Supplemental Study: New Testament Eschatology and the Book of Daniel

Supplemental Study:
New Testament Eschatology and the Book of Daniel

Apart from the book of Isaiah (esp. Deutero-Isaiah, chaps. 40-66), no Old Testament writing influenced Jewish and early Christian eschatology more than the book of Daniel. The exact nature of this influence depends on how one dates the book and its composition. According to the standard critical view, the book, in the form we have it, was written around the year 165 B.C., though it may contain earlier traditions. This allows for the possibility that eschatological/apocalyptic themes in the book, which are also found in, for example, the Book of Enoch and a number of the Qumran texts (written earlier or around the same time), are not directly dependent on Daniel, but on a set of common traditions. By contrast, the traditional-conservative view holds that essentially the book is an authentic composition from Daniel’s own time (6th cent. B.C.). This would greatly increase the likelihood that similarities in the Qumran texts, etc, are inspired/influenced primarily, if not entirely, by the book of Daniel.

In this brief study, supplemental to the current series Prophecy and Eschatology in the New Testament, I will be examining several specific areas, as they relate to the use of Daniel in the New Testament:

    1. The use of Daniel in the Qumran texts
    2. The “Seventy Weeks” oracle in Dan 9:24-27
    3. The “Son of Man” vision in Dan 7:13-14ff
    4. The influence of the concluding visions in chapters 10-12

1. The use of Daniel in the Qumran texts

The book of Daniel features prominently in the Qumran texts (Dead Sea Scrolls), in several ways: (a) manuscripts of the book, (b) apocalyptic works influenced by Daniel, and (c) imagery and beliefs drawn from Daniel. The way the Qumran Community interpreted and applied the visions of the book is quite instructive for how the earliest Christians would have understood them as well.

a. Copies of Daniel at Qumran

There are eight manuscript copies of the book of Daniel among the Qumran texts, making it one of the most frequently copied Scriptures (after the Pentateuch, Isaiah, and Psalms). All of the manuscripts are quite fragmentary, but together they cover nearly the entire book. The relatively large number of copies is an indication of the importance and popularity of the book in the Qumran community.

b. The Pseudo-Danielic Writings

There are four texts which are sometimes referred to by the label “Pseudo-Daniel”, due to the presence of Daniel as a central character, or based on similarities to the Old Testament book. Like Dan 2:4b-7:28, these texts were all written in Aramaic.

The first text is represented, it seems, by two manuscripts (4Q243-244). Based on a reconstruction of the surviving fragments, a likely outline of the text can be established. Daniel is standing before Belshazzar (cf. Dan 5), and, like Stephen in his Acts 7 speech, delivers a history of God’s people which turns into a ‘prophecy’ of events which will occur in the Hellenistic period (as in Dan 10-11), and which, in turn, leads into a description of the end-time—after a period of great oppression, God’s people will be delivered and the holy kingdom established (cf. Dan 12:1ff). A second text, apparently with a similar structure and orientation, is preserved in a couple of small fragments (4Q245). Also surviving in a few fragments is the “Prayer of Nabonidus” (4Q242), which records an episode similar to that experienced by Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4, only here the central figure is king Nabû-na’id (Nabonidus, 556-539 B.C.). Many critical scholars, based on historical parallels with the Babylonian “Nabonidus Chronicle”, believe that the more authentic tradition may indeed have involved Nabonidus, who was replaced by Nebuchadnezzar in the Biblical account.

Especially significant is the fourth text, the famous 4Q246, surviving in a large fragment with two columns. It also has many parallels and similarities to the book of Daniel, in which a king’s troubling vision is interpreted by a prophet/seer (unnamed in the text as we have it). The seer announces events to come—a period of great distress, involving warfare among the kings/nations of the Near East (col. 1, lines 4-6), culminating in the rise of a great ruler who will bring an end to the wars (lines 7-9). A time of war and upheaval is mentioned again in column 2, lines 2-3, followed by the rise of the “people of God” (line 4). This has led some scholars to posit that the great ruler is actually a kind of ‘Antichrist’ figure who brings a false peace. The language used to describe him, however, makes this most unlikely. He is best viewed as a Messianic figure (of the Davidic-ruler type); and there are surprising parallels with the announcement of Jesus’ birth in Luke 1:32-33, 35. It is said of this person that:

    • “he will be great” (col. 1, line 7; Lk 1:32)
    • “he will be hailed as Son of God” (col. 2, line 1; Lk 1:35)
    • “he will be called Son of the Highest” (col. 2, line 1; Lk 1:32)
    • there is also reference to an “everlasting kingdom” (col. 2, lines 5, 9; Lk 1:33)

The rise of this figure is parallel to the rise of the “people of God”, similar to the pattern and structure we see in Daniel 7. Overall in the text, we see possible allusions to Dan 3:33; 4:31; 7:14, 27, and other portions of the book as well.

All of these texts provide evidence for the extent to which the book of Daniel (and/or its underlying traditions) helped to shaped the eschatological and apocalyptic worldview of the Qumran Community.

c. Other signs of influence at Qumran

There are numerous references or allusions to the book of Daniel in the Qumran texts; I point out here the most prominent of these.

i. The expression <ym!Y`h^ tyr!j&a^ (“after the days”, “following the days”, “[in] the following days”) is a common Semitic (and Old Testament) idiom; however, its distinctive eschatological connotation (“end of the days”, end time, etc) is probably due primarily to its occurrence in Daniel 2:28 and 10:14 (cf. also 8:19, 23; 12:8). It appears a number of times in the Qumran texts, such as: the Florilegium (4Q174, cf. below), the Damascus Document (CD 4:4; 6:11), the so-called ‘Messianic Rule’ (1QSa 1:1), the ‘Halakhic Letter’ (4QMMT C [4Q398] 13-16), and the Commentaries (pesharim) on Isaiah (4QpIsaa fr. 5-6, line 10) and Habakkuk 1QpHab 2:5-6).

ii. The so-called Florilegium (4Q174), in its surviving portion, consists of a series of Scripture verses which are given an eschatological (and Messianic) interpretation, viewed as referring to end-time events which were about to occur in the time of the Qumran Community. At the end of our surviving fragment, Daniel 12:10 is cited as an eschatological prophecy. We do not have the entire explanation/commentary on this verse, but it contains an allusion to Dan 11:32, and almost certainly would have been understood as applying to the Community as embodying the faithful ones of Israel at the end-time.

iii. The Commentary (pesher) on Habakkuk (§7) treats Hab 2:3, a verse which some commentators believe was utilized in the book of Daniel (8:17; 10:14; 11:27, 35; 12:12). While Daniel is not specifically cited here in the pesher, the astute readers of Scripture in the Qumran community would certainly have seen the connection. The theme in these verses is that there may be a ‘delay’ in the fulfillment of the prophecies. This allows for an exhortation to faithfulness, but also for the possibility that the ancient predictions of the coming end are about to be fulfilled in the Community’s own time.

iv. The Qumran texts record perhaps the earliest known attempt to make a precise calculation of when the end will occur, based on the “Seventy Weeks” oracle in Daniel 9 (cf. below), along with other time indicators given in the book. Naturally, the Community, like most groups with a strong eschatological orientation, believed that theirs was the time in which these things would come to pass. In the Damascus Document, a precise application of the “Seventy Weeks” oracle is made, in relation to the Community’s own history. CD 20:14 mentions the “forty years” which are to pass—i.e. from a particular point in their own recent history—which, according to their method of calculation, would complete the period of 490 (70 x 7) years prophesied in the book of Daniel.

2. The “Seventy Weeks” oracle in Dan 9:24-27

I have already presented a detailed examination of the background of this passage, as well as an exegetical analysis and interpretation, in an earlier study (part of the series “Yeshua the Anointed One”), and I will not repeat that here. Instead, I wish to focus specifically on the use of the passage in the Eschatological Discourse of Jesus, along with a brief consideration of its influence on 2 Thessalonians 2 and the early Christians “Antichrist” tradition.

At the beginning of vv. 14-23 in the Markan version of the Eschatological Discourse, Jesus states:

“And when you should see the ‘stinking thing of desolation’ [to\ bde/lugma th=$ e)rhmw/ew$] having stood where it is necessary (that it) not (be) [i.e. where it ought not to be]…then the (one)s in Yehudah must flee into the mountains…” (v. 14)

Matthew’s version here (24:15-16) is virtually identical, even including the same editorial aside (marked by the ellipsis above): “the (one) reading must put/keep (this) in mind”. The only difference is that in Matthew the allusion is made specific (“the [thing] uttered through Daniyyel the Foreteller”), and the phrase “where it is necessary (that it) not (be)” is explicitly identified with the Temple sanctuary: “…in the Holy Place”. Thus, in Matthew’s version, Jesus is describing a direct fulfillment of the thing prophesied in Dan 9:27—presumably meaning that some sort of idol/image is to be set up in the Temple, or that the holy place will be desecrated in a similar way. Luke’s version of this is radically different.

If we keep, for the moment, with the version in Mark/Matthew, we must ask what Jesus (and/or the Gospel writer) has in mind here. The editorial aside suggests that there is an accepted understanding or interpretation of this allusion, which the writer, at whatever point the aside was included (in Mark or an earlier source), would have assumed was known by his audience. Possibly Luke is clarifying this very interpretation, but there is no way of being certain on this point. The tradition in 2 Thessalonians 2 (cf. below), suggests that this is not the case; rather, a more literal kind of fulfillment of Dan 9:27 is in mind. The critical view, that the original passage refers to the actions of the Syrian ruler Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) c. 171-167 B.C., whether or not recognized by Jesus and his contemporaries, most likely serves as the pattern or model for what would take place in the great time of distress. As I mentioned in the earlier study on Dan 9:24-27, there are two possibilities which fit this pattern, and the historical context of the Eschatological Discourse (and the 1st century time frame of the Gospel tradition, c. 30-80 A.D.), reasonably well:

    • The emperor Gaius’ (Caligula) establishment of the imperial cult, including his statue which was to be placed in the Jerusalem Temple, transforming it into an imperial shrine (c. 40 A.D., Josephus, Antiquities 18.256-307). In his Commentary on Daniel (11:31), Jerome states that Antiochus IV had similarly set up an image of Jupiter (Zeus) Olympius in the Jerusalem Temple.
    • The transformation of Jerusalem into a (pagan) Roman city (Aelia Capitolina) in the reign of Hadrian, following the suppression of the Jewish (Bar-Kochba) revolt in 132-135 A.D.

If we wish to keep to the 1st century and the lifetime of the first disciples (Mark 13:30 par, etc) as a time frame, the first option is by far the closest fit, likely occurring less than 10 years after the end of Jesus’ ministry. Luke’s version (cf. Part 3 of the study on the Eschatological Discourse) more obviously relates to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., including the destruction and despoiling of the Temple. That interpretation also would generally fit within the lifetime of the disciples.

Many Christians today, under the realization that events described in the Discourse were not all fulfilled in the 1st century, naturally assume that much of it—including the allusion to Dan 9:27—still awaits fulfillment at a future time (and/or our own time). While this is an obvious solution to the problem, it tends to negate the significance of the passage for the first disciples and Jesus’ original audience. A solution which attempts to respect both sides of the equation—complete/accurate fulfillment without ignoring the original historical setting—usually involves a two-layer interpretation: partial fulfillment in the disciples’ own time (1st century) and complete fulfillment at a time yet to come.

The same difficulty arises when we turn to Paul’s own “eschatological discourse” in 2 Thessalonians 2 (to be discussed in an upcoming study in this series). In verses 3-4, Paul seems to be drawing upon the same Dan 9:27 tradition, as interpreted by early Christians—perhaps even referring to the exact Gospel tradition in Mark 13:14ff par. However, here it is not an image/statue of the ruler, but the ruler himself who “sits in the shrine of God”, indicating that he is God. If 2 Thessalonians is genuinely Pauline (as the text claims), then it was likely written around 50 A.D., or perhaps a bit earlier. The actions and policies of the emperor Gaius, c. 40 (cf. above) would have still been fresh in the minds of many Jewish and Christians; Paul may be envisioning and describing a similar sort of action, only on a more extreme scale of wickedness. Obviously there is a problem here in considering Paul’s discourse as authentic prophecy, since, by all accounts, nothing of the sort took place in the Jerusalem Temple while it stood. This has led commentators to adopt various solutions, none of which are entirely satisfactory. One option is to assume that the Temple setting should be understood figuratively, in terms of a wicked ruler desecrating the holy things of God (in a more general sense); this allows the prophecy still to apply to a future end-time ruler. A more literal interpretation would require that the Temple be rebuilt at a future time (a dubious proposition itself); yet, there is nothing at all in the text to indicate that Paul is speaking of any other Temple than the one standing in his day.

The Gospel tradition surrounding the reference to Dan 9:27 certainly played a role in the development of the early Christian “Antichrist” tradition, though it is not possible to trace this in detail. Roughly speaking, Paul’s account in 2 Thessalonians 2 appears to stand halfway between the saying in Mark 13:14 par and the Beast-vision(s) in the book of Revelation (esp. chapter 13). Revelation 13:11-18 describes a great world-ruler, along the lines of the Roman Empire/Emperor, who controls all of society and requires that all people worship him. This figure is typically referred to as “Antichrist”, though the word itself is never used in the book of Revelation, occurring only in the Letters of John (1 Jn 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 Jn 7), where it refers both to a spirit of false belief and to false believers who act/speak according to this spirit. Many commentators assume that 1 Jn 2:18 also refers to an early form of the “Antichrist” tradition similar to the “man of sin/lawlessness” in 2 Thess 2, but I am by no means convinced of this. It does, however, reflect the common worldview that, as the end-time approaches, wicked leaders and rulers, false Christs and false prophets, etc, would arise and exercise baleful power/influence over people at large. There is every reason to think that much of this expectation goes back to Jesus’ own teaching, such as is preserved in the Eschatological Discourse.

3. The “Son of Man” vision in Dan 7:13-14ff

I have also examined this particular passage in considerable detail as part of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”, and will here limit the discussion to its influence on the New Testament and early Christian tradition. Three areas will be dealt with: (a) the sayings of Jesus in Mark 13:26-27; 14:62, etc; (b) the references in Revelation 1:7, 13; 14:14; and (c) its relation to the early Christian expectation of Jesus’ future return.

a. Mark 13:26-27; 14:62 par

I discussed the background of the title “Son of Man”, and its use to designate a Messianic figure-type, in Part 10 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”. This eschatological use of the title comes primarily, if not exclusively, from Daniel 7:13-14. Taken together with the references to Michael (10:13ff; 12:1ff), who is identified with the “one like a son of man” in Dan 7 by many commentators, we have the portrait of a divine/heavenly figure who functions as God’s appointed representative to deliver His people, bring about the Judgment, and establish the Kingdom of God at the end-time. This, indeed, is the very sort of picture we see in Jesus’ eschatological sayings involving the “Son of Man”. Nowhere is this stated to precisely as in the Eschatological discourse, where the appearance of the Son of Man is described (in the Markan version) as follows:

“And then they will look with (open) eyes at the Son of Man coming in/on (the) clouds with great power and splendor. And then he will set forth the Messengers and they will bring together upon (one place) the (chosen one)s gathered out, (from) out of the four winds, from (the farthest) point of earth unto (the farthest) point of heaven.” (13:26-27)

This clearly draws upon the image in Dan 7:13, where the “one like a son of man” is seen coming “with the clouds of heaven”. In Daniel, the heavenly/divine figure comes toward God (the ‘Ancient of Days’); but, according to the basic eschatological framework (based on Dan 12:1ff, etc), this has shifted to an appearance on earth at the end-time. The Son of Man comes to deliver the elect/chosen ones among God’s people, and to usher in the Judgment. There is some thought among (critical) commentators that Jesus here, and in other Son of Man sayings, is referring to a separate divine/heavenly figure and not to himself. While Mk 13:26 par, in its original context, could conceivably be interpreted this way, the subsequent saying in 14:62 par, during Jesus’ interrogation before the Jewish Council (Sanhedrin), cannot. The Synoptic tradition, despite some variation among the Gospels, is quite clear on this point. The Council (High Priest, in Mark/Matthew) asks Jesus specifically about his identity and self-understanding: “Are you the Anointed (One), the Son of the Blessed (One)?” (v. 61). This is the context for the Son of Man saying which follows:

“I am; and you will look with (open) eyes at the Son of Man sitting out of the giving (hand) [i.e. at the right hand] of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” (v. 62)

The phrase “with the clouds of heaven” is a more direct quote from Dan 7:13 than in Mk 13:26. It is joined with an allusion, almost certainly, to Psalm 110:1, reflecting (and introducing) the idea, which would become so prominent in the earliest Christian tradition, of Jesus’ exaltation to God’s right hand (in Heaven) following the resurrection. Since it is stated that the people in the Council will see the Son of Man coming, this is usually understood in terms of the Son of Man’s end-time appearance on earth. However, in light of the actual context of Dan 7:13-14, and traditional references such as in Acts 7:55-56, some commentators would interpret this differently. For example, W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, in their commentary on Matthew in the Anchor Bible series, argued strongly that all these references to the Son of Man’s coming in glory originally referred to the exaltation of Jesus—his coming to God the Father in Heaven (as in Dan 7:13f); only secondarily did early Christians apply this in terms of Jesus’ future return. I do not agree with this interpretation, especially as it relates to the eschatological description in Mk 13:26-27, since it would ignore the rather clear tradition of the end-time deliverer’s appearance (from Dan 12:1ff), so central to much Jewish eschatology of the period.

b. Revelation 1:7, 13; 14:14

The book of Revelation cites or alludes to Daniel 7:13-14 several times as well. The first is the poetic utterance at the close of the introduction, which combines Zech 12:10 along with Dan 7:13:

“See, he comes with the clouds—and every eye will look on him, even the same (one)s who stabbed out (into) him, and all the offshoots [i.e. tribes/races] of the earth will beat (themselves) over him. Yes, amen.” (1:7)

Interestingly, the same two Scriptures are also brought together in Matthew’s version (24:30) of the Son of Man saying in Mk 13:26 (above). There can be no doubt that here Dan 7:13 refers to a visible appearance to the people on earth at the end-time. All of the book of Revelation emphasizes the status/position of the exalted Jesus—this traditional usage of Dan 7:13 brings out the motif, otherwise associated with the Son of Man figure in the Gospel tradition, of Jesus’ return in divine glory.

