Tag: Messiah

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalms of Solomon 17-18 (Part 3)

Psalm 17 (of Solomon), continued

The bulk of the Messianic Song of Ps Sol 17 was examined in Part 2 of this study. The Song consists of two main stanzas (vv. 26-34a, 34b-42), with an introduction (vv. 21-25) and conclusion (vv. 43-44). The conclusion will be treated here, before turning to the 18th Psalm.

Messianic Song: Conclusion (vv. 43-44)
Verse 43

“His utterances (are) shown pure by fire,
over prized gold (of) the first (order);
in (the) gatherings he will thoroughly judge (the) tribes
of a people made holy.
His words (are) as (the) words of (the) holy (one)s
in (the) midst of peoples made holy!”

The Messiah’s rule over the Kingdom of God’s people, during the eschatological New Age of Israel’s restoration, was described in some detail in Stanza 2. Here in the conclusion the focus is on his role as judge in the midst of the people. He will “judge thoroughly/throughout” (vb diakri/nw), with words that are holy and pure.

Verse 43 is comprised of three pairs of couplets, the last of which (e-f) is parallel to the first two (a-d). The first line of the third couplet (e) matches the first couplet (ab):

    • “His utterances (are) shown pure by fire,
      over prized gold (of) the first (order)”
    • “His words (are) as (the) words of (the) holy (one)s”

The plural nouns r(h/mata (“utterances”) and lo/goi (“words”) are parallel, with identical meaning. The two comparisons are likewise similar in meaning—both emphasize the holiness and purity of the Messiah’s words. The first comparison, with purified gold, is traditional (Psalm 12:7[6]; Mal 3:3; cf. also Isa 48:10; Jer 9:7; Dan 11:35; Zech 13:9); the eschatological aspect of this imagery is notable in Mal 3:2-3; Dan 11:35 and Zech 13:9. The verb puro/w means “be/set on fire”; its use here (as a perfect participle, viz., a verbal adjective) has the contextual meaning “shown/proven pure by fire”, “tested/refined by fire”. The second comparison focuses of the specific attribute of holiness. Here the substantive plural adjective a%gioi (“holy ones”) likely refers to the divine/heavenly beings (i.e., angels), though it can also refer to human beings. Indeed, for the Community of the Qumran texts, there was a direct correlation between the “holy ones” on earth (i.e., the members of the Community) and those of heaven (the angels); cf. Ps 89:6-8 [5-7]. At the end time, the heavenly ones will join together with those on earth. The community of the Psalms of Solomon may have held similar eschatological ideas regarding their own religious self-identity and place in the coming New Age.

The Messiah will utter his holy words in the midst of a holy people—viz., the faithful ones of Israel/Judah who will be “made holy” (vb a(gia/zw) by God in the New Age. The use of the plural la/oi (“peoples”) in the final line may reflect a stylistic variation; more likely, it is meant to distinguish the tribes of the people (cf. the parallel in the second couplet [cd]), though it may also allude to the eschatological expectation that the other nations (viz., those who survive the Judgment) will likewise be purified, joining together with Israel in the worship of YHWH during the New Age.

Verse 44

“Happy (are) the (one)s coming to be (born) in those days—
to see the good (thing)s of Yisrael,
in (the) gathering together of (the) tribes,
which God shall do!”

The Song closes with a beatitude, using the traditional formula beginning with the adjective maka/rio$ (“happy, blessed” = Hebrew yr@v=a^); cf. my earlier note on this formula. The blessing is for all those people who come to be born during the time of the Kingdom, under the Messiah’s rule, in the New Age of Israel’s restoration.

Conclusion of the Psalm (vv. 45-46)
Verse 45

“May God make His mercy come quickly upon Yisrael!
May He rescue us from (the) uncleanness of profane enemies!”

The Psalm concludes with a prayer, similar to the one at the beginning of the Messianic Song (vv. 21ff), asking for YHWH to send His Messiah and thus to usher in the New Age of restoration for His people. The hope that this will occur quickly (vb taxu/nw) almost certainly reflects the eschatological expectation of the psalmist (and of the community that produced and used the Psalms)—viz., that the coming of the Messiah will, indeed, happen very soon.

Verse 46

“(The) Lord—He (is) our King into the Age and still (further)!”

The final line of the Psalms echoes the initial line (in v. 1), with a theological declaration that YHWH is the true King of His people. The Davidic Messiah, who will rule over the Kingdom on earth in the New Age, is only a vassal-servant of the Supreme King, functioning as His representative among the people. This royal theology is present in many of the canonical Psalms that we have studied, and it informs much of the Messianic thought among Jews and early Christians as well.

Psalm 18 (of Solomon)

The 18th Psalm (of Solomon), the last of the collection, is also a Messianic Psalm, though considerably shorter and narrower in scope than the 17th. In many ways, it summarizes the Messianic expectation and eschatological hope expressed in the other Psalms. The superscription designates it as a Psalm “yet (again) of the Anointed Lord” (e&ti tou= xristou= kuri/ou). It opens, much like Ps Sol 17, with a hymn to YHWH (vv. 1-4), followed by a prayer (v. 5), and a blessing for those who will be born during the coming Messianic Age (vv. 6-9, cf. 17:44, above). The Psalm closes with a hymnic benediction (vv. 10-12), in which the expected faithfulness of God’s people is compared (implicitly) to the obedience of the heavenly bodies.

Hymn to YHWH (vv. 1-4)
Verse 1

“Lord, your mercy (is) upon the works of your hands into the Age,
your goodness over a rich gift upon Yisrael!”

The opening hymn praises YHWH for His attributes and characteristic actions—particularly those demonstrating His faithfulness, devotion, and covenant loyalty toward His people. Like all human beings, the Israelite/Judean people are the “works of (His) hands” (viz., YHWH as Creator); but He specifically established Israel as His people, by means of a special covenant with them.

Verse 2

“Your eyes are looking upon them, and not (one) of them will be lacking;
your ears are listening to (the) need of (the) poor (offered) in hope.”

YHWH regularly shows care and attention toward His people, by looking upon them (i.e., watching, overseeing) so that their needs will be met; none of His faithful ones will be left wanting or in need (see, e.g., Ps 23:1; 34:10-11 [9-10]; 37:25). Similarly, He hears their prayer when they make a plea or request to Him in their need; this is the significance of the noun de/hsi$—viz., a request for some need, or based on a need that a person has. The righteous make such requests “in hope”, with the expectation that God will answer them. As often in the canonical Psalms, the righteous are identified with the poor; here, the attribute is more properly related to their situation in time of need.

Verse 3

“Your judgments upon all the earth (are made) with mercy,
and your love (is) upon (the) seed of Abraham, (the) sons of Yisrael.”

As the Sovereign Ruler (King and Judge) over all the universe, YHWH makes judgments upon/over the entire earth (viz., all humankind). Even in the judgments that He makes with regard to the other nations, YHWH shows kindness and mercy to them, but He demonstrates a special love toward the people of Israel. The expression “son(s) of Israel” is in apposition to “seed of Abraham”. The more difficult reading is the genitive singular ui(ou (“of a son”), referring to Abraham as a “son of Israel”, lit. “(the) seed of Abraham, a son of Israel”. However, other manuscripts have an accusative plural (ui(ou/$) which is more fitting to the context of the verse—viz., the “sons of Israel” are designated as the “seed of Abraham” (i.e., Abraham’s descendants); cf. Wright, p. 202. The reference to Abraham serves as an implicit allusion to the covenant between YHWH and Israel (established initially with Abraham).

Verse 4

“Your child-training upon us (is) as a firstborn (son), an only (child),
to turn a hearing soul away from lack of learning in lack of knowledge.”

YHWH’s love for His people is like that of a father for an only son (monogenh/$), who would also be, of course, his firstborn. On the idea of the Israelite people as God’s son (or children), cf. Exod 4:22-23; Deut 32:6, 19; Hos 1:10 [2:1]; 11:1; Isa 43:6; 64:8[7]; Jer 31:9. The concept came to be applied to believers in Christ, quite apart from any ethnic distinction, especially by Paul (e.g., Gal 3:26; 4:5-6; Rom 8:14-15, 19, 23) and in the Johannine writings (where te/kna, “offspring, children” is always used, Jn 1:12; 11:52; 1 Jn 3:1-2, 10; 5:2). As a loving parent, YHWH trains His child, expressed by the customary noun paidei/a; such training includes instruction and discipline, which is necessary in order to keep the child from being without proper learning (a)maqi/a) and, as a result, acting with ignorance (lit. “lack of knowledge”, a&gnoia). The idea of God disciplining His people, as a parent does to his/her child, appears frequently in Scripture—e.g., Deut 8:5; 2 Sam 7:14; Job 5:17; Ps 94:12; 118:18; Prov 3:11; Jer 31:18; Heb 12:5-11; Rev 3:19.

It is the “hearing” (i.e., obedient) soul that responds to discipline, and thus receives proper training; some manuscripts read u(phkoon (“hearing under [obedience]”) and others eu)hkoon (“good/well hearing”), but the meaning is essentially the same (cf. Wright, p. 204).

Prayer (vv. 5)

“May God cleanse Yisrael for (the) day of mercy with a good account [i.e., blessing],
for (the) day gathered out [i.e., chosen], with (the) ruling of His Anointed!”

The prayer here in v. 5, as in Ps Sol 17 (vv. 21ff), anticipates the coming of the Messiah, which will usher in the New Age of Israel’s restoration. The psalmist specifically asks YHWH to cleanse His people (Israel) in preparation for that day, a day expected to come very soon. It is with a “good account” (or word spoken, eu)logi/a), i.e., blessing, that God will bring about this cleansing (cf. John 15:3). The day when Messiah comes is a day specially chosen by God, “gathered out” from all others.

Blessing for the Messianic Age (vv. 6-9)
Verse 6

“Happy (are) the (one)s coming to be (born) in those days—
to see the good (thing)s of (the) Lord that He will do for the coming generation,”

This section begins with a beatitude formula that closely resembles the one in 17:44 (see above).

Verse 7

“under (the) rod of (the) Anointed Lord’s child-training—
in (the) fear of his God,
in (the) wisdom of (the) Spirit,
and of righteousness and strength—”

The blessings that YHWH will provide for His people during the New Age will occur under the leadership and rule of the Messiah. As God’s representative (and vassal-servant), it is the Messiah who will carry out the training of the people (as God’s children); again, the noun and motif of paidei/a (“child-training”) is used (cf. verse 4, above).

The Messiah will be faithful and devoted to YHWH, as indicated by the expression “in (the) fear of his God” (i.e., fear of YHWH), cf. 17:40. For the attributes of wisdom, righteous, and strength, cf. the Messianic Song of Ps Sol 17 (vv. 22ff, 26ff, 28, 32ff, 36-40). The wording here, as at several points in Ps Sol 17, is inspired by Isa 11:2-4ff (regarded as a Messianic prophecy by Jews and early Christians alike).

Verse 8

“to set men straight in works of righteousness, in (the) fear of God,
to make them all stand (straight) in (the) sight of the Lord—”

The discipline that the Messiah provides for God’s people will ensure that they can remain on a “straight path” (vb “set/put down straight”, kateuqu/nw), and that they will be able to stand (vb “set down”, so as to be stationed in place, kaqi/sthmi) before God, in His sight. I have followed the reading e)nw/pion (“in the eyes/sight of”), though other manuscripts repeat e)n fw/bw| (“in fear [of]”) from the first line rather than e)nw/pion; cf. Wright, p. 206. As a holy and righteous people, the restored Israel of the New Age will all produce “works of righteousness”, i.e., their actions will be right and holy.

Verse 9

“a good generation in (the) fear of God in (the) days of mercy!”
Interlude [dia/yalma]

The coming of the Messiah will be a “day [sing.] of mercy” (v. 5), but the period of his reign—viz., the New Age of the Kingdom—will constitute “days [plur.] of mercy”. All of the people born during this period will themselves constitute a “good generation” —the noun genea/ (translated “generation”) denoting the people who “come to be (born)” during a certain period of time (cf. verse 6; 17:44). They will be good and righteous, fearing and serving God with faithfulness and devotion, just like their leader the Messiah (v. 7; 17:40).

For the indicator dia/yalma, comparable to Hebrew hl*s# (Selah), cf. on 17:29 (in Part 2 of this study).

Closing Benediction (vv. 10-12)
Verse 10

“Great (is) our God and (to be held) in honor,
putting down house in (the) highest (place)s—
the (One) arranging throughout (the) lights in (their) passage,
for times of (the) hours from days to days;
and they have not stepped aside from (the) path that He ordered for them!”

The closing benediction of the Psalm takes the form of a hymn to YHWH, praising His power and faithfulness in His role as Creator (and King) of the universe. As King, He dwells in the highest places (above the heavens), from where He governs and orders all things in the cosmos. The focus is upon the heavenly bodies (lights/luminaries, fwsth/r plur.)—i.e., the sun, moon, and stars of the heavens. He arranges and sets them all in order (vb diata/ssw), so that they move and appear in a regular manner, each body having a particular mode of movement (porei/a), and a passageway or ‘course’ through which they move; cf. Judg 5:20; Psalm 19:6-7 [5-6]. As a result, human beings can utilize them reliably as a way to track the hours of the day and the days of the months and years. Subservient to the King (and His power/authority), the heavenly bodies continue to move just as they were ordered (vb e)nte/llw, denoting a charge or duty placed on someone). The bodies have continuously maintained their course and have not once “stepped alongside” away from their directed path; cf. Gen 1:16; Psalm 8:4[3]; 136:9; 147:4; 148:3ff, and on the fixed boundaries that the created bodies cannot cross, cf. Psalm 74:17; 104:9.

Verse 11

“In (the) fear of God their path (is), according to each day,
from which day God founded them, even until (the) Age.”

This couplet reaffirms the theological-cosmological point made in v. 10 (see above), emphasizing that the heavenly bodies are obedient to God’s command (“in [the] fear of God”), just like the Messiah and the holy/faithful ones of His people. In this regard, the behavior of the heavenly bodies serves as a type-parallel for the “holy ones” on earth. God established them (at the creation), just as He established His people for the New Age (making them holy and guiding/training them in righteousness). The heavenly bodies are obedient servants of God throughout the former Age (and into the New); like the heavenly beings (i.e., angels), they are the faithful residents of heaven, while human beings (i.e., God’s people) are the faithful ones on earth.

Verse 12

“And (so) they have not gone astray
from (the) day He founded them,
from (the) generations (of the) beginning
they have not stood away from their paths,
if not (as) God gave the charge to them
by (the) order of His servants!”

The use of the heavenly bodies as an exemplar for human beings (i.e., God’s people) becomes clearer with the use of the verb plana/w (“go astray”), as also by the reference to “generations” past (the same noun, genea/, occurs in vv. 6 and 9, referring to the holy/faithful generation of the Messianic Age). The repeated emphasis on the heavenly bodies remaining in/on their right paths naturally brings to mind the path/walking motif familiar from Wisdom literature, including in the Psalms (see esp. throughout Psalm 119). The obedient servant of YHWH follows the path that He has laid out.

The final two lines point out that the only time that the heavenly bodies depart from their ordained path is when God specifically commands it. The last line is almost certainly an allusion to Josh 10:12-14 (cf. also, possibly, Isa 38:8).

*    *    *    *    *

This brings to a close our series exploring selected deuterocanonical and extra-canonical Psalms. Beginning with our next study, we will return to the canonical Scriptures, looking at some of the compositions that may be regarded as among the oldest Psalms (insofar as it can be determined), both within and outside of the Psalter.

    • References above marked “Wright” are to Robert B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text, Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies, vol. 1 (T & T Clark: 2007). Those marked “Wright OTP” are to the same author’s annotated translation (with introduction) in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha [OTP], Volume 2, ed. James H. Charlesworth, Anchor Bible Reference Library [ABRL] (1985), pp. 639-70.

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalms of Solomon 17-18 (Part 2)

Psalm 17 (of Solomon), continued

The first portions of the 17th Psalm of Solomon were discussed in Part 1 of this study: (1) the Hymn to YHWH, vv. 1-10, and (2) the transitional/expository verses 11-20. They describe the present time of distress for God’s people and anticipate the coming of the appointed servant (i.e., the royal/Davidic Messiah) who will rescue the righteous/faithful ones and establish God’s Kingdom on earth. This eschatological scenario is expounded in detail in vv. 21-44, which comprise a Messianic Song, in two main stanzas (vv. 26-34a, 34b-42), with an introduction (vv. 21-25) and conclusion (vv. 43-44).

Messianic Song: Introduction (vv. 21-25)
Verse 21

“See, O Lord, and raise up for them
their King, (the) son of David—
at the time which you (have) seen, O God,
to reign as king over Yisrael your servant!”

The Messianic Song begins with a call to YHWH, making this Song function as a prayer-Psalm. The author/protagonist asks God to cause the royal/Davidic Messiah (“son of David”) to “stand up” (i.e., rise up) and appear on the scene. As a descendent of David, this person will be heir to the promises made by YHWH to David (cf. verse 4). Since the end of the Davidic dynasty, other rulers (such as the Hasmoneans) have reigned as imposters over the people; the throne of the Kingdom does not properly belong to them, but only to a rightful ruler from David’s line (v. 6).

