Tag: Visions of Daniel

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

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

The Similitudes of Enoch and the Gospel Tradition

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

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

Let us briefly discuss each of these points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Similitudes of Enoch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2/4 Esdras

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

“Who Is This Son of Man…?”: Daniel 7:13-14 (Part 1)

The Influence of Daniel 7:13-14

When it comes to the use of the expression “the son of man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= qeou=) in the Gospels, perhaps no issue has been so vigorously debated among New Testament scholars as the influence of Daniel 7:13-14. The matter has been addressed at a number of points in these studies. There can be no doubt that there are allusions to Dan 7:13f in the sayings of Mark 13:26 and 14:62 pars (see the earlier study), but the extent to which the (Aramaic) use of the expression (in Daniel) influenced the Gospel Tradition in this regard continues to be much disputed. Some scholars believe that the entire Gospel usage of the expression is inspired by Dan 7:13f. More common is the view that the eschatological “son of man” sayings, as a whole, stem from that Scripture tradition—whether the appropriation is viewed as coming from Jesus himself (in authentic sayings), or as an interpretive creation by early Christians. Before proceeding with an analysis of the evidence for the influence of Dan 7:13f on the “son of man” sayings, it will be worth examining briefly the Scripture passage itself, in its literary context. (The following section is an adaptation of a supplemental study in the earlier series “Yeshua the Anointed”.)

Background and Interpretation of Daniel 7:13-14

Dan 7:13-14 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 (discussed in an earlier study), 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, see the discussion below), 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—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 parallel 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. 313-7.

In the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71), which may well be contemporary with Jesus and the earliest Gospel tradition (see Part 2 of this study), 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).

In the second part of this study, we shall examine in more detail the possibility that the expression “the son of man” could, at the time of Jesus, have been understood as a Messianic reference, and might have been applied to a Messianic figure (such as Jesus) as a shorthand title, referring specifically to the heavenly figure (“one like a son of man”) in Dan 7:13f

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

“Who Is This Son of Man…?”: Acts 7:56; Rev 1:13; 14:14

The Expression “the son of man” in the Remainder of the New Testament

The expression “the son of man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou) occurs just four times outside of the Gospels (compared with 82 in the Gospels). As we shall see, three of these four would seem to be influenced by the Gospel Tradition (esp. the sayings in Mark 13:26; 14:62 par), and can be considered as an extension of the use of this expression in the Tradition. This means that the expression is virtually exclusive to the Gospel Tradition, where it is almost always found on the lips of Jesus. There is little indication that the expression played any role among early Christians as a Messianic or Christological title (it is completely absent from Paul’s letters, for example). Indeed, it appears to have relatively little importance within early Christian theology. This seems to have been the case even in the Johannine churches, in spite of the fact that the expression carries distinctive Christological significance in the Gospel of John (cf. the conclusion to our studies on the Johannine sayings). The expression does not occur at all in 1 John, even though the incarnation (viz., the Son as a human being, “the Son of man”) was, by all accounts, at the heart of the Christological controversy addressed in this treatise (see esp. 4:2 [par 2 Jn 7]).

Broadly speaking, one may consider the Book of Revelation as a Johannine work, produced within the network of Johannine churches. Though it is very different in language, style, and theological emphasis, from either the Gospel or Letters, there are enough common features and points of similarity to suggest a shared cultural milieu and environment. The center of the Johannine Community has often been located in Asia Minor (the region around Ephesus); if this identification is correct, it would correspond to the provenance (and audience) of the Book of Revelation (1:4, 11; chaps. 2 and 3).

Revelation 1:13

The expression “the son of man” occurs twice in the Book of Revelation. The first occurrence is at the beginning of the work, in the first vision (1:9-20). In the description by the author/seer of the divine/heavenly being who speaks to him (“and I turned about to see the voice that spoke with me”, v. 12a), we read:

“…I saw seven golden lamp(stand)s, and, in the midst of the lamp(stand)s, (one) like a son of man [o%moion ui(o\n a)nqrw/pou]” (12b-13a)

It is noteworthy that, even though this figure is clearly to be identified as the exalted Jesus (v. 18, etc), the expression “(the) son of man” is decidedly not used as a title (nor is it in 14:14, see below). This accords with the Gospel usage, as a whole, in light of the Old Testament background of the expression—viz., “son of man” simply means a human being.

Yet this is certainly not an ordinary human being; rather it is the exalted Jesus, who was raised from the dead, and then elevated to a divine/heavenly position at the “right hand” of God (cf. below on Acts 7:55-56). In verse 13, this exalted personage is referenced in the manner of the heavenly figure of Daniel 7:13: “(one) like a son of man” (Aramaic vn`a$ rb^K=). In Greek [LXX & Theod], this is translated w($ ui(o\$ a)nqrw/pou (“[one] as a son of man”); the rendering here in the Book of Revelation, using the adjective o%moio$ (“like, resembling”), is a bit more precise. It makes clear that this heavenly figure resembles a human being (“son of man”). For more on the description in vv. 12-16, cf. my earlier note.

This allusion to Daniel 7:13 is all the more significant given the earlier reference to this passage in verse 7:

“See, he comes with the clouds!—and every eye shall gaze (openly on) him, even the ones who stabbed him, and all the offshoots [i.e. tribes/clans] of the earth shall beat (themselves) over him.”

The phrase “he comes with the clouds” (e&rxetai meta\ tw=n nefelw=n) alludes to the descriptive wording in Dan 7:13: “with (the) clouds of the heavens, (one) like a son of man was coming…” The peculiar Aramaic periphrastic verbal expression “was coming” (hw`h& ht@a*) is translated in the LXX by an imperfect form of the verb e&rxomai (“come”), h&rxeto (“was coming”)—suggesting a regular or continual action. Here in Rev 1:7, a present tense form is used (e&rxetai, “he comes”), implying an impending action (in the present). Our author also follows the Theodotion version, by rendering the preposition <u! (“with”) by the corresponding meta/ (“with”); the LXX has e)pi/ (“upon”), which is also used in 14:14 (cf. below).

It is all but certain that the author of the book of Revelation did not draw upon Dan 7:13f independently; rather, he inherited it from the Gospel Tradition. In particular, there are two Synoptic “son of man” sayings by Jesus (Mk 13:26; 14:62 par) which clearly refer to Dan 7:13f. Some scholars would see Dan 7:13f as the inspiration for all of the “son of man” sayings (or, at least all of the eschatological sayings). I will discuss the possible influence of the Daniel passage in a supplemental study. For now, I will limit any possible influence on the Book of Revelation to the Synoptic sayings in Mk 13:26 and 14:62 (discussed in an earlier study). Of these two sayings, the one in Mk 13:26 (part of the ‘Eschatological Discourse’ of chap. 13) is more straightforward in contextual meaning, but also more difficult when judged at the historical level. In context, it clearly refers to the ‘second’ coming (parousia) of Jesus—viz., the end-time appearance of the exalted Jesus, which will usher in the Judgment.

It is this same eschatological orientation which informs the allusions to Dan 7:13 here in Rev 1:7 and 13. The author/seer is unquestionably referring to the end-time appearance (on earth) of the exalted Jesus. Dependence upon the Gospel Tradition in this regard would seem to be confirmed by the fact that both Rev 1:7 and the Matthean version of the Mk 13:26 saying (Matt 24:30) have a combined allusion to Dan 7:13 and Zech 12:10. The quotation of Zech 12:10 in John 19:37, in reference to the crucifixion (‘stabbing/piercing’) of Jesus, allows us to conclude that the book of Revelation likely inherited this dual-reference through the Johannine line of Tradition.

The application of Dan 7:13f to the end-time return (second coming) of Jesus departs from the natural sense of the passage, and reflects an early Christian re-interpretation of the Scripture. In the original Daniel passage, the “one like a son of man” approaches God the Father (the ‘Ancient of Days’) in heaven. This would more naturally apply to the post-resurrection exaltation of Jesus, rather than his subsequent return to earth. Indeed, the use of Dan 7:13f in Mark 14:62 par would seem to have Jesus’ exaltation (to the right hand of God in heaven) as the saying’s primary point of reference. For more on this, see the discussion of Acts 7:55-56 below.

Revelation 14:14

Both aspects of the Dan 7:13f reference—exalted position in heaven and end-time appearance (at the Judgment)—as applied to Jesus, would seem to be present in the second occurrence of the expression, in 14:14. Unquestionably, vv. 14-20 provides a short but vivid (and intense) vision of the end-time Judgment, corresponding generally to the climactic section of the Eschatological Discourse (Mark 13:24-27 par). In both uses of the Gospel Tradition, the exalted Jesus is identified with the Danielic “one like a son of man”, coming in the clouds. Here is how the introduction to the vision of 14:14-20 reads:

“And I saw, and see—a white cloud! And upon the cloud was sitting (one) like a son of man [o%moion ui(o\n a)nqrw/pou], holding upon his head a golden wreath, and in his hand (was) a sharp plucking-tool.” (v. 14)

The time of harvest (reaping, qerismo/$) was a natural image for symbolizing the end of the current Age (and the end-time Judgment). It occurs a number of times in the teaching of Jesus and elsewhere in the New Testament—Matt 3:12 par; 13:30, 41-43 [cp Mk 13:27 par]; cf. also Mk 4:29; Matt 9:37-38 par; Jn 4:35; James 3:18. This eschatological harvest-imagery is largely derived from the motif as it occurs in the Prophets (e.g., Isa 24:13; Jer 50:16; 51:33); here the reference is principally to Joel 3:13ff (cf. also Isa 5:7). For more on vv. 14-20, see my earlier note.