Verse 13 is part of the introductory vision (of the exalted Jesus), and it is an even more precise quotation from Dan 7:13. Strictly speaking, it is not the title “Son of Man”, as used by Jesus in the Gospel tradition; rather, the description goes back to the actual wording of the original Daniel vision:

“…and, in the middle of the lamp(stand)s, (one) like a son of man, sunk in [i.e. clothed with] (a garment down) to the feet, and having been girded about…with a golden girdle.” (v. 13)

This identifies the exalted Jesus precisely with the heavenly “Son of Man” figure in Dan 7. Much the same occurs in the visionary description of 14:14:

“And I saw [i.e. looked], and see!—a white cloud, and upon the cloud was sitting (one) like a son of man, holding upon his head a golden crown/wreath and in his hand a sharp tool (for) plucking [i.e. sickle].”

This brings together three distinct eschatological elements:

    • The exalted Jesus as the Son of Man figure in Daniel
    • His visible appearance in/on the clouds, and
    • The coming of the Son of Man figure to bring about the end-time Judgment

These last two references in the book of Revelation are, apart from Stephen’s vision in Acts 7:55-56 (which echoes Mk 14:62 par), the only occurrences of the title/expression “Son of Man” in the New Testament outside of the Gospels.

c. Jesus’ Return in early Christian Tradition

The extent to which Daniel 7:13-14 influenced early Christian eschatology, this appears to have taken place almost entirely through the Gospel tradition. I note several relevant examples:

    • The imagery of the Ascension narrative in Acts (1:9), where it is stated that Jesus was visibly “taken up” into a cloud, and it is announced to the disciples (v. 11) that Jesus will return just as he was taken up—i.e. in/on the clouds.
    • In Paul’s (only) description of Jesus’ future return, 1 Thess 4:17, believers will be snatched up into the clouds, where we/they will meet Jesus—i.e. his presence/appearance is in/on the clouds. This seems to reflect the basic tradition in Mk 13:26-27 par.
    • The frequent theme in early Christian preaching, of Jesus’ exaltation to Heaven, implies that he comes toward the Father, where he receives a position in glory at God’s right hand (Mk 12:36 par; [16:19]; Acts 2:33-34; 5:31; Rom 8:34; Phil 2:9; Heb 1:3, etc). Again, it is fair to say that this basic belief reflects the combination of Dan 7:13 and Psalm 110:1 expressed in Mk 14:62 par. It is from that position in Heaven, in glory, that Jesus will come to judge the world (Acts 17:31, etc).

4. The Influence of the Visions in Daniel 10-12

From the standpoint of the structure of the book of Daniel, chapters 7-12 should be taken together, as a collection of oracles and visions of events to come—covering the Hellenistic period (to at least the time c. 165-4 B.C.), and culminating in the eschatological period (time of the end), however this is to be defined (and interpretations differ widely). Since we have already discussed chapter 7 and 9, it is worth focusing here on the visions in chapters 10-11, and, especially, the concluding scene in chapter 12. These three chapters played a significant role in shaping Jewish and early Christian eschatology. There are several factors to be noted:

    • The presence of the heavenly being Michael as protector/deliverer of the faithful (10:13, 21; 12:1)
    • The period of warfare and persecution, detailed particularly in chaps. 10-11; there is a heavenly component to this warfare as well which suited eschatological and apocalyptic thinking.
    • The rise of wicked rulers and powers, who are described symbolically as animals/beasts (also in chapters 7-8); the descriptions in chaps. 10-11 build more readily upon the famous passage in 9:24-27.
    • The expression of a distinct eschatological/apocalyptic world view—history progressing, growing in violence and wickedness, to culminate in a sudden and intense period of suffering and distress before the appearance of the end.

In addition, there are a number of specific details in chapter 12, in particular, which are of tremendous importance:

    • The appearance of the heavenly savior-figure (Michael) at the end time (v. 1)
    • The reference to a period of great distress which will engulf all the nations (v. 1)
    • Association with the time of the resurrection, with the implied Judgment (v. 2)
    • The separation of the righteous and the wicked (v. 2-3, 10ff)
    • The heavenly/eternal reward of the righteous, following the Judgment (v. 3)
    • The events/time of the end as a secret or mystery hidden away (sealed) (v. 4, 9)
    • Daniel’s question of “when / how long?” (v. 6), with the visionary/heavenly answer (vv. 7ff)
    • A period of intense persecution of God’s people (vv. 7ff)
    • The time-indicators and connection back to 9:24-27 (vv. 7, 11-12)

We saw above (Section 1) the way in which Dan 12:1ff influenced the eschatology (and Messianism) of the Qumran texts. Similarly, a careful reading of the Synoptic Eschatological Discourse (Mark 13 par), especially in verses 14-27, shows that Jesus is drawing significantly upon Daniel 12. The statement in verse 19 is virtually a quotation from Dan 12:1:

“For (in) those days (there) will be distress of which there has not come to be such as this, from the beginning of the formation (of the world) which God formed until the (time) now, and (there certainly) would not come to be (so again)!”

The entire period of distress described in vv. 14-22, and beginning with the allusion to Dan 9:27 (cf. also 12:11), seems to have chapter 12 in mind. Moreover, the time of warfare mentioned in vv. 7-8 could easily refer to Dan 10-11. Given the similarity (and traditional association) between Michael and the heavenly “Son of Man” figure, Jesus’ description of the Son of Man’s sudden appearance (vv. 26-27) to deliver the elect fits well with the reference to Michael in Dan 12:1. Also, the time of persecution (of the disciples), with the climactic exhortation to endure until the end is reflected at several points in Dan 12.

Other (eschatological) sayings and teachings of Jesus may allude to these chapters as well. Cf. for example, Matt 10:22 (Dan 12:12-13); 13:43 (Dan 12:3); 25:46, also John 5:29 (Dan 12:2); Luke 10:21b (Dan 12:1). Their influence may be reflected variously at other points in the New Testament, such as in Paul’s description of the “man of sin/lawlessness” in 2 Thess 2:3ff (cf. Dan 11:36, etc), or in the numerous exhortation to be faithful and endure until the end (James 1:12, etc).

The book of Revelation is, of course, heavily influenced by the book of Daniel, and also these chapters in particular. These are being discussed throughout the current series of daily notes on Revelation, but we may highlight some of the more important themes and motifs here:

    • The important position of Michael, who engages in heavenly warfare with the wicked powers (as in Daniel 10, cf. above)—Rev 12:7-9ff
    • The sealing of the visionary book, only to be opened at the time of the end (Dan 12:4, 9; also 8:26; 9:24)—Rev 5-6; 8:1ff; also 10:4; 22:10
    • The period of “great distress”, and of the faithful believers who come through this time and receive heavenly/eternal reward (Dan 12:1ff)—Rev 1:9; 7:14 (cf. chap 6 and subsequent visions in the book)
    • The specific idiom “time, times, and half a time” (i.e. 3½ years) in Dan 12:7, 14 (cf. also 9:27 where the same period of time is indicated)—Rev 12:14
    • The Beast-visions in Revelation 13 (also subsequent chapters) are largely inspired by the book of Daniel—the famous visions in chapters 4 and 7, but also in the kings and powers at war in chapters 10-11 (cf. 11:36, etc)

2 Cor 6:14-7:1 and the Dead Sea Scrolls

This article is meant to supplement the discussion on 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 in the current Saturday Series studies, especially with regard to the source-critical question—whether, or in what manner, the passage may derive from a separate early Jewish-Christian source. The most recent study addresses the evidence regarding the Jewish-Christian character of the passage. In some ways, this must be considered separately from the question of Pauline authorship, since Paul himself certainly could have made use of pre-existing material in his letter. However, many commentators consider 6:14-7:1 to have more affinity with other Jewish writings of the period than to the other (undisputed) Pauline letters. In particular, parallels have been pointed out with the Qumran (Dead Sea Scroll) texts. This article will briefly examine this in relation to three specific areas:

    1. The thematic/conceptual framework of ritual purity, and its importance for religious identity in terms of separation from non-believers
    2. The strong dualism of the passage, especially as applied to the contrast between dikaiosýn¢ (“righteousness, justice”) and anomía (“lawlessness”)
    3. Use of the name Belíal

As the last of these is simplest to address, I will discuss it first.

The name Belíal

The word Belíal (Beli/al), here in the variant spelling Belíar (Beli/ar), is never used by Paul elsewhere in his letters, even in situations where he may have had occasion to; in fact, it does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament at all. It is a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew lu^Y^l!B= (b®liyya±al), a (proper) noun occurring 27 times in the Old Testament. In the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version, it is always translated, rather than transliterated, except in the A-text of Judges 20:13. Unfortunately the exact meaning and derivation of the word remains uncertain; two theories have been the most popular:

    • As a compound of: (1) the verbal form b®lî (yl!B=), “be(com)ing old, worn”, used as an adverb/particle of negation (i.e., “not, without”), together with (2) a (verbal) form of the root y±l (lu^y`), “(be of) benefit”. Thus the word would mean something like “(of) no benefit, worthless(ness)”.
    • A noun from the root b¹la± (ul^B*), with the fundamental meaning “swallow”, presumably relating to the ancient image of Death/Sheol as a devouring power with a ravenous appetite (and wide gulping mouth), or to the consumption/decay associated with death and grave generally.

Neither explanation is especially convincing, though it would seem that b®liyya±al is a compound noun/name, akin to ±¦z¹°z¢l (Lev 16:8ff), and perhaps formed according to a similar pattern. Ultimately, the meaning has to be determined by the context of its use in the Old Testament. The oldest usage would seem to be preserved in several examples of early poetry, especially in Psalm 18:5[4] (= 2 Sam 22:5), where it is synonymous with “Death” (m¹we¾) and “Sheol” (š®°ôl, see my recent article for more on this term). The expression “deadly (poison) of Beliyya’al” (d®»ar b®liyya±al) in Psalm 41:9[8] (also 101:3) likely stems from the same use of b®liyya±al as a name for Death.

Much more frequent is the expression “son/s of Beliyya’al”, ben / b®nê b®liyya±al (Deut 13:14; Judg 19:22; 20:13; 1 Sam 2:12; 10:27; 25:17; 1 Kings 21:10, 13; 2 Chron 13:7), along with the parallel (and more or less equivalent) expression “man/men of Beliyya’al”, °îš / °anšê b®liyya±al (1 Sam 25:25; 30:22; 2 Sam 16:7; 20:1; 1 Kings 21:13; Prov 16:27), °¹¼¹m b®liyya±al (Prov 6:12); also “daughter [ba¾] of Beliyya’al” in 1 Sam 1:16. In Hebrew, the word ben (“son”) is often used in the sense of a person belonging to a particular group or category, i.e. possessing a set of certain characteristics in common, and so it must be understood in these instances. It refers to a Beliyya’al-like person, someone who “belongs” to Beliyya’al, with evidence (by his/her attitudes and behavior) of similar characteristics. The context of the passages cited above makes clear that a “son/man of Beliyya’al” essentially refers to a person who violates and disrupts the order of things—either in a specific social (or religious) setting, or within society at large. This relates more to the idea of hostility, chaos, and confusion (i.e. disorder), rather than the more direct association with Death in the (older?) poetic references mentioned above.

It is hard to say whether, in the expression “son/man of Beliyya’al”, the word b®liyya±al is used in an abstract sense, or as a proper noun (i.e. personal name). Both are possible, though the parallel with Death/Sheol in Psalm 18:5, etc, suggests that an ancient (mythological) personification of death (and the grave) informs the usage. This figurative association would naturally extend to encompass the idea of chaos, confusion, and destruction—all related to the realm of death and “non-existence”, i.e. the primal condition of the universe (as a dark, formless mass [see Gen 1:2 etc]) prior to the establishment of the created order by God. At the same time, b®liyya±al is clearly synonymous with the more abstract concepts of “evil” (r¹±), “wickedness” (reša±) and “trouble” (°¹wen), especially in the Wisdom writings (Prov 6:12; 16:27; 19:28; Job 34:18). Most likely, this is a secondary development, from the expression “son/man of Beliyya’al”, and the characteristic of a such a person as a wicked trouble-maker (see the generalized usage, where the expression is implied, in 2 Sam 23:6; Nahum 1:11; 2:1 [1:15]). A wicked/evil thought, expressed by d¹»¹r b®liyya±al (Deut 15:9; Psalm 101:3 [?]), may involve wordplay with an older poetic expression “deadly (poison) [dbr] of Beliyya’al” (Ps 41:9, cf. above).

We do not encounter the word/name Beliyya’al again until the first centuries B.C., when it appears in a number of surviving Jewish texts of the period. (e.g., Jubilees 1:20). Already in Greek texts (and translations) of the time, the variant spelling Belíar (instead of Belíal) is attested as a transliteration of the Hebrew word. Most notably, b®liyya±al occurs frequently in the Qumran texts, where it is used to refer to an evil figure opposed to God, personifying (and governing) the darkness and wickedness of the current (evil) Age. As such, the name is more or less synonymous (though not necessarily equivalent) with “(the) Sa‰an” or “Devil” (diabólos in Greek). This is a significant development from the earlier Hebrew expression “son(s) of Beliyya’al”. Now, those who ‘belong’ to Beliyya’al are defined in a most pronounced dualistic sense as the “sons of darkness”, opposed to God and the “sons of light” (i.e. the Qumran Community); and the wicked “sons of darkness” will be destroyed (along with Beliyya’al) by God’s end-time Judgment that is about to be ushered in. Not surprisingly, Beliyya’al features prominently in the War Scroll (1QM 1:1, 5, 13; 13:2, 4-5, 11); for other passages, I would note: the Community Rule [1QS] 1:18; 2:4-5, 19; the Damascus Document [CD/QD] 4:13ff; 5:18-19; 12:2; the Florilegium [4Q174] col. i. 8f and Testimonia [4Q175] 23.

There is even a closer parallel with 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 to be found in the so-called Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, a collection of Jewish pseudepigraphic writings, inspired by Genesis 49. The underlying material and tradition is Jewish, but there are signs of subsequent Christian editing and adaptation as well. The name Beliyya’al occurs frequently in the Testaments—Greek form regularly Belíar, as in 2 Cor 6:15—nearly 30 times: Asher 1:8; 3:2; Benjamin 3:3, 5, 8; 6:1, 7; 7:1-2; Dan 1:7; 4:7; 5:1, 10-11; Issachar 6:1; 7:7; Joseph 7:4; 20:2; Judah 25:3; Levi 3:3; 18:12; 19:2; Naphtali 2:6; 3:2; Reuben 4:8, 11; 6:4; Simeon 5:3; Zebulun 9:8. There is also here a dualistic contrast between the Law of God and the “works of Beliar”, with an exhortation throughout for people to shun and flee (i.e. separate from) this wickedness of Beliar, especially in light of the Judgment about to come upon the world. The exhortation in Test. Levi 19:1-2 is perhaps the closest in form and substance to 2 Cor 6:14ff:

“…choose for yourselves light or darkness, the Law of the Lord or the works of Belial!”

