are three Ethiopic expressions that generally correspond to Aramaic [a]vn[a] rb (or Hebrew <da[h] /b), and which probably represent translational variants of that underlying expression (cf. Bauckham, pp. 32-3):

    • walda sab’ (46:2, 3, 4; 48:2)
    • walda be’esi (62:5; 69:29 [bis]; 71:14)
    • walda ’egwala ’emaḥeyāw (62:7, 9, 14; 63:11; 69:26, 27; 70:1; 71:17).

Interestingly, in all but four of the sixteen occurrences, a demonstrative pronoun is used (viz., “that son of man”)—zekku (46:2; 48:2; 62:5, 9, 14; 63:11) or we’etu (69:26, 29 [bis]; 70:1; 71:17)—or, in one case, “this son of man” (zentu, 46:4); Bauckham, p. 33. The significance of this usage will be discussed (in Part 3); however, it strongly suggests that “son of man” is not being used as a title in the Similitudes—in contrast with the apparent titles “Righteous (One)” and “Elect/Chosen (One)”, cf. below.

The expression “son of man”, in the three Ethiopic variant forms noted above, occurs in two main portions of the Similitudes:

    • In chapters 46-48 (46:2-4; 48:2), part of the Second Parable (chaps. 45-57)
    • In chapters 62-63 and 69 (62:5, 7, 9, 14; 63:11; 69:26-27, 29), part of the Third Parable (chaps. 58-69)

There are also important occurrences in the closing section (epilogue), chaps. 70-71 (70:1; 71:14, 17). As the work progresses, it becomes clear that the “son of man” is to be identified with the heavenly figure otherwise called “(the) Elect/Chosen (One)” and “(the) Righteous (One)”. Those titles— “Righteous” (ṣādeq) and “Elect/Chosen” (—eruy)—connect the heavenly figure with the human people of God: the “righteous (one)s” and “elect/chosen (one)s”. This can be seen clearly in 38:1-2 (for the term “righteous”) and in 39:6ff (“elect/chosen”). The heavenly figure is the ruler and protector of the humans, in the eschatological context of the Judgment. The righteous/chosen ones are also referred to as “holy (one)s”, as in Daniel 7:18, 21-22, 25, 27. There is thus a clear parallel, and close relationship, between the heavenly figure and the community of the righteous/holy ones (on earth); cf. the parallel between the “one like a son of man” in Dan 7:13-14 and the “holy ones” in vv. 22-27.

While allusions to Daniel 7 can be found throughout the Similitudes (cf. the Table in Casey, p. 107 for a list of 32 possible allusions), the specific use of Dan 7:13f is established in 46:1:

“There I saw one who had a head of days,
and his head was like white wool.
And with him was another, whose face was like the appearance of a man;
and his face was full of graciousness like one of the holy angels.”
(Nickelsburg/Hermeneia)

In v. 2, Enoch asks about who this person resembling a human being is, since the presence of a human in heaven is rather unexpected and unusual. Angels are typically described this way, and yet the emphasis throughout the Similitudes is on the human nature of this figure—he is not simply “like a son of man”(Dan 7:13), he is a “son of man”. The significance of this becomes clear in the conclusion (chaps. 70-71), cf. below. Here, Enoch asks “about that [zekku] son of man—who he was and whence he was (and) why he went with the Head of Days”. The answer comes in verse 3:

“This is the son of man who has righteousness,
and righteousness dwells with him,
and all the treasuries of what is hidden he will reveal;
For the Lord of Spirits has chosen him,
and his lot has prevailed through truth
in the presence of the Lord of Spirits forever.”
(Nickelsburg/Hermeneia)

Again, we see emphasized the fundamental characteristics of “righteousness” and of being “chosen” by God. Almost certainly, this terminology derives from the Deutero-Isaian usage, most notably in 42:1 (“Chosen [One]”) and 53:11 (“Righteous [One]”), by way of a well-established Messianic interpretation and application. Daniel 7:13-14 is applied in much the same way. Indeed, the role of this “son of man” in the end-time Judgment is clear from verse 4ff—it is a role that is emphasized even more strongly in chapters 62-63ff (note how 62:2ff alludes to Isaiah 11:2-4ff), being further summarized at the close of the Parables in 69:26-29.

While the punishment of the wicked (i.e., the nations) is given prominence, the role of the “son of man” as ruler/judge also entails the care and protection he provides for the righteous. We find this latter aspect expressed most clearly in chapter 48. This “son of man” (v. 2), the Righteous and Chosen One (see vv. 3-7ff), will protect and deliver the righteous in the time of the Judgment. Here, the “son of man” is also called “(the) Anointed (One)” (v. 10, cf. also 52:4), utilizing the familiar Messianic title—to designate the eschatological judge and ruler, though the Davidic aspect of this figure-type (cp. Psalms of Solomon 17) is downplayed, and scarcely even mentioned by the author.

In the Epilogue (chaps. 70-71), the exaltation of Enoch to heaven is narrated, being described briefly (at first) in 70:1-2, how he was “lifted up”, while he was still living, “into the presence of that [we’etu] son of man and into the presence of the Lord of Spirits”. Later on, at the very close of the work (71:13-17), it is revealed to Enoch that he, himself, is “that son of man” (v. 14, cf. also v. 17) and the Righteous/Chosen (One):

“You (are) that Son of Man who was born for righteousness,
and righteousness dwells on you,
and the righteousness of the Head of Days will not forsake you.”
(Nickelsburg/Hermeneia)

In Part 3 of this study, we shall explore further the interesting parallels between the Similitudes and the Gospel Tradition, regarding this use of the expression “son of man”, and also consider the extent to which the Similitudes (and/or the eschatological thought expressed in them) may have influenced the Gospel usage.

2/4 Esdras

The deutero-canonical work known as 2 (or 4) Esdras can be dated rather securely to the end of the first-century A.D. The core treatise (chaps. 3-14) is a Jewish work, often referred to as “4 Ezra”, probably originally composed in Hebrew (or Aramaic), but which has come down to us today in Latin (and other versions) presumably by way of an intermediary Greek translation. It is the eschatological visions in chapters 11-12 and 13 which are related to Daniel 7. The “Eagle” vision in chaps. 11-12 is explicitly, and consciously, presented as a further interpretation on the four-kingdoms vision in Daniel 7, expounded here in 12:10-39. It is quite clearly a Messianic interpretation (and application) of the vision (12:32ff).

