Category: Monday Notes on Prayer

Brief critical and exegetical studies on a verse or passage related to prayer, to be posted each Monday, as a supplement to the regular Daily Notes and Exegetical Study Series, etc.

Notes on Prayer: Daniel 3:16-23ff (Part 2)

Daniel 3:16-23ff (Prayer of Azariah), continued

In Part 1 of this study, we examined the narrative setting of chapter 3, focusing particularly on the confession of faith made by the three companions (vv. 16ff), leading up to their being thrown into the “burning furnace of fire” (v. 23). It is at just this point that the Greek Versions of Daniel (LXX and Theodotion), followed by other ancient Versions, include two poetic pieces that have come to be known as the “Prayer of Azariah” and the “Song of the Three Young Men”, respectively. These pieces are among the so-called “Additions to Daniel”, part of the Deutero-canonical corpus (in the LXX and Vulgate) and the Protestant ‘Apocrypha’. The “Song of the Three Young Men” will be treated, as one of the deutero-canonical Psalms, in an upcoming post in the Sunday Studies on the Psalms series. Here, we will focus exclusively on the Prayer of Azariah.

The Prayer of Azariah

Even though the Prayer is part of the Greek text of Daniel, it almost certainly was not composed in Greek. There are strong reasons to believe that it was originally composed in Hebrew and subsequently translated into Greek, presumably at the time it was included as part of the book of Daniel (cf. Moore, pp. 45-6). A reasonable attempt at reconstructing a Hebrew original was made in 1930 by Curt Kuhl (Die Drei Männer im Feuer, BZAW 55), pp. 150-5, Notes, pp. 132-50. Some years earlier, M. Gaster made a similar reconstruction into Aramaic (cf. “The Unknown Aramaic Original of Theodotion’s Additions to the Book of Daniel”, Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 16 [1984], pp. 280-90, 312-7; 17 [1985], pp. 75-94). The Hebrew verses of Kuhl’s reconstruction are primarily 3-beat (3+3) couplets or comparable 2-beat (2+2+2) tricola.

The Prayer, like the following Hymn, is prefaced by a narrative introduction that is solely intended to integrate the poem within the chapter 3 narrative (after verse 23). As a deutero-canonical ‘addition’, the Prayer is designated by verses 1-22; integrated within chapter 3 (i.e., in the Greek Version of Daniel), the numbering continues from v. 23—viz., 3:24-45. When citing or referencing the verses of the Prayer, the deutero-canonical number will be given followed by the integrated Greek verse number in square brackets, i.e., 1[24], 2[25], and so forth.

There can be no certainty as to the date or provenance of the Prayer, but, based on the tone and wording of vv. 9 [32], 14-15 [37-38], there is a likelihood that it dates from the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (c. 167-163 B.C.). This is also the date assumed by most scholars for the final form of the book of Daniel. Yet, neither the Prayer nor the Hymn was likely ever part of the original (Aramaic) text of chapters 2-7.

Narrative Introduction (vv. 1-2 [24-25])

After the three companions are thrown into the “burning furnace of fire” (v. 23), the narrative of the Prayer picks up the scene (v. 1 [24]): “And they walked about in (the) midst of (the) flame(s), singing hymns to God and giving a good account of [i.e., blessing] the Lord” (Theod). The LXX version is more expansive, mentioning all three companions by name, and describing them as “speaking out to (God)” (i.e., praying) and singing hymns. The pairing of praying / hymn-singing more accurately corresponds to the two addition-pieces (Prayer / Hymn) included in the narrative.

The Prayer is attributed to Azariah (Aramaic Abed-nego), who is always listed last among the three companions. This makes the attribution of the Prayer to him a bit surprising, and it has been suggested that the Prayer was originally associated with a separate Azariah (a common Hebrew name, ‘Ăzar-Yāh[û], “YH[WH] has given help”, or “YH[WH] is [my] Helper”), and it may have been an identification with the Azariah of Daniel that prompted the inclusion of the Prayer here in chapter 3; cf. Moore, p. 56. In the LXX version, the other two companions are said to utter the Prayer together with Azariah. The Prayer proper is introduced in rather dramatic fashion: “And, (hav)ing stood together [i.e., firm], Azaryahu spoke out [i.e., prayed] thus to (God), and (hav)ing opened up his mouth in (the) midst of the fire, said…” (Theod). Azariah is portrayed as standing firm (in faith) even with the fire raging all around him, boldly speaking out (praying) to God.

Stanza 1: Verses 3-9 [26-32]

The Prayer is a poetic work similar in certain respects to a number of the canonical prayer-Psalms. It is comprised of three sections (or stanzas) of similar length—vv. 3-9 [26-32], 10-15 [33-38], 16-22 [39-45]—the first of which is presented as a confession (of praise/blessing) to God: “Of good account [i.e., blessed] are you, Lord, God of our fathers, and (worthy) to be praised, and your name is (to be) honored unto the Ages!” (v. 3[26], cf. 1 Chron 29:10, 20).

As the remainder of the stanza makes clear (vv. 4[27]ff), YHWH is praised/blessed primarily for His justice—His judgments (as the great Judge) are right and just (“all your judgments are truth”), even when He brings terrible punishment upon a people. This applies even when the judgment/punishment comes upon His own people (i.e., the Israelite/Judean people):

“Indeed, judgments of truth you (have) made
according to all (thing)s that you brought upon us,
and upon the holy city of our fathers, Yerušalaim.” (v. 5[28]a-c)

In the historical context of the narrative setting, this judgment refers to the Babylonian conquest (and exile) which included the sacking/destruction of Jerusalem. According to the presumed setting of the poem’s composition, this extends to the calamities that came upon Jerusalem during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (described allusively and poetically in the prophetic visions of chapters 7-12 of Daniel). These judgments are declared to be just punishment because of the sins committed by the people. The declarations in vv. 5[28]d-e and 8[31] frame a confession of sin in vv. 6-7 [29-30]:

“For in truth and (right) judgment [i.e., justice] you brought upon (us)
all these (thing)s through [i.e., because of] our sins!

For we sinned and were lawless (so as) to stand away from you!
Indeed, we sinned (truly) in all (thing)s
and your commands (placed) on (us) we did not hear,
nor did we keep watch altogether nor do (them),
according to how you commanded us
that (things) might come to be good for us.

And (so) all (thing)s, as many as you brought upon (us),
and all (thing)s, as many as you did to us,
you did them in true judgment.”

Confession of sin does not feature prominently in the prayer- and lament-Psalms, though there are a few instances where it does occur (e.g., 25:7, 11, 18; 32:5; 38:4[3], 19[18]; 51:4-7 [2-5]ff). It has been claimed that the prominent emphasis on confession of sin here in the Prayer is inappropriate to the narrative setting (cf. Moore, pp. 40-1), since the main thrust of the narrative involves the faithfulness of the three companions—they specifically did not turn away from God or abandon the covenant with Him. However, the protagonist in the Psalms often serves as a representative of the people; and, particularly in the lament-Psalms with a communal emphasis (e.g., 74, 79, 80), the protagonist (as one of the righteous) speaks on behalf of the people as a whole. Closer to the context of the Prayer here is Daniel’s prayer in 9:4-19 (to be discussed), in which he confesses the people’s sins (in solidarity with them), even though he personally may not have been unfaithful to God. Cf. Ezra 9:6-15; Nehemiah 9:6-37; Baruch 1:15-3:8.

In the national lament-Psalms, an exilic (or post-exilic) setting is implied, as the protagonist laments the suffering and humiliation the people face under the power/oppression of the hostile surrounding nations. The same emphasis occurs here in the Prayer, as the summary description of the specific judgment brought upon the people (by God) in v. 9[32] leads into the following lament section:

“And you gave us along into (the) hands of hostile (foe)s,
lawless and most hostile (one)s having stood away from (you),
and to an unright(eous) king, even (the) most evil across all the earth!”

Stanza 2: Verses 10-15 [33-38]

The distressful and deplorable condition of the people, introduced in verse 9[32], is further expounded in the second stanza—a poem or psalm of lament. As noted above, this section has much in common with the canonical lament-Psalms (esp. those with a strong communal/national emphasis). Even closer is Daniel’s prayer in chapter 9 (vv. 4-19), and cf. also the post-exilic prayers of Ezra, Nehemiah and Baruch mentioned above. It is not simply a matter of being at the mercy of hostile and wicked enemies; the situation is actually worse than that:

“And now, there is not for us (any) opening of the mouth,
(while) shame and disgrace have come to be (the lot)
for your servants and for the (one)s revering you.” (v. 10[33])

On behalf of the people, the protagonist makes a plea to YHWH, calling on Him to act:

“(So) then, do not give us over to completion,
for the sake of [dia/] your name!
And do not scatter your (covenant) set through (to us)!
And do not make your mercy stand away from us—
for the sake of [dia/] Abraham the (one) loved by you,
and for the sake of Yiṣḥaq the servant of you,
and Yisrael the holy (one) of you,
to whom you spoke saying
(you were) to multiply their seed as the stars of the heaven,
and as the sand th(at is) along the edge of the sea!” (vv. 11-13 [34-36])

Typically, the in prayer-Psalms, the protagonist makes an appeal based (in various ways) upon the covenant-bond established between YHWH and His people. This is very much the case here as well. The appeal is made to YHWH’s own faithfulness to the covenant, and to the specific promises made to the ancestors of Israel/Judah (Gen 22:17, etc.). In spite of these promises regarding the great blessing and prosperity of the people, quite the opposite seems now to have occurred:

“(Yet it is) that, O Master, we have become little,
beyond all the (other) nations,
and we are lowly in all the earth today
through [i.e., because of] our sins!
And there is not in this time (for us)
(any) chief and foreteller [i.e., prophet] and leader,
nor whole burnt offering nor (sacrifice for) slaughtering,
nor (gift to) bring forward nor incense (to burn),
no place to give (our) fruits in front of you
and (so) to find mercy!” (vv. 14-15 [37-38])

The Israelite/Judean people now have a greatly reduced status, in a lowly condition—poor and oppressed (and humiliated)—among the nations. Moreover, they have lost access to the Temple and the sacrificial ritual that is essential to maintaining the covenant bond with YHWH. In particular, they have lost the ritual means to restore the bond (when it has been broken), to atone for their sins and thus find forgiveness (“mercy”). At the level of the historical-setting of the narrative, this simply refers to the destruction of the Temple and the exile of the people; however, in terms of the likely setting for the composition of the Prayer, it also refers specifically to the actions of Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) in regard to the Temple (viz., the outlawing and eliminating of the performance of the prescribed sacrificial ritual, etc.), cf. 9:27; 11:31; 12:11; 1 Macc 1:45-54.

Stanza 3: Verses 16-22 [39-45]

Since the Israelite/Judean people do not have the ability to restore the covenant-bond with YHWH, finding forgiveness and mercy from Him, through the prescribed means of the sacrificial ritual (v. 15[38]), they have to rely (at least temporarily) on other (non-sacrifical) means. In the final stanza, the protagonist (on behalf of the people) seeks to atone for sin by approaching YHWH, not with sacrificial offerings, but instead with a humble and repentant heart, and with a renewed spirit of devotion. This relative ‘spiritualization’ of the sacrificial ritual occurs at a number of points in the canonical Psalms (e.g., 40:7[6]ff; 50:8ff, 16-17ff; 51:18-19 [16-17]; 141:2), which may, to some extent, reflect a similar time of composition in the exilic and post-exilic periods. The ‘sacrifice’ that the people offer to God is their whole-hearted commitment to follow Him faithfully, remaining devoted to Him (v. 17[40]b).

With their heart thus turned toward the covenant-bond with YHWH, the people (with the author-protagonist speaking on their behalf) can make their request to YHWH (vv. 19[42]ff), asking that He rescue them from their hostile foes and restore them—from their current lowly state back to their former privileged position (in which they enjoy the Divine blessings and protection promised by the covenant). As often in the Psalms, the request for deliverance is framed in terms of the mighty deeds performed by YHWH on behalf of His people in the past:

“And may you take us out of (our distress), according to you wondrous (deed)s,
and (so) give honor to your name, O Lord!” (v. 20[43])

The second line represents another common feature of the prayer-Psalms: an appeal to the name of YHWH—that a miraculous deliverance of His people will bring honor to Him, including admiration and veneration by many of the surrounding nations (cf. the closing verse 22[45]). At the same time, the prayer includes a request that the enemies who have oppressed God’s people should themselves experience punishment (in accordance with what they have done to God’s people):

“And may they be turned in (shame), all the (one)s showing bad (intention)s toward your servants,
and let them be put to shame, (away) from all power and position of power,
and let their strength be altogether broken (apart)!” (v. 21[44])

Such imprecatory wishes are a common feature in the prayer- and lament-Psalms, however unsettling they may be to many modern readers.

