Tag: Son of Man

Saturday Series: John 9:2-3ff

John 9:2-3ff

In the prior studies, it was discussed how the Johannine view of sin involves two distinct levels, or aspects, of meaning. The first defines sin in conventional ethical-religious terms—that is, as misdeeds or wrongs done by people during the course of their daily life. The second defines sin in terms of the great sin of unbelief—of a failure or refusal to trust in Jesus as the Son of God. These two aspects give to the sin-terminology of the noun hamartía, and the related verb hamartánœ, a dual meaning.

Such dual-meaning is not at all uncommon in the Gospel of John; indeed, it is part of the Johannine style, and can be seen throughout both the Gospel Discourses and narrative passages. Many examples could be cited, such as the use of the common verb ménœ (“remain”) or the verb pair anabaínœ / katabaínœ (“step up / step down”). These verbs can be used in the ordinary sense, in a narrative context. For example, the disciples might “remain” with Jesus (1:39), in the sense of staying in the same dwelling-place, or Jesus may be said to “go up” (lit. “step up”) to Jerusalem, in the ordinary sense of journeying/traveling there (2:13, etc); but these verbs are also used in a special theological (and Christological) sense throughout the Gospel.

Another piece of thematic vocabulary with a dual-meaning is the sight/seeing motif, along with its opposite (privative) aspect of lack of sight (i.e., blindness). A person can see with the eyes, in the ordinary physical sense; but ‘seeing’ in the Gospel also refers to trust/belief in Jesus as the Son of God, with the knowledge of God (the Father) that this brings. Similarly, lack of sight, or a failure to see, can mean a failure to trust in Jesus. The light-darkness thematic pair functions the same way in the Johannine writings, with a comparable dual meaning.

Both the seeing/sight and light motifs feature in the chapter 9 episode of Jesus’ healing of the Blind Man, and both motifs have a dual-meaning within the narrative. Chapter 9 does not contain a Discourse, per se, but the narrative features a number of Discourse-elements. The dual-meaning of these motifs, along with the inability of the audience to understand the true and deeper meaning of them, are elements that feature prominently in the Johannine Discourses.

Sin is also a significant thematic and conceptual reference-point throughout the chapter 9 episode, and it involves both of the aspects/levels of meaning highlighted above. The conventional ethical-religious understanding of sin is emphasized at the beginning of the episode, as the disciples ask Jesus about the relation of the blind man’s disability to wrongs (i.e., sins) that may have been done:

“Rabbi, who sinned [h¢¡marten]—this (man) or his parents—that he should (have) come to be (born) blind?” (v. 2)

Jesus makes clear that, at least in this instance (compare 5:14), the man’s blindness was not the result of any particular wrongdoing (sin):

“This (man) did not sin [h¢¡marten], nor (did) his parents, but (it was so) that the works of God should be made to shine forth in him.” (v. 3)

In other words, as in the case of Lazarus’ illness (and death), the ailment was allowed to exist so that the power and glory of God would be manifest through the healing miracle (“work”) performed by Jesus (see 11:4). Through the miracle, it would be clear (to those who would believe) that Jesus is the Son of God who performs the works of God.

The sight/seeing motif is obviously present in the figure of the blind man himself, but the parallel light motif is introduced, also at the beginning of the episode, in the declaration by Jesus in verses 4-5:

“It is necessary for us to work the works of the (One hav)ing sent me as long as it is day, (for) night (soon) comes, when no one is able to work. When I should be in the world, I am (the) light [fœ¡s] of the world.”

Verse 5 is, of course, one of the famous “I am” (egœ eimi) sayings by Jesus in the Gospel of John. This vocabulary and syntax clearly reveals that sight/seeing motif—like the related light motif—has a special theological meaning that is not immediately apparent at the surface-level of the narrative. At the surface-level, Jesus heals the blind man, allowing him to see (vv. 6-7). This is the ordinary physical/optical sight of the eyes.