Much the same applies to the vision in chapter 13, of a man who comes up from the sea, just as the beasts came up out of the sea in the Daniel 7 vision (vv. 2-8). In this regard, the Esdras vision represents a reworking of the earlier Daniel vision:

“And I looked, and behold, this wind made something like the figure of a man come up out of the sea. And I looked, and behold, that man flew with the clouds of heaven…” (13:3, Metzger/OTP)

Clearly, this alludes to Dan 7:13, and yet the author/seer has adapted it so that the “one like a son of man” comes up out of the sea, just like the beasts do; having risen from the sea, then he ascends on the clouds of heaven. In the remainder of the vision, the Daniel 7 scenario is supplemented by traditional eschatological references from Daniel 2 and Isa 11:2-4ff (see above), emphasizing this figure’s role in the end-time Judgment.

The interpretation of the vision comes in vv. 21-56; and, again, we see that the Scriptural traditions involved (including Dan 7:13-14) are given a Messianic interpretation (vv. 25ff), while the detail of the man’s coming up out of the sea is explained (rather unconvincingly) in vv. 51ff. There appears to be a certain disconnect between the vision and its interpretation, suggesting that they come from two distinct sources. In any event, the Messiah’s role in the Judgment is prominent—entailing a judgment upon all of the nations assembled together (vv. 37ff). The reference to the Messiah as God’s “son” (“my son”, vv. 33, 37, 52) is probably derived from a traditional Messianic interpretation of Psalm 2:7; indeed, there would seem to be allusions to Psalm 2 (par Isa 11:2-4) throughout the passage.

The use of Daniel 7:13-14 in 2/4 Esdras is quite similar, in a number of respects, to its use in the Similitudes of Enoch (see the discussion above). In each work, the Scripture has been given an eschatological and Messianic interpretation (and application), focusing on the end-time Judgment of the nations. The one “like a son of man” is explained as a Messianic figure, chosen by God, who is revealed at the end-time. His principal role is as the overseer of the Judgment—bringing punishment on the wicked (nations), but also protecting and delivering the righteous (people of God).

The distinctive element in the Similitudes is the identification of Enoch—an exalted human being (“son of man”)—with the heavenly/Messianic figure. Interestingly, while the motif of the “son of man” coming up from the sea (to heaven) in 2/4 Esdras 13 could be explained in a similar way—viz., as the exaltation of a human being—the interpretation in vv. 51ff does not follow this line at all, opting instead for a rather banal (and unconvincing) interpretation of the “sea” (v. 52). One suspects that the author/seer of the original vision (vv. 1-13) may have had something different in mind. In any case, the motif of a human being (“son of man”) exalted to heaven, so as to become “the/that son of man”, is obviously relevant to the Gospel Tradition, and to the early Christian understanding of the implications and consequences of Jesus’ exaltation. This will be discussed further in Part 3.

References above marked “Casey” are to Maurice Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (SPCK: 1979).
Those marked “Bauckham” are to Richard Bauckham, “Son of Man”, Volume 1: Early Jewish Literature (Eerdmans: 2023).
Those marked “Nickelsburg” are to George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of Enoch Chapters 37-82, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 2012). “Nickelsburg/Hermeneia” marks the translation of the Similitudes in the Commentary.
“Metzger/OTP” refers to the translation of 2/4 Esdras (4 Ezra) by Bruce M. Metzger in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha [OTP], Volume 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, ed. by James H. Charlesworth, Anchor Bible Reference Library [ABRL] (Doubleday: 1983), pp. 517-60.

 

June 24: 1 John 3:10

1 John 3:10

“In this it is shining out [i.e. apparent], (who are) the offspring of God and the offspring of the Diábolos: every(one) not doing what is right [dikaiosu/nh] is not (born) of God—even the (one) not loving his brother.”

Verse 10 represents the conclusion of the section (2:28-3:10) under examination here. The central theme in this section—viz., the true believer (in contrast to the false) as Divine offspring (te/knon) ‘born’ of God—also finds its fulfillment in this verse. It is presented within the broader theme of the contrast between the true and false believer, as expressed by the eschatological framework established in 2:28-29.

Note, in particular, the use of the adjective fanero/$ (“shining”), in relation to the verb fanero/w (“[make] shine forth”) in 2:28 (and 3:2). This verb came to hold a special eschatological significance among early Christians (e.g., 2 Cor 5:10-11), especially with regard to the end-time appearance of the exalted Christ (see, for example, Col 3:4; 1 Pet 5:4); however, it also could refer to the earthly life and ministry of Jesus, with incarnational implications—viz., his appearance (as a human being) on earth (cf. Col 1:26; 1 Tim 3:16; 2 Tim 1:10; 1 Pet 1:20; Heb 9:26). Moreover, the eschatological usage could apply to the end-time Judgment, as the moment when a person’s deeds will be brought to light, and it will become apparent who the righteous and the wicked are (1 Cor 4:5; 2 Cor 5:10; Eph 5:13).

The Johannine writings generally follow this traditional usage of fanero/w, but adapt it in terms of their distinctive theology. For example, the verb is used in the Gospel in the specific context of the incarnation of the Son, on earth, in the person of Jesus; through the mission of Jesus, his identity as the Son is made manifest—Jn 1:31; 2:11; 17:6; cf. also 7:4, and the references to Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances in 21:1, 14. The verb is used in a similar way in 1 John—1:2; 3:5, 8 [note]; 4:9 [cp. Jn 3:16]. Then, as discussed in the prior notes on 2:28-29 and 3:1-2, the verb can also be used, specifically, for the end-time appearance (second coming) of the Son (2:28; 3:2). Finally, the Judgment-context is utilized in 2:19, and here in verse 10, following upon the important reference in Jn 3:21.

Even during the end-time period of distress, preceding the Judgment proper, it is becoming apparent (“made to shine forth”) who the true believers are, distinguishing them from the false believers of the world. This is the point made by the author, regarding the “antichrist” opponents, in 2:19 (cf. the context of 2:18-27 and 4:1-6). The very departure of the opponents, away from the Community of true believers (and from the truth), is proof that they never were true believers. Like Judas Iscariot in the Gospel narrative (13:30), the opponents have left the circle of true believers, and have gone out into the darkness of the world.

