Yeshua the Anointed: Supplemental note on Daniel 3:25

Overview and Interpretation

Daniel 3:25 is noteworthy as the only occurrence in the Old Testament of the expression “son of God”; the plural appears numerous times (in several forms) in the Hebrew, in reference to divine/heavenly beings, and, less frequently, to human beings (cf. the first section of Part 12). However, the singular occurs only here in Daniel, at the climactic moment of chapter 3, as the three young Israelite/Jewish men (Hananiah, Mishael, Azariah) are inside the blazing furnace, and the king (Nebuchadnezzar) declares in amazement:

“See! I behold four young men loosed (from their bonds and) walking in the middle of the fire, and there is no damage to them! and the appearance of the fourth is like that of a son of God!”

While it is not specified in this verse, the clear implication is that this fourth “young man” (rb^G+) is a divine/heavenly being. The expression in Aramaic is /yh!l*a$ rB^ (bar-°§l¹hîn), the equivalent of Hebrew <yh!ýa$ /B# (ben-°§lœhîm), which is typically used in the plural for heavenly beings (i.e. Angels). The text states this explicitly in verse 28, in the subsequent public declaration by Nebuchadnezzar:

“Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who sent his Messenger and brought release/deliverance for his servants…”

The Hebrew/Aramaic ialm, like the Greek word a&ggelo$, can refer to either a human or heavenly “messenger”, depending on the context; here, it certainly means a heavenly Messenger. At the historical level, a (pagan, polytheistic) king such as Nebuchadnezzar, in using an expression like /yh!l*a$ rB^, would have meant simply a divine being, “son of (the) gods” (cf. Hebrew <yl!a@ yn}B=), according to the conventional understanding of the time. The text does not indicate just what it was about the appearance of this fourth person that led Nebuchadnezzar to believe it was a divine being of some sort. From the standpoint of Israelite/Jewish monotheism, the “gods” (<yl!a@) or “sons of God” of course were understood to be created heavenly beings or “Angels”.

The earliest interpretation of this heavenly/angelic being in Dan 3:25 is found in the Additions to the Greek version of Daniel, LXX Dan 3:49 (verse 26 of the addition), where it is stated that “the Messenger of the Lord stepped down into the furnace with the ones around Azariah and shook the flame of the fire out of the furnace”. This is a reference to the Messenger (Angel) of YHWH in ancient Israelite and Old Testament tradition. Originally, this was not so much a particular Angelic person or being, but rather a concrete expression and embodiment of God’s power and protection on behalf of his people, which may acted out by His Messenger(s), but can also be taken to represent the presence or manifestation (theophany) of God Himself. The Messenger of YHWH is especially depicted as one who protects Israel (Gen 16:7-11; Exod 14:19; 23:20, 23; 32:34; 33:2; Num 20:16; 22:22-35; Judg 2:1-4; 2 Kings 19:35; Ps 34:7; 35:5-6; Zech 3:1-6; 12:8, etc). Later Rabbinic tradition identified the Angel of Dan 3:25 as Gabriel (b. Pesach. 118ab). For the Christian interpretation of the passage as a Christophany, or as prefiguring Jesus in some way, cf. below.

Daniel 3:25 and 7:13-14

There are some interesting parallels between these two passages. To begin with, the references, taken on their own, are similar, though the expressions use different vocabulary:

“See! [ah*] … (he) is like [hm@D*] a son of God
“See! [Wra&] … one like [K=] a son of man

Probably both are referring to a heavenly being, a Messenger (Angel) of God, and both seemingly in the context of the protection and deliverance of God’s people (the righteous ones) on earth. If we step back and look at the overall setting of chapters 2-3 and 7, in relation to the thematic development and structure of the book, the parallelism is enhanced:

First, we have the visions of chapters 2 and 7, which are related in the following ways:

    • Each involves a succession of four kingdoms, the last of which is the most savage and violent, with ten toes/horns representing ten kings. Following these is the everlasting kingdom of God, which will be established following the defeat/judgment of the other kingdoms.
    • Each has the general structure of: (1) occurrence of the vision, (2) hymn/vision of God’s glory, (3) interpretation of the vision.
    • Each is set at the beginning of one half of the book—(1) the vision in chapter 2 introduces the stories of chs. 3-6, set during the Babylonian, Median, and Persian (i.e. the first three) kingdoms; (2) that in chapter 7 introduces the visions of chs. 8-11, involving the rise and history of the Greek empire (the fourth kingdom).

Note also the following parallels between chaps. 3 and 7:

    • The episode in chapter 3 is, in some ways, a narrative dramatization of the statue in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream—now it is a real statue, representing the glory and power of earthly kingdoms on a grandiose scale (everyone in the kingdom is to bow down before it and worship). This, then, is a story narrating the beginning of the four-kingdom vision—i.e. the first kingdom, of Babylon. The fourth beast of chapter 7 (and the following visions of chs. 8-11), is part of a vision depicting the end of the four-kingdom scenario (cf. vv. 11, 26, where the final beast is judged and slain).
    • In chapter 3, Nebuchadnezzar persecutes the people of God (arrest and execution of the three young men), just as the fourth beast (and his last horn) in the vision will make war against the (people of the) holy ones (7:21, 25).
    • At the central point of the ch. 3 story, the one like a “son of God” appears in the middle of the fiery furnace; in the central scene of the ch. 7 vision, the one like a “son of man” comes into the fiery presence of God (the “Ancient of Days”) in Heaven.
    • In chapter 3, the one like a “son of God”, it may be said, comes to rescue/deliver his people (the three young men); in the chapter 7 vision, it is said that the “Ancient of Days” comes to bring judgment (v. 22). It is not said how the “(people of) the holy ones” are delivered, but based on Dan 12:1ff (cf. also 10:13-21), this takes place by way of a heavenly Messenger (Michael), whom many commentators identify as the one “like a son of man” in 7:13-14.
    • Following the appearance of the one like a “son of God” in chap. 3, the Babylonians realize they have no power over God’s people (vv. 27-28), who are given special privilege and promoted within the kingdom (vv. 29-30). In the chapter 7 vision, the scene involving the one like a “son of man” coincides with the judgment of the beasts and the removal of their kingdoms; instead, an everlasting Kingdom is given to “the people of the holy ones of the Most High” (vv. 22, 27).

If a heavenly Messenger (Angel) is being described in both passages, then we are seeing this from two perspectives:

    • On earth, among humans, he is marked (in some way) as a divine being (“son of God”)
    • In heaven, among the divine/celestial entities, he resembles a human being (“son of man”)

However, the parallelism in chapter 3 & 7 could also be interpreted differently:

    • In chapter 3, a divine being (“son of God”) appears among humans
    • In chapter 7, a human being (“son of man”) appears among the divine/heavenly beings

In this case, the human being could either (a) be symbolic of the righteous (people of God) on earth, or (b) indicate the elevation of a human being (or humankind) to a heavenly status and position before God. Of these options, the first is more plausible, given the references in 7:22, 27; however, already at the end of Daniel (12:2-3) we find the righteous being exalted to a heavenly, celestial position. We have also seen the idea of a human being specifically elevated to divine/heavenly status in the Enoch traditions (1 En 70-71, etc), and, of course, with the person of Jesus in early Christian belief; several of the texts from Qumran (4Q427, 4Q491, etc) suggest something similar.