Acts 7:56

If the references in Rev 1:7, 13 and 14:14 refer primarily to the eschatological tradition in Mark 13:26 par, the “son of man” reference in Acts 7:55 clearly refers to the tradition in Mk 14:62 par. Indeed, the author of Luke-Acts is drawing an intentional parallel between Jesus’ saying (Lk 22:69, during his interrogation before the Sanhedrin) and the visionary utterance of Stephen (Acts 7:55-56, also in the context of a Sanhedrin interrogation, 6:12-7:1ff). It is worth comparing these specifically; first, let us consider the Lukan version of the “son of man” saying:

“But from now (on), the son of man shall be sitting at the right (hand) of the power of God” (Lk 22:69)

There are several key differences between this Lukan version and the core Synoptic Tradition (Mk 14:62 par). Most notably, the Lukan version has essentially removed (or does not include) any detail that could be taken as a reference to the end-time return of the exalted Jesus. There is no mention of people (spec. members of the Sanhedrin) seeing the “son of man”; likewise, there is no mention of his “coming” (vb e&rxomai). The Lukan author has clearly shaped the tradition so that it refers only to the exaltation of Jesus (after his death and resurrection). The eschatological aspect of the second coming (Mk 13:26, par Lk 21:27) is retained by the Gospel writer, but only in the context of the Eschatological Discourse.

In the framework of Luke-Acts, the saying in Lk 22:69 functions strictly as a prophecy of Jesus’ exaltation, the fulfillment of which is confirmed by the vision in Acts 7:55f. Jesus has been raised and has ascended to heaven (1:9-11), and the first missionary preachers have declared that he is now at the “right hand” of God in heaven (2:33-34; 5:31), but Stephen’s vision provides eye-witness testimony in confirmation of this fact. The vision comes in 7:55:

“…full of the holy Spirit, (hav)ing stretched (to look) into the heaven, he saw (the) splendor [do/ca] of God, and Yeshua standing at (the) right (hand) of God”

There is actually no particular allusion here to Dan 7:13f; rather, it is Psalm 110:1 (cf. my earlier study on this reference), understood among early Christians as a prophecy of Jesus’ exaltation (cf. Acts 2:34-35; Heb 1:13), that is primarily in view. The reference to Dan 7:13f comes with the use of the expression “the son of man” in the utterance by Stephen, in v. 56:

“and he said: ‘See! I am looking at the heavens opened throughout, and (at) the son of man standing at (the) right (hand) of God!”

It is from this exalted position (alluded to in Rev 14:14, see above), that Jesus will return to earth (cf. Acts 1:11), to gather up the righteous (believers), and to usher in the Judgment (10:42; 17:31). In this regard, both the book of Acts and the book of Revelation, are closely following the Gospel Tradition. The “son of man” sayings in Mk 13:26 and 14:62 par are a key part of this Tradition and contain cornerstone teachings for the early Christian eschatology. It is one of the few aspects of Jesus’ use of the expression that was retained by first-century Christians (outside of the Gospels), largely because of the eschatological importance of Daniel 7:13 (and the book of Daniel as a whole).

“Who Is This Son of Man…?”: Synoptic Sayings (Mark, pt 4)

The Climactic Sayings of Mark 13:26 and 14:62

Of the “son of man” sayings in the Gospel of Mark, most relate in some way to the human suffering of Jesus—and, particularly, to the suffering and death (viz., his Passion) which he would experience in Jerusalem. This is the focus of the three Synoptic Passion-predictions by Jesus (8:31; 9:31; 10:33f), but also clearly applies to the other occurrences of the expression in 9:9, 12; 10:45, and 14:21, 41. As I discussed (in Parts 2 and 3), the expression “the son of man” in these sayings, in addition to serving as a self-reference by Jesus, likely alludes to the poetic use of the expression in the Old Testament. The relevant references, given previously in the Introduction, are: Num 23:19; Job 16:21; 25:6; 35:8; Psalm 8:5[4]; 80:18[17]; 144:3 ; Isa 51:12; 56:2; Jer 49:18, 33; 50:40; 51:43. In this poetic usage, the Hebrew <d*a* /B# (once vona$ /B#), “son of man”, is paired with “man” (<d*a*, vona$, vya! or rb#G#), as a way of referring to humankind or a human being generally (Psalm 146:3; cf. Part 1 on the sayings in Mk 2:10, 28), often emphasizing the limitation and weakness of the human condition.

In Mark 8:38, is the expression “the son of man” used in a rather different context—implying an eschatological judgment setting, as well as an exalted position for Jesus in heaven (alongside God the Father). This same emphasis features, even more prominently, in 13:26 and 14:62. These two sayings represent the climactic “son of man” sayings in the Gospel of Mark, and both are particularly important (and distinctive) in the way that they allude to the heavenly figure in Daniel 7:13-14.

I have discussed this Scripture passage in prior articles, as a supplemental note in the series “Yeshua the Anointed”, and, more recently, in the series “The Old Testament and the Gospel Tradition”. These articles can be consulted for discussion on the context and interpretation of Dan 7:13f. The relevant portion of the prophetic vision begins:

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

The Aramaic vn`a$ rB^, corresponding to the Hebrew <d*a* /B# (or vona$ /B#), here simply refers to the human appearance (“like a son of man”, i.e., like a human being) of the heavenly figure in the vision. The human appearance of this figure is in marked contrast to the beasts elsewhere in the vision. Those beasts symbolize wicked/corrupt earthly power (i.e., kings and their kingdoms), while this “(one) like a son of man” represents heavenly power (and a corresponding king/kingdom). Indeed, the figure comes “with the clouds of the Heaven(s)”, drawing upon ancient storm-theophany imagery, such as is applied to YHWH in numerous Scriptural poems; for the motif of God coming/riding on the clouds, see Psalm 18:10-13; 104:3ff; Isa 19:1; Jer 4:13; Ezek 1:4ff; Nah 1:3b.

This heavenly figure, with human appearance, approaches the throne of YHWH:

“…(he) was coming, and unto (the) Ancient of Days he approached, and they brought him near in front of Him.”

This heavenly figure is then given an everlasting Kingdom, with authority over all peoples and nations on earth (v. 14).

Mark 13:26

The “son of man” saying in Mark 13:26 is part of the Synoptic “Eschatological Discourse” of Jesus (chap. 13 par), coming at a climactic point in the Discourse. The narrative setting for this collection of eschatological teaching is significant, preceding as it does the Passion Narrative (chaps. 14-15). It strongly indicates that there is a profound eschatological significance to Jesus’ suffering and death; indeed, his suffering/death may be said to mark the beginning of the end-time period of distress (qli/yi$ [cf. Dan 12:1 LXX]). Note, for example, the implications of Jesus’ wording in 14:38, 41 (cf. especially the Lukan formulation in 22:53b). This period of distress represents the “birth pains” of the New Age (Mk 13:8 par); and Jesus, in the Discourse, describes the things which will occur before the end (of the current Age), from three vantage points: (a) the nations and people on earth generally (vv. 5-8), (b) his disciples (vv. 9-13), and (c) the people of Jerusalem and Judea (vv. 14-23).

Following the period of distress, with all its attendant travail and suffering, the end will be ushered in (vv. 24-27) by the appearance of “the son of man” from heaven:

“And then they shall see the son of man coming on (the) clouds, with much power and splendor.” (v. 26)

The wording clearly alludes to Daniel 7:13, even though the scenario has a different orientation. In the Daniel 7 vision, the “(one) like a son of man” is coming on the clouds toward God, in heaven. By contrast, here in Mk 13:26 par,  the “son of man” is coming on the clouds to earth, to gather up the righteous (v. 27) and to usher in the end-time Judgment (implied by vv. 24-25). Yet the eschatological context for both references is essentially the same: they refer to the establishment of a Divine/heavenly kingdom, entailing the judgment of the nations, the destruction of the wicked, and the exaltation/reward of the righteous (cf. Dan 7:14, 23-27). The framing of this scenario within the Eschatological Discourse owes much to the conclusion of the book of Daniel (12:1-4ff).

Of all of the “son of man” sayings in the Gospel of Mark, the occurrence of the expression in 13:26 could most plausibly be interpreted as referring to a heavenly being separate from Jesus himself. Indeed, a number of commentators have explained the saying, at least in its original form (as spoken by Jesus), in precisely this way. This interpretative approach was mentioned previously, in connection with the saying in 8:38; however, here it is rather more plausible. From the standpoint of Jesus’ first hearers, it is by no means obvious that he is referring to himself by the expression “the son of man”. Nothing in the Gospel, up to this point, suggests that Jesus has been using the expression with Daniel 7:13 in mind.

Early Christians, of course, reading the passage with Christological hindsight, could understand verse 26 perfectly well as a reference to the future return of Jesus, following his resurrection and exaltation to heaven; but what sense would this have made to Jesus’ own disciples (or to others) at the time? Admittedly, the reference is somewhat problematic, if viewed as an authentic saying by Jesus, with “the son of man” as a self-reference. And yet, the expression is clearly used as a self-reference everywhere else in the Gospel—Jesus refers to himself as “th(is) son of man”, i.e., this person (namely, myself). It must be regarded so here as well, both from Jesus’ own standpoint (as speaker), and from the standpoint of the early Gospel Tradition.

What, then, are we to make of its usage here by Jesus? Before proceeding to give an answer, let us first examine the final “son of man” saying.

Mark 14:62

The saying in Mark 14:62 par occurs at the climax of the Sanhedrin interrogation scene (vv. 53-65), a key episode within the Passion narrative. In the Markan version, the high priest asks Jesus:

“Are you the Anointed (One), the Son of the Blessed (One)?” (v. 61)

Jesus responds with bold affirmation (“I am”), and then adds:

“…and you shall see the son of man being seated at (the) right-hand of the power (of God), and coming with the clouds of the heaven!” (v. 62)

Again, the expression “the son of man” functions as a self-reference—i.e., “you shall see th(is) son of man…”, “you shall see me…”. At the same time, however, there is a definite allusion (even more clear than in 13:26) to Dan 7:13f, where the expression “(one) like a son of man” occurs. Here, certainly, Jesus’ use of the expression as a self-reference, identifying himself with the human conditions, dovetails with the expression from Dan 7:13; not only does he identify with the human condition (on earth), but also with exalted position of the human-like figure in heaven. That is to say, Jesus here is identifying himself with the heavenly figure of Daniel 7:13ff, the one who receives the kingdom and rule over all humankind. In this exalted position, he is also associated specifically with the “holy ones” among God’s people, just as the “son of man” in 13:26f comes with the holy angels (from heaven) and then gathers together the holy ones (righteous/believers) on earth (cp. Dan 7:27; 12:1-3).