This is the significance of the adjective fanero/$ here in verse 10. What “shines out” is the distinguishing identification of who is a true believer and who is a false believer—expressed by way of the birth/offspring motif: the offspring of God vs. the offspring of the Devil. This contrast was established in the first two statements of vv. 4-6 and 7-9, respectively. Note the contrast in the first statement, comparing v. 4 with v. 7:

    • “every(one) doing the sin” acts “without law” (i.e., lawlessly)
    • “every(one) doing th(at which is) right” is “right(eous)”, according to the Divine righteousness of the Son

Now, consider the contrast in the second statement (v. 5/8):

    • the believer in Christ is free from sin, according to the sinlessness of the Son
    • “the (one) doing the sin”, by contrast, is a false believer, ‘born’ “of the Devil”

The implications of these statements are brought to fruition in v. 10, bringing out more clearly (following the thematic emphasis in the third statement [v. 6/9]) the birth/offspring motif. There are two main aspects to the contrast: (1) essential identity, and (2) practical manifestation:

    • The true believer:
      • Identity: “the offspring [te/kna] of God”
      • Manifestation:
        “the (one) doing th(at which is) right” =
        ‘the (one) not doing [the] sin’
    • The false believer:
      • Identity: “the offspring [te/kna] of the Devil”
      • Manifestation:
        acting “without law” (viz., doing what is not right) =
        “the (one) doing [the] sin”

The identity is manifest (fanero/$) “in this” (e)n tou=tw|): whether or not one does “what is right” (dikaiosu/nh). As vv. 4-9 makes quite clear, “doing what is right” is essentially equivalent to “not doing the sin”, whereas “not doing what is right” is equivalent to “doing the sin”. The terms dikaiosu/nh and a(marti/a (also the verb a(marta/nw) are thus closely related, and, to a large extent, are interchangeable. For this reason also, it makes relatively little difference whether the expression e)n tou=tw| (“in this”) refers to what precedes (vv. 4-9, specifically v. 9), or to what follows (v. 10b); grammatically, it could refer to either (cf. the discussion by Brown, p. 416).

An overlooked detail here, at the end of verse 10 (and the section 2:28-3:10), is the qualifying phrase “…and the (one) not loving his brother”. Precisely how this relates to the main phrase immediately preceding (“every[one] not doing what is right”) is not entirely clear. Is it to be taken in addition, or as synonymous?—or, perhaps, it is meant as a particularly notable example of what it means to “not do what is right”. I would argue that, from the author’s standpoint, and according to the Johannine theological meaning of the terminology, the phrases are essentially synonymous. However, this requires some further explanation, which I will offer in the next daily note, the final note (in this series) on 1 Jn 2:28-3:10.

References above marked “Brown” are to Raymond E. Brown, S.S., The Epistles of John, Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 30 (1982).

 

 

“Who Is This Son of Man…?”: Johannine Sayings (Jn 5:27)

John 5:27

The next “son of man” reference in the Gospel of John is at 5:27, within the lengthy Discourse of chapter 5. The Johannine Discourses of Jesus are all carefully structured and arranged. For example, the first four Discourses are arranged in two pairs. The Discourses in the first pair (3:1-21; 4:1-42) are based upon encounters between Jesus and a particular individual—Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman, respectively—characters who are vividly portrayed in the narrative. The Discourses of the second pair (chaps. 5 and 6) are each rooted in a different kind of historical tradition—namely, a miracle episode, similar to those we find narrated in the Synoptic Gospels. Indeed, the miraculous feeding episode in chap. 6 (vv. 1-14f) so closely resembles the Synoptic episode(s) (Mk 6:30-44 par; 8:1-10 par), that most commentators would consider both versions to be derived from a single (common) historical tradition.

As for the miracle episode in chapter 5 (vv. 1-16), it bears a certain resemblance to Mark 3:1-6 par, with the healing framed as a Sabbath controversy episode. Actually, in the Johannine narrative, the healing (vv. 1-9) and Sabbath-controversy (vv. 10-16) portions appear to reflect separate traditions, which the Gospel writer (or the underlying Johannine Tradition) has combined into a single narrative. In this regard, we might a comparison with the healing miracle (of a paralyzed man) in Mk 2:1-12 par, in its contextual position preceding the Sabbath controversy episodes of 2:23-3:6. As it happens, in both the episodes of 2:1-12 and 23-28, the expression “the son of man” plays a prominent role (vv. 10, 28).

The Johannine combination of traditional elements—healing miracle and Sabbath controversy—provides the narrative background for the main saying of Jesus (v. 17) that initiates the Discourse proper: “My Father works (even) until now, and I (also) work.” In the sections of the Discourse that follow, Jesus expounds the meaning of this saying.

In all of the Johannine Discourses, there is a reaction to the initial saying of Jesus by his hearers, and this reaction leads to an expository response by Jesus. The hostile reaction, by at least some of the populace (“the Yehudeans”) who heard him, is presented indirectly, in summary fashion by the Gospel writer, in verse 18. The people objected both to his healing act which (in their view) violated the Sabbath law, and to his statement, by which they recognized that “he was making himself equal to God”.

Typically, the audience reactions to Jesus’ statements in the Discourses involve a misunderstanding of (the true meaning of) his words. Here, the emphasis is not so much on misunderstanding, as it is on opposition to Jesus. Given the Synoptic parallels (see above), and also the certain parallels with the healing episode in chapter 9, it would seem likely that “the Yehudeans [i.e., Jews]” of verses 10-18 should be identified with the kinds of Jewish religious authorities (‘Scribes and Pharisees’) who typically feature as Jesus’ adversaries/opponents in the Gospel Tradition (cf. 9:13-16ff).

Jesus’ exposition that follows may be divided into two main portions—vv. 19-30 and vv. 31-47. The “son of man” reference occurs toward the end of first division. The principal theme of the Discourse is two-fold: (1) Jesus’ identity as the unique Son of God the Father, and (2) the fact that, as the Son, he does the work of his Father.