As noted above, in the Septuagint, the Hebrew word b®liyya±al is always translated, rather than transliterated, using a number of different Greek words, such as: loimós (“pest[ilence]”), paránomos (one who “[step]s alongside [i.e. violates] the law”), aseb¢¡s (“without [proper] reverence”), anomía (“without law, lawless[ness]”), hamartœlós (“erring, sinful”), and áphrœn (“without [good] sense”). Especially in the expression “son/man of Beliyya’al”, the word b®liyya±al indicates a violation or disruption of order in society, and thus suggests a semantic range reasonably close to anomía (“without law, lawlessness”) in Greek. As such, Belíal (or Belíar) is a fitting parallel to anomía in 2 Cor 6:14-15. It is possible that Paul has the Hebrew idiom in mind in 2 Thessalonians 2 (vv. 3, 8), when he uses the expressions “the lawless (one)” (ho ánomos), “the man of lawlessness” (ho ánthrœpos t¢s anomías), and “the son of ruin/destruction” (ho huiós t¢s apœleías); if so, he translates b®liyya±al for his Greek audience rather than using a transliterated form.

The Idea of Ritual Purity

In my view, the question of Pauline authorship of 6:14-7:1 ultimately hinges on the motif of ritual purity in the section, how it applied to believers, and whether (or not) this accords with Paul’s thought as expressed elsewhere in his letters. As it happens, 1 and 2 Corinthians are the most relevant writings, since they are by far the longest and most extensive letters written by Paul, to congregations with whom he was intimately familiar, and which address many practical ethical issues facing believers as they conduct their lives (and govern their congregations) within the wider Greco-Roman society. I will be discussing this aspect of 6:14-7:1 in considerable detail in the next Saturday Series study on the passage; here I will only summarize the evidence briefly, before turning to the Qumran texts.

As far as the regulations in the Torah relating to ritual purity, Paul’s view on the matter seems quite clear (for detailed studies on this, cf. my series “Paul’s View of the Law”). Believers are free from the Law, and the Torah regulations are no longer binding; this is as true of the various purity laws not mentioned by Paul as it is of circumcision and dietary laws (which he does discuss). His relationship with the apostolic “decree” from the Jerusalem Council is uncertain at best, since he never once refers to it in his letters, and may have been unaware of it at the time(s) of writing (despite the notice in Acts 16:4 [compare 21:25]). More important would be examples in his letters where Paul uses ideas or language related to ritual purity, applying it (figuratively) to believers. I would note the following:

    • Rom 6:12-13, 19—there is perhaps a faint allusion to the purity of sacrificial offerings (i.e. service at the altar) in the idea of believers presenting themselves before (vb paríst¢mi, lit. “[make] stand alongside”) God (cf. also the quasi-ritual context of the image in 2 Cor 11:2); it is noteworthy that v. 19 contains the same juxtaposition of dikaiosýn¢ (“righteousness”) and anomía (“lawlessness”) that we find in 2 Cor 6:14 (see below).
    • 1 Cor 5:6-8—Passover imagery (esp. that of unleavened bread) is applied to believers, exhorting them not to associate with persons engaged in sexual immorality (vv. 1-2, 9-13f); the main difference with 2 Cor 6:14ff is that here it directed specifically against believers engaged in sinful behavior and not non-believers.
    • 1 Cor 6:19—the bodies of believers are identified (symbolically) with the Temple, which had to be kept ceremonially pure (a primary concern of the Torah purity laws); here we find perhaps the closest example of ritual purity meant to symbolize believers separating themselves from the immorality of the surrounding society (vv. 9ff, 13-18).
    • 1 Cor 10:6-13—the application of the Golden Calf episode (Exod 32; note the implicit context of ceremonial purity in 19:10-15) to the very matter addressed in 2 Cor 6:14-7:1, namely, believers separating from the idolatrous culture around them (vv. 7-8, 14ff).

When we consider the situation in the Qumran texts, there is naturally a much greater emphasis on holiness in terms of ritual purity, since (a) the Community’s religious identity was based on strict observance of the Torah (including the purity regulations), and (b) it also identified itself with the Priestly line (“sons of Zadok”), including many priests who has separated from the ruling priesthood and Temple establishment, which itself was viewed as impure and corrupt. The very idea of the Community involved separation from the surrounding society—both the Greco-Roman world and other Israelites (“sons of darkness”, dominated by Belial [see above])—to join with the “sons of light”. This was a real separation, into a communalistic, sectarian organization, much moreso than was the case with early Christian congregations (though the initial Jerusalem community was perhaps closer to this model). The so-called “Community Rule” document (1QS) is perhaps the best source for the religious self-identity of the Qumran Community—e.g., 5:1f, 6, 13-20; 8:5ff; 9:5f, 8-9. Cf. also the Damascus Document [CD] 6:14-18; 12:19-20, and many other passages.

Dualism

For a definition and explanation of the term “dualism”, see my recent article on the subject. There is an especially strong dualistic outlook in 6:14-7:1, which, indeed, is central to the idea of separation within the religious-thematic framework of ritual purity (see the discussion above). This dualistic “separation” is expressed several ways, corresponding to the (poetic) parallelism of the passage:

    • Believer vs. Non-believer—pístos  vs. ápistos (lit. “trusting” and “without trust”) [v. 14a, 15b]
    • Dikaiosýn¢ vs. Anomía (“righteousness/justice” vs. “lawlessness”) [v. 14b]
    • Light (fœ¡s) vs. Darkness (skótos) [v. 14c]
    • Christ vs. Belial [v. 15a]
    • Shrine of God vs. (Pagan) Images [v. 16a]
    • Clean [implied] vs. Unclean (akáthartos) [v. 17a]
    • Stain/soiling (moslysmós) vs. Purity, i.e. holiness (hagiosýn¢) [7:1]

To be sure, Paul himself frequently makes use of a dualistic mode of expression in his letters; indeed certain of these contrasts (e.g. light/darkness) are practically universal in religious/ethical teaching (cf. 1 Thess 5:5; Rom 13:12, etc). However, it is the especially strong dualistic imagery here, informed by the idea of (ritual) purity, and aimed at religious-cultural separation, that many commentators feel is foreign to Paul’s thought in his letters.

In particular, the noun dikaiosýn¢ (“righteousness, justice”), used frequently by Paul in the specific theological sense (and context) of human beings being justified (lit. “made right”) before God through the work of Jesus, here seems to have a rather different emphasis. In 6:14 it is used in the more conventional religious sense, so it would seem, of right behavior, i.e. in contrast with “lawlessness” (anomía, lit. being “without law”). While this latter word could refer specifically to the Torah, it often denoted generally the violation of social and religious standards, i.e. “sin, iniquity, immorality”, but could also connote flagrant opposition to religion and God himself. The noun occurs 6 other times in the Pauline letters (Rom 4:7 [citation]; 6:19 [twice]; 2 Thess 2:3, 7; also Tit 2:14), with the related adjective ánomos 6 times (1 Cor 9:21 [4 times]; 2 Thess 2:8; also 1 Tim 1:9), and the adverb anómœs twice (in Rom 2:12). Paul alternates between using these words in the literal sense of “without (the) Law [i.e. Gentiles without the Torah]”, and the general sense of “wickedness, etc”. The only other instance where Paul directly contrasts anomía (“lawlessness”) with dikaiosýn¢ (“righteousness”) is Romans 6:19, an exhortation (for believers) that is reasonably close to the line of thought in 2 Cor 6:14ff (see above).

Some commentators, however, would find even closer parallels in the Qumran texts, especially the key sectarian writings that establish most clearly the Community’s religious identity. This was touched on above, in the section on ritual purity; however, it is worth noting the pervasive dualism with which this was expressed. While light vs. darkness is a common religious motif, for the Qumran Community it was absolutely a way of defining themselves—as “sons of light” vs. “sons of darkness”. All the other nations, as well as the wicked/unfaithful in Israel, belonged to the darkness (and under the domain of Belial, see above), while only the Community, the faithful ones, belonged to the light. Evidence of their belonging to the light was their strict adherence to the Torah, and to the inspired teaching/guidance of the Community. Of many passages, cf. 1QS [Community Rule] 1:9-11; 2:16-17; 3:3, 13, 19-20ff; 1QM [War Scroll] 1:1, 3, 9ff; 13:5-6, 9; 4QFlor [4Q174] col. i. 9.

This same dualism was expressed, naturally enough, by a contrast between “righteousness” (ƒ®d¹qâ  hdqx) and “iniquity” (±¹wel  lwu = “lawlessness”), as Paul does in Rom 6:19 etc; however, for the Qumran Community (and contrary to Paul), this was defined more precisely along the lines of (ritual) purity employed in 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 (cf. above). Again, many passages could be cited, among which I would note: 1QS 1:4-5; 5:1-4; 1QH [Hymns] VI [XIV]. 15-16; IX [I]. 26-27. It was adherence to the Law (Torah) and the Community’s teaching, etc, that constituted “righteousness”, demonstrating that a person was, indeed, “righteous”. And central to much of the Torah, and the Community, was the idea of separation—that is, religious separation (i.e. from non-believers, what is unclean, etc)—so clearly emphasized in 2 Cor 6:14-7:1. The extent to which this is in accord (or not) with Paul’s own thought and teaching continues to be debated. I will be discussing the matter further in the next Saturday Series study.

Conclusion

To the evidence above, one might add that, according to some commentators, the manner of citing Scripture passages in 2 Cor 6:16-18 better fits the catena-format used at Qumran than Paul’s own style (a debatable point, to be sure). Also, while the Scriptural citations and allusions are not utilized elsewhere by Paul, we do find them in the Qumran texts—2 Sam 7:14 in 4QFlor i.11, and Ezek 20:34 (perhaps) in 1QM 1:2-3. These are minor points compared with the three areas discussed above, and even those, in and of themselves, are not especially strong arguments against Pauline authorship, with the possible exception of the use of the name Belial. It is the cumulative effect of the evidence that convinces many critical commentators. The parallels between 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 and the Qumran texts have even led some to declare that the former is “a Christian exhortation in the Essene [i.e., Qumran] tradition” or “a Christian reworking of an Essene paragraph” (cf. Furnish, p. 377, citing J. Gnilka and J. A. Fitzmyer). Few commentators today would go that far, the tendency now being to downplay considerably the idea of any direct influence on the New Testament from Qumran. Instead, most New Testament scholars today would speak in terms of the wider Jewish milieu, that both Qumran and early Christian Communities inherited many similar ideas, techniques, modes of interpretation, etc, within the Judaism of the period, and that this accounts for most, if not all, of the evident parallels.

The use of the name Belial remains perhaps the most notable ‘non-Pauline’ feature discussed above; its frequent occurrence in Jewish writings of the first centuries B.C./A.D., and, in particular, the usage in the (Christianized) Jewish material of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, offers us a window on the kind of Jewish-Christian homiletic we see in 2 Cor 6:14-7:1. However, based on this evidence alone, one cannot simply exclude Pauline authorship of the section, though, at the very least, it does increase the likelihood that Paul may have made use of pre-existing (Jewish-Christian) material in his letter.

References above marked “Furnish” are to Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians, Anchor Bible [AB] Vo. 32A (1984).
“Gnilka” refers to the study by J. Gnilka, “2 Cor 6:14-7:1 in the light of the Qumran texts and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs” in Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. by J. Murphy O’Connor and James H. Charlesworth (Geoffrey Chapman Ltd.: 1968); originally published in Neutestamentliche Aufsätze, Festschrift J. Schmid (1963).

“Secret…”: Conclusion (Rev 1:20; 10:7)

This series on the use of the word musth/rion (“secret”) in the New Testament concludes with today’s study. The last two references to be addressed are Revelation 1:20 and 10:7 (see the previous study, on Rev 17:5, 7).

Revelation 1:20; 10:7

To begin with, we have the statement by the one “like a son of man” (v. 13) to the seer (John) in 1:20:

“The secret of the seven stars, which you saw in my giving [i.e. right] (hand), and the seven golden lamp-stands, (is this): The seven stars are (the) Messengers of the seven Congregations, and the seven lamp-stands are (the) seven Congregations.”

This use of the word “secret” (musth/rion) is comparable to that in Rev 17:5, 7 (cf. the previous study), relating to the hidden meaning of the vision and its details. The influence of Daniel 2:18ff; 4:9 on the book of Revelation in this regard is clear. The verse, of course, leads in to the famous sets of messages (or ‘letters’) to the Seven Churches in chapters 2-3. In the context of this vision the one “like a son of man” (a heavenly being, or, more probably, the exalted Christ himself) gives to each of the (heavenly/angelic) Messengers (a&ggeloi) a message to write out. Ultimately, it is the author of the book of Revelation, the seer (John) in the narrative, who writes this out.

In Revelation 10:7, we find a somewhat different use of the word musth/rion:

“…but in the days of the voice of the seventh Messenger, when he should be about to (sound the) trumpet, even (then) is completed the secret of God, as He gave as a good message [i.e. announced/declared] to his (own) slaves the Foretellers {Prophets}.”

This relates to a different set of seven heavenly Messengers—those who blow the trumpets in the vision of 8:6-9:21. The seventh Messenger does not blow his trumpet until 11:15ff. This seventh trumpet closes the main division of the book spanning chapters 4-11, which is comprised of a complex interconnected sequence of visions and descriptions of the (impending) end-time Judgment by God. According to 10:7, this final trumpet blast marks the time when “the secret of God is completed [e)tele/sqh]”.

The expression “secret of God” is also found in 1 Cor 2:1 v.l. (also v. 7) and in Col 2:2; the plural “secrets of God” occurs in 1 Cor 4:1. In Ephesians 1:9 we have the expression “secret of his [i.e. God’s] will”, as well “secret(s) of the Kingdom of God” in Mark 4:11 par (see the previous daily notes for a discussion of these references). Eph 1:9 provides probably the closest parallel to the context of Rev 10:7. There, Paul (or the author) uses the expression “the secret of His will” in relation to the entirety of what we would call salvation history—from the predetermined ‘election’ of believers to the final consummation/restoration of all things (vv. 3-10ff). Every aspect of this salvation history is centered in the person and work of Jesus Christ, as the concluding words make clear:

“…making known to us the secret of His will, according to His good consideration which he set before(hand) in Him(self), unto/into the ‘house-management’ [oi)konomi/a] of the filling/fullness of the times, to bring up all things under (one) head in (the) Anointed (One) {Christ}…” (vv. 9-10, cf. the earlier study)

Like a faithful house-manager (oi)kono/mo$), God has dispensed and portioned out the times and seasons (kairoi/) until their completion at the end-time. This is very much the idea expressed in Rev 10:7, where the seventh trumpet-blast marks the completion (te/lo$) of all these things.

The eschatological, apocalyptic setting in the book of Revelation also fits reasonably well with the use of the similar Hebrew/Aramaic expression la@ yz@r* (“secrets of God”) in several texts from Qumran, especially the War Scroll (1QM). In 1QM 3:9, the phrase “(the) secrets of God to destroy wickedness” is written upon the trumpets used in the end-time battle; and the destruction of the “sons of darkness (or Belial)” is part of God’s predetermined plan and the “secrets” of his will (14:14; 16:11, 16). The persecution/suffering of God’s faithful at the hands of Belial (and his empire) until the end-time Judgment is also an important element of the “secrets” of God (17:9), expressed in 14:9 in terms of “the secrets of his [i.e. Belial’s] animosity”. Similar language surrounding the “secrets (of God)” is found in the Community Rule (1QS 3:23; 4:6, 18). Elsewhere in the Qumran texts, “secret(s)” refers more generally to the hidden aspects or “mysteries” of creation, sin and salvation, etc, in the plan and will of God (1QS 9:18; 11:3, 5, 19; 1Q26 fr 1-2 line 5; 1Q27 col 1 lines 2-4, 7; 1Q36 fr 16; and often in the Hymns [1QH] IV/XVII line 9; V/XIII line 8, 19; IX/I 11, 13, 21, 29; X/II 13; XII/IV 27, etc). These secrets are made known to the Prophets (in Scripture) and, in turn, to the members of the Qumran Community, through the inspired interpretation of its leaders—this interpretation is primarily eschatological, understanding the Community’s central role in the end-time salvation and Judgment brought by God (cf. especially the commentary [pesher] on Habakkuk [1QpHab] 7:5, 8, 14). The connection of God’s “secrets” with salvation history (cf. above on Eph 1:9) is expressed in the so-called Damascus Document [CD/4Q269] 3:18.