On the designation “son of David” and its Messianic significance in the New Testament and among early Christians (as applied to the person of Jesus Christ), see Part 8 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”.

Verses 22-24

“Gird him underneath (with the) strength—
to break apart (the) unrighteous rulers;
to cleanse Yerušalaim from (the) nations
trampling (her) down in destruction;
in wisdom (and) in righteousness
to thrust out sinners from (the) inheritance;
to rub out (the) overweening (pride) of (the) sinner
as (if it were) a potter’s vessel;
with a rod of iron
to grind together their substance;
to destroy (the) lawbreaking nations
with (the) word of his mouth!”

The psalmist also asks YHWH to give strength (i)sxu/$) to the Davidic Messiah so that he will be able to accomplish his end-time mission. The verb used is u(pozw/nnumi (“gird under[neath], undergird”), alluding to the girding of one’s loins (for battle). The phrasing comes from Psalm 18:33[32]— “The Mighty (One is) the (One) girding me (with) strength” —even though the actual wording in the LXX differs slightly, using perizw/nnumi (“gird around”) and du/nami$ (“power”): “God (is) the (One) girding me round about (with) power”.

The purpose for this strengthening by YHWH—viz., the accomplishment of the Messiah’s mission—is expressed by a series of clausal statements government by verbal infinitives (that is, infinitives of purpose/result):

    • “to break apart [vb qrau/w] the unrighteous rulers”
    • “to cleanse [vb kaqari/zw] Jerusalem…” (reading kaqari/sai rather than the imperative kaqa/rison; cf. Wright, p. 188)
    • “to thrust out [vb e)cwqe/w] the sinners…”
    • “to rub out [vb e)ktri/bw] the pride/arrogance of the sinner”
    • “to grind [lit. rub] together [vb suntri/bw] their substance”
    • “to destroy [vb o)leqreu/w] the nations…”

The lines in vv. 23b-24a have a chiastic structure that is clearly drawn from Psalm 2:9:

    • to rub out (the) overweening (pride) of (the) sinner
      • as (if it were) a potter’s vessel;
      • with a rod of iron
    • to grind together their substance;

The chiasm is bracketed by the verbal infinitives of the related verbs e)ktri/bw (“rub out”, i.e., wipe out, destroy) and suntri/bw (“rub together”, i.e., “grind together”, crush, pulverize). In the LXX the verb suntri/bw is used to translate Hebrew Jp^n` (I), “smash to pieces”, but the verb in the first line of v. 9 is misread as hu*r* (“shepherd”, Grk poimane/w) rather than uu^r* (II) “smash, shatter”. The Greek of the Pss Sol here more accurately reflects the Hebrew of Ps 2:9.

In verse 24, the allusion to Ps 2:9 is blended with that of Isaiah 11:4, as the “rod of iron” wielded by the Davidic ruler becomes the “rod of his mouth”, with which he slays the wicked. Here the Pss Sol agrees with the LXX in rendering Hebrew fb#v# (“rod, staff”) with lo/go$ (“word”). Psalm 2 and Isaiah 11:1ff both came to be viewed as Messianic prophecies, which early Christians also applied to the person of Jesus Christ—cf. the use of Ps 2:9 in Rev 2:27; 12:5; 19:15, and Isa 11:4 in 2 Thess 2:8. The prophecies allude to the idea that the royal/Davidic Messiah will play a central role in ushering in God’s end-time Judgment upon the nations (and the wicked).

Verse 25

“With his threatening (appearance the) nations (are) to flee from his face,
and (he is) to show sinners (guilty) by (the) word of their hearts!”

The Messiah’s appearing is thought to be in a threatening manner (a)peilh/, “threat”) so that the nations will flee in fear. The sinful/wicked ones will realize their guilt and understand the punishment that is coming upon them. The Messiah’s presence will have the effect of showing sinners to be guilty (vb e)le/gxw). Cf. John 16:8-11; indeed, the Gospel of John expresses the idea that the world will be judged based on how it responds to Jesus (the Messiah) while he is present—whether personally (incarnate on earth), or manifest through the presence of the Spirit (cf. also 3:19; 5:22ff; 9:39; 12:31, 47-48).

There is a clear parallel between the expression “by the word of his mouth” (v. 24) and “by the word of their hearts” (v. 25).

Messianic Song: First Stanza (vv. 26-34a)
Verse 26

“And he will gather together a holy people
whom he will lead forth in righteousness;
and he will judge (the) tribes of (the) people
made holy under [i.e., by] (the) Lord his God.”

The wicked will be slain and punished in the Judgment (vv. 23-25); this applies both to the nations and to the wicked/sinful ones among the Israelite/Jewish people. By contrast, those who are righteous and faithful will be kept safe and gathered together (vb suna/gw) as a “holy people”. These people will be led by the Davidic Messiah as their ruler (king and judge). It is God, not the Messiah, who sanctifies the people and makes them holy; once purified, they can be governed by the Messiah in righteousness. It is likely that the community of the Psalms (of Solomon), much like the Qumran Community, viewed themselves as representing the holy ones of the end times; if not exclusively so, they certainly would have identified themselves prominently as belonging to this “holy people”. This sense of religious self-identity, with a strong eschatological orientation, was very much shared by the early Christian communities as well.

Verses 27-28

“And he will not allow unrighteousness to lodge in their midst any more,
and he will not let dwell with them any man knowing evil.
For he shall know them, that all of them are sons of God,
and he will apportion them in their tribes upon the land,
and (the one) dwelling along and (the) foreigner shall not dwell alongside them any more.”

This poetic unit is framed by the idea that unrighteousness will no longer (ou) + e&ti) dwell in the midst of the holy people (v. 6). This includes foreigners and temporary residents (i.e., resident aliens, etc.)—anyone who does not truly and properly belong to the holy people (viz., the holy ones among the twelve tribes of Israel). At the center of these five lines is the declaration that the Messianic Ruler will know who the holy people are—the ones who truly are the “sons of God”. For a similar relationship between believers in Christ (as the sons/children of God) and the Messiah (Christ), cf. Jn 1:12; 11:52; 1 Jn 3:1, 10; 5:2; Rom 8:14, 16, 19; 9:8; Gal 3:26; Phil 2:15. And, for Christ knowing who the true believers (i.e., sons of God) are, cf. Jn 5:42; 6:64; 8:37f, 55; 10:14ff, 27; 13:11, 18; 14:7ff; 15:21; 16:3; cf. also Matt 7:23.

Verses 29-30a

“He will judge (the) peoples and nations in (the) wisdom of his righteousness,
Interlude [dia/yalma]
and he will hold (the) peoples of (the) nations (as) slaves to him under his yoke.”

The idea that the Messiah will rule and judge people in/with right(eous)ness (dikaiosu/nh) reflects the right(eous) character of God Himself as King and Judge (Psalm 50:6; 96:13; 98:9; Isa 51:5, etc.). The wording here is probably inspired by Isa 11:4 (see on v. 24 above), with Isa 11:1-9 again being treated as a Messianic prophecy. In early Christian thought, Jesus Christ was also expected to judge the world/nations “in righteousness” at the end-time (Acts 17:31).

The Greek term dia/yalma means something like “(partway) through (the) musical composition”, indicating a pause or musical interlude. It corresponds to the Hebrew hl*s# (Selah), and its inclusion here is probably done in imitation of the canonical Psalms; it does not seem particularly integral to the stanza or to the Song as a whole. In fact, one could treat v. 29 and v. 30a together as a poetic unit, as I have done above.

Verses 30b-31

“And he will glorify the Lord in a (most) distinguished place of all the earth,
and (so) he shall cleanse Yerušalaim in holiness as from (the) beginning,
(for the) coming of (the) nations from (the) end(s) of the earth to see His glory,
bearing (as) gifts her sons (that) had been thrust out,
and to see the glory of (the) Lord (with) which God glorified her.”

The restoration of the Kingdom in the New Age entails the cleansing and sanctification of Jerusalem as the holy city (and capital of the Kingdom), restoring it to the status that it had earlier times, and even giving to it a greater glory.

The Messiah’s rule over the nations involves their coming to Jerusalem, for two purposes: (1) returning the exiled Israelites/Judeans to the holy land, and (2) paying homage to the King (Messiah) and giving worship to YHWH. In this regard, the poet of the Song is drawing upon eschatological prophecies (dealing with the post-exilic period and the restoration of Israel) such as Isaiah 2:2-4 par, and chap. 60; cf. also the Psalms in the collection of 93-100. It is clear that the people of the nations have not all been destroyed in the Judgment; a number of them survived or were spared, and it is understood that they will join with Israel in worshiping YHWH and submitting to the rule of the King Messiah.

Verse 32

“And he (will be) a righteous king over them, taught by God,
and there will not be (any) unrighteousness in his days in the midst of them;
for (they) all (shall be) holy, and their king (the) Anointed Lord.”

In the New Age of Israel’s restoration, both the King (Messiah) and the people will be righteous and holy (cf. Jer 23:5). Here, the Davidic Ruler is specifically called by the title “(the) Anointed” (xristo/$), juxtaposed with the title “Lord” (ku/rio$). This joining of titles was similarly applied to the person of Jesus by early Christians (Luke 2:11; Acts 2:36; Rom 1:4, et al.).

Verses 33-34a

“He will not place (his) trust upon horse and rider and bow,
nor will he multiply unto him(self) gold and silver for war,
and in many (warriors) he will not gather hope for a day of war.
(The) Lord Himself is his King—
the hope of the (one) powerful in hope of God!”

The Messiah, though understood as the ruler of a real (socio-political) kingdom on earth, does not exercise power in reliance on ordinary political or military means. This reflects an important theological emphasis in the canonical Psalms—e.g., 20:8[7]; 33:17; 44:7[6]; 147:10f; cf. Isa 31:1; 36:9; Prov 21:31.

In accordance with the ancient Israelite royal theology, the human king is a vassal-servant of YHWH (the Supreme King), who gives strength and protection to His loyal servant in time of need (in battle, etc.). Since the Messiah trusts (i.e., has his hope) in YHWH as his King, he becomes powerful because of this hope, since he has YHWH’s strength on his side.

Messianic Song: Second Stanza (vv. 34b-42)
Verses 34b-35

“And he will have mercy on the nations (who stand) in fear in his sight;
for he will strike (the) earth with the word of his mouth into the Age,
(and) will bless (the) people of (the) Lord in wisdom with a good heart!”

The first stanza essentially described the Messiah’s establishment of his rule in the Kingdom of the New Age; now, in the second stanza, more detail is given to the rule itself—that is, the government of the Messianic Kingdom.

As long as the remaining people of the nations revere YHWH and submit to him (lit., are “in fear in his sight”), the Messiah will show mercy (and favor) to them. Verse 35a essentially declares that the ruling power which the Messiah displayed in the great Judgment (v. 24, citing Isa 11:4) will continue throughout the New Age (“into the Age”). The description of striking the earth “with the word of his mouth” alludes again to Isa 11:4 (LXX).

The mercy/favor shown to the nations (i.e., the devout/faithful ones) is paralleled by the blessing that he speaks (vb. eu)loge/w) to God’s people (viz., the faithful ones of Israel/Judah).

Verse 36

“And he (himself will be) clean from sin,
(in order) to rule a great people;
he will show rulers (when they are wrong) and will take out sinners
by (the) strength of his word.”

The holiness and righteousness of the Messiah is expressed here in v. 36a in terms of being clean (i.e., pure) from sin; God has made him to be so in order to “rule a great people”. The parallels with the orthodox view of the sinlessness of Jesus Christ are obvious (cf. 2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15; 7:26; 1 Pet 2:22; 1 John 3:5).

Verse 36b represents an expository development of the statement in v. 35b (with its allusion to Isa 11:4). The Messiah’s striking of the earth with “the word of his mouth” involves: (1) the judgment and rebuke of people (even of chiefs and rulers), showing them when they are wrong (vb e)le/gxw, cf. verse 25); and (2) the punishment of sinners, which means the removal of them (vb e)cai/rw, “take out”) from the midst of the holy people.

Verses 37-38

“And he will not be without strength in his days, (relying) upon his God,
for God made him to be
powerful in work by (His) holy Spirit,
and wise in (the) counsel of understanding,
with strength and righteousness.
Indeed, (the) blessing of (the) Lord (remains) with him in strength,
and (so) he will not (ever) be without strength.”

The Divine strength mentioned in v. 22 (see above) possessed by the Messiah remains active throughout his reign (cf. v. 34a)—a point that is further developed here, alluding again to Isa 11:2ff.

Verses 37-38 comprise a distinct poetic unit, as is clear from the framing use of the double-negative idiom ou) + vb a)sqene/w, “he will not be without strength”, so as to express all the more emphatically the Messiah’s strength.

Verses 39-40

“His hope (rests) upon (the) Lord—
and (so) who is able (to prevail) against him?
Strong in his works and mighty in (the) fear of God,
(he is) shepherding the flock of (the) Lord
in trust and righteousness,
and will not allow (there) to be a lack of strength
among them in their pasture.”

As in vv. 33-34a, it is emphasized that the Messiah trusts (i.e., has his hope) in YHWH, who is the source of his strength. After the type-pattern of David (1 Sam 16:11ff; 17:20, 34ff; 2 Sam 5:2; Ps 78:71-72), the Messiah will act like a shepherd, guiding and protecting the people (as a flock). This imagery draws upon ancient Near Eastern royal symbolism, as well as the theological idea (in Israel) of YHWH as the Shepherd of His people—e.g., Psalm 23; 28:9; 80:1ff; Isa 40:11; Jer 31:10; Ezek 34:15. For the specific application of this line of tradition to the Davidic Messiah, see Micah 5:1-3 [2-4]; Jer 23:1-8; Ezek 34:23-24; and, as applied to Jesus, Matt 2:6 (citing Mic 5:1[2]); Mk 14:27 (citing Zech 13:7); cf. John 10:2ff, 11ff; Heb 13:20; 1 Pet 2:25; 5:4; Rev 7:17.

Verse 41

“In holiness he shall lead them all,
and there will not be among them (any) overweening (pride)
(for them) to exercise power against (any) among them.”

The Messiah will be holy, sanctified by God, and he will lead the people (also made holy) together in holiness. I read o(sio/thti (“holiness”, cf. Wright, p. 198), rather than the variant i)so/thti (“equality”), though the latter could certainly relate to the situation implied in lines 2-3. Indeed, society in the Messianic Kingdom of the New Age will be governed by justice and equality. All of the people will think and act in an upright and humble manner, with no u(perhfani/a—that is, an “overblown/overinflated” sense of oneself, an overweening pride/arrogance (such as characterizes the wicked/nations, v. 23). As a result, no one will exercise power against another (vb katadunasteu/w) in an oppressive manner.

Verse 42

“This (is) the good appearance of (the) king of Yisrael,
which God knew (beforehand),
(so as) to raise him up over (the) house of Yisrael
to train it as (His) child!”

In these final couplets, the person and reign of the Messiah is summarized with the characteristic of eu)pre/peia—lit., “a good appearance”, implying beauty, dignity, and honor/majesty, particularly in this royal context (cf. Psalm 50[49]:2 LXX). YHWH knew the character and nature of the Messiah beforehand and understood how he would lead and govern the people; cf. the wording in v. 21 (above): “at the time which you (have) seen [i.e., known], O God”.

The use of the verb a)ni/sthmi (“stand up”, in a transitive-causative sense, “make stand up”, i.e., “raise up”) serves as an inclusio with the earlier occurrence in v. 21 (see above), effectively framing the entire Song. The psalmist called on YHWH to raise up the Messiah, and here, at the end of the Song, he expresses the belief and expectation that this will be done—viz., that the Davidic Ruler anointed by God will soon appear to usher in the New Age of God’s Kingdom on earth.

The holy people (v. 32) of the New Age are called “sons of God” (v. 27), and so they are to be trained and guided as God’s children. The verb paideu/w (“raise/train a child [pai=$]”) is used for this activity, in which the Messiah will play a leading role.

*    *    *    *    *

The remainder of the 17th Psalm of Solomon, along with the 18th, will be discussed in the concluding Part 3 of this study.

    • References above marked “Wright” are to Robert B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text, Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies, vol. 1 (T & T Clark: 2007). Those marked “Wright OTP” are to the same author’s annotated translation (with introduction) in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha [OTP], Volume 2, ed. James H. Charlesworth, Anchor Bible Reference Library [ABRL] (1985), pp. 639-70.

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalms of Solomon 17-18 (Part 1)

The Psalms of Solomon (Pss 17-18)

For our final selection from the prominent deuterocanonical and extra-canonical Psalms, I have chosen the last two (viz., the 17th and 18th) Psalms of the collection known as the Psalms of Solomon. The attribution of these Psalms to Solomon (in superscriptions that resemble those of the canonical Psalms) is regarded as pseudepigraphic by virtually all commentators. Like David, Solomon was noted in the historical tradition for his literary-poetic output (1 Kings 5:12-14 [4:32-34]), and thus he was a natural figure to whom different kinds of wisdom and poetic texts might be attributed. For example, in both Pss Sol 17 and 18, the superscription reads “A yalmo/$ (belonging) to Solomon”, while 17 adds “with a song” (meta\ w|dh=$). The noun yalmo/$ properly denotes music played (lit. “plucked”) on the harp, or, specifically, a song sung to music on the harp.