There are a number of critical interpretative questions surrounding 14:62 par, not the least of which involve the small but significant differences in detail between the three Synoptic versions.

In Matthew, for example, the question by the high priest (26:63) is phrased so that it more closely mirrors the confession by Peter (16:16; cp. Mk 8:29); indeed, the two are virtually identical:

“You are the Anointed (One), the Son of the living God.”
su\ ei@ o( xristo\$ o( ui(o\$ tou= qeou= tou= zw=nto$

“…I would require an oath of you…(to say)
if you are the Anointed (One), the Son of God!”
ei) su\ ei@ o( xristo\$ o( ui(o\$ tou= qeou=

Otherwise, the Matthean version of Jesus’ response (26:64) closely follows Mark. The Gospel writer gives Jesus’ initial affirmation an ironic twist; instead of the bold Markan “I am”, Jesus points back to the high priest’s own question (mirroring Peter’s confession): “You (have) said (it) [su\ ei@pa$]”. Matthew expands the beginning of the remainder of the response, but the core of it is essentially identical with Mark’s version. The two notable points of difference are: (1) it is introduced by the temporal expression a)p’ a&rti (“from now [on]”), and (2) the preposition e)pi/ is used rather than meta/, i.e., “…coming upon [e)pi/] the clouds of heaven”. The difference in preposition is minor, corresponding to the same difference between the LXX (e)pi/) and Theodotion (meta/) Greek versions of Dan 7:13 (the Aramaic preposition [<u!] is better rendered by the meta/ in Theodotion and Mark). As for the temporal expression a)p’ a&rti, which matches the corresponding a)p’ tou= nu=n (“from now”) in Luke’s version (22:69), it serves to position more clearly the “son of man” saying in relation to the impending death of Jesus. After his death (and resurrection), “from now on”, Jesus will have an exalted position (at God’s right hand) in heaven.

In both of the “son of man” sayings under investigation here, Luke’s version either eliminates or downplays the association with Daniel 7:13-14. In the saying corresponding to Mark 14:62 par, the Daniel allusion is omitted altogether, leaving only an implicit reference to Psalm 110:1 (i.e., Jesus at God’s right hand):

“But, from now (on), you shall see the son of man sitting at (the) right-hand of the power of God!” (22:69)

In 21:27 (corresponding to Mk 13:26 par), the wording is altered slightly, possibly to bring out the parallel with Jesus’ ascension (in Acts 1:9-11). Just as Jesus is taken up (to heaven) in a cloud (singular), so he will return (from heaven) in/on a cloud (again, singular). The plural “clouds” brings out more clearly than in Luke’s version an allusion to Daniel 7:13f (cf. above).

The main point of reference, as Luke’s version of the climactic saying (22:69 [Mk 14:62]) so clearly highlights, is the exaltation of Jesus to heaven, following his death and resurrection, where he will have an exalted place at God’s right hand. While evidence for the influence of Dan 7:13f on the earliest Christian understanding of Jesus’ exaltation is extremely slight, the motif of his position at “the right hand of God” (Ps 110:1) was a frequent and widespread component of the Christological portrait—[Mk 16:19]; Acts 2:33-34; 5:31; Rom 8:34; Col 3:1; Eph 1:20; Heb 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22. In Acts 7:55-56, the Lukan author essentially records the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy in 22:69. Even though it is Stephen, a believer, who sees the exalted Jesus in heaven at the right hand of God, this occurs (based on the narrative context) as part of an interrogation before the Jewish Council (Sanhedrin), mirroring the Gospel account of Jesus’ own interrogation before the Council.

Thus, the principal point of the “son of man” saying in Mark 14:62 par is not the (future) return of Jesus from heaven, but his exaltation to heaven; indeed, this orientation matches the the setting of the Daniel passage. How, then, did this aspect of Dan 7:13f, applied to Jesus’ exaltation, become applied to the idea of his future return (in Mk 13:26 par)? For early Christians, considering the matter after Jesus’ resurrection (and departure/ascension), this would have been an obvious extension—viz., Jesus’ exaltation would naturally be followed by his (imminent) return to earth at the end-time Judgment (cf. Revelation 1:7).

But could this same usage reasonably be attributed to Jesus himself, speaking to his disciples during his earthly ministry? The literary context of Daniel 7:13-14 certainly assumes an eschatological framework. After the judgment of the nations (and their kingdoms), the kingdom bestowed upon the heavenly figure will be an eternal/everlasting dominion, ruling over all people on earth. There will never be another kingdom, implying that human history, as it had previously been known, has effectively come to an end. The human people of God (“holy ones”) will, in their own way, also rule over this kingdom—note the parallels in wording between vv. 14 and 27. Moreover, as has been noted previously, the thought, wording, and imagery of Dan 12:1-4ff had a tremendous influence on early Christian eschatology, and on the “Eschatological Discourse” of Jesus, in particular. The heavenly figure “Michael” (v. 1) will appear at the end-time, in the midst of a period of great distress (qli/yi$, cf. Mk 13:19, 24 par), ushering in (it is implied) the end-time judgment, which also involves the salvation (and ultimate exaltation) of the righteous (vv. 2-3).

If Jesus identified himself with the heavenly figure of Dan 7:13-14, then it would not be surprising if he also saw himself essentially as fulfilling the role of “Michael” in 12:1ff—that is, the exalted heavenly being who will appear at the end-time to usher in the Judgment and bring salvation to the righteous (for more on this eschatological/Messianic figure-type, see Part 10 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”). Admittedly, presenting this portrait to his disciples prior to his death and resurrection would, almost certainly, have created a good deal of confusion. However, at least two possibilities should be considered in this regard. First, the eschatological “son of man” reference in Mk 13:26 par, with its allusion to Dan 7:13ff, could have been made (originally) in a vague or ambiguous manner, referring clearly to the end-time appearance of the heavenly redeemer-figure of Daniel 7ff, but not (yet) referring clearly to Jesus himself as that figure. Second, one must at least entertain the possibility that some of the eschatological sayings/teachings of Jesus could have been made after the resurrection, in which case, an eschatological “son of man” saying such as Mk 13:26 par would presumably have made more sense to Jesus’ disciples (cf. the context of Acts 1:9-11). The current position of the eschatological sayings in the Gospels is primarily topical, rather than historical/chronological. This can be seen by the way that such material is grouped together in distinct (literary) sections of the Gospels (including the “Eschatological Discourse” itself), and also by Matthew’s inclusion (in the Discourse) of eschatological (“Q”) material that occurs in an entirely different location/setting in Luke (cf. the discussion in Parts 2 and 3 of my earlier article on the “Eschatological Discourse”).

For the next article in this series, we will explore the “son of man” sayings and references that occur in the so-called “Q” material shared by the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

The Old Testament in the Gospel Tradition: Daniel 12:1ff

Daniel 12:1ff

The final article in this series focuses on Daniel 12:1-4. The book of Daniel was immensely influential on early Christian eschatology; this can be seen especially in the book of Revelation, and I have documented it throughout my earlier series of critical-exegetical notes on Revelation. But the influence is already evident earlier in the Gospel Tradition, most notably in the Synoptic “Eschatological Discourse” of Jesus (Mark 13 par).

The second half of the book of Daniel (chaps. 7-12) is fundamentally eschatological, and can be characterized, in many respects, as an example of early apocalyptic literature—a point that remains valid regardless of how one dates these chapters. Traditional-conservative commentators tend to take the historical setting of the visions at face value, treating them as authentic prophecies by Daniel (in the 6th century B.C.). Most critical commentators, on the other hand, regard chaps. 7-12 as pseudepigraphic, written during the period of 167-163 B.C. In point of fact, most Jewish apocalyptic writings are pseudepigraphic, presenting events leading up to the current moment (i.e., when the writing was composed) as a revelation by a famous figure of the past.

In any case, from the standpoint of the visions in chaps. 7-12, the years of 167-164 B.C. represent the climactic point of history. This can be seen most clearly in chapter 11, which contains a fairly detailed (and accurate) outline of history in the Hellenistic period—events involving the Seleucid and Ptolemaic dynasties following the breakup of the Alexandrian empire. The reign of the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes marks the onset of a great time of evil and suffering for God’s people in Judea. Verses 21-45 summarize the events of Antiochus IV’s reign (175-164 B.C.), especially his invasion of Israel and the notorious ‘reform’ policies enacted in Jerusalem (168-167, vv. 29-35).

That these are considered to be end-time events is clear from the wording in verse 40: “in (the) time of (the) end” (Jq@ tu@B=). The context is unquestionably eschatological, with the final years of Antiochus’ reign (167-164) marking the watershed moment. What follows in chapter 12 must be understood in this light.

Daniel 12:1

“And, in that time, Who-is-like-(the)-Mighty-One? {Mika’el} will stand (up), the great Prince, the (one) standing over (the) sons of your people, and there will come to be a time of distress which has not (yet) come to be, from (the) coming to be of (the) nation until that time; and, in that time, your people will be rescued, every (one) being found written in (the roll of) the account.”