The final couplet of the Prayer expresses the wish (and the expectation) that the deliverance that YHWH works for His people would result in His Sovereignty being acknowledged by all the peoples of the earth (all the surrounding nations). This a key thematic emphasis and point of orientation for many of Kingship Psalms—such as the collections Pss 93-100 and 146-150—those which particularly stress the universal Kingship of YHWH (viz., over the entire world and all people everywhere). This emphasis becomes more prominent in the exilic and post-exilic period and is reflected in the book of Daniel (see esp. chapter 7) even as here in the deutero-canonical Prayer. It is a vital component of the eschatological (and Messianic) expectations of the period, tied to the hope of Israel’s restoration in the New Age.

“May they come to know that you, O Lord, alone (are) God,
and (to be held) in honor over the whole inhabited world!” (v. 22[45])

Conclusion

It is quite clear that the Prayer of Azariah stands on its own as a prayer- and lament-psalm, akin to many similar prayer-Psalms in the canonical Scriptures. It has much in common with Daniel’s prayer in chapter 9 (vv. 4-19, as mentioned above), and this similarity may help to explain the inclusion of the Prayer here in chapter 3, despite there being very little in the Prayer itself that applies to the immediate narrative context. This transferred setting, however, does give to the Prayer a special significance, as an illustration of the righteous and devout character of the three companions (i.e., Azariah and his fellows). Even when facing the prospect of death in the flames of the fiery furnace, their concern is not with their own personal safety, but rather with the welfare of their people—the Community—as a whole. Indeed, as mentioned in the prior studies, Daniel and the three companions stand as representatives of the Judean/Jewish people in exile (among the nations); the challenges and dangers that they face (such as here in chapter 3) are illustrative and representative of those which the people everywhere face. They serve as an exemplary ideal of devotion to God and to the covenant bond with Him—viz., to the unique religious and spiritual identity of God’s people. Indeed, Jews and Christians alike have found much inspiration and encouragement from the ‘Three Young Men’ and their ordeal in the fiery furnace.

References above marked “Moore” are to Carey A. Moore, Daniel, Esther, and Jeremiah: The Additions, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 44 (1977).

Notes on Prayer: Daniel 3:16-23ff (Part 1)

Daniel 3:16-23ff (Prayer of Azariah)

As we have seen in the previous studies, the references and allusions to prayer in the book of Daniel relate to the broader narrative-dramatic theme of the challenges facing Israelites and Jews, while living (in exile) among the surrounding nations, with regard to their religious identity. In the first chapter (cf. the earlier study), this was expressed in terms of cultural assimilation, with Daniel and his three companions—who, in the context of the narrative, represent the people as a whole—experiencing pressure to adopt the dietary practices expected of the other young men at the Babylonian royal court. In the second chapter (cf. the prior study), the danger comes in the form of physical harm and the threat of death. Within the narrative of that particular chapter, the threat is not rooted in the religious and cultural identity of the Judeans per se—it is not specifically an instance of religious-cultural persecution or oppression—but it sets the stage for such a focus in the subsequent narratives, such as that of chapter 3, which we will examine in this current study.

Here, assimilation comes in the form of accommodation to Babylonian religious practices. The conflict in the narrative—viz., the pressure on the three companions to pay homage to the golden statue (lit., “image”, <l@x=, Heb <l#x#) set up in the plain of Dura (verse 1)—ultimately refers to the worship of deities other than YHWH (cf. verse 18). The statue-motif is a continuation from chapter 2, where a great statue, symbolizing the nations and their kingdoms, featured in the dream-vision of Nebuchadnezzar. Here the statue also has symbolic significance—representing the authority, and the oppressive wickedness, of the nations, especially that of the Babylonian empire. The exiled Judeans face a double-edged danger: whether to accommodate themselves to the foreign religious culture, or to face persecution (and death) for refusing to do so.

The conflict is established in verses 1-7, with the choice between worshipping the statue (v. 5) or being burned alive in the “furnace of fire” (v. 6). It is not clear in the narrative who or what the statue is supposed to represent, at the historical-dramatic level. It could be that the statue is an image of the god Bel (= Ba‘al, “Lord, Master”), presumably as a title of Marduk (cf. Isa 46:1; Jer 50:2; 51:44, and cf. the name given to Daniel, 1:7; 4:5[8]). This view receives support from the notice by Herodotus (1.183) regarding a great statue of ‘Zeus’ (seated on his throne) in the temple of Bel in Babylon; Diodorus Siculus (2.9) also mentions gold statues on top of the temple. However, the narrative may also be influenced by a tradition, recorded in the ‘Verse Account of Nabonidus’, regarding a statue of the moon god (Sin/Nanna) erected by Nabonidus. Another possibility is that the statue is meant to be an image of Nebuchadnezzar himself, indicating that the king desired to be venerated and worshiped by the people (cf. Judith 3:8). Early Christian interpreters (e.g., Hippolytus, Chrysostom, Jerome) tended toward the latter view, but commentators today favor the view that the statue is an image of a god—most likely the great state god of Babylon, Bel/Marduk. See the discussion by Collins, pp. 180-1.

The Judeans (as represented by the three companions) face pressure to worship the image and are arrested and punished for failing to do so (vv. 8-23). The prescribed worship takes the form of falling down (vb lp^n+) and paying homage (by prostrating oneself, vb dg]s=) to the image. Regarding the latter verb, the corresponding Hebrew (dg~s*, cf. Arabic sajada) is used in Isa 44:15, 17, 19; 46:6—in the specific context of venerating an idol-image (of a deity) fashioned by human hands.

As the conflict is developed in the narrative, the exemplary faithfulness and devotion (to YHWH) of the three Judean companions is highlighted in two primary respects: (1) their refusal to give homage to the statue (vv. 12ff); and (2) the public confirmation of their position and confession of faith (vv. 16-18ff). Let us look briefly at the latter.

The Companions’ Confession of Faith (and its consequences), vv. 16-18ff

There are three statements made by the companions, corresponding to each of verses 16-18. The first of these expresses that the king (Nebuchadnezzar) does not hold any authority over their conscience and religious conviction (cf. John 14:30; 19:11):

“O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to give back (an answer) to you over this decision (by you).” (v. 16)

The “decision” (<G`t=P!) refers to Nebuchadnezzar’s determination regarding the case/situation of the companions in verse 15. It states the central conflict of the narrative in terms of the choice faced by the Judeans—viz., whether to comply (and thus forsake their religious identity) or to suffer punishment (death).

The second confessional statement is formulated as a conditional statement marked by the particle /h@ (“if…”). This particle originally functioned as an interjection (“See/Look/Behold…!”), and so most of the occurrences in the Hebrew Scriptures (cf. Ugaritic hn, Amarna Canaanite annū); however, gradually it also came to be used as a conditional particle (cf. Job 24:5; Jer 2:10), much like the more common <a!, and so also in Aramaic. Here the conditional statement is:

“If it be (that) our Mighty (One) whom we serve is able to rescue us from the furnace of burning fire, and from your hand O king, He will rescue us!” (v. 17)

This conditional formulation has caused some concern among commentators and translators with regard to the use of the verb lk@y+ (“be able”), since it seems to suggest that God might not be able to save the companions. Already the Greek versions render it as a simple declarative statement:

“For there is a God to whom we give service (who is) able to take us out of (the) burning furnace of fire, and out of your hand, O king, to rescue us!” (Theodotion)

Some modern commentators have sought to treat v. 17 in a similar manner, such as by reading the initial /h@ as an interjection: “See—it is (that) our Mighty (One) whom we serve is able to rescue us from the furnace of burning fire, and from your hand, O king, He will rescue us!” However, the conditional nature of the statement seems clear; cf. the note by Collins, p. 187f. The theological problem is largely avoided if one understands the verb lky here not strictly in terms of personal ability, but rather in terms of making a certain outcome prevail. I.e., “If it be (that) our Mighty (One) whom we serve should prevail to rescue us…”.

A second (contrasting) conditional statement follows in verse 18:

“But (even) if not, let it be known to you, O king, that your Mighty (one)s we will not serve, and to the golden image that you stood up we will not give homage!”

In other words, whether God chooses to rescue them or not, the companions will remain faithful to Him and will not worship/venerate any other deities (or their images). Upon this confession of faith, with their refusal to worship the statue, the companions were ordered to their death, thrown into the fiery furnace (vv. 19-23).

There is no specific mention of prayer in this passage, but the faith and devotion expressed by the young men strongly suggests an attitude of prayer, and one can well imagine that, even as they were thrown into the fire, they were engaged in prayer. As it happens, the Greek version(s) of chapter 3 effectively fill in this gap, by including a Prayer-text in the narrative—the so-called Prayer of Azariah (vv. 26-41), preceded by a narrative introduction (vv. 24-25). In Part 2 of this study, we will examine this Deutero-canonical text.

References above marked “Collins” are to John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Heremeneia Commentary series (Fortress Press: 1993).

Notes on Prayer: Daniel 2:18ff

Daniel 2:18ff

The reference to prayer in the second chapter of Daniel is extremely brief, but is worth examining. As was discussed in the previous study, the sense of conflict facing the Judeans who lived in exile in the Babylonian (and later Persian) empire was established in the narrative of the opening chapter. In the episodes that follow (in chaps. 3-6), the conflict turns into an open persecution against the Judeans who seek to remain faithful to their own cultural-religious identity and loyal to the covenant with YHWH. The devout and faithful Judean is represented by Daniel and his three companions—all servants at the royal court. Even though the narratives have a royal/courtly setting, they serve as an exemplary paradigm for the Judean/Jewish people as a whole. Many ordinary people would face similar kinds of challenges (and tests to their faith) while living in exile ‘among the nations’.

The narrative-dramatic theme of persecution is foreshadowed in chapter 2, with the violence threatened by king Nebuchadnezzar against the sages of the royal court (and throughout Babylon) for their failure/inability to provide an inspired interpretation of his dream. Following the narrative introduction in v. 1, the drama (with its point of conflict) is established in vv. 2-12. This portion of the narrative climaxes with the order “to make perish [i.e., kill/destroy] all (the) wise (one)s [i.e., wise men, sages] of Babylon” (v. 12). At a transitional point in the narrative (vv. 13-16), it is explained that Daniel and his (three) companions would be among the sages that were to be put to death (v. 13). This dramatic detail is based upon the information provided at the close of chapter 1 (vv. 17-21), emphasizing how these four young Judean men were granted (by God) great knowledge, skill and learning, and that Daniel (in particular) was also given a special ability to discern and interpret all kinds of dreams and visions.

It is said of Daniel that he then responded (lit. made a return) with “counsel and (good) taste”, i.e., wise/sound judgment. The pair of Aramaic nouns are af*u@ and <u@f=, the latter literally meaning “taste”, in the sense somewhat of the English idiom “(have/use) good taste”. The noun af*u@ occurs only here in the Aramaic portions of Scripture, but <u@f= occurs 30 times (in Daniel and Ezra), effectively used as a wisdom-term and an attribute of the wise/righteous ones. The initial temporal expression /y]d^aB@ (“in that moment, at that time”) suggests that Daniel acted quickly, with a sense of urgent immediacy. One might describe the immediate action taken by Daniel as political action—as he sought, through governmental channels, to gain time (and a temporary reprieve) for those who were about to be put to death (vv. 14-16). By some means that are not exactly explained, Daniel was able to gain a hearing with Nebuchadnezzar (v. 16), promising that an interpretation of the king’s dream would be provided to him.

Yet the political action taken was only a temporary expediency that would allow Daniel the opportunity to seek from God (i.e., through prayer) the inspired dream-interpretation that he would give to the king. Indeed, the real and central focus was not on political action, but on prayer.

Daniel begins (v. 17) by meeting with his three companions (introduced in chapter 1, cf. the previous study), in order to explain the situation to them, and to inform them that they needed

“to seek out (act)s of compassion from before (the) Mighty (One) [i.e., God] of the heavens over [i.e., regarding] this secret” (v. 18a)

The LXX adds the detail that Daniel urged them to engage in “fasting and prayer/supplication”, the latter term (de/hsi$) specifically denoting the act of making one’s needs known to God. Thus, the Greek version makes explicit what is clearly implied in the Aramaic—namely, that Daniel and his friends were to spend time in prayer, speaking out to God and making their needs known to Him. The purpose of the prayer, obvious from the dramatic setting of the narrative, is specified in v. 18b:

“…(so) that they should not be made to perish, Daniel and his companions, (along) with (the) remainder of (the) wise (one)s of Babylon.”