Christophany and Christological Interpretation

It has been popular among Christians to view this heavenly Messenger of Daniel 3:25 as an Old Testament appearance or manifestation of Jesus—that is, a “Christophany” of the pre-existant Christ (Son of God). There are a number of writings of the early Church Fathers which indicate such a belief, though it is not attested before the end of the 2nd century A.D. Here the most notable passages which survive:

  • Irenaeus [late 2nd century], Against Heresies I.5.2—identifies the one resembling a “son of God” with “the Son of God”, though he does not specifically say that this was Jesus in a pre-incarnate form.
  • Tertullian [early 3rd century], Against Marcion 4:10—conflates Dan 3:25 and 7:13, reading “Son of Man” in both passages, but clearly with the idea that “Son of Man” indicates Jesus’ deity. In chapter 21 of the same book, he states that it was Jesus (as Son of Man) who saved the lives of the three young men.
  • Hippolytus [early-mid 3rd century], Commentary (Scholia) on Daniel, understands the “son of God” to be Christ, but wonders how Nebuchadnezzar could have recognized this—it prefigures the acceptance of Christ by the Gentiles.
  • Jerome, Commentary on Daniel (commenting on the text with the Additions [cf. above], vv. 49, 92 [25], 95 [28])—accepts the plain meaning of the text as referring to an Angel, and interprets this typologically as relating to Christ: “this angel or son of God foreshadows our Lord Jesus Christ, who descended into the furnace of hell… in order that he might without suffering any scorching by fire or injury to his person deliver those who were held imprisoned by chains of death” [English translation by Gleason Archer]. Cf. also Letter 130.10.
  • Athanasius, in his Fourth Discourse Against the Arians §24, accepts Dan 3:25 as a Christophany without comment; Ambrose, Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.13.80, offers a brief interpretation similar to that of Hippolytus.

Along similar lines, a fair number of commentators throughout the centuries have identified Jesus with the “Messenger of YHWH” in the Old Testament, and that Dan 3:25, 28 (vv. 49, 92, 95 in the Greek version) indicates one such appearance of the pre-existent Christ as the Angel of the Lord. It must be said that there is really nothing in the Old Testament to warrant this interpretation. Nor is there much in the New Testament to support it. While Jesus was identified with the “one like a son of man” in Mark 13:26; 14:61 par; Rev 1:7, 13; 14:14ff, there is no comparable identification with the one “resembling a son of God”. I find only two passages which could conceivably be cited in support of Old Testament Christophany and/or recognizing Jesus as the Angel of YHWH:

  • In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul draws upon Old Testament (and Jewish) tradition regarding the rock of Kadesh and well of Beer (Numbers 20-21), giving it a spiritual and Christological interpretation, declaring that the life-giving rock which followed the Israelites “was the Anointed (One) {Christ}”. While we cannot be absolutely certain, this seems to indicate a belief that the pre-existent Christ appeared in a miraculous form among the ancient Israelites. If so, Paul likely would have recognized a similar presence of Jesus in other episodes from Israelite history; however, he makes no mention of this elsewhere in his letters.
  • The identification of Jesus with the Messenger of God in Malachi 3:1. I have discussed this passage in an earlier note. While early Christian tradition, based on the explanation provided in Mal 4:5-6, settled on the interpretation of this Messenger as a human being—John the Baptist, fulfilling the end-time role of “Elijah”—elsewhere in Gospel tradition, it is Jesus himself who appears to be the “Messenger of the Covenant” and the “Lord” who comes to the Temple (in the original context of Mal 3:1ff). The basic Synoptic narrative, with the centrality and climactic setting of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem (and into the Temple), supports such an interpretation.

Once early Christians came to understand the earthly (historical) Jesus as the incarnation of pre-existent Deity (Son of God, Word/Wisdom of God), it was easy enough to identify him with the Messenger of YHWH, since this figure often represents the presence and power of God Himself made manifest to humankind. However, this Christological application has not yet been made explicit in the New Testament.

Yeshua the Anointed, Part 12: Messiah and Son of God (continued)

In continuing this Part of the series, we may summarize the instances in the Gospels where the titles “Anointed (One)” (o( xristo/$) and “Son of God” ([o(] ui(o\$ [tou=] qeou=) are combined or set in context with each other:

    • Mark 1:1, as the heading of the Gospel—”…of Yeshua (the) Anointed, the Son of God”
    • The association of Jesus’ Baptism with his being anointed (as well as being God’s Son)—Acts 10:37-38; Luke 3:22 v.l. (quoting Psalm 2:7).
    • Luke 4:41 (par Mk 1:34; Matt 8:16)—the author explicitly connects the exclamation by the unclean spirits (that Jesus is the Son of God) with his identity as the Anointed One (cf. Mk 3:11; Matt 8:29 / Lk 8:28).
    • Matthew’s version of Peter’s confession (Matt 16:16)—”You are the Anointed (One), the Son of the living God” (cf. the prior discussion).
    • John 11:27, a similar confession by Martha during the Lazarus scene—”You are the Anointed (One), the Son of God, the (one) coming into the world”.
    • Mark 12:35-37 par, where Jesus’ argument (based on Psalm 110:1) could be taken to mean that the Anointed One is something more than the “Son of David”, i.e. the Son of God (so early Christians would have understood it). The question Jesus initially asks in Matthew’s version of the scene—”What/how does it seem to you about the Anointed (One)? Whose son is (he)?” (Matt 22:42)—may even foreshadow such an interpretation.
    • Mark 14:61; Matt 26:62; Luke 22:67, 70, the question/adjuration put to Jesus by the Sanhedrin (cf. the earlier discussion on this).
    • In the scene before Pilate, the title “Anointed (One)” appears specifically in Matt 27:17, 22; Luke 23:2, associated with the accusation that Jesus considered himself to be a King; John’s Gospel adds, parallel to this, Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God (Jn 19:7).
    • Matt 27:40, 43, where the taunts of the crowd use “Son of God”, in place of “Anointed (One)”, cf. Mark 14:32; Lk 23:35ff, 39.
    • John 20:31, at the close of the Gospel, similar to Mark 1:1—”…so that you might trust that Yeshua is the Anointed (One), the Son of God”.

We should also include here the important references in the Infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke:

    • References to Jesus as the Anointed One, and a “son”, in the context of his miraculous (virginal) conception by the Holy Spirit—Matt 1:1, 16, 18, 21, 23, 25; 2:4ff; 15; Luke 1:26-38; 2:7, 10-11, 26.
    • The genealogies (Matt 1:1-17; Lk 3:23-38) clearly show Jesus to be a descendant of David (legally, by way of Joseph, cf. also Matt 1:20; Lk 1:27; 2:4), i.e. the Anointed One as a “son of David” (cf. Lk 1:32; 2:11). The Lukan genealogy, which traces backward, ends with the phrase “the son of God”—referring directly to Adam, but on the theological level, to Jesus his descendant.
    • The Angelic Annunciation to Mary, more clearly than any other passage in the Gospels, associates the titles “Son of God” and “Son of the Highest” with the Messianic figure-type of the Davidic King (Luke 1:32-35)—for the remarkable parallels with the Qumran text 4Q246, see parts 78 and my earlier note.

The Gospel of John

The idea of Jesus as both the Anointed One (Christ/Messiah) and Son of God can be found in several places in the Gospel of John:

    • John 1:34—the Baptism of Jesus, narrated indirectly (by John the Baptist), is connected with John’s own identity in relation to Jesus (vv. 6-9, 15, 19-27, 30ff). Note especially in verses 20-25, where John denies being the Anointed One or “the one coming” (vv. 27, 30). In verse 34, at the climax of the Baptism narration, John declares “I have seen and have witnessed that this (one) is the Son of God!”.
    • John 1:49—the confession by Nathanael: “…you are the Son of God, you are the King of Israel!” Here “king of Israel” certainly refers to the expectation of an Anointed Ruler from the line of David; moreover, there is definitely a Messianic context to this scene (v. 45).
    • John 11:27—the confession by Martha (cf. above): “you are the Anointed (One), the Son of God, the (one) coming into the world.”
    • John 19:7, in the context of Jesus’ trial (cf. above).
    • John 20:31—the conclusion of the Gospel proper (cf. above).

Also noteworthy are the passages which connect the titles “Son of God” and “Son of Man”:

    • John 1:51—Jesus’ famous Son of Man saying, which follows Nathanael’s confession in verse 49.
    • John 3:13-14, 18—twin sayings of the Son of Man descending/ascending and being “lifted up” (vv. 13-14), followed by a reference to belief in Jesus as the Son of God (v. 18).
    • John 5:25, 27—parallel between the Son of God and Son of Man in the context of the end-time Judgment and Resurrection.
    • John 9:35—”Do you trust in the Son of Man?” (some MSS read “…in the Son of God”, cf. 3:18).
    • John 12:23; 13:31 refer to the Son of Man being glorified (through his death and resurrection/exaltation); John 11:4 refers to the Son of God being glorified (through the death and raising of Lazarus).