This collection of eighteen Psalms survives only in Greek and Syriac translation, but it generally recognized that they were originally composed in Hebrew, as argued and demonstrated by earlier commentators such as Ryle/James and Gray in their critical editions (cf. Wright, p. 12; OTP, p. 640). In this regard, note the 1998 dissertation by R. J. Blackburn, “Hebrew Poetic Devices in the Greek Text of the Psalms of Solomon” (Temple University), and the study by R. R. Hann, The Manuscript History of the Psalms of Solomon, Septuagint and Cognate Studies 13 (1982); and cf. R.A. Martin, Syntactical Evidence of Semitic Sources in Greek Documents, Septuagint and Cognate Studies 3 (1974). A few possible “semiticisms” (i.e., “hebraisms”) and translational errors (indicating translation from Hebrew into Greek and Syriac) will be mentioned in the notes.

Even though the Greek and Syriac manuscripts of the Psalms of Solomon date from the 10th century A.D. (or later), there is evidence that they were composed and in circulation much earlier (cf. Wright, pp. 1-7; OTP, pp. 640-1). The Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) lists the Psalms in its catalog, after the Old and New Testament (and the Clementine epistles), though the leaves which must have contained the Psalms have not survived. They are similarly listed, as prominent deuterocanonical or extracanonical writings, in two 6th century catalogs (the Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures by Ps-Athanasius, and the list of [sixty] books of Scripture in Anastasius Sinaita’s Questions and Responses). The close similarity between the 11th Psalm of Solomon and the 5th chapter of Baruch has also been noted (cf. Wright, pp. 3-4), suggesting a possible 1st century A.D. date.

More significant for commentators are the vivid historical references, especially in the 2nd, 8th, and 17th Psalms (see below), indicating a proximity in time to key historical-political events of the 1st century B.C.—most notably, the Roman invasion of Judea by Pompey (who captured Jerusalem in 63 B.C.), and the siege of Jerusalem in 37 B.C. by Herod the Great (and the Roman general Sosius) which led to the final destruction of the Hasmoneans (in 30 B.C.). It is generally thought that the Psalms of the collection were mainly composed in the mid-late 1st century B.C., with the collection (largely in the form that has come down to us) having been completed by the early-mid 1st century A.D. (probably prior to 70 A.D.).

The 17th Psalm is especially noteworthy (and justly famous) for its intensive and thorough expression of a distinctive messianic expectation—of the sort that normally comes to mind when we use the term “messianism”. In other words, we find the expectation of a (human) ruler from the line of David, chosen and appointed/anointed by God, who will re-establish the Kingdom for Israel here at the end of the current Age. In some ways, this messianism is closer to the eschatological-political expectation we find at points in the New Testament (e.g., Acts 1:6; Mark 11:10 par, etc.) than it is to the messianism evinced in the Qumran texts. And yet, at the same time, the Psalms of Solomon are clearly the product of a specific Jewish community (during the first centuries B.C./A.D.) akin to the Community of the Qumran texts. The Qumran Community is typically identified as Essene, while the Psalms of Solomon have variously been attributed to the Pharisees, Essenes, as well as other groups (cf. Wright, pp. 7-11; OTP, pp. 641ff).

Psalm 17 (of Solomon)

The 17th Psalm has the superscription “A hymn plucked (on the harp) [yalmo/$], (belonging) to Solomon, with a song”. The addition “with a song” (meta\ w)|dh=$) may be meant to distinguish the song regarding the Messiah (vv. 21-44) from the Hymn to God in vv. 1-10. The superscription further adds “to the King” (tw=| basilei=), which, in the overall context of the Psalm, seems to have a two-layered meaning: (1) a hymn to YHWH the King (v. 1), (2) and a song regarding the coming Messianic Ruler.

Hymn to YHWH (“the Lord”): Verses 1-10
Verses 1-3

“Lord, you (are) our King into the Age and yet (further),
for in you, O God, does our soul boast!
What even (is) the time of a man’s life upon the earth?—
according to his time, so (is) his hope upon it;
but we have (our) hope upon God our Savior,
for the strength of our God is with mercy into the Age,
and the Kingdom of our God is over the nations into the Age!”

The Hymn to YHWH (“the Lord”) begins with this opening declaration of praise, emphasizing His identity as the great King over all. As we have seen in our studies, the Kingship of YHWH is an important theme in the canonical Psalms (e.g., the collections of 93-100 and 146-150)—a universal Kingship that extends over all creation, and, in particular, over all the nations (v. 3). This thematic emphasis in the Hymn sets the stage for the focus on the coming of the Messianic king, who will re-establish the Kingdom for Israel, and the eschatological manifestation of God’s Kingdom on earth. The emphasis on the people’s hope (e)lpi/$, vb e)lpi/zw) is eschatological—and, in reality, is a Messianic hope. It implies a state of suffering and distress in the current Age, from which God’s people (i.e., the faithful/devout ones) soon expect to be rescued and delivered. The eschatological aspect is emphasized by repeated use of the expression ei)$ to\n ai)w=na (“into/unto the Age”, i.e., the coming New Age); the flat conventional translation of “forever” obscures the concrete eschatological orientation of the Hymn.

Some manuscripts include the expression e)n kri/sei (“in/with judgment”) in the final line of verse 3, i.e., “the Kingdom of our God is over the nations with judgment into the Age”.

Verse 4

“You, O Lord, chose David (as) king over Yisrael,
and swore an oath to him about his seed unto the Age—
(that) his kingdom (was) not to be left off from in front of you.”

The central expository section (vv. 4-9) of the hymn begins with this reference to God’s choice of David as king of Israel. It has the double-purpose of aligning with YHWH’s Kingship (over all the nations, vv. 1-3) and also foreshadowing the announcement of the coming the Messianic king (from the line of David) here at the end-time. The promise to David (cf. 2 Samuel 7) features in a number of the canonical Psalms and was a vital historical tradition that informed the eschatology of both the Qumran Community and early Christians (cf. Parts 6, 7, and 8 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”).

The Syriac omits the eschatological phrase “unto/into the Age” in v. 4b.

Verse 5

“And (yet), in our sins, sinful (one)s stood up against us,
set themselves upon us and thrust us out!
Those to whom you did not give (the) promise took away with force,
even (though) they did not esteem your name th(at is to be held) in honor!”

In spite of God’s promise to David (v. 4), the Israelite/Judean people lost the kingdom (and the Davidic royal line). This is explained, in accordance with Scriptural tradition (esp. the Deuteronomic history and in the Prophets), as having occurred because of the people’s sins. This description in v. 5 seems to summarize the entire Israelite/Judean history, from the exile(s) in the 8th-6th centuries, down to the rise of the Maccabean/Hasmonean rulers. It might be best to view v. 5a, with the reference to the “sinful (one)s”, as summarizing the pre-Hasmonean history (viz., the periods of Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, and Greek rule), while 5b alludes to the Hasmoneans, who seem to have been viewed by the community of the Psalms as “illegitimate usurpers of the government and religion” (Wright OTP, p. 665). God did not give the promise of the kingship to them, but only to legitimate rulers from the line of David.

In any case, all of these foreign or illegitimate rulers are distinguished by their marked impiety—that is, they do not honor or revere YHWH (and His name) as they should. For the community of the Psalms (much like the Qumran community), their fellow countrymen (such as the Hasmoneans) were largely viewed as being unfaithful and lacking true devotion to God. This widespread faithlessness is characteristic of the end-time ‘period of distress’ (cf. below).

Verse 6

“With (misplaced) esteem they set up a kingdom for their haughtiness;
they desolated the throne of David by an overweeningly (proud) exchange!”

Instead of esteeming and honoring God, these illegitimate rulers (presumably the Hasmoneans, cf. above) sought honor/esteem (do/ca) for themselves. The kingdom which they established was on behalf of (lit. a)nti/, “in exchange for, in place of”) their own high-mindedness (or ‘haughtiness’, lit. “height”, u%yo$); this was an overweeningly prideful “exchange” (a)lla/gma) that left desolate (vb e)rhmo/w) the throne that rightfully belonged to David and his descendants.

Verse 7

“But you, O God, cast them down and took their seed from the earth,
in the standing up against them (by) a man different from our race!”

These illegitimate rulers (viz., the Hasmoneans) were overthrown and destroyed by a foreigner. As mentioned above, this has been interpreted as a reference to the siege of Jerusalem in 37 B.C. by Herod (an Idumean) and the Roman general Sosius, which led to the extermination of the Hasmonean rulers (by 30 B.C.). The tendency of earlier commentators was to view this instead as a reference to Pompey’s invasion of Judea some thirty years earlier, as a result of which Aristobulus and his children were taken away to Rome (Josephus, Antiquities 14.4.5, 5.4, 6.1; War 1.7.7, 8.6; cf. Wright OTP, p. 666).

Verse 8

“According to their sinful deeds you gave back to them (in exchange),
O God,
it was found for them according to their (own) works!”

Just as Israel (and her kings) lost the kingdom because of their sins (v. 5), so also the usurping (Hasmonean) rulers were overthrown and perished because of their own sinful deeds.

Verse 9

“According to their sinful deeds God did not have any mercy (on) them,
(but) searched out their seed and did not let one of them get away!”

Verse 9, with its shift from second to third person address, serves as a transition from the expository section of the hymn (vv. 4-8) to the closing confessional statement in v. 10. It essentially reprises (in third person address) the declaration in v. 8 regarding God’s punishment of the illegitimate (Hasmonean) rulers.

The Syriac, along with some Greek manuscripts, omit the initial “according to their sinful deeds”. If original, if could have been omitted accidentally, or as a redundant repetition; on the other hand, it could be secondary, copied into the text (i.e., dittography) from the earlier line. Cf. Wright OTP, p. 666.

Verse 10

“Trustworthy (is) the Lord in all His judgments that He makes upon the earth!”

This final declaration echoes the initial praise of YHWH as King over all the earth. As the Sovereign Ruler, He is also the great Judge, just and faithful in all the judgments that He makes. These judgments include punishment against the faithless and wicked ones (for their sins); and, indeed, the judgment against the Hasmonean rulers anticipates the great end-time Judgment that will be brought upon all the nations of the earth.

Transition: Verses 11-20

I regard verses 11-18a, along with 18b-20, as transitional, joining the hymn of vv. 1-10 to the Messiah-song of vv. 21-44. It describes the current time of distress, prior to the coming of God’s Messiah.

Verses 11-12

“The lawless (one) made desolate our land, (to keep anyone) from inhabiting it;
he slew young and old and their offspring together!
In (the) excellence of his anger, he sent them away until upon (the) west;
and even the chief men of the land he did not spare from being toyed with!”

The expression that opens verse 12, “in the anger of his beauty” (Syriac “in the beauty of his anger”), is problematic and Wright (OTP, p. 666) suggests that it may represent a mistranslation from the Hebrew. If the Greek (and Syriac) rendering is correct, then it could mean that verse 12 refers to God’s action, while v. 11 refers to the human oppressor. On the other hand, the human oppressor is clearly the subject throughout the rest of vv. 11-14, and so he should presumably be understood as the subject in v. 12 as well. For lack of a better option, I have followed the Syriac syntax, understanding ka/llo$ (“beauty”) in the sense of “excellence”. Perhaps the idea is to a “well-formed (i.e., robust) anger”.

The expression “the lawless (one)” (o( a&nomo$) surely refers to the same invading oppressor mentioned in vv. 7ff; as noted above, this may allude to Herod the Great, while other commentators see a reference to the Roman general Pompey. In any case, this invader slays many of the people (v. 11) and sends others (prim. the leaders and nobles) into exile (v. 12), while, in so doing, he also mocks and “toys with” the rulers and other prominent men. For those who see the “lawless one” as Pompey, the exile “unto the sinking (of the sun) [i.e., west]”, may refer to Aristobulus (and his children) being taken away to Rome (cf. above).

For similar use of the substantive adjective a&nomo$ (“lawless [one]”) as the designation for a wicked and oppressive ruler who is active at the end-time, cf. 2 Thess 2:8.

Verses 13-14

“In his foreignness the hostile (one) acted with overweening (pride),
and (indeed) his heart was foreign, away from our God!
And (so) all these (thing)s he did in Yerušalaim,
just as also the nations (do) in (their) cities for their gods!”

In verse 7b, the oppressor was described as “different/foreign” (a)llo/trio$) from the Israelites/Jews of the land, which probably is allusion to Herod’s ethnicity (as an Idumean), though it clearly would apply to a Roman such as Pompey as well. Here, in v. 13, his “foreignness” (a)llotrio/th$) is not merely ethnic, it applies to his religious identity and his faithfulness to God (or lack thereof). That is, his heart was foreign (a)llo/trio$), explained as being “away from” (a)po/) God. Clearly this means that he adopted, or was willing to accept, pagan cultural-religious practices, even in the holy city of Jerusalem. There is doubtless an echo here of the historical tradition surrounding the evil deeds of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, which included the most blatant desecration of the Temple; the unprecedented actions by Antiochus served as a figure-type for those of the Roman conquerors (viz., eschatological fulfillment of the earlier type-pattern), as is clear from the use of Dan 9:27 (cf. 11:31; 12:11) in the Eschatological Discourse (Mark 13:14 par; cf. especially Luke 21:20ff).

In v. 14a, the Syriac reads “and Jerusalem did”, rather than “he did in Jerusalem”; cf. Wright OTP, p. 666.

Verse 15

“And (the) sons of the covenant took hold of (these things) living in the midst of the nations mixed together—
there was no one doing in (their) midst, among them in Yerušalaim, mercy and truth!”

The example shown by the wicked ruler(s) of the land came to be followed by the Israelite/Jewish people (“sons of the covenant”) as well. Though they should have remained faithful to the covenant, they instead adopted the same foreign religious and cultural practices installed by the “lawless one”. Moreover, they became unfaithful and wicked from an ethical standpoint as well, ceasing to act according to “mercy and truth”.

Verses 16-18a

“Th(ose) loving (the) gatherings of (the) holy (one)s fled from them,
as sparrows (that have) spread out away from their nest!
They wandered in desolate (place)s, to save their souls from evil—
and it was precious in (the) eyes of (those) dwelling along, (any) soul of theirs having been saved!
(So the) scattering of them under (the) lawless (one)s came to be into all the earth.”

The Israelite and Jews who remained faithful and devout fled from the others (who were unfaithful). Here, these righteous ones are described by the characteristic expression “those loving the gatherings of the holy” (some manuscripts omit “of the holy” [o(si/wn]). This might mean leaving one’s family and homeland—lit., the koith/ (where one lays down), i.e., “bed” (or “nest”, in the case of a sparrow). They were forced to wander in “desolate (place)s”, probably alluding the same Scripture (Isa 40:3) that was adopted (as an ideal) by both the Qumran Community and early Christians. The holy ones gathered together “in the desert”, away from the corruption of others in the cities (esp. Jerusalem). They did this in order to protect and “save” their souls. This suggests that the community of the Psalms understood salvation largely in terms of religious identity—viz., belonging to the set apart community of the righteous—much as we see in the Qumran texts.

This self-imposed exile was a dispersion (lit., a “scattering”) akin to the earlier exilic dispersions of the Israelite/Judean people.

Verses 18b-19a

“(It was) that the heaven held up the dropping of rain upon the earth;
springs of the age(s) were held back, out of (the) abysses (and) from (the) high hills.”

The disruption of the social-religious order (vv. 14-15) is matched here by a disruption of the natural order—specifically a drought, with both water from rainfall and natural springs being ‘held back’. It is not clear if this is meant to refer to an actual historical drought (in Jerusalem/Judea), or whether it is symbolic of the wickedness and faithlessness of the people—or both.

Verse 19b-20

“For there was no (one) among them acting (with) rightness and (right) judgment,
from (the) chief of them even (to the) least of (the) people, (they were) in every (kind of) sin—
the king in law-breaking,
and the judge in disobedience,
and the people in sinfulness!”

Here, in the final lines of the transitional section(s), the deplorable condition of society is summarized. This very much reflects the eschatological orientation of the community of the Psalms (as also of the early Christians). As the current Age comes to a close, people are seen to be moving further away from right conduct and faithfulness to God, and, correspondingly, sin and wickedness become more pervasive throughout society. It is at this point, in this time of distress, that, according to the community’s eschatological expectation, God will send His Messiah. And it is to the Song of the Messiah, in vv. 21ff, that we will turn in Part 2 of this study.

    • References above marked “Wright” are to Robert B. Wright, The Psalms of Solomon: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text, Jewish and Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies, vol. 1 (T & T Clark: 2007). Those marked “Wright OTP” are to the same author’s annotated translation (with introduction) in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha [OTP], Volume 2, ed. James H. Charlesworth, Anchor Bible Reference Library [ABRL] (1985), pp. 639-70.