Like a dutiful son, Jesus follows his father’s example in his working—a principle that almost certainly reflects the practical situation of a son apprenticing in the same work/trade as his father. As Jesus states at the opening of his exposition:

“The Son is not able to do anything from himself, if not [i.e. but only] what he should see the Father doing; for the (thing)s which that (One) would do, the Son also does.” (v. 19)

The Father, like a human father instructing his son, shows the Son what to do and how to work (v. 20).

To illustrate the nature of the Father’s work, Jesus cites two examples, both of which have an eschatological orientation: (i) giving life to the dead (v. 21), and (ii) acting as Judge over humankind (v. 22). The first theme is loosely related to the healing miracle of vv. 1-16, though it would, of course, be more appropriate to the Lazarus episode of chap. 11. The ability to heal illness reflects the life-giving power of God. However, the exposition focuses specifically on giving life to the dead (i.e., resurrection), with the end-time resurrection primarily in view. This resurrection, according to traditional eschatological expectation, is connected with the end-time Judgment.

These twin themes are woven through verses 19-30, being developed in various ways, and (most importantly) given a Johannine Christological interpretation. Structurally, the exposition here is given in two parallel sections—vv. 21-24 and vv. 25-29. Three key points are made in each section:

    • The authority/ability both to give life and to judge is given by the Father to the Son (vv. 21-22f, 26-27)
    • Giving life: the one who hears the voice of the Son will receive life and be raised from the dead (v. 24a, 25ff)
    • Judging: those who hear the Son’s voice will face the Judgment (v. 24b, 28-29)

The emphasis in the second section (vv. 25-29) is on what we may call the traditional future eschatology, held by Jews and Christians in the first centuries B.C./A.D. In the first section (vv. 21-24), however, the focus is on the realized eschatology that is so distinctive of the Johannine Gospel. The two eschatological strands are joined together here by the phrase in v. 25a: “(the) hour comes, and is now (here)”.

From the standpoint of the Johannine ‘realized’ eschatology—that is, where traditional future events (i.e., resurrection, the Judgment) are realized for human beings already in the present—the eschatological events of the resurrection and the Judgment are understood in terms of trust in Jesus. This is stated quite clearly in verse 24:

“Amen, amen, I say to you, that the (one) hearing my word and trusting in the (One hav)ing sent me holds (the) life of the Age(s) [i.e. eternal life], and does not come into judgment, but has stepped over [metabe/bhken], out of death and into life.”

The use of the perfect tense of the verb metabai/nw, in particular, makes clear that the person trusting in Jesus (as the Son sent by the Father) has already (in the present) received the resurrection-life, and has passed through the Judgment into eternal life. Much the same idea was expressed earlier in 3:16-21, and can be found at other points in the Gospel as well.

Yet this ‘realized’ eschatology does not exclude the traditional (future) understanding of the end-time resurrection and Judgment. This is clear from the second section (vv. 25-29), though some commentators would view the future eschatology in these verses as the product of a later (redacted/edited) edition of the Gospel, and not the work of the original author. As noted above, verse 25a serves to join together the two different eschatological viewpoints. More than this, there is a certain inclusio to the section which could be interpreted as presenting the theme of Jesus’ life-giving (resurrection) power according to both eschatological aspects:

    • Realized eschatology:
      “(the) hour comes and is now (here)
      when the dead
      shall hear the voice of the Son of God,
      and the (one)s hearing shall live” (v. 25)
    • Future eschatology:
      “(the) hour comes
      in which all the (one)s in the memorials [i.e. tombs]
      shall hear his voice,
      and they shall travel out…(some) unto life…and (others) unto judgment” (vv. 28-29)

In both instances, human beings hear the voice of the Son (Jesus). This “hearing” has a double meaning, but the second (deeper) meaning applies only to the ‘realized’ eschatology of the Johannine theology. For this reason, the verb a)kou/w (“hear”) is used twice in verse 25:

    • “the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God”
      viz., at the resurrection, when humankind is raised from the dead
    • “and the (one)s (hav)ing heard shall live”
      viz., believers, those trusting in Jesus, shall enter into eternal life

At the same time, the entire verse echoes the realized eschatology of vv. 21-24, and anticipates the Lazarus episode, in which “the dead hearing the voice of the Son” is applied to the present, not simply to the future.

With this analysis in place, we can now turn to the “son of man” reference in verse 27. It is important, first, to examine the reference within the unit of vv. 26-27. As noted above, in this unit, we find the theme of the Father giving to the Son the authority/ability both to give life (to the dead) and to judge. In the first section, this theme was expressed in vv. 21-22:

“For, just as [w(sper] the Father raises the dead and makes (them) live, so also the Son makes live th(ose) whom he wishes.
For the Father judges no one, but has given all (power of) judgment to the Son”

It is similarly expressed, though with quite different wording/phrasing, in vv. 26-27:

“For, just as [w(sper] the Father holds life in Himself, so also He (has) given to the Son life to hold in himself.
And He (has) given (the) authority [e)cousi/a] to him to make judgment, (in) that he is (the) Son of man.”

The point is thus made doubly: the Father has given life-giving power to the Son; He has also given the Son the power/authority to act as judge over humankind. With regard to the use of the expression “(the) son of man” here, there are three interpretive issues that need to be addressed:

    1. The relation between the (parallel) terminology “the Son” (v. 22) and “(the) son of man” (v. 27)
    2. In what ways (if any) does the power to give life and to judge differ, particularly as expressed in vv. 26-27, and (how) does this effect the use of the expression “son of man”?
    3. How is the judgment to be understood, comparing the matter in light of both sections (vv. 21-24, 25-29), and in the broader context of the Johannine theology? And how does the expression “(the) son of man” relate to this understanding of the judgment?

In addition, some consideration must be given to the distinctive anarthrous form of the expression (i.e., without the definite article[s]) here in verse 27.

These points will be discussed in the continuation of this study.

 

January 31: 1 Thessalonians 5:5 (continued)

1 Thessalonians 5:5, continued

Continuing from the previous note, on 1 Thess 5:5, it will be useful to examine Paul’s declaration in context, in order to see more clearly how the designation of believers as “sons of light” is understood. The declaration is at the heart of the instruction in vv. 1-11, which has a decidedly eschatological emphasis. An eschatological issue was dealt with in the preceding section (4:13-18), and eschatology also dominates the discussion in 2 Thessalonians (which was conceivably written prior to 1 Thessalonians). Like virtually every first-century Christian (including the New Testament authors), Paul held an imminent eschatology—a point clearly in evidence by a careful reading of 1 and 2 Thessalonians. In particular, this orientation (of eschatological imminence) informs both the instruction in 4:13-18 and the ethical exhortation of 5:1-11.