One should also mention John 12:34, where the titles “the Anointed (One)” and “the Son of Man” are related. Throughout the Gospel tradition, Jesus uses the title “Son of Man”, referring to himself, in an eschatological and/or Messianic context. Cf. my earlier note for more on the Son of Man sayings in the Gospel of John.

In addition to the passages above, Jesus frequently refers to himself as “the Son”, specifically in relation to (God) the Father—John 3:16-17, 35-36; 5:19-27; [6:40]; 8:36; 10:36; 14:13; 17:1, etc. Almost all of these are found in the great Discourses of Jesus, and there the Christological language and imagery has gone far beyond traditional Messianic interpretation (of Psalm 2:7; 2 Sam 7:11-14, etc)—we find, in the words of Jesus, a clear expression of his pre-existent Deity. However, it is interesting that the title “Son” is only used of the incarnate Christ, in the sense that he makes God the Father known to humankind (cf. Jn 1:14, 18 [v.l.]); in John 1:1-14a it is rather Lo/go$ (“Word”) that is used. Also connected with the Sonship of Jesus and the purpose of the incarnation is the idea that all who trust/believe in him should come to be sons/children of God (cf. Jn 1:12; 12:36; 1 Jn 3:1ff).

Christological Development

In examining the idea of Jesus as Messiah and Son of God in early Christian thought and expression, we begin with the Gospel preaching by the apostles and disciples in the book of Acts. The title “Son of God” occurs only once, in Acts 9:20, where the converted Paul’s first preaching in Damascus included the declaration regarding Jesus—”this one [ou!to$] is the Son of God!” The statement is parallel with his demonstration to the Jews in Damascus that Jesus is the Messiah—”this one [ou!to$] is the Anointed (One)” (cf. Acts 3:18, 20; 5:42; 17:3; 18:5, 28). The only other reference to Jesus as God’s Son involves the use of Psalm 2:7 (“You are my Son, today I have caused you to be [born]”) in Acts 13:33. This is part of Paul’s speech at Antioch, which is parallel in many respects with Peter’s great Pentecost speech in Acts 2. Paul cites Psalm 2:7, while Peter cites Psalm 110:1, applying them both to the resurrection of Jesus. These Scriptures are not interpreted in terms of Jesus’ pre-existent deity—i.e., of his birth/generation as Son by God in eternity—rather, they are related specifically to his resurrection and exaltation to heaven. It is after his death that Jesus is “born” as God’s Son, being raised and exalted to heaven. Interestingly, Psalm 2:7 was applied to Jesus three different ways in early Christian tradition:

    1. In reference to his resurrection and exaltation—Acts 13:33; Hebrews 5:5
    2. In the context of his Baptism—Luke 3:22 v.l. (D a b c d ff2 l r1, and attested by a number of Church Fathers)
    3. In terms of his pre-existent deity and relationship to God the Father—Hebrews 1:5; 5:5

Turning to Paul’s letters, the most notable passage is Romans 1:3-4, which, as I have previously discussed, may reflect an earlier creed or Gospel formula:

“…about His Son, the (one) coming to be (born) out of the seed of David according to the flesh, the (one) marked out [i.e. appointed/designated] as Son of God in power according to (the) spirit of holiness out of the standing up [i.e. resurrection] of the dead, Yeshua (the) Anointed, our Lord”

The reference to the “seed of David” is derived from Messianic tradition, reflecting the figure-type of the expected/end-time Davidic Ruler. We can see how these terms and titles are brought together and connected in one statement: Son—son of David—Son of God—Anointed. Generally, however, Paul does not make much use of traditional Messianic thought and imagery, and almost never uses “Anointed (One)” as a specific title—in his letters (50s and early 60s A.D.) “Anointed” [Xristo/$] has already been thoroughly assimilated, becoming part of Jesus’ name (“Yeshua [the] Anointed”). Nor is the title “Son of God” especially common, occurring just three times in the Pauline corpus (in addition to Rom 1:4), each of which has the title set in tandem with “Anointed” or “Yeshua [the] Anointed”:

    • 2 Corinthians 2:19—”the Son of God, Yeshua (the) Anointed, the (one) proclaimed among you through us…”
    • Galatians 2:20—”…(the) Anointed lives in me… I live in trust of the Son of God…”
    • Ephesians 4:13—”…the (full) knowledge of the Son of God… the measure of stature of the fullness of the Anointed.”

More frequently, Paul refers to Jesus simply as “(the) Son”, by which God’s Son is meant, as in the Gospel of John (cf. above). Often these occur specifically in the context of Jesus’ sacrificial death—i.e., of God sending his own Son, etc (Rom 5:10; 8:3, 32; Gal 4:6)—as well as generally in terms of the Gospel message (Rom 1:3, 9; Gal 1:6). The resurrection and exaltation of Jesus is particularly in view in Rom 8:29; 1 Thess 1:10. There is, no doubt, an association with Messianic tradition in those few passages which refer to the kingdom of the Son, and to the promise of salvation (from the end-time Judgment, etc)—1 Cor 15:28; 1 Thess 1:10; Col 1:13. Paul also shares with the Johannine tradition the idea of believers in Christ becoming sons/children of God, through his death/resurrection and the work of the Spirit—Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 1:9; Gal 4:6.

Apart from the letter to the Hebrews and the Johannine writings, references to Jesus as Son (of God) are quite rare (2 Peter 1:17, referring to the Transfiguration). Hebrews, like the Gospel of John, understands Jesus’ Sonship in terms of pre-existent Deity (Heb 1:2, 5, 8, etc), but also in the (earlier) context of his sacrificial death and resurrection (Heb 4:14; 5:5; 7:28, etc). The title “Son of God” occurs in Heb 4:14; 6:6; 7:3; 10:29. Overall, we find here a more developed matrix of belief regarding the Person of Christ. This is even more so in the case of the Letters of John, so closely matching the language and thought of the Gospel (esp. the Discourses of Jesus). “Son” occurs 24 times (including twice in 2 John), with the specific title “Son of God” used in 1 John 3:8; 4:15; 5:5, 10, 12-13, 20. Interestingly, “(the) Anointed” is used as a distinct title twice in 1 John as well (1 Jn 2:22; 5:1), but it is no longer a traditional Messianic title; rather, it now identifies Jesus in terms of a very definite set of Christian (and Christological) beliefs, corresponding to the presentation of Jesus in the Gospel, which includes:

    • That Jesus is the Son (of God) and has been sent by the Father (2:22-23, etc)
    • That he has come to earth and appeared in human flesh (4:2, etc)
    • That he gave himself sacrificially for the salvation and life of the world (“…the one coming through water and blood“, 5:6 etc)

For perhaps the first time in the New Testament writings we find such beliefs about Jesus turned into a direct test for correct belief—i.e. orthodoxy (or, perhaps better, proto-orthodoxy). Note the repeated use of the pa=$ o( formula in 1 John (“every one who…”):

    • 1 Jn 2:23—”Every one denying the Son does not have the Father; the (one) giving account of [i.e. acknowledging] the Son also has the Father”
    • 1 Jn 2:29—”Every one doing justice/righteousness has come to be (born) out of Him”
    • 1 Jn 3:9—”Every one who has come to be (born) out of God does not do sin…” (also 5:18)
    • 1 Jn 4:7—”Every one loving (each other) has come to be born out of God and knows God”
    • 1 Jn 5:1—”Every one trusting that Yeshua is the Anointed (One) has come to be born out of God…”

Cf. also 3:3-4, 6, 10, 15; 5:4, as well as the similar formulation in 1 Jn 4:3: “Every spirit which does not give account of [i.e. acknowledge/confess] Yeshua is not out of [i.e. from] God”. It is important to notice the way that the correct confession (or acknowledgement) of Christ is related (a) to moral and upright behavior, and (b) to the idea of believers also being born as Sons (Children) of God—cf. John 1:12 (also 11:52; 12:36); 1 Jn 3:1, 10; 5:2.