It is just at this point, as the people begin to react to the healing, that the sin motif starts to be developed within the narrative. At first, it is the neighbors who react to the blind man’s healing (vv. 8-12), but then the Pharisees, functioning (in the narrative) as a collective group of religious authorities, enter the scene (vv. 13ff). Their role is essentially identical with that of “the Jews” in the earlier healing episode in chapter 5 (vv. 1-17). In both episodes, the healing occurs on a Sabbath (5:9b; 9:14), and it is this fact that initially spurs the people’s hostility and opposition to Jesus’ healing work. The Johannine tradition corresponds generally with the Synoptic tradition in this regard (see my earlier articles on the Sabbath Controversy episodes, Parts 4–5 of the series “Jesus and the Law”).

The religious claim is made that Jesus’ healing work on the Sabbath is a violation of the Torah regulations prohibiting work on the Sabbath (Exod 20:10-11, etc). If such a claim were to be admitted as valid, it would be an example of religious wrongdoing (i.e., sin)—violating the Divine regulations of the Torah—and would make Jesus a sinner (hamartœlós), one who commits sin (hamartía). This, of course, would be sin as defined in the traditional and customary ethical-religious sense (see above). The Pharisees imply that Jesus is a sinner, as one who violates the Torah regulations. This, as other people in the audience recognize, would seem to be at odds with Jesus’ ability to work miracles:

“How is a sinful [hamartœlós] man able to do such signs?” (v. 16)

When the blind man himself is asked about this (“What do you say about him, [this man] that opened up your eyes?”), he responds that Jesus must be a prophet (v. 17). This is significant, in the context of the Johannine theology, since Jesus’ Messianic identity as an Anointed Prophet was established earlier in the Gospel (1:20-21ff; 4:19, 25, 29; 6:14; 7:40). In the Johannine writings, the titles “Anointed One” (Messiah) and “Son of God” go hand in hand; any true confession of faith will affirm Jesus’ identity as both the Messiah and Son of God (11:27; 20:31; 1 Jn 1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 5:20). However, according to the developed Johannine Christology, it is not enough to believe that Jesus is the Messiah; one must also trust that he is the eternal (and pre-existent) Son of God, sent from heaven to earth by God the Father.

At this juncture, about halfway through the narrative, the focus shifts from a conventional ethical-religious understanding of sin (aspect/level 1) to the distinctive Johannine theological/Christological understanding (aspect/level 2). This is expressed in a subtle way at the beginning of verse 18:

“The Jehudeans [i.e. Jews] then did not trust [ouk epísteusan] concerning him…”

In the immediate narrative context, this refers to an unwillingness to believe that the blind man had actually been blind. Yet this response actually reflects an unwillingness to believe in the miracle performed by Jesus, as a work of God, performed by the Son of God. Thus, there is implicit here a clear reference to a lack of trust in Jesus (in the Johannine theological sense). Their lack of trust is demonstrated further by the blunt declaration that Jesus is a sinner: “Give honor to God, for we have seen that this (man) is a sinner [hamartœlós]” (v. 24). Now apparently admitting the reality of the healing, the people (“the Jews”) recognize that God must be responsible for it. They thus essentially confess that the healing was a work of God, but that Jesus could not have been responsible, since he “is a sinner”.

The Johannine theology creates a profound irony here. In claiming that Jesus is a sinner, the people are actually showing themselves to be sinners, committing the great sin of unbelief. It is this theological aspect of sin that dominates the remainder of the narrative; at the same time, the true and deeper meaning of the sight/seeing motif also comes to the fore. True sight means trusting in Jesus as the Son of God; and true blindness (lack of sight) is the lack of such trust.

The climax of the narrative (vv. 35-41) demonstrates this Christological emphasis most vividly. Having been given sight in the ordinary physical sense, the man now begins to see in the true and deeper sense of trusting in Jesus. The question Jesus poses in verse 35 is:

“Do you trust in the Son of Man?”
sý pisteúeis eis tón huión toú anthrœ¡pou

Some manuscripts read “Son of God” rather than “Son of Man”, presumably because (quite rightly) “Son of God” is the more appropriate title for a confession of faith. However, two points must be kept in mind. First, in the Gospel tradition, the expression “son of man” often functions as a self-reference by Jesus, as a circumlocution for the pronoun “I”; thus, the question in verse 35 can be taken as essentially meaning “Do you trust in me?”. Secondly, in a number of the “Son of Man” sayings in the Gospel, Jesus is clearly identified (or identifies himself) with a heavenly being, who is sent to earth as a representative of God, to act in His name. In the Gospel of John, in particular, the title “Son of Man” refers specifically to Jesus’ heavenly origin, as the Son sent from heaven by God the Father (1:51; 3:13f; 5:27; 6:27, 53 [in light of vv. 33, 38, 41ff, 51], 62; 12:23; 13:31). In any case, the manuscript evidence overwhelmingly favors the reading “Son of Man” as original here in v. 35.