Notes on Prayer: Thy Kingdom Come (Conclusion)

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

As a belated conclusion to the series on the Kingdom-petition in the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:10a; Lk 11:2b), this final study will survey the Kingdom-theme as it features in the Book of Revelation. Not surprisingly, it is the eschatological aspect of the Kingdom (and its coming) which is emphasized in Revelation; however, nearly all of the aspects which we have examined are present in some form or fashion. In this regard, the Book of Revelation represents a compendium of early Christian thought regarding the coming of God’s Kingdom. Moreover, the Kingdom (and its coming) runs as a primary thematic thread throughout the book—both its dramatic-narrative framework and the visions contained therein

The Kingdom in the Book of Revelation

We can see this motivic and thematic integration from the very beginning of the book, in the author-seer’s introductory greeting (exordium), 1:4-8. In the context of the imminent appearance of the exalted Christ at the end of the current Age (vv. 1-3, 4, 7, etc), which is clearly central to the book’s message, the coming of the Kingdom is unquestionably tied to end-time coming (i.e., the return, second coming) of Christ and his identity as King. The Kingship of Christ has been the focus in a number of the prior studies, and it features even more prominently (and dramatically) in the book of Revelation.

There are two principal aspects of this Kingship: (1) Jesus’ Messianic identity, particularly his fulfillment of the royal/Davidic figure-type; and (2) the Divine status and position of Jesus, following his resurrection and exaltation to the right-hand of God (in heaven). Both of these aspects are combined in vv. 5ff. Jesus is called by the title of Christ (Xristo/$, “Anointed [One]”, Messiah) and declared to be “the chief/ruler [a)rxw/n] of the kings of the earth”. This rulership over the nations (and their kings) is certainly essential to Jesus’ Messianic identity (viz., as the royal/Davidic Messiah), confirmed both by Jewish and early Christian tradition (regarding this Messianic figure-type, see Parts 6–8 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”), and by the context of the portrait which we find here throughout the book of Revelation (see below).

The exalted (Divine) status and position of Jesus is also alluded to quite precisely by reference to Daniel 7:13, with the end-time appearance of Jesus being defined as “coming with the clouds” (i.e., from heaven, v. 7), according to well-established early Christian tradition (Mk 13:26; 14:62 pars; Acts 7:55-56). The pairing of Dan 7:13 with an allusion to Zech 2:10 here is paralleled by the reference in the Matthean version of the eschatological Discourse (24:30); cf. also John 19:37.

Moreover, the Divine status and position of the exalted Christ is vividly portrayed in the vision that follows in vv. 9-20, and is further confirmed by key details and references in the prophetic announcements (for the seven Asian churches) in chapters 2-3 (e.g., 2:1, 8, 12, 18, 26-27; 3:1, 5, 7, 12, 14, 21). Jesus’ identity as the royal/Davidic Messiah is similarly alluded to in these references (see esp. 2:26-27; 3:7).

Another important aspect of the Kingdom-theme is the role of believers in the Kingdom, and how they/we, through faithfulness to Christ (even during the end-time period of distress), are allowed and enabled to share in his kingship, obtaining a royal status bequeathed by the exalted Christ himself. This thematic aspect is a key component of the treatment of the Kingdom in the book of Revelation, one which is also established here at the beginning of the work. Note the reference in 1:6 to believers as a priestly kingdom (combining both royal and priestly aspects), drawing upon ancient Israelite and Scriptural tradition (see esp. Exodus 19:6) even as we find elsewhere in the New Testament (esp. 1 Peter 2:9 [see also v. 5]). The holy/priestly status of believers is emphasized at a number of points in the book of Revelation, most notably in 5:10 (where the royal and priestly aspects are again combined) and 20:6; but there are other significant references and allusions as well, such as the references to the sacrificial ritual and the Jerusalem Temple (e.g., 3:12; 5:8; 6:9; 7:15; 8:3; 11:1ff; 15:5ff), including the final climactic vision of the holy city of the New Jerusalem (chaps. 21-22). The idea of believers sharing in the royal status and kingship of Christ is prominent in the beatific announcements of blessing and reward for faithfulness in chaps. 2-3 (esp. 2:26-28; 3:12; cf. also 7:15ff), and is subsequently depicted throughout the following visions as well.

A number of these same thematic motifs and aspects of the Kingdom of God are integrated within the dramatic portrayal of the Throne-vision in chapters 4-5. In chapter 4, there is a vision of God Almighty on His throne, described in traditional theophanic terms (cf. Exodus 19, 24; Ezekiel 1; Daniel 7) and confirming the fundamental theological message of YHWH as King over all Creation, to be worshiped by all beings (including humankind and all the nations). Then, in chapter 5, the focus shifts to the exalted Christ, standing at the “right hand” of God (v. 1)—only the exalted Christ is distinctively described here in terms of his sacrificial death (i.e., as the “Lamb who was slain”, v. 12, cf. also vv. 6, 9). This simply reflects the well-established exaltation-Christology held by early Christians, whereby the Divine status and position of Christ (at the “right hand” of God) was understood primarily as a result of his death and resurrection. Jesus’ faithfulness in completing his Messianic mission (note the Messianic allusions in v. 5), culminating in his sacrificial death (which serves to ransom/redeem humankind [i.e. believers], v. 9), leads to his receiving the greatest possible honor from God—viz., a ruling place at His side, so that he might rule (as King) with the same power and authority. Indeed, Christ (the Lamb) is portrayed as receiving honor and worship from all living creatures—the same honor which they give to God Himself (compare 4:8-11 with 5:8-14).

Believers, in their own way, share in this same exalted and royal status (see above), as indicated by the declaration in 5:10, but also by the figure-portrait of the “twenty-four elders” seated on thrones (of their own) surrounding the central throne of God, 4:4; 5:6, 8, 14. The identification of believers (the true and faithful ones) with these “elders” is more or less confirmed by the scene in 7:9-17, in which worship of the Lamb (Christ) is reiterated.

The great Vision-cycles which form the core of the book of Revelation primarily depict the coming Judgment (on humankind), and reflect, in various ways, the traditional association of the royal/Davidic Messiah with the end-time Judgment (viz., the Judgment of the nations). The Messiah functions as God’s appointed (i.e., anointed) representative, who ushers in and oversees the Great Judgment. A key prophetic reference in this regard was Psalm 2:7ff (v. 9), which is quoted or alluded to several times in the book—first in 2:26-27 (see above), and then in 12:5 and 19:15. Christ’s role, at least in the initial vision-cycle (6:1-8:5), is expressed by his authoritative act of opening the seals, and thus bringing about the events of the Judgment (6:1, etc). Toward the close of the cycle (7:9-17), at a dramatic moment just prior to the opening of the seventh seal (8:1-5), the scene from chapter 5 is reprised, with believers joining the “elders” (and the heavenly “living creatures”) in worshiping the Lamb (i.e., the exalted Christ).

At the close of the second Vision-cycle (8:6-11:19), there is a similar Kingdom-scene (11:15-19), in which the “elders” (on their thrones) give worship to God and Christ (on the central throne). In many ways, this represents the central point of the book, and a climactic moment in which the “coming of the Kingdom” is ultimately realized—in its eschatological (and final) sense. At this point, the Kingdom-petition of the Lord’s Prayer, including its qualifying petition in Matt 6:10c, truly has been fulfilled: God’s Kingdom has been established on earth, just as it has been in heaven. Here is how this is expressed in 11:15:

“The kingdom of the world [i.e., ‘on earth’] has become the (Kingdom) of our Lord and His Anointed (One) [i.e., ‘as in heaven’]—”

It is the Kingdom of God Almighty (“our Lord”) and the exalted Christ (“His Anointed”), since they share the same ruling position and authority. The final statement in verse 15 (“and He shall rule as king into the Ages of the Ages”) also should be understood as applying to both God and Christ. The everlasting rule and dominion of God (as King) is traditional (e.g., Exod 15:18; Psalm 145:13; 146:10; Dan 4:34; 6:26), but the Messianic context of the reference here is almost certainly inspired by Dan 7:14 (and the entire Judgment scene in chap. 7). The everlasting character of the Messiah’s kingdom is further indicated by references such as 2 Sam 7:13 and Isa 9:7, interpreted as Messianic prophecies. This was clearly part of the early Christian understanding of Jesus’ identity as the royal/Davidic Messiah (note Luke 1:33 and Heb 1:8 [citing Ps 45:6]; and cf. also John 12:34).

The coming of God’s Kingdom “upon earth” was finally realized (in its ultimate eschatological sense) through the end-time Judgment, which (as noted above) was ushered in and overseen by the Messiah (Christ, the Lamb). This is clearly expressed by the poetic verses (of praise and worship) that conclude the section (vv. 17-18). The Vision-cycle itself ends with a final theophany (v. 19), in which all of creation itself effectively gives worship to God.

The final Vision-cycle (chapters 15-16ff), depicting (again) the great Judgment, is preceded by a series of visionary scenes (chaps. 12-14) which dramatically portray the end-time period of distress, during which believers in Christ face oppression and persecution from the nations. This reflects the opposition of “the kingdom of the world”, dominated by the forces of evil, against the Kingdom of God (and Christ). For the original author and audience of the book, the Roman Empire unquestionably serves as the model for this depiction of the “kingdom of the world” as the domain of a great evil “beast” (cf. the vision in Daniel 7), even as it also does in the following chapters 17-18 (utilizing the political image of “Babylon” as the great and wicked world-ruling city). For believers to emerge from this time of distress faithful to Christ, they must resist the evil influence of this “kingdom of the world”. Note, in particular, the imagery of marking/sealing in chapters 13-14 (cf. also earlier in chap. 7), which indicates a person’s allegiance, and the one to whom he/she properly belongs. The true believer belongs to God and to Christ, and to the Kingdom (of God and Christ), while the unbeliever (and false believer) belongs to the “beast” and the “kingdom of the world”.

These intermediary visionary scenes conclude with another short climactic vision of the great Judgment (chap. 14), but this time connected specifically with the return to earth of the exalted Christ (cf. Mark 13:26ff par)—in his Messianic role of a conquering King (vv. 14-16ff) who brings about the Judgment of the nations (vv. 17-20). The opening of the final Vision-cycle (15:1-4) picks up this same line of imagery, as believers (in heaven) sing praise to God, declaring his rule (as King) over the nations.

The final visions of the Judgment (in chaps. 19-20) alternate between the scenes of judgment (on earth) and the blessed and exalted state of believers in heaven. Believers themselves have a royal status and place in this Kingdom of God (19:6-8ff), even sharing in the rule (held by God and Christ) of the eternal Kingdom (20:4-6).

An even more comprehensive portrait of this eternal Kingdom of God is given in the final vision (chaps. 21-22)—that of the “New Jerusalem”, the Holy City that serves as a traditional and representative symbol of the Kingdom. In this regard, “Jerusalem” stands in marked contrast to “Babylon” (chaps. 17-18) the symbol of the “kingdom of the world” in all its wickedness. An important point of emphasis is that, in this new “Jerusalem”, there is no longer any temple (21:22). The Temple had functioned, in a ritual and symbolic sense, as the dwelling-place for God among His people (cf. the wording in 21:3). Moreover, the golden chest (i.e., ‘ark’) in the sanctuary, with its winged kerub-figures, symbolized the throne of God (cf. the theophany-scene in 11:19), the place where He ruled (as King) over His people. Now, in the eternal Kingdom of God, there is no temple sanctuary; rather, the entire holy city serves as the throne of God (and Christ), where believers also sit (on their own thrones), surrounding God (and Christ) and ruling alongside.

The final reference to the Divine throne is the beatific scene of eternal life that closes the vision (22:1-5), in which the flowing river of the “water of life” flows forth from the throne upon which both God and the Lamb (Christ) sit, v. 1. This imagery, which is drawn (primarily) from several prophetic passages (Ezek 47:1; Zech 13:1; 14:8; cf. also Joel 3:18; Isa 33:20-21), is utilized as a way of depicting the Divine life that fills the city, perpetually giving life and blessedness to all who reside there (vv. 2-3). This experience of eternal life is ultimately defined in terms of being in the presence of God and Christ. This beatific vision, described in the traditional language of ‘seeing God’s face’ (v. 4) and with the traditional imagery of light (v. 5), offers us the truest sense of what it means to belong to the Kingdom of God—as believers, to “enter” and to “inherit” the Kingdom. It is a scenario—and a message—which one finds throughout the New Testament, beginning with the words and teaching of Jesus, just as we have seen in our examination over the course of this series.

One aspect of the Kingdom, which is surprisingly absent from the book of Revelation, is the identification of God’s Kingdom with the Spirit. Throughout the book, the Spirit is primarily associated with the prophetic word (and vision); cf. 19:10; 22:6. The seer (John) is said to be “in the Spirit” when the visions come to him (1:10); he then hears the Spirit speaking to him (2:7, 11, et al.) and sees visions in the Spirit (4:2), being transported by the Spirit from one visionary location to another (17:3; 21:10). The Spirit also, along with the entire inspired Community of the faithful, declares the final word of exhortation (21:17).

However, there is another line of Spirit-reference in the book which is of particular interest in relation to the Kingdom-theme: namely, the references to the “seven spirits” of God, which are specifically said to stand “in the sight of” God as He sits upon His throne (1:4; 4:5). The plural “spirits” (pneu/mata) are probably to be understood as separate divine/heavenly spirit-beings (i.e., angels), since they are said to be sent out by God throughout the earth on missions (5:6). And yet, in Zechariah 4, which is clearly the principal source for these references, the seven fiery “lamps” are specifically associated with the Spirit (singular) of God (v. 6). Moreover, the Spirit can also be conceived as being ‘sent forth’ by God (and/or by the exalted Christ), such as for the purpose of coming upon His people (i.e., believers) at the end-time (Acts 2:1-4ff, 17-21 [Joel 2:28-32], etc). In any case, these Spirit-references in the book of Revelation allow for at least the possibility of specifically connecting God’s throne (and His Kingdom) with His Spirit.

* * * * * *

For the remainder of the summer, the Notes on Prayer feature will focus on the role of prayer in the Book of Daniel.

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 132 (Part 3)

Psalm 132, continued

See Parts 1 and 2 of this study for the Introduction to the Psalm and exegesis of the first division (vv. 1-10).

Part 2: Verses 11-18

The second part, or division, of Psalm 132 has a thematic and formal (though not poetic) structure that is parallel to the first part, as I have outlined:

    • Part 1 (vv. 1-10): David’s role in establishing the royal dwelling for YHWH in Jerusalem (framed as a prayer to YHWH, on David’s behalf)
      • David’s vow to provide a dwelling for YHWH (vv. 1-5)
      • The procession of YHWH (manifest through the ‘ark’) to His dwelling in Jerusalem (vv. 6-10)
    • Part 2 (vv. 11-18): The covenant bond between YHWH and the royal city and the royal line [of David] (framed as an answer to prayer by YHWH)
      • YHWH’s vow/oath to David (vv. 11-12)
      • YHWH’s choice of Jerusalem as the royal city (vv. 13-18)
Section 1: YHWH’s vow to David (vv. 11-12)

As is clear from the outline above, YHWH’s vow/oath to David (vv. 11-12) matches that of David’s vow to YHWH in vv. 2-5.

Verse 11a

“YHWH has made affirmation seven-fold to David,
a firm (promise)—He will not turn away from it:”

As noted above, this vow/oath made by YHWH (to David) corresponds to the vow/oath made by David (to YHWH) in vv. 2ff; the same verb ub^v* (Niphal) is used, which is the common/regular verb for swearing an oath—its denotation in this regard presumably reflects its derivation from the number seven (ubv), and thus indicating a seven-fold affirmation, viz., a binding oath-declaration that creates a strong and unbreakable bond between two parties. YHWH will be faithful to His side of the binding agreement, as is made clear by the statement in the second line (“He will not turn away [vb bWv] from it”).

The noun tm#a#, occurring at the beginning of the second line, is often translated flatly as “truth”, but properly denotes “firmness”, or something that is firm and sure. It is understood adverbially here by some commentators, but it seems more likely that it functions as a substantive (noun), referring to the oath made by YHWH, and characterizing it as a firm and sure promise.

Dahood (III, p. 246) regards the particle l=, prefixed to the name dw]D* (David), as vocative (“O David!”), rather than as a preposition; he reads the prefixed particle the same way in v. 17, and also earlier in v. 1. However, most commentators understand l= here as a preposition, in its regular directional-relational sense (“to[ward], for, on behalf of”).

Verse 11b

“(One) from (the) fruit of your belly
I will set upon (the) throne for you!”

The oath mentioned in v. 11a properly begins here, continuing through v. 12. The metrical parsing of this couplet is usually reckoned as 2+3, which being an irregular departure from the prevailing 3+3 meter, suggests that a word may have fallen out from the first line. Cross (p. 233) suggests restoring the verb form <yqa (“I will make stand [i.e., raise up]”), while other commentators (e.g., Kraus, p. 473; Fretheim, p. 289) prefer adding the noun <yn]B* (“sons”) or <yk!l*m= (“kings”). However, it seems better to me to parse the verse as a 2-beat (2+2) couplet; thus, in this regard, I am inclined to follow Dahood (III, p. 246), who also notes the balanced 6:6 syllable count in the MT. And yet, it should be pointed out that the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa does include an additional word at the beginning of the first line: the particle yK!, presumably used as an asseverative (introducing the oath), i.e., “Indeed…!” or “Surely…!”