Jesus as the Son (of God) is rare in the book of Revelation, occurring only once (Rev 2:18), though otherwise Messianic imagery, in connection with an exalted view of Christ (in Heaven), abounds throughout the book. The reference to Jesus as the “firstborn” out of the dead (cf. Rom 8:28; Col 1:18) may indicate that Jesus’ Sonship here, as in the earliest Christian preaching, is connected specifically with his resurrection.

The Apostolic Fathers

Finally, if we briefly examine the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers (c. 90-160 A.D.), the earliest extra-canonical Christian writings, we find essentially a summary and (re-)formulation of what is otherwise expressed in the New Testament; among the more noteworthy passages are:

  • 1 Clement 36:4—citation of Psalm 2:7-8 (cf. above), possibly also an allusion to Hebrews 1:5.
  • Ignatius to the Smyrneans 1:1—part of a creedal summary, either quoting Romans 1:3-4 or drawing upon the underlying tradition; likewise in Ephesians 20:2, where Ignatius offers an early formulation of the dual-nature of Christ, “Son of Man [i.e. human] and Son of God [i.e. Divine]”.
  • Ignatius, Magnesians 8:2, seemingly drawing upon Johannine language regarding the Person of Christ, and suggesting his pre-existent Deity.
  • Epistle of Polycarp 12:2, where the title Son of God is connected with Jesus as “eternal High Priest”, perhaps indicating familiarity with Hebrews.
  • Martyrdom of Polycarp 17:3—”we worship this one [i.e. Jesus] as (being the) Son of God”, cf. Acts 9:20.
  • The Epistle of Barnabas 5:9, 11; 7:2, 9; 12:8; 15:5, where there is a strong emphasis on the Jesus as the incarnate Son of God who fulfills (and replaces) the Old Testament types and forms, similar in certain ways to Hebrews and the Gospel of John.

Cf. also Didache 16:4, the Epistle to Diognetus 7:4; 9:2, 4; 10:2, and numerous passages in Hermas (Vision 2.2:8; Similitude 5.2:6, 8, 11; 8.3:2, 11:1; 9.1:1; 12:1, et al). In all of these early Christian works, traditional Messianic thought and interpretation has generally disappeared, having been replaced by a distinctly Christian point of reference, based on early Tradition and the writings of the New Testament. By the middle of the second century, Jesus as the Son of God became part of a wider Christological (and Apologetic) argument involving the Person of Christ. Proto-orthodox writers and theologians such as Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, and Irenaeus felt compelled to explain and defend their understanding of Christ on several fronts:

    1. Against Jewish opponents, e.g. Justin, Dialogue with Trypho §43, 48, 100-2, 118, 126-9, etc. In the context of such works, Christians were still forced to argue or demonstrate that Jesus was the Messiah, though in a somewhat different manner than we see in the earlier book of Acts.
    2. Against Greco-Roman (pagan) misunderstanding and misrepresentation—cf. Justin, First Apology §§21-23, 31, 54, 60, 63, etc; Athenagoras’ Plea for the Christians §10; Origen Against Celsus 6:11, etc.
    3. Against alternate/heterodox (or “heretical”) Christian views of Christ, i.e. by so-called “Gnostics”, etc—cf. Irenaeus Against Heresies III.16-18ff; IV.5-11, 40-1, etc.

Yeshua the Anointed, Part 12: Messiah and Son of God

In this part of the series, I will be exploring the idea of the Messiah as the Son of God. This, of course, has enormous implications for the early Christian understanding of Jesus—how, and in what way (or ways), he is believed to be God’s Son. This article will be divided as follows:

  • Old Testament and Jewish Background
  • The Qumran texts and Jewish writings of the 1st century B.C./A.D.
  • The (Synoptic) Gospel Tradition
  • The Gospel of John
  • Christological Development in the New Testament and Other Early Writings

The Old Testament and Jewish Background

There are three relevant concepts or traditions in the Old Testament related to the expression “son of God”:

1. The plural “sons of God” as a reference to heavenly beings (‘Angels’):

    • <yh!ýa$h* yn}B= (b®nê-h¹°§lœhîm)—certain in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7, and virtually certain in Gen 6:2, 4; cf. also in Deut 32:8 LXX and 4QDt
    • <yl!a@ yn}B= (b®nê °¢lîm)—Psalm 29:1; 89:6
    • /olu# yn}B= (b®nê ±elyôn, i.e. “sons of the Most High”)—Psalm 82:6, though the interpretation of this passage is disputed, thought by some commentators to refer to human beings (judges)

The only occurrence of the singular is in Daniel 3:25, Aramaic /yh!l*a$ rB^ (bar-°§l¹hîn). Cf. the supplemental note on this verse.

2. The people of Israel as God’s “sons” or (collectively) as “Son”, in a symbolic or spiritual sense—”My (firstborn) son” (Exod 4:22-23; Hos 11:1; Jer 31:9); “sons of the living God” (Hos 1:10 [Hebrew 2:1]); “(My/His) sons” (Deut 14:1; 32:19; Isa 1:2-3; 30:1; 43:19; Jer 3:22). For YHWH as the “Father” of Israel, cf. Deut 32:6; Isa 64:8, etc. The only direct reference to Israel as “son of God” is in the deutero-canonical book of Wisdom (Grk ui(o\$ qeou=, Wis 18:13).

3. The king as God’s “son” in a symbolic or ritual sense—Psalm 2:7; 89:26-27; 2 Sam 7:14.

The last of these had the clearest influence on Messianic thought, especially with regard to the figure-type of the Davidic Ruler who was expected to appear at the end-time. For more on the Messianic interpretation and development of these passages, cf. Parts 6 and 7 of this series. The first two aspects developed and were combined several ways in Jewish tradition:

  • The Messiah was associated with the end-time Judgment of God on the wicked/nations of the world—only the righteous and/or repentant of God’s people would pass through the judgment and enter/inherit the Kingdom. This follows the tendency, especially in Wisdom literature of the intertestamental period, to refer specifically to the righteous as God’s “sons”, cf. Sir 4:10; Wisd 2:18; 5:5; Esth 16:16, etc.
  • Beginning at least with the book of Daniel (depending on how one dates it), a distinct parallel and connection formed in Jewish thought, between the people of God (i.e. the righteous/holy ones on earth) and the “Sons of God” (Holy Ones) in Heaven. This is perhaps best expressed in the 7th chapter of Daniel—the precise parallel between the heavenly “one like a son of man” (vv. 13-14) and the “(people of the) holy ones” (vv. 22, 26-27). For other expressions of the relationship between Angels and the righteous in Daniel, cf. Dan 3:25ff; 8:15-17; 10:10-21; 12:1-3.
  • In the Qumran texts (primarily from the 1st century B.C.), the righteous remnant of the end-time is identified specifically with the Community—i.e. those who have joined together, correctly observing the Torah and following the instruction passed down by the “Teacher of Righteousness”. As we have seen, there were strong eschatological and Messianic components to this self-identity; the Community Rule documents, along with other texts, show that they expected the appearance of several end-time (Messianic) figures who would serve as rulers/leaders (the Community itself being the effective embodiment of the Kingdom). In addition, the heavenly beings (“Holy Ones”) were seen as functioning in tandem with the “holy ones” (the Community) on earth, and would join together more closely at the end-time.
  • This inter-connection between the righteous/holy ones on earth and heaven, was made even more precise in the figure of the “Son of Man” (also called “Righteous One”, “Elect One” and “Anointed One”) in the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71, early 1st century A.D.?). For more detail, see Part 10 of this series.

There are definite similarities in thought and expression between the Qumran texts, the Similitudes of Enoch, and early Christian tradition. It is significant, perhaps, that the latest of the Qumran writings, and probably the Similitudes, were roughly contemporary with the time of Jesus and the Gospel tradition.