This imminent expectation of the end means that the “day of the Lord” could come suddenly, at any moment. In vv. 2-4 this is expressed by the illustration of a thief who comes in the middle of the night (“thief in the night,” kle/pth$ e)n nukti/, v. 2). This image plays on the day-night motif (a variation of the light-darkness motif), discussed in the previous note. Here “night” (nu/c) represents, symbolically, a period of time characterized by darkness—where “darkness” (sko/to$) is used in the ethical-religious sense of that which is apart from, and even in opposition to, the light of God (His Word and Truth, etc). The period of time in question is the ‘present Age’ —and, in particular, the ‘last days’, in which first-century believers (such as Paul) saw themselves living. The ‘end of the Age’ was near, soon to arrive; and, according contemporary eschatological beliefs and tradition, it was expected that things on earth would become increasingly ‘dark’, dominated by wickedness and sin, evil and false deception—a time of great “distress” (qli/yi$), for all humankind, but particularly for believers, who will face persecution and testing. From the standpoint of the illustration, people on earth are in the middle of a dark night, during which disaster (i.e., the thief) will come.

Verse 3 utilizes a different image to illustrate the sudden arrival of distress: that of the labor pains that come suddenly upon a pregnant woman—the expression literally is “the pain [w)di/n] to/for the (woman) holding (a child) in (her) belly”. The arrival of labor pains was a natural image for the idea of a period of distress (involving pain and suffering) that comes upon (vb e)fi/sthmi, “stand upon, set upon”) a person. It is used in the Old Testament Scriptures, typically in the context of the coming of Divine judgment upon human beings—and thus is quite appropriate in reference to the end-time judgment. Indeed, in Isaiah 13:8, the motif is clearly connected with the expression “the day of YHWH” (v. 6), just as it is here in our passage. For other examples, cf. Isa 26:16-18; Jer 6:24; 22:23; 50:43; Micah 4:9-10; and, subsequently in Jewish tradition, e.g., 1 Enoch 62:4f.

Jesus utilized both the thief and woman-in-labor illustrations in his eschatological teaching, as preserved variously in the Synoptic tradition (Mk 13:8 par; Matt 24:43 par). The same thief-image also occurs in 2 Pet 3:10 and Rev 3:3; 16:15 (Jesus speaking). As for the woman-in-labor motif, note the eschatological significance of Jn 16:21f; Rom 8:22, and Rev 12:2. It is possible that Paul’s use of the motifs, together, here in 1 Thess 5:2-4, derive from the Gospel Tradition and the preserved teachings of Jesus; at the very least, he was almost certainly influenced by that Tradition.

In verse 4, Paul comes to the point of his illustration:

“But you, brothers, are not in (the) darkness, (so) that the day should not take you down as a thief (would)…”

Even though the Thessalonian believers were living in the darkness of the end-time, they are not truly in (e)n) the darkness—that is, they are not dominated by it, thoroughly influenced by the forces of sin and wickedness. For this reason, the Day of the Lord, when it comes (suddenly), will not take them down. The verb katalamba/nw could also be rendered “overtake”, but I prefer to keep to its fundamental meaning (“take down”), in the negative sense of defeating, overcoming, etc. The “day” certainly refers to the “day of the Lord,” the time/moment of the end-time Judgment, when all evil and wickedness will be brought to light and judged. This is another way of referring to a basic early Christian principle regarding salvation—viz., that believers in Christ, who remain faithful, will be saved/rescued from the coming Judgment. For believers in the first century, their understanding of salvation was primarily eschatological in nature.

This leads to the central declaration in verse 5:

“For all of you are sons of light and sons of (the) day; we are not (sons) of (the) night, nor of darkness.”

Believers belong to the light, and thus are not in the darkness—rather, they/we are fundamentally separate from it, just as light was separated from darkness (Gen 1:4-5) and the two remain forever separate. Paul states this bluntly in v. 5b, including himself (and his fellow ministers) along with the Thessalonian believers: “we are not of (the) night, nor of darkness”. The noun ui(oi/ (“sons”) is omitted in v. 5b; this simply affirms the use of the idiom “sons of” as essentially meaning “belonging to” (on this use of the Hebrew yn@B=, cf. the previous note). The pairs light-day and darkness-night are parallel and antithetic; their occurrence in the phrasing of v. 5 is chiastic, suggesting an inverse-mirrored relationship:

light / day // night / darkness

The eschatological thrust of this religious identity for believers is expressed clearly in v. 9f:

“(So it is) that God did not set us unto (His) anger, but unto (the) bringing about of salvation, through our Lord Yeshua (the) Anointed, who died off over [i.e. for] us”

In the Judgment, we, as believers, are not destined to face God’s anger (o)rgh/), but instead will experience salvation (swthri/a). The noun peripoi/hsi$ is derived from the verb peripoie/w, “make [i.e. bring] over/about”, with a range of meaning that is difficult to translate into English. A basic meaning would be something like “make secure”, or (more literally), make (i.e. cause) something to remain. It can refer generally to effecting a particular situation or circumstance, or, more specifically, to obtaining a result, gaining possession of something, etc. The verb can occasionally connote the idea of keeping something (or someone) safe, i.e., preserving, saving. I have translated the noun here in terms of the “bringing over” (or “bringing about”) of a situation—namely, salvation from the Judgment (and from God’s anger). This situation is ‘brought about’ through the death of Jesus Christ.

In vv. 6-10, Paul moves from the day-night motif to the related motif of awake-asleep (part of the traditional eschatological imagery, cf. Mk 13:33-37 par). The person who is in (i.e. belonging to) the darkness of night is asleep, overcome by the power of night/darkness, and unaware of what is going on. Believers, who belong to the light, are not like this, and must not behave in such a way—which is the thrust of Paul’s exhortation. Even while living in the darkness of the end-time, believers in Christ belong to the day/light, and thus are like those who are wide awake. Remaining awake is particularly important because of the wickedness that is prevalent in the end-time period of darkness; in addition to being watchful and guarding oneself against this wickedness, believers have certain protections, provided by God, which Paul depicts as pieces of military equipment (armor)—namely, a breastplate (faith and love) and a helmet (the hope of salvation). The helmet, in particular, reflects the eschatological context of vv. 1-11, with the expression “hope of salvation” —i.e., salvation from the coming Judgment (cf. above).