The expression “fruit of the belly” usually applies to the pregnant woman (i.e., “fruit of the womb”), rather than the father. To avoid the awkwardness of applying this predominately feminine idiom to a male subject, the phrase may be translated “from the fruit of your body”. It is also possible to work around the difficulty by effectively re-positioning the suffix in translation—i.e., “from your fruit of the womb” (cf. Allen, p. 264). In any case, the main point is that YHWH is promising David that he will inaugurate a royal dynasty, beginning with an initial male descendant (son) to be fathered by him.

Verse 12a

“If your sons will guard (the) binding agreement with me,
and (the thing)s witnessed to by me which I teach them,”

The remainder of the oath consists of a conditional promise, the two-fold conditional clause (protasis) occurring here in v. 12a, introduced by the conditional particle <a! (“if…”) which is regularly used in oath-formulae. The establishment of a royal dynasty is promised in v. 11b, but the continuation of this dynasty is contingent upon David’s descendants fulfilling the condition presented here in v. 12. The condition is that David’s descendants (“sons”) will carefully follow and “guard” the terms of the binding agreement (tyr!B=) made between YHWH and His people (Israel). The terms of this agreement (or ‘covenant’) are represented by the precepts, regulations, and requirements of the Torah, as recorded in the Pentateuch, beginning with the “Ten Words”.

The noun used here to express the idea of the terms (i.e., requirements) of the covenant is hd*u@, which has the basic meaning of “witness”; it properly refers to the terms of the covenant as things having been solemnly witnessed to by both parties (YHWH and the people). Since it was YHWH who established these terms (requirements), they primarily belong to Him—thus the wording “my witness(es)”, which I translate here instrumentally, “(thing)s witnessed [and testified] to by me”. Similarly, YHWH is the principal (superior/sovereign) party to the binding agreement (tyr!B=), and it is thus referred to as “my binding agreement” (which I translated here as “binding agreement with me”).

YHWH further teaches His people these required duties and precepts, which surely relates to the basic connotative meaning of the noun hr*oT (Torah) as “instruction”. The noun hd*u@ (along with the related tWdu@) is used repeatedly as a designation for the Torah regulations, etc, in Psalm 119 (on which see the recent study and notes); the verb rm^v* (“guard”) is also used regularly in this same context, and likewise occurs throughout Psalm 119.

Verse 12b

“(then) also their sons, until and unto (the end),
shall sit upon the throne belonging to you!”

As noted above, the condition in v. 12a relates to the continuation of a dynastic line for David—it will continue only if his descendants remain faithful to the covenant with YHWH. This is emphatically stated here by the use of the doubled temporal expression du^-yd@u&, which I translate here as “until and unto (the end)”; a more elegant idiomatic rendering in English would be “forever and ever”. This royal dynasty is expressed, as in v. 11b (cf. above) by the idea of David’s descendants “sitting upon the throne” that belongs to him, and on his behalf. For the expression “upon the throne”, the locative preposition l= is used rather than the regular lu^, but the meaning is the same (“upon”). As Dahood (III, p. 246) notes, this sense of the preposition l= likely reflects older/archaic usage, which the MT preserves; the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa reads lu^ instead of l= in v. 11b, while here in 12b the same manuscript instead has the phrase “will come up [i.e., ascend, vb hlu] to the throne”.

Section 2: YHWH’s choice of Jerusalem as the royal city (vv. 13-18)

The thematic orientation of this second section matches the second section of Part 1 (vv. 6-10). The procession of YHWH to Jerusalem corresponds here to YHWH’s choice of Jerusalem as the city for His royal dwelling. In both instances, YHWH is manifestly present—ritually and symbolically—in connection with the portable Ark-shrine (and its kerub-throne); cf. the discussion on vv. 6-10.

Verse 13

“Indeed, YHWH has made (His) choice on Ṣiyyôn—
He has desired her for (the) sitting-place for Him.”

At first glance, it is not immediately clear how this opening couplet relates to vv. 11-12; it is possible that vv. 13-18 represent a separate poem which was joined contextually to vv. 11-12 in the composition of the overall Song. However, at verse 17 (cf. below), the connection is certainly established. Beyond this, we may say that there is a strong dualism within the ancient Israelite/Judean royal theology, which is expressed here (and throughout the Psalm). Just as David (and his descendants) rule the kingdom from the royal city of Jerusalem (Zion), so YHWH Himself dwells as King there as well, ruling from the sanctuary of the holy shrine upon the seat of His royal kerub-throne (cf. again the discussion [with illustration of an ancient Near Eastern kerub-throne] on vv. 6-10). The establishment of the Davidic royal line thus runs parallel to the establishment of YHWH’s royal dwelling (in Jerusalem). The name /oYx! (Ṣiyyôn, Zion), while used as a designation for Jerusalem as a whole, properly refers to the elevated hilltop location (viz., the former Canaanite citadel) where the Temple would stand (i.e., the Temple mount).

The locative noun bv*om, “sitting place” (i.e., place where one sits) is largely synonymous with the more general /K*v=m! (“dwelling place”), and also <oqm* (“standing place”), used earlier in v. 5 (and 7); cf. also “resting place” (v. 8 and below in v. 14). However, the noun bv*om, derived from the verbal root bv^y` (“sit”), obviously alludes to the place where the king sits—i.e., his ruling seat or throne.

Verse 14

“This (is) my resting-place until and unto (the end)—
(and) here I will sit, for (so) I have desired her!”

In the remainder of the section (vv. 14-18), it is YHWH who speaks, as in the oath of vv. 11b-12 (cf. above). Jerusalem (Zion) is the place where YHWH will “sit” (i.e., have His ruling seat). The locative noun bv*om (“sitting place”) in v. 13 is followed here by the verb bv^y` (“sit”), in line 2. The noun hj*Wnm= (“resting place”, used earlier in v. 8) is largely synonymous with bv*om, but with the added connotation of an abiding dwelling and royal seat for YHWH—i.e., the place where He dwells and rules as King, into the far distance future, even unto the very end. The same temporal expression du^-yd@u& occurs here as was used in v. 12b (cf. above). This confirms the parallelism of the two sections—the ruling of the Davidic kings in Jerusalem, and YHWH’s rule as King in the same holy/royal city.

The particles which begin each line—the demonstrative taz) (“this”) and locative-adverbial hP) (“here”)—are both emphatic (as indicated by their position). The declaration emphatically identifies Zion (Jerusalem) as the dwelling place for YHWH and the location of His royal throne.

The feminine suffixes, in vv. 13-14, and throughout the remainder of the section, are in accordance with the customary reference to cities (such as Jerusalem) as female, or otherwise described in feminine terms. This was typical usage, not only in Israel and the Near East, but throughout much of the ancient world.

Verse 15

“Her hunting (with) blessing I will (greatly) bless,
(and) her needy (one)s I will fill up (with) bread;”

The initial word of this couplet is problematic. The MT reads Hd*yx@, literally “her hunting”; however, since the noun dy]x^ can also have the more general meaning “food, provision”, this is often assumed here (the related hd*yx@ can refer specifically to food for a journey). Admittedly, this meaning fits the context of the second line, however it ignores (or at least distorts) the poetic pattern of vv. 15-16, whereby, in each of the following lines (15b and 16ab), a group of persons (representing segments or aspects of God’s people) is in view:

    • “her needy (one)s” (15b)
    • “her priests” (16a)
    • “her devoted (one)s” (16b)

This suggests that the MT in v. 15a may be corrupt (however slightly), and that originally a similar characteristic group (of persons) was referenced. Driver, in his “Notes on the Psalms” (II, Journal of Theological Studies [JTS] 44 [1943], pp. 12-23 [p. 21]), suggested emending the text to h*yd#x= (or h*yY#d!x!), which would mean something like “her desolate (one)s” or “her empty/abandoned (one)s”, which certainly would provide an apt parallel to “her needy (one)s” in line 2. Dahood (III, p. 247) suggests a different substantive verbal noun (participle), derived from the root dox (“hunt”), but in the sense of “travel, roam” (cp. Akkadian ṣâdu [I], “chase/prowl around”; cf. HALOT, p. 1010). He understands this in the sense of pilgrims (i.e., travelers to Jerusalem for the festival[s]), but one might just as well explain such a participle in terms of hungry/needy people searching (i.e., “hunting”) for food. Unfortunately, the Qumran manuscript 11QPsa is broken at this point, with a gap in the text at the critical point, so it can offer no help toward resolving the textual question.

In any case, the overall message in v. 15 is that YHWH’s presence in Jerusalem (and His rule over the land/kingdom from His royal seat) will bring manifest blessings to the people—specifically to the faithful/devout ones, those who are faithful to the covenant. The blessings will come particularly in the time of His people’s need. The adjective /oyb=a# (“needy”), is regularly used (along with yn]u*, “pressed/bent down [low]”) as a characteristic of the righteous; especially in the Psalms, these terms refer (or allude) to the suffering of the righteous, often as the result of oppression/affliction from the wicked. The blessings for the righteous include (and here focus on) the physical/material needs, such as food and sustenance.

Verse 16

“and her priests I will clothe with salvation,
and her devout (one)s with ringing shall ring out!”

The thought and wording here resembles that of verse 9 (cf. Part 2 of this study, on vv. 6-10). The idiom of clothing (vb vb^l*) the priests alludes to both ethical and ritual aspects of the worship (of YHWH) in Jerusalem. In v. 9, the priests are said to be clothed with “right(eous)ness” (qd#x#), while here it is “salvation” (uv^y#). This salvation is particularly to be understood (as in v. 15) as part of the covenant blessing that YHWH provides for the faithful/loyal ones among His people (including the priests). In the second line, it is the devoted ones of the people as a whole (but distinct from the priests) who receive the blessing; it is such that they are inspired to “ring out” (vb /n~r*) with ringing (/nr) shouts of joy, etc (cf. the same idiom in v. 9).

As this Psalm came to be utilized in the festal worship celebrations of Israel/Judah, the implication of these verses is that faithful participation in the pilgrimage festivals will result in blessings for the people. Indeed, this would be so, since participation in the festivals is an important aspect of the fulfillment of the required duties and obligations of the covenant.

Verse 17

“There I will make spring up (the) horn for David,
(even as) I have arranged a lamp for my anointed.”

In the final two couplets, YHWH’s choice of Zion as His royal dwelling-place is connected back to the promise of a royal dynasty for David (vv. 11-12). As was clearly inferred in the first part of the Psalm (vv. 1-10), the establishment of this Davidic dynasty was the result of David’s own faithfulness and loyal zeal in establishing Jerusalem as the dwelling-place for YHWH (viz., a tent-shrine for the Ark [and its kerub-throne]). The continuation of this dynasty, though dependent on the loyalty of David’s descendants to the covenant with YHWH (see vv. 11b-12 above), is assured by God Himself. Here the promise is expressed by two distinct, but traditional, motifs. The first is that of a sprouting/growing horn (like that of a bull, or other powerful animal). This is a symbol of strength and vitality, which is often applied specifically to the ruler, and in a royal context; for other occurrences in the Psalms, see 18:3[2]; 75:5-6[4-5], 11[10]; 89:18[17], 25[24]; 92:11[10]; 112:9; 148:14. For the specific application to the Davidic dynasty, and, subsequently, to the promise of a royal/Davidic Messiah (“Anointed”) among Jews and early Christians, cf. Ezekiel 29:21; Luke 1:69. It is understandable how this verse would have been interpreted in a Messianic sense; such a development may well have occurred at a relatively early point in the post-exilic (or even in the exilic) period.

The second image is that of a lamp (rn@), that is continually burning and shining light. As long as this “lamp” remains burning, the dynastic line will not be extinguished. On the use of this idiom, in a royal context, cf. 2 Sam 21:17; 1 Kings 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kings 8:19.

Verse 18

“(All) his hostile (opponent)s I will clothe with shame,
while upon him shall blossom his consecrated (head)!”

The binding agreement between YHWH and the Davidic kings, like the blessings promised to the royal city of Jerusalem itself, includes special protection provided by YHWH. All hostile opponents and wicked adversaries will meet with defeat (and shame), since it is YHWH Himself who fights on behalf of His loyal servants (king and people both), protecting them and bringing them victory.

In the final line, the two motifs from verse 17—i.e., sprouting horn and shining lamp—are combined together, by way of the verb JWx, which fundamentally means “blossom, bloom”, usually in the sense of the sprouting growth (of vegetation), but also with the specific aspect of the “gleaming” (i.e., glistening, shining) appearance of the plant’s blossom/bloom. Here what blossoms and shines is the consecrated (rzn) head of the king, and the mark of this consecration—namely, his royal crown. There can also be a reference here to the anointing of the king’s head, so that it shines/glistens with oil. Possibly there is also a bit of implicit wordplay, between the noun rz#n# and rx#n@, which means “sprout” (i.e., a sprouting growth); this word is famously used in a passage (Isaiah 11:1ff) which came to be interpreted as a key Messianic prophecy (cf. also Isa 60:21). On this subsequent Messianic application, compare the related “branch” motif (using the noun jm^x#, cf. the verb jm^x* here in v. 17) in the prophecies of Jer 23:5; 33:15, and Zech 3:8 (also 6:12).

    • References marked “Dahood, I”, “Dahood, II” and “Dahood, III” above are to, respectively, Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms I: 1-50, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 16 (1965), Psalms II: 51-100, vol. 17 (1968), and Psalms III: 101-150, vol. 17A (1970).
    • Those marked “Kraus” are to Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalmen, 2. Teilband, Psalmen 60-150, 5th ed., Biblischer Kommentar series (Neukirchener Verlag: 1978); English translation in Psalms 60-150, A Continental Commentary (Fortress Press: 1993).
    • Those marked “Allen” are to Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101-150 (Revised edition), Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 21 (Zondervan: 2002/2014).
    • Those marked “Crow” are to Loren D. Crow, The Songs of Ascents (Psalms 120-134): Their Place in Israelite History and Religion. SBL Dissertation Series 148 (Society of Biblical Literature: 1996).
    • Those marked “Cross” are to Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Harvard University Press: 1973). Psalm 132 is discussed on pages 94-97, 232-238, 244-248.
    • Those marked “Fretheim” are to T. E. Fretheim, “Psalm 132: A Form-critical Study”, Journal of Biblical Literature [JBL] 86 (1967), pp. 289-300.

“God Sent Forth His Son…”: Romans 1:3-4 (Part 1)

Romans 1:3-4

As mentioned in the Introduction to this series, it would seem that the earliest references to a belief in the Divine pre-existence of Jesus, and of the incarnation of the Son (of God) in the person of Jesus, can be found in several of Paul’s letters—notably in Galatians (4:4) and Romans. We begin with the reference in Romans 1:3-4.

Even though Romans was written several years later (c. 57-58 A.D.) than Galatians, many commentators would hold that these two verses (1:3-4) represent (at least a portion of) an early confessional (or credal) statement regarding the person of Jesus Christ. Its phrasing and parallelistic structure would be typical of a hymn or other poetic form, such as might have been used by first-century Christians in a worship setting. Several details of vocabulary, style, and emphasis, atypical of Paul’s letters, provide a relatively strong argument in favor of a pre-Pauline source for the formula in vv. 3-4. Among the most notable of these are:

    • The traditional Messianic association of Jesus with David (i.e., as the ‘Son of David’), an association that is largely absent from Paul’s letters (but cf. 2 Tim 2:8); it certainly was not a point that Paul emphasized, though it would have been accepted as part of the inherited tradition (cf. below).
    • The use of the verb o(ri/zw (“mark out”), which occurs only here in the Pauline corpus, but which was apparently part of the early kerygmatic/confessional language (cf. Acts 2:23; 10:42; 17:31).
    • The specific expression “Spirit of holiness”, which is according to the Hebrew/Semitic manner of expression (i.e., vd#q) j^Wr)—and thus might have been part of the wording characteristic of early Jewish Christians—whereas Paul always uses the adjective (a%gio$) in Greek (i.e., “holy Spirit”).

Perhaps even more significant is that the Sonship of Jesus is understood (at least in verse 4) fundamentally in terms of the resurrection. While this association is not exactly foreign to Paul (cf. the brief discussion in the Introduction), it is particularly prominent in the Christological statements that were expressed by believers during the early years of the Gospel proclamation (kergyma).

We should also note certain formal elements of the statement in vv. 3-4 which tend to feature in early Christian hymns and confessional formulae, and which could be taken as markers of (earlier) traditional material. Two, in particular, can be pointed out: (i) clauses governed by opening participle-forms, and (ii) the use of an initial relative pronoun (“who/which”, o%$/o%) to introduce the key clauses of the formula.

On the main participle-clauses of vv. 3-4, see the discussion below.

The relative pronoun anchors the ‘Christ-hymns’ in Philippians (2:6), Colossians (1:15), 1 Timothy (3:16), and in Hebrews (1:2-3), where the masculine pronoun (o%$) serves to define Jesus Christ as “the one who…”. Here, in v. 2, the neuter pronoun refers, not to the person of Christ proper, but to the message (i.e., Gospel) of Christ (viz., the neuter noun eu)agge/lion).