The initial expression “in that time” (ayh!h^ tu@b*) relates to the earlier expression “in (the) time of (the) end” (in 11:40, cf. above). What is described in chapter 12 is expected to take place in the period of 167-164 B.C., and in the years immediately following. Indeed, the chapter represents the conclusion of the eschatological vision-sequence of chaps. 10-12 (and of chaps. 7-12 as a whole). On the same temporal expression used in an eschatological sense, cf. also Joel 3:1 [4:1]; Jer 3:17; 4:11; 31:1.

There are two main eschatological themes established in this verse: (1) the appearance/rise of the heavenly being Michael as protector and deliverer of God’s people; and (2) a time of great “distress” for God’s people, making necessary the protective action by Michael. It is worth examining each of these themes.

1. The role of Michael

The Hebrew name la@k*ym! (mî½¹°¢l) is a traditional El-name, a sentence or phrase name in the form of a question— “Who-(is)-like-(the)-Mighty-(One)?” (i.e., Who is like God?). In the book of Daniel, it is the name of a heavenly being who functions as the (heavenly) protector and “prince” (rc^) for Israel (10:13, 21). He will fight on behalf of Israel, against the nations (who have their own heavenly “princes” on their side).

With the development of angelology in the post-exilic period, Michael came to feature prominently in Jewish eschatology and apocalyptic writings. He is consistently regarded as one of the chief Angels, with central cosmological and eschatological roles; the book of Enoch (1 Enoch) provides a useful compendium of references (9:1; 10:11; 20:5; 24:6; 40:9; 54:6; 60:4-5; 67:12; 68:2-4; 69:14-15; 71:3ff). Michael’s role as the protector of God’s people, who fights (along with other Angels) on behalf of God’s people, is an important component of the eschatological (and Messianic) world view of the Qumran community, best expressed in the War Scroll [1QM] (cf. 9:15-16; 17:6-7, etc). Many commentators on the Qumran texts believe that Michael is also to be identified with the “Prince of Light” and the figure of Melchizedek (cf. 11QMelchizedek).

Michael and the holy Angels fight against the “Prince of Darkness” and the evil Angels; this heavenly aspect of the great eschatological battle is parallel to the end-time conflict between the people of God and the wicked nations. This is very much the same role played by Michael in the vision of Revelation 12:7-9ff. Otherwise, however, Michael is not very prominent in early Christian eschatology (the only other NT reference being Jude 9). This can be explained by the fact that, for early Christians, Michael’s traditional role as heavenly deliverer was taken over by the exalted Jesus.

This heavenly deliverer figure, which I regard as a distinct Messianic figure-type (cf. the discussion in Part 10 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”), is referenced in the Gospel Tradition—in the eschatological sayings of Jesus—by the expression “Son of Man”. Some commentators maintain that, in the original context of these sayings, Jesus is referring to a distinct heavenly being (such as Michael) separate from himself. While this is possible, it is rather unlikely, in my view, based on the consistent use of the expression “son of man” by Jesus as a self-reference. Moreover, the authenticity of this usage by the historical Jesus can be all but proven (on objective grounds)—a point that I have discussed elsewhere.

Even so, this eschatological role of the “Son of Man” figure almost certainly derives from Daniel 7:13-14; indeed, there can be no question of an allusion to that passage in Mk 13:26; 14:62 pars. While Dan 7:13-14 may be interpreted in several different ways (cf. my earlier study and article in this series), the angelic interpretation of the “one like a son of man” would seem to be the most likely explanation of the scene (in its original context). Indeed, some commentators would identify this heavenly figure specifically as Michael. The end-time appearance of Michael in Dan 12:1 certainly would seem to match the appearance of the “Son of Man” (= the exalted Jesus) in Mk 13:26 par.

2. The Time of “Distress”

“there will come to be a time of distress which has not (yet) come to be”

The Hebrew expression is hr*x* Ju@ (“time of distress”), translated in the LXX as h(me/ra qli/yew$ (“day of distress”). The noun hr*x* fundamentally means “tightness”, i.e., something narrow and confining that constricts or binds a person’s movement, etc. Figuratively, it refers to circumstances which create such tightness and pressure, and the English word “distress” is most appropriate for this connotation. The Greek word qli/yi$ has much the same meaning, though with perhaps the harsher sense of being pressed together, squeezed to the point of being crushed. On this eschatological idiom, cf. also Jeremiah 30:7, and note the wording in Exod 9:24.

Dan 12:1 makes clear that, with the events of 167-164 B.C., a time of great distress will come upon God’s people. The implication is that the persecution brought about by Antiochus IV is only the beginning of this period. It is by no means clear how long this period will last, but the outlook of the passage (and chaps. 7-12 as a whole) suggests that it will be relatively short (albeit intense). The expression “time, times, and a half” (= 3½ years, half a week, as a symbolic number) would seem to define this period (v. 7), even as it also corresponds to the time of persecution and evil under Antiochus IV (167-164).

The book of Daniel exercised a tremendous influence on early Christian eschatology, but if we limit our study to 12:1ff, and its influence on the Gospel Tradition, then we must turn to the Synoptic “Eschatological Discourse” of Jesus. The wording in Mark 13:19 par unquestionably alludes to Dan 12:1 (LXX), being almost a loose quotation or paraphrase:

“For (in) those days there will be distress [qli/yi$], such as has not come to be like this from (the) beginning of (the) formation (of the world), which God formed, until th(is time) now, and shall not (ever) come to be.”

The end-time described in Daniel 7-12 has been transferred, from the time of Antiochus IV (167-164 B.C.) to the time of the Roman Empire in the mid-first century A.D. This is quite understandable, since the eschatological deliverance, described in Daniel 12, apparently did not take place in the years immediately following 164 B.C.; in any case, the prophecy was not fulfilled completely, and it was envisioned that this would occur during the lifetime of early believers (in the mid-late 1st century A.D.). The belief in Jesus as the Messiah means that his appearance on earth marks the end-time. And, for early Christians, the death of Jesus effectively marks the beginning of the end-time period of distress.

A central event of this time of distress is the destruction of the Temple; Jesus’ prediction of the Temple’s destruction forms the setting for the Discourse (Mk 13:1-2ff par), and is alluded to again in vv. 14ff (cf. especially the Lukan version, predicting the siege/destruction of Jerusalem, 21:20ff). All of this was largely fulfilled with the war of 66-70 A.D. The time of distress is tied primarily to this devastation of Jerusalem, but there are actually three parts, or aspects, to this period as outlined in the Discourse (using the Markan version, Mk 13):

    • Vv. 5-8: The distress for people in all the nations
    • Vv. 9-13: The distress for Jesus’ disciples (believers)
    • Vv. 14-19ff: The distress for the people of Judea and Jerusalem
The Deliverance of God’s People

“…and, in that time, your people will be rescued, every (one) being found written in (the roll of) the account”

In the midst of the time of distress, the heavenly deliverer will appear, bringing deliverance to God’s people and ushering in the Judgment on the wicked (i.e., the nations). In the Eschatological Discourse, this is expressed in terms of the appearance of the “Son of Man” from heaven (Mk 13:24-27 par). For early Christians, this was understood as the return of the exalted Jesus from heaven. The Messianic identity of Jesus was complicated by the fact that he did not fulfill the expected eschatological role of the Messiah during his time on earth. The expectation thus had to adjust to the idea that this Messianic role would only be fulfilled upon Jesus’ return to earth (from his exalted position in heaven), after at least a short period of time (= the time of distress).

The end-time return of Jesus (the “Son of Man”) fits the pattern of the appearance of the heavenly deliverer (Michael) in Dan 12:1ff. Michael “stands over” (lu dmu) God’s people; this indicates a protective presence, but also may allude to Michael’s role in the Judgment. In any case, his presence means rescue from the time of distress. The Niphal (passive) form of the verb fl^m* literally means something like “be given a means of escape”. It is only the righteous ones among God’s people who will be rescued by Michael. This is clear from the qualifying phrase “every (one) being found written in (the roll of) the account”.

The rp#s@ is literally an “account(ing)”, which should here be understood as a list of names, such as of citizens belonging to a particular place. The people whose names are listed in this account (or ‘book’) are those who truly belong as the people of God—that is, they are the faithful and righteous ones. This also means that they are destined for the blessed afterlife in heaven with God; on this traditional motif of the ‘Book of Life’, cf. Exod 32:32; Psalm 69:28; Isa 4:3; Lk 10:20; Phil 4:3; Heb 12:23; Rev 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; on the Judgment-context of this ‘book’, cf. 7:10; 10:21; 1 Enoch 47:3; Rev 20:12-15.

In the Eschatological Discourse, while the Judgment setting is clear enough, the emphasis is on the salvation of the righteous from this Judgment (Mk 13:27 par, cf. also verse 13). It is the elect (lit. the ones “gathered out”) who are rescued by the heavenly deliverer (the exalted Jesus) at the climactic moment. This is an important distinction, limiting the concept of God’s people to the righteous ones, and it follows a definite line of prophetic tradition, the same which we see here in Dan 12:1-4.

Verses 2-4 and Conclusion

Other elements of the eschatology in Daniel 12:1ff were also influential on early Christian thought. Verse 2, for example, expresses a clear belief in the resurrection, which will occur at the end-time. This is arguably the only unambiguous Old Testament reference to resurrection. Moreover, it is striking that both the righteous and the wicked will be raised from the dead: the righteous will awake to life (yj^), while the wicked will awake to disgrace and an abhorrent fate. These contrasting fates are described as <l*ou—that is, lasting into the distant future. On the idea of the eschatological resurrection in the Gospel Tradition, cf. especially the key references in the Johannine Discourses of Jesus (Jn 5:19-29; 6:39-40ff; 11:23-27).