The Qumran texts and Jewish writings of the Period

In examining these writings (c. 150 B.C. – 100 A.D.), it is important to focus on texts which: (1) specifically use the expression “son of God” or similar wording, (2) mention “son” or sonship in a distinctly Messianic context, and (3) are either pre-Christian or show little sign of Christian influence. There are, in fact, very few surviving texts which are directly relevant to the discussion. Apart from traditional references to the heavenly beings (Angels) as “sons of God” in Wisdom 5:5; Jubilees 1:24-25; 1 Enoch 69:4-5; 71:1, etc., I highlight here passages from seven documents, including five from the Qumran (Dead Sea) Scrolls.

Qumran Texts (cf. Evans, Qumran-Messianism, pp. 137-47)—First, from the Florilegium (4Q174), a collection of Scripture verses with glossed interpretations, which have a clear eschatological and Messianic orientation. In lines 10-13, the Davidic promise of 2 Sam 7:11-14 is explained as referring to “the Sprout/Branch of David who will…sit on the throne in Zion at the end of days”. For “Branch of David” (dywd jmx) as a Messianic title, cf. Parts 67. This indicates the possibility of understanding the Royal/Davidic Messiah of the end-time as “God’s son”. Next, there are two passages which appear to speak of the “birth” (by God) of a Messianic figure:

  • 1QSa [1Q28a] 2:11-12—”[This is the sit]ting of the men of the name [i.e. of renown] [called] to the appointed place (of meeting) for the council of the Community, when He [i.e. God] will cause the Anointed One to be born with [i.e. among] them…” The verb restored as “cause to be born” i.e. “beget” (d[yl]wy) has proven somewhat controversial, having been read by other scholars as “bring [forward]” (iylwy), and other restorations have also been suggested. If the verb dly is correct, then the idea presumably derives from Psalm 2:7, where, in its original context, the king is begotten/born as God’s “son” (symbolically) upon his enthronement; here it would be his installment as ruler over the Community that is the occasion of his being “born”.
  • 4Q534 frag. 3 col. i, lines 8-11:
    “[and] he will know the secrets of man. And his wisdom will reach all the peoples. And he will know the secrets of all living things. [And al]l their plans against him will come to nothing, although the opposition of all living things will be great. […] his [p]lans. Because he is the Elect of God, his birth and the spirit of his breath […] his [p]lans shall be for ever.” Translation Martínez-Tigchelaar, 2:1071 (italics mine).
    It has been suggested that the lacuna in lines 10-11 be restored “his birth and the spirit of his breath [are of God…]”, which is certainly plausible and is favored by a number of scholars (Evans, Qumran-Messianism, pp. 144-5).

In the highly fragmentary text 4Q369, which appears to be an apocalyptic/eschatological work, there is reference to what certainly seems to be a Messianic (and presumably Davidic) figure in column ii of fragment 1:

“…for his seed according to their generations an eternal possession, and al[l…] and your good judgments you explained to him to […] in eternal light, and you made him for you a first-bo[rn] son […] like him, to (be) a prince and ruler in all /your/ inhabited world […] the c[row]n of the heavens, and the glory of the clouds you have placed [on him …] and the angel of your peace in his congregation and… […] […] for him (?) righteousness rules, as a father to [his] s[on…]” (lines 4-10) Translation Martínez-Tigchelaar, 2:731 (italics mine).

Unfortunately, the surviving portions are too incomplete (especially the tiny fragments 2-4) to be certain of the context. Finally, we must note the now-famous Aramaic (Pseudo-Daniel) 4Q246, the so-called “Son of God text”. I have discussed this document in some detail, especially with regard to the parallels with Luke 1:32, 35, in earlier posts. That the context is eschatological and Messianic (influenced, in large measure, by Daniel 7) seems reasonably clear to me. A coming Ruler, parallel to the “rise” of the people of God, is called “Son of God” and “Son of the Most High”. His rule is contrasted with that of the nations, and his kingdom is connected with the “everlasting Kingdom” and dominion of the people of God.

Other Jewish Writings—I find only two other writings from the period to be especially relevant:

  • In Joseph and Aseneth 6:3-5ff; 13:13(10), Joseph is referred to as God’s “son”, probably in the sense that this can be said, from a symbolic and ethical standpoint, of righteous Israelites and Jews (cf. above). However, it is somewhat unique to have the idea or expression applied this way to a specific exemplary person, and may hint at something deeper. It is also not clear whether, or to what extent, this has been colored by Christian influence; scholars today typically date the book somewhere in the 1st century B.C./A.D.
  • In the deutero-canonical 2/4 Esdras (or 4 Ezra), the Anointed One (Messiah) is called God’s “Son” in 2 Esdr 7:28-29; 13:32, 37, 52. The introduction to this work is Christian (cf. 2 Esdr 2:42), but the core of chapters 3-14 (late 1st-century A.D.) is Jewish and shows little or no Christian influence. Chapter 11-13 are clearly influenced by Daniel 7, merging together the Son of Man and Davidic Messiah traditions, much as we see in the Gospels and early Christian writings.

In none of these Jewish passages does “son” indicate deity in the developed Christian (Christological) sense. At most we see: (a) the “Messiah” as a heavenly/angelic figure, or (b) righteous human beings identified in some manner with heavenly beings.

Gospel Tradition

According to the approach taken throughout this series, I begin with the core Synoptic tradition as represented by the Gospel of Mark; the title “Son of God” ([o(] ui(o\$ [tou=] qeou=) occurs four times:

  • Mk 1:1, in the heading to the Gospel—”(The) beginning of the good message {Gospel} of Yeshua (the) Anointed, [Son of God]”. Some manuscripts (a* Q 28c al) do not have “Son of God” (cf. Metzger, Textual Commentary, p. 62).
  • Mk 3:11, where it is narrated that the unclean spirits, when cast out by Jesus during healing (exorcism) miracles, would cry out “You are the Son of God [su\ ei@ o( ui(o\$ tou= qeou=]!”; par Lk 4:41, and similarly in Mk 5:7 / Matt 8:29 / Lk 8:28 (Luke has “Son of the Highest”).
  • Mark 15:39, at the death of Jesus, the centurion standing nearby exclaims “Truly this man was (the) son of God!”; par Matt 27:54, but Luke’s version is quite different—”This man really was just/righteous [di/kaio$]!” (Lk 23:47).

We should also note the following five passages in the triple-tradition:

  • Mark 1:11 par, the voice from heaven at Jesus’ baptism—”You are my (be)loved Son…”; several MSS of Lk 3:22 instead have a quotation from Psalm 2:7 (“You are my Son, today I have caused you to be born”). The voice at the Transfiguration, Mk 9:7 par, is very similar (esp. the form in Matt 17:5, while Lk 9:35 is somewhat different).
  • Mark 8:29 par, the confession by Peter (cf. below).
  • Mark 12:6ff par, in the parable of the ‘Wicked Tenants’.
  • Mark 14:61-62 par, the question of the High Priest / Sanhedrin to Jesus (cf. below).

To these may be added:

  • Matt 4:3, 6 (par Lk 4:3, 9), by the Devil in the Temptation scene—”If (indeed) you are the Son of God…”.
  • Matt 14:33, the disciples declare “Truly you are the Son of God”, matching the declaration by the centurion in Matt 27:54. This is an addition to the miracle scene (Mk 6:51, cf. Jn 6:21), and is unusual in the way it precedes Peter’s confession, contrary to the literary and dramatic development of the narrative in Mark-Luke.
  • Matt 27:40, 43, where the identification of Jesus as Son of God (by way of the High Priest’s question in Matt 27:63f) has carried forward into the taunts by the crowd delivered against Jesus while he is on the cross.