The lines of this ‘Christ hymn’ (if we are to call it such) comprise part of the epistolary prescript—that is, the opening address and greeting of the letter (vv. 1-7), which reads as a single sentence in Greek. The key term in the opening verse is eu)agge/lion (“good message”, i.e. Gospel); the second verse builds syntactically upon this noun:

“…which [o%] He gave a message about before(hand), through His Foretellers [i.e. Prophets], in (the) holy Writings…”

For the conceptual and thematic connection between verse 2 and the Christological statement in vv. 3-4, see the discussion in the earlier article in the series “The Incarnation and Birth of Jesus in the Letters of Paul”.  The key point, for the purpose of our current study, is the qualifying phrase at the beginning of v. 3, which states that the “good message” (i.e., the Gospel) is specifically about (peri/) God’s Son (“about His Son…” [peri\ tou= ui(ou= au)tou=]). Jesus is thus implicitly identified as the Son of God, without necessarily explaining in what way he is God’s Son. The remaining clauses in vv. 3-4 expound, in summary (confessional) form, the message about the Son (Jesus). This is a complex unit comprised of two parallel participial phrases, punctuated by a declarative Christological (confessional) formula that identifies Jesus Christ as God’s Son. This structure may be outlined as follows:

    • “…about His Son,
      • the (one hav)ing come to be (born) out of (the) seed of David according to (the) flesh,
      • the (one hav)ing been marked out (as) Son of God, in power, according to (the) Spirit of holiness…
      • —Yeshua (the) Anointed our Lord”

There is a clear poetic parallelism to the lines, as can be seen by the outline above. There are several key points of parallelism:

    • two substantive (passive/middle) aorist participles, from the verbs gi/nomai (“come to be [born]”) and o(ri/zw (“mark out”), signifying the beginning (birth) and end (death/resurrection) of Jesus’ earthly life, respectively
    • the expressions “seed [i.e. son] of David” and “Son of God”, each of which has Messianic significance and is uniquely applied to Jesus by early Christians
    • juxtaposition of “flesh” (sa/rc) and “Spirit” (pneu=ma)

We will be considering these in terms of this Christological exposition regarding Jesus’ identity as God’s Son.

Verse 3

The first line, or couplet, of the poetic formula (v. 3) emphasizes the beginning of Jesus’ earthly life. It is a reference most certainly to Jesus’ birth, as is indicated both by the use of the verb gi/nomai (“come to be, become”) and the term “seed” (spe/rma). The phrasing with the verb gi/nomai resembles that in Galatians 4:4, which has been discussed previously and will be examined further in the next article. Indeed, there is a strong parallelism to the two statements:

    • “…(God sent) His Son, (hav)ing come to be [geno/menon] out of [e)k] a woman”
    • “…(about) His Son, the (one) (hav)ing come to be [geno/meno$] out of [e)k] (the) seed of David…”

In each instance the verb of becoming (gi/nomai), as an aorist participle (indicating something coming to be in the past), is used to refer to the birth of Jesus (spec. as a human being); cp. John 1:14.

Explanatory clause #1 (verse 3)

“the (one hav)ing come to be (born) out of (the) seed of David according to (the) flesh”

There are three main components (phrases/expressions) for each clause; here in verse 3 they are:

    • “the (one hav)ing come to be (born)”
      [tou= genome/nou]
    • “out of (the) seed of David”
      [e)k spe/rmato$ Daui\d]
    • “according to (the) flesh”
      [kata\ sa/rka]

Each component may be further explained in a relatively straightforward manner, in accordance with early Christian belief and tradition:

tou= genome/nou (“the [one hav]ing come to be”)—This is a substantive verbal noun (participle) with the definite article. It defines Jesus Christ (God’s Son) as “the (one who)…”, with the verbal noun governing the entire clause. The verb is the verb of becoming (gi/nomai); on this verb in vv. 3-4, see the discussion above. It implicitly states the coming into being (i.e., the birth) of Jesus, i.e., as a human being. The birth of Jesus was not, per se, part of the earliest Gospel message; for example, it appears nowhere in the preaching recorded in the book of Acts, nor is it particularly mentioned in the core Synoptic narrative (as represented by the Gospel of Mark). However, by around 80 A.D. (at the latest), there was at least a simple narrative in circulation regarding Jesus’ birth—tradition(s) which formed the basis for the Infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke.

Paul’s use of gi/nomai here as an aspect of Jesus’ identity as God’s Son, raises two points of Christological interpretation: (1) first, is the Messianic emphasis of the clause in v. 3, i.e., the Davidic Messiah as God’s “Son” (cf. below); but (2) second, the question of whether God’s Son “coming to be (born)” implies that Jesus was already God’s Son prior to his being born. Let us start with the first point, as it is expressed by the second component of the clause.

e)k spe/rmato$ Daui\d (“out of [the] seed of David”)—This expression implicitly declares Jesus’ identity as the Davidic Messiah—that is, the royal Messiah from the line of David; on this specific Messianic figure-type, see Parts 6-8 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”. In early Christian tradition, as reflected by the genealogies in Matthew (1:1-16) and Luke (3:23-38), Jesus’ was a descendant of David only from a legal, not biological, standpoint, through his human father Joseph. However, the wording here in v. 3 suggests that Jesus was (also?) a biological descendant of David. This interpretation is strengthened, both by the qualifying phrase that follows (“according to the flesh”), and by the formal parallel in Galatians 4:4 (“out of a woman” || “out of the seed of David”)—suggesting that the “woman” (i.e., Jesus’ mother) was of the seed of David. Certainly, a Davidic lineage for Mary came to be part of early Christian belief and tradition, even though it is not otherwise indicated in the Gospels; indeed, Luke 1:5, 36 would seem to indicate that Mary was of the tribe of Levi, rather than Judah.

Before proceeding to consider further the understanding of Jesus’ Sonship here, from a Messianic standpoint, let us continue with the final component of the clause:

kata\ sa/rka (“according to [the] flesh”)—Paul often uses this expression (and the term sa/rc [“flesh”] itself) in a decidedly negative way, in contrast to the Spirit, and in connection with the human impulse toward sin. However, it can also refers to human nature in a general sense, and Paul uses it as such, for example, in 1 Cor 10:18; 2 Cor 5:16; in other references, the general and specific (negative) Pauline usage tends to blend together. Here, the expression means, primarily, that the Son (Jesus) was born as a real (flesh-and-blood) human being. The framework of the first and third components makes this clear: “the (one hav)ing come to be (born)…according to (the) flesh”. It could also imply, as noted above, that Jesus was a descendant of David “according to the flesh” (that is, according to a normal human birth-lineage).

The relation of Romans 1:3 to early Christian Tradition

If we examine the Gospel Tradition (in the New Testament) as a whole, there are three main strands of the Tradition which explain, and according to which we may understand, the Sonship of Jesus:

    • The resurrection (and exaltation) of Jesus
    • The baptism of Jesus (according to the Gospel baptism-scene), and
    • The birth of Jesus (in the two Infancy narratives)

I would argue that, in all three strands of Tradition, the Sonship of Jesus is understood primarily from a Messianic standpoint. This is particularly true with regard to the last two strands—the baptism and birth of Jesus. The connection is clearest for the birth of Jesus in the Matthean and Lukan Infancy narratives (Matt 1-2; Luke 1-2), where Jesus’ identity as the Davidic Messiah is a dominant theme; for a discussion on this, see the recent two-part article (Part 1 & 2) on the Kingdom/Kingship-theme in the Infancy narratives.

As far as scene of Jesus’ baptism is concerned (Mk 1:9-11 par), its place in the Gospel narrative (esp. the Synoptic narrative) indicates that Jesus’ identity as a Messianic Prophet may be primarily in view (on this subject, cf. the recent articles [Studies 1, 2 , 3] in the Studies on the Spirit series). The likelihood that the proclamation of the Divine voice from heaven (Mk 1:11 par) alludes to Isa 42:1 (as much as Psalm 2:7), also points in this direction; cf. my earlier article on Isa 42:1 in the Gospel Tradition. The first half of the Synoptic narrative (viz., the Galilean period) emphasizes Jesus’ identification with the Messianic Prophet figure-types (Moses, Elijah, and the herald of Isa 61, etc), rather than the royal/Davidic figure-type (which is emphasized in the second half of the narrative [the Jerusalem period]). The Lukan narrative, in particular, ties the baptism scene to this understanding of Jesus as the Anointed (Messianic) Prophet—see the immediate connection of 3:22 to 4:1ff, 14, 18ff, 24ff. Even so, there is probably also an allusion to Psalm 2:7 (cf. 2 Sam 7:14, etc) in the Baptism-scene, establishing Jesus identity as the Davidic Messiah, even prior to the point where it comes to the fore in the Synoptic narrative (viz., the approach to Jerusalem and the Triumphal Entry scene, Mk 10:47-48; chap 11, par).

This leaves us with the resurrection of Jesus. It would seem that this strand represents the earliest Christian understanding of the Sonship of Jesus—viz., that Jesus came to be the Son of God as a result of his resurrection and exaltation (to heaven). This confirmed his identity as the royal/Davidic Messiah (and thus the Son of God), but it also established a Divine/heavenly status and position for him (at the right hand of God). We see this expressed quite clearly in the early Christian preaching (kerygma) recorded in the book of Acts; note, in particular, the declarations in Acts 2:36 and 13:33ff. The latter occurs in a sermon by Paul, in which Psalm 2:7 (identifying Jesus as God’s Son) is specifically interpreted in terms of the resurrection (cp. Hebrews 1:5; 5:5). That Paul, indeed, shared this early exaltation Christology, would seem to be confirmed by the earliest reference (in his letters) to Jesus as God’s Son, 1 Thess 1:10. Jesus’ Sonship is implicitly understood in terms of his heavenly place/position (with God the Father), which he obtained following the resurrection, and from where he will soon return to earth (cf. chapters 4-5).

However, Paul’s Christology, and his view of Jesus as God’s Son, was not limited to the early exaltation-Christology. As we shall discuss in the upcoming articles, this early Christology was supplemented with an incarnational view of Christ that suggests at least a rudimentary belief in the Divine pre-existence of Jesus. To see this tendency at work, in confessional/credal setting which may pre-date Paul’s letters to the Galatians and Romans (as noted above), let us bring together the clauses of verse 3 and 4, with a consideration of how Paul has interpreted and developed the early Christian tradition(s) which he inherited.

In Part 2 of this article, we will examine verse 4.

“God Sent Forth His Son…”: Introduction

“God Sent Forth His Son…”

“when the fullness of time came, God sent forth His Son…” (Galatians 4:4)
“God sent forth His Son into the world…” (John 3:17)

This new study series will examine the early Christian concept of the incarnation—the idea that the (pre-existent) Son of God became a flesh-and-blood (incarnate) human being in the person of Jesus. In particular, we will be considering both the nature and purpose of the incarnation, as this belief originally crystalized and developed within first-century Christianity, as attested in the New Testament Scriptures. The question of the goal and purpose of the incarnation is especially relevant in light of the seasonal celebration of the death and resurrection of Jesus, and makes for a fitting subject to be discussed this Spring during the Lenten/Easter season.

Earlier this year, during the Christmas season, I began  a series on the Incarnation and the Birth of Jesus in the Pauline Letters, discussing in some detail nearly all of the relevant passages. The remaining articles that were planned, dealing with the specific theme of the Sonship of Jesus, and the idea of God sending forth His Son, will be folded into this current series.

Introduction: The Development of Early Christology

An important point, to be addressed at the outset, involves the place of the incarnation-concept within the earliest Christology—viz., the view of Christ held by the first generation(s) of believers, during the first century A.D. Contextually, this may be summarized by the heading of the Gospel of Mark, regarded by most commentators as the earliest of the surviving Gospels (c. 60-70 A.D.):

“(The) beginning of the good message of Yeshua (the) Anointed [(the) Son of God]” (1:1)

The words “(the) Son of God” (ui(ou= qeou=) are bracketed [] because they are absent from a number of key manuscripts (a* Q 28c al), and so were possibly not part of the original text of Mk 1:1. However, even if the words were not originally present, they were doubtless added (or included) very early on, probably before the end of the first century. The wording establishes a basic tenet of Christology, identifying Jesus as the “Son of God”. This identification is the cornerstone of the incarnation-concept, particularly as it came to be expressed within orthodox Christology, since it entails (and implies) the idea that the pre-existent Son (of God) became a flesh-and-blood human being, in the person of Jesus.

Yet, the designation at the beginning of the Markan Gospel gives us no further information about what it means to say that Jesus is the “Son of God”, apart from the definite juxtaposition of the expression with the title Xristo/$ (“[the] Anointed [One]”, i.e., Messiah = Heb. j^yv!m* [m¹šîaµ]). This, in fact, is most significant regarding the earliest Christian understanding of Jesus as God’s Son. It indicates that the Divine Sonship of Jesus is to be understood primarily, if not exclusively, in a Messianic sense—that is, in terms of Jesus’ identity as the Anointed One (Messiah) of God.

This association, established so clearly, and in such a matter-of-fact manner, at the beginning of the Gospel of Mark, is confirmed by a careful study of the earliest strands of Christian Tradition found in the New Testament Scriptures. These may be divided into three main categories: (1) the Gospel Tradition, particularly that of the Synoptic Gospels, the core Synoptic Tradition; (2) evidence of early Christian preaching (proclamation [kerygma] of the Gospel) preserved in the sermon-speeches of the book of Acts; and (3) the (undisputed) letters of Paul.

The Gospel Tradition as it came to be represented by the core Synoptic Tradition (such as in the Gospel of Mark), developed during the period of c. 35-60 A.D. The earliest Christian preaching, based on the historical time-frame presented within the Acts-narrative, covers a similar period. Meanwhile, the letters of Paul—that is, those where Pauline authorship is certain or undisputed—were written during the latter half of this period. It will be worth surveying, however briefly, Jesus’ identity as the Son of God, as evidenced within each of these sources.

1. The Gospel (Synoptic) Tradition

In examining the Synoptic Tradition, I focus primarily on the Gospel of Mark. Apart from the heading in 1:1 (v.l., see above), there are seven references to Jesus as God’s Son (ui(o/$).
For the purposes of this survey, I exclude all instances where the specific expression “(the) son of man” ([o(] ui(o\$ [tou=] a)nqrw/pou) is used; these were discussed at length in an earlier series (“Who Is This Son of Man…?”). While not unrelated to the Divine Sonship of Jesus (esp. in the Gospel of John), the expression/title “Son of Man” has a very different emphasis. It is actually closer in significance to the specific idea of incarnation (viz., Jesus as a real human being). As such, it is certainly relevant for this series, and will be addressed at a number of junctures in the upcoming articles.

The first such reference occurs early in the narrative, in the Baptism scene (1:9-11 par) which marks the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. Following the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus (v. 10), the Divine voice from heaven declares: “You are my Son, the (be)loved, in you I think good [i.e. I think good/well of you]” (v. 11). The wording of this declaration, along with the coming of the Spirit upon Jesus, confirms the observation made above (on the heading [v. 1]), that the Divine Sonship of Jesus is to be understood here in a Messianic sense. That is to say, it identifies Jesus as the Messiah—one specially chosen (‘anointed’) by God.

The Divine/heavenly voice at the Baptism would seem to allude both to Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1—each of these represents a key Messianic reference that was adopted by early Christians and applied to Jesus (as the Messiah). The two verses, respectively, identify Jesus as a Messianic Prophet (Isa 42:1), and as the royal/Davidic Messiah (Ps 2:7). The presence of the Spirit upon Jesus applies more readily to his identity as a Messianic Prophet—particularly the anointed prophet/herald of Isa 61:1ff (but cf. also Isa 11:2 and 42:1). For further discussion, see the recent article (in the new Studies on the Spirit feature); cf. also the articles on Isa 42:1ff and 61:1ff in the series “The Old Testament in the Gospel Tradition”, and Parts 2–3 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”.

Isaiah 61:1ff is particularly prominent in the Lukan version of the narrative, where this Scripture features in the Nazareth episode (4:16-30, vv. 18-21ff), marking the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, following the Baptism and Temptation scenes. Thus, the coming of the Spirit at the Baptism, along with the declaration of Sonship by the Divine/heavenly voice (3:21-22), is explained implicitly in terms of Jesus’ identity as the anointed Prophet/herald of Isa 61:1ff (cf. also the context of 4:1, 14).

As it happens, the Lukan author is following the Synoptic Tradition, which divides the Gospel narrative into two halves. In the first half, the Galilean period, the focus is on Jesus as the Messianic Prophet, according to two figure-types (Elijah and Moses), that are essentially blended together in the figure of the Anointed herald of Isa 61:1ff, and then are combined (visually) in the Transfiguration scene. Jesus’ identity as the royal/Davidic Messiah is more or less reserved for the second half of the narrative (the Jerusalem period).

The Transfiguration scene (Mk 9:2-8 par) is significant from this standpoint, in terms of the thematic structure of the narrative. It marks the end of the Galilean period, and begins the transition to the Jerusalem period, by effectively introducing (vv. 9-13ff) the journey to Jerusalem (chap. 10). Jesus’ role as the Messianic Prophet reaches its climax in the Transfiguration scene, as he is dramatically associated with (and implicitly identified with) the Messianic Prophet figure-types of Moses and Elijah. And, in this context, for good measure, the declaration of the Divine/heavenly voice at the Baptism is essentially repeated, 9:7 (in Matthew’s version, the two declarations are identical [cf. Matt 3:17; 17:5]), confirming Jesus’ as God’s Son (in this Messianic sense).