The blessed afterlife that awaits the righteous, following the Judgment and Resurrection, is further described in verse 3. The righteous are characterized by the verb lk^c*, by a descriptive participle in the Hiphil stem, meaning those who act in a wise and insightful manner. It is not only that they act wisely, but they lead others to behave in a similar way; specifically, they cause “many” (<yB!r^) to act rightly (vb qd^x* in the Hiphil causative stem). Because they are righteous themselves, they are able to turn others to the path of righteousness. The reward for this righteousness is a heavenly existence, compared with the celestial brightness (rh^z)) of the stars in heaven. This is an ancient and traditional idiom for the blessed afterlife, which is scarcely limited to Old Testament and Jewish tradition. Jesus may be alluding to v. 3 in Matt 13:43 (cf. also 22:30).

The final verse in this section (v. 4) emphasizes three key motifs that were influential on Jewish and early Christian eschatology:

    • The sealing of the prophetic account (in chapters 10-12, and presumably also chaps. 7-12 as a whole); this imagery obviously was developed in the book of Revelation (chaps. 5-6; 8:1; 10:4; 22:10). The motif also has the practical value of allowing for the fulfillment of the Danielic visions (with their setting c. 167-163 B.C.) at a later time (viz., in the NT setting of the mid-late 1st century A.D.)
    • The (end-time) chaos implied by the image of “many” people rushing/pushing about (vb. fWv); there is a certain futility indicated by this, especially if this is an allusion to Amos 8:12—i.e., people are going about seeking the word of YHWH, and do not find it.
    • The idea that wickedness will increase, that evil will become more abundant (vb hb*r*). The MT reads tu^D^ (“knowledge”)—that is, “knowledge will increase”; however, there is some reason to think that the text originally read hu*r* (“evil”), which appears to be the reading underlying the LXX (a)diki/a, “injustice,” i.e. wickedness), though admittedly Theodotion agrees with the MT (gnw=si$, “knowledge”). Confusion between the consonants d and r was relatively common, and led to a number of copying mistakes. The Dead Sea Scrolls might have decided the textual question, but, unfortunately, chapter 12 was not preserved among the surviving Qumran manuscripts. In my view, the increase in wickedness during the time when the prophecy is sealed (that is, during the time of distress) better fits the context of the passage; it also occurs as a persistent theme in Jewish and early Christian eschatology (see esp. the wording in Matt 24:12).

 

The Old Testament in the Gospel Tradition: Daniel 7:13-14

There are several key Old Testament references which applied to both the death and resurrection of Jesus, and which played an important role in the development of the Gospel Tradition. It is the resurrection association that makes these Easter-time studies especially appropriate. There are three such references to be examined. The first, from the visions of Daniel, is the subject of this article (reproduced, in large part, from my earlier series “Yeshua the Anointed”).

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. 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).

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).

Dan 7:13-14 in the Gospel Tradition

This heavenly/visionary scene of the “son of man” was applied by early Christians to the exalted Jesus (following his death and resurrection). All the evidence, however, suggests that this association was introduced by Jesus himself, and early believers contributed relatively little to it within the Gospel Tradition. In the New Testament, the expression “son of man” (in Greek, o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou) scarcely is found at all outside of the Gospels, where it occurs almost exclusively in the words of Jesus. It was little used by early Christians as a title for Jesus (with “Christ,” “Lord,” or “Son of God” being much preferred). All of this provides strong confirmation for the authenticity of the “son of man” sayings of Jesus.

For these sayings, which I have discussed extensively in earlier notes and articles, there are two main categories:

    • Sayings which relate in some way to the suffering and death of Jesus, and
    • Eschatological sayings which refer to the end-time appearance of the “Son of Man”

Some commentators have felt that, in the eschatological sayings, Jesus originally was referring to a heavenly figure separate from himself. While this is possible, it is highly unlikely, given Jesus’ regular (and distinctive) use of the expression “son of man” as a self-reference. However, for Jesus to identify himself with a heavenly figure who will appear on earth (from heaven) in the future, it would seem to require his exaltation (from earth) to heaven. In terms of the Gospel narrative, this can only occur with his resurrection from the dead.

Daniel 7:13-14 seems to have informed the eschatological “son of man” sayings of Jesus, but in only two instances does he clearly cite or allude to it. The first occurs at the climactic moment in the Synoptic Eschatological Discourse. Following the great distress (qli/yi$) that is to come upon the world (and Judea in particular), Jesus gives the following declaration:

“And then they will look with (open) eyes (at) the Son of Man coming in (the) clouds with much power and splendor [do/ca]” (Mk 13:26)

The Lukan version of this saying (21:27) is nearly identical, but in Matthew (24:30) it is modified slightly, adapted to fit in connection with Zech 12:10 (to be discussed in a separate note).

The second instance, as it happens, occurs in the Synoptic Passion narrative—that is, in the context of Jesus’ suffering and (impending) death. It is part of the Sanhedrin interrogation scene. While this scene differs somewhat in all three Gospels, the basic narrative line is the same: the Council asks Jesus if he is the Anointed One (Messiah), and his response involves a “son of man” saying that clearly refers to Dan 7:13-14:

“…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!” (Mk 14:62)

Here, the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus are joined in the saying: he will be put to death, through the involvement of the Council, but it will ultimately result in his resurrection and exaltation to heaven at the right hand of God. This, indeed, is the very scene described in Stephen’s vision, in Acts 7:55-56.

From this point, we can see how, for early Christians, the Messianic interpretation of Dan 7:13-14 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. As mentioned above, 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 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”).

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

2 Thess 2:3-4 and Early Christian Eschatology

As previously noted in the studies on the eschatology of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Paul appears to have shared, with other first-century believers, a traditional outlook on the end times. In his letters he does not go much beyond this, and only offers a presentation of this eschatology in any real detail in 1 and 2 Thessalonians. In my view, Paul held to an eschatological framework similar to that of the Synoptic “Eschatological Discourse” (cf. my earlier 4-part study on the Discourse). Even though the Eschatological Discourse likely represents an early Christian (traditional-literary) arrangement of Jesus’ teaching, this does not mean that the basic framework was not shared by Jesus himself. In fact, there is every reason to think that it was, in general, shared by many Jews and Christians of the time.

The simplest form of the Synoptic Discourse is the Markan version (chap. 13), which has the following framework:

    • A single period of “distress” which precedes the coming of the end, presented from three different points of view:
      (1) The world and humankind generally (vv. 5-8)
      (2) The disciples of Jesus (vv. 9-13)
      (3) The people of Judea specifically (vv. 14-22)
      [Probably the destruction of the Temple signifies the end/climax of this period]
    • The end of the current Age, marked by the appearance of the Son of Man and the gathering/deliverance of the Elect [i.e. the final Judgment] (vv. 24-27)

The Matthean and Lukan versions develop and expand this somewhat. It is worth noting that Paul, in 1 and 2 Thessalonians (assuming the latter is genuinely Pauline), was writing c. 50 A.D., only 20 or so years after Jesus’ own teaching, and well before any of the Synoptic Gospels were written. The points of correspondence between the eschatology of 1-2 Thessalonians and the underlying traditions of the Discourse are:

    • He seems to believe (and affirm) that the suffering and persecution believers are experiencing at the time is part of the end-time period of distress (1 Thess 1:6ff; 2:14ff; 2 Thess 1:4-12). This corresponds with Jesus’ teaching in Mk 13:9-13 par. Paul uses the key term qli/yi$ (“distress”) in 2 Thess 1:4, 6 (also 1 Thess 1:6; cf. Mk 13:19, 24 par; Rev 7:14 etc.
    • Paul’s controversial words in 1 Thess 2:14-16, regarding the judgment facing Jewish opponents of the Gospel, likely reflects the idea of specific suffering that is to come upon the people of Judea (and Jerusalem) as part of the end-time period of distress (Mk 13:14-22 par). I discussed this in an earlier note.
    • The teaching in 1 Thess 4:13-17 (cf. the discussion in Part 2) is said to derive from Jesus’ own words (“word/account of the Lord”, v. 15), that is, transmitted through early Gospel tradition. It is essentially an expanded form of Mk 13:26-27 par, naturally identifying the coming of the “Son of Man” with the return of Jesus (cf. also 1 Thess 1:10; 2:19; 3:13; 2 Thess 1:7; 2:1).
    • The instruction in 1 Thess 5:1-3ff also echoes Jesus’ proverbial teaching in Mk 13:32-37 par, esp. Matt 24:42-44).
    • 2 Thess 2:1-12 contains much detail in common with Jesus’ description of the end-time period of distress (Mk 13:5ff, 14, 19-22 par).

It is the last point, in particular, that I wish to discuss here. Having already examined 2 Thess 2:1-12 in Part 3 of the article on 1-2 Thessalonians, it is necessary to look at verses 3-4 in a bit more detail, and in light of the framework of the Eschatological Discourse.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

One of the events which, according to Paul, must occur before the final Judgment of God (against the wicked) arrives, is the appearance of a person called “the man of lawlessness” (o( a&nqrwpo$ th=$ a)nomi/a$, v. 3) or “the lawless (one)” (o( a&nomo$, v. 8). While this descriptive title could be understood in a general sense, Paul’s exposition in vv. 3-10 strongly suggests that it refers to a political leader of some sort. At the time of writing (c. 50 A.D., assuming Pauline authorship), this likely would have meant a Roman emperor. We would have a clearer sense of what Paul had in mind, and the passage would be easier to interpret, were it not for two factors: (1) the difficult language/syntax in vv. 6-7, and (2) the role of the Temple in verse 4. I discuss the meaning of the Greek of vv. 6-7 in Part 3 and earlier notes (cf. also below). Here it is necessary to look specifically at the role of the Temple, since it marks a defining act by the “man of lawlessness”. Verse 4:

“…the (one) stretching himself out against, and lifting himself over, all (thing)s being counted as God or reverenced, even as to his sitting in the shrine [nao/$] of God, showing himself from (this) that he is God.”