4QMMT (“Halakhic Letter”)

The Qumran text 4QMMT, sometimes referred to as “Halakhic Letter”, has an especially interesting (and important) connection to the New Testament—the letters of Paul in particular. It is represented by 6 manuscripts (4Q394-99), all quite fragmentary; scholars would seem to be correct in assigning them to a single document, which has been reconstructed, as far as possible. The critical edition was produced by E. Qimron and J. Strugnell in volume 10 of the Discoveries in the Judean Desert (DJD) series, pp. 3-40, plates I-VIII.

The number of surviving manuscripts, spanning, it would seem, a period of more than 100 years (c. 75 B.C. – 50 A.D.), is an indication of its popularity and importance for the Community of the Qumran texts. Most likely it was viewed as an authoritative work, and one which represented the Community’s religious identity and principles in significant ways.

The designation “MMT” is an abbreviation of the Hebrew phrase hr*oTh^ yc@u&m^ tx*q=m!, miqƒ¹¾ ma±¦´ê hatôrâ (for more on this, cf. below), which occurs in an important section (C 25-32) now regarded by most commentators as the epilogue of the work. In some ways the title “Halakhic Letter” is more appropriate, though a bit anachronistic in terminology; for, indeed, the work appears to be a letter, of sorts, and contains what would come to be known as halakah. This term, referring to the way by which a person must walk, was used in a technical sense for the interpretation of the regulations and requirements of the Torah, and how they are to be applied in detail. A vast body of traditional teaching in this regard was preserved and given authoritative form in the Mishnah and Talmud; but it is found in the midrashim (commentaries) and other writings as well. The bulk of 4QMMT, or what survives of it, involves an interpretation of various regulations in the Torah; we can fairly assume that this halakah represents the views of the Community, and that they regarded it as an authoritative interpretation. It would seem that the purpose of the work (as a letter) was to convince other individuals or groups that those who did not adhere to the Community’s interpretation were dangerously in error. The letter may well have originally been written to a specific individual, presumably a leading/ruling figure (note the mention of David in C 25); a clear statement of the purpose of writing follows:

“Remember David…he, too, [was] freed from many afflictions and was forgiven. And also we have written to you miqƒ¹¾ ma±¦´ê hatôrâ which we think are good for you and for your people, for we s[a]w that you have intellect and knowledge of the Instruction. Reflect on all these matters and seek from Him that He may support your counsel and keep you far from the evil scheming[s] and the counsel of Belial, so that at the end of time, you may rejoice in finding that some of our words are true. And it shall be reckoned to you as justice when you do what is upright and good before Him, for your good and that of Israel.” (C 25-32, 4Q398 frag. 14-17 col. ii. 1-8).

The phrase miqƒ¹¾ ma±¦´ê hatôrâ is a bit difficult to render clearly into English. A literal translation would be something like “from the ends of the (thing)s made/done of the Instruction”. The “Instruction” (hr*oT, tôrâ), of course, means the Instruction given to the people of Israel, by God, through Moses (and written/preserved in the books of the Pentateuch)—i.e. the Torah or “Law” of Moses. In context, the word tx*q=m! (miqƒ¹¾), “from the ends (of)”, refers to some specific examples, or certain details, in the Torah. The word yc@u&m^ (ma±¦´ê) is a construct plural form of the noun hc#u&m^ (ma±¦´eh), from the root hcu, and meaning “something made or done”; here, however, it probably denotes “something that is to be done“. Thus, the basic sense of the phrase is “some specific things in the Instruction (Torah) which are to be done”.

The surviving portions of 4QMMT present some details and examples of these “things which are to be done”. It is not necessarily to go over them in detail, but a summary of some of the contents may be helpful (cf. R. A. Kugler, “Rewriting Rubrics: Sacrifice and the Religion of Qumran”, in Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. John J. Collins and Robert A. Kugler [Eerdmans: 200]):

    • B 11-13—on the care that needs to be taken by the priests in performing their duties (Lev 22:16; Num 18:1)
    • B 9-13—on when the common meal portion of sacrificial offerings is to be eaten (Lev 7:15; 19:6)
    • B 13-17—details related to the purification ritual involving the ashes of the red cow (Num 19:1-10)
    • B 27-35—where the ritual slaughter is to take place, and how this is to be interpreted/applied (Lev 17:3-4)
    • B 36-38—the regulation against sacrificing a parent animal with its offspring (Lev 22:28)
    • B 39-54—regulations regarding who may be allowed to enter the sanctuary (Deut 23:2-4; also 18:13; Lev 21:17)
    • B 62-64—on the dedication of the produce and tithe of the herd/flock as “holy to the Lord” (Lev 19:23-24; 27:32)
    • B 75-82—regulations regarding priestly marriages (Lev 21:7, 14; also 19:19; Deut 22:9)

Generally, the halakhic interpretation by the Qumran Community would seem to be stricter than that observed by other Jews at the time, an attitude reflected in many other Qumran texts. The Community felt that it possessed an inspired, authoritative interpretation of the Torah (and of Scriptural prophecy, etc), which was the result of special revelation and guidance. The eschatological warning indicated in the epilogue (cf. above) shows the importance of following the Community’s inspired halakah (and the danger of disregarding it). Column i of the same fragment cited above presents this even more clearly:

“…concerning these things…we [have written that you must understand the bo]ok of Moses [and the books of the prophets and David…]…[it is writ]ten that you [shall stray from the path and evil will encounter] you. And it is written: and it shall happen when [all] these [things shall befa]ll you at the en[d] of days, the blessing [and the] curse, [then you shall take it] to your he[art] and will turn to Him with all your heart [and with al]l [your] soul [at the en]d [of time]…”

Paul and 4QMMT

When the text 4QMMT was made known, scholars were immediately struck by the similarity between the expression hr*oTh^ yc@u&m^ (ma±¦´ê hatôrâ) and the Greek e&rga no/mou used by Paul. It is the closest Hebrew parallel thus far found, and one that, at least in the latest copies of 4QMMT, would have been roughly contemporary with Paul’s letters. The Greek expression simply means “works of (the) law”, and generally corresponds with the Hebrew, though not without important loss of nuance. As indicated above, the Hebrew hr*oTh^ yc@u&m^, in the context of 4QMMT, should be translated “things (which are to be) done of the Instruction [i.e. Torah]”. If this Hebrew expression, and its use, truly underlies Paul’s Greek wording, then it has significant implication for the latter’s meaning. It is worth touching on this briefly, as it relates to the current discussion on “Paul’s View of the Law” (in Galatians and Romans).

Ever since Luther and the Reformation, Protestant Christians have been accustomed to thinking of Paul’s “works of the Law” in terms of a contrast of “faith vs. works”, in which “works” refers primarily to human effort as the basis of the contrast—i.e. human effort to achieve a right status with God, rather than relying on faith in Christ. While Paul doubtless would agree with this contrast (cf. the Pauline statement in Eph 2:9), a careful reading of Galatians and Romans—the only letters where the expression “works of the Law” is used—shows that Paul is actually making a very different sort of argument, and one which may be confirmed (decisively) by the expression in 4QMMT.

When dealing with fundamental religious issues like circumcision or the dietary regulations, the question involved is not about trying to gain righteousness through work/deeds, but on whether believers in Christ (and Gentile believers, in particular) are required to fulfill these regulations in the Torah. This is exactly the sense of the Hebrew expression in 4QMMT, i.e. things in the Torah which people are required to do, as I discussed above. Thus, issue lies not in the limitations of human effort (in regard to obtaining righteousness), but in the nature of the Torah itself, and its place (or lack thereof) in the new arrangement (covenant) believers now observe in Christ. Paul discusses this at length in Galatians and Romans, and I similarly have been presenting his arguments in detail in the current series (on “Paul’s View of the Law”). His teaching on the Torah is so unique (and controversial) among Jews (and Jewish Christians) of the time, that it must be studied carefully. Even today, many Christians are unable to recognize, and/or reluctant to admit, the consequences and implications of his line of argument. I recommend that you read these articles and notes on the key passages in Galatians and Romans. For reference, it may be useful to summarize the locations where the expression “works of the Law” (or its shorthand, “works”) occur:

  • The full expression e&rga no/mou (“works of the Law”):
    Gal 2:16 (3 x); 3:2, 5, 10; Rom 3:20, 28; in all but the last of these, the phrase is “out of [i.e. from, by] works of the Law” (e)c e&rgwn no/mou); in Rom 3:28, we have the opposite, “apart from [xwri/$] works of the Law”.
  • The shorthand e&rga (“works”) or e)c e&rgwn (“out of [i.e. from, by] works”):
    Rom 3:27; 4:2, 6; 9:11, 32; 11:6
  • We might also note, that, when Paul speaks of the “works of the Law” in relation to the Gentiles, on one occasion (Rom 2:15), he uses the singular “work [e&rgon] of the Law”; the distinction presumably reflects the idea that Gentiles have not had the specific regulations (“works”) of the Torah to follow, but are “under the Law” in a different manner (comp. with how he expresses this in Gal 4:1-11).

This special use of the word e&rga (“works”) appears to be unique to Paul in the New Testament, and its use is limited to Galatians and Romans. While other believers at the time may have used the word in a similar way (whether or not influenced by Paul), there is little or no trace of it in the New Testament. Elsewhere, “works” refer to things done (deeds), in a more general religious (and ethical) sense, either in terms of “good works” or the contrary, “evil deeds”. Even in the “deutero-Pauline” letters—that is, those where Pauline authorship is often disputed or considered pseudonymouse&rga is used almost entirely in terms of “good works”, and even the statements in Eph 2:9 and 2 Tim 1:9, which seem to echo Paul’s teaching on believers’ relationship to the Torah, likely refer to “works” in the more general sense of (good) deeds. The reference to “dead works” in Hebrews 6:1; 9:14 could also reflect Paul’s teaching, but may just as easily be the result of traditional ethical instruction.

The use of e&rga (“works”) in the letter of James is more difficult to judge. On the one hand, the author, throughout 2:14-26 (where the word occurs 12 times), seems to be speaking more generally of “good works”, i.e. acts of charity to others. On the other hand, the reference to Abraham, with a citation of Gen 15:6, almost certainly draws upon the traditional image of Abraham as one who faithfully followed God’s commands (i.e. the regulations of the Torah). However, the overall context of the letter suggests that, if the author has any “commands” in mind in using the word e&rga, it should be understood in terms of the single “Love-command” (2:8ff); in this regard, the author is fully in accord with Paul as to the relationship between believers and the “Law” (Gal 5:6, 13-15; 6:2; Rom 12:9ff; 13:8-10). Cf. my recent article for more on the use of Gen 15:6 by Paul and James.

Translations of 4QMMT above are taken, with some modification, from The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, ed. by Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar (Brill / Eerdmans: 1997-8).

John the Baptist and the Dead Sea Scrolls

With the discovery and eventual publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls (particularly those from Qumran), scholars and commentators were eager to note any possible parallels with the New Testament and early Christianity. A wealth of theories sprung up, some less plausible than others, including attempts to connect Jesus of Nazareth with the Scrolls in various ways. One theory which continues to have some measure of popularity (and acceptance) today among New Testament scholars involves a possible connection or association between John the Baptist and the Qumran Community. Before proceeding, it will be helpful to define and explain what is meant by the expression “Qumran Community”. In terms of the site of Khirbet Qumrân, and scrolls found in the vicinity, we can identify three groups, which may (or may not) be identical:

    • Those who copied, used, and/or hid away the scrolls in the Qumran caves, assuming that they represent a coherent group
    • Those who resided on the hilltop site of Khirbet Qumran
    • A community whose organization, and history, etc, is described in the scrolls themselves

With regard to the last point, most scholars believe that there was an actual group, or community, in existence during the period c. 150 B.C. – 70 A.D. (the time-frame of the scrolls), which sought to organize and conduct itself according to the ideals, principles, regulations, etc, outlined in a number of key texts—most notably the “Community Rule” (1QS and other copies), the related rule-texts 1QSa and 1QSb, and the “Damascus Document” (CD/QD). It is important to emphasize this, since there is virtually no definite external evidence for this group’s existence. However, their existence would seem to be confirmed by the evidence within the scrolls themselves; I would point to several pieces of evidence in particular:

    • The numerous copies of the “community rule” texts, produced over a significant length of time (to judge by the surviving versions/recensions)—this indicates a functioning, well-established community which required these authoritative texts and rule-books for repeated use. The same may be said for the corpus of the Qumran texts as a whole—the many Scripture copies, liturgical texts, and so forth, presumably served the needs of a specific (religious) community.
    • Many of the Qumran texts evince a decided sectarian viewpoint and orientation, which is almost impossible to explain without an existing group (or groups) to read/write/copy these texts. While the views within the scrolls are not always consistent in detail, there are enough features in common, within a variety of texts written/copied over a period of decades, to confirm the existence of a distinctive group or community of adherents.
    • The history of a definite community would seem to be preserved within a number of different texts, including liturgical works, hymns, commentaries on Scripture, and other writings. Most notable is the so-called “Damascus Document”, originally known from the copy discovered in Cairo (CD), but subsequently attested from a number of copies among the Qumran scrolls (QD). This text traces the history, self-identity, rules, etc, of a definite Community, though one which is probably not limited to the area around Qumran (and the scrolls). It is possible that the “Qumran Community”, as such, may represent an offshoot of a larger/earlier movement.

Most scholars would identity the Qumran Community with the Essenes, or as an offshoot of that movement. While this is far from certain (and, unfortunately, many treat it as an established fact), it remains the most likely hypothesis. As far as the site of Khirbet Qumran goes, the prevailing opinion is that the Qumran Community resided in that fortified structure, though not all scholars or archeologists agree. There is actually very little tangible evidence to support the connection, beyond the proximity of the scroll deposits to the site.

John the Baptist

What, then, may we say about the idea that John the Baptist may have been connected in some way with the Qumran Community? There is some plausible evidence which could support the theory that John spent time in contact with the Community. I offer here some points for consideration (for another useful summary, cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins [Eerdmans: 2000], pp. 18-21).

1. To begin with, it must be noted that, by all accounts, John’s ministry along the Jordan river included the desert regions around the Dead Sea not all that far from the site of Qumran. In terms of geographical proximity, it is certainly possible that John may have had some contact with members of the Community (assuming that they dwelt/resided at or near that site).

2. The centrality and importance of Isa 40:3 for both John the Baptist (Mark 1:3 par) and the Community of the Qumran texts (cf. the Community Rule [1QS] 8:12-16) has led to the suggestion that John may have been associated at some time with the Qumran Community. According to Jn 1:22-23, the identification of John with the herald of Isa 40:3, comes from his own lips; it is likely that the wider Gospel tradition to this is also derived from John’s own ministry, rather than a reflection of subsequent early Christian belief about John. The importance of Isa 40:3 would seem to be the basis for John residing in the desert, just as it clearly was for the Qumran Community:

“And when these have become a community in Israel… they are to be separated from the men of sin, to walk to the desert in order to open there His path, as it is written: ‘In the desert prepare the way of [YHWH], straighten in the steppe a roadway for our God’. This is the study of the Law which He commanded through the hand of Moses, in order to act in compliance with all that has been revealed from age to age…” (1QS 8:12-15)

Admittedly, the reasons for going into the desert are somewhat different, but they share at least two important features in common: (1) an ascetic-religious emphasis on separation from sin (holiness and repentance, etc), and (2) a religious self-identity with a strong eschatological (and Messianic) orientation (for more on this, cf. point 5 below).

3. John’s family circumstances (as recorded in the Gospel of Luke) would fit the idea of his becoming involved with the Qumran community; note the following:

    • According to Luke 1:5ff, John was born into the priestly line, but (apparently) never served officially as a priest. Many of the leading figures of the Qumran community were priests opposed to the current religious (Temple) establishment in Jerusalem. One detects in the Gospel tradition, at the very least, a measure of tension between John and the religious establishment (Jn 1:19-27; Matt 3:7-10 par) as well.
    • John’s parents were quite old when he was born (Lk 1:7, 18, 25, 36f, 58), and likely would have died while he was still young; a child orphaned from priestly parents would have made a strong candidate for adoption by the Qumran community, as Josephus states was occasionally done by the Essenes (Jewish War II.120).
    • Moreover, as a serious, religious-minded youth, John may well have been attracted to the Qumran community, even as Josephus was drawn to the Essenes as a young man (Life §10-11).