The true/deeper meaning of the sight-motif is made explicit in verse 37: “Indeed you have seen [heœ¡rakas] him…”. The man’s confession of faith comes in verse 38 (“I trust, Lord”), indicating that now he truly does see. By contrast, those who do not trust in Jesus are truly blind. They are also sinners since they commit the great sin of unbelief; and, indeed, they face judgment from God on the basis of this sin:

“(It is) unto [i.e. for] judgment (that) I came into this world: (so) that the (one)s not seeing should see, and (that) the (one)s seeing should become blind!” (v. 39)

The Pharisees, still thinking of blindness in the ordinary (physical) sense, respond with puzzlement to Jesus’ declaration, asking, “(Surely) we are not also blind?” (v. 40). The episode concludes with a final expository declaration by Jesus, in which he identifies the true meaning of both sin and blindness as being a refusal to trust in him (i.e., unbelief):

“If you were blind, you would not have sin; but (since) now you say that ‘we see’, your sin remains.” (v. 41)

This statement is a rich trove of wordplay, utilizing the Johannine theological vocabulary. Next week, we will examine verse 41 in more detail, along with 15:22-24, in which a similar message is expressed. This follow-up study will demonstrate the way in which the theological/Christological understanding of sin is emphasized in the second half of the Gospel.

August 4: John 6:63 (4)

John 6:63, continued

The Christological emphasis of the question by Jesus in v. 62 was discussed in the previous note. In the narrative context, the question serves as a challenge to Jesus’ disciples in the moment—as to whether they would continue to trust in him—but also is a promise of what they would see (and come to understand) in the future (much like the earlier Son of Man saying in 1:51). The difficulty surrounding Jesus’ words in the Discourse primarily involves his claim of a heavenly origin—i.e., that he has come down (lit. “stepped down”, vb katabai/nw) from heaven. Fundamentally, then, verse 62 entails a Christological point—viz., the disciples can trust that the Son (Jesus) came down from heaven, because they will see him going back up (vb a)nabai/nw, “step up”) to heaven.

Before proceeding, it is worth mentioning briefly the specific wording used in v. 62. The expression “the Son of Man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou) and the verb a)nabai/nw (“step up”), used in the special Johannine theological sense, have already been discussed. The verb qewre/w is one of several sight/seeing verbs used by the Gospel writer—again in the special theological/Christological sense of seeing = knowing = trust in Jesus that leads to knowledge/vision of God. The specific verb qewre/w denotes looking closely at something (vb qea/omai)—i.e., being an observer or spectator (qewro/$). The idea, then, is that the disciples will observe the “stepping up” of the Son of Man (i.e., Jesus), much like the promise of vision in the Son of Man saying of 1:51. The verb occurs 24 times in the Gospel (out of 58 NT occurrences), making it something of a Johannine keyword; for other instances with a clear theological/Christological significance, cf. 6:40; 12:45; 14:17, 19; 16:10, 16-17ff; 17:24.

What is that they will observe? The verb a)nabai/nw, in the special Johannine theological sense (and usage), refers to the exaltation of the Son (by God the Father); elsewhere in the Gospel, this is expressed by the verb u(yo/w (“lift high”), where it is specifically used in Son of Man sayings with a comparable meaning and significance to that of 6:62—cf. 3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34. The “stepping up” by the Son is thus a result of his being “raised/lifted high” by the Father. This ascent, within the context of the Johannine narrative, involves a process—viz., of Jesus’ death, resurrection, and return to the Father. The disciples of Jesus will, in different ways, observe this process. And, when they see him “stepping up” to God the Father, then they will truly understand and know that he has “stepped down” to earth from heaven.