They were praying for their own sakes, but also for the sakes of many other (non-Judean) sages all throughout Babylon.

There is perhaps the implication that this time of prayer lasted the rest of the day and into the night, as the next verse (19) mentions Daniel “at night”; one might well envision Daniel in the midst of a night-time prayer vigil, though this is not clearly indicated in the text. In any case, it is at this time (on the same day) that the prayer of Daniel (and his three companions) is answered by YHWH: “Then (it was), to Daniel in a vision of the night, (that the) secret was uncovered [i.e., revealed]”. In response, Daniel gave a blessing to “the Mighty (One) [i.e., God] of the heavens”.

This expression, “Mighty (One) of the heavens” (aY`m^v= Hl*a$), is of theological significance, particularly in relation to a certain missionary orientation that pervades the narrative of chapters 1-6. Daniel and his companions pray to God (YHWH) according to this title; then, once the prayer has been answered, Daniel gives praise to God by the same title (v. 19, cf. vv. 20-23). Finally, in the midst of the dream announcement (vv. 28-45), and just prior to its interpretation, Daniel declares to Nebuchadnezzar the power and sovereignty of God (YHWH) using this title (v. 37, cf. also v. 44). This demonstration of the God’s power leads Nebuchadnezzar to admit/confess, in an attitude of worship and reverence (v. 46), that Daniel’s God truly is “Mightiest of Mighty (one)s [i.e., God of gods] and Lord of kings” (v. 47). Thus, prayer to YHWH, in the midst of a missionary context (‘among the nations’), results in an answer from Him, in such a manner that even prominent members of the surrounding nations are forced to acknowledge (and worship) Him as the one true God. This narrative pattern is repeated in several other episodes within chapters 1-6 (to be discussed).

The Aramaic title “Mighty (One) of the heavens” (aY`m^v= Hl*a$) deserves some additional comment. It occurs twelve times in the books of Daniel and Ezra (Dan 2:18-19, 37, 44; Ezra 5:11-12; 6:9-10; 7:12, 21, 23 [twice]), while the corresponding Hebrew <y]m^V*h^ yh@l)a$ occurs nine times (Gen 24:3, 7; Jonah 1:9; Ezra 1:2; Neh 1:4-5; 2:4, 20; 2 Chron 36:23) and <y]m^V*h^ la@ once (Ps 136:26). With the seeming exception of the two instances in Genesis, the occurrences are all in late texts (i.e., exilic or post-exilic), and/or in settings where Israelites/Jews are relating to people of the surrounding nations. The missionary context of Jonah 1:9 is obvious, as the prophet ends up proclaiming the truth of YHWH in the Assyrian capital of Nineveh even as Daniel does in the Babylonian capital. As for Psalm 136, the praise address to YHWH at the beginning and close of the Psalm resembles the language used here in Daniel 2.

It has been suggested that the use of the title by Jews (esp. in the Persian empire) was specifically intended as a religious declaration within a foreign setting, using terminology that even the Babylonian and Persian leaders would understand, but which also preserved the core Israelite confessional belief in El-YHWH’s identity as the Creator—the High God and Sovereign over all the universe (heaven and earth). It is noteworthy that there are nine occurrences of the Aramaic title in the papyri of the Jewish colony of Elephantine, including an instance where the Persian governor (Bigvai) in Judah (Yehud) was replying to a petition from the Jews of Elephantine.
For more on the subject of this title, see the article by D. K. Andrews, “Yahweh the God of the Heavens” in The Seed of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of T. J. Meek, ed. W. S. McCullough (University of Toronto Press: 1964), pp. 45-57.

In a number of the Psalms (see esp. Pss 93-100) we find an expectation that even the surrounding nations will eventually follow Israel in acknowledging and worshiping YHWH. This seems to have become a religious and theological emphasis already in the late pre-exilic period, but it takes on considerably greater prominence in the exilic and post-exilic periods, often within a distinctly eschatological worldview. In the New Age of Israel’s restoration, the nations will come to join Israel—whether willingly or by compulsion—in giving worship to YHWH as the supreme God (“God of gods”, as Nebuchadnezzar declares). The book of Daniel is certainly in accord with this religious-missionary tendency.

In our next study, we will turn to chapter 3, to examine the role of prayer in the famous episode of the statue and the ‘fiery furnace’.

Notes on Prayer: Daniel 1:8-9ff

Beginning this Fall, the Notes on Prayer will focus on the role of prayer in the Book of Daniel—prayer as a thematic and literary feature of the book.

Prayer in the Book of Daniel

The Book of Daniel can rather neatly be divided into two halves. The first half (chaps. 1-6) deals with stories about Daniel (and his companions), while the second half (chaps. 7-12) consists of apocalyptic visions with Daniel (presented) as the seer and speaker—that is, the one who both sees and declares the visions. Prayer takes on a somewhat different role and place within these two very different literary settings.

Daniel 1:8-9ff

We begin with the first half of the book, focusing on a central thematic emphasis that is established in the initial verses of the first chapter. Throughout the book the challenges faced by the Judeans living in exile are clearly depicted and described, with special attention given to the importance of remaining pure and faithful to YHWH in the midst of an alien culture. This same thematic emphasis can be extended to the situation of Jews living in the Diaspora; indeed, this broader cultural milieu comes into view in the second half of the book, as the apocalyptic visions touch upon life in the Hellenistic (Greek) world during the 4th-2nd centuries B.C.

With the Judean exile (in Babylon) established in the opening verses (vv. 1-2), the narrative of chapter 1 is introduced in vv. 3-7, presenting the dramatic scenario—viz., life in the Babylonian royal court—and introducing the central characters: (a) the king (and his officials), (b) Daniel, and (c) three contemporaries/companions (Hananiah, Mishael, Azariah) who are in the same situation as Daniel. The four young Judean men were selected for service in the royal court, and thus to function as part of the Babylonian imperial establishment. This scenario reflects an upper-class (royal/aristocratic) version of the situation facing the Judean exiles as a whole: (forced) assimilation into Babylonian culture and society.

As part of this assimilation, Daniel and his companions were given Babylonian names (v. 7). Most likely, all four of these names had religious significance, though only two of them clearly refer to foreign (Babylonian) deities. Belteshazzar, the name assigned to Daniel, balāṭ-su-uṣur probably means “May {X} protect his life”, with a deity {X} assumed as the protector. This deity is specifically identified as Bel, according to 4:8, which may reflect a popular etymology of the name. Abednego, the name assigned to Azariah, is generally recognized as an intentional (?) distortion of Abad-Nabû, “Servant of (the god) Nabu”. These name changes anticipate the issue of accommodation to Babylonian religion, involving the worship of deities other than YHWH, which becomes a key theme in chapters 2-6.

Assimilation of Judeans into Babylonian culture involved more than a change of name; it also entailed the (expected) adoption of many other customs and practices. And, indeed, this becomes the focus of the remainder of the narrative (vv. 8-21). The issue that forms the point of conflict in the narrative relates to the young men’s diet—consumption of food and drink, which had been determined by the king’s officials, and was to be allotted to them on a regular/daily basis (v. 5). With regard to this challenge involving cultural assimilation, Daniel’s response was as follows:

“Daniel put (it) upon his heart that he would not defile himself with (the) delicacies of the king and with (the) wine of his drinking-feasts…” (v. 8)

The verb la^G` II means “pollute, defile”; here it is used in the reflexive Hitpael stem, i.e., “defile oneself” —that is, by what one eats and drinks, and also by the setting in which such food is consumed. This ritual purity in matters of food and drink functions as a thematic motif in the narrative on several different levels. First, it alludes to the dietary regulations of the Torah, something Judeans (and Jews) certainly had to face in a foreign culture where prohibited foods would have been encountered on a regular basis. Second, the dietary regulations stand in a broader sense for the covenant with YHWH as a whole; this can be seen by the fact that, in an ancient Near Eastern cultural setting, food frequently carried a strong religious association (consecration to deities, temple-worship, festivals, etc). Third, and more generally, there is the threat to the Israelite/Judean cultural-religious identity that is exposed when one chooses to partake in the food and drink (and feasting, etc) of the surrounding nations.

Since there is no indication in the text that Daniel’s scrupulousness was specifically related to Torah dietary regulations, it should be assumed that a more comprehensive viewpoint is being put forward by the narrative. What is at stake for Daniel and his companions is faithfulness to the covenant with YHWH and the distinctive (Israelite/Judean) cultural-religious identity which such faithfulness assumes and entails. This is altogether in keeping with other Jewish texts from the exilic and post-exilic period, particularly as one moves into the Hellenistic Age and the Maccabean era. For example, note the concerns expressed in Greek Esther 14:17; Jubilees 22:16; Judith 12:1-4; 1 Maccabees 1:61-62, and, particularly, the parallel to Daniel in Tobit 1:10-11 (cf. Collins, pp. 142-3):

“After I was carried away captive to Assyria and came as a captive to Nineveh, everyone of my kindred and my people ate the food of the Gentiles, but I kept myself from eating the food of the Gentiles.” (NRSV translation)

Prayer is not specifically mentioned in chapter 1, but Daniel’s expressed intent to remain faithful and pure certainly reflects a devout attitude. One may fairly assume that his approach to the challenge (vv. 10-16) included regular and heartful prayer to God. YHWH responded to Daniel’s devotion by giving/showing favor to him. This is presented at two distinct points which, at the literary level, function to divide the narrative structurally into two main sections: vv. 9-16 and vv. 17-22. First, we have the statement in verse 9:

“And the Mightiest [i.e. God] gave The-Mighty-One-is-my-Judge {Daniel} to (find) kindness and compassion before (the) face of (the) chief of the eunuchs.”

This chief official (over Daniel and the other select Judean youths) agreed to a trial period in which Daniel and his companions would be allowed to eat a special diet (of vegetables). God blessed the Judeans so that they were able to consume this diet and yet still remain strong and healthy and fully capable of carrying out all of their duties. Again, we find a parallel to this in Tobit (continuing the same passage cited above):

“Because I was mindful of God with all my heart, the Most High gave me favor and good standing with Shalmaneser…” (1:12-13, NRSV)

The second statement in verse 17 is:

“And these four youths, the Mightiest (also) gave to them knowledge and skill in all (manner of) accounting [rp@s#] and wisdom; and The-Mighty-One-is-my-Judge {Daniel} had understanding in all (manner) of vision and dreams.”

Just as in the case of Joseph in the famous Genesis narratives, Daniel and his companions were blessed by YHWH, enabled to gain a favored and honored position in a foreign culture, while still remaining pure (in both mind and body) and faithful/loyal to YHWH.

This is the thematic framework that informs the prayer-references and passages in the remainder of the book, and particularly in the first half (chaps. 2-6). In our next study, we will turn our attention to chapter 2.

References above marked “Collins” are to John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Heremeneia Commentary series (Fortress Press: 1993).

Notes on Prayer: Thy Kingdom Come (Conclusion)

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

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

The Kingdom in the Book of Revelation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * * *

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

Notes on Prayer: Thy Kingdom Come (Infancy Narratives, Pt 2)

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

Having examined the Kingdom-theme in the Matthean Infancy Narrative (Matt 1-2) in Part 1, we now turn to the Lukan Narrative (Lk 1-2):

    1. The citation of Isaiah 7:14 in Matt 1:18-25
    2. The Jesus/Herod juxtaposition in Matthew 2
    3. The Messianic orientation of the Angelic announcement in Luke 1:26-38
    4. The context of the census-tradition in Luke 2:1ff, along with the Angelic announcement in vv. 10-14.

The Matthean development of the theme was guided by a matrix of Scriptural quotations and allusions—the two main citations being Isaiah 7:14 and Micah 5:1[2]. These were understood in relation to Jesus’ Messianic identity—that is, the royal Messiah from the line of David—and as expressed by the historical-traditional title “King of the Jews” (2:2). The Lukan narrative adopts a rather different narrative approach, drawing upon other lines of Scriptural and Jewish (Messianic) tradition.

3. The Messianic orientation of the Angelic announcement in Luke 1:26-38

The first Kingdom-reference in the Lukan Infancy Narrative occurs within the Angelic announcement (to Mary) in 1:26-38 (vv. 32-33). In this regard, the treatment is similar to that of the Matthean narrative, where the citation of Isa 7:14 (see sect. 1 in Part 1) occurs in the context of the Angelic announcement (to Joseph), 1:18-25 (vv. 22-23). The prophecy of Isa 7:14 does not feature in the Lukan narrative, though it is possible that the ±Immanû-°¢l (“God-with-us”) message is alluded to by the language in v. 28b.