4. The Qumran community practiced ritual washings, which symbolized cleansing/purification from sin and entry/participation in the community (cf. 1QS 3:3ff; 5:13-14). As such, it provides a distinct parallel with early Christian baptism, which is related in turn to the earlier baptism practiced by John. There is also an interesting juxtaposition of cleansing by water and the Holy Spirit (and fire) in 1QS 4:20-21, as we see expressed by John in Matt 3:11 / Lk 3:16.

5. As noted above, the religious self-identity, of both John and the Qumran Community, had a strong eschatological (and Messianic) orientation. In the case of John, this is absolutely clear, though Christians are not always accustomed to thinking about his ministry this way; note the following:

    • the use of Isa 40:3, in tandem with Mal 3:1ff (Mk 1:2-3 par; Matt 11:10 par; Jn 1:23), the latter being a passage which came to have a definite eschatological emphasis for Jews and early Christians (cf. my earlier study on this)
    • in particular, John was identified as the “Elijah” who would appear at the end-time (Mal 4:5-6; cf. Mk 1:5-6; 6:15; 9:11-13 pars; Matt 11:14; Lk 1:17, 76; but cp. John’s own denial of this in Jn 1:21)
    • John’s preaching involved a proclamation of the coming (end-time) Judgment of God (Matt 3:7-10, 12 par), with repentance as a precursor (and warning) to the Judgment (see esp. Lk 1:17, 76-77)
    • this aspect of John’s ministry was distinctive enough to make people question whether he might be the “Anointed One” (Messiah), esp. in the sense of being the end-time Prophet (or “Elijah”)—Lk 3:15ff; Jn 1:19-27
    • his references to “the one coming” (Mk 1:7 par; Lk 3:16 & 7:18ff par; Jn 1:27, cf. also vv. 15, 30) almost certainly relate to a Messianic interpretation of Mal 3:1ff, as I have discussed in detail elsewhere

With regard to the eschatological and Messianic belief of the Qumran Community, its is far too large a subject to address here; I discuss it in considerable detail all throughout the series “Yeshua the Anointed”. However, I would note one interesting parallel, in terms of Messianic expression, between the writings associated with the Qumran Community and John’s preaching (according to the “Q” Gospel tradition). In the Damascus Document (CD 2:11-12) we read:

“And…he raised up…a remnant for the land…and he taught them by the hand of the Anointed One(s) with his holy Spirit and through…the truth”

If we combine this with the words of 1 QS 4:20-21:

“…the time appointed for the Judgment…Then God will refine, with his truth, all man’s deeds, and will purify…ripping out all spirit of injustice…and cleansing him with the spirit of holiness from every wicked deed…”

we are not all that far removed from the language and imagery used by John, e.g., in Mark 1:8 par.

Thus we see that the theory of a connection between John and the Qumran Community, while quite speculative, is not entirely implausible, given the points in common and details noted above.

Translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls here have been taken, with some modification and abridgment, from The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, ed. by Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar (Eerdmans/Brill: 1997-8).

Yeshua the Anointed: Supplemental study on Dan 7:13-14

Daniel 7:13-14

Dan 7:13-14, which would prove to be enormously influential on eschatological and Messianic thought, both in Judaism and in early Christianity, itself holds a central place in chapter 7 of the book of Daniel (for the structure of the chapter, cf. below). It is part of the heavenly Throne-vision in vv. 9-12, similar to other such visions in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition—1 Kings 22:19ff; Isaiah 6; Ezekiel 1; 3:22-24; 10:1, cf. also 1 Enoch 14:18-23; 60:2; 90:20, etc (Collins, p. 300). The throne is said to have wheels, and thus is to be understood as a chariot-throne, which draws upon ancient Near Eastern mythic imagery, associated with heavenly/celestial phenomena—i.e. the fiery chariot of the sun, etc—and the divine powers which control them. For chariot imagery related to God and Heaven in the Old Testament, cf. 2 Kings 23:11; Psalm 68:17; 104:3; Isa 66:15; Jer 4:13; Ezek 1:15-21; 10:2. The idea of God’s chariot-throne would play an especially important role among the Jewish visionary mystics of the Merkabah/Hekhalot tradition.

Interestingly the text of verse 9 reads “the thrones [pl. /w`s*r=k*] were set [lit. thrown, i.e. into place]”, and there is some question as to the use of the plural here. It probably should be taken as indicative of the setting—the heavenly Council or Court. In ancient Near Eastern (Canaanite) tradition, the high deity °E~l (generally identified with YHWH in the Old Testament) presides over the Council of the gods; in the context of Israelite monotheism, the “gods” (°¢lîm/°§lœhîm) are created heavenly beings (i.e. Angels) who sit in the Council—Psalm 82:1; 89:7; Job 1:6, etc. For an elaborate description of the Angels surrounding the chariot-throne of God, cf. the so-called “Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice” (4Q400-407, 11Q17) from Qumran, esp. 4Q405 frags. 20, 23 (11Q17 cols. 7-10); and in early Christian tradition, note Matt 25:31, as well as the (Christian?) corollary of human beings on the thrones surrounding God/Christ (Matt 19:28; Rev 4:2ff; 20:4). Cf. Collins, p. 301.

On the throne is seated the /ym!oy qyT!u^ (±attîq yômîn), usually translated as “(the) Ancient of Days”, with the adjective qyT!u^ understood (on the basis of its cognates in Hebrew) as “advanced”, either in the sense of age or of prominence and wealth (majesty, etc). This image is likely drawn from the mythic-religious tradition of depicting the high God °E~l as an elderly patriarch (with long white/grey beard), though here it has been adapted to traditional Israelite visionary images of the glory of God (El / YHWH)—Exod 24:9-11; 1 Kings 22:19ff; Isa 6:1-5; Ezek 1. Verse 9b-10a vividly depicts the divine figure seated on his fiery chariot-throne, with countless multitudes (of heavenly beings) serving him. The vision scene in 1 Enoch 14:15-23 provides an interesting comparison.

From verses 11-12 it is clear that the Heavenly Council is also the Court, with God ruling as Judge (Psalm 82, etc). Judgment is brought against the Beasts of the earlier part of the vision (vv. 2-8, cf. below)—a sentence of death is pronounced and executed against one Beast (the fourth), while the others are stripped of their kingdoms but allowed to live for a time. It is in this context that verses 13-14 must be understood:

“and, see!—with the clouds of the Heaven(s), (one) like a son of man [vn`a$ rb^K=]…”

This figure comes near and approaches the “Ancient of Days”, and is given authority/rule (/f*l=v*), honor/glory (rq*y+), and (a) kingdom (Wkl=m^), so that “all the peoples, nations and tongues [i.e. languages] would serve him”. The question as to the identity of this “(one) like a son of man” has long vexed commentators, leading to a variety of interpretations, some more plausible than others. In terms of the original context of the vision in the book of Daniel, I would suggest three basic possibilities regarding this figure:

    1. Symbolic—he represents the Kingdom of God or the people of God (and their dominion)
    2. Real, but archetypal—i.e. he is the heavenly archetype of humankind (“son of man”), specifically the righteous/holy ones (people of God)
    3. Real, and personal—he is a real heavenly being, an Angel such as Michael who represents the people of God, supporting and protecting them, etc.

Sound arguments can be made for each of these:

1. The symbolic view is supported by the structure of the passage (chapter 7) itself, where the “(one) like a son of man”, and the kingdom he receives, is set parallel with the people of God (and they kingdom they receive), cf. below. Also, this figure resembling a human being is clearly meant as a contrast with the four “beasts” of vv. 2-8; since they are taken to represent four earthly kingdoms (in their savagery and violence), it is logical that the human being likewise represents the kingdom of the people of God.

2. The same parallelism could just as well be interpreted in an archetypal sense—that the heavenly “son of man” is the type/pattern for the righteous/holy ones on earth. This certainly seems to be the way that Daniel 7 was expounded and interpreted in the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71, early 1st-century A.D.?), and also, to some extent, by the Qumran community (cf. below).

3. It is the third view, however, which seems best to fit the immediate context and thought-patterns in the book of Daniel. Angels are prominent in the second half of the book, and are generally depicted in human terms (Dan 8:15; 9:21; 10:5; 12:5-7; cf. also 3:25), as they often are elsewhere in the Old Testament (Gen 18:2; Josh 5:13; Judg 13:6, 8, 16; Ezek 8:2; 9-10; Zech 1:8; 2:5, cf. Collins, pp. 306-7). A specific identification with the chief Angel (Archangel) Michael is possible, given his comparable role and position in Dan 12:1 (cf. also 10:13, 21). The “(one) like a son of man” should probably be understood as a real heavenly being, at least similar to an (arch)Angel such as Michael. This does not eliminate the parallelism or corollary with the people of God, as is clear enough by the evidence from Qumran (on this, cf. below).

Before proceeding, it may be helpful to examine the structure of Daniel 7 in outline form:

  • V. 1: Narrative introduction/setting
  • Vv. 2-14: The Vision of the Four Beasts
    —The Four Beasts (vv. 2-8)
    —The Ancient of Days who presides in Judgment over the Beasts (vv. 9-12)
    —The Son of Man who receives the everlasting kingdom/dominion (vv. 13-14)
  • Vv. 15-27: The Interpretation of the Vision
    —Basic outline/explanation: Four Kingdoms (vv. 15-18)
    —The Kingdom of the Fourth Beast (vv. 19-25)
    —Judgment and the Kingdom of the People of God (vv. 26-27)
  • V. 28: Conclusion

Verses 13-14 and 26-27 are clearly parallel in several respects:

    • Judgment in the Heavenly Court (vv. 9-12, 26)
      • Kingdom taken away from the Beast(s)
    • Everlasting Kingdom/Dominion
      • Given to the “one like a son of man” (vv. 13-14)
      • Given to the “people of the Holy Ones of the Most High” (v. 27)

Interestingly, we find the same basic paradigm, it would seem, in the Pseudo-Daniel (Aramaic) text 4Q246 from Qumran, which was certainly influenced by Daniel 7.

An important point lies in the way that heavenly and human beings are united in the term “holy ones” (Heb. <yvdwq, Aram. /yvydq). Although a few instances are uncertain or disputed, the majority of occurrences of the plural “holy ones” in the Old Testament would seem to refer to heavenly beings (i.e. Angels)—Deut 33:2; Psalm 89:5, 7; Job 5:1; 15:15; Dan 4:17; Zech 14:5, and cf. also the LXX of Exod 15:11. The only clear instances where “holy ones” refer to human beings (on earth) are in Deut 33:3 (cf. the par with verse 2); Psalm 16:3; 34:10. Especially significant is the usage in the Qumran texts, which in many ways are close to the eschatological/apocalyptic imagery and thought-world of Daniel, and, indeed, were certainly influenced by the book. The Qumran Community saw itself as connected with the Angels—the holy/righteous ones on earth, corresponding to the Holy Ones in Heaven; this was a key aspect of their self-understanding, in particular, of their eschatological role and identity. Indeed, they referred to themselves as “congregation of the holy ones”, and in 1QM 10:10; 12:7; 1QH 11:11-12 we find the very expression (“people of the holy ones”) as in Dan 7:27; note also the variant formula “holy ones of the people” (1QM 6:6; 16:1). On the relation between the Community and the Angels, and their inter-connection, cf. especially in the War Scroll (1QM 12:7, etc), passages in the Rule documents (1QSa 2:8-9; 1QSb 3:25-26; 4:23-25), and in the Hymns (1QH 3:21-22; 4:24-25; 11:11-12). For these and other references, cf. Collins pp.

In the Similitudes of Enoch (1 En 37-71), which may well be contemporary with Jesus and the earliest Gospel tradition, there is an equally clear, and (in some ways) even more precise correspondence between the holy/righteous ones on earth and in heaven—1 Enoch 39:5; 47:2; 51:4, etc. It is indicated that their true nature and position will be revealed at the end-time Judgment (1 En 38:4-5). The Son of Man is their ideal/archetypal heavenly representative (the Righteous One, the Elect One); in the concluding chapters 70-71, we see how Enoch himself, as the first human being to be raised to heavenly status, is identified with this Son of Man, apparently merging/assimilating with him in some way.

What of the traditional interpretation of the “one like a son of man” with the Messiah in Jewish thought? Apart from the possible example of 4Q246 from Qumran, this association does not seem to have been clearly formed until the 1st century A.D. In the Similitudes of Enoch, the Son of Man figure, certainly inspired by Daniel 7, is specifically called “(the) Anointed One” (1 En 48:10; 52:4); cf. also the context in 2/4 Esdras 13 (late 1st-century A.D.). The Messianic interpretation came to be the dominant view in Rabbinic literature (b. Sanh. 89a; Num. Rabbah 13:14, et al); even the plural “thrones” in Dan 7:9 could be understood in this light (one throne for God, one for the Messiah), as traditionally expressed by R. Akiba (b. Chag. 14a; b. Sanh. 38b). For early Christians, of course, the Messianic interpretation was applied to the person of Jesus—first in terms of his exaltation to the right hand of God in heaven (from whence he will come at the end-time Judgment), and subsequently, in terms of his pre-existent deity. According to either strand of tradition and belief, his divine/heavenly status and position was superior to that of the Angels, just as the “one like a son of man” would seem to hold a special and exalted place in the context of Daniel 7. The identification of Jesus with this divine/heavenly figure appears to go back to the (authentic) early layers of Gospel tradition, and the Son of Man sayings by Jesus himself (for more on this, see in Part 10, and the additional supplemental note).

References marked “Collins” above are to John J. Collins’ commentary on Daniel in the Hermeneia series (Fortress Press: 1993), esp. pages 299-323.

Jesus and the Gospel Tradition: The Baptism, Pt 1 (Isa 40:3, continued)

Isaiah 40:3 (continued)

Having briefly discussed the key passage of Isa 40:3ff in the previous note, it remains to explore further the association with John the Baptist in Gospel tradition. To understand the original context and background of this association, it is helpful to turn to the texts from the Qumran Community (the Dead Sea Scrolls). I will be discussing here two principal aspects which shed light on the establishment of the early Christian tradition regarding John the Baptist (and his relationship with Jesus):

    1. The Eschatological interpretation of Isa 40:3, as evidenced in the Qumran texts, and
    2. The possible relationship between John the Baptist and the Qumran Community

1. The Eschatological Interpretation of Isa 40:3

While the original setting of Isa 40 would appear to be the promise of the restoration of Judah and the return from exile, certain features of the prophecy, like many in (Deutero-)Isaiah, came to be viewed from an eschatological standpoint—as a promise of what God would do for his people in the future, at the end-time. Interpreted in this light, the herald (or “voice”) of vv. 3ff is calling on people to prepare the way for the coming of the Lord (YHWH) at the end-time, when he will rescue/deliver his people and bring Judgment upon the world. This eschatological orientation is reflected strongly in the Community of the Qumran texts, written primarily between the period of 150 B.C. and the first years of the common era (A.D.). Many of these writings evince a belief that the end was near, and that the Community, as the faithful ones (or “remnant”) of Israel, held a central place in the work of God that was about to take place. This is expressed most clearly in two central documents which shape and define the history and character of the Community—the “Community Rule” [1QS, etc] and the so-called Damascus Document [CD/QD]. The importance of Isaiah 40:3 in terms of the Community’s self-identity is seen in the Community Rule [1QS] 8:12-16; 9:19-20:

“And when these have become /a community/ in Israel /in compliance with these arrangements/, they are to be segregated from within the dwelling of the men of sin, to walk to the desert in order to open there His path. As it is written: ‘In the desert, prepare the way of [YHWH], straighten in the steppe a roadway for our God’. This is the study of the Law which he commanded through the hand of Moses, in order to act in compliance with all that has been revealed from age to age, and according to what the prophets have revealed through His holy Spirit.” (8:12-16a)

“This is the time for making ready the path to the desert, and he will teach them about all that has been discovered, so that they can carry it out in this moment…” (9:19-20)

The Community of these texts has separated from all other people, living apart together in the desert (presumably at the site of Khirbet Qumrân, among others[?]), devoting themselves to a strict communal lifestyle centered on the study and exposition/interpretation of the Law and Prophets. This Way (Heb. Er#D#) in the desert is a “way of holiness” (cf. Isa 35:8ff; 57:14), which also draws upon several important images and ideas from Israelite history and the oracles of the Prophets (esp. Deutero-Isaiah):

    • The return of exiles to the Land—defined in terms of the the coming of salvation from God (Isa 62:10-11)
    • This is parallel to the way of the Israelites through the wilderness (i.e. the Exodus traditions) into the Promised Land (Isa 11:16; 48:21; 51:10-11)
    • This same salvation is also understood more properly in an eschatological sense, in terms of the coming Judgment (Isa 1:27-31, etc)

These aspects play on the dual meaning of the verb bWv (šû», “turn, return”)—i.e., (1) the return from exile and the restoration of Israel, and (2) a return to God, that is, a turning back away from sin. The Qumran Community refers to itself at times as <yb!v* (š¹»îm), “ones turning/returning”, in two qualified senses:

    • The š¹»ê Yi´r¹°¢l—the faithful ones or “converts” of Israel, i.e. those who have joined the Community (CD 4:2-3; 6:3-7)
    • The š¹»ê peša±—the ones who have turned away (i.e. repented) from sin (CD 2:5; 20:17; 1QS 1:17; 10:20; 1QHa VI.24; X.9; XIV. 6); the expression is likely derived from Isaiah 59:20f.