Interestingly, in all of these instances, the expression “Son of God” is used by others, not Jesus himself; indeed, a number of the occurrences are actually by persons or beings hostile to Jesus (the Devil, unclean spirits, the Sanhedrin, mocking crowds). Not once does Jesus use the title himself in the Synoptic Gospels. The closest we come to a direct affirmation by Jesus are in two (parallel) episodes—the confession by Peter, and the interrogation of Jesus before the Sanhedrin:

The confession by Peter (Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20; Matthew 16:16)

In all three Gospels, Jesus’ question to his disciples is the same: “but who do you count/consider me to be?” The pronoun “you” (u(mei=$) is emphatic—others have said that he is a Prophet (Elijah, etc), but now Jesus asks his own followers directly. In Mark, Peter’s response is simply “You are the Anointed (One)”. It is not entirely clear what Peter means by “Anointed One” in this context. As we have seen throughout this series, there were several Messianic figure-types which could be in mind; many of the references throughout the period of Jesus’ (Galilean) ministry seem to involve an Anointed Prophet figure—Moses, Elijah or the Anointed of Isa 61:1ff. It is the latter that Jesus identifies himself with directly in Lk 4:18-21; 7:18-23 (par Matt 11:2-6), etc. If Peter has in mind a Messiah of the Davidic Ruler type, this is by no means obvious from the text. It is interesting to see how Peter’s confession appears to expand, almost before our eyes, through the Synoptic tradition:

Mark 8:29
“You are the Anointed One”
Luke 9:20
“(You are) the Anointed One of God
Matthew 16:16
“You are the Anointed One, the Son of the living God

Critical commentators have questioned the historicity of Matthew’s version, the idea being that Peter (or any of the disciples) would not have formulated such an apparently advanced statement of Jesus’ deity at this early stage in the narrative. However, this perhaps reads a bit too much into the text. While it is certainly possible that Matt 16:16 represents an early Christian gloss or explanation of Peter’s statement, on the other hand, Peter need not have had in mind an especially advanced idea of Jesus’ deity (cf. Hosea 1:10 [Hebrew 2:1]). Also, it should be noted that in Matt 16:17 Jesus’ declares that Peter’s confession is the result of inspiration by God; in all likelihood, then, Peter would not have understood the full significance of his own words.

Jesus before the Sanhedrin (Mark 14:61-62; Matt 26:63-66; Luke 22:66-71)

In Mark (and Matthew), the High Priest addresses Jesus, either as a question (Mk) or an adjuration (Matt):

Mk 14:61
“Are you the Anointed (One), the Son of the Blessed (One)?”
Matt 26:63
“I require an oath of you according to the living God, that you say to us
if you are the Anointed (One), the Son of God”

In Luke’s version, it is the Council collectively which asks the question, divided into two parts in the narrative:

Luke 22:67
“Are you the Anointed (One)?”
Luke 22:70
“Then you are the Son of God?”

There is an obvious parallel between this question and Peter’s confession, which in Matthew’s version is made all but explicit:

Jesus’ question / Peter’s confession
“You are the Anointed One, the Son of the Living God” (16:16)
“…by the living God… if you are the Anointed One, the Son of God” (26:63)
Jesus’ declaration / Peter’s denial (26:64ff)

In examining Jesus’ response to the Sanhedrin’s question, we find two points in common between the three accounts—(1) some form of affirmation by Jesus, and (2) his identification with the heavenly “Son of Man” figure. Here is a comparison of Jesus’ response:

Mark 14:61-62

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

“I am” (e)gw/ ei)mi)
Son of Man saying—”and you will see the Son of Man…”

Matthew 26:63-64

“…that you tell us if you are the Anointed (One), the Son of God”

“You said (it)” (su\ ei@pa$)
Son of Man saying—”from now on you will see the Son of Man…”

Luke 26:67-69

“If you are the Anointed (One), tell us”

“If I tell you, you will not trust/believe (it)…”
Son of Man saying—”but from now on the Son of Man will be…”

“Then you are the Son of God?”

“You say that I am” (u(mei=$ le/gete o%ti e)gw/ ei)mi)

Here it is possible that Luke preserves a more complete account, and that Mark and Matthew (independently?) record a simplified version. Certainly Jesus’ ultimate response in Luke (“You say that I am”) seems to combine the versions in Mark-Matthew (“I am” + “you say/said”). In Mark, this response is an unqualified affirmation (“I am”); not so in Matthew-Luke, and commentators have various opinions as to how this should be understood, with three main possibilities:

    • As an affirmation—i.e., “You have said it (and it is the truth)”, “You have said (correctly)”, etc
    • As a reluctant/defiant response—i.e. “That is what you say”, “You said it, not me”, “(Those are) your words, not mine”
    • As a qualified affirmation—i.e., “You say it, but…”, perhaps in the sense of “Yes, but more than that…”

Jesus’ initial response in Lk 22:67-68, and his general silence before the Sanhedrin, makes an unqualified affirmation rather unlikely. Many modern commentators are inclined toward the second interpretation, i.e. that Jesus is unwilling to affirm the question as they have put it, turning their own words back on them. The use of the conjunctive particle plh/n by Jesus in Matthew to introduce the Son of Man saying suggests the third view—instead of answering their question directly, he shifts the focus to the eschatological image of the Son of Man. It is a difficult and sensitive matter, since this is the passage in the Synoptic tradition which most clearly expresses Jesus’ own view of his identity as the Anointed One (Christ/Messiah) and Son of God. Again, there are several possibilities that should be considered:

    • In referring to himself, in the Synoptics Jesus always uses the title/expression “Son of Man”, never “Anointed” or “Son (of God)”, and continues to do so here, answering their question in terms of the “Son of Man”
    • They will get their answer when the see him in his glorious/exalted state, presumably at his end-time appearance
    • It is meant as a warning of the impending Judgment by God, marked by the appearance of the Son of Man (i.e. Jesus himself)
    • In a number of passages, Jesus’ clearly does not want his identity as the Anointed One (or Son of God) to be made known publicly prior to his death and resurrection, perhaps to avoid popular misconception and misunderstanding

In my view, the some combination of the first and fourth options provides the best interpretive solution. This will be discussed further in the concluding sections to this Part, which, due to the length required, will continue in a second article. For more on the Son of Man sayings of Jesus, see my Easter season notes and Part 10 of this series.

April 3 (2): John 10:1-18

John 10:1-18ff

Jesus as the “Good Shepherd” is one of the most beloved themes from the Gospels—however, the popular image of Jesus carrying the sheep really stems from the parable in Luke 15:3-7 (parallel in Matthew 18:12-14), of the shepherd who leaves the ninety-nine to rescue the one “lost” sheep that had strayed: a beautiful image of care and concern for the sinner, the poor, the outcast. The parable in John (10:1-5, expounded in verses 7-18, 27-29) is rather different: the “good” (literally, “beautiful”, kalo/$) shepherd is one who guides and protects the entire flock (or herd, poi/mnh). Actually, Jesus describes himself as both the shepherd and the sheepgate (“door”, qu/ra) in the parable. This seems to have caused some confusion for early scribes: Ë75, along with Coptic (Sahidic, Akhmimc, Fayyumic) versions, read “shepherd” (o( poimh/n) instead of “door” (h( qu/ra) in verse 7. The “Good Shepherd” passage can be broken down as follows:

    1. The parable, 10:1-6
    2. Jesus as the door (gate) to the sheepfold, 10:7-10
    3. Jesus as the shepherd, 10:11-13
    4. The unity and preservation of the flock, 10:14-18
    5. A reprise of the shepherd theme, 10:25-30

Here I will look briefly at aspects of the last two sections, which are closely related and serve as a climactic revelatory moment for the parable (and exposition) of vv. 1-13. I find several primary themes, all of which are, in various ways, developed in subsequent chapters of the Gospel:

A. Mutual knowledge between Shepherd and Flock

In verse 14, right after the key declaration that he is (“I am”, e)gw/ ei)mi) the “beautiful shepherd” (o( poimh\n o( kalo/$), Jesus states that ginw/skw ta\ e)ma\ kai\ ginw/skousi/ me ta\ e)ma\, “I know the (things/ones that are) mine and the (thing/ones that are) mine know me”. The motif of knowing and knowledge (gnw=si$) is prominent throughout the Gospel of John (see especially the great discourses in chapters 8, 13, 14, and 17). Clearly this is not simply a matter of intellectual or factual knowledge, but of an intuitive recognition or “trust” (pi/sti$) (based on one’s true identity as a believer)—see Jesus’ response to the people questioning him in verse 26: u(mei=$ ou) pisteu/ete, o%ti ou)k e)ste\ e)k tw=n proba/twn tw=n e)mw=n, “you do not trust [i.e. believe], because you are not out of [i.e. from or belonging to] my sheep”. There something of a “gnostic” quality to this: it not so much a matter of conversion or learning something new, but of recognition, of realizing who (and whose) you (already) are. It would be precarious to read a full-fledged Augustinian-Reformed doctrine of predestination into passages such as this, but the basic concept is, I think, appropriate. Certainly the shepherd’s knowledge of the sheep is mentioned first, and takes priority. While the structure of the motif in verse 14 stresses mutual knowledge, it is not out of place to consider that our knowledge of Christ is based on his (pre-existing) knowledge of us (see John 15:16; 1 John 4:19, etc). This recognition of the shepherd leads to the sheep following him (not the other way around).

