Last Judgment – Next Step Bible Study

Sunday Psalm Studies: 11QPsAp (Apocryphal Psalms)

Qumran Apocryphal Psalms (11Q11)

The Qumran Cave 11 scroll 11Q11 is known as 11QPsAp^a (Apocryphal Psalms). Though highly fragmentary, it seems to contain at least three extra-canonical Psalms, along with the canonical Ps 91 (cf. the earlier study on this Psalm). The reason for this grouping seems to be that all of the compositions deal with the subject/theme of the exorcism of demons. Thus, they are referred to as ‘Exorcism Psalms’.

The critical edition of these Psalms is found in pages 181-206 of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert [DJD] Volume XXIII: Qumran Cave 11, II [11Q2-18, 11Q20-31], by Florentino García Martinez, Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, and Adam S. van der Woude, incorporating earlier editions by J. P. M. van der Ploeg, O.P., with a contribution by Edward Herbert (Clarendon Press: 1998). The three extra-canonical Exorcism Psalms are contained in Columns I-V of 11QPsAp^a, while the bulk of Column VI is devoted to Ps 91.

Due to the fragmentary condition of this scroll, the text of these Psalm compositions is incomplete, with many lacunae (gaps) marked in the critical edition (and most translations) by square brackets. At times it is possible to provide a tentative (plausible) restoration of the text; my translation generally follows the proposed restorations in the DJD critical edition.

Three Exorcism Psalms (11QPs^a, Cols. I-V)

First Psalm (Col. I)

The first of the ‘Exorcism Psalms’ is preserved in a small fragment, not much larger than four other tiny fragments (DJD, pp. 185-7) that are too small to be deciphered or attributed to a particular composition. The second preserved line (3) apparently has the word hu*Wbv= (“oath”), while the following line (4) has hwhyb (presumably, “by YHWH”). Of interest is line 5 which seems to preserve the noun /yN]T^, the name of a (serpentine) Sea-monster in Canaanite mythological tradition (cf. Ugaritic tnn), on which, cf. the usage in Ps 74:13; Job 7:12; Isa 27:1; 51:9, and my earlier article “Conflict with the Sea in Ancient Near Eastern Myth”. It also came to be used more generally for snakes (Exod 7:9ff; Deut 32:33) or large sea-creatures (Gen 1:21; Ps 148:7) in the natural world. The usage here is probably influenced by Ps 91:13, where the context is the danger posed by venomous snakes.

Lines 7 and 10 preserve two words that evince the presumed context of protection against demons. The surviving word of line 7 (requiring partial restoration) is apparently a Hiphil participle of the verb ub^v* (“take/swear an oath”), with the Hiphil causative stem meaning “make/force (someone) to swear an oath”. In an exorcism context, this refers to an incantational (ritual) adjuration made against the demon-spirit, in order to expel it. Line 10 apparently preserves the noun dv@ (with the definite article), a term denoting an active, lesser divine power or spirit (cf. Akkadian šēdu[m]), which could be seen as either beneficial and protective or harmful and malevolent. In a developed monotheistic setting, such spirits tended to be viewed as evil, a source of harm and disease among human beings. The only Scriptural occurrences of this noun are in Deut 32:17 and Ps 106:37 (the latter perhaps being dependent on the former), identifying the deities (other than YHWH) to which Israelites made sacrificial offerings as evil/lesser spirits (<yd!v@) and not true gods.

Second Psalm (Cols. II-V)

Column II (lines 2-12)

“[ ] Solomon[ ] and he will cal[l … ]
[ the sp]irits [ ] and the demons [ ]
[ ] These (are) [the d]emons. And the p[rince of hostil]ity
[ w]ho [… ] (of the) dee[p …]
[ …. ] the grea[t … ]
[ … ] [ ] his people [ … ] healing
[ upon] your name he leaned, and call[ed]
[ … Yi]srael. Hold firmly
[onto YHWH your Mighty (One) … who made] the heavens
[and the earth and all that is in them, w]ho separated [between]
[the light and between the darkness … ]”

The reference to Solomon at (or near) the opening of the Psalm could mean that its authorship is attributed to Solomon. On the other hand, in Jewish tradition, the wisdom possessed by Solomon included knowledge of how to treat disease and combat the presence of demon-spirits; Josephus (Antiquities 8.45) mentions an exorcism that involved invoking the name of Solomon and certain incantations he had composed (cf. DJD, p. 191), and that is possibly the context here. The translation “demons” in lines 3-4 renders <yd!v@ (plur. of dv@, cf. above). The demons, perhaps understood as being led by a “prince of hostility/enmity” (Belial? [cf. below]), belong to the depths (i.e., Sheol, the realm of death), and apparently are seen as coming up from the depths to afflict humankind. The Israelite people, by trusting upon YHWH, and making confession of Him, are able to utilize the exorcism ritual adjuration to expel the demon. The extensive restorations in lines 10-12 are speculative, but quite plausible; cf. DJD, p. 192, where references to the creative acts of God on Israelite/Jewish amulets are mentioned. YHWH’s power and authority (as Creator) certainly extends over the demon-spirits, a reflection of the ancient cosmological-mythic tradition that depicted YHWH as exercising control over the primeval waters (which He subdued); cf. above on the term /yN]T^ and the “Conflict with the Sea” tradition.

Column III (lines 1-12)

“[ …. ] the depth[s]
the earth and [ … ] the earth. Who m[ade the signs]
and th[ese] port[ents on] (the) earth? YHWH, He (it is) [who]
made th[ese (things) by] His [strength], giving the oath to all [His Messenger]s,
[and] all (the) see[d of holiness], to take their s[ta]nd before [Him, and He calls to testif]y
[all the he]avens an[d all] the earth [against them] who di[d] upon
[every ma]n sin, and upon m[an(kind) wickedness. And (yet)] they know
[(the) secrets of] His w[onder(s)] which they do not [ … ] If they do not
[have fear] from before (the) face of YHWH (so as) to [ …. and] to kill a soul
[ … ] YHWH, then they will fea[r] that grea[t striking blow!]
[Even o]ne from (among) you [shall pursue] a th[ou]sand [ …. ] servants of YHW[H]
[ …. g]reat and [ …. ] [ ]”

In this section of the Psalm (if indeed it is part of the same Psalm), the focus appears to shift from an exorcism context to that of Divine judgment. It is most likely the evil spirits that are being judged for their wickedness against humankind (see below), however the overall tone (and see esp. lines 11-12) rather suggests that wicked/sinful human beings are in view. A point of contact with the prior section is the apparent use of the verb ub^v* (Hiphil, “make [someone] swear an oath”) in line 4; in Col. I (line 7, see above), the reference was to an adjuration by which a demon is expelled, while here the context is of an oath administered before giving testimony (in court). The angels and holy ones (lit. “seed of the holiness”) are called, along with heaven and earth (cf. Deut 32:1; Isa 1:2), to give witness against the wicked.

In lines 8-10, a warning is given—either to the nations or to the Israelite/Jewish people—against committing sin and violence due to a lack of “fear” (i.e., reverence) toward YHWH. If they do not exercise a right and proper fear of God, then they will instead fear the great blow (of judgment/punishment) that will strike. The fate of the wicked (presumably of the nations) is described in line 11 in terms of a humiliating defeat; the reference is almost certainly drawn from Ps 91:7.