By turning from sin and the wickedness/faithlessness of the world, and joining the Community, one follows the “way of holiness” and prepares for the end-time Judgment and the salvation God will bring for his faithful ones.

2. John and the Qumran Community

There are a number of similarities between the ministry of John the Baptist and the Community of the Qumran texts:

  • The desert location. Based on the evidence from the Gospels, as well as subsequent Christian tradition, much of John’s ministry would have taken place in the Judean desert, not all that far from the site of Qumrân.
  • The central importance of Isa 40:3 (cf. above). In Jn 1:23, it is John himself who makes the identification with Isa 40:3.
  • The practice of ritual washing/cleansing. For the importance of this for the Qumran Community, see esp. 1QS 2:25-3:12; 4:20-22; 5:8-23. Ritual washing marked the person’s entrance into the Community; in addition, there were regular washings for various times or occasions.
  • An eschatological emphasis. Warning of the coming Judgment (or anger/wrath) of God was a significant element in both the Qumran texts and in the preaching of John (according to the Gospels). For the Qumran evidence, see e.g., CD 1:5; 10:9; 1QHa VII.17; XI. 28; XXII.5; 1QpHab i.12; 4Q169 1-2.
  • The importance of repentance. Cf. the Qumran references cited directed above, as well as the self-identification based on the verb bWv (šû») listed earlier above. The related Hebrew word hb*WvT= (t®šû»â) generally corresponds to the Greek meta/noia (Mk 1:4 par, etc).
  • Opposition to Pharisees and other (religious) leaders. This is attested only indirectly in the Qumran texts, such as the pesher (commentary) on Nahum (4QpNah [4Q169] fragments 3-4); cf. also CD 5:13-14; 6:11-14, etc. In the Gospels, note Matt 3:7ff par, and Jn 1:19ff.
  • Fire and Spirit. The Baptist’s saying in Mk 1:8; Matt 3:11 par regarding cleansing/purification by fire and the (holy) Spirit has an interesting parallel, too, in the Community Rule (1QS 4:20-21):
    “the time appointed for Judgment… Then God will refine, with his truth, all men’s deeds, and will purify for himself the structure of man… and cleansing him with the spirit of holiness from every wicked deed. He will sprinkle over him the spirit of truth like lustral water (in order to cleanse him) from all… defilement”

These points of similarity have prompted many commentators to allow at least the possibility that John the Baptist had some contact with the Qumran Community (usually identified, in various ways, with the Essenes). Josephus, according to his own testimony, had spent time with the Essenes, and describes an ascetic figure similar in certain respects to John (Life §§11-12). Moreover, Josephus also refers to the Essene practice of ‘adopting’ children and raising them according to their own teachings and practices (Jewish War 2.120, for more on the Essenes, cf. throughout 2.119-161). If one accepts the biographical details of the Lukan Infancy narrative, John came from a priestly family, and his parents, presumably, would have died when he was quite young. This would have made him a strong candidate, perhaps, for joining the Essenes (and/or the Qumran Community) as a youth. All of these factors make this at least a plausible scenario.

Summary

Whether or not John the Baptist had any real contact with the Qumran Community, if he identified himself with Isa 40:3 (cf. Jn 1:23), such as they did, then we are immediately transported beyond a specific Christian interpretation of the passage. At the earliest (historical) level of Gospel tradition, John would have viewed himself as fulfilling the role of the Isaian herald, and, through his preaching and ministry, he was preparing “the Way of the Lord”—that is, preparing God’s people for His end-time appearance and the coming Judgment on humankind. It is important to keep this possibility in mind as we explore the way that the earliest traditions were interpreted and developed within the Gospel heritage.

Translations of the Qumran texts given above (adapted slightly) are from The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, ed. by Florentino García Martínez & Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar (Brill/Eerdmans: 1997-8 & 2000).

Yeshua the Anointed, Part 9: The True Priest

In this article, I will be exploring the Messianic figure-type of Anointed Priest. This type appears to be less widely known or expressed in Judaism during the first centuries B.C./A.D., compared with the figures of Prophet (cf. parts 2 & 3) and King (parts 68). Our best evidence for it comes from the Qumran (Dead Sea) Scrolls and related texts (such as the Damascus Document), and, in at least several respects, it was influential on Messianic thought in the time of Jesus and the New Testament.

Background

In ancient Israel and Near East, priests and kings were both ceremonially consecrated and set apart through the ritual of anointing. This is described or expressed in the Old Testament (Torah) in numerous places—Exodus 28:41; 29:7, 21, 29; 30:30; 40:13, 15; Leviticus 6:20; 7:36; 8:12; 16:32; 21:10, 12; Numbers 3:3; 35:25; including use of the substantive noun j^yv!m* (m¹šîaµ, “anointed”) in Lev 4:3, 5, 16; 6:22[15]. The special place and position of the Priest is indicated by the epithet “holy, holiness” [vd#q)]—Exod 28:36; 31:10; 35:19; 39:30, 41; 40:13; Lev 14:13; 21:6-8; 22:14; 23:20; Num 5:9-10; 6:20; 18:9-10; Ezra 8:28, etc. In early Israelite tradition, Moses and Aaron—Ruler/Lawgiver and Priest—provided two-fold leadership for the community. Following the era of kingship—where the anointed Ruler was dominant—with the fall of the kingdoms of Israel/Judah and the Exile, this dual leadership was restored in the early Post-exilic community—see especially the equal position of Zerubbabel (ruler from the line of David) and Joshua (the High Priest) indicated in Hag 1:1, 12, 14; 2; Zech 3-4 (esp. the two “sons of oil” in Zech 4:14); 6:9-14.

During much of the Post-exilic period, the High Priest was unquestionably the dominant ruling figure in Judah/Judea, which doubtless explains the prominence of the Priesthood in certain writings of the 2nd and 1st centuries B.C. In the book of Sirach (early-mid 2nd cent.), at least as much praise is given to the Priestly figures (Aaron, Phineas, Simon son of Onias) as to the Kings (David etc)—cp. Sirach 47 with Sirach 45, 50. The Hebrew hymn at Sir 51:12 offers thanks to the (Messianic) “horn” sprouting for the house of David and the chosen “sons of Zadok” in tandem. The book of Jubilees has Levi (Priest) and Judah (Ruler) in the leading position among the tribes of Israel, with priority given to Levi (Jubilees 31, cf. Deut 33:8-11). A number of the texts from Qumran, such as 4QTLevi (related in some way to the later Jewish/Christian Testament of Levi), likewise give clear priority to the Priest (cf. below).

This elevation of the Priesthood, emphasizing its superiority over secular rule, may have a polemic role—i.e., against the Hasmonean (Maccabean) rulers of the 2nd-1st centuries B.C., who also obtained to the position of High Priest (until the time of Hyrcanus II c. 40 B.C.), despite the fact that they were not from line of Aaron/Zadok (nor were they kings from the tribe of Judah). This probably underlies much of the critique against the Priesthood and the Temple cultus in the Qumran texts. The situation became even worse after Pompey’s invasion (63 B.C.) and the installation of Herod as king with Roman support. This historical background is expressed vividly in the so-called Psalms of Solomon (mid/late-1st century B.C.), especially the Messianic Ps Sol 17. Given the corruption of the Priesthood and the nepotistic power of the leading Priestly families (also clearly targeted in the Gospels and Acts), it is not surprising that many devout Israelites and Jews at the time of Jesus would hope for a coming Priest or Ruler who would restore (or rebuild) the religious sanctity and prestige of the Temple, etc.

The Qumran Community

There are three prominent Messianic themes or motifs which can be found in the Qumran (and related) texts, related to the Priesthood: (1) the dual-leadership of Priest and King, (2) the figure of an Anointed Priest-King, and (3) the priority and superiority of Priesthood over Kingship.

1. Dual-Leadership of Priest and King

This is expressed primarily in the Community Rule documents—the Rule of the Community (1QS) and the Damascus Document (CD, QD), where there appears to be an expectation of two future/end-time Messianic figures: “the Anointed (One)s of Aaron and Israel [larvyw /wrha yjyvm]” (1QS 9:11). In the Damascus Document, we find a similar expression, but with the singular “Anointed (One) of/from Aaron and Israel” (CD 12:23-13:1; 14:19 [= 4Q266 10 i 12]; 19:10-11; 20:1). Scholars continue to debate whether this use of the singular is the same as the plural in 1QS 9:11—i.e. refers to separate Messiahs—or rather reflects the belief in a single Anointed Priest-King (cf. below). In the related rule-documents 1QSa and 1QSb, for the future/ideal Community envisaged in the texts, a leading High Priest appears to officiate in tandem with the Anointed Prince/Ruler—cf. 1QSa 2:11-22; 1QSb 5:20-21ff. Moreover, the Testimonia [4Q175, lines 1-18] seems to envision distinct eschatological figures—Prophet (Deut 18:18-19), Ruler (Num 24:15-17), Priest (Deut 33:8-11). In the Florilegium [4Q174], the Anointed Ruler (“Branch of David”) will arise along with the “Interpreter of the Law” at the end-time; this latter title would appear to be generally synonymous with the “Teacher of Righteousness” (CD 6:10-11), representing the same eschatological figure. The historical Teacher was a priest (4QPs a col. iii, line 15), and the future Teacher/Interpreter would certainly have been understood as a Priest as well (cf. the context of CD 6:2-11). This dual-Messiah paradigm may have been influenced by the “two sons of oil” in Zech 4:14.

2. An Anointed Priest-King

The possibility that the “Anointed of Aaron and Israel” in the Damascus Document (cf. above) refers to a single Priest-King figure receives support from the text 11QMelch(izedek) [11Q13]. In this fragmentary pesher-style commentary (on various Scriptures), “Melchizedek” represents an end-time figure who will bring freedom for those held captive by Belial (theme of the Jubilee, Lev 25:13; Deut 15:2). He will judge the nations (Psalm 82:1-2; 7:8-9) and carry out punishment/vengeance on the wicked (Belial). This figure is further associated with an Anointed Messenger (Isa 52:7; Dan 9:25) who will announce salvation (and judgment) for God’s people. According to the narrative in Genesis, Melchizedek was the Priest-King of Salem-Jerusalem (Gen 14:18ff) in the time of Abraham. Though the Torah, and much of the Prophetic tradition, would condemn the appropriation of the Priestly role by rulers (as the Hasmoneans later did)—see the examples in Numbers 16; 2 Chronicles 26:16-20—it is recorded that David and other Israelite kings/princes did, on occasion, function as priests (cf. 2 Sam 6:17-18; 8:18; 1 Kings 8:63-64; 2 Kings 16:12-13, etc). This was very much in accord with the ancient Near Eastern view of Kingship (as attested in the case of Melchizedek), where the ruler held priestly privileges and prerogatives, and would exercise them, at least on certain occasions. Indeed, it is this sort of royal theology which presumably underlies the mention of Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4—in its original historical context.

Many scholars would hold that Melchizedek in 11QMelch is a Heavenly/Angelic Redeemer figure, such as Michael in the book of Daniel, or the “Son of Man” in the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71). This view is probably influenced largely by the reference to Psalm 82:1-2 in column ii, lines 9-10; however, as is clear from the Qumran texts, the Enoch literature, as well as of Jesus in the Gospels, there can be a fine line between the conception of a Heavenly being and an eschatological (human) King/Redeemer appointed by God to bring about the end-time Judgment and establishment of the Kingdom for the people of God.

3. The priority/superiority of Priesthood over Kingship

Given the fact that the Qumran Community (and/or the community of the Damascus Document) was likely founded by priests, and the central/leading role that priests held in the Community, it is not surprising that “Aaron” (and the Anointed One of Aaron) would come ahead of “Israel” (and the Anointed One of Israel) in their eschatology and Messianic thought. In 1QSa 2:11ff, the (Anointed?) Priest enters and is seated ahead of the Anointed One of Israel. The “Levi” documents (4Q[T]Levi) at Qumran give to the Priesthood an exalted status and position, and in 4QLevia ar [4Q213] fragments 1+2 col. ii, Levi appears to be connected with both the priesthood and the kingdom (cf. also the language in 4Q541 frag. 9, col. i). These Levi texts are likely representative of the kind of Jewish source material that underlies the later Jewish/Christian Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. For a similar exalted view of the priesthood, see Testament of Levi 18; and, for the priority of Priest over King, cf. Testament of Judah 21-22.

Priestly Themes and motifs in the Gospels

It must be admitted that the Priesthood and Priestly motifs are not especially prominent in the Gospels, by comparison with some of the Qumran texts cited above. On a number of occasions, Jesus is shown as being at odds with the ruling Priestly authorities, but only in connection with the events surrounding his Passion (cf. the predictions in Mk 8:31; 10:33 par, also 11:18, 27; 14:1 par, etc), and they play a leading role in the opposition to him prior to his death (cf. especially the scene before the Sanhedrin, Mk 14:53-65 par). Elsewhere in Synoptic tradition, Jesus refers to the priesthood only twice—once in the positive context of fulfilling the ceremonial aspects of the Law (Mk 1:44 par), and once in the context of the Sabbath-controversies (Mk 2:26 par). Throughout the Gospels and Acts, positive references to the priesthood are rare, found only in the Infancy narratives (the parents of John the Baptist, Zechariah and Elizabeth [Lk 1:5-25, 67-79]), and the brief notice in Acts 6:7 that many priests in Jerusalem became obedient to the Christian faith.

Jesus’ relationship to the Temple and the cultic/ritual apparatus of sacrificial offerings, etc., overseen by the Priests, is rather more complex. The principal passages are: (1) the Temple action by Jesus (i.e. the “cleansing” of the Temple), and (2) the Temple saying, variously reported in the Gospels and Acts. As I have discussed these in some detail in an earlier article, I will only give a brief outline here:

  1. The Temple “cleansing” is recorded in all four Gospels—Mark 11:15-18; Matthew 21:12-17; Luke 19:45-48; John 2:13-17. Commentators continue to debate the precise interpretation and significance of the episode. Certainly, Jesus shows great concern for the sanctity and holiness of the Temple, but there is no indication that he is acting in the role of a Priest. However, he does level a definite objection to the current apparatus surrounding the Temple sacrifices (if not to idea of sacrificial offerings themselves), and, with it, a harsh critique against the priesthood. The citation of Isa 56:7 may indicate that he envisions a somewhat different purpose for the Temple—as a place of prayer, rather than of sacrificial offerings (bound up in commercial transactions).
  2. The Synoptic tradition (Mk 14:58; Matt 26:61) records an alleged claim by witnesses, during Jesus’ appearance before the Sanhedrin, that he claimed he would destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days. Mark/Matthew regards this as false testimony, but a similar saying by Jesus is recorded in John 2:19. Luke does not include this in the Passion narrative, but there would seem to be a reference to it in Acts 6:14. The Markan version of the (alleged) saying states that the physical Temple (“made with hands”) would be destroyed and a new Temple (“made without hands”) will be built in its place. The idea that Jesus might build a different kind of Temple, or that he effectively replaces it in his own person, seems to underlie the polemic against the Temple in Stephen’s speech, where the idea of being “made with/without hands” is central (Acts 7:40-41, 43, 48, 50; cf. also Acts 17:24). In John’s account, the Temple saying (Jn 2:19ff) is connected with the Temple cleansing (Jn 2:14-17), and given a specific interpretation: the “Temple” is Jesus himself (his body), and the destruction/rebuilding is a reference to his death and resurrection. Thus, while it does not depict Jesus as a Priest, he is viewed in a spiritual/symbolic sense as the sacred Place where the Priesthood operates. Cf. Matthew 12:4-6 for a similar idea in the Synoptics.