Much of this language and imagery is repeated in Romans 13:11-14, where the believer’s protective armor is referred to, more generally, as “the weapons of light” (ta\ o%pla tou= fwto/$), v. 12. Referring to them as “light” indicates their Divine origin and source, but also keeps the imagery firmly rooted in the ethical dualism of the light-darkness contrast: “Therefore, we should cast away the works of the darkness, and should sink into [i.e. put on] the weapons [i.e. armor] of light”. This military imagery of weapons/armor is developed more extensively (and famously) in Eph 6:10-18f.

As discussed in the previous note, the designation of believers as “sons of light” is conceptually related to the designation as “sons of God”. Belonging to the light (of God) means belonging to God Himself. This identity has eschatological and soteriological significance. There remains also a fundamental ethical consequence: believers who belong to God and are “of the light” cannot—and should not—allow themselves to be immersed in darkness or to be overcome by it. Here, by “darkness” is meant, primarily, the sin and wickedness that characterizes the world during the end-time. It should not characterize the life and conduct of believers. The end-time period of darkness—which is a time of distress for believers—represents a moment of testing: will we remain faithful to our identity (as believers in Christ), and thus be assured of salvation from the coming Judgment?

In the next daily note, we will turn to the next Pauline reference featured in our study: Galatians 3:26. In exploring this reference, we will also be examining a series of arguments, developed by Paul, in chapters 3-4 of that letter.

October 27: John 15:6

John 15:6

“If any (one) should not remain in me, he is cast out of (the place), as the broken (branch) (is), and it is dried up, and (when) they gather them together, is also cast into the fire and is burned.”

In this portion of the exposition of the vine illustration, Jesus explains what happens to the ‘branch’ (klh=ma) that does not “remain” in the vine: “it/he is cast out of (the place)” (e)blh/qh e&cw). The land-worker who does this work is God the Father (v. 1), and the Father must be seen as the implied actor of the passive verb here—an example of the so-called “divine passive” (passivum divinum). The act of casting/throwing (vb ba/llw) away is parallel (and essentially equivalent) to the “taking away” (vb ai&rw) of the branch that does not bear fruit (v. 2). As is clear from vv. 4-5, the branch that does not remain in the vine, does not (and cannot) bear fruit.

The taking/casting away of such branches is part of the overall cutting/pruning of the vine that is indicated within the illustration. The noun klh=ma, typically translated “branch”, properly denotes something that is “broken (off)”; here in verse 6, the verbal aspect of the branch being broken off, is particularly prominent. The branches/tendrils that do bear fruit are also cut away and pruned, but this yields a fundamentally different result: the branch is not simply “taken away”; rather, it is “cleaned” (vb kaqai/rw) by the pruning process, so as to be able to produce more/better fruit.

The branch that is cut/broken off and “cast out” (the adverb e&cw indicating removal from a place) simply dries up (vb chrai/nw, “be[come] dry”), since, being separated from the vine (that is itself rooted in the ground), it no longer has access to the vine’s vital essence and life-giving nutrients. All the passive verbs in v. 6 should be read as “divine passives”, with God the Father effectively performing the action. However, at least in the case of the verb chrai/nw, the passive can also indicate the condition of the branch that is now on its own, apart from the vine (cf. the previous note on v. 5).

At this point, the grammatical number in the verse suddenly shifts from the singular to the plural (before shifting back again to the singular): “and they gather them together” (kai\ suna/gousin au)ta/). While some manuscripts read the singular here (“they gather it together”), that reading most likely represents a scribal ‘correction’ to match the singulars elsewhere in the verse. By the sudden shift to the plural, the individual ‘branch’ is recognized as part of a group—i.e., all of the branches that do not bear fruit (because they do not “remain” in the vine), and are thus removed and “thrown out”.

It is these branches that are “gathered together” and thrown into the fire, utilizing imagery that reinforces the eschatological emphasis of other comparable harvest-illustrations (see esp. Matt 3:12 par; 13:30 / 41), alluding to the end-time Judgment by God. The plural subject of the verb suna/gw, could refer to the end-time role of the angels (Matt 13:41; Mark 13:27 par), acting as God’s representatives in the onset of the Judgment. The implication thus is, that if a disciple (believer) does not remain in Jesus, he/she will perish in the Judgment (“and is burned [up]”, vb kai/w). In the upcoming notes, we will examine, in some detail, precisely what it means to “remain” (vb me/nw) in Jesus.

In the exposition/application of the vine illustration, Jesus focuses on the identification of the disciples with the cut/pruned branches. Here in verse 6, he is clearly speaking of the disciples, mentioning at the same time, again, their place in the illustration (as the ‘branches’)— “he [i.e. the disciple] is cast out of (the place), as the broken (branch is)”. The shift in verbal tense, from aorist to present, is best explained in terms of Jesus’ application of the illustration: the aorist verbs refer to the fate of the individual branch at a specific point in time; while the present verbs describe the regular activity of the workers who deal, each season, with the branches that are cut off. We may outline this as follows:

    • Aorist—the branch is “cast out” and “dried up”
      and so is dealt with as regularly happens for all such branches:
    • Present—the workers “gather together” all such branches, and the individual branch, being among them, “is cast” into the fire and “is burned (up)”.

It is also possible that the present tense could refer to an eschatological orientation—whether to the imminent (future) eschatology of early Christians, or to the realized eschatology that is emphasized in the Gospel of John:

    • Imminent—the ‘branches’ are about to be gathered together and thrown into the fire (of the end-time Judgment)
    • Realized—the cut-off ‘branches’ are even now, in the present, because of their failure to “remain” in Jesus, under God’s Judgment

An interesting aspect of the vine-illustration, that is not particularly emphasized in the exposition, is that the fruit-bearing branches are also cut away (as part of the pruning process). Presumably, these branches (or the cut-off portions of them) also also burned up in the fire. Yet, in terms of the Johaninne theology, the true believer has (already) passed safely through the Judgment (see esp. 5:24), and thus will not face its “fire”. It is possible to extend the imagery to refer to the “fire” as part of the cleansing process for the believer—the sinful portions (i.e., sins) are removed from the believer and ‘burned away’ in the fire. The Spirit is sometimes associated with the image of fire in this regard—cf. Isa 4:4-5; Mal 3:2-3; Matt 3:11 [par Lk 3:16]; 1QS 4:20-21.