Column IV (lines 1-13)

“[and] great [ …. ] adjuring [ ]
and the great [ …. ] mighty and [ ]
all the earth [ …. ] the heavens and [ ]
YHWH will strike you (with) a gr[eat blo]w to destroy you [ ]
and in (the) burning of His anger [ He will send] against you a mighty Messenger [to do]
[all of] His w[ord], who [will not] be showing (any) compas[sion] over you, wh[o]
[ … ]over all these, who [will make] you [go down] to (the) great deep,
[and to Še’ôl] (far) below! And [… ] and darkness
[in (the) great deep]. Not [ … ] again on (the) earth
[ … ] unto (the) distant (future), and [ …. ] by (the) curse of (the) Destr[oyer],
[ … ] (the) burning anger of YHWH [ …. in] darkness in a[ll]
[ … ] of bringing down low [ …. ] your gift [ …. ]”

This section appears to reprise the same Judgment scene from Column III. Again the opening lines indicate the giving of testimony (by heaven and earth, etc.), preceded by the swearing of an oath (vb ub^v*, Hiphil). The wrath of God against the wicked (and/or the demon-spirits) is referenced more fully, and the fate of the wicked is described more extensively.

Certain details are noteworthy, such as an Angel (Messenger) being sent by YHWH to carry out the Judgment (see the reference to Raphael at the end of the Psalm, Col. V, line 3 below). The wicked will be sent down to the “great deep”, to Sheol far below the earth (Ps 86:13, etc.). This imagery is generally found throughout the canonical Psalms, but here Sheol seems to have a more expansive ‘cosmic’ orientation, viz., as the place of final punishment for the wicked (akin to our concept of “Hell”). The specialized use of the noun /oDb^a& (’ăbaddôn) as an underworld-term (lit., “[place of] destruction, destroyer”, cf. Ps 88:12[11]; Job 26:6; 28:22; 31:12) evinces a similar development of cosmological thought and worldview (cf. Rev 9:11).
It should be pointed out that /oDb^a&(h^) is based on a partial restoration of the text [ ]bah, and must be considered speculative, though plausible (and perhaps even likely).

Column V (lines 1-3)

The Psalm concludes with the first three lines of Column V, the first of which is almost completely lost and the second of which is quite fragmentary; the surviving words of the second line indicate a reference to “the (one)s having met with” (vb ug~P*) a demon—i.e., afflicted or possessed by an evil spirit. That the demons are anticipated to have been exorcized (through the use of the Psalm in an exorcism ritual) seems to be more or less stated in the final line:

“the willing (servant)s of [ … G]od-heals has made them whole.
Amen, Amen. Selah.”

This line apparently contains one of the earliest references to the Angel Raphael (lapr), the name being translated here, “(the) Mighty (one) [i.e., God] heals”. Cf. Tobit 3:17; 8:3; 12:6ff; 1 Enoch 20:3; 40:2, 8-9; 54:6. Raphael, it seems, played a pivotal role in the casting out of the demon; the afflicted person is “made complete [i.e., whole/healthy]” (vb <l^v*).

Even though the Judgment scene(s) in Columns III & IV, as noted above, seem to refer to judgment against wicked human beings, the exorcism-frame to the Psalm suggests rather that the judgment/punishment of the evil spirits (i.e., demons) is primarily in view. The role of Raphael would tend to confirm this, as in 1 Enoch 54:6 he is one of the angels supervising the binding of the evil/rebellious angels and casting them down into the ‘valley of fire’; cf. also the context of 20:3, with its proximity to the judgment portrait in chap. 21. It is certainly possible that both levels of meaning are intended, as the judgment of the wicked angels/spirits corresponds to, and coincides with, the judgment of wicked humans (cf. Matt 25:41).

Third Psalm (Cols. V-VI)

Column V (lines 4-14)

“(Belonging) to David. Ag[ainst … A whisper in (the) name of YHW[H. Call at an]y time
to the heaven[s. When] he comes to you in (the) nig[ht then you w]ill say to him:
Who (are) you, [ … of] man and from (the) seed of the hol[y (one)]s? Your face (is) a face of
[delu]sion and your horns (are) horns of a dre[a]m! Darkness you (are), and not light, [in]justice, and not rightness! [ … ] commander of (the) army, YHWH [shall bring] you [down]
[to Še’ô]l (far) below, [and He will shut (the) gat]es of bronze in [ (which) n]o
light [can pass through], and not [will give light for you the] sun tha[t rises]
[upon the] right(eous one) to [ …. And] you will say: [ ]
[ … the ri]ght(eous one) to come [ …. ] does evil to him a dem[on ]
[ … tr]uth from [ … which the ri]ght(eous)ness for him [ ]
[ … ] and [ …. ] [ …. ]”

Compared to the prior Psalm, this composition (attributed to David) is quite prosaic and rather lacking in poetic style and rhythm. It offers more or less practical guidance as to how one ought to deal with a demon that appears (in a night vision). The assumption is that the spirit will appear to be one of the holy angels, but his appearance is false (i.e., a ‘delusion’, awv) and illusionary (like that of a dream, <olh&). The demon is said here to have “horns”, evoking the traditional portrait of the devil/demon with animal horns, but the noun /r#q# may more properly signify rays of light (as in Hab 3:4). Cf. 2 Corinthians 11:14.

The references to judgment and Sheol here, being applied to the demon-spirit, add further confirmation to the view that the judgment of the evil spirits (rather that wicked human beings) is primarily in view in the second Psalm (Cols. III and IV, see above).

The noun vj^l^ in the first line (line 4) literally means “whisper” (cf. Ugaritic lḫšt; Akkadian liḫšu), but is used in the sense of a magic charm/spell or incantation (cf. Isa 3:3; Jer 8:17; Qoh 10:11).

Column VI (lines 1-3a)

“[ …. ] [ …. ] [ …. ]
[ …. ] [ …. ] [ … unto] (the) distant (future)
[all] (the) sons of Bel[ial. Amen, Amen.] Selah.”

The first three lines of Column VI apparently contain the conclusion of the third ‘Exorcism Psalm’. What little survives suggests that the final (and everlasting) punishment of the evil spirits is referenced. The expression “sons of lu^Y~l!B=” occurs a number of times in the Scriptures (e.g., Deut 13:14[13]; Judg 19:22). Literally, it means something like “sons of worthless” and, as such, is a designation for wicked human beings. However, by the time of the Qumran scrolls, the term lu^Y~l!B= (b^eliyya‘al) had come to be used as another way of referring to the Satan/Devil (i.e., Belial), presumably through the early poetic association of the term with Sheol and the realm of Death (cf. Ps 18:5-6 [4-5]). In the Qumran sectarian texts (e.g., the Hodayot Hymns [1QH], the Community Rule [1QS], the War Scroll [1QM]), Belial functions as a proper name for the Evil One, much as in 2 Cor 6:15. Thus, here, while the expression “sons of Belial” could still be referring to wicked human beings (and their ultimate punishment), it is likely that reference is to the punishment of the evil spirits.

* * * * * *

In the next study, we will examine the Wisdom-poem of Sirach 51:13-30, which was included (as a deutero-canonical Psalm) in the great Qumran Psalms Scroll 11QPs^a. Though well known from its Greek version (in the LXX), the book of Sirach (or Ben-Sira) was composed in Hebrew and portions of it survive in a number of manuscripts (including the Qumran scrolls). The Sirach Wisdom-poem is one of the only deutero-canonical Psalms from this period (first centuries B.C./A.D.) that has been extensively preserved in multiple manuscripts—in this case, manuscript B of Ben-Sira and 11QPs^a.

Studies on the Spirit: The Flesh, the World, and the Devil (Study 8)

The Flesh, the World, and the Devil

Study 8: The World (Part 3)

In the previous study, we began our examination of Paul’s use of the term “the world” (o( ko/smo$), focusing on the occurrences in chapters 1-4 of 1 Corinthians (particularly the sections covering 1:18-2:16). We were able to see how the negative early Christian connotations surrounding the term were adapted and developed by Paul within a distinctive dualism that is central to his theological outlook and mode of expression. In particular, the dualism was expressed by way of the concept of wisdom (sofi/a), as contrasted with “foolishness” (mwri/a). The wisdom of “the world” is in marked contrast to the Wisdom of God—indeed, God’s Wisdom seems like foolishness to the world, while the world’s own wisdom, in reality, is nothing but foolishness when compared to God’s Wisdom.