With regard to the form of the annunciation-tradition, it appears to be patterned after familiar Scriptural examples: angelic announcements in Old Testament narrative—for birth annunciations, see Genesis 16:7-13; chapters 17-18 (esp. 17:15-21; 18:10-15) and Judges 13. This narrative pattern, which applies here in vv. 26-38, may be outlined as follows:

    • Appearance of the angel, who addresses the person by name (v. 28)
    • The person is startled (v. 29)
    • Assurance of the angel— “do not fear” (v. 30)
    • Announcement of the coming/impending birth (v. 31)
    • The name which is to be given to the child (v. 31b)
    • Prophecy/announcement of the child’s future (v. 32-33)
    • Question by the person receiving the vision— “how will this be?” (v. 34)
    • The angel’s response, along with a sign (vv. 35-37)
    • Acceptance of the vision (v. 38)

For more detail, cf. R. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, Anchor Bible Reference Library [ABRL] 1993, pp. 155-9, 292-8.

From a structural standpoint, there are three parts to the angel’s message, each followed by Mary’s response:

    • Verse 28—Mary is addressed by name
      • V. 29—Mary is startled by what she sees
    • Verses 30-33—The Message to Mary
      • V. 34—Mary asks “how will this be?”
    • Verses 35-37—Answer to Mary’s question, with a sign
      • V. 38—Mary responds “…may it come to be for me according to your word”

Each part has a theological/christological element, which is an indication of how the traditional pattern has been developed within the Gospel narrative:

    • v. 28b— “the Lord is with you”
    • vv. 31ff— “this one will be great and will be called Son of the Highest…”
    • v. 35a— “The Holy Spirit… power of the Highest…
      v. 35b—…(the child) will be called Holy, the Son of God”

As noted above, it is possible that the declaration o( ku/rio$ meta\ sou= (“the Lord is with you”, or “the Lord be with you”, v. 28b) alludes to the prophecy in Isa 7:14. While the corresponding expression (in Hebrew) occurs as a pious, but ordinary, greeting in Ruth 2:4, the annunciation context suggests that something of deeper theological significance is implied. A reasonably close parallel to our passage is found in the angelic annunciation to Gideon in Judg 6:12, as an assurance of God’s support and care. In Lk 1:28, 30, this divine care is described in terms of God’s favor (xa/ri$)—Mary is one who has been favored (kexaritwme/nh) by God (xa/rin para\ tw=| qew=|).

If an allusion to the famous prophecy of Isa 7:14, with the name Immanuel (±Imm¹nû °E~l, “God with us”), is intended (see Part 1), it is worth noting how the context of Isa 8:8-10 indicates that this name reflects God’s support and protection of the (righteous) king, connected with peace, prosperity, and the salvation of the land (and its people) from enemies. In terms of the original historical context, the most reasonable identification is with Hezekiah (cf. 2 Kings 18:7). Later on, of course, the passage (along with Isa 9:1-6) came to be interpreted in a (future) Messianic sense, and was applied by Christians to the birth of Jesus (Matt 1:22-23).

There may also be an allusion to Zeph 3:14-17 here in Lk 1:28. Apart from the formal similarity of the opening (xai=re, “be glad / rejoice!” as a greeting) and a possible parallel between Mary and “daughter of Zion” (Jerusalem/Judah personified), note the similar assurance that is offered (compare v. 28a with Zeph 3:15b, 17a). In Zephaniah, it is also a promise of protection and salvation.

Luke 1:31-33 “this one will be… will be called…”

In the angelic message proper (vv. 31-33), the emphasis is on the Messianic character and status of the child. This was foreshadowed in the birth-announcement to Zechariah earlier in the narrative (vv. 13-17) regarding the Messianic identity of John the Baptist. The Lukan parallelism, effectively comparing John’s birth with Jesus’ birth, emphasizes the superiority of Jesus. This applies also to his Messianic identity.

The announcement relates to both the conception (“you will receive together in the womb”) and birth (“you will produce”) of a son (v. 31a), and is connected with the favor (xa/ri$) Mary receives from God (vv. 28, 30). In terms of the naming of the child (v. 31b), there may also be here an echo of Isa 7:14 LXX—note the similar sequence “will produce” followed by “will call his name” —as is made explicit in Matthew (“you will call his name Yeshua” / “they will call his name Immanuel”, Matt 1:21, 23).

Almost certainly, in this passage there also are allusions to 2 Sam 7:8-16—a prophetic announcement regarding the Davidic line, which had come to be interpreted in a Messianic sense by the time the Gospels were written, as can be seen, for example, in the Qumran text 4QFlor (174) lines 10-13. Note the following points of correspondence:

    • v. 32a—Jesus’ greatness and his name (2 Sam 7:9)
    • v. 32b—Jesus as God’s son (2 Sam 7:14)
    • v. 33—The throne of David and his kingdom, which will last forever (2 Sam 7:13, 16)

Cf. also Isa 9:5-6 (6-7) and Dan 7:14. The royal Messianism of Jesus is part of his superiority over John, who is only a Messianic figure according to the prophetic pattern of Elijah (v. 17). In the wider Gospel tradition (and in the Synoptic narrative), Jesus also fulfills the prophetic figure-types—of Moses, Elijah, and the herald of Isaiah 61 (cf. Parts 2–3 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”); indeed, it is Jesus’ identity as a Prophetic Messiah that dominates the Galilean period of the Gospel, with his Royal identity (as “son of David”) becoming prominent only in the Jerusalem period. The Infancy Narratives anticipate the Jerusalem period (including the Passion Narrative) by emphasizing Jesus as the royal/Davidic Messiah.

In this regard, there are two main theological/christological phrases in Lk 1:32 which need to be examined:

    • “he will be great” (e&stai me/ga$)—The absolute use of me/ga$ (“great”) in the LXX typically refers to YHWH (Psalm 48:2 [145:3]; 86:10; 135:5); it tends to be qualified when used of human beings, such as when it is used of John the Baptist in Lk 1:15 (“he will be great in the eyes of the Lord”)—see also 2 Sam 19:33; Sir 48:22. The fact that the Lukan infancy narratives present the births of John and Jesus side by side—with Jesus having the more exalted status—indicates that me/ga$ here means something decidedly greater than when applied to John.
    • “he will be called Son of the Highest” (ui(o\$ u(yi/stou klhqh/setai)—Here, in context, klhqh/setai (“he will be called“) is parallel and generally synonymous with e&stai (“he will be“). The giving of a name—especially when given by God—confers (and confirms) just who the child is, and what he/she will become. The specific name is “son of the Highest” —uyi/sto$, which is used in the LXX of YHWH, as a translation of Hebrew ±Elyôn (/oyl=u#, Gen 14:18; Dan 4:14; cf. also Jubilees 16:18, and note 1 Enoch 9:3; 10:1; 46:7; 60:1, 22). It is used relatively often in Luke-Acts (Lk 1:35, 76; 6:35; 8:28; Acts 7:48; 16:17)—in Lk 1:76, it is said of John, “you will be called Foreteller [i.e. Prophet] of the Highest”.

In addition, there is the related statement in v. 35, that the child “…will be called Holy, the Son of God” (cf. my earlier notes on this verse, and v. 32). While the Lukan Gospel writer may have understood these Divine titles in a developed Christological sense, their primary significance, within the Infancy narratives, is Messianic. We can see this clearly enough from the striking parallels in the Aramaic Qumran text 4Q246 (the so-called “Son of God” text). Four key phrases in in 1:32, 35 are indicated and compared side by side with 4Q246:

aura lu hwhl br[ ] “[he will be] great upon the earth” (I.7)
rmaty la yd hlb “Son of God he will be hailed” (II.1)
hnwrqy /wylu rbw “and Son of the Highest he will be called”
<lu twklm htwklm “his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom” (II.5)		 ou!to$ e&stai me/ga$ “this (one) will be great” (Luke 1:32)
klhqh/setai ui(o\$ qeou= “he will be called | Son of God”
kai\ ui(o\$ u(yi/stou klhqh/setai “and Son of the Highest he will be called” (1:35)
kai\ th=$ basilei/a$ au)tou= ou)k e&stai te/lo$ “and of his kingdom there will not be an end” (1:33)

The parallels are remarkable, too close it would seem to be mere coincidence, and yet it is unlikely that Luke borrowed from this text. The angel (and/or the Gospel writer) would seem to be drawing upon Messianic hopes and beliefs which were common and widespread in first-century Palestine, using that very language and imagery to announce the birth and coming of a new Anointed king, who will fulfill the promises God made to his people centuries before, promises reflected even in this snippet of text we call 4Q246: “his kingdom will be an eternal kingdom…. his rule will be an everlasting rule…” (II.5, 9).

In this regard, it is significant that the 4Q246 is almost certainly inspired by the prophetic visions in Daniel 7, with their contrast between the sequence of great earthly kingdoms (vv. 1-8ff, 17-26) and the Kingdom of God (vv. 13-14, 22, 27). The Lukan author would seem to be drawing upon a similar sort of contrast in the Infancy narrative, as we shall see.

4. The context of the census-tradition in Luke 2:1ff, along with the Angelic announcement in vv. 10-14

As noted above, the Qumran text 4Q246, with its dependence upon Daniel 7, presented an eschatological vision of a Messianic Kingdom (of God) that supplants the great earthly kingdoms that held sway (often in cruel and warring fashion) during this current Age. The Daniel vision(s) portray a sequence of four empires (vv. 1-12, 17-26), the last of which is the Hellenistic (Greek) empire of Alexander (and his successors). However, among Jews (and Christians) of the first century B.C./A.D., this last greatest (and cruelest) empire had become identified with that of Rome. Thus, the primary juxtaposition is between the wicked Roman Empire (vv. 7-8, 23-26) and the Kingdom of God that is bestowed upon the “one like a son of man” (vv. 13-14) and the “holy ones” (v. 27).

The Messianic figure of Dan 7:13-14 (as interpreted), was, of course, applied by early Christians to the person of Jesus Christ. He is the one who is given rule over the great and eternal Kingdom of the end-time, ruling and exercising judgment over all the other nations. So it is in this light, according to the Messianic understanding of early Christians, that we must understand the contrast that the Lukan author presents—between Jesus as Messianic Ruler and the Roman emperor Augustus.

The Matthean narrative presented a similar contrast (cf. the discussion in Part 1), between Jesus and Herod, in relation to the title “King of the Jews” (2:2). The contrast in the Lukan narrative has been expanded greatly; Jesus is no longer simply King of Israel, etc, but one who rules over all the nations. This universalistic emphasis and orientation, which can be seen throughout Luke-Acts, is expressed most clearly, within the Infancy narrative, in the canticle of Simeon (see vv. 30-32). However, even earlier there is an implicit expression of this theme, juxtaposing Jesus with the Roman emperor Augustus.

This juxtaposition forms the framework of the narrative in chapter 2—particularly vv. 1-14. The contrast is implicit, and must be gleaned from the literary context. It begins in verse 1, with what (at first glance) seems to be simple historical information, regarding the census that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem (the city of David, where Jesus would be born as the Messiah):

“And there came to be, in those days, a decision [do/gma] (that) went out (from) alongside Caesar Augustus, (for) all (the) inhabited (world) to be written down.”

The emperor Augustus’ rule over “all the inhabited (world)” (pa=san th\n oi)koume/nhn) is clearly indicated, if not directly stated. The boundaries of the Roman Empire would have encompassed virtually all of the world known to people in Palestine and the Mediterranean at that time. It was the authoritative decision (do/gma) made by Augustus (i.e., the census, “writing down [names]” [a)pografh/]) that set in motion the events leading to Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem—as narrated by the Lukan author in vv. 2-7. It is with Jesus’ birth that the implicit contrast, between he and Augustus, comes more clearly into view, in the form of the Angelic annunciation to the shepherds (2:10-14).