Most commentators are in agreement that Paul here is drawing upon an early Christian use of the prophecies in the book of Daniel, of a wicked foreign ruler who would come and desecrate the Temple (9:26-27; 11:31-39; 12:11). The original context of these prophecies is as a reference to the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the events of 167-164 B.C., in which the sacrificial ritual in the Jerusalem Temple was halted/abolished, being replaced by a form of pagan worship. This act of desecration was specifically identified with the difficult Hebrew wording of 9:27 — “and upon the wing [[nk] of despicable (thing)s he lays waste”, or, perhaps: “and upon the wing of despicable (thing)s (the one) laying waste (comes)”. In Greek, this phrase was translated as “and upon the Temple there will be a stinking (thing) of desolations [bde/lugma tw=n e)rhmw/sewn]”. The earliest interpretation is found in 1 Maccabees 1:54, following the Greek rendering—the “stinking thing of desolations” [bde/lugma tw=n e)rhmw/sewn] is identified with a pagan altar that Antiochus IV had set upon the altar in the Temple (v. 59, also 4:43), and upon which, it would seem, unlawful/unclean pagan sacrifices were offered (cf. 2 Macc 6:5). In his Commentary on Daniel (11:31), Jerome states that Antiochus IV had set up an image of Jupiter (Zeus) Olympius in the Jerusalem Temple; however, the source and basis for this tradition is unclear.

Both Jews and Christians in the 1st century B.C./A.D. had cause to re-interpret the Daniel prophecy, applying it to their own time (a century or two later). Since no definitive judgment/defeat of the wicked occurred in the years immediately following 164 B.C., his meant that the prophecy still had to be fulfilled in some manner. The Dan 9:27 tradition, with a variation of the same Greek expression “stinking thing of desolation” (bde/lugma th=$ e)rhmw/sew$), is used in the Synoptic Eschatological Discourse (Mark 13:14):

“But when you should see the stinking thing of desolation having stood where it is necessary (that it should) not [i.e. where it ought not to be]…”

The aside which follows, coming either from the Gospel writer or an earlier traditional notice, suggests an interpretation, unstated in the text, that is presumed to be understood by Christians of the time (c. 60 A.D.?). Matthew’s version preserves the same cryptic notice but otherwise makes the Daniel reference (24:15) more clear (differences/additions in italics):

“Therefore when you should see ‘the stinking thing of desolation’ that was uttered through Danîyel the Foreteller (now) having stood in the holy place…”

Jesus’ disciples, along with other Christians of the time, c. 35-60 A.D., are warned that the appearance of “the stinking thing of desolation” standing in the Temple sanctuary marks the beginning of a time of terrible distress for the people of Judea. While the original reference in the Synoptic Discourse (Mark/Matthew) may have been well-understood by the first readers, its precise interpretation is unclear for us today. However, the idea of something standing in the Temple suggests perhaps a statue or similar (pagan) construction. The tradition preserved in Jerome’s commentary on Daniel (cf. above) indicated that Antiochus IV had set up an image of Jupiter (Zeus) Olympius in the Temple. This was echoed c. 40 A.D. by the emperor Gaius’ (Caligula), as part of his establishment of the imperial cult, intending that his statue was to be placed in the Jerusalem Temple, transforming it into an imperial shrine (Josephus, Antiquities 18.256-307). Jesus’ use of Dan 9:27 indicates that he is predicting something similar to happen at the end-time, and it could conceivably relate to the historical actions/intentions of the emperor (c. 40 A.D.).

However, in Luke’s version of the Discourse, the Dan 9:27 reference has been completely recast as a reference to the (Roman) invasion of Jerusalem, in which the presence of a pagan army would both desecrate and destroy the Temple:

“And when you shall see Jerusalem encircled by foot-soldiers, then you should know that her desolation [e)rh/mwsi$] has come near.” (Lk 21:20; cf. also 19:41-44)

This of course was accurately fulfilled in 70 A.D. The Lukan version of the Discourse expands the chronological scope somewhat, allowing for a period during which Jerusalem (and the Temple) would be “trampled under (the feet of) the nations”. The length of time involved is not clear, though from the author’s standpoint (probably writing c. 70-80) it would have to be at least a number of years (though scarcely the 1,900+ years looked at from our vantage point today).

Returning to 2 Thessalonians 2:4, Paul seems to accept a rather different interpretation of the Dan 9:27 / Mk 13:14 tradition—what stands in the Temple sanctuary is not a statue, but a person; it is not a pagan army, rather, it is a wicked pagan ruler. Almost certainly, Paul would have understood this as Roman emperor, perhaps one fulfilling the pattern of the wicked Gaius (Caligula) who had intended his own image to be set up in the Temple (cf. above). This would have occurred just ten years or so (c. 40 A.D.) before 2 Thessalonians was written. It would not have been difficult to see it as a foreshadowing of something that would be done by an even more wicked ruler.

There are actually a number of foreign (Greco-Roman) figures whose lives and actions fed into the idea of a wicked end-time ruler along the lines of this “man of lawlessness”. In addition to Antiochus IV and Gaius (Caligula), we may note the Roman general Pompey (106-48 B.C.). It was he who first subjugated Judea to Roman rule (64/63 B.C.), placing it as a tributary under the governorship of Syria. According to many scholars, the so-called “Psalms of Solomon” were written not long after Pompey’s conquest, and that he is the pattern for the wicked/foreign ruler of the end-time envisioned in several of the Psalms. There are some interesting parallels between 17:11-22 and 2 Thess 2:3-4, both conceptually and in the Greek wording used. The Pompey figure is also called “the lawless one” (o( a&nomo$) and his rule is characterized as an especially wicked time of sin and turning of the people away from God. The book of Revelation, written some time after 2 Thessalonians, appears to contain similar allusions to Nero, and, perhaps, other emperors as well (Vespasian?, Domitian?).

In summary, we may note the following points:

    • Paul predicts the rise of a wicked ruler who would stand/sit in the Temple sanctuary, as a fulfillment of the Dan 9:26-27 prophecy (as understood through the Eschatological Discourse [Mk 13:14 par], etc).
    • This wicked ruler would appear toward the end of the period of distress (qli/yi$) in which Paul and his readers were already living (c. 50 A.D.). This may correspond with the conjunction of the time of persecution of believers (13:9-13) and suffering in Judea (13:14-22) outlined in the framework of the Discourse.
    • The reign of this wicked ruler, though relatively brief, would be one of intense wickedness and evil, with supernatural signs and miracles that would deceive people and lead them astray. This also echoes the description of the end-time distress for Judea in Mk 13:14-22, though Paul does not seem to limit the geographic extent so narrowly (in spite of the Temple reference).
    • The destruction of this wicked ruler is described in traditional Messianic language (allusion to Isa 11:4, etc), transferred to the Christian idea of Jesus’ return.
    • From a chronological standpoint, Paul is speaking of something he expects to happen soon, i.e. not long after 50 A.D., when the letter was written. This would generally fit the time frame (of approx. 20 years) before the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. In this regard, Paul is fully in accord with the earliest Christian eschatology as expressed in the New Testament—i.e. of the “last days” as a period more or less corresponding to the first generation of believers (30-40 years after Jesus’ death and resurrection).

The fundamental problem with this Pauline chronology is the same as that which we have seen already with the Synoptic Eschatological Discourse and the eschatology of the New Testament as a whole. While many of the expected/predicted events and details were accurately fulfilled in the 1st century A.D., the end—i.e. the return of Jesus and final Judgment—did not occur at that time. Paul’s apparent predictions in 2 Thess 2:3ff involve the Jerusalem Temple, as do those of Jesus in the Eschatological Discourse. The Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. which makes it impossible for the event described in 2:4 to be fulfilled—at least not in a concrete historical sense. This has led many traditional-conservative (and Evangelical) commentators to interpret and apply the passage in a more figurative or symbolic sense; this may be done several different ways:

    • as a conflict with the “antichristian” forces of evil, etc, without any specific eschatological significance for the believer today; while this may be a valid application, it effectively negates the clear eschatological context of the passage.
    • as a similar conflict, but an eschatological setting (of sorts) is preserved by viewing the “last days” broadly as the entire period (of nearly 2,000 years) from the time of the apostles to the present day.
    • the specific Temple setting, etc, is figurative but the passage does refer to an actual person who will appear at some point yet in the future (i.e. after 2020 A.D.); as predicted, this ruler will stand in direct opposition to God and Christ and will deceive the world (part of the wider Antichrist tradition).
    • [Some Christians would preserve a literal fulfillment by relying upon the idea that the actual Jerusalem Temple will be rebuilt in the future. While a rebuilding of the Temple does feature in Jewish eschatology to some extent, the idea is almost entirely absent from the New Testament; there is no suggestion, either in 2 Thess 2:3ff or in the Eschatological Discourse, that a rebuilt Temple is in view.]

Only the third approach does justice to the eschatology of the passage, but it founders in the general disregard (admittedly out of practical necessity) for the imminence of Paul’s eschatology clearly expressed throughout 1-2 Thessalonians. As discussed at many points in this series, the basic conflict between the imminent eschatology of the New Testament and the 1,900+ years (and counting) that have since passed, is a problem for which there is no easy solution. It will be addressed more extensively as the series draws to a close.

For more on the Temple in Jewish and early Christian eschatology, see my earlier article on the subject. On the prophecy of Daniel 9:25-27, in particular, consult my note in the series “Yeshua the Anointed”, as well as the article here on the Eschatological Discourse.

The “man of lawlessness” of 2 Thess 2:3-11 will be discussed further in an upcoming special article in this series on the “Antichrist” tradition.

October 26: Revelation 13 (summary)

Summary of the Two Visions in Rev 13:1-18

As a way of summarizing the results of the study (in these notes) on the visions of Revelation 13, we will attempt to give greater clarity to the symbolic figures of the Dragon, Sea-creature, and Earth-creature, and the relationship between the three—how the author/visionary likely understood them and what they would have meant to the first readers of the book.