Of particular interest for this series is the way in which Paul specifically identifies God’s Wisdom with His Spirit. This is done primarily in chapter 2, and it effectively establishes a contrast between the Spirit and “the world”, even as Paul elsewhere (and more commonly) contrasts the Spirit and “the flesh”. From the exposition that follows in 3:1-3ff, it is clear that Paul sees a close connection between “the world” and “the flesh” —viz., believers who are guided by the flesh, and who immersed in the “things of the flesh”, are also prone to the world’s influence, following the wisdom of the world rather than the Wisdom of God.

At several points in 1:18-2:16, Paul mentions certain attributes that characterize the world’s wisdom (1:20ff, 26ff; 2:1ff). In particular, “the world” values learning and intellectual prowess, skill in speaking and persuasive speech, power and strength (both physical and situational), social status (esp. birth into a respected or upper-class family), with the ability to exercise influence over other people. In addition, in 3:3ff (cf. 1:10-11ff) certain related characteristics of “the flesh” are mentioned—e.g., jealousy and strife, which lead to sectarian divisions within the community of believers. All of these things are in contrast to the characteristics of those who are guided by the Spirit. Many of the things that the world values are not bad or evil in and of themselves; they are regarded as negative or inferior in comparison with the Wisdom and Spirit of God, and particularly insofar as the “things of the world” are valued and prioritized over the “things of God”.

As we survey the remainder of the references to “the world” (o( ko/smo$) in 1-2 Corinthians, other fundamental characteristics (and points of contrast) come into view. Two aspects of Paul’s view of “the world” are particularly to be noted: (1) the specific association with sinfulness, and (2) the imminent expectation of the end-time judgment of humankind. Both of these ethical-religious and eschatological considerations inform the world-concept as it is developed within Paul’s dualistic theology.

1 Corinthians 5:10; 6:2, etc

Consider, for example, the way that the people who belong to “the world” are basically characterized as wicked and evil (i.e., “the evil [one]s of the world”) in 5:10. The immediate focus in chapter 5 is on sexual immorality (pornei/a, lit. “prostitution”, v. 1), but in v. 10 he widens it to include other traditional categories of sin and wickedness: pleone/kth$ (viz., a desire to always “have more”), a%rpac (the inclination to “seize”, i.e., grab hold of, wealth, power, influence, etc), and ei)dwlola/trh$ (veneration of and service to “images”, i.e., deities other than the one true God). These three tendencies characterize much (or most) of “the world” —understood in the sense of all people in the world who are not believers in Christ.

By contrast, believers, who belong to the Spirit of God, should not behave in such ways, and should not exhibit these characteristics of “the world”. This is the thrust of Paul’s instruction in chapter 5, making it clear that believers ought not to associate with other Christians who are conducting themselves in the manner of “the world”. The same ethical exhortation (and warning) is given in 11:32, emphasizing the impending judgment (kri/si$, vb krine/w) of the world (viz., humankind in all of its wickedness and godlessness); cf. Rom 3:6, 19. Paul urges believers to submit to God’s judgment in the present, in the form of chastening discipline, in order to avoid lapsing and falling into the great Judgment that is coming upon the world (cf. 2 Cor 7:10). Indeed, as Paul points out in 6:2, believers (that is, true believers) will be on God’s side (and that of His Son Jesus Christ), helping to oversee the judgment of the world, rather than being caught in it (along with the wicked); cf. Phil 2:15. Thus, the exhortation is for believers to act in a manner that is appropriate to their/our religious and spiritual identity—that is, following God’s Spirit, and being continually focused on the “things of the Spirit” rather than the “things of the world” (and/or “…of the flesh”).

The Instruction in 1 Corinthians 7 (vv. 31-34)

And, yet the way of “the world” is not entirely sinful and evil. Many aspects of human life in the world—eating, sleeping, working, etc.—are morally ‘neutral’ in this regard. Indeed, all believers in Christ, as human beings, are engaged in the same basic practices, in common with the rest of humanity. At this level, the ways of “the world” only become sinful or improper when they detract from, or begin running contrary to, the ways of God and His Spirit. The same principle applies to the social circumstances of human marriage and family life, which is the focus of Paul’s instruction in chapter 7. As in chapter 5 (see above), Paul’s instruction begins with a concern for avoiding any tendency toward sexual immorality (vv. 1-5ff). But the issues involved are actually much broader, as is clear from the discussion in vv. 12-16ff.

Paul is dealing with two main situations for believers: (1) those who were married or engaged when they became believers, and (2) those who are currently unmarried as believers. Given certain ascetic tendencies among the Christians at Corinth, Paul felt it necessary to instruct married believers that they should not give up the married life now that they are believers. Any abstinence should only be temporary (for a mutually agreed-upon time), for the sake of devotion to prayer and the spiritual life (v. 5). A similar line of thinking pertains to believers who are married to a non-believer (vv. 10-16)—as far as possible, the marriage bond should be maintained, with the goal/hope that the non-believing spouse will eventually be converted to the Gospel.

On the whole, it is clear that Paul would prefer that believers (and certainly the Christians of Corinth) remain single (unmarried), just as he currently is (vv. 8, 32ff). His reasons for this view are both practical and eschatological. At a fundamental level, it makes no difference whether a believer is married or unmarried, just as a person’s gender, ethnicity, or social status make no difference. These are all basic characteristics of the flesh and the world, and have no bearing on the essential reality and significance of the believer’s life and identity in the Spirit. Paul’s core recommendation is that a person ought to remain in his/her current state or condition (viz., married or unmarried). The eschatological reason for this is expounded in vv. 29-31, concluding with the general guiding principle for believers in v. 31a:

“…making use of the world, (but) not making use (of it) overly (so)”

By way of concession, the verb xra/omai (“use, make use of”) is contrasted with the compound verb kataxra/omai, with the prefixed preposition kata– functioning as an intensive. The idea is that believers, insofar as they must make use of the things of the world (including the social institution of marriage), should not become overly attached to them or preoccupied with them. This is further explained by Paul in vv. 32-35, with the clear contrast in v. 34 between concern/care (vb merimna/w) for “the (thing)s of the world” (ta\ tou= ko/smou) and the proper concern/care for “the (thing)s of the Lord” (ta\ tou= kuri/ou). Central to this entire argument is the cosmological-eschatological declaration in v. 31b—

“…for the form/fashion [sxh=ma] of this world leads (the way) along [i.e., passes away]”

a statement very similar (in both thought and wording) to that of 1 John 2:17 (mentioned previously in Study 6). The way of “this world” is only temporary, and is about to come to an end, whereas the way of the Spirit of God (and Christ) is eternal and abides forever.

2 Corinthians 5:19

Believers in Christ represent the eschatological hope for the world (cf. Romans 8:18-25). Out of his love for creation (and esp. humankind), God provided a way of salvation, of freedom out of bondage (to sin and death), by sending His Son (Jesus Christ) into the world. This Pauline orientation (Gal 4:4; Rom 1:3ff; 8:3; cf. also 1 Tim 1:15; 3:16) is similar to the Johannine (Jn 3:17, etc), being derived from the essential Gospel proclamation. Through the mission that the Son (Christ) fulfilled, culminating in his sacrificial death on the cross, God the Father provided a means of salvation for humankind—but one that is only realized for believers in Christ. This theological point of emphasis is summarized effectively by Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:19:

“God was, in (the) Anointed, making (things completely) different [vb katalla/ssw] (for) the world with Himself, (by) not counting for them their (moment)s of falling alongside, and (then hav)ing set among us the account [lo/go$] of th(is) making (thing)s different [katallagh/].”