Jesus as (High) Priest

Here we will explore: (1) Sayings of Jesus which might identify him as a Priest in some way, (2) Narrative episodes or actions where he may be fulfilling a Priestly role, and (3) Other motifs in the New Testament and early Christian thought which specifically relate to Jesus as a Priest.

First, with regard to specific sayings of Jesus, there are only a few which seem to refer to the Priesthood in some meaningful way:

  • Jesus’ words in Mark 2:5-10 par, etc—the power/authority to declare forgiveness of sin, apart from the ritual means outlined in the Law, could be taken to imply that Jesus was fulfilling a Priestly role in this regard
  • Matthew 12:3-8 par—part of the Sabbath Controversy episode in Mk 2:23-28 par, in which Jesus compares himself and his disciples with the Priests of the Holy Place. The sequence of sayings in Matthew’s version strongly suggests, that, in some sense, Jesus (in his own person and teaching) takes the place of the Temple and Priesthood:
    —”He entered the House of God…” etc (vv. 3-4)
    —”the priests in the Temple cross over [i.e. violate] the Sabbath and are without cause (for guilt)” (v. 5)
    —”(Something) greater than the Temple is here (in this place)” (v. 6)
    —”I wish for mercy and not slaying (of sacrificial offerings)” (v. 7)
    —”For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” (v. 8)
  • The words of institution at the Last Supper (Mark 14:22-24 par), associated with the (Priestly) act of blessing/benediction (cf. below). It is the words over the cup which are especially significant, in reference to:
    (1) The (new) Covenant—the ritual/ceremonial aspects and elements of the (old) Covenant were administered by the Priests
    (2) The Blood—the sprinkling and pouring out of blood was connected with the consecration of the Priesthood, etc, and the administration of sacrificial offerings
    (3) “Over many (for the forgiveness of sins)”—the atoning aspect of sacrifice, especially that of the sin offering, and the sacrifices offered on the Day of Atonement (for the entire Community)
  • The great Prayer-Discourse in John 17 is sometimes referred to as the “High Priestly Prayer” of Jesus, but this is rather misleading, since there are few specific priestly images or allusions in the prayer. Only in a loose sense—in terms of Jesus representing his disciples before God, and interceding on their behalf—can it be interpreted in this way. Perhaps the closest we come to a direct priestly reference is in vv. 17-19:
    “Sanctify them in the truth…even as I sanctify myself over them, that they also might be sanctified in the truth”

Similarly, examples in the Gospel narrative where Jesus fulfills a Priestly role are few; I highlight what I consider to be the three most notable areas:

  • Jesus role in blessing the bread and the cup of the Last Supper (Mk 14:22-23 par). In Matthew and Mark, the verbs eu)loge/w and eu)xariste/w are used for the bread and cup, respectively (Lk 22:17-20 uses eu)xariste/w for both). While this need not mean anything more than the head of table giving the blessing for the (Passover) meal, Jesus’ words associated with the cup (“my blood of the [new] Covenant which is poured out…”) certainly indicates something deeper (cf. above). Jesus is depicted in a similar act of blessing during the (two) feeding miracles (Mk 6:41; 8:7 par), and cf. also in Lk 24:30.
  • In Luke 24:50-51, the Gospel writer clearly depicts Jesus in the role of Priest delivering the blessing/benediction to the people. This is confirmed by the parallel with Zechariah (father of John the Baptist, and priest serving in the Temple) in Lk 1:21-22. In that episode (the first in the Gospel), the Priest (Zechariah) is unable to give the expected benediction to the waiting crowd; here, in the last episode of the Gospel, Jesus finally does so—giving the blessing to his disciples before his departure (and ascension to the Father).
  • In the Gospel of John, Jesus frequently identifies himself (i.e. his own person and teaching) in various ways with: the Temple (Jn 2:13-22, cf. above), the Sabbath (Jn 5), and elements of the great Feast-days such as Passover and Sukkoth/Tabernacles (Jn 2:13-22; 6; 7-8)—all representing ritual/ceremonial aspects of the Law which were administered and officiated by Priests. Most notable, are several key details which identify Jesus specifically with the sacrificial offering at Passover—the Paschal Lamb:
    • The Baptist’s declaration of Jesus as “the Lamb of God” in Jn 1:29-36. Most likely, the lamb sacrificed for Passover is intended, though the qualifying phrase in v. 29 “…the (one) taking away the sin of the world” perhaps better fits the sacrificial animal of the sin offering (Lev 4:3). There is also a plausible connection with Isaiah 53:4-7, 12. Cf. also 1 Cor 5:7; 1 Pet 1:18-19; Rev 5:6, 9 etc.
    • In John, Jesus is crucified on the eve of Passover (Jn 19:14) at the time the lambs would be slaughtered (cf. also Mark 14:12 par).
    • John 19:31-32, 36 is a clear reference to the Passover lamb (Ex 12:46; Num 9:12, cf. also Psalm 34:20).
    • The mention of hyssop in Jn 19:26 [MT] may possibly be an allusion to the blood applied to the door frame in Exod 12:22.

In light of the fact that the eschatological/Messianic figure of the “Teacher of Righteousness” and the “Interpreter of the Law” in the Qumran texts has certain definite parallels with Jesus as Teacher (of the Law) in the Gospels (cf. Part 4), it is worth pointing out again that this figure-type very likely would have been understood as an (Anointed) Priest.

Finally, we should consider other priestly motifs or descriptions of Jesus as a Priest in the remainder of the New Testament. It must be admitted that, here again, these are very few, apart from the notable exception of the letter to the Hebrews. We have:

    • The association with Passover sacrifice (cf. above) in 1 Corinthians 5:7; 1 Pet 1:18-19; however, it should be noted that Jesus is identified with the sacrificial Lamb, not the Priest who administers the sacrifice. Similarly in Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 4:10.
    • In 2 Corinthians 3:6-18 Paul speaks of the “new covenant” for believers in Christ (marked by the Spirit), which supersedes and replaces the old (governed by Moses, the Priesthood, and the Law); cf. also Gal 3:15-18ff. In Romans 11:27, Paul speaks of this New Covenant in Christ in atoning/sacrificial terms (“when I take away their sins”, citing Isa 59:20-21); note also his citation of Jesus’ words over the cup at the Last Supper in 1 Cor 11:25 (cf. above).
    • The language of sacrificial offering (administered by priests) is also used in Romans 15:16; Phil 2:17; 4:18; Eph 5:2; 2 Tim 4:6; 1 Pet 2:5, 9, but these references have more to do with the idea of believers as sacrificial offerings, or functioning as priests in the service of Christ and the Gospel.

It is only in the Letter to the Hebrews that we see the image of Jesus as a Priest (High Priest) clearly expressed, and in considerable detail, reflecting a decree of theological/Christological development in the theme that is simply not found elsewhere in the New Testament. For a detailed survey and examination, see the Supplemental Study on Hebrews. In terms of Messianic thought at the time of Jesus, there are two aspects of the treatment in Hebrews which are noteworthy:

    1. The emphasis on the Priest offering sacrifice for the atonement/forgiveness of sins—Where a Messianic Priest-figure appears in Jewish writings of the period (cf. above), it tends to be associated with Teaching/Instruction, Blessing and the (joint) role of Ruler. However, in at least one text from Qumran (4Q541, fragment 9), it is said that this Priest “will atone for the children of his generation” and “…darkness will disappear from the earth” (cf. Testament of Levi 18:4).
    2. The figure of Melchizedek as (Heavenly) Priest-King—Melchizedek plays a central role in the fragmentary text 11Q13 (11QMelch[izedek]) from Qumran (late 1st-cent. B.C.?), as an end-time Deliverer of the people of God and Judge of the wicked (Belial). He is connected with the Anointed (One) of Isa 61:1 (cf. Isa 52:7) and Dan 9:25-26, and is often viewed by commentators as a Divine/Heavenly figure. In 2 Enoch 71-72, Melchizedek also has an exalted position alongside the Angels in Heaven.

For other early Christian reference to Jesus as a High Priest, see Ignatius Philadelphians 9:1; Epistle of Polycarp 12:2; Martyrdom of Polycarp 14:3; and also 1 Clement 61:3; 64:1, which may be influenced by the language of Hebrews.

Yeshua the Anointed, Part 6: The Davidic King (Overview and Background)

With this article, we will begin exploring the Messianic figure-type of Anointed King, which is probably what most people think of when they hear the term “Messiah”—a future ruler from the line of David who will “restore the kingdom to Israel” (Acts 1:6). However, as I have already discussed and demonstrated at length, Messianic thought and belief at the time of Jesus cannot be limited to this particular figure-type. When we see the term “Anointed (One)” (xristo/$, christós) in the Gospels, we ought not to assume that it necessarily means a Davidic King, though in subsequent Jewish tradition it did come to carry this meaning almost exclusively. Even by the time of the New Testament, however, the expectation of such an end-time Anointed Ruler was relatively widespread, and, by the end of the 1st-century A.D. was probably the dominant Messianic figure-type, with other traditions having merged into it. Because of the scope and complexity of the subject, it will be necessary to spread it out over three parts:

    • Part 1: Overview and Background
    • Part 2: Detailed Analysis, examining specific passages from Jewish writings and the New Testament
    • Part 3: “Son of David”—the use of the title in the Gospels and its application to Jesus in early Christian belief

Old Testament Background

It is necessary to begin with the Old Testament Scriptures which provide the foundation for the expectation of a coming Davidic Ruler at the end-time. As I pointed out in the Introduction, kings in the Ancient Near East were consecrated through the ritual/ceremonial act of anointing (with oil). This is recorded numerous times in the Old Testament, typically with the verb jv^m* (m¹šaµ, “rub, smear, apply [paint etc]”)—Judg 9:8, 15; 1 Sam 9:16; 10:1; 15:1, 17; 16:3, et al. The noun j^yv!m* (m¹šîaµ, “anointed [one]”) is used of the reigning/ruling king in 1 Sam 2:10, 35; 16:6; Psalm 2:2; 20:7; 84:10 (also Psalm 28:8; Hab 3:13 ?), and specifically of kings such as Saul (1 Sam 24:7, 11; 26:9, 11, 16, 23; 2 Sam 1:14, 16, 21 [?], cf. also 1 Sam 12:3, 5), and especially David (and/or the Davidic line, 2 Sam 19:22; 22:51; 23:1; Psalm 18:51; 89:39, 52; 132:10, 17, including Solomon in 2 Chron 6:42). David and his son Solomon were the greatest of Israel’s kings, and under their rule the kingdom reached by far its greatest extent of territory, sovereignty (over vassal states), wealth and prestige. It is only natural that, following the decline and fall of the kingdom(s) of Israel/Judah in the 8th-6th centuries, Israelites and Jews in the Exile, and for generations thereafter, would look to David as the ideal king, especially when judged in terms of political and military power.

Even in the Old Testament itself, we see the promise of a future Davidic ruler, and its development can generally be outlined as follows:

  • In the time of David and Solomon, a specific royal (Judean) theology grew up around the kingship, expressed and preserved in specific Psalms which would have enormous influence on subsequent Jewish (and Christian) thought. Two Psalms in particular—Psalm 2 and 110—set around the enthronement/coronation/inauguration of the (new) king, draw upon ancient Near Eastern language and symbolism, depicting the reigning king as God’s appointed, chosen representative (figuratively, his “son” [Ps 2:7])
  • This same theology crystalized in the Scriptural narrative, associated with a particular oracle by Nathan the prophet, regarding the future of the Davidic dynasty (2 Samuel 7:8-16). The critical and interpretive difficulties regarding this section are considerable, and cannot be delved into here. The prayer of David following in 2 Sam 7:18-29 must be read in context, along with the parallel(s) in Psalm 89 (cf. also 2 Sam 22:44-51 / Ps 18:44-51).
  • The so-called Deuteronomic history (Judges–Kings) uses an ethical and narrative framework, comparing the good and wicked kings, according to the extent to which they followed the way of the Lord—defined, in part, in terms of the example of David (“as David his Father did”, 1 Kings 9:4; 11:4-6, 33-34, etc). David thus serves, in many ways, as the model/ideal ruler. Historical circumstances clearly showed that the promise regarding the Davidic dynasty was conditional—his descendants would maintain rule only so far as they remained faithful and obedient to God (cf. 1 Kings 11:9-13, 31-39). Thus the oracle of Nathan would be (re)interpreted to allow for a (temporary) end to Davidic kingship.
  • The Davidic promise is given new form in the oracles of the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel, in the historical context of the fall of Judah and the Babylonian exile. Jer 23:5ff declares that God will raise for David “a righteous sprout [qyD!x* jm^x#]” who will rule as king. The same expression and message is found in Jer 33:14-16ff. That these prophecies point to the future, in contrast to the historical circumstances in the prophet’s own time, is indicated by the surrounding context (cf. Jer 22:30; 33:19-26). In Ezekiel 34:23-24, there is a similar promise that God raise up for Israel “one shepherd, my servant David”; cf. also Ezek 37:24-25.
  • In the early post-Exilic period, Zerubbabel appears to have been seen as a fulfillment of the restoration of Davidic rule (Haggai 2:21-24; Zechariah 4:6-14, cf. also 3:8; 6:11-14). Ultimately, of course, the true fulfillment had to wait for a future coming King, as indicated in the (later) oracle Zech 9:9-10ff.

There are several other Scripture passages which would play a key role in the development of Messianic expectation:

  • Genesis 49:10—part of the blessing of Jacob over his sons, specifically for Judah (vv. 8-12), where it is stated:
    “The (ruling) staff will not turn aside from Judah, nor the engraved rod from between his feet, until the (time/point) which shîloh comes, and the obedience of the peoples will be(long) to him.”
    The exact meaning of hýyv! (šîlœ, shiloh) remains uncertain and problematic. Among many commentators today, the element yv is read as a relative particle attached to a suffixed preposition (i.e. “…until he comes to whom it [i.e. the staff] belongs”). The JPS Torah Commentary (N. Sarna on Genesis [1989], pp. 336-7), following earlier Rabbinic interpretation, reads it as the noun yv^ (šay, “gift, homage, tribute”) attached to the preposition, resulting in the attractive poetic line “…until tribute comes to him, and the homage/obedience of the peoples be(long) to him”. However, by the time of Jesus, shiloh had already come to be understood as a Messianic title, as seen in the (pesher) Commentary on Genesis from Qumran (4Q252 frag. 1, col. 5); and so it would often be interpreted subsequently in the Targums as well as in Jewish (and Christian) tradition.
  • Numbers 24:17-19—in the fourth oracle of Balaam (Num 24:15-24), we find the famous line: “…a star will march/tread (forth) from Jacob, and staff will stand (up) [i.e. rise] from Israel” (v. 17). The first verb (Er^D*) can also be understood in terms of (exercising) dominion; that the seer speaks of a conquering/ruling king is clear from the following verses (“and from Jacob he will [come and] tread [them down]”, v. 19a). Verse 17a ambiguously sets this prophecy in the future: “I see him/it, but not (yet) now; I observe him/it, but not (yet) near”. This passage was understood as a Messianic prophecy by the time of Jesus (cf. the references below), as well as in the Targums (Onkelos, Jonathan); famously it was applied to the quasi-Messianic revolutionary leader Ben-Kosiba (“Bar-Kokhba” = “Son of the Star”), cf. j. Ta’anit 68d.
  • Isaiah 11:1-9—the prophecy begins with the declaration “A branch will go out from the stem of Jesse, a fresh/green (sprout) will grow (out) from his roots”. This passage, along with Psalm 2, would be extremely influential in associating the coming Davidic ruler with the defeat/subjugation of the nations and the end-time Judgment. Here also we find the idea of Judgment (vv. 3-4) followed by a new Age of peace (vv. 6-9), common to much Messianic thought. In relation to Jesus, we may note the reference to the Holy Spirit resting upon him (cf. Isa 61:1 / Lk 4:18ff; and the description of his Baptism, Mk 1:10 par).
  • Amos 9:11-15—a promise for the (future) restoration of Israel/Judah, which begins with God declaring: “On that day I will make stand up (again) [i.e. raise] the hut of David th(at) has fallen…” Here the ‘hut’ (i.e. a covering, presumably woven with branches) represents the “house of David”, his kingdom/dynasty. By the time of Jesus, this passage had come to be understood in a Messianic sense, as indicated by the Qumran text 4QFlorilegium [4Q174]; cf. also in the Damascus Document [CD 7, manuscript A] and the citation in Acts 15:16-18.
  • Micah 5:2-5 [Hebrew 5:1-4]—famous from Matthew 2:1-12, this prophecy refers to a coming (Davidic) ruler, who will restore/reunite the kingdom of Israel (cf. also Mic 4:8), establishing a reign of peace and security.
  • Zech 3:8; 6:12-13—references to the “sprout” or “branch” [jm^x#] (cf. above).
  • Daniel 9:25-26—the famous and controversial reference to an “Anointed leader/ruler [dyg]n` j^yv!m*]”, set in the context of the prophecy of Seventy Weeks (cf. Jer 25:11-12; 29:10; Dan 9:2). The exact identity of this Anointed figure, in the original historical/literary context, remains much debated. The term dyg]n` generally refers to a prominent leader/ruler, etc.—often specifically of a military commander, but it can also be used of religious leaders (i.e. priests) and various kinds of dignitaries. This passage will be discussed, by way of a supplementary note, in a subsequent article.