The Messianic significance is brought out especially in Luke’s version of the declaration (9:35), where (according to the best textual reading) the designation “chosen” (lit., “[one] gathered out”, e)klelegme/no$) is used, rather than “(be)loved”. Cf. the comparable designation e)klekto/$ in 23:35, where its Messianic import is equally clear. The same substantive adjective o( e)klekto/$ (“the [one] gathered out”, i.e., “the chosen [one]”) also occurs in some manuscripts of the Johannine version of the Divine/heavenly declaration at the Baptism (Jn 1:34 v.l.), indicating that the Messianic designation (“the Chosen [One]”) was, to some extent at least, interchangeable with the designation “Son” (of God).

As for the remaining five references (in Mark) to Jesus as God’s Son, two occur as declarations by evil (demon) spirits (3:11; 5:7 pars). These are best explained in terms of Jesus’ miracle-working (i.e., exorcism) power, as the Anointed/Messianic Prophet of God (cf. Isa 61:1ff and the figure-type of Elijah); the demon-spirits recognize this identity, and (implicitly) the power/presence of the Spirit of God upon Jesus (cf. Matt 12:28 par, in the context of vv. 18-21 [citing Isa 42:1-3, see above]).

The final two Son-references in the Gospel occur at climactic points in the Passion narrative (14:61f; 15:39). The question posed by the high priest to Jesus seems to echo the question posed by Jesus to his disciples in 8:27, along with the confession-response by Peter (v. 29). Matthew’s version makes the association explicit, by presenting Peter’s confession (16:16) and the high priest’s confession (26:63) in nearly identical wording. Underlying this Matthean development is the essential juxtaposition of the titles “Anointed One” and “Son of God”, which we saw already in the heading of Mark (1:1), and which is repeated in the confessional context of 14:61-62; cf. also 15:39, where the centurion’s confession (of Jesus as God’s “Son”) punctuates a Passion-narrative which features a strong Messianic emphasis (14:61-62; 15:2, 9ff, 17-18, 26, 32, 35-36).

By comparison, the Son-reference of 13:32 par is more difficult to place or to explain within the Tradition. The self-designation of Jesus simply as “the Son” is more in keeping with the usage in the Gospel of John. The only other Synoptic occurrence is in a saying from the “Q” material (Matt 11:27 / Lk 10:22); cf. also Matt 28:19. In the immediate context of both Mk 13:32 par and Matt 11:27 par, we find references to Jesus as “the Son of Man”, which is his more regular form of self-designation in the Synoptics.

Both Matthew and Luke generally follow Mark’s Gospel in terms of these Son-references (apart from the “Q” saying in Matt 11:27 par, mentioned in the note above). Evidence of Christological development or expansion is actually quite rare. Perhaps the clearest example can be seen in the Matthean forms of Peter’s confession, and the corresponding question to Jesus by the high priest 16:16; 26:63, cf. above); and note the similar confession by the disciples, earlier in the narrative, 14:33. The use of the title “Son of God” by the Devil in the Temptation scene (“Q” material, Matt 4:6 / Lk 4:3, 9) corresponds to the declarations by the demons in Mk 3:11; 5:7 pars (cf. above). Finally, it may be noted that, in Matthew’s version of the Passion narrative, the climactic confession by the centurion (Matt 27:54) is further enhanced by the references to Jesus as the “Son of God” preceding in vv. 40, 43; comparison with the core Synoptic (Markan) version (cf. above) only confirms that this use of the title “Son of God” is fundamentally Messianic in nature.

Indeed, from this survey, it would seem to be clear that the Sonship of Jesus, and the use of the title “Son of God”, in the Gospel Tradition is primarily (if not exclusively) Messianic. It is tied to Jesus’ identity as the Messiah—both the royal/Davidic Messiah and the Messianic Prophet figure-types (on which, cf. above)—an identity that is established at the Baptism of Jesus (that is, at the beginning of his public ministry), with the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus, accompanied by the Divine/heavenly declaration of Sonship. In the Synoptic narrative, this Messianic identification continues throughout the course of Jesus’ ministry, climaxing with the moment of his death.

2. The Early Gospel Preaching (Kerygma) in Acts

At first glance, it is rather striking how few references there are to Jesus as God’s Son in the book of Acts. Given the relative importance of the designation in the Synoptic Gospels (including the Gospel of Luke, see the discussion in section 1. above), we would perhaps expect to find a much larger number of references. There are two key references in Acts—9:20 and 13:33. These are significant in at least two respects: (a) they serve (in the narrative) as examples of Paul’s missionary preaching (see section 3. below), and (b) they confirm the fundamental Messianic significance of the designation (“Son of God”) evidenced throughout the Gospel Tradition.

In particular, note the same basic juxtaposition of the titles “Anointed One” (xristo/$) and “Son of God” (ui(o\$ qeou=) which we highlighted in our analysis of the Synoptic Tradition (above). The correspondence of the titles becomes quite clear when we consider how the Lukan author frames the summary narrative of Paul’s first preaching of the Gospel (in Damascus), 9:20-22; see how Paul’s preaching activity is summarized:

    • “he proclaimed (of) Yeshua that
      ‘This (one) is the Son of God'” (v. 20)
    • “he was driving together (the point) that
      ‘This (one) is the Anointed'” (v. 22)

The titles “Anointed One” and “Son of God” are precisely parallel, and, at least to some extent, are interchangeable; this confirms that the title “Son of God”, as applied to Jesus in this context of the early Gospel preaching, was used in a Messianic sense. The same is true with the citation of Psalm 2:7 (by Paul) in 13:33, a usage of the Psalm verse (as a Messianic reference) which conforms to the allusion in the declaration (by the Divine/heavenly voice) at Jesus’ Baptism in the Gospel Tradition (cf. above). In a variant reading of the Lukan form of the declaration (3:22), Psalm 2:7 is explicitly quoted, implying that it was at the Baptism (with the coming upon Jesus of the Spirit) that Jesus came to be ‘born’ as God’s Son.

What is important to note about the use of Psalm 2:7 in the Antioch sermon-speech (by Paul) in Acts 13 (v. 33ff) is that the Messianic reference is applied, not to Jesus’ Baptism, but to his Resurrection. The implication, then, according to this preaching, is that Jesus was ‘born’ as God’s Son when he was raised from the dead. This aspect of Jesus’ Sonship is not emphasized in the Synoptic Gospels, but does seem to be a key point of emphasis that orientates the early proclamation (kerygma) of the Gospel. Note, for example, the third section (vv. 29-36) of the Pentecost sermon-speech by Peter in chapter 2, which, in many important ways, matches the Antioch sermon-speech by Paul later in chap. 13. As a Scripture text, the well-established Messianic verse of Psalm 110:1 is used (cf. Mark 12:36f par; Heb 1:13, etc), but it is clearly applied to the resurrection of Jesus, with his exaltation to the “right hand” (v. 1b) of God in heaven (on the importance of this particular motif for early Christology, cf. Mk 14:62 par; Acts 2:33; 5:31; 7:55-56; Rom 8:34; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22). Even more striking is the wording that Peter (and the author of Acts) uses at the conclusion of the sermon:

“let all (the) house of Yisrael know that God made him (to be) both Lord and Anointed [Xristo/$], this Yeshua whom you put to the stake [i.e., crucified]!” (v. 36)

The declaration is clear enough: God made Jesus to be the Anointed One, through his resurrection (and exaltation); this is comparable to the idea in 13:33 (citing Psalm 2:7), that, when Jesus was raised/exalted by God, he came to be born as God’s Son. The designation “Lord” (ku/rio$) in 2:36 indicates a Divine status and distinction comparable to that of “Son of God”. While this sort of language and thinking would be highly problematic from the standpoint of the developed (orthodox) Christology of later generations, it would seem to reflect the earliest Christian understanding of the Gospel accurately enough.

Many scholars, however, would question the extent to which the book of Acts accurately preserves or portrays the early apostolic preaching, as it would have occurred (historically) in the period c. 35-50 A.D. This is an issue that I have dealt with on several occasions, including in my exegetical series “The Speeches of Acts”. I am not able to go into the matter in any detail here, but will only state my conviction that the sermon-speeches of Acts preserve genuine elements and features of the early preaching, while (at the same time) also being thoroughly Lukan in style as a finished literary product.

The preaching recorded in the book of Acts demonstrates two clear points of emphasis for the early Christian understanding of Jesus as the “Son of God: (1) the Messianic identity of Jesus, and (2) the fact that Jesus, after his death and resurrection, was exalted to a Divine status and position in heaven (at God’s “right hand”, Ps 110:1b [cf. the discussion above]). The main apologetic concern for the early apostolic missionaries, in both of these respects, centered on the death of Jesus. His death was, naturally enough, the necessary precursor to his exaltation; and, yet, at the same time, it proved a great difficulty for their missionary preaching to other Jews. The suffering and death of the Messiah was not at all part of the Messianic expectation for Jews at the time (on this subject, see the article in the series “Yeshua the Anointed”). It is repeatedly mentioned in Acts how the missionaries took great pains to demonstrate (from the Scriptures) that it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer and die, and thus proving that Jesus could be (and was) the promised Messiah—see esp. Acts 3:18; 5:42; 9:22; 17:3; 18:5, 28; 26:23, and similarly in the Lukan Gospel, Lk 24:26f, 45-46; the teaching echoes the Passion-predictions of Jesus in the Synoptics (cf. Lk 9:22; 18:31ff par). Note also, in this regard, the importance of Isa 52:13-53:12 as a Messianic prophecy, serving as the primary Scripture text for the idea that the Messiah (i.e., the Servant of YHWH) would suffer and die (cf. Acts 8:32-35).

3. The Pauline Letters

Paul, in his letters, generally follows the main contours of the early Christology, with regard to the Sonship of Jesus. The main points of emphasis from the Gospel Tradition and the early apostolic preaching (discussed in sections 1. and 2. above) are continued—viz., the identification of Jesus as the Messiah (i.e., Sonship in a Messianic sense), and that his identity as God’s Son is tied specifically to the Resurrection. This last aspect is especially clear in what is presumably the earliest Son-reference in the surviving letters, 1 Thess 1:10. Most of his other references to Jesus as God’s Son can also be viewed entirely from the standpoint of this early exaltation-Christology—see 1 Cor 1:9; 15:28; 2 Cor 1:19; Col 1:13, etc.

However, there are other references which indicate a rudimentary pre-existence-Christology, along with an accompanying incarnational aspect. The earliest such occurrence is in the letter to the Galatians (4:4), the dating of which remains disputed, though some time in the early-mid 50s (c. 54?) seems probable. By the time of his letter to the Romans, several years later (c. 57-58), this Christological understanding appears to have become more prominent in his thought—as can be glimpsed from the wording in 1:3; 5:10; 8:3, 29, 32. These references (all of which will be discussed) likely preceded the writing of Philippians (c. 60), with its famous ‘Christ-hymn’ (2:6-11), in which the idea of the Divine pre-existence of Jesus features most prominently.

Paul was, it seems, one of the first Christians to express such a pre-existence (and incarnational) Christology. There does not appear to be any real evidence for such a view prior to the mid-50s. As noted in the analysis above, this Christology is virtually absent from the Synoptic Gospels and the book of Acts. In the earlier strands of the Tradition recorded in these texts, the Messianic identity and Divine Sonship of Jesus was seen as being established either: (a) at the beginning of his public ministry (i.e., the time of his baptism), or (b) with his resurrection (and exaltation to heaven). To be sure, the Infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke evince the view that Jesus was the Messiah from the very moment of his birth; however, even in these narratives, there is no indication of Divine pre-existence. The declaration of Jesus’ Sonship in Luke 1:32, 35, applies to the time of his birth (note the future tense of the announcement, “he will be…”, “he will be called…”), and is also still understood in a Messianic sense (as is clear from the context).

With Paul, however, a new Christological understanding begins to emerge. Paul may not have been the very first believer to express the idea of Jesus’ pre-existence, or of the incarnation (in the person of Jesus) of the pre-existent Son, but he was doubtless influential in the development and spread of this Christology. We can see the Pauline influence, for example, in the book of Hebrews (passages to be discussed). It is not certain what influence Paul may have had upon the Johannine writings; for the most part, they seem to be the product of an entirely separate line of Tradition. In any case, it is in the Gospel of John where this early development of the pre-existence and incarnational Christology receives its flourish.

In the articles within this series, we will attempt to trace this development, beginning with the earliest Pauline references. Our starting point will be the confessional statement in Romans 1:3-4, for the reason that many commentators believe Paul has, in these verses, adapted an earlier (existing) credal formula. If so, then the Christology expressed in these verses may, at least to some extent, pre-date Paul’s own writings. It is often thought that the ‘Christ-hymn’ of Phil 2:6-11 also represents an earlier confessional statement (in poetic-hymnic form) that Paul has utilized. Both of these texts are of particular significance for the way that they join together the older exaltation-Christology (Rom 1:4; Phil 2:9-11) with the newer pre-existence-Christology (Rom 1:3; Phil 2:6-8), and include the specific idea of the incarnation, at least in a rudimentary form. This conjunction is especially clear in the case of the Philippians hymn, but it would seem to be present in Rom 1:3-4 as well; at least, it is possible to read the verses in this way.

 

 

Notes on Prayer: Thy Kingdom Come (John 3:3, 5)

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

The remaining Kingdom-references to be considered are those in the Johannine writings—which include, as a climax to this series, the references in the Book of Revelation. We begin with the Gospel of John.

The Kingdom in the Gospel of John

Throughout the Johannine Gospel, there are a considerable number of references to the kingship of Jesus—that is, kingship in a traditional Messianic sense, identifying Jesus with the Davidic royal Messiah (cf. Parts 6–8 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”). In this regard, the Johannine Tradition is simply following the broader Gospel Tradition; however, in certain respects, the specific idea of Jesus as king is given a distinct emphasis in the Gospel of John. This applies not only to the use of the word basileu/$ (“king”), but also to the title Xristo/$ (“Anointed [One]”, i.e., Messiah). For instance, the noun basileu/$ occurs 16 times in John, and every one of these refers to Jesus as king; by comparison, there are only 6 such instances in the Gospel of Mark (all in the Passion narrative), and 5 in Luke.

Similarly, John records a larger number of instances where Jesus is specifically (or effectively) identified by the title Xristo/$ (o( xristo/$, “the Anointed [One]”)—1:17, 20, 25, 41; 3:28; 4:25, 29; 7:26-27, 31, 41-42; 9:22; 10:24; 11:27; 12:34; 20:31. In some of these references, it is possible that the title is being used to identify Jesus with a Messianic Prophet (cf. the context of 1:25; 4:25ff; 7:41 [v. 40], and the juxtaposition of 6:15 [“king”] with v. 14 [“prophet”]). It has even been argued that the title Xristo/$ in the Johannine Tradition purposely blends together King and Prophet figure-types, centered primarily on the figure of Moses (cf. 1:17; 3:14; 5:45-46; 6:32; 9:28-29); for an excellent treatment of this subject, see the now-classic study by Wayne Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (Brill: 1967 [reprinted by Wipf&Stock: 2017]). While the Johannine view of Jesus as the royal Messiah may, indeed, be influenced by Moses traditions, other passages suggest that the Gospel of John is following the broader early Christian Tradition of identifying Jesus as the Davidic Messiah (7:41-42). In any case, Jesus is clearly identified by the traditional royal designations “King of Israel” (1:49; 12:13, cf. also 12:15) and “King of the Jews” (18:33, 39; 19:3, 19, 21; cf. also 19:12, 14-15).

At the same time, there can be little doubt that the title Xristo/$ and the use of the term basileu/$ have also been shaped by the distinctive Johannine theology (and Christology), whereby Jesus is not only regarded as the Messiah, but also the (pre-existent) Son of God—i.e., the Son sent to earth from heaven by God the Father. The titles “Anointed One” (Xristo/$) and “Son of God” are held together in the Johannine confession (11:27; 20:31)—Jesus is the Anointed One, but also the Son sent from heaven by the Father. The use of the word basileu/$, and the idea of Jesus’ kingship, must be understood in the light of this Johannine theology. In contrast to the popular expectation of the Messiah, defined largely in socio-political terms (6:15; 19:12ff, and cf. the context of 12:13ff), the true nature of Jesus’ kingship is altogether different. For more on this, see upcoming the discussion on 18:36-37 (next week’s study).

In the Gospel of John, Jesus makes very little mention of the Kingdom of God; this is in contrast to the Synoptic Gospels, where the Kingdom features prominently, holding a central place in his teaching. Indeed, Jesus refers to the Kingdom in only two passages. The noun basilei/a (“kingdom”) occurs just five times in John (compared with 20 in Mark, 46 in Luke, and 55 in Matthew)—twice in 3:3, 5 and three times in 18:36.