Paul stress two distinct (but related) aspects. First is the act of “making (things) different” for humankind, expressed by the verb katalla/ssw (all 6 NT occurrences are by Paul, Rom 5:10 [twice]; 1 Cor 7:11; 2 Cor 5:18, 20). Things are “made right” for humankind in relation to God (cf. Rom 11:15) by His not counting (vb logi/zomai), i.e., forgiving and absolving, the sins and failings of humankind. This removal of the guilt and effects of sin (which also entails freedom from bondage to sin) is available to all of humankind (i.e., “the world”), but is only realized for believers in Christ.

The second aspect is the account (or word, lo/go$) of how God “made things right” for humankind; the noun katallagh/, derived from the verb katalla/ssw, also occurs only in Paul’s letters (Rom 5:11; 11:15; 2 Cor 5:18). This, of course, is the Gospel, which was given to humankind—first to believers, and then, through the mission/ministry of believers, to the rest of humankind. It was “set/put” in place among believers. The preposition e)n can indeed mean “among”, yet it also has the more fundamental meaning “in”. The lo/go$ of Christ is in believers, through the living and abiding Word (Lo/go$) of God, realized through the presence of the Spirit. These are the two aspects of God’s Wisdom emphasized by Paul in 1 Cor 1:18-2:16 (see above)—(1) the Gospel of Christ, proclaimed externally to believers, and (2) the presence and activity of the Spirit, realized internally for believers.

This soteriological orientation of the ko/smo$-terminology is related to the early Christian idea of “the world” (i.e., the inhabited world of humankind) as the mission-field for the proclamation of the Gospel (see the discussion in Study 6, and Paul’s use of the same manner of expression in Study 7); cf. Romans 1:8, etc.

In our next study (Study 9), we will examine the important occurrences of o( ko/smo$ in Galatians (4:3; 6:14) along with related parallels in the other Pauline letters (most notably, Romans and Colossians).

November 19: 1 Corinthians 4:3-5

1 Corinthians 4:3-5

“And (yet), to me it is unto [i.e. amounts to] little that I should be examined under you, or under (any) day of man; but (then), I do not even examine myself (that way).” (v. 3)

In the remainder of this section (vv. 3-5), Paul makes clear that, even though the Christian minister is subservient to the Community (3:21-22f), and that the Community is to seek out the requisite characteristics of the minister—that he/she should be worthy of trust (v. 2)—ultimately the authority rests with God. It is of little account to Paul whether he is examined (and proven worthy) by any human authority. He first expresses this point in terms of the Corinthian congregations (“under [i.e., by] you”), but then broadens it to include any examining (or judicial) body of humans—summarizing the matter with the expression “a day of man” (or “human day”). The adjective a)nqrw/pino$ characterizes it as “human”, while “the day” (h(me/ra) is a shorthand idiom for the ‘day’ of judgment (i.e., day in court, etc). Paul adds that he is not even capable of examining (and judging) himself in this way. The judgment belongs to God—a point that he will soon elucidate. This does not mean that self-examination is not valuable or important, but, rather, that ultimately the authority (and the decision) rests with God.

Here Paul uses the verb a)nakri/nw in a slightly different way than he did in 2:14-15 (cf. also sugkri/nw in v. 13). As I discussed in prior notes, the context of that earlier usage suggests that the emphasis is on the spiritual discernment which the believer (esp. one who thinks/acts “of the Spirit”) possesses. It does not derive from any human source, nor is it dependent upon how other humans view it. Even so, the fundamental meaning of “examine” is still present in 2:14-15, since the believer’s discernment involves spirit-guided examination (i.e., searching out, vb e)reuna/w, v. 10). In verse 15, Paul may also be anticipating the subsequent idea of the believer being “examined” (by other humans), expressed here in 4:3ff.

“For nothing have I seen altogether against me; but (it is) not by this (that) I have been proven right—indeed, (the) Lord is the (One) examining me!” (v. 4)

In verse 4, Paul explains why he is unable to prove himself worthy through self-examination. Even if a person is unaware of any fault or failing (“nothing…against me”, ‘against’ being expressed by the dative case), this does not meant that he/she has been “shown/proven to be right”. Paul makes use of a passive form of the verb dikaio/w, “be right”, or in the active/transitive sense of “show/prove/declare right”. In a legal-judicial context, this can mean being acquitted of a charge (i.e., proven innocent, or in the right). The translation “justify” is appropriate here, as long is this is understood in the context of a legal-judicial examination. God is the one who ultimately will examine the minister and show him/her to “be right”. Paul’s use of the title “Lord” (ku/rio$) could refer to God, but in verse 5 (cf. also 1:31; 2:8, 16; 3:5) it is clear that this refers to the exalted Christ—alluding to his eschatological role as Judge.

“So then, you should not judge anything before (its) time, until (when)ever the Lord should come—who indeed will shine light (on) the hidden (thing)s of darkness, and (also) will make to shine forth the purposes of the heart; and then praise will come to be upon each (person) from God.” (v. 5)

At first glance, Paul appears to be giving wholly impractical advice—viz., that one should not seek to examine or judge anything until the end-time return of Jesus Christ. The entirety of 1 Corinthians makes clear that this is not exactly what Paul means. The reference here is to a final, definitive judgment—for which the authority to deliver it rests entirely with God (and His Messianic representative, Jesus Christ). The strong eschatological orientation here may seem somewhat out of place, but one must always keep in mind the imminent eschatology of first-century Christians. The expectation that Christ would return from heaven at any moment, likely within the lifetime of most believers, influenced nearly every aspect of early Christian life and thought.

In the next daily note, we will turn to the next section of Paul’s application (vv. 6-13), as he again includes Apollos (along with himself) as among those whom the Corinthians regard as leading ministers (worthy of their partisan allegiance).

November 8: 1 Corinthians 3:14-15

1 Corinthians 3:14-15

“If one’s work remains, that which he built upon (the foundation), (then) he will receive (his) wage; (but,) if one’s work is burned down, he will suffer loss—he himself will be saved, but (only) so as through fire.” (vv. 14-15)

In verses 12-13 (see the previous note), Paul continues his building-work illustration, describing Christian ministers as those who ‘build’ upon a foundation—that of Jesus Christ and the Gospel (as proclaimed through the apostolic preaching). Some build with solid, durable materials (gold, silver, precious stone), which are able to survive a fire, while others build with perishable materials (wood, grass, straw) that will simply burn up (here, “burn down”, vb katakai/w) in fire. The ‘fire’ is the sun/light that comes with the “day of the Lord” —viz., the end-time Judgment that will be ushered in by the return of the Lord (i.e., the exalted Jesus) from heaven.

If the work has been solidly ‘built’, and thus survives the ‘fire’ of the Judgment, then the worker will receive his/her “wage” (misqo/$) from God (cf. verse 8), to be understood in traditional (beatific) terms as the Divine blessing/reward which the righteous will receive in the afterlife. By contrast, if the work has been ‘built’ flimsily, with perishable materials, and is burned down in the ‘fire’, then the minister will experience loss (v. 15). This is expressed by the verb zhmio/w, meaning to “suffer loss/damage [zhmi/a]”; it can be used in a legal-judicial context, indicating a fine, penalty, or other form of punishment.