B. The Voice of the Shepherd

What the sheep follow is the voice of the shepherd (verse 16, 27; see also in the parable v. 3-5). The parallel motif of voice/hearing also occurs throughout the Gospel. The voice (fwnh/), of course is the audible expression of speech (i.e., lo/go$ “word, saying, account”)—Christ as the lo/go$ also gives account or “speaks” (le/gw). It is important to examine: (1) the source and nature of the voice in the Gospel, and (2) how the voice manifests itself in the context of the Gospel.

(1) First, the “word” (lo/go$) was (h@n) in the beginning (e)n a)rxh=|) with [lit. toward, pro$] God, and was God (qeo$) (John 1:1ff). Second, throughout the Gospel, Jesus emphasizes over and over that he (the Son) only does what he hears (John 5:30; 12:49-50; also 16:13 [of the Spirit], etc) and sees (5:19-20, etc) the Father saying and doing (the [incarnate] inter-relationship between Father and Son). And third, throughout the Gospel, Jesus’ words (voice) is identified with the voice of God—i.e., they speak with a common voice. This is especially so in relation to the idea of resurrection (5:19-29), where it is stated that all who are in the tombs “will hear his voice” (a)kou/sousin th=$ fwnh=$ au)tou=) and “will travel [i.e. come] out” (e)kporeu/sontai) (v. 28-29, cf. also v. 25 “the ones hearing [his voice] will live”).

(2) The message of 5:25, 28-29 will be acted out dramatically in the scene of the raising of Lazarus (11:1-44, esp. v. 43). Soon after, when Jesus is in Jerusalem, in response to his prayer (Pa/ter, do/caso/n sou to\ o&noma, “Father, glorify your name”, 12:28), there was “a voice out of heaven” (fwnh/ e)k tou= ou)ranou=) like “thunder” (bronth/)—a clear echo of the Theophany on Mt Sinai (Exodus 19:19; 20:18: in Ancient Near Eastern thinking thunder was generally understood as the “voice” of God). If, in these two scenes there is a visible, audible manifestation of the power of the Divine Voice, in chapters 13-17 the Voice is manifest at the spiritual level in Jesus’ discourses (presented as his parting words) to his disciples. Indeed, the coming Spirit (16:13-15) will, like Jesus himself [as his abiding presence in believers], speak whatever he hears (from the Father), and will glorify Christ (just like the Divine Voice of 12:28), receiving (lh/yetai) what is out of [i.e. from, belonging to] the Son, and will “declare” (a)paggelei= lit. “give [forth] a message”) it to the believer.  In the passion and resurrection narratives too there is a subtle dramatization of Jesus’ voice; note especially the words to Pilate: “into this [i.e. for this] I have come into the world, that I should witness [to] the truth; every one that is out of [e)k, “of, from, belonging to”] the truth hears my voice [a)kou/ei mou th=$ fwnh=$] (18:37). Note again that it is not hearing the voice that leads one to the truth, but one hears the voice because he/she already belongs to the truth. Interestingly, the crowd could not understand the Divine Voice (12:28-29).

C. The Authority of the Shepherd

The inter-relation and mutual identity of Father and Son has already been mentioned (cf. 10:15, “as the Father knows me and I know the Father”). But what is also specified in the Good Shepherd passage is the “authority” (e)cousi/a) Christ has (v. 18), specifically the authority to “set (down)” (aorist infinitive of ti/qhmi) and to “take/receive” (aor. inf. of lamba/nw) again his soul (or “life”, yuxh/). The word e)cousi/a (from e&cestin/e&ceimi) defies a strict literal translation in English, but it would be something like “from being” in the sense of something which “can be (done)”—i.e., power, ability, but also that which is permitted, lawful, etc. By extension, e)cousi/a often refers to the power or ability (to do something) granted by another (i..e, by one more powerful, king, ruler, etc). In this regard, orthodox believers are a bit uncomfortable speaking of authority being “given” to Christ by one “more powerful” (the Father); and, while it is not necessary to read a strict subordinationism here, Jesus specifically states that the authority (with the task of setting down and taking up his life) is a “commandment” or “charge” place on him (e)ntolh/) which he received from the Father (10:18). This charge is, literally, for the completion (te/lo$) of a mission, and to fulfill God’s purpose—for the suffering and death (the setting [down]) and resurrection and glorification (the taking [up] again) which was soon to come. This image of the shepherd who th\n yuxh\n au)tou= ti/qhsin u(pe\r tw=n proba/twn (“sets [down] his soul over [i.e. on behalf of] the sheep”) (10:11) is most beautiful indeed. One must also point out that the authority is not, in fact, merely “subordinate”, but equal to the Father—consider the powerful statement in verse 28: “and I give them life (of the) Age [i.e. eternal life], and no they shall not perish [or, be destroyed] into the Age, and someone shall not [i.e. no one shall] snatch them out of my hand!” This authority (indeed the sheep themselves, the believers) was given by the Father and no one “has power to snatch (them) out of the Father’s hand” (v. 29), and the statement culminates with Jesus’ famous declaration: e)gw\ kai\ o( path\r e%n e)smen (“I and the Father are one”, v. 30).

D. The Unity of the Flock

Perhaps most extraordinary in this passage is the effect both of the shepherd’s voice and of his laying down his life: that there will come to be (genh/sonta) “a single herd [i.e. flock], (and) one herdsman [i.e. shepherd]” (mi/a poi/mnh ei($ poi/mhn). This last phrase is quite remarkable; it is necessary to examine each part separately and then both combined:

(1) mi/a poi/mnh (“one herd” or “one flock”). This has two aspects: (a) the unity of Jewish and Gentile believers, clearly indicated by the “other sheep” (a&lla pro/bata) who will “hear his voice” (10:1, notice also in this context the Greeks who approach Jesus in chapter 12).  More importantly, (b) the unity of all believers, a message subtly present throughout the entire Gospel, but which will find sublime expression in the “prayer” of chapter 17.

(2) ei($ poi/mhn (“one shepherd”). In his exposition of the parable, Jesus speaks of the “thief” who tries to sneak in and steal (or kill) the sheep (v. 8, 10), and the mere hireling who does not protect the sheep (v. 12-13)—both are false shepherd (“strangers”) whom sheep will not truly follow (v. 5). There is only one shepherd the sheep follow (v. 4, 14, 16, 27), and only one who lays his life down for the flock.