The heavenly origin of the Son is also indicated here by the phrase “(the place) where [o%pou] he was [h@n] at the first [to\ pro/teron]”. The imperfect form of the verb of being (h@n, “he was”) has special significance in the Gospel of John, due to its repeated use in the Prologue (1:1-2, 4, 8-10, 15 [par 30]), where it refers to the eternal pre-existence of the Son (and Logos). Particularly in 1:1-2, the Son’s presence with the Father in heaven is clearly indicated. Jesus’ return to the Father’s presence (in heaven) is alluded to at a number of points in the Gospel (esp. in the Last Discourse), being stated most clearly in 14:28; 16:10, 28, and 17:5, 11, 13, 24. The expression to\ pro/teron (“the first”) is comparable to the use of a)rxh/ (“first, beginning”) in 1:1-2; 8:25; 1 Jn 1:1; 2:13-14; cf. also prw=to$ in 1:15, 30. Again, these terms have Christological significance, in reference to the pre-existence and deity of Jesus (as the Son of God).

Jesus’ statement in v. 63 follows after the Son of Man saying (question) in v. 62, and thus should be understood in light of the Christological emphasis of v. 62. But how, exactly, does v. 63 relate to v. 62? If the question, as both a promise and a challenge, involves seeing the exaltation (“stepping up”) of Jesus (the Son of Man), then it would stand to reason that the statement in v. 63 should be read in this immediate context:

“The Spirit is the (thing) making (a)live, the flesh does not benefit anything! (and) the utterances which I have spoken to you are Spirit and are Life.”

The initial contrast, between the Spirit and the flesh (sa/rc), would then relate to the seeing of the exalted Son of Man—that is, one sees it through the Spirit, not through the ordinary eyes of the flesh. But how does one “see” through the Spirit? This is indicated by Jesus in the earlier Nicodemus Discourse:

“if one does not come to be (born) from above, he is not able to see [i)dei=n] the kingdom of God” (3:3)

As is clear from what follows in vv. 5-8, birth “from above” (which is also a new/second birth, via the dual-meaning of a&nwqen) means the same as birth “out of the Spirit” (e)c pneu/mato$). Elsewhere in the Johannine writings (esp. 1 John), the idiom is “coming to be (born) out of God [e)k qeou=]” (1:13, etc); but since God is Spirit (4:24), the two expressions are essentially equivalent—i.e., “out of God” = “out of the Spirit”. Once a person is born of the Spirit, he/she is able to see God and the things of God (“kingdom of God”); but it is spiritual, rather than physical, sight. Cf. the symbolism of the chapter 9 healing miracle, with the thematic motif of Jesus Christ as light (by which one sees, 1:4-9; 3:19-21; 8:12; 9:5; 11:9-10; 12:35-36, 46; 1 Jn 1:5ff; 2:8ff).

The emphasis in 6:63 is on the Spirit giving life; however, in the Gospel of John, light and life are closely connected—with the light of Jesus Christ leading to eternal life for those who trust in him (1:4; 3:19ff [in the context of vv. 15-17]; 8:12; 11:9-10 [in the narrative context of resurrection/life]). Similarly, in the Bread of Life Discourse, those who “eat” Jesus (meaning trusting in him) will have eternal life (6:27, 33, 40, 47, 51-54, 58); this is the significance of the expression “bread of life” (vv. 35, 48) and “living bread” (v. 51). The Father gives this Divine/eternal Life to the Son, and the Son, in turn, gives it to believers (v. 57; cf. also 5:25-26; 14:19).

The development of these Christological themes in the Bread of Life Discourse is complex, and vv. 62-63 represent the climax of this development. In the next daily note, we will continue with the current discussion, looking at some of the Christological aspects of verse 63 in more detail.

August 3: John 6:63 (3)

John 6:63, continued

Having considered, in the previous note, the parallels between the Son of Man sayings in 3:13ff and 6:62, we may now examine the enigmatic and provocative question posed by Jesus:

“(And) if, then, you should observe the Son of Man stepping up (to) where he was at first…?” (v. 62)

This question is in response to the grumbling complaint by his disciples (some of them, at least), to the effect that his teaching in the Bread of Life Discourse (“this word”, o( lo/go$ ou!to$) is “harsh” (or “hard”, sklhro/$), v. 60. Jesus’ initial response is to ask “Does this trip you up?” (v. 61); then he continues with the question in v. 62.