Paul is quick to qualify what this “loss” entails. The minister him/herself will be saved from the Judgment, being, after all a true believer (who builds upon the true foundation, v. 12a); and yet this person will vividly (and perhaps painfully) experience the sense of loss (and punishment) as he/she passes through the fire of Judgment. The person’s salvation comes only “as through fire” (w($ dia\ puro/$). This qualifying phrase has been used to support the Catholic doctrine of purgatory; it goes without saying, however, that the doctrine itself (as it came to be developed) is far removed from Paul’s thought here. The basic image is traditional, and may be derived from the Scriptural motif of the burning stick that is snatched out of the fire (Amos 4:11; Zech 3:2); for more on the possible background, cf. Conzelmann, p. 77.

As mentioned in the previous note, the overall context of 1:18-2:16ff indicates that the ‘perishable materials’ (which are burnt up in the Judgment) symbolize Christian ministry-work that is influenced by, or reliant upon, human wisdom rather than the Wisdom of God. Paul further expounds and explains the connection in chapter 4; but, first, he brings the current section to a close with an apparent digression (vv. 16-17)—an exhortation with a strong ethical-moral emphasis that, at first glance, seems unrelated to Paul’s line of argument in chaps. 1-3. In the next daily note, we shall explore the reasons for including this climactic exhortation, as Paul does, in verses 16-17.

References above (and throughout these notes) marked “Conzelmann” are to Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, Hermeneia Commentary series (Fortress Press: 1975), translated by James W. Leitch from the German Der erste Brief an die Korinther (1st edition), Kritisch-Exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (begründet von H. A. W. Meyer), Fünfte Abteilung—11. Auflage (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1969).

November 7: 1 Corinthians 3:12-13

1 Corinthians 3:12-13

“But, (even) if one builds upon th(is) foundation—(with) gold, silver, valuable stones, wood, grass, (or) stalk (of straw)—the work of each (person) will come to be shining (forth), for the day will make (it) clear, (in) that it will be uncovered by fire, even of what sort the work of each (person) is, (indeed) the fire will show if [it] is acceptable.” (vv. 12-13)

In verse 11 (see the previous note), Paul describes the possible situation whereby a worker (i.e., minister) might lay down a foundation alongside (and separate from) the foundation that was initially laid down (i.e., through the proclamation of the Gospel). This implies proclamation of a different Gospel—which would be an impossibility (in Paul’s eyes), since there is only one true Gospel (cf. Gal 1:6ff; 2 Cor 11:4). Only false Christian ministers, working in opposition to the true Gospel, would attempt to lay down a different foundation, or would put their trust in something other than the true Gospel. This does not seem to be the kind of situation that Paul is primarily addressing in 1 Corinthians. Instead, his development of the building-construction illustration, in verses 12-13ff, is much more applicable.

In this extension of the illustration, workers are building upon the correct foundation. This is implied by Paul’s initial language in verse 12: “But if anyone builds on the foundation”. The majority of manuscripts make the point clear with the inclusion of a demonstrative pronoun—qeme/lion tou/ton (“this foundation”). This is the correct meaning (as I indicate in the glossed translation above), but it is far from certain that the actual pronoun is original; it is absent from a significant range of textual witnesses (Ë⁴⁶ a* B C* 6 81, also the Coptic [Sahidic] and Ethiopic versions). However, Paul is indeed illustrating the situation where ministers are ‘building’ upon the true foundation (of Christ and the Gospel, faithfully proclaimed).

Even so, believers engaged in the ministry-work can ‘build’ upon the foundation in a variety of ways, not all of which are equal in quality or value. He expresses this through different sorts of building materials, beginning with precious metals and stone (“gold, silver, valuable stones”) which tend to be more durable, followed by the less durable materials of “wood, grass, (and) stalk(s) [i.e. of reed/straw]”. The quality of the work will be ‘tested’ and ‘proven’ through fire. This is significant, as, in the case of the durable materials (esp. the precious metals), the fire will tend to purify them, whereas, with the less durable materials (wood, grass, straw), it will simply burn them up.

This aspect of the illustration, of course, is eschatological, referring to the great day of Judgment (“the day”), when the “works” of all people (even believers) will be put to the test. The construction-work may appear grand and solid, to the ordinary (untrained) human eye, but the fire will “uncover” (i.e., reveal) whether this is so. The verb a)pokalu/ptw (“remove the cover from, uncover”) is, to be sure, a key eschatological term among early Christians. With similar eschatological significance (in relation to the end-time Judgment) is the verb dokima/zw, as it is used here. It is derived from the adjective do/kimo$ (verbal root de/xomai), meaning “received” (i.e., accepted, acceptable). The verb dokima/zw denotes the demonstration (showing/proving) that something is acceptable—or, whether it is not. Paul often uses the verb in a practical, ethical sense, but without the eschatological emphasis we find here. Indeed, the closest parallel to this particular usage is found elsewhere, in 1 Peter 1:7.

The illustration thus provides a clear, if implicit, warning (see verse 10b), in light of the coming (and impending) day of Judgment. Given the context of Paul’s line of argument in chaps. 1:18-2:16ff, it is fair to interpret the perishable work (viz., of ‘wood, grass, [and] straw’) in terms of the Corinthians’ affinity for (and reliance upon) human wisdom—i.e., worldly/fleshly ways of thinking and acting. Any building (i.e., ministry) work that is predicated upon human wisdom, rather than the Wisdom of God (i.e., the Gospel and the presence/activity of the Spirit), will not survive the fire and the light of Judgment-day. Paul further expounds upon this point in verses 14-15, to be discussed in the next daily note.

Notes on Prayer: Thy Kingdom Come (Matthew 24-25)

“May your Kingdom come!”
e)lqe/tw h( basilei/a sou

The final three Kingdom-parables in the Gospel of Matthew occur in chapter 25. Apart from the Passion Narrative (chaps. 26-27), with its traditional theme of Jesus as the royal Messiah (“Son of David”, “King of the Jews”), these are the last Kingdom-references of note in the Matthean Gospel. An examination of them will bring to a close our analysis of the theme of the Kingdom of God in Matthew.

Matthew 24-25

The parables in chapter 25 cannot be separated from their literary context of the ‘Eschatological Discourse’. Like many of the Matthean Discourses, this one represents a distinctive development and expansion of traditional material (viz., the Synoptic Discourse of Mark 13 par). I have already discussed the Matthean version of the Discourse in an earlier article, and here will focus specifically upon the parables in chap. 25, as they clearly represent a Matthean addition that is not found in either the Markan or Lukan (21:5-36) version.

How does the Discourse, as a whole, relate to the Kingdom-theme as it has been developed in the Gospel of Matthew? In terms of the preceding three chapters (21-23, see the previous study), one might note three interpretive strands:

- The coming of Jesus (into Jerusalem) as the Davidic Messiah anticipates the impending end-time Judgment. How people respond to Jesus (and his identity as the Messiah) marks whether they belong to the Kingdom, and are worthy of entering/inheriting it—viz., that they will pass through the Judgment.
- This represents a transfer of inheritance: those who might have belonged to the Kingdom (“sons of the Kingdom”), based on their religious-cultural heritage (i.e., the Israelite/Jewish people), will not necessarily inherit the Kingdom—only believers, those who trust in Jesus as his faithful disciples, will inherit it, as the true “sons of the Kingdom”.
- As the Passion Narrative makes clear, the coming Judgment, like the coming of the Kingdom itself, entails a certain process, and an eschatological period of time. This period begins with Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem (and his subsequent suffering and death), and then ends with his return to earth from heaven. In between, there is Jesus’ resurrection/exaltation, and the work of the first believers (disciples) who continue his ministry—viz., proclamation of the Kingdom (i.e., the Gospel), and all that accompanies this proclamation.