(3) mi/a poi/mnh ei($ poi/mhn (“one [sheep-]herd, one shepherd”). This means more than simply a combination of the two statements; rather the combined statement itself represents something quite new (and deeper). The key, I think, is the parallel declaration in v. 14-15, which I arrange chiastically:

  • e)gw/ ei)mi o( poimh\n o( kalo/$ (“I am the beautiful shepherd”)
    • kai\ ginw/skw ta\ e)ma\ kai\ ginw/skousi/ me ta\ e)ma/ (“and I know the [ones that are] mine, and the [ones that are] mine know me”)
    • kaqw\$ ginw/skei me o( path\r ka)gw\ ginw/skw to\n pate/ra (“even as the Father knows me and I know the Father”)
  • kai\ th\n yuxh/n mou ti/qhmi u(pe\r tw=n proba/twn (“and I set [down] my soul over [i.e. on behalf of] the sheep”)

The inner phrases express the great two-fold theme of unity, declared more completely in Jesus’ words to the Father in chapter 17:

i%na w@sin e^n kaqw\$ h(mei=$
“they they might be one even as we [are] (v. 11)”

i%na pa/nte$ e^n w@sin, kaqw\$ su/, pa/ter, e)n e)moi\ ka)gw\ e)n soi/, i%na kai\ au)toi\ e)n h(mi=n w@sin
“that all might be one, even as you, Father, [are] in me and I in you, that also they might be in us (v. 21)”

ka)gw\ th\n do/can h^n de/dwka/$ moi de/dwka au)toi=$, i%na w@sin e^n kaqw\$ h(mei=$ e%n
“and I have given the glory, which you have given to me, to them, that they might be one even as we [are] one (v. 22)”

i%na h( a)ga/ph h^n h)ga/phsa/$ me e)n au)toi=$ h@| ka)gw\ e)n au)toi=$
“…that the love [with] which you loved me might be in them, and I in them (v. 26b)”

Jesus as the Good Shepherd was a popular theme in early Christian art, including a number of depictions in the 2nd/3rd-century catacombs (underground burial sites in and around Rome)—making them some of the very earliest Christian works of art to survive. The pastoral imagery—well-known from mythology and the bucolic poetry of Theocritus, Virgil, et al.—was especially suited for an idyllic representation of the afterlife in Greco-Roman culture. But for Christians, there was probably an inherent religious message as well. The Good Shepherd discourse in John precedes the raising of Lazarus from the dead; and, surely the image of the shepherd protecting and preserving his sheep offered considerable comfort to those facing death. One might also have had in mind the words of John 10:28: “and I give them eternal life [life of the Age], and no they shall not perish unto the Age, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand!”

April 3 (1): Luke 18:31-34

In today’s Easter season note, following the Son of Man sayings in the Gospel of Luke, we come to the third Passion prediction or announcement by Jesus, the last of the three similar sayings common to all the the Synoptic Gospels. The first two occurred in Luke 9:22, 43-45 (par Mk 8:31; 9:31-32; Matt 16:21; 17:22-23)—cf. the notes on these; the third is in Luke 18:31-34 (par Mk 10:32-34; Matt 20:17-19). In the Gospel of Mark, especially, the three predictions are spaced evenly, running through the narrative like a refrain. Luke, on the other hand, has greatly expanded Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem, as a narrative setting for all kinds of teaching, both to his disciples and to the crowds they meet along the way. This takes up nearly nine full chapters in the text (between the second and third predictions)—now, at last, they are approaching Jerusalem, and the third pronouncement thus has a more significant dramatic effect within the narrative.

Luke 18:31-34

If we compare the Lukan version with that in Mark, we first note that Luke’s narrative introduction is much simpler and more direct:

“And taking the Twelve alongside, he said toward them…” (v. 31a)

Mark’s introduction is rather awkward and pedantic by comparison:

“And they were on the way, stepping up [i.e. going up] unto Yerushalaim, and Yeshua was leading (the way) before them, and they wondered (at this), and the (one)s following were afraid. And taking the twelve alongside again, he began to relate to them the (thing)s being about to step together [i.e. come together, happen] to him…” (Mk 10:32)

Matthew’s version (Matt 20:17) is likewise simpler, containing a bit more information that Luke has:

“And (at) Yeshua’s stepping up [i.e. going up] unto Yerushalaim, he took alongside the Twelve [learners] down (on their) own [i.e. privately], and on the way he said to them…”

The saying follows in Luke 18:31b-33 (par Mk 10:33-34 / Matt 20:18-19); I set the Lukan/Markan versions side by side (major differences in italics):

Lk 18:31b-33

“See! we step up unto Yerushalaim, and all the (thing)s written through the Foretellers {Prophets} will be completed for the Son of Man: for he will be given along to the nations and will be treated as a child and will be abused/insulted and will be spat on, and (then) being whipped they will kill him off [i.e. put him to death]; and (then) on the third day he will stand up [i.e. rise] (again).”

Mk 10:33-34

“See! we step up into Yerushalaim, and the Son of Man will be given along to the Chief sacred-officials [i.e. Priests] and the Writers {Scribes} and they will judge against him to death, and (then) he will be given along to the nations and they will treat him as a child and will spit on him and will whip him and will kill (him) off [i.e. put him to death], and (then) with [i.e. after] three days he will stand up [i.e. rise] (again).”

The two main differences in Luke’s version are: (1) inclusion of the phrase “all the things written through the Prophets will be completed” and (2) it does not contain the portion on the Son of Man being given over to the Chief Priests and Scribes (i.e. the ruling Council or “Sanhedrin” in Jerusalem) and judged worthy of death. This phrase apparently was omitted by Luke, since it is found also in Matthew’s version. Matthew agrees with Luke (against Mark) in the use of the expression “on the third day” instead of “after three days”. The only other significant differences in Matthew are the use of stauro/w (“put to the stake”, i.e. crucify) instead of a)poktei/nw (“kill off, send away to death”), and e)gei/rw (“rise [again]”) instead of a)ni/sthmi (“stand up [again]”).

Interestingly, Luke’s version focuses entirely on the role the “nations” (i.e. the Roman administration, possibly also counting Herod’s regime [cf Lk 23:6-12]) will play, and adds to the sense of Jesus’ impending mistreatment by including the verb u(bri/zw (“abuse, insult”). This results in two specific points of emphasis: (1) the focus is put squarely on Jesus’ suffering, and (2) I believe it intentionally sets the Passion more directly in line with the phrase “all the things written through the Prophets will be completed“. We are never told just what these Scriptures are (cf. also Lk 24:25-27, 45-48), but, based on the way Luke narrates the Passion account (with the inclusion of Herod’s role, a detail found only in Luke), combined with the account in Acts 4:23-31, it is likely that Psalm 2 is one that he has in mind. In the first centuries B.C./A.D., the Psalms were presumably counted among the Prophets (with David regarded as a Prophet, cf. Acts 2:25, 30; 4:25 etc), and the second Psalm was already being interpreted in a Messianic sense. Ps 2:1-2 is applied to Jesus’ Passion in Acts 4:25-26, and Jesus is identified as the “Anointed” and “Son” of God of Ps 2:2, 7 in Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5 and Luke 3:22 v.l.

All three Passion predictions use the expression “the Son of Man”; I have already discussed this detail in the notes on the first two predictions, and will here give a more definite summary on its possible significance in this context:

    • Jesus often uses the expression “son of man” in reference to himself. It is uncertain to what extent “son of man” in Hebrew or Aramaic was used as a substitute (surrogate or circumlocution) for the pronoun “I”, “you”, etc, in the time of Jesus; however, this does seem to be a factor underlying its use in Jesus’ sayings. Matthew summarizes the first Passion prediction (Matt 16:21) by narrating “…Jesus began to show to his disciples that it was necessary for him to go forth unto Jerusalem…”
    • The original Hebrew/Aramaic usage of “son of man” (Heb <d*a* /B#, Aram vn`a$ rB^) appears to have been primarily as a formal (and poetic) parallel to “man”—to indicate (hu)mankind, human beings generally, and, in particular, to the idea of their mortality. It is likely that Jesus here is identifying himself with humankind and the human condition, especially in terms of weakness, suffering (and death).
    • It is also possible that “Son of Man” in these particular sayings (as in Lk 9:58 par, etc), is meant as an intentional contrast or correction by Jesus to any expectation (on the part of his disciples) that he was about appear to people as a glorious end-time figure—the Anointed, “Son of God”, or “Son of Man” (cf. Lk 9:26-27; 12:8-9; 17:22ff etc)—upon his arrival in Jerusalem (cf. Lk 19:11). Before the Anointed One and Son of Man can appear in glory, he must first suffer and be put to death—a notion so striking and unexpected that the disciples were not able to understand it (Lk 9:45; 18:34, where the meaning is also said to have been covered/hidden from them), and that it would be necessary for early Christians to demonstrate (and have demonstrated to them) that it could be found in the Scriptures.
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is SonOfMan_header-small-1.png