 

 

May 3: Romans 8:21-23

Romans 8:21-23

Towards the end of chapter 8 (cf. the previous note on Rom 8:10-11), Paul brings in a strong eschatological emphasis. Many Christians today do not fully appreciate the importance of eschatology in early Christian thought. I have discussed the subject at length in the earlier series “Prophecy and Eschatology in the New Testament” (cf. the Part 2 of the article on Romans). For first-century Christians, their eschatology was imminent, expecting  that the end would come very soon, probably within the lifetime of most believers. Salvation was understood primarily in terms of being saved from the coming Judgment.

Following the Judgment, a New Age would be inaugurated for humankind; the eschatological expectation of many Jews and Christians of the time included the idea of a complete transformation of all creation—drawing upon the prophetic tradition of a “new heavens and new earth” (Isa 65:17ff; 66:22; cf. Revelation 21:1-2; 2 Peter 3:13). Paul is expressing a similar idea here in Rom 8:18-23, working from the premise, shared by most Christians at the time, that the New Age had already been ushered in, but was only realized (in the present) for believers. This way of thinking is typically referred to as “realized eschatology” —the promise of salvation, eternal life, the resurrection of the body, and so forth—all of this is experienced by believers in Christ, in a preliminary way, through the presence of the Spirit.

Thus, as Paul expounds the matter in vv. 18-23, believers represent the ‘first-fruits’, a)parxh/, literally the beginning (of the ingathering) from (the harvest)—the harvest being a natural motif for the end of the Age. The good grain/fruit is brought in, while the bad/useless chaff is discarded (and burnt up)—cf. Mark 4:29; Matt 3:12 par; 13:30, 38ff; Rev 14:15-20; also Matt 9:37-38 par; John 4:35; cp. Jer 51:33; Joel 3:13, etc). From an eschatological standpoint, this signifies a temporal priority—i.e., the initial transformation of believers, through our possession of the Spirit, marks the beginning of the New Age.

For believers in Christ, the end time, in spite of the suffering (like that of a woman in labor) that takes place, ultimately provides a reason for great hope. Indeed, Paul declares that the present (eschatological) suffering cannot compare to the honor/splendor (do/ca) which we are about to experience (v. 18). In his words, the sufferings of “the time (right) now” are not comparable to the do/ca “being about to be uncovered [i.e. revealed] unto us” (note the imminence of this expectation). The prepositional expression ei)$ h(ma=$ could also be translated “in us”.

This hope for believers also gives hope to the rest of creation (as a whole). Paul refers to this in verse 19 as the “a)pokaradoki/a of the foundation”. The compound noun a)pokaradoki/a is almost impossible to translate; it essentially refers to the act of stretching out one’s head (and neck) with the hopes of seeing/perceiving something. The noun kti/si$, which I translate as “foundation,” properly refers to something that is founded or formed (vb kti/zw), cf. Rom 1:25. It is best understood here in a comprehensive/collective sense, referring to all of creation (cp. the use in Rom 1:20). Creation is looking out, hoping to receive (i.e. experience) the end-time manifestation of “the sons of God” (i.e. believers). Currently, this identity of believers is hidden, realized only internally, through the presence of the Spirit; eventually, the honor/splendor (do/ca) of this status will shine forth for all to see.

In verses 20-22, Paul strikingly attributes to all of creation, the same bondage (doulei/a, lit. slavery) which human beings suffered, prior to the coming of Christ. Just as all of humankind was in bondage to the power of sin and death, so all of creation is similarly enslaved. The primary manifestation of this is the fact that all of creation is subject to death and decay (fqora/). Creation has been put in (submissive) order under the authority of sin/death; this idea is expressed by the verb u(pota/ssw. However, the subject of the participle u(pota/canta in v. 20, referring to the person who put creation under this bondage, is not entirely clear. The best explanation is that Paul identifies God as the ultimate cause—He subjected creation to this bondage, allowing it to be so enslaved, with the final hope in mind: that eventually all of creation would be set free from this bondage.

Currently, this freedom is only experienced by believers in Christ, and only through the internal presence of the Spirit. But the time will (soon) come when the same freedom will be realized by all of creation:

“…even the foundation [i.e. creation] itself will be set free from the slavery of th(is) decay, into the freedom of the honor/splendor [do/ca] of the offspring of God.” (v. 21)

All of creation collectively suffers (v. 22), groaning and being in pain (like a woman in labor), but this suffering will lead to a new birth—the manifestation of the sons/children of God. Here in chap. 8, Paul utilizes both the noun ui(o/$ (ui(oi/, “sons”), and the more generic te/knon (pl. te/kna), “offspring”, with no real difference in meaning. By contrast, in the Johannine writings, believers are always referred to as “offspring [te/kna] of God”, with the noun ui(o/$ (“son”) reserved for Jesus. Paul’s use of ui(oi/ in vv. 14, 19 is perhaps influenced by the adoption motif in chapter 8 (esp. verses 14-17). The noun ui(oqesi/a literally means “placement as a son” (cf. also Gal 4:5 in context). Paul does, however, share with the Johannine writings the belief that Divine sonship is realized exclusively through our relationship to Jesus, the unique Son (vv. 29ff).

The climax of this exposition comes in verse 23, where Paul (finally) makes reference again to the Spirit. He makes clear that the transformation of creation will occur just as it does for believers—through the life-giving power of the Spirit:

“And not only (this), but (we our)selves, holding the beginning from (the harvest) of the Spirit, we also groan in ourselves, (look)ing out to receive placement as son(s), the loosing from (bondage) of our bodies.”

The occurrence of the noun ui(oqesi/a again here in v. 23 (indicated in light gray text) is problematic, and some commentators would omit it. Indeed, it is not present in a number of manuscripts (Ë46 D F G 614). Its inclusion would imply that believers do not already have “placement as (God’s) sons,” quite contrary to what Paul indicated earlier in vv. 14-17. By contrast, what we are currently still awaiting is the full realization of this identity—which will take place at the end-time resurrection, when our bodies will at last be set free from bondage to death. In this regard, we have the same groaning expectation as the rest of creation, even though we have already been set free from bondage within, through the presence of the Spirit.