John 3:3, 5

In the opening portion (vv. 3-8) of the Nicodemus Discourse of chapter 3 (vv. 1-21), Jesus twice refers to the “Kingdom of God” (h( basilei/a tou= qeou=), the only occurrences of this expression in the entire Gospel. It occurs in parallel sayings by Jesus, each of which begin with the solemn asseveration formula: “Amen, amen, I say/declare to you…”:

    • “…if one does not come to be (born) from above [a&nwqen], he is not able to see the kingdom of God” (v. 3)
    • “…if one does not come to be (born) out of water and (the) Spirit, he is not able to come into the kingdom of God” (v. 5)

The declarations have an identical formulation; there is thus a clear paradigmatic relationship between the points of difference. First, to be born “from above” (a&nwqen) is related to being born “out of water and the Spirit”. Elsewhere, the Johannine writings refer to believers in Christ as ones “having come to be (born) [vb genna/w] of God”; here, the Spirit of God is the source of the believer’s birth, which is quite appropriate, since God Himself is Spirit (4:24). With regard to the pairing of water and the Spirit, the majority of commentators take this as a reference to baptism, or to water as a symbol of the Spirit. However, as I have discussed in prior notes, I believe that the emphasis is on a contrast between water and the Spirit—part of the wider Jesus-John thematic contrast that runs throughout chapters 1-3. John baptizes with water, while Jesus baptizes with the Spirit (1:26, 33). There is a similar contrast here in 3:3-8, between an ordinary human birth out of water (i.e., the mother’s womb, v. 4), and birth out of the Spirit. This is parallel to the contrast between flesh and Spirit in verse 6. In addition to an ordinary physical/biological birth (i.e., of water/flesh), a human being must also be born “of the Spirit” (= “from above”).

There is also a relationship between the verbs used in verse 3 and 5, respectively. In verse 3, the result of being born “from above” (= of the Spirit) is that one is able “to see” (i)dei=n) the Kingdom of God. In verse 5, the result is that one is able “to come into” (ei)selqei=n) the Kingdom of God. The latter, using the verb ei)se/rxomai (or e&rxomai + ei)$, “come into”), is the traditional idiom of entering the Kingdom that we have encountered in prior studies (on the Kingdom-references in the Gospel Tradition, in particular). Only the person who has trusted in Jesus, having come to be born of God (i.e., of the Spirit), as His offspring (te/kna, cf. 1:12-13, etc), is able to enter the Kingdom. This entails more than simply a prerequisite of trust in Jesus; it also emphasizes the spiritual nature of the Kingdom of God. This is confirmed by the earlier saying in verse 3: unless one is born of the Spirit (i.e., “from above”), one is not able even to see the Kingdom of God.

This last point requires further comment, particularly with regard to the motif of sight/seeing within the Johannine theology. Throughout the Gospel Discourses, this thematic motif of sight/seeing occurs repeatedly—most notably in chapter 9, where the physical sight (and blindness) featuring in the traditional narrative (vv. 1-7) serves as a sign for the deeper motif of spiritual sight (and blindness) in the closing section (vv. 35-41). True sight refers to trust in Jesus, recognizing (i.e., seeing and knowing) that he is the Son sent from heaven by God the Father; similarly, blindness, in its true sense, means a failure/refusal to trust in Jesus.

When we, as believers, “see” the Kingdom of God (3:3), we are recognizing Jesus’ identity as the Son of God—and acknowledging his heavenly origin, from alongside the Father, in His heavenly Kingdom. The exposition by Jesus, in the remainder of the Discourse (vv. 10-21), deals with this Christology, as the sayings of vv. 3, 5ff are expounded further, more fulling in terms of the Johannine theology.

In the next study, we will explore second Kingdom-passage in the Gospel of John: the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate in 18:33-19:11, with the key Kingdom statements in 18:36-37.

“Who Is This Son of Man…?”: Daniel 7:13-14 (Part 3)

In Part 2 of this study, we explored the use of Daniel 7:13-14 in two Jewish writings from the first century A.D.: the Similitudes (or Parables) of Enoch, and 2/4 Esdras (also known as 4 Ezra). The time-frame and eschatological orientation of these works is significant in relation to the Gospel Tradition—particularly with regard to the expression “(the) son of man”. Actually, this expression does not occur in 2/4 Esdras; however, the vision in chapter 13 clearly alludes to the “(one) like a son of man” in Dan 7:13f. There are similar allusions in the Similitudes of Enoch, along with specific (and repeated) use of the expression “son of man”, in three different Ethiopic (Ge‘ez) formulations. The Similitudes offer a much more robust work for comparison with the Gospel Tradition; and, since the treatment of Dan 7:13f in 2/4 Esdras is generally comparable to that in the Similitudes, we can use the Similitudes as the basis for consideration of the Dan 7:13f tradition in first-century Judaism.

The Similitudes of Enoch and the Gospel Tradition

There are actually a number of significant (and meaningful) parallels between the use of the expression “son of man” in the Similitudes and the expression, as applied to Jesus, in the Gospel Tradition. The following three points may be noted for comparison:

    1. Daniel 7:13-14 is given an eschatological and Messianic interpretation, with the “(one) like a son of man” being understood as a Messianic figure. The specific title “(the) Anointed (One)” is applied to this figure.
    2. This figure is referred to by several Messianic titles, derived from Scriptural tradition (interpreted in a Messianic way), most notably: “the Righteous (One)” (e.g., Isa 53:11), and “the Elect/Chosen (One)” (Isa 42:1).
    3. Ultimately, this figure is identified with an exalted human being (“son of man”), a man who was exalted to a divine/heavenly position and status—namely, Enoch.

Let us briefly discuss each of these points.

1. Apart from the fact that the title “Anointed (One)” is used at 48:10 and 52:4, the general Messianic character of the “son of man” in the Similitudes is clear from his role in the end-time Judgment (cf. the discussion and references in Part 2)—acting as God’s representative in judging the nations, bringing punishment upon the wicked. At the same time, this figure functions as leader/ruler and protector of the righteous (the people of God). These are eschatological roles associated with several different Messianic figure-types, including the royal/Davidic type. The royal character of the “son of man” in the Similitudes is generally clear, even though specific references to his kingship tend to be avoided; for the author, it would seem that ultimately Kingship belongs to God, with the “son of man” as His subordinate ruler (and representative). The Davidic aspect of the royal figure-type is more or less absent from the Similitudes; this is a key point of difference with the Gospel Tradition, where Jesus’ specific identity as the Davidic Messiah (“son of David”) is very much emphasized (cf. Parts 6–8 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”).

2. The Messianic titles “Righteous (One)” and “Elect/Chosen (One)” are applied to the “son of man” in the Similitudes (38:2; 39:6; 40:5; 45:3-4; 49:2, 4; 51:3, 5; 52:6, 9; 53:6; 55:4; 61:5, 8, 10; 62:1) and also to Jesus in the Gospels and early Christian tradition. For the title “(the) Righteous (One)” ([o(] di/kaio$), see Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1 Jn 2:1; cf. also 1 Jn 2:29; 3:7; Matt 27:19; 2 Tim 4:8. The title “Elect/Chosen (One)” ([o(] e)klekto/$) occurs in Luke 23:35 and John 1:34 v.l., with an equivalent title using the verbal noun (perfect participle) e)klelegme/no$ in Luke 9:35; cf. also 1 Peter 2:4, 6 (citing Isa 28:16). There is a clear correspondence between “the Righteous (One)” in heaven and the community of the “righteous (one)s” on earth; similarly, the title “Elect/Chosen (One)” relates to the righteous people as “elect/chosen (one)s”. A similar correspondence is found in the New Testament, with believers in Christ referred to as “righteous (one)s” and “elect/chosen (one)s” (for the latter, cf. Mark 13:20ff; Lk 18:7; Rom 8:33; Col 3:12; 1 Pet 1:1, etc). The righteous are also referred to as “(the) holy (one)s” in the Similitudes, even as they are in Daniel 7 (vv. 18, 21-22, 25, 27). The parallelism in Daniel 7 suggests that the title “Holy (One)” could be applied to the heavenly figure (“[one] like a son of man”), even though that title is not actually used. Nor is it used of the Messianic figure in the Similitudes; however, it is a title applied to Jesus the Messiah in the New Testament (Mark 1:24 par; John 6:69; Acts 2:27 [13:35]; 3:14; 1 Jn 2:20; cf. also Lk 1:35; Acts 4:27, 30; Rev 3:7 [cf. 6:10; 16:5]). Believers, of course, are regularly referred to as “holy (one)s” (i.e., ‘saints’).

3. Surely the most distinctive parallel between the Similitudes and the Gospel Tradition is that the heavenly “son of man” (from Dan 7:13-14) is identified with an exalted human being—Enoch (70:1; 71:14, 17) and Jesus, respectively. In this regard, it would seem that the author of the Similitudes (at least, the person who made this identification) understood the expression “son of man” in the concrete sense of a human being. That is to say, this figure is not simply “like a son of man” (Dan 7:13); rather, he is a “son of man” (human being). He is an exalted human being, raised to become “that son of man” seen in the heavenly visions (46:1ff). It seems likely that the original application of the Dan 7:13-14 tradition to the person of Jesus was also focused on his exaltation to heaven. This, certainly, is the emphasis in the Mark 14:62 par saying—particularly in the Lukan version of the saying (22:69, see the recent study on Acts 7:55-56). The use of Dan 7:13f in the context of Jesus’ subsequent return to earth (Mark 13:26 par) probably represents a secondary application, even though it came to be the primary association for early Christians by the end of the first century (see the prior study dealing with Revelation 1:7; 14:14). It is from Jesus’ exalted position in heaven (primary point of reference) that he will return to earth (secondary reference), as he ushers in the end-time Judgment.

The Enoch/Jesus parallel is striking indeed, especially when one combines all three points of comparison outlined above. Is it possible that this treatment of Enoch as the “son of man” in the Similitudes could have influenced the Gospel Tradition—and even Jesus’ own use of the expression “the son of man”? Many New Testament scholars would answer in the affirmative. A dating of the Similitudes in the early first century makes such a line of influence at least conceivable. Even if Jesus and/or the early Christians did not know or make use of the Similitudes directly, it is possible that the tradition(s) regarding Enoch’s exaltation (to become the “son of man” figure of Dan 7:13-14) could have been in circulation during the first century, to be utilized as a traditional type-pattern applied to Jesus.

Personally, I can find no clear evidence for any such influence, apart from the general (though definite) parallels cited above. It may well be that the parallelism is coincidental, reflecting (at best) certain basic currents in Jewish eschatology and Messianic thought, as they relate to the interpretation of Daniel 7:13-14. Once the possibility, that the heavenly “(one) like a son of man” referred to an exalted human being, was established, there were only a few candidates available for such an identification. Clearly, Enoch was one of these, based on the tradition(s) regarding his exaltation to heaven (cf. Gen 5:24); Moses and Elijah are two others. The exaltation of Jesus naturally would lend itself to a similar identification. The idea of his exaltation, however, is not rooted in Scriptural tradition, but in the immediate historical tradition of his resurrection (and ascension to heaven). According to the early exaltation-Christology, the Divine/heavenly status and position of Jesus—his Messiahship and Divine Sonship—was understood primarily in terms of his resurrection and exaltation to heaven (at God’s right hand): cf. the emphasis especially in the early kerygma (Gospel proclamation), [Mark 16:19]; Acts 2:33-34; 5:31; 7:55-56 [Mk 14:62 par]; Rom 1:3-4; 8:34; Heb 1:3; 10:12; 1 Pet 3:22, etc. The place of the expression “(the) son of man” in the subsequent pre-existence Christology is less clear; it definitely played a role in the Johannine Christology (at least, in the Gospel). Some of the broader implications, in relation to orthodox Christology, will be discussed in the Conclusion to this series.

It is in the kerygma—the early Gospel preaching, as presented in the first half of the book of Acts—that the combination of elements found in the Similitudes is most clearly present: (1) Jesus as the Messiah, (2) the theme of his exaltation to heaven, and (3) the titles “Righteous (One)”, “Holy (One)”, and “Elect/Chosen (One)”; cf. the references above. In addition, the identification of Jesus with the “son of man” of Dan 7:13f is found in the context of the Acts sermon-speeches (7:55-56), where the emphasis is unquestionably on the exaltation of Jesus to heaven, echoing the Lukan version (22:69) of the “son of man” saying in Mk 14:62 par.

Another interesting parallel involves the use of the demonstrative pronoun in the Similitudes—viz., “that son of man”, utilizing the Ge‘ez demonstratives zekku (46:2; 48:2; 62:5, 9, 14; 63:11) and we’etu (69:26, 29; 70:1; 71:17)—and, in one case, “this son of man” (zentu, 46:4). In my studies on the Synoptic “son of man” sayings, I argued that translating the definite article (in the Greek “the son of man” [o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou]) effectively as a demonstrative, i.e., “th(is) son of man”, makes excellent sense for the use of the expression throughout the Tradition. Since, in the Gospels, Jesus is primarily using the expression as a self-reference, it becomes a way of referring to himself as ‘this particular person’. The demonstratives in the Similitudes have a different point of reference: they point back to the figure resembling a human being, whom Enoch sees in heaven in the vision (46:1ff)—that particular “son of man”. Still, one may note the general similarity of usage, whereby the expression “son of man” is used to refer to a specific, particular human being.

There is a further interesting use of the demonstrative pronoun—both ou!to$ (“this”) and e)kei=no$ (“that”)—in the New Testament, as a distinctive way of referring to Jesus. We see it, for example, at a number of points in the early Gospel preaching recorded in the book of Acts: 2:23, 32, 36; 4:11; 6:14; 17:3—where the usage is “this (one)” or “this Yeshua”. It is also part of the Johannine style, with the demonstratives frequently used in reference to Jesus—note, in particular, the use of e)kei=no$ (“that [one]”) in 1 John: 2:6; 3:3, 5, 7, 16; 4:17. The demonstrative pronoun often functions as the Divine subject within the Johannine essential predication: Divine subject | verb of being | predicate noun/phrase. Such statements provide essential information about Jesus (the Son)— “that/this (one) is …”. In terms of such essential predication, one may note the identification-statement made in John 5:27 (cf. the earlier study): “he is [e)stin] (the) son of man”. One is reminded again of the closing portion of the Similitudes (cf. Part 2), where Enoch also is identified as the “son of man”: “You (are) that son of man, who was born for righteousness…” (71:14).

Concluding Note on the Influence of Dan 7:13-14

There is no doubt that the sayings in Mark 13:26 and 14:62 pars allude to Daniel 7:13f. It remains highly debatable, however, whether (or to what extent) the same tradition informs the wider Gospel usage of the expression “the son of man”. Given the allusion in Mark 13:26 par, where the reference (in the Gospel context) is clearly to the return of the exalted Jesus to earth at the time of the Judgment, it might seem natural to assume that the expression in sayings such as Mark 8:38; Matt 13:41; 16:27-28; 24:27, 30, 37, 39 [pars], 44; Luke 18:8 would also have Dan 7:13f in mind. However, in none of those sayings is there any wording or terminology that might indicate a conscious reference or allusion to Daniel 7:13-14—apart from the expression “son of man” itself. If the Daniel 7 tradition has influenced these eschatological sayings, it did so only in a most subtle or generalized way.

This raises the question again as to the authenticity of the eschatological sayings. For commentators who would maintain that they are not authentic sayings by Jesus, it is entirely plausible that early Christians fashioned the sayings, in light of the tradition in Mark 13:26 par, identifying Jesus—in his end-time return—with the heavenly “son of man” figure in Daniel 7 (cf. Revelation 1:7; 14:14). However, if the eschatological sayings (any or all of them) are considered authentic sayings by Jesus, then the influence of Daniel 7, in my view, become less likely. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus makes use of the expression “the son of man” primarily as a self-reference; there being no definite or obvious allusions to Daniel 7 in the eschatological sayings (apart from Mk 13:26 par), it is fair to assume that the same usage applies. Jesus is referring to his own end-time role (in relation to the Judgment, etc). Some commentators have theorized that Jesus originally used the expression, in the eschatological sayings, in reference to a heavenly figure separate from himself; if so, then an allusion to Daniel 7 becomes more plausible. But, as previously discussed, such a theory is highly speculative, with little hard evidence to support it. The eschatological sayings remain problematic, when considered as authentic sayings by Jesus; this is a matter which will be discussed again in the Conclusion to this series.

I am forced to reject the line of interpretation which explains the Gospel usage of the expression (by Jesus), as a whole, as influenced by Daniel 7:13f. Admittedly, when the “son of man” sayings are considered from the standpoint of orthodox Christology, such an interpretation becomes more favorable. If one examines the sayings under the assumption of a pre-existence Christology, then the Gospel sayings—even those such as Mark 2:10, 28 par; 10:45—could be explained in terms of the incarnation of a heavenly “son of man” figure (viz., the pre-existent Christ). Yet I find no evidence, whatsoever, that such a pre-existence Christology informs any of the Synoptic sayings. The situation is rather different for the Johannine sayings, where the expression unquestionably does refer to the incarnation of the (pre-existent) Son. Yet, as we have seen, the Johannine sayings show virtually no evidence of influence from the Dan 7:13f tradition—with the possible exception of the saying in 5:27 (cf. the earlier study on this verse).

“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.