The Messiah-King figure in Judaism

Here it is best to begin with a survey of references from the Qumran (and related) texts, most of which can be dated from sometime in the 1st century B.C.

j^yv!m* (m¹šîaµ), “Anointed”

We find the specific expression “the Anointed (One) of Israel” in the Damascus Document (CD 12:23-13:1; 14:19 [= 4Q266 10 i 12]; 19:10-11; 20:1), as well as the Qumran 1QS 9:11 (passage apparently missing from 4Q259 1 iii 6); 1QSa 2:14-15, 20-21; and also 4Q382 16 2. In most of these passages it is the role as future leader of the Community that is emphasized, though the end-time Judgment on the wicked is also implied. Several of these references are to “the Anointed (One)s of Aaron and Israel“, indicating the expectation of an Anointed Priest-figure (to be discussed in an upcoming article). Though not specified, “Anointed (One) of Israel” presumably refers to a (Davidic) Ruler (cf. below); the simple “Anointed (One)” in 1QSa 2:11-12; 4Q381 15 7; 4Q458 2 ii 6 probably refers to the same figure. In 4Q252 5:3-4, the “Anointed (One) of Righteousness” is identified as the “branch [jm^x#] of David”.

ayc!n` (n¹´î°), “Prince/Leader”

The term ayc!n` literally means “(one who is) lifted up”, i.e. raised/lifted over the other people as ruler or leader, often translated “Prince”. In the Qumran texts, it appears to be used often in a Messianic sense, likely inspired by Ezek 34:24; 37:25. Presumably it refers to a (Davidic) ruler-figure also called “the Anointed of Israel” (above, cf. 4Q496 10 3-4). The texts generally mention him in the context of his role as leader/commander over the Community, expressed especially by the larger expression “Prince of (all) the congregation” (hduh [lk] aycn)—CD 7:19-20; 1QSb 5:20; 1QM 5:1; 4Q161 2-6 ii 19; 4Q266 3 iii 21; 4Q285 4 2, 6; 5 4; 6 2; 4Q376 1 iii 1. In CD 7:19-20, he is identified as the ruler’s staff [fbv] that will arise from Israel in Num 24:17 (cf. above), and with the “branch of David” in 4Q285 5 4. In the War Rule [1QM] he participates in the defeat and judgment of the nations (cf. also 4Q285 4 6).

dyw]d` jm^x# (ƒemaµ D¹wîd), “Branch of David”

This expression is derived from Jer 23:5; 33:15 (also Isa 11:1; Zech 3:8; 6:12, cf. above), and clearly refers to a coming Davidic ruler. His end-time appearance is interpreted as a fulfillment of several of the Old Testament Scriptures outlined above. The expression is found in the following Qumran texts: 4Q161 7-10 iii 22; 4Q174 1-3 i 11 (on 2 Sam 7:14); 4Q252 5:3-4 (on Gen 49:10); and 4Q285 5 3,4 (executing judgment on the wicked/nations).

Other references in the Qumran texts

In light of the Messianic interpretation of the “staff” [fbv] from Gen 49:10 and Num 24:17 (in CD 7:19-20 [4Q266 3 iv 9]; 1QM 11:6-7 and 4Q175 12), we might also mention the occurrence of the word in the fragmentary texts 4Q161 2-6 ii 19 [restored] and 4Q521 2 iii 6.

Also, given the association of the Anointed (Davidic) ruler as God’s “Son” (/B#) in 2 Sam 7:14; Psalm 2:7 and related tradition (cf. the interpretation of 2 Sam 7:14 in 4Q174), we should also mention 4Q246, referenced in previous notes and articles, which refers to the future rising of a (Messianic?) King who is given the titles “son of God” and “Son of the Most High” (col. 2, line 1, cf. Luke 1:32, 35). Note also the apparent reference to a particular figure as God’s “firstborn [rwkb] (son)” in the uncertain fragments 4Q369 1 ii 6; 4Q458 15 1.

Other Jewish Writings from the 1st centuries B.C./A.D.

Several of these passages will be discussed in more detail in the next article; I list the most relevant references here, in summary/outline form:

  • Sirach 47:11, which mentions the exaltation of David’s horn (by contrast, cf. 45:25; 49:4-5); note also the Hebrew prayer following Sir 51:12 (8th line)—”give thanks to him who makes a horn to sprout for the house of David…” [NRSV translation].
  • The 17th and 18th of the so-called Psalms of Solomon, especially the reference to David in Ps Sol 17:21, to the “Anointed” of God in Ps Sol 17:32[36]; 18:5, 7, and the influence of Psalm 2 and Isa 11:4ff throughout (cf. 17:21-25ff; 18:6-8).
  • The Apocalypse of Baruch (2 Baruch) 29:3; 30:1; 39:7; 40:1; 70:9; 72:2 [Syriac]; and note esp. the context of chs. 72-74, which describe the coming Messiah, judgment of the nations, and the establishment of the (Messianic) Kingdom of God on earth.
  • 2/4 Esdras (4 Ezra)—the core of the book (chapters 4-13, esp. 7, 11-12, 13:3-14:9) assumes an eschatological framework similar that of 2 Baruch (both books are typically dated from the end of the 1st century A.D.). The “Messiah” is specifically referred to in 7:28-29 (called God’s “Son”) and 12:32 (identified as the offspring of David).
  • The prophecy by Balaam (Num 24:17) is given a Messianic interpretation in the Testament of Levi 18:3ff and Testament of Judah 24:1-6. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs as we have them are Christian (2nd cent. A.D.?) expansions/adaptations of earlier Jewish material, such as we seen in the Aramaic Levi text [4QTLevi] from Qumran.

The Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71) make mention numerous times of the “Righteous/Elect One” and “Son of Man”—a heavenly figure who functions as judge and ruler over the nations, and is presumably the one called God’s “Anointed” in 1 Enoch 48:10; 52:4—however the promise of the restoration of Davidic rule plays little or no part in the book. Nor does the idea of a Davidic Messiah-figure have any importance in the writings of Josephus and Philo. The quasi-Messianic figures described in Antiquities 18.85-87, 20.97-8, 169-72 and Wars 7.437ff seem to represent end-time wonder-working Prophets according to the type of Elijah or Moses, rather than a Davidic king. However, Josephus claims that the war against Rome (66-70 A.D.) was fueled by a prophecy (perhaps the oracle of Balaam, Num 24:15-29 [cf. above]) that one coming from Judea would rule the world (Wars 6.312f, cf. also Tacitus Hist. 5.13.2; Suetonius Vespasian 4.5). Somewhat later, such an interpretation (of Num 24:17) certainly played a role in the Bar-Kokhba rebellion (132-135 A.D.), and Messianic expectation perhaps influenced the revolt of 115-117 A.D. in Egypt and Cyrenaica as well.

For a convenient collection of many of the Qumran references cited above, I have found most useful the article by Martin G. Abegg and Craig A. Evans, “Messianic Passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls” in Qumran Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. James H. Charlesworth, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Gerbern S. Oegema (Mohr Siebeck: 1998), pages 191-203.

4Q541

In discussing the Qumran text 11QMelchizedek mention was made of the Messianic Priest figure-type (on this, cf. Part 9 of the series Yeshua the Anointed). Another important text which gives evidence of this line of Messianic thought at Qumran is 4Q541, variously called 4QTLevi (d) and 4QAaron (A), according to the analysis of two different editors (Émile Puech and Jean Starcky). The text is made up of 24 fragments, of which most are two small to be intelligible; only fragments 1-2, 4, 7, 9 and 24 are intact enough to provide readable content. The largest fragment (9) provides almost the entire context for the surviving document; the parallels with the Testament of Levi (18:2-5 [see below]) explain Puech’s identification of it as related to Test. Levi. In point of fact, while a priestly figure is clearly in view in fragment 9, neither Levi nor Aaron is mentioned by name in 4Q541.

In general, the text would seem to be part of a series of apocalyptic pseudepigrapha dealing with the Patriarchs, and of Levi (and his lineage) in particular (4Q537-549). The Levitical priestly line would culminate with Amram, Moses and Aaron, from whom the Aaronid priesthood would arise. The priestly emphasis in the Qumran texts is to be explained by the fact that many in the Community were priests, including the leading/founding figure known as the “Teacher of Righteousness”. A major point of contention with the Hasmonean rulers in the 2nd and early/mid-1st century had been their appropriation of priestly duties and privileges, even though they were not from the line of Levi/Aaron. In this regard, the Hasmoneans were following the royal theology expressed in Psalm 110, symbolized by the person of Melchizedek, a priest-king who served God (and was honored by Abraham) long before the Aaronid priesthood was established; on such basis, a king could also function as priest. For the Qumran Community, however, the significance of Melchizedek was almost certainly the opposite—a priest who served as king.

The Qumran Community thus gave strong emphasis to the priesthood in their Messianic and eschatological thought. The only other Jewish writing from the first centuries B.C./A.D. to reflect this is the Testament of Levi, a pseudepigraphic work known in Hebrew from the Cairo Geniza remains, and in a Greek form in the Jewish/Christian Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. As it happens, this work is also known, in an older (Aramaic) form, preserved in a number of the scroll fragments at Qumran. This “Aramaic Levi Document” is represented by 1Q21, and the scrolls/fragments 4Q213-214. Only small portions survive, but 1Q21 makes the important declaration that “the kingdom of priesthood [atwnhk] is greater that the kingdom of…”.

Fragment 9 of 4Q541 is the central, principal surviving fragment. Column 1, as we have it, begins as follows:

“[…] the sons of his generation […] his [wi]sdom. And he will cover [i.e. atone, rpk] over all the sons of his generation, and he will be sent to all the sons of his [people]. His utterance is like the utterance of the heavens, and his teaching (is) according to the will of God. His eternal sun will shine, and his fire will burn in all the ends of the earth, and over the darkness it will shine.” (lines 1-4)

The words in line 2 may be compared with the statement in 11Q13 that the “tenth Jubilee” (i.e. the end of the current Age) will correspond with the Day of Atonement, and will be the time in which “to cover [i.e. atone, rpk] over all the sons of light and the men of the lot of Melchizedek” (lines 7-8). Here priestly sacrificial imagery (associated with the Day of Atonement) is used to express the end-time deliverance brought about by Melchizedek. At this time, the true Israel, the faithful remnant (i.e. the Qumran Community) will be delivered from the dominion of Belial, and returned according to their true identity as “sons of light” belonging to Melchizedek (the “Prince of Light”). In 4Q541, it would seem that sacrificial language (using the verb rpk, “cover, wipe away”) is also used to express something beyond the sacrificial ritual. The emphasis in fragment 9 is rather on the priestly role of teaching, of bringing revelation and enlightenment to God’s people. Even though the ritual detail of sacrifice still holds an important place in the thought of the Community (cf. 4Q214 and 214b), because of their separation from the Temple cultus, it came to take on a wider (and specialized) symbolic meaning, much as it did for early Christians. It is through the teaching and revelation of God’s word that the eschatological/Messianic priest-figure of 4Q541 atones for “the children of his generation”.

Some scholars, reading a bit too much into the references of opposition to the priest and his work in the remainder of fragment 9 (lines 6-7), have suggested that this figure has something of the character of the Isaian “Suffering Servant”, who atones for his people through his suffering, bringing him more closely into parallel with the early Christian understanding of Jesus as the Messiah. This would seem to take fragment quite out of context. It is clear that the priest-figure makes atonement through his speaking [rmam], teaching and proclaiming the word and will of God.

Like Melchizedek, this figure stands and speaks in God’s place, with such powerful effect that “darkness will vanish from the earth and cloudiness from the dry land” (figuratively speaking). Yet, at the same time, unlike Melchizedek, this figure does not bring about the final redemption; rather, things in the world will actually get worse in his time, i.e. the current time of the Community which continues to exist as the faithful remnant during the dominion of Belial (the “Prince of Darkness”). Darkness vanishes for the Community, the true Israel, but not for the rest of humankind who “will go astray in his days and will be bewildered”. This is similar to what Jesus declares in his “Eschatological Discourse” (Mark 13 par)—that things will grow increasingly worse on earth, with a period of intense distress, before the end finally comes. Much the same idea is expressed elsewhere in the Qumran texts, notably in the Commentary (Pesher) on Habakkuk; there, commenting on Hab 1:5, we read:

“[… The interpretation of the word concerns] the traitors with the Man of the Lie, since they do not [believe in the words of] the Teacher of Righteousness from the mouth of God; and (it concerns) the traito[rs of the] new [covenant] si[n]ce they did not believe in the covenant of God [and dishonored] his holy na[me]. Likewise: [ ] The interpretation of the word [concerns the trai]tors in the last days. They are violator[s of the coven]ant who will not believe when they hear all that is going [to happen t]o the final generation, from the mouth of the Priest whom God has placed wi[thin the Commun]ity, to foretell the fulfillment of all the words of his servants, the prophets, [by] means of whom God has declared all that is going to happen to his people Is[rael].” (1QpHab ii. 1-10, translation García Martínez & Tigchelaar)

Fragment 24 of 4Q541, which may well represent the close of the work (or very near to it), has gained prominence due to the obscurity of lines 4-5, which have been variously translated; I offer two disparate examples (main differences in italics):

“Examine and seek and ask what the dove (or Jonah?) sought (?) and do not afflict the weak by wasting or hanging… [Let] not the nail approach him.” (Collins, p. 125)

“Examine, ask and know what the dove has asked; and do not punish it by the sea-mew and […] do not bring the night-hawk near it.” (García Martínez & Tigchelaar, 2:1081)

The translation of the word axx as “nail” (based on the Syriac) has suggested that it is a reference to crucifixion; based on what survives of fragment 24 as a whole, this seems rather unlikely. The context indicates that this is a concluding exhortation, either for characters in the pseudepigraphon, the readers of the work , or (most likely) both. Line 5 continues: “And you will establish for your father a name of joy, and for your brothers you will make a [tested] foundation rise. You will see and rejoice in eternal light. And you will not be of the enemy.” (translation García Martínez & Tigchelaar). From the standpoint of the Community, this serves as an exhortation to continue in faithful obedience—to the Torah, the message of the Prophets, and the inspired teaching of the Community—even during this current age of wickedness. Ultimately it will lead to salvation at the end-time (“eternal light”), even as now the faithful Community walks according to the light of the true teaching and revelation.

Testament of Levi 18:2-5

Above, I noted certain similarities (in thought and wording) between 4Q541 fragment 9 and Testament of Levi 18:2-5. I conclude here with a translation of these verses:

And then the Lord will raise up a new priest
to whom all the words of the Lord will be revealed.
He shall effect the judgment of truth over the earth for many days.
And his star shall rise in heaven like a king;
kindling the light of knowledge as day is illumined by the sun.
And he shall be extolled by the whole inhabited world.
This one will shine forth like the sun in the earth;
he shall take away all darkness from under heaven,
and there shall be peace in all the earth.
The heavens shall greatly rejoice in his days
and the earth shall be glad;
the clouds will be filled with joy
and the knowledge of the Lord will be poured out on the earth like the water of the seas.
And the angels of glory of the Lord’s presence will be made glad by him.
(translation by H. C. Kee, OTP 1:794)

In producing the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, as we have them, Christian scribes appear to have edited and adapted earlier Jewish material. We have the clearest evidence for this in the case of the Testament of Levi, due the parallel material in the Levi text from the Cairo Geniza and the Aramaic Levi document fragments from Qumran (cf. above). Christians appear to have been attracted to the Messianic thought expressed in these pseudepigrapha and sought to apply it to the person of Jesus.

References above marked “García Martínez & Tigchelaar” are to Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, 2 volumes (Brill / Eerdmans: 1997-8).
References marked “Collins” are to John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature, Anchor Bible Reference Library [ABRL] (Doubleday: 1995).
References marked “OTP” are to The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 volumes, edited by James H. Charlesworth. Anchor Bible Reference Library [ABRL] (Doubleday: 1983).