The Angels’ announcement to the shepherds follows the basic annunciation pattern (see section 3. above). However, verses 13-14 (with the Gloria of the angelic chorus) break from the pattern, which is fitting for the exalted character of the birth of Jesus. The “good news” (eu)aggeli/zomai, “I bring you a good message [good news]”) of the birth announcement (vv. 10-11) has become the good news of the Gospel (v. 14). This use of the verb eu)aggeli/zomai strongly suggests an intentional parallel to the birth of Augustus (v. 1) as a Savior-figure who brings peace to the world. Consider the following points of comparison between Augustus and Jesus:

    • Son of God. Gaius Octavius was the adopted son and heir of Julius Caesar (so, Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus); upon the deification of Caesar (recognized as ‘god’, Jan 1, 42 B.C.), Octavianus effectively became “son of god” (divi filius). This status only increased in strength as he was proclaimed emperor (Imperator, ratified 29 B.C.) and given the title Augustus (27 B.C.).
    • Bringer of Peace. Augustus pacified much of the Empire, as detailed in his own account (cf. Res gestae divi Augusti II.12-13 [34-45]) and that of other Roman historians. The shrine of Janus in the capital, open in time of war, was finally closed during Augustus’ reign, and the ‘peace of Augustus’ (Pax Augusta) was proclaimed (the famous altar ara pacis augustae).
    • Savior. Augustus was called “savior” (swth/r)—e.g. “savior of the whole world” (swth=ra tou= su/npanto$ ko/smou) in an inscription from Myra (V. Ehrenberg and A. H. M. Jones, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius [Oxford:1949], no. 72).

Most notably, the Roman government established a new calendar (the Julian) which set the birthday of Augustus (Sept 23) as the start of the new year. A letter from proconsul Paulus Fabius Maximus (c. 9-5 B.C.), to the territories of Asia under his charge, included a decree which contains the following:

“Providence…has granted us and those who will come after us [a Saviour] who has made war to cease and who shall put everything [in peaceful] order; and whereas Caesar, [when he was manifest], transcended the expectations of [all who had anticipated the good news], not only by surpassing the benefits conferred by his predecessors but by leaving no expectation of surpassing him to those who would come after him, with the result that the birthday of our God signalled the beginning of Good News for the world because of him”

Even more well-known is the so-called Priene Calendar Inscription, related to this decree, of which note especially the following:

“Since Providence, which has ordered all things and is deeply interested in our life, has set in most perfect order by giving us Augustus, whom she filled with virtue that he might benefit humankind, sending him as a savior [swth/r], both for us and for our descendants, that he might end war and arrange all things, and since he, Caesar, by his appearance [e)pifanei=n] (excelled even our anticipations), surpassing all previous benefactors, and not even leaving to posterity any hope of surpassing what he has done, and since the birthday of the god Augustus was the beginning of the good tidings for the world that came by reason of him [h@rcen de\ tw=i ko/smwi tw=n di’ au)to\n eu)aggeli/wn h( gene/qlio$ tou= qeou=],”

For the above letter of Paulus Fabius Maximus and the Asian decree, see Frederick W. Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field (1982), p. 217; the translation of the Priene Calendar Inscription is courtesy of Craig A. Evans, Mark’s Incipit and the Priene Calendar Inscription: From Jewish Gospel to Greco-Roman Gospel

The birth(day) and appearance of the ‘savior’ is called “good news/tidings”, the same word typically translated as “gospel”. The closest Gospel parallel is found in the Angelic announcement of Jesus’ birth in Luke 2:10-14 (note the italicized portions):

10And the Messenger said to them, “Do not fear! For see—I bring a good message [eu)aggeli/zomai] to you of great joy which will be for all people: 11that today is brought forth for you a savior [swth/r]—which is Anointed, Lord—in the city of David! 12And this (is) the sign for you: you will find a babe wrapped in cloth-bands [i.e. swaddled] and lying (down) in a feeding-(trough).” 13And suddenly there came to be with the Messenger a full crowd of (the) heavenly army praising God and saying,

14“do/ca in the highest (places) to God,
and upon earth peace in [i.e. among] men of (his) eu)doki/a.”

Already in Scriptural tradition, there was the famous birth announcement in Isa 9:5-6 (6-7)—cf. also the “good news” of Isa 52:7ff; 61:1, passages which both have traditional messianic associations. The Lukan author has expanded the scope of this message, by applying it to the contemporary context of the Roman Empire, and thus anticipating the early Christian mission—to the Gentiles, throughout the Greco-Roman world.

A similarly universalistic expansion can be seen in the phrase “which will be for all the people [panti\ tw=| law=|]” (v. 10). In the immediate context, the “people” (lao/$) is Israel, but this widens in the Gospel to include Gentiles (“the peoples [laoi/]”, cf. 2:31-32).

Ultimately, the Angels’ message is defined, principally, by Jesus’ Messianic identity. This message contains two interlocking “Messianic” constructs or pairs:

Here the “city of David” is Bethlehem; at the death/resurrection of Jesus, it is Jerusalem. In this regard, it is important to note a fascinating parallel between the angelic announcement of Luke 2:14 and the exclamation by the people upon Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem (Lk 19:38)—in which, as we have seen, his Messianic identity (and his kingship) was also strongly emphasized:

In one, heavenly beings declare peace to those on earth; in the other, earthly beings declare (or affirm) peace for those in heaven. One may perhaps compare this with the request from the Lord’s prayer that God’s will be done “as in heaven, (so) also upon earth” (Matt 6:10b [not in the Lukan version]). The emphasis on peace, in a Messianic context, is an important aspect of the portrait in Luke-Acts (Lk 1:79; 2:29; 19:42; 24:36; Acts 10:36).

For more on the possible parallels between the births of Jesus and Augustus, cf. my earlier note, and also the discussion on the Fourth Eclogue of Virgil.

Notes on Prayer: Thy Kingdom Come (Infancy Narratives, Pt 1)

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

Before proceeding the conclusion of this series, it is worth examining the Kingdom-theme as it is expressed in the Infancy Narratives (of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke). This relatively brief study, presented in a more detailed form in earlier exegetical series, is particularly suitable for our celebration of the birth of Jesus this Christmas season.

The Kingdom of God in the Matthean and Lukan Infancy Narratives

The subject of the Kingdom of God, and of Jesus as King, is primary to the Matthean (Matt 1-2) and Lukan (Lk 1-2) Infancy Narratives. Indeed, as a theological (and Christological) theme, the Kingship of Jesus is far more prominent in these narratives than either the incarnation or the virgin birth. While the virginal conception of Jesus does feature in both narratives, it is clearly subordinate (in significance) to the identity of Jesus as Messianic King. And, as for the classic doctrine of the incarnation, evidence for it can scarcely be found in either narrative (or in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke as a whole, for that matter).

Jesus’ identity as the royal/Davidic Messiah has been discussed, at length, in earlier studies in this series; for an overview of the subject, see Parts 6–7–8 of “Yeshua the Anointed”. The significance of this theme can be seen, first, through the orienting (historical) tradition regarding the Davidic genealogy of Jesus. This is established as a basic point of information regarding Jesus’ human father, Joseph. The Matthean and Lukan narratives attest to it, quite independently, it would seem; one can regard it as an established point of historical tradition. It is regarded as a key point of information in each of the genealogies (Matt 1:1, 6, 17; Luke 3:31), and is brought out within the fabric of the narrative as well (Matt 1:20; Luke 1:27; 2:4). Some commentators, following a tradition that came to be accepted by a number of early Christians, held that Jesus was also of Davidic ancestry through his mother, and that the Lukan genealogy reflects the lineage of Mary. However one may judge the validity of the tradition regarding Mary’s Davidic ancestry (and the information in Luke 1:5, 36 would seem to argue against it), the text clearly identifies the Lukan genealogy as that of Joseph, not Mary (3:23)—just as in Matthew (1:16).

Here in this article, the Kingdom-theme, as expressed within four specific portions of the Infancy Narratives, will be discussed. These are:

    1. The citation of Isaiah 7:14 in Matt 1:18-25
    2. The Jesus/Herod juxtaposition in Matthew 2
    3. The Messianic orientation of the Angelic announcement in Luke 1:26-38
    4. The context of the census-tradition in Luke 2:1ff, along with the Angelic announcement in vv. 10-14.

The first two will be discussed in Part 1 of this study (below), the last two in Part 2.

1. The citation of Isaiah 7:14 in Matt 1:18-25

This citation of Isaiah 7:14 in Matthew 1:22-23 is one of a number of such Scripture citations which occur in the Infancy narrative (1:18-2:23):

With the possible exception of 2:5-6 (Micah 5:2), these Scripture passages were taken and applied in a sense altogether different from the original context (cf. the discussion below regarding Isaiah 7:14).

It is interesting to see how (and where) the Gospel writer introduces the prophecy: it follows directly after the heavenly Messenger’s announcement to Joseph. Note the similarity in language in v. 21: “she will bring forth a son and you will call his name Yeshua± [Jesus]”, which is nearly identical to that of Isa 7:14 (cf. the similar pronouncements in Gen 16:11 and Judg 13:5). Many critical scholars would hold that Matthew has shaped the angelic announcement to fit Isa 7:14; however, it is certainly possible that, seeing the similarity in language, the writer was led to include the Isaiah prophecy at this point. Indeed, this sort of “catch-phrase bonding” abounds in the New Testament, and was a prime technique used by early Christians to join Scriptures and traditions together. The writer is also careful to distinguish the two passages: while “call his name Jesus” and “call his name Immanuel” are parallel, they are not identical—this is probably why the third person plural “they shall call” is used in the citation; it is a small adaptation, but it has an interesting effect. Joseph (the “you” of v. 21) calls him “Jesus” (v. 25), but “they” (people of Israel, believers, those who encounter Jesus) will call him “Immanuel”.  This is indeed what has happened: for believers, who ‘find’ Jesus in the Scriptures, apply those texts to him—whether or not the original context truly warrants it!

It is hard to know just when early Christians began to view Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy of Jesus’ birth, as we see in Matthew 1:22-23; it is possible, though quite uncertain, that the Gospel writer was the first to make the connection. Here I place side-by-side, the Hebrew (MT), the Greek (LXX) and Matthew, in a rather literal translation, with the Hebrew/Greek given below:

As I have discussed, “virgin” is not particularly appropriate for translating hm*l=u^; nor exactly is “young girl/woman”. As no English word or phrase entirely fits, I have somewhat reluctantly opted for “maiden” as the least unsatisfactory solution.

For my Lord Him(self) will give for you a sign: See—the maiden (is [becoming]) pregnant and (is) bearing a son, and (she) will call his name “God-with-us” Through this (the) Lord Him(self) will give you a sign: See—the virgin will have in womb and will bring forth a son, and she will call his name ±Immanû¢l {first part of the verse is not cited} See—the virgin will have in womb and will bring forth a son, and they will call his name ±Immanû¢l, which is being explained across [i.e. translated] (as) “God with us”
toa <k#l* aWh yn`d)a& /T@y] /k@l* /B@ td#l#y)w+ hr*h* hm*l=u^h* hN@h! la@ WnM*u! ov= tar*q*w+ dia\ tou=to dw/sei ku/rio$ au)to\$ u(mi=n shmei=on i)dou\ h( parqe/no$ e)n gastri\ e&cei kai\ te/cetai ui(o/n kai\ kale/sei$ to\ o&noma au)tou= Emmanouhl  

The LXX is an accurate rendering of the Hebrew (MT), the difficulties surrounding the use of parqe/no$ notwithstanding, and apart from the very different idiom used for conception and childbirth. The citation in Matthew is identical to the LXX, but for one difference (indicated in italics above): “they will call” instead of “you will call”. The MT has regularly been understood as a 2nd person form, but most scholars today read it as a 3rd person feminine. Manuscript 1QIsaa reads arqw (“and he will call”), apparently in an indefinite sense, which may be reflected in the Syriac )rQtNw (wntqr°, “and he will be called”), and possibly is the basis for the rendering in Matthew (“they will call”). The Gospel writer also provides an explanation of the Hebrew term.

This leads to the interpretive crux—believers, including the earliest Christians (and the inspired Gospel writer), have applied Isaiah 7:14 to the (virgin) birth of Jesus, even though the original context of the passage relates to the Syrian-Ephraimite crisis facing Ahaz and the kingdom of Judah in c. 735-4 B.C.  Indeed, the prophecy relates to the historical circumstances (in 6:1-9:6) involving Ahaz and the kingdom of Judah. This is the view favored by most critical or otherwise serious scholars today, with two differing positions being commonly held:

(a) The “maiden” in question is the wife (or bride) of Isaiah, and thus the child is also Isaiah’s. The close parallel of 8:1-4 is a strong argument in favor of this view, as is the fact that the prophet gave symbolic names to two other children (7:3; 8:3) relevant to the circumstances and fate of Israel/Judah. However, these other children create a problem, as does the fact that hm*l=u^, it seems, would not normally be used of a married woman (though it might be of a young bride). The “prophetess” of 8:3 appears to be different woman from that of 7:14, which is another complication; though we really don’t know enough about Isaiah’s personal life to be sure of the details.