The eschatological teaching of Jesus collected (and arranged) in the Discourse provides a framework for these thematic strands. The theme of judgment upon the land (and people) of Israel, developed throughout the parables and illustrations of chaps. 21-23, and reaching its climax in the judgment-declaration of 23:37-39, finds expression in the Discourse. We see this, first, by the setting of the Discourse—Jesus’ prophetic announcement of the Temple’s destruction (vv. 1-2)—and then by what is announced in vv. 15-28 (Mk 13:14-23). The first three sections of the Discourse describe, from different vantage points, the end-time period of distress (qli/yi$) that is coming upon the world. The initial section (vv. 4-8) presents it from the general vantage point of the nations (i.e., humankind) as a whole; the second section (vv. 9-14) focuses on the experience of disciples/believers, particularly the suffering and persecution they will endure during their mission; finally, the third section (vv. 15-28) presents the distress that is coming on Jerusalem and Judea.

It is significant that only in Matthew’s version is the early Christian mission defined specifically in terms of the proclamation of the Kingdom; indeed, the Kingdom-theme effectively governs the entire end-time period: “And this good message of the Kingdom will be proclaimed in (the) whole of the inhabited (world), as a witness for all the nations, and then the completion [i.e., end, te/lo$] will come” (v. 14).

Beginning with verse 29, the focus of the Discourse shifts to the coming of the “Son of Man” —that is, the exalted Jesus, the Messiah—from heaven. As if to bring out this emphasis, the Matthean author includes some “Son of Man” sayings, “Q” material that the Gospel of Luke records in a different location (cf. my recent studies on the “Q” Son of Man sayings). The Synoptic Discourse closes with an illustration on the Son’s coming, as Jesus exhorts his disciples to be alert and watchful for this impending event (Mk 13:33-37). This is the portion that is particularly developed and expanded by the Matthean author—first, by the inclusion of the “Q” material in vv. 37-43f; second, by an expansion/adaptation of the Synoptic illustration (vv. 45-51), presenting the Judgment-motif in a more vivid and graphic manner; then, finally, by the three parables of chapter 25.

Let us briefly examine each of these three parables.

25:1-13

It should be pointed out that these are unquestionably Kingdom-parables. This is clear enough from the way in which the first parable is introduced—a qualification that effectively applies to all three parables:

“Then (it is that) the kingdom of the heavens shall be likened to ten virgins, those who, (hav)ing taken their own lamps, went out for a meeting with the bridegroom.” (v. 1)

The adverbial particle to/te (“then”) has temporal significance, indicating a specific time—namely, that of the coming (parousi/a, 24:3) of the exalted Jesus (“the Son of Man”) to earth. In other words, these parables serve as expository illustrations of that time.

The earlier Kingdom parable in 22:1-14 (cf. the discussion in the previous study) utilized the similar motif of a wedding celebration, in which the bridegroom was the king’s son—that is, specifically a royal figure. Clearly, in the Gospel context, this refers to Jesus as the royal (Davidic) Messiah, and the Son of God (with God the Father as King); he is the Son who will inherit the Father’s Kingdom. Almost certainly, the Matthean author understood the same associations implicitly here.

The point of contrast established and illustrated in that earlier parable involved, primarily, whether or not a person trusted in Jesus, so as to become his disciple. However, in vv. 11-13f, a secondary theme was introduced—namely, a contrast between the true and false disciple. It is this particular point of contrast that is illustrated here in the Virgins parable. The “thoughtful” (fro/nimo$) virgins represent the faithful (i.e., true) disciples, whose faithfulness is indicated by the fact that they were diligent and prepared for the bridegroom’s coming (even in the middle of the night). By contrast, the ‘foolish’ (mwro/$) ones represent the faithless (false) disciples, who are negligent and unprepared.

25:14-30

As noted above, the overarching rubric of verse 1a implies that this second parable is also a Kingdom-parable. Certainly, it is comparable to other such parables in the Gospel, with the central character of the wealthy estate-owner, etc. Moreover, the Lukan ‘parallel’ in 19:12-27 is specifically meant to illustrate the Kingdom of God and its coming (v. 11). It is quite clear that the figure of the young nobleman, who traveled away to a far-off region in order “to receive a kingdom for himself”, and who then returns, is meant to depict the death, exaltation, and subsequent return of Jesus. The context of the Matthean parable suggests a similar point of reference. Certainly, the return of the estate owner (v. 19) is to be understood as a reference to second coming (parousia) of Christ.

As in the Virgins parable, there is here a contrast between the true/faithful and false/unfaithful disciple. The main difference is that there are three characters involved, entailing two figures who represent the faithful disciple—one who was entrusted with more, and one who was entrusted with somewhat less. The thrust of this distinction is that faithfulness is unrelated to a person’s individual gifts and (ministerial) responsibilities. Every disciple must act in a faithful and trustworthy manner. Similarly, the false disciple acts in an unfaithful manner, regardless of the gifts and responsibilities involved.

25:31-46

The final parable is less of a parable (properly speaking), than a visionary depiction of the Last Judgment. It depicts the moment anticipated throughout the Kingdom teachings and illustrations—namely, the moment when the exalted Jesus (here called “the Son of Man”) inherits his Kingdom and sits down upon his seat of rule (throne). The initial statement in verse 31, taken out of the Matthean literary context, could properly refer to Jesus’ exaltation (to God’s right hand in heaven), rather than to his future return. Indeed, the vision, in its original form, may have had this point of reference (compare the Son of Man saying in Mk 14:62 par, esp. the Lukan version [22:69, cf. Acts 7:55-56]). However, in the context of the Eschatological Discourse, the “coming of the Son of Man” at the time of the Judgment, can only refer to the second coming (parousia) of Jesus.

Again, the Judgment involves a distinctive contrast between the true and false disciple. It is framed according to the the traditional Prophetic-eschatological motif of the Judgment of the Nations—when all of the nations are judged (collectively) by God. The exalted Christ, functioning as God’s anointed (royal) representative, presides over the Judgment.

What is the contrast, and how is it manifested? It involves whether (or not) one regularly cares for the needs of other disciples, especially in times of suffering, weakness, and vulnerability. The contrastive illustration would not necessarily exclude charitable/merciful acts toward other human beings (generally), but the specific point of reference here is the care shown toward other disciples. The designation of the disciple as “these (who are) my brothers, (even) the least (of them)” echoes Jesus’ earlier use of little children to symbolize the faithful disciple (18:1-4ff; 19:13-15; cf. also 21:15-16). Those references in chaps. 18-19 also emphasized the need for the true disciple, as one who belongs to the Kingdom, to care for others who belong to the Kingdom (i.e., other disciples); cf. the discussion in the earlier study.

In many ways, this Matthean emphasis resembles the fundamental Johannine teaching—viz., of the believer’s duty (e)ntolh/) to show love toward other believers (Jn 13:31-35, etc). Fulfillment of this duty is required of all believers, and is a mark that distinguishes the true believer from the false (cf. throughout First John, esp. 2:7-11ff; 3:10-24; 4:7-5:4a). This is a reflex of the early Christian “love command” tradition (Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:6, 13-14; James 2:8-13, etc), which itself goes back to the core teachings of Jesus to his disciples (cf. Mark 12:31ff par). In the Sermon on the Mount, such teaching is extended, so that the faithful disciple will show love even to one’s enemies (5:43-47).

In the next study, we will turn our attention to how the Kingdom of God (and its coming) was understood by early Christians, outside of the Gospel Tradition. We will begin with several passages from the Letters of Paul.

“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.

Notes on Prayer: Thy Kingdom Come (Matthew 13:24ff)

“May your Kingdom come!”
e)lqe/tw h( basilei/a sou

As we further examine the theme of the coming of the Kingdom in the Gospel of Matthew, it is worth noting that the Gospel writer has largely followed the inherited traditions—that is, the Kingdom-references in the Synoptic (Markan) Tradition and those (shared by Luke) in the “Q” Tradition. If we consider the distinctive Matthean contributions, they largely fall along the lines of the Kingdom references in the Sermon on the Mount (previously discussed). Two aspects, in particular, are emphasized: (1) the eschatological orientation of the Kingdom, with its associated judgment theme, and (2) the faithful disciples of Jesus identified as those who belong to the Kingdom, in contrast to others (who might be thought to belong). These two themes are actually quite closely related, and they tend to coalesce around the end-time Judgment, which is a point of emphasis that is somewhat more prominent in the Gospel in Matthew, than in the other Synoptics.