Like nearly all of the symbols in the book of Revelation, these are complex and function at different levels of meaning, being drawn from multiple strands of tradition. I would isolate four aspects, or sources, in particular.

Mythological. There can be no real doubt that the figures of the Dragon and the creature from the Sea are drawn from ancient Near Eastern myth—specifically, tales of a great conflict between God and the Sea. This is a cosmological myth, meaning that it relates to the creation of the universe and the establishment of the current created order. The personified Sea represents the primordial waters, a dark and chaotic mass, which, according to the basic ancient Near Eastern cosmology, was the original state of the universe prior to the establishment of the created order by the Deity (cp. Genesis 1:2, etc). The subduing and defeat of the Sea was, in many ways, the central event of establishing order, and, with it, the Deity’s control over the life-giving waters. There are vestiges of this common cosmological myth throughout the Old Testament, but only two more or less direct allusions, in Psalm 74:13-14 and Isa 27:1 (cf. also Job 26:13) The form-pattern of the Dragon and Sea-creature in Revelation 12-13, the Serpent-figure with seven heads, is similarly found in a variety of ancient myths, most notably in the Canaanite Baal Epic—the Sea’s ally L£t¹n¥ (OT /t*y`w=l!, Leviathan). I discuss this myth-type in a separate article (in the “Ancient Parallels” series).

Typological. The Earth-Sea image paradigm in Revelation 12-13 is envisioned as two distinct realms, located side by side with a boundary in between. The Dragon is situated on a strip of territory on the boundary between the two (12:18). This dual-construct is both spatial/visual and conceptual. And, it would seem that, conceptually, the “Earth” represents the realm populated by human beings, i.e. the inhabited world as we know it. On the other hand, the “Sea” in this regard is a more complex symbol, one which relates to the mythological aspect discussed above. As a type, the “Sea” represents the realm of chaos, danger, disorder, and violence at the border of the known world. As such it has a typological connection with the forces of evil and death. In Old Testament tradition, this is expressed by the tumult of raging, destructive waters which threaten people living nearby. This violent tumult served as a fitting symbol for the military attack of enemy nations, along with the chaos/disorder that ensues from it. Thus the Sea (and its waters) was frequently used in the Prophets as an image of the danger posed to Israel, etc, from the surrounding nations (and their rulers)—cf. Isa 8:7; 17:12-13; Jer 46:7-8; 51:55). Ultimately, however, it is YHWH with his control over the waters who has control over these “raging waters” of the nations (Isa 28:2; Jer 10:13; 51:16; Ezek 26:19).

Scriptural Tradition. The visions in chapter 13 also draw on specific Scripture passages, contributing both to the essential shape of the visions, as well to a number of particular details. These have already been discussed, but we may summarize here again the most noteworthy examples:

    • The framework of the visions themselves comes from the Daniel 7 vision (vv. 2-8, 15-25)
    • The blasphemous speaking and arrogance of the Sea-creature (13:5-6ff), with its persecution of the righteous/believers, is a reflection of the specific ruler-figure prophesied in Daniel 7:25; 9:26-27; 11:36ff—generally regarded as referring to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, it was interpreted by early Christians as a future/eschatological reference to their own time (Mark 13:14; 2 Thess 2:3-12)
      • This figure is part of a wider Old Testament tradition of the boastful/arrogant foreign ruler who would put himself in the position of God (cf. the various nation-oracles in the Prophets, esp. Isa 14:13ff and Ezek 28:2ff)
    • The image of the Sea-creature (13:13-15) reflects Nebuchadnezzar’s statue in the Daniel 3 episode
    • The mark of the Sea-creature (vv. 16-18), as a contrast to the mark on the faithful believers (7:3; 14:1), likely alludes to Ezekiel 9:4ff
    • The Earth-creature functions as a miracle-working false prophet (v. 13), an antitype of the prophet Elijah (allusions to the Elijah traditions, 1 Kings 18:24, 37-38; 2 Kings 1:10-12)

Historical Context. The author and his readers lived in Asia Minor, in a province of the Roman Empire. As such, the historical context of Roman imperial rule certainly influenced the symbolism of the visions. This is true of many details in the vision; but let us consider more broadly the figures of the two creatures coming from the Sea and Earth, respectively. With an understanding of the Earth as the realm of the inhabited world (cf. above), Roman rule at the end of the first century A.D. practically extended to the furthest reaches of the earth, as known by people at the time. However, the association of Rome with the sea is more significant for an understanding of the vision. The Roman empire’s power was largely the result of its control of the sea, both militarily and commercially. So complete was their dominion over the Mediterranean, in particular, that the Romans called it “our sea” (mare nostrum). In territories such as Asia Minor (especially in cities and regions nearer the coast), people would certainly have associated the establishment of Roman control as coming by way of the adjoining Sea (as in the visions of Rev 13). In Jewish tradition, Rome was identified with the ancient maritime power of the Kittim (originally referring to Phoenician influence in the Mediterranean, including the island of Cyprus); similarly, in 2/4 Esdras, generally contemporary with the book of Revelation, Rome is depicted symbolically as a great creature (an eagle) from the Sea (11:1). Cf. Koester, pp. 569, 580.

Summary

Let us now bring these different strands together and see how these symbolic figures relate in the setting of the visions.

The Dragon. The “Fabulous Creature” (dra/kwn), a snake-like hybrid creature with seven heads, represents the forces of evil, and is explicitly identified with the Evil One (Devil/Satan) in the text (12:9), so there is little question about its meaning.

The Sea-Creature. The creature (“wild animal”, qhri/on) that comes up from the Sea clearly resembles the Dragon, having a similar appearance. Moreover, the Dragon’s presence at the edge of the Sea, along with the Sea-creature following the Dragon in its “making war” against believers, shows that it acts under the influence of the Dragon—that is, under the control of Satan and the forces of evil. The mythological, typological, and Scriptural aspects of the symbolism (cf. above) would have identified this creature from the Sea as an opponent/adversary of God, and the details of the visions bear this out, especially in the creature’s persecution of the people of God (believers). However, the realm of this creature is the Sea, not the Earth—that is to say, its normal realm is not that of the inhabited world (of human beings). In terms of the historical context, this aspect is realized in the sense that this creature represents a foreign power (i.e. the Roman empire) coming to the land (i.e. Asia Minor) from the sea. In the Daniel 7 vision, the beasts coming up out of the sea are specifically interpreted as kingdoms, and this may be inferred here as well, though not made explicit as such until later in the book. Many commentators believe that the detail of the head which was healed/restored from an apparent fatal blow is an allusion to the legend of Nero’s return.

The Earth-Creature. The creature (“wild animal”, qhri/on) that comes up from the Earth has a different appearance, more closely resembling a normal earthly creature (a lamb). Only the detail of its two horns, and the way that it speaks (like the Dragon) indicate its evil character. If the Daniel 8 vision is in view, then the Earth-creature also represents an earthly king/kingdom, but one more precisely localized regionally and in historical terms. Based on the symbolism of the Earth here as the inhabited world of human beings, we must envision an actual earthy kingdom or government. In the historical context of the book (and the Roman empire), the creature would represent the functioning local governments of Asia Minor. However, since the Earth-creature acts to establish the rule of the Sea-creature (on earth), this would mean the local administration insofar as it acts under the authority of the Roman government, to establish the imperial rule in the provinces. On a broader level of symbolism, the Earth-creature represents the earthly manifestation of mythic-evil power. The Earth-creature is a miracle-working false prophet who deceives people with supernatural power.

The Image of the Sea-Creature. Ultimately it is through the presence of the living image of the Sea-creature that the rule of the Sea-creature is established on earth. The people inhabiting the earth construct the image, and it is then empowered by the evil ‘magic’ of the Earth-creature. It is the image of the Sea-creature, and not the Earth-creature, that commands the people on earth. This is an important aspect of the dynamic which is not always understood by readers (and is obscured in many translations). The allusion to idolatry is clear enough—i.e. an earthly image of mythic-evil power—but it is the Scriptural and historical aspects which are more prominent, especially (1) the Nebuchadnezzar statue (and other Danielic traditions), and (2) as a representation of Roman imperial administration. Both lines of tradition essentially relate to earthly ruling powers which seek to establish obedience and veneration from the populace as a means of rule. Most commentators correctly identify a strong allusion to the contemporary Imperial cult, well-established and widespread in the provinces by the end of the first century A.D. That, indeed, should be seen as the primary reference. The cult was manifest both in the civic/political realm (images, temples, public celebrations) and the commercial (the mark/stamp on coinage, etc). Believers would be confronted with these cultic symbols and associations on a regular basis, part of a recognized atmosphere of pervasive evil and conflict (i.e. opposition to God and Christ), even if it did not necessarily result in believers being arrested or put to death. The connection of the Sea-creature (and its image) with Rome and the Imperial cult is made more precise in subsequent visions, which will be examined in due course.

An interpretation of these symbols with the contemporary situation of Roman Imperial rule in Asia Minor seems clear enough. This is surely not the full extent of the symbolism; however, even commentators who adopt a modern-futurist approach to the visions (and those in Daniel), recognize the allusions to the Roman Empire (thus the various theories regarding a new or “revived” Roman Empire in modern times). An examination of these various interpretative approaches and systems must wait until the conclusion of this series of notes, but it is well to begin widening the scope of our study, especially as we will face increasingly complex and difficult issues involving the remaining visions of the book. This I hope to do, starting with the upcoming notes on chapter 14.