(b) It refers to the wife (or concubine, etc) and child of Ahaz. In the context of the passage, the prophecy is addressed to the king (as head of the ‘house of David’), so an application to Ahaz, rather than Isaiah himself, seems to make more sense. In Song 1:3; 6:8, hm*l=u^ seems to be a technical term for girls in the royal court (or harem), and this may also be the sense here. The promise of the name “God-with-us” is, perhaps, more appropriate for a royal figure; and the parallel of 9:5-6, if applicable, would also be an argument in favor of this view.

In terms of the original meaning of the prophecy, I would say that the second option (b) is the best solution, though certainly not without its own difficulties. However, it seems to fit the context overall: a specific girl (hm*l=u^h*), belonging in some respect to the royal court (circumstances unknown to us), is (or is soon to become) pregnant and will give birth to a son; by the time the child has been weaned, and is old enough to choose between good and evil, Aram-Damascus and Ephraim (the Northern Kingdom) will suffer at the hands of the king of Assyria and no longer threaten Judah (a prediction which more or less came to pass by 732 B.C.). Whether such a son of Ahaz should be identified with the (positive) figure of Hezekiah is a separate question (see below); though accepted by some scholars, I am by no means certain that such an identification is correct.

According to the early Christian use of Isa 7:14, the “sign” (toa) could be taken as relating to the miraculous nature of the birth; and, indeed, the Hebrew word can occasionally refer to a wondrous portent or omen. The LXX translator may have understood this as a miraculous event (i.e., use of parqe/no$ to indicate a virginal birth, so understood in Matt 1:18ff). However, the use of toa elsewhere in Isa 6:1-9:6 (7:11; 8:18) and in the book as a whole (19:20; 20:3; 37:30; 38:7, 22; 44:25; 55:13; 66:19) would speak against this (only in Isa 38:7 is does a special miracle seem to be indicated). Instead, the “sign” (toa) of 7:14 is the child itself [rather than the nature of the birth], cf. 8:18—the sign carries two primary points of signification: (a) the name “God-with-us” [cf. esp. 8:8, 10], and (b) the temporal indicator based on the development of the infant [7:15ff].

What of the name “God-with-us” (la@ WnM*u! ±Immanû-°¢l)? Theologically significant names were common in Hebrew, often using “God” (°El) or Yahweh (shortened or hypocoristic form “Yah[u]”). This is more or less obscured in English translations, where names are typically given an anglicized transliteration rather than translated. For example, Isaiah (Why`u=v^y+, Y§sha±y¹hu) ought to be rendered “Yah-will-save” or “May-Yah-save!”; similarly, Ahaz is probably a shortened form of Jehoahaz (zj*a*ohy+, Y§hô°¹µ¹z) and would mean something like “Yah-has-seized” or “Yah-has-grasped [hold]!”. So, a name such as “God-with-us” (la@ WnM*u!) could certainly be applied to a significant person or ruler (though at this time, Yah-names are much more common than El-names). Isaiah himself gave elaborate symbolic names for his two (other) sons: “[a] Remnant will return”, Isa 7:3), and “Hurry [to] seize booty! hasten [to] take spoil!” (or something similar)—both names relating to the impending/future judgment on Israel.

In the historical context, the name “God-with-us” has a very specific meaning: Ahaz and the southern Kingdom faced an imminent attack by Aram-Damascus and the Northern Kingdom, along with the looming specter of an Assyrian invasion. Isaiah’s counsel in chapter 7 was to trust in God, for God is with Jerusalem and his people in Judah; and, within just a year or two, the threat from Aram-Ephraim will be eliminated. The use of the name “God-with-us” in Isa 8:5-10 is even more dramatic and telling, for the warning (and promise) of ±Immanû °El (vv. 8, 10) extends to all the surrounding nations (even to the Assyrian Empire): “take counsel (for) counsel and it will break apart, give word (to) a word and it will not stand! For God (is) with us!”. In this final exclamation, we have moved clearly from the sign (the child) to what it signifies—that God Himself is with us. Little wonder that early Christians would have applied this name (and the passage) to the person of Jesus Christ (cf. the possible allusions to this language in Luke 1:28).

In terms of our present study, most significant is the royal context of the prophecy in Isa 7:14. It is addressed to a king (Ahaz), and involves the fate (and salvation) of the kingdom of Judah. The child whose birth is the “sign” for the salvation, may well have been the son of Ahaz, and thus a future king for whom the basic message of the prophecy would also apply. This last point is all the more significant if the royal child (and future king) is identified with Hezekiah—cf. the specific notice in 2 Kings 18:7, in relation to the name ±Immanû °El (“God-with-us”). In any case, this royal emphasis, with the message of Divine protection and salvation (for Israel/Judah), promised to a future king, naturally led to a Messianic interpretation of the prophecy, and its specific application by early Christians to the person (and birth) of Jesus (as the Messiah).

For more on the context and interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, see my earlier set of notes, along with the four-part article in the series “The Old Testament and the Birth of Jesus”.

2. The Jesus/Herod juxtaposition in Matthew 2

The theme of Jesus’ identity as the royal/Davidic Messiah, established in Matthew 1 (see above), is further developed and expounded in chapter 2. This is done by way of a contrastive juxtaposition of Jesus with Herod—viz., as two ‘rivals’ to the title and position of “King of the Jews” (v. 2). The narrative also utilizes the typology of the Moses traditions in Exodus 1-2, as a way of narrating the conflict. The parallels between the births of Moses and Jesus have been noted by many commentators (see my earlier notes in the series “The Old Testament and the Birth of Jesus”).

While Moses is sometimes regarded as a king or royal figure in Jewish and early Christian tradition, that is not part of the original Exodus traditions. Instead, there are other Scriptural references (quotations or allusions) in Matthew 2 which bring out the royal associations. The most notable of these, of course, is Micah 5:2 (see below); however, certain others must also be mentioned:

Numbers 24:17

This is part of Balaam’s (fourth and final) oracle as recorded in Numbers 23-24. There are two aspects of the verse which may relate to the narrative in Matthew 2:1-12: (a) the overall setting of the passage, and (b) the star.

(a) The narrative setting

Numbers 22-24 records several traditions (and oracle poems) connected with Balaam (<u*l=B! Bil±¹m), a somewhat mysterious figure (to us) who was no doubt much better known to Israelites of the late-second/early first millennium B.C. living in Canaan (inscription fragments from Deir ±All¹ [c. 700] refer to him, as a “seer [hzj] of the gods”). There is a certain parallel to details of the Magi narrative in Matthew:

    • A ‘wicked’ king (Balak [ql*B*]) summons the seer Balaam for help against “the children of Israel” (22:5) who had “come out from Egypt” (cf. Matt 2:15 [Hos 11:1])
    • Balaam is a seer who received revelations from God (24:15-16), while the Magi apparently also receive revelatory visions and/or dreams (Matt 2:12). The LXX states that Balaam received his visions “in sleep” [e)n u%pnw|] (24:16, also v. 4).
    • Balaam comes “from the east” (Num 23:7; LXX a)p’ a)natolw=n, the same phrase in Matt 2:1).
    • Balaam prophecies the future of Israel (in four oracles: Num 23:7-10, 18-24; 24:3-9, 15-24); there is also a prophecy [Micah 5:2] in Matthew, cited by the “priests and scribes” (not the Magi).
    • The prophecies mention the coming of a star out of Israel [Jacob] signifying the arrival of a powerful ruler (Num 24:17ff—on this, see below).
    • Balaam is warned by an angel (Num 22:31-35); the Magi are warned in a dream in Matt 2:12 (an angel is not mentioned, but is sometimes assumed according to the pattern in 1:20; 2:13, 19).
    • Balaam departs back to his own place (Num 24:25); the Magi return to their own country (Matt 2:12)

(b) The Star

Numbers 24:17, part of Balaam’s fourth oracle, begins as follows:

I see him, but not now;
I perceive him, but not near;
A star will march [ird] from Ya±¦qœ» {Jacob},
and a staff will rise [<wq] from Yi´ra°¢l {Israel}…

The reference is clearly to a ruler who will crush the enemies of Israel and exercise dominion over the surrounding nations (see esp. verse 19). Many critical scholars would hold that this refers to the Davidic monarchy, and to the person of David (as star and scepter), whether as a genuine or ex eventu prophecy. However, by the time of the New Testament, this passage had come to be understood in a (future) Messianic sense.
It is cited numerous times in the Qumran documents (1QSb 5:27; 1QM [War Scroll] 11:6-7; and 4Q175 [Testimonia]), either in a ‘Messianic’ or eschatological context. Most notably it occurs in the related Damascus Document (CD [Cairo MS A]), in 7:19, where the star is the “Interpreter of the Law who shall come” and the staff/scepter is the coming “Prince of the whole congregation”. In some Qumran texts, there are apparent references to two Anointed [Messiah] figures—one “of Israel”, a royal (Davidic) Messiah, presumably identified with the “Branch of David” and the “Prince of the Congregation”; the other “of Aaron”, a priestly Messiah, likely identified (as here) with the “Interpreter of the Law”. Yet there are other texts which seem to recognize only one ‘Messiah’, so the situation in the Community (represented in the texts) is far from certain.

This view of Num 24:17 was aided greatly by the peculiar reading of the Septuagint (LXX): instead of a staff/scepter [fb#v@], it reads “a man [a&nqrwpo$] will rise out of Israel”. This may reflect an interpretive gloss which somehow made its way into the text.
We find something similar in the Jewish/Christian (Pseudepigraphic) Testament of Judah 24:1-6, where “a man will rise” is connected with the “scepter” of the kingdom and a “staff of righteousness”. That this Messianic interpretation was relatively widespread by the time the Gospels were written is indicated from its mention by Philo of Alexandria (On Rewards and Punishments §95), an author who otherwise had little interest in Messianic predictions as such. It is also worth noting that it was applied to Simon bar-Kosiba (as bar-Kochba, “son of the Star”), famously by Rabbi Akiba (j.Ta’anit 68d) in the context of the Jewish Revolt of 132-135 A.D.—cf. also b.Sanh. 93b; Justin Martyr, First Apology 31.6; Eusebius, Church History 4.6.1-4, 8.4.

Isaiah 60:1-6

Verse 1 of this famous passage begins:

Stand up [i.e. rise], shine! for your light has come,
and the weight [i.e. glory] of YHWH has shot forth [i.e. risen/shined] upon you

Note also verse 2b-3:

…and YHWH will shoot forth [i.e. rise] upon you,
and His weight [i.e. glory] will be seen upon you;
And the nations will walk to your light,
and kings to the brilliance of your rising/shining

Then further on in verses 5b-6:

…for the roaring [i.e. wealth/abundance] of the sea will be turned over upon [i.e. to] you,
(the) strength [i.e. wealth] of the nations will come to you—
an abundance of camels will cover you,
(young) camels of Midyan and ±Ephah;
all of them from Sheba will come,
gold and white-resin [i.e. incense] they will carry,
and praises of YHWH they will bring (as a message)

It is scarcely necessary to comment on the similarities to details in Matthew’s account of the visit of the Magi. The original oracle in Isaiah prophecies the future greatness of the (restored) Kingdom of Israel/Judah, with nations bringing their wealth (to Jerusalem) to the house of God (verse 7).

Psalm 72:10-11

In Psalm 72 (cf. my earlier study) we find a similar theme as in Isaiah 60:1-6, but in the more general context of the ideal (righteous) king—strengthened and supported by God, he will extend the dominion (of Israel) so that kings of the surrounding nations will serve him and offer tribute (vv. 8-11, 15). Note especially verses 10-11:

(Let) the kings of Tarshish and (of) the islands return gift(s),
(let) the kings of Sheba’ and Seba’ bring present(s) near;
(Let) all kings bow (themselves) down to him,
and (let) all nations serve him

See also Psalm 68:29 and Isaiah 49:7. It is no doubt due to these references that the idea of the Magi as kings developed in Christian tradition.

This brings us to the citation of Micah 5:1[2] in Matthew 2:6.