The Kingdom Parables of Matthew 13

Especially notable are the larger number of Kingdom parables that occur in the Matthean Gospel. As an example, we can compare the additional parables, in chapter 13, which are not found in the corresponding (Synoptic) material of Mark 4:1-34: (i) the ‘Weeds’, with its explanation (vv. 24-30, 36-43); (ii) the Hidden Treasure (v. 44); (iii) the Pearl (vv. 45-46); (iv) the Net (vv. 47-50); and (v) the closing illustration in vv. 51-52. At the same time, the two Markan parables of 4:21-29 are not included here in Matthew. The parables of the ‘Weeds’ (properly darnel plants) and the Net clearly contain an eschatological judgment reference. In the latter parable, the Kingdom (of the heavens) is specifically identified with the drag-net (sagh/nh) itself, but also, more comprehensively, as the entire process of fishing that involves the net (comparable to the harvest phase in the agricultural illustrations). In the weeds/darnel parable, the Kingdom would seem to represented by the entire dynamic at work in the illustration—the field, sower, seed, growth, and harvest. The focus of the illustration is summarized by Jesus as follows:

“The kingdom of the heavens is like:
a man (hav)ing scattered good seed in his field” (v. 24)

The main point of the parable, much like that of the net-parable, is that good and bad come to be found in the same Kingdom-field.

According to the explanation provided by Jesus in the earlier sower-parable, the “seed” is the word (i.e., message) of the Kingdom—thus being identified with the preaching ministry of Jesus and his disciples (4:17, 23; 9:35; 10:7). By contrast, in the weeds-parable, the seed is explained as the people who respond (with trust) to the message, referenced as “the sons [ui(oi/] of the kingdom” (v. 38). This alludes to the motif of inheriting the Kingdom, as implied by the earlier references in the Sermon on the Mount, where the specific idiom of entering the Kingdom is used (5:20; 7:21), or, otherwise, the idea of belonging to the Kingdom (5:3, 10, cf. vv. 19-20). The “sons” are the heirs to the Kingdom, but they do not inherit it immediately; rather, they are first “sown” into the field of the world (v. 38). During this same period of growth (at night, v. 25), the “evil one” sows his own seed, which sprouts up to resemble the grain; however, it is not wheat at all, but an entirely different plant (darnel stalks, ziza/nia).

If we apply this illustration to the context of Jesus’ ministry (“the son of man”, v. 37), the implication is that there are people who resemble Jesus’ disciples—and who might claim to be his disciples, and even to act like them in some respects—but they are not his disciples at all, but rather are false disciples/believers. This is a theme that pervades the Sermon on the Mount, being brought to a focus toward the conclusion (cf. 7:13-23). The designation of the false disciples as false prophets (7:15ff) marks the eschatological context of this teaching, since the presence and activity of false prophets (and also false Messiahs [Christs]) is a traditional characteristic of the end-time period of distress (qli/yi$)—cf. Mark 13:6, 21-22 (par Matt 24:5, 11, 23-26). Other examples can be cited from elsewhere in the New Testament, perhaps most notably in 1 John, where the opponents are called both antichrists (2:18; 4:3 [2 Jn 7], “against the Anointed [Christ]”, but also with the nuance of “false Christ”) and false prophets (4:1); note the imminent eschatological orientation of these passages (2:18, 28ff).

During this end-time period, the two—true and false believers—are allowed to grow up together. Only at the very end, at the moment of judgment, will they be separated, just as, in the Net-parable, the good fish are separated from the rotten ones (v. 48). The same scenario is vividly portrayed in the visionary “sheep and goats” Judgment scene (25:31-46)—a Matthean ‘addition’ to the Eschatological Discourse, which brings the Discourse to a close. Though the two may resemble each other superficially, there are clear and obvious signs that distinguish the true/faithful disciple (believer) from the false. Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount establishes many core characteristics of the true disciple, whereby one can recognize the false disciple, by contrast (7:15-23).

The characteristics of the true disciple are also indicated by Jesus in the remaining Matthean Kingdom-parables of chapter 13 (vv. 44-46, 51-52). The illustration of the treasure hidden in the field, and of the pearl, suggest the complete and whole-hearted devotion to the Kingdom that is required by the true disciple. Again, this is a central aspect of Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. It is perhaps best summed up by the wording in 6:33:

“you must seek first the kingdom [of God] and its right(eous)ness…”

This “rightness” (dikaiosu/nh, cf. 5:6, 10, 20; 6:1) is defined as “doing the will of the Father who is in heaven” (7:21, cf. 6:10). In the context of the Sermon, this further means following the teaching and example of Jesus, who proclaims and expounds the right(eous) will of God for his followers. The disciple (“learner”) is literally one who is taught (“made to learn”), i.e., trained, in the Kingdom (13:51-52).

In the next study, we will explore briefly several other Kingdom parables and illustrations that are unique to the Matthean Gospel.

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

John 5:27, continued

In the first part of this study, we examined the context of the “son of man” reference in verse 27. As part of this analysis, we noted the parallelism between vv. 21-24 and 25-29 in the first expository section of the chap. 5 Discourse. We may narrow the focus to the parallel units of vv. 21-22 and 26-27, in which the thematic emphasis is on the Father giving to the Son the authority/ability both to give life (to the dead) and to judge. Here, again, is how this is 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”

And, 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 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.

Throughout the first division of the Discourse, vv. 19-30, the principal theme is how Jesus, as the Son (of God), does the work of God his Father. The broader thematic focus is on the relationship between the Son (Jesus) and God the Father. Because of this central theme that runs through the entire Gospel, Jesus regularly refers to himself (in the Discourses) as “the Son” (o( ui(o/$), by which is meant “God’s Son” (i.e., “the Son of God”). This is typical of the Johannine Gospel, compared with the relatively rare use of the unqualified expression “the Son” in the Synoptics. And, not surprisingly, given the thematic emphasis in 5:19-30, the expression “the Son” occurs quite often (9 times) in these verses. This makes the singular use of the expression “(the) son of man” in v. 27 quite significant.

Why does Jesus (and the Gospel writer) use “(the) son of man” in verse 27 (and only there)? The precise wording of the phrase containing the expression is important: “(in) that [i.e. because] he is (the) Son of man” (o%ti ui(o\$ a)nqrw/pou e)stin). This explicative use of the o%ti-clause offers the reason why God the Father has given the Son (Jesus) authority to judge humankind: it is because he is “(the) son of man”.

From a syntactical standpoint, the statement “he is (the) son of man” is an example of the sort of essential predication that occurs throughout the Gospel (and Letters) of John. These simple predicative statements contain three elements: (1) Divine subject, (2) verb of being, and (3) predicate noun or phrase. The statements give essential information about who the subject is. The formulation is basically limited to a Divine subject—usually Jesus Christ (the Son), but occasionally God the Father, while, in at least one instance (1 Jn 5:6), the Spirit is the subject. In a secondary application, the formula can also be applied to believers in Christ (viz., believers, the children/offspring of God, as the divine subject).