Though Paul does not state this here, the transforming power of the Spirit, communicating the live-giving power of God (over death), is specifically related to our participation in the death of Jesus. This is to be inferred based on what was said earlier in vv. 10-11 (as also in 6:1-11)—on which, cf. the discussion in the previous note.

Notes on Prayer: 2 Thessalonians 1:11-12; 2:16-17

2 Thessalonians 1:11-12; 2:16-17

In the previous study, we looked at Paul’s references to prayer in 1 Thessalonians, and saw how they were focused on two primary themes: (1) Paul’s relationship to the Thessalonian believers, and (2) Paul’s (apostolic) ministry as a missionary and preacher of the Gospel. The Thessalonians were asked to pray for Paul (and his fellow missionaries) in their ministry work, while Paul prays for the Thessalonians, in relation to his work of preaching the Gospel—that is, he gives thanks to God and makes request for the Thessalonians, that they will continue to demonstrate the positive results of their acceptance of the Gospel.

We see much the same in 2 Thessalonians, both in the introduction (exordium, 1:3-12) and the concluding exhortation (3:1-15). These sections bracket the central section of the letter (probatio) that deals with the specific issue addressed by Paul. Thus, the references to prayer in 2 Thessalonians are more integral to the deliberative rhetoric of the letter. The main issue of the letter, on which Paul wishes to persuade the Thessalonians, involves a point of eschatology—the nuance of which is difficult to recapture at this far remove. The eschatological emphasis is clearly expressed in the introduction. The thanksgiving (1:3-4) mentions the suffering and persecution faced by believers (part of the end-time period of distress); the exordium proper (1:5ff) makes abundantly clear that the end-time judgment by God is at hand, and that the return of the Lord (the exalted Jesus) will soon occur. It is in this light that Paul speaks of praying for the Thessalonians:

“(It is) unto this [i.e. for this reason] that we speak out toward (God) always over you, that you might hold up (as worthy) of th(is) calling, and (that) our God would fulfill every good consideration of goodness and work of trust in power, so (that) the name of our Lord Yeshua would be honored in you, and you in him, according to the favor of our God and (our) Lord Yeshua (the) Anointed.” (vv. 11-12)

The main focus of his prayer, according to this statement, is summarized by the phrase “that you might hold up (as worthy) [a)ciw/sh|] of th(is) calling”. The verb a)cio/w derives from the context of something being measured (in value) on the balance-scales, bringing up the balance to match a specific weight/value. What believers are measured against is the calling (klh=si$)—that is, the call of God to salvation. For early Christians, salvation was understood primarily in an eschatological sense—i.e., being saved from the coming Judgment—and that is very much the sense here, as the context of vv. 3-12 makes quite clear. Specifically, we read in the preceding verse (v. 10):

“…when he should come—to be honored among his holy (one)s, and to be regarded with wonder among the (one)s (hav)ing trusted, (in) that they trusted our witness to you—on that day.”

Note the clear eschatological context: “when he should come (i.e. return of the exalted Jesus from heaven)…on that day”. His appearance means judgment and punishment for the world, but salvation for those who have trusted in the Gospel—the preaching of the Gospel here specifically defined in terms of the ministry work of Paul and his colleagues (“our witness to you,” cf. above). The focus of Paul’s exhortation for the Thessalonians is that they will remain faithful to the end, showing themselves worthy of the salvation that is to come. Through this faithfulness, the exalted Jesus (together with God the Father) will be given honor when he appears.

The specific eschatological issue addressed by Paul in chapter 2 continues to be debated by commentators. It involves the expression “the day of the Lord” (h( h(me/ra tou= qeou=), and, in my view, Paul’s concern is to draw a clear distinction between the end-time suffering believers are enduring and the “day of the Lord”. Both are end-time events, but they should be treated as distinct stages in the eschatological sequence. The suffering of believers is part of the end-time ‘period of distress [qli/yi$]’ which precedes the “day of the Lord” proper. The latter denotes the moment when God appears (through His Messianic/heavenly representative [Christ]) to usher in the great Judgment on humankind; at this time, the wicked/faithless ones will be punished, while the righteous (believers) will be rescued and saved. Paul introduces this eschatological discussion in vv. 1-2 (the partitio, where he makes his point), before demonstrating and arguing the proof (probatio) of it in vv. 3-15.

The latter portion of the probatio (vv. 13-15) is framed as a declaration of thanksgiving (to God) and an exhortation (for believers) to remain faithful until the moment of Christ’s return. This exhortation is followed by a wish-prayer (peroratio) for the very purpose (and goal) he had expressed:

“Now he—our Lord Yeshua (the) Anointed—and God our Father, the (One hav)ing loved us and (hav)ing given us a calling along of the Ages, and a good hope in (His) favor, may He call along your hearts and make (you) firm in every work and good account.” (vv. 16-17)

The “calling along” (para/klhsi$, vb parakale/w) is related to the “calling” (klh=si$) in 1:11 (cf. above), and this calling is to be understood as the call to salvation—i.e., the hope (e)lpi/$) of deliverance from the coming Judgment. Through the favor (xa/ri$) of God, we, as believers, were called to salvation (eternal life); and Paul’s prayer is that God (along with the exalted Jesus) would continue to “call along” our hearts all the way to the end, strengthening us (vb sthri/zw) in every important way. Such strengthening and help is necessary due to the suffering believers face—and will continue to face—during the end-time period of distress.

The closing exhortation and conclusion to the letter (chap. 3) follows this same thematic emphasis, but adds the aspect of the Thessalonian believers also praying for Paul (cf. above). The persecution faced by Paul and his fellow missionaries is part of the same end-time suffering faced by the Thessalonians themselves. The two sides of the prayer-relationship—between Paul and the Thessalonians—are captured in verses 1-2:

“For the remainder [i.e. in conclusion], may you speak out toward (God), brothers, over us, (so) that the account of the Lord might run (unhindered), and might be honored, even as (it gives honor) to you, and that we might be rescued from the improper and evil men—for (there is) not trust (present) among all (people).”