Micah 5:1[2]

Unlike the oracles of Isaiah 7:10-17 and 9:1-7 (see above on Isa 7:14), which are presented in a relatively precise historical context (the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah, the Syro-Ephraimitic crisis and impending invasion by Assyria, c. 740-701 [esp. 735-732] B.C.), Micah 5:1-6 [MT 4:14-5:5] has a rather more general setting of coming judgment (military attack implied) followed by restoration. The themes (as well as language and style) of the these oracles in Micah are quite similar to those of Isaiah, but without some of the accompanying historical detail. The implication of Micah 5:5-6 would seem to be that the Davidic ruler of 5:2 will lead (Judah’s) troops against the Assyrian invasion, which will lead to the gathering in of the remnant of Jacob (the Northern kingdom?). There is thus a closer parallel to the oracle in Isa 9:1-7, which is also more plausibly ‘Messianic’ (in its original context) than Isa 7:10-17. The reference to Bethlehem (in Judah), while possibly intended (originally) to refer to a specific coming ruler in Micah’s own time, also makes likely an archetypal reference to the Davidic line (cf. also references to the “house of David” and “throne of David”, Isa 7:13; 9:7, etc).

    • While one can consider the language in 5:2b as similar to the exalted honorific titles given to ancient Near Eastern rulers (see my notes on Isaiah 9:6-7 in this regard), there is a dynamic, almost ‘mythological’ quality to the phrasing, which, when removed from the immediate context, would certainly suggest divine origin. Once the specific ritual sense of king as God’s “son” (cf. Psalm 2) has ceased to be relevant in Israelite history, the way is paved for the idea of a future/Messianic ruler as “son of God”.

Matthew’s citation of Micah 5:2 differs in several respects from both the Hebrew (MT) and Septuagint (LXX) versions (on which, see my earlier study). Perhaps most notable is that Matthew has omitted the final bicolon (“and his coming forth…”), inserting at the end of the prior line (replacing “of Israel”): “who will shepherd my people Israel”. This appears to be a quotation from 2 Samuel 5:2 (LXX): “you will shepherd my people Israel”, joined to Mic 5:2. The inclusion of this Scripture would strengthen the citation as a reference to the Davidic ruler figure-type.

Messianic Interpretation of Micah 5:1 [2]

The historical tradition in Matt 2:4-6 evinces a belief, or expectation, by Jews of the time, that the Anointed One (that is, the Davidic Messiah) would be born in Bethlehem. There can be little doubt that this underlies the core Gospel traditions in the Infancy narratives. Both the Matthean and Lukan narratives emphasize the association with David (see above), though this is stronger and more pervasive in Luke (cf. Matt 1:1ff, 17, 20; Lk 1:27, 32-33, 69ff; 2:4, 8ff, 11). The historical detail of Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem is part of this Davidic Messianic tradition. The fact that the Bethlehem tradition is presented so differently within the two narratives demonstrates that it pre-dates both of them.

Indeed, there is evidence that the Bethlehem tradition (and also Micah 5:1 [2]) had been independently applied to the Messiah, in Judea, prior to the writing of the Gospels. This can be inferred fairly from John 7:41-42:

“Others said [i.e. regarding Jesus], ‘This is the Anointed (One)’, and (yet) others said, ‘No, for the Anointed (One) does (not) come out of the Galîl {Galilee}, (does he)? (Has) not the Writing said that out of the seed of Dawid and from Beth-Lehem the Anointed (One) comes?'”

The historical context in John at this point is ambiguous enough to virtually guarantee that we are dealing with a Jewish (rather than early Christian) tradition. It could be derived simply from the historical details surrounding David’s life, but more than likely the reference in Micah 5:2 is assumed as well.
The tradition of the Messiah’s birth in Bethlehem is established in the subsequent Rabbinic literature—most notably, Jerusalem Talmud Berakot 5a [2:4], and the Midrash Rabbah to Lamentations §51 (on Lam 1:16). However, these passages are considerably later than the first century, and evidence from the first centuries B.C./A.D. is scant indeed. Sadly, the surviving fragments of the Qumran Commentary (Pesher) on Micah (1Q14) do not cover the relevant portion of the book (4:14-5:5 [5:1-6]). A separate text, 4Q168, with two small fragments, may be a similar Micah pesher (the surviving portion deals with 4:8-12), but too little is preserved to provide much by way of interpretation.
According to Origen, in his work Against Celsus (1.51), Jewish scholars in his time (and prior) had removed or suppressed the Bethlehem tradition—i.e., the expectation that the (Davidic) Messiah would be born in Bethlehem—to avoid giving support for the Christian belief in Jesus as the Messiah. However accurate this bit of apologetic may (or may not) be, it could be seen as providing independent confirmation of the Bethlehem tradition by perhaps the mid-2nd century A.D. Around the same time may be dated the Aramaic Targum (Jonathan) on the Prophets, which glosses/paraphrases Micah 5:1 [2] to say specifically that the Messiah comes out of Bethlehem. Unfortunately, the Jewish evidence cannot be dated, reliably at least, any earlier than this.

For more on the background of Micah 5:2 and its use in the Matthean Infancy narrative, see my articles in the series “The Old Testament and the Birth of Jesus” and “The Birth of the Messiah”.

In the overall context of the Matthean Gospel, this development of the Kingdom-theme in the Infancy narratives (esp. in chapter 2) establishes two key theological points of interpretation that feature prominently throughout the Gospel (as we have seen in the prior studies): (1) the Messianic identity of Jesus, in connection with the specific title “King of the Jews” and the implications regarding the kingship of Jesus; (2) the pointed contrast between Jesus’ kingship and that of earthly rulers (such as Herod). The latter thematic contrast informs many of the Matthean passages dealing with the Kingdom of God (and the expectation of its coming). Jesus’ kingdom is not like other earthly kingdoms; those who belong to it—that is, to the Kingdom of God—and who will enter/inherit it, are those who are his faithful disciples, trusting in him and following both his teachings and example.

In Part 2 of this article, we will examine the sections of the Lukan Infancy narrative (points 3. and 4. in the above outline).

 

Notes on Prayer: Thy Kingdom Come (John 19:9-11)

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

In the previous study, we examined the Kingdom-references in John 18:36-37. This is part of the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate, a component in the Johannine version of the Roman Interrogation scene (in the Passion Narrative). It is worth presenting again here an outline of this scene, divided into seven episodes, within a chiastic framework, with the divisions regulated by whether the action takes place outside of the praetorium chamber, or inside:

    • Outside (18:28-32)—the Jewish delegation demands Jesus’ death
      • Inside (18:33-38a)—Pilate questions Jesus about his kingship
        • Outside (18:38b-40)—Pilate finds Jesus not guilty; choice between Jesus and Barabbas
          • Inside (19:1-3)—Roman soldiers scourge/mock Jesus
        • Outside (19:4-8)—Pilate finds Jesus not guilty; “Behold the man”
      • Inside (19:9-11)—Pilate questions Jesus again about his identity
    • Outside (19:13-16a)—the Jewish delegation obtains a sentence of death for Jesus

The two sections which comprise the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate—18:33-38a and 19:9-11—are those very units which most clearly expound the theme of the kingship of Jesus. The two units are parallel (as indicated by their position in the outline), with the common label being “Pilate questions Jesus about his kingship/identity”. Though these dialogue-units are rooted in early Gospel tradition, they also represent the portions of the scene most shaped by Johannine theology. Indeed, this material resembles the Discourses in a number of important respects.

John 19:9-11

In considering how the Johannine author has shaped and developed the early Tradition, we have already discussed this to some extent in the previous study (on 18:33-38 [vv. 36-37]). Two key elements from the Synoptic version(s) have been retained: (i) the question by Pilate (“Are you the king of the Jews?”), and (ii) the tersely enigmatic answer by Jesus (“You say” [su\ le/gei$]). We can see how this slight traditional detail (in its Johannine transmission), has been utilized as the launching point for a mini-Discourse, in which the tradition is given a theological (and Christological) exposition by the author.

Much the same thing occurs in 19:9-11. The two dialogue-episodes correspond to the two questions Pilate asks Jesus (in Mark 15:2-5 par). The first question (v. 2), is featured in 18:33-38a, while the second question (v. 4f) features in 19:9-11. Here is how the Markan version narrates the tradition:

“And Pilatus again inquired of him, saying: ‘Do you not give forth (an answer)? Nothing? See how many (accusation)s they make public against you.’ But Yeshua did not (say) anything more, gave forth nothing (in response), so that (it caused) Pilatus to wonder.” (vv. 4-5)

In the Johannine version, the traditional elements—(a) follow-up question by Pilate, and (b) Jesus’ lack of any response—are much simpler and streamlined by comparison, set within the distinctive dramatic-narrative framework (cf. the outline above):

“And (Pilatus) came into (the) praetorium again, and he says to Yeshua: ‘Where are you from?’ But Yeshua gave (forth) no response back to him.” (v. 9)

In the Synoptic version(s), Pilate’s question only indirectly relates to Jesus’ identity as the Messiah (“King of the Jews”); in John’s version, the question touches upon the central point of the Johannine theology—viz., Jesus’ identity as the Son of God, sent from heaven by God the Father. Pilate unwittingly alludes to Jesus’ heavenly origin when he asks, “Where are you from?” The theological significance of the question becomes even clearer when we realize that it is phrased in the syntax of Johannine essential prediction, which has three components: (a) Divine subject, (b) verb of being, and (c) predicate noun/phrase. Those three components are all present—

“You [su/] | are [ei@] | from where [po/qen]?”

only the word order has been reversed, with the predicate (of origin) being emphasized (in first position):

“From where | are | you?”
po/qen ei@ su/

The interrogative po/qen (“from what place, from where…?”) occurs somewhat more frequently in the Gospel of John than the other Gospels (or elsewhere in the New Testament); nearly half of the NT occurrences (13 of 29) are in John. This includes passages where the interrogative, as here, has definite theological importance—3:8; 7:28; 8:14; and note also the double-meaning conceptual word-play within the Gospel narrative (4:11; 6:5; 7:27; 9:29-30). In some ways, the question (with po/qen) echoes Jesus words in the earlier dialogue unit, where he effectively gives an answer to Pilate’s question, but in negative terms:

“My kingdom is not of this world….
my kingdom is not from here [e)nteu=qen]”

Again these statements are instances of Johannine essential predication, but phrased (paradigmatically) with a negation of the verb of being—viz., stating what Jesus’ kingdom is not:

    • “My kingdom | is not [ou)k e)stin] | of this world”
    • “My kingdom | is not [ou)k e)stin] | from here”

The adverb e)nteu=qen, “from this place”, clearly corresponds with the interrogative po/qen (“from what place…?”). Again, as with po/qen, the adverb e)nteu=qen is more common in the Gospel of John than elsewhere in the New Testament (6 of the 10 occurrences).

Jesus is not from “this place”, i.e., “this world”, the earth below, where humans dwell. At first, Jesus does not tell Pilate where he is from, though the reader/hearer of the Gospel (and esp. the earlier Discourses) understands the implicit identification of Jesus as the Son who was sent from heaven by God the Father. An implicit (positive) answer was, we may say, given in 18:37: Jesus came to earth (from heaven), in order to bear witness to the truth (from God); everyone who is of (e)k) the truth, even as he himself is of the truth (i.e., from God), will hear and respond (with trust) to his voice.

And yet, as in the Synoptic version, Jesus makes no immediate answer to the actual question by Pilate (here in v. 9). But, again, the Johannine version differs markedly from the Synoptic by having the exchange between Pilate and Jesus continue, so as to form a mini-Discourse. In the Johannine Discourse format, the hearer responds (often with a question) to a primary saying/statement by Jesus. Here, however, Jesus gives no saying; his silence is itself the statement. Pilate responds to this in verse 10, with the lack of understanding that is typical of the hearers in the Discourses:

“You do not speak to me? Have you not seen [i.e. realized] that I hold (the) authority [e)cousi/a] to loose you from (custody), and (also) hold (the) authority to put you to the stake?”

The initial question (“You do not speak to me?”) here resembles the initial part of the question in the Synoptic version (“Do you not give forth any [answer]?”, Mk 15:4, cf. above). We might see an allusion to 18:37, and the idea that only the person belonging to the truth (“of the truth”, i.e., of God) is able to hear Jesus speaking. In this regard, Pilate is ‘deaf’, just as the Jewish religious leaders who oppose Jesus (and are unable/unwilling to trust in him) are ‘blind’ (9:39-41).

Jesus does, however, give an answer to Pilate, which, according to the Johannine Discourse-format, can be viewed as an exposition of his silence in v. 9:

“You would not hold (any) authority [e)cousi/a] against me, if it were not given to you from above [a&nwqen].” (v. 11)

Pilate is quite mistaken regarding the true/real nature of authority. The noun e)cousi/a refers to the power or ability which one possesses (in his/her own person), often with the implication that it has come (or has been given) from a superior. In the case of Pilate, his power/authority comes from the Roman Imperial government (and the Emperor). The term has similar implications for the kingship of Jesus. The Son (Jesus) receives his power/authority from God the Father, and the Divine Kingdom that is above. Pilate (like any earthly ruler) only has authority over Jesus (the incarnate Son) in a limited (and contingent) way. By using the adverb a&nwqen (“from above”), Jesus gives a belated (and indirect) answer to Pilate’s initial question in v. 9: “Where are you from?” Answer: “From above”.