The “I am” (e)gw\ ei)mi) declarations by Jesus are the most famous examples of Johannine essential predication. Indeed, when Jesus, as both Divine subject and speaker, makes such statements, it is most natural that he would use a first person pronoun to express the subject. Here, however, he speaks in the third person (“he is”), as he typically does whenever he uses the expression “the son of man”, using it as a self-reference. The pronoun is not present in the Greek, but only implied (based on the form of the verb). The specific formulation is unusual (and unprecedented): Jesus uses one self-reference (“the Son”, i.e., “he”) to identify himself with another self-reference (“the son of man”). That is, “the Son is the Son of man”.

How is this essential information to be understood? There are two main lines of interpretation that commentators tend to follow. The first line of interpretation understands the expression “(the) son of man” here as a title, referring (principally) to the heavenly figure (“[one] like a son of man”) in Daniel 7:13-14. Thus, Jesus would be identifying himself (“the Son”) with this heavenly figure. The most relevant parallel, and perhaps the strongest argument in favor of this line of interpretation, is the fact that, in Dan 7:13-14, God gives to the “(one) like a son of man” a ruling authority over humankind:

“…and to him was given dominion [/f*l=v*] and glory [rq*y+] and kingship [Wkl=m^], and all the peoples, nations, and tongues shall give (diligent) service to him” (v. 14)
While Theodotion translates all three Hebrew terms, the LXX renders them under the single word e)cousi/a, as in Jn 5:27:
“…and authority [e)cousi/a] was given to him”

It is not specifically stated that the heavenly figure was given authority to judge; however, this would certainly be part of the ruling authority given to him, and the eschatological judgment (of the nations) certainly features in the passage (vv. 10ff, 22, 26-27). Moreover, in the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71), the heavenly figure of Dan 7:13-14, called by the title “th(e) Son of Man”, is more directly associated with the Judgment (46:2-4ff; chap. 62; 63:11; 69:27ff), the Danielic figure having been blended together with the figure of the Davidic Messiah. For more on the Jewish eschatological/Messianic background of this “Son of Man” figure, see Part 10 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”.

The second line of interpretation understands the expression in a qualitative sense—that is, “son of man” (without the definite article [see below]) means a human being. In other words, Jesus (the Son) is given the authority to judge humankind because he himself is a human being. In the Johannine theological context, this would refer specifically to the incarnation of the Son (1:14ff). It is as the incarnate Son that Jesus has the authority to act as judge over humankind and to render judgment.

On the whole, this second line of interpretation is to be preferred, particularly in the overall context of the Johannine Gospel (and its theology). Before developing this further, a word should be said about the lack of definite articles for the expression here (i.e., uio\$ a)nqrw/pou instead of o( uio\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou)—the only such anarthrous occurrence of the expression in the Gospels. In spite of the lack of the definite article, the expression can still be definite. Indeed, in the case of the word order here, on purely syntactical grounds, a predicate nominative (noun) that precedes the verb should probably be understood in a definite sense*.
* On this point, see the study by E. C. Colwell back in 1933 (Journal of Biblical Literature [JBL] 52, pp. 12-31; Jn 5:27 is discussed on on p. 14); cf. Moloney, pp. 82ff.
At the same time, anarthrous predicate nouns often carry a qualitative sense (cf. the article by P. B. Harner in Journal of Biblical Literature [JBL] 92 [1973], pp. 75-87). If both of these aspects of the predicate noun are present here in v. 27, then it would mean that the expression is particularly emphasizing that the Son is the human being with the authority to exercise judgment over humankind (cp. the expression in Mk 2:10 par, also 2:28 par). In terms of the Johannine theology, as noted above, this would refer to the incarnation of the Son—viz., the pre-existent (heavenly) Son who has come to earth as a human being. We have seen how the twin Johannine themes of the heavenly origin of the Son, and of his descent to earth, featured prominently in the prior “son of man” sayings (1:51 [study]; 3:13-14 [study]).

Of particular importance is how the thematic motif of judgment (kri/si$, vb kri/nw) is presented in the Gospel of John. Most relevant for consideration is the statement in 3:19, coming as it does in the expository section (of that earlier Discourse), vv. 16-21, immediate following the “son of man” references (vv. 13-14). The end-time Judgment is explained in terms of the ‘realized’ eschatology of the Gospel (see the discussion in the first part of this study). That is to say, the Judgment occurs now, in the present; and, specifically, those would fail or refuse to trust in Jesus are already judged:

“The (one) trusting in him is not judged; but the (one) not trusting has already [h&dh] been judged, (in) that he has not trusted in the name of the only [monogenh/$] Son of God.” (v. 18)

The nature of the Judgment, in this regard, is further explained in verse 19:

“And this is the judgment: that the Light has come into the world, and (yet) men loved the darkness more than the Light, for their deeds are evil.”

This corresponds to what Jesus says about the Judgment here in verse 24, and clearly relates to the idea that this judgment has been given to the Son (v. 22). Interestingly, in 3:17, Jesus seems to say the opposite—viz., that he has not come (as the incarnate Son) to render judgment:

“For God did not send forth the Son into the world (so) that he should judge the world, but (rather) that the world might be saved through him.” (cp. 8:15-16; 12:47)

The locus of the Judgment is whether or not one trusts in Jesus (as the incarnate Son). In that sense, the incarnate Son (Jesus) does not fill the role of end-time Judge as it might traditionally be understood. Instead, the Judgment occurs based on how a person responds to the message of the incarnate Son—the truth of who he is and what he has done. Compare the Judgment-references in 9:39 and 12:47-48. Later on in the Gospel, this aspect of the Judgment is tied more directly to the Son’s fulfillment of his earthly mission—that is, his exaltation (“being lifted up”), beginning with his sacrificial death (see the previous study on the saying in 3:14). This thematic development is expressed by the declaration in 12:31:

“Now is the judgment of this world; now the chief (ruler) of this world will be cast outside!”

The implication is that Jesus’ Passion (suffering and death) initiates the Judgment of the world; this Judgment involves the punishment (expulsion) of the “ruler of this world” (i.e., the Satan/Devil). Much the same is stated in 16:11 (see my earlier study on the Paraclete saying[s] in 16:8-11ff). Again, this Judgment is tied to the world’s failure/refusal to trust in Jesus, defined (in Johannine terms) as the great sin (vv. 8-9).

How does all of this relate to the use of the expression “(the) son of man” in verse 27? Though there are definite allusions to Daniel 7:13-14 (see above) here in the passage, it would seem that Jesus (and the Gospel writer) has reinterpreted the traditional Judgment-association in light of the Johannine theology (and Christology). In particular, the whole theme of judgment has been radically interpreted in the Johannine writings. The Judgment is now defined primarily in terms of trust in Jesus as the incarnate Son of God. The one who trusts has already passed through the Judgment (v. 24), while the one who does not trust has already been judged (3:18-19, etc). The trust in Jesus specifically relates to his death (viz., the beginning of his exaltation), the fulfillment of the mission for which the Father sent the Son (from heaven to earth).

We may expand our understanding of the Johannine “son of man” references, based on the sayings we have examined thus far, to include the following points:

- The heavenly origin of the Son (Jesus)
- His descent to earth—entailing his incarnation as a human being (“son of man”)
- The promise of his ascent (back to heaven), following the completion of his mission
- This ascent (exaltation, “lifting up”) begins with his sacrificial death (3:14)—whereby the use of the expression “the son of man” has definite parallels to the Synoptic Passion predictions (and similar sayings)
- The end-time Judgment, traditionally associated with the “son of man” (Dan 7:13-14; Mk 13:26 par, etc), is defined primarily in terms of how one responds to this Christological message of the Son’s descent/ascent.

In the next study, we shall turn to the “son of man” references in the chapter 6 (Bread of Life) Discourse.

References above (and throughout these studies) marked “Moloney” are to Francis J. Moloney SDB, The Johannine Son of Man, Second Edition (Wipf and Stock: 1978/2007).

“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:

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

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.