October 21: Revelation 13:16-18

Revelation 13:11-18, continued

In verses 13-15 (discussed in the previous note), the creature from the Earth establishes control over the people on earth, on behalf of the creature from the Sea, by effectively forcing them to worship an image (ei)kw/n) of the Sea-creature. This living image, animating by the magical-prophetic power of the Earth-creature, functions as the Sea-creature’s living and ruling representative on the earth. This refers to the civic/political realm of government. Now, in verses 16-18, the Sea-creature’s control is established in the commercial/economic sphere as well. The economic control comes by way of a “mark” (xa/ragma), the so-called “mark of the Beast”. Perhaps no detail in the entire book has been subject to so much unbridled speculation throughout the centuries. To some extent the book itself is to blame for this, in the cryptic and provocative way the matter is presented in verse 18 (cf. below), seeming to invite all manner of speculation (much of which has been dubious and ill-founded, to say the least). For this reason, it is especially important to begin with a careful reading of the text and how it likely would have been understood by Christians in the late-1st century.

Revelation 3:16

“And he makes all (people)—the small and the great, the rich and the poor, the free and the slave—(so) that they should receive an engraved (mark) [xa/ragma] upon their receiving [i.e. right] hand or upon the (space) between their eyes…”

This description is clear enough. The only real question is whether the subject of poiei= (“he makes”) is the Earth-creature or the living image of the Sea-creature; the latter is to be preferred on the basis of the overall scenario, whereby it is the image that rules on earth as the Sea-creature’s representative (cf. the discussion in the previous note). In any case, every person on earth is given a xa/ragma, either on their right hand or on the middle of their forehead (“between the eyes”). The noun xa/ragma properly refers to something that is engraved into a surface, but can include the result of branding or stamping as well, along with more generalized use to indicate a “mark” or “sign”. Probably the more immediate reference here is to branding, as might occur for slaves or captured/defeated enemies, etc. There are examples of branding in a religious setting as well (cf. below). Some have thought that the specific reference to the hand and forehead could be an allusion to the Jewish phylacteries, in which the text of God’s command was ‘bound’ to a person, marking their religious identity and devotion.

Revelation 13:17

“…even (so) that no one would be able to go to the market-place (to purchase) or to sell (anything), if th(is person) was not holding the engraved (mark with) the name of the wild animal or the number of his name.”

The practical effect of this order is expressed by a pair of infinitives governed by the negative expression mh/ ti$ du/natai (“no one would be able [to]…”):

    • a)gora/sai, literally “go to the market-place”, the a)gora/ being the public square where commercial business (buying/selling) was being done. Here the verb also has the specific denotation of purchasing something (at the market-palce).
    • pwlh=sai, to deal in goods, to exchange, trade, sell, etc—that is, from the standpoint of the dealer or merchant (i.e. seller).

The principal statement thus is a comprehensive reference covering all kinds of commercial business (buying/selling/trading). No one would be able to engage in any such business if that person was not holding on their body the previously mentioned engraved mark (xa/ragma). An articular participle is used to express this (o( e&xw/n, “the [one] holding”), signifying the basic character and identity of the person. Implied here is that receiving the mark indicates the person’s identity as one who belongs to the Sea-creature and accepts his rule. There would seem to be three primary strands to the background of this imagery:

    • As a direct parallel to the seal given to believers, on the forehead, which marks them as belonging to God (lit. “slaves of God”) in the vision of chapter 7 (vv. 3ff). The seal refers to an engraved image stamped into a soft surface (of clay, wax, lead, etc), especially used to indicate that a particular document, etc, belongs to an individual. In 14:1, this seal is defined in terms of the name of the Lamb (and of God the Father) written on the believer’s forehead. Thus the basic imagery is identical—only here in chapter 13 it conveys just the opposite: that non-believers belong to the Sea-creature (and the Dragon). Ultimately, this idea likely derives from Ezekiel 9:4, or from a corresponding underlying tradition.
    • Roman imperial coinage was stamped with the image of the emperor, along with honorific/divine names and titles, and other symbols representing imperial power and/or associated with the imperial cult. Such a coin-stamp into metal could be called a xa/ragma. The obvious connection of coins with commercial activity throughout the empire makes this a key aspect of the symbolism. The very handling of such coins venerating the emperor forced Christians into the sort of ethical quandary that Jews in the Greco-Roman world had been facing for several centuries.
    • The specific act of branding of persons in a pagan religious setting. There is an example cited in 3 Maccabees 2:28-29 that is close in meaning to the scenario in Rev 13:13-18. Jews in Alexandria (3rd century B.C.) were required to have the image of an ivy-leaf, sign of the god Dionysus, branded on their bodies, and those who refused this were put to death (cf. Koester, p. 595).

Neither at the time the book of Revelation was written, nor in the following two centuries, were Christians intentionally barred from commercial activity along the lines described here in the vision. So, then, how should this be understood? Given the pervasiveness of the imperial cult throughout society, including within the economic sphere, believers in the provinces (of Asia Minor, etc) were already being forced to recognize, and in some sense accept, the symbols of the cult as an established and ordinary part of daily life. It was a simple enough matter to envision a more coercive application of this established order, especially in the setting of the period of intense persecution anticipated in these visions. The viewpoint of the book of Revelation was that the entire Roman imperial establishment, as an embodiment of worldly and Satanic rule, was fundamentally wicked. It was already corrupting and controlling people even without the universal coercive measures described in the chap. 13 visions.

Revelation 13:18

“Here is wisdom: the (one) holding a mind (to reason) must work (out) with pebbles [i.e. compute] th(is) number of the wild animal—for it is (the) number of a man, and his number (is) six-hundred sixty six.”

How much simpler would a study of this vision (and the book of Revelation as a whole) be without this verse! It has resulted in all manner of speculation, much of it quite unhealthy. And, in spite what the author/visionary says at the start of the verse, it has proven virtually impossible for Christians to solve this numeric riddle in any meaningful or convincing way. At least this is so for Christians living after the first century, since already by the mid/late-second century a knowledgeable author such as Irenaeus, so well-informed regarding early tradition, can only make vague guesses as to its meaning (Against Heresies V.30). We might assume that believers living around the time of the book’s writing (late-1st century), and members of the circle of congregations (in Asia Minor) to whom it was addressed, may have had a clearer sense of what was intended; but, if so, that is now lost to us today.

All that we can be sure of is that the numerical cypher involved a process referred to as gematria, best known from its application by Jewish writers and commentators as a mode of interpreting the Hebrew Scriptures. In both Hebrew and Greek, letters of the alphabet were used to represent numbers, meaning that individual words and phrases carried a certain numeric value, obtained by adding up the letters. This is why the author/seer instructs his audience to compute (lit. adding by “using pebbles”) the number of the engraved name. Even though the various figures and images used throughout the book of Revelation are symbolic, and, for the most part, do not necessarily refer to a specific person or thing, here it would seem that the author does have in mind a specific name. The directive to compute the name would result in a specious bit of symbolism if a definite name were not involved. However, there are still a number of ways one might interpret the idea of specific name here; these can be reduced to two primary approaches:

    • The name is still symbolic, i.e. it does not necessarily refer to a specific historical person. Admittedly, the author does say that “it is the number of a man”, but this could simply mean that it is a human name serving as the symbol, just as the territorial name of “Babylon” is used in subsequent visions.
    • The name is meant refer to a concrete individual, presumably a particular ruler, perhaps a specific Roman emperor.

The direction given by the author to his audience—i.e. those living in Asia Minor at the time—would be virtually meaningless if it did not refer to a name/person that could be identified. This fact generally invalidates any interpretive approach that requires discovery of the name by Christians living hundreds (or thousands) of years later. Perhaps the most common solution to the numeric riddle, accepted by many commentators as being at least the most plausible to date, is that it represents a transliteration in Hebrew of “Nero Caesar” (rsq /wrn), a form attested in several documents from the first and early-second centuries A.D. This would fit the basic setting and background of the book, including imagery that likely draws (in part) on legends surrounding Nero (as will be discussed further in subsequent notes). However, the main problem is that this theory assumes that the Greek-speaking audience of the book would be familiar enough with Hebrew to make such a calculation, and this is far from certain (cf. the explanation of Hebrew words in 9:11; 16:16). A computation involving a particular Greek name would be more likely.

In several manuscripts (Ë115 C) and other ancient witnesses, the number cited in verse 18 is 616 rather than 666. This has given rise to the possibility that the intended name is the Greek form of “Gaius Caesar” (Gaio$ Kaisar), which adds up to 616. Gaius (Caligula) was the most notorious emperor of the first century, after Nero. According to Josephus (Antiquities 18.261), Gaius had ordered his statue to be set up in the Jerusalem Temple, making him a kind of 1st-century fulfillment of Antiochus Epiphanes (Dan 9:27; 11:31ff), and a suitable point of reference for the eschatological predictions in Mark 13:14 par; 2 Thess 2:4ff.

For other examples of gematria applied to the specific names of rulers and other leading figures, and as a way to identify them, note e.g., Lucian Alexander 11; Sibylline Oracles 1.137-46, 324-9; 5.1-51; cf. Koester, p. 606.

Given the fact that so much of the imagery in the book of Revelation, especially here in chapter 13 and the visions which follow, is related, at a basic level, to the contemporary reality of the Roman Empire and the Imperial cult, it seems quite plausible that the name/number of the Sea-creature’s mark is that of a Roman emperor (such as Nero or Gaius). If the book of Revelation were written during Nero’s reign, then a veiled reference to him would be quite likely. More probable, however, is that the author intends to compare the Sea-creature’s rule in terms of the wicked emperors Gaius and/or Nero, but cannot mention their names except by hidden code. To name them outright would be both impious and contrary to the symbolic style and artistry of the book. Even Rome itself cannot be mentioned explicitly, but only referred to through certain symbolic details or other names such as “Babylon”.

Admittedly, this is far from a satisfactory solution; however, a more definitive interpretation, such as this is even possible, will have to wait until we have studied the remaining visions in the book which make reference to the Sea-creature and his “mark”. Before proceeding to an examination of the chapter 14 visions, it may be worth summarizing those in chapter 13, especially in terms of the relationship between the two creatures (of Sea and Earth)—this I will do in the next daily note.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 2019EschatologyNT_header1a.png