As with the interrogative po/qen and the adverb e)nteu=qen, the adverb a&nwqen is something of Johannine keyword, even though it used only rarely (5 out of the 13 NT occurrences). The occurrences in 3:3, 7 (see the prior study), and again in 3:31, are vital for an understanding of the Johannine theology (and Christology). If we combine these three origin-terms in sequence, we obtain a veritable snapshot of the Johannine message:

    • Question: “From where [po/qen] does Jesus come?”
    • Answer 1: “Not from this place [e)nteu=qen]”, i.e., not from this world
    • Answer 2: “From above [a&nwqen]”, i.e., from God the Father in heaven

This same theological outline informs the Johannine understanding of the Kingship (and Kingdom) of Jesus. In addition to being the Messiah (“King of the Jews”), Jesus is also the pre-existent Son of God, who was sent to earth, from heaven, by God the Father. Though he came into this world, the Son’s Kingdom—that is, God’s Kingdom—is not of this world. Rather it is of the Spirit; that is, it is of God, who is Spirit (4:24). The keyword motifs that parallel the earlier Discourse-scene in 3:3-8 (cf. above, and in the prior study), as well as the thematic emphasis on “the truth” (18:36-37), only confirm the essential Johannine identification of the Kingdom with the Spirit.

These two studies on the dialogue-sections of the Roman Interrogation scene (18:33-38a, 19:9-11) allow us to see (rather clearly, I think), how the Gospel writer has shaped and developed the traditional material—both from a dramatic, and (more importantly) a theological, standpoint. Already in the Gospel (Synoptic) Tradition, the popular expectation of Jesus as the royal/Davidic Messiah—with its strong socio-political implications—was reinterpreted in light of the early Christology, and the new understanding of what it meant (for Christians) to call Jesus the “Anointed One” (Messiah). In the Johannine Tradition, this Christological reinterpretation was even more pronounced, with the emphasis on Jesus as the pre-existent Son of God, who came to earth from heaven, sent by God the Father.

In the remaining studies of this series, we will turn, finally, to the book of Revelation, and survey some of the key passages in which the theme of the Kingdom of God is expressed. The book of Revelation can be considered a Johannine writing, in the sense that it shares certain stylistic and theological emphases with the Gospel and Letters. However, as we shall see, the book evinces a much more traditional view of the Kingdom of God, blending together eschatological and Messianic traditions that were common and widespread, among Jews and Christians alike, in the first centuries B.C./A.D.

 

Notes on Prayer: Thy Kingdom Come (John 18:36-37)

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

There are two passages in the Gospel of John in which Jesus mentions the Kingdom of God. The first of these—the opening section (vv. 3-8) of the Nicodemus Discourse of chapter 3 (vv. 1-21)—was discussed in the previous study. We now turn to the second of these, which is contained within the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate (part of the Johannine Passion Narrative), in 18:33-38 and 19:9-11.

John 18:36-37

The two dialogue units we will examine (18:33-38 & 19:9-11) are distinctively Johannine elements of the Roman interrogation scene of the Passion narrative (18:23-19:16a). The framework of this scene follows the established Gospel tradition, as presented in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 15:1-20 par); the main difference is that the scourging and mocking of Jesus occurs at the center (19:1-3), rather than the end (Mk 15:15-20), of the narrative.

The Johannine version of this scene has been considerably expanded, primarily through the inclusion of the dialogue-units. Regardless of how one chooses to judge the historicity of these portions (there is, of course, nothing like them in the Synoptic version[s]), one must admit their distinctively Johannine character. In quality, style, and tone, they very much resemble the Johannine Gospel Discourses of Jesus, and are utilized to make the same sort of theological point of emphasis—viz., regarding Jesus’ identity as the (pre-existent) Son sent from heaven by God the Father. Pilate misunderstands the true meaning of Jesus’ words, just as the hearers regularly do in the Discourses. The message regarding the Kingdom of God in these sections is rooted in the historical-traditional question of the kingship of Jesus, which is given a Johannine interpretation that Pilate cannot possibly understand (except, perhaps, unwittingly and ironically).

The seven-episode division of the scene, established by a number of commentators (see, most notably, Brown, pp. 857-9), is sound and accurate, and I have adopted it. As Brown illustrates (p. 859), the scene has a chiastic structure, with the divisions regulated by whether the action takes place outside of the praetorium chamber, or inside:

    • Outside (18:28-32)—the Jewish delegation demands Jesus’ death
      • Inside (18:33-38a)—Pilate questions Jesus about his kingship
        • Outside (18:38b-40)—Pilate finds Jesus not guilty; choice between Jesus and Barabbas
          • Inside (19:1-3)—Roman soldiers scourge/mock Jesus
        • Outside (19:4-8)—Pilate finds Jesus not guilty; “Behold the man”
      • Inside (19:9-11)—Pilate questions Jesus again about his identity
    • Outside (19:13-16a)—the Jewish delegation obtains a sentence of death for Jesus

According to this outline, the dialogue sections are clearly parallel, and provide the main theological framework for the scene. This framework is based on the historical tradition, bare as it is, of the Roman interrogation of Jesus (as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels). Pilate asks Jesus directly: “Are you the king of the Yehudeans?” (Mk 15:2), and this is just how the first dialogue section in the Johannine version begins:

“Then Pilatus again came into the praetorium and gave voice [i.e. called out] to Yeshua, and said to him: ‘Are you the king of the Yehudeans?'” (v. 33)

The answer Jesus gives, in the Synoptic versions, is somewhat ambiguous, particularly in the Markan version: su\ le/gei$—which could be taken as an affirmation (“You have said it”), or a more evasive and challenging answer (e.g., “If you say so”, “You say that”). The longer response, in the Johannine version, is definitely not a simple affirmation, but something of a challenge to Pilate:

“Do you say [su\ le/gei$] this from yourself, or did others say it to you about me?” (v. 34)

As in the Synoptic version (Mk 15:4 par), Pilate asks Jesus a follow-up question; the Johannine version is similar in its orientation (reflecting a common underlying tradition), even if it worded very differently, and with a different emphasis:

“(Surely) I (am) not a Yehudean, am I? (It was) your (own) nation and the chief sacred-officials [i.e., priests] (that) gave you along to me! What have you done?” (v. 35)

In the Synoptic version(s), Jesus gives no answer—indeed, he says nothing more at all to Pilate. The Johannine version, in this regard, is very different: indeed, he responds with a mini-Discourse, rather in the Johannine style, expounding upon the question of his identity as the king (basileu/$) of the Jews:

“My kingdom [basilei/a] is not of [e)k] this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my under-rowers [i.e. servants] would [have] struggled (so) that I should not be given along to the Yehudeans. But now [i.e. as it truly is]—my kingdom is not from (this) place [e)nteu=qen].” (v. 36)

Jesus’ exposition is framed by two declarations (both examples of essential predication) regarding the nature of his kingdom/kingship. This may be compared with the two Kingdom-declarations in 3:3, 5 (cf. the previous study). In both instances, the parallel declarations are explained with a practical illustration (cf. 3:6-8). Here, the two statements are:

    • “My kingdom | is not | of this world”
    • “My kingdom | is not | from (this) place”

These statements are generally synonymous, but with somewhat different nuances of emphasis. The first statement utilizes the Johannine key-term “the world” (o( ko/smo$), which regularly carries a negative connotation. The terminology is tied, in large part, to the traditional Jewish (eschatological) concept of the current Age (“this Age”, “this world”) as being dominated by sin and wickedness, and fundamentally opposed to the will and ways of God. But in the Johannine writings, this dualism is given a decidedly Christological focus—i.e., the world, being opposed to God, is unwilling/unable to recognize and trust in Jesus as the Son of God. Indeed, “this world” is hostile to the Son, and to those chosen ones (i.e., believers) who have trusted in him.

Having come from God, sent to earth (below) from heaven (above), Jesus does not belong to “this world” (8:23). Believers also do not belong to this world, but to God (15:19; 17:6ff, 14-16ff). This means that Jesus’ kingdom (and his kingship) is not from this world—it belongs to God, and has its origins in heaven. In the Johannine language, this dual-notion of (a) belonging, and (b) defining one’s source/origin, is expressed by the simple preposition e)k (“[out] of”).

The second statement is more generalized, explaining that Jesus’ kingdom is not “from (this) place” (e)nteu=qen). It is possible to understand the adverb e)nteu=qen either in terms of (i) a specific point of reference (i.e., this place, or that place), or (ii) any place. This latter nuance is important, particularly in light of the message in 3:3ff, regarding the spiritual nature of the Kingdom. Unless a person comes to be born of [e)k] the Spirit, he/she cannot enter the Kingdom, nor even see it. The Kingdom is not defined by any physical, earthly place (i.e., “flesh”), but is “of the Spirit”; since God Himself is Spirit (4:24), it stands to reason that His Kingdom is also of the Spirit.

In the Johannine Discourses, the hearers respond to Jesus’ words, usually in a way that reflects their lack of understanding (or mis-understanding) regarding the true meaning of his words. Often the response takes the form of a question, such as we see with Pilate here, as he asks: “(Is it) not, then, that you are a king?” In the Discourses, this kind of question leads to a fresh exposition by Jesus, in which he expounds the true meaning of his words. This exposition is, again, rooted in the Gospel tradition regarding Jesus’ answer to Pilate’s question (viz., “Are you the king of the Jews?”…”[So] you say [su\ le/gei$]”):

“You say [su\ le/gei$] that I am a king. I have come to be (born) unto this, and unto this I have come into the world: that I should give witness to the truth! Every(one) being of [e)k] the truth hears my voice.” (v. 37)

Jesus’ answer clearly recognizes Pilate’s lack of understanding. Yes, Jesus is a king, but not in the way that Pilate means! “You say that I am a king” —but then, Jesus proceeds to define his kingship in a very different way, entirely in terms of his [i.e. the Son’s] earthly mission. He came to be born (i.e., as a human being) and, indeed, came into the world, “unto this [ei)$ tou=to]”, i.e., “for this purpose”. The prepositional expression ei)$ tou=to does not point back to Pilate’s idea about Jesus being an earthly king; rather, it points forward to the i%na– goal/purpose clause that concludes the verse: “…that [i%na] I should give witness to the truth”. The verb marture/w is another Johannine key-term, and the theme of witness is prominent throughout the Gospel. The main purpose of the Son’s mission is to give witness to the truth (h( a)lh/qeia).

The dialogue concludes with a follow-up response/question from Pilate, phrased in the language of Johannine essential predication:

“What [ti/] | is [e)stin] | (the) truth [a)lh/qeia]?”

Jesus offers no immediate answer to the question; as in the Gospel tradition (Mk 15:4-5), he (for the moment) remains silent. However, the attentive reader of the Gospel will be able to discern the answer. The answer is threefold, and to be given in the same Johannine theological language of essential predication:

    • First, is the implicit answer that the Son makes known the truth of God the Father—see, especially, this theme as it is expounded in the chapter 17 Discourse-Prayer of Jesus (vv. 3, 6ff)
    • Second, Jesus makes known his identity as the Son of God—who, as the Son, is able to reveal the Father. Jesus declares of himself:
      “I [e)gw/] | am [ei)mi] | …the truth [h( a)lh/qeia]” (14:6)
    • Third, the Son makes himself and the Father known to believers, by giving to them the Spirit—a process that begins during his earthy mission, and concludes with his exaltation (death, resurrection, and departure back to the Father), continuing thereafter by way of the Christian mission. Believers are united with the Son (and the Father) through the Spirit, and, indeed, the Son continues to instruct believers, making the truth of God known through the Spirit. Cf. my earlier notes on the Paraclete-sayings of Jesus.
      As the author of 1 John states:
      “the Spirit [to\ pneu=ma] | is [e)stin] | the truth [h( a)lh/qeia]” (5:6)

In the next study, we will briefly examine the second Dialogue-unit (19:9-11) of the Pilate scene, along with some additional contours of the Kingdom-theme that may be gleaned from elsewhere in the Johannine Writings.

References above marked “Brown” are to Raymond E. Brown, S.S., The Gospel According to John (XIII-XXI), Anchor Bible [AB], vol. 29A (1970).

 

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

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

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

The Kingdom in the Gospel of John

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

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

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

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

John 3:3, 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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