Most commentators regard this as an elliptical question, consisting only of its conditional protasis, and thus left hanging—with its apodosis omitted or unspoken. Many translators take the simplest approach and fill out the question “…what then?” —i.e., “And if you were to see the Son of Man stepping up (to) where he was at first, what then?” But this does not really explain the thrust of Jesus’ question—does it imply the possibility of greater understanding, or does it offer a rebuke to the disciples, or both?

If the difficulty of Jesus’ teaching for his disciples involved the idea that he had “stepped down” (vb katabai/nw) from heaven (implying his heavenly origin), then surely his “stepping (back) up” (vb a)nabai/nw) would demonstrate the truth of his words. The a)nabai/nw/katabai/nw verb pair was used in both of the prior Son of Man sayings in the Gospel of John (1:51; 3:13ff), as discussed in the previous note. Particularly in 3:13, the emphasis is on the heavenly origin of the “Son of Man”; in the Bread of Life Discourse, Jesus indicates his own heavenly origin (vv. 35, 38, 41-42, 50f, 57-58), making it clear that he is identifying himself with the Son of Man figure (for more on this figure-type, cf. Part 10 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”). The thrust of the question in v. 62, then, would seem to be:

“If you should see me going back up to the place where I was at first [i.e. with God the Father in heaven], then would you believe that I have come down from heaven?”

In the (theological) context of the Johannine narrative, the “stepping up” of the Son—i.e., his exaltation (vb u(yo/w, “lift high” [cf. 3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34], par. to a)nabai/nw)—refers to the process of his death, resurrection, and return to the Father. The circle of Jesus’ close disciples are witnesses to this process; thus, in a real sense, the question in v. 62 entails a promise to the disciples (i.e., of what they will see), much like the Son of Man saying in 1:51.

At the same time, it presents a challenge to Jesus’ followers in the moment—a moment of decision: will they continue to trust in him, despite the difficulty of his words, or will they turn away? According to v. 66, many of his followers turned away; verse 67 suggests that only the Twelve remained (of whom only eleven were true disciples, vv. 70-71). In any case, the clear implication is that the group of Jesus’ devoted followers was greatly reduced to a much smaller circle, and that his teaching (in the Bread of Life Discourse) played a role in this development.

The Christological focus of the challenge is perhaps to be implied by the use of the term lo/go$ in v. 60: “This word [lo/go$] is hard—who is able to hear it?” If the fundamental difficulty for the disciples involved Jesus’ claim of a heavenly origin, then an allusion to the Gospel Prologue, with its important use of lo/go$ (1:1ff, 14), is likely intended by the Gospel writer. This is only one aspect of the difficulty surrounding Jesus’ teaching (in the Discourse), but it is the primary focus of v. 62.

In the chapter 6 narrative, there is a subtle and implied narrowing of the audience for Jesus’ words—from a large public crowd (vv. 22-25ff), to a smaller group of Jews in the synagogue (vv. 41ff, 52ff, cf. verse 59), to Jesus’ own disciples (vv. 60ff). Some commentators would attribute this to a complex authoring/editorial process, involving different layers and stages of composition for the Gospel. According to at least one theory (by U. C. van Wahlde in his 3-volume commentary [Eerdmans Critical Commentary series, 2010]), Jesus’ question here in vv. 61c-62 belongs to the third edition of the Gospel, along with the eucharistic verses 51-58 (V2: pp. 319-22, 330-2). According to his reconstruction, in the second edition of the Gospel, the Discourse concluded with vv. 47-50 (and the notice in v. 59), after which came the disciples’ grumbling response in v. 60; Jesus then responds (v. 61ab) with the Spirit-statement of v. 63, without any reference to the Son of Man question in v. 62.

While such theories are intriguing, they remain highly speculative. In any case, the last author/editor of the Gospel (i.e., van Wahlde’s third edition) certainly intended to emphasize the Christological aspect of the narrative, by adding/including the Son of Man question in v. 62. It is therefore necessary for us to consider the verse in its present context. And, in the present context, the Spirit-saying in v. 63, follows the Son of Man question in v. 62. The Spirit-saying thus relates specifically to the Christological emphasis that is brought to bear by the question in v. 62. We must keep this in mind, as we turn now to examine verse 63, which we will begin to do in the next daily note.

August 2: John 6:63 (2)

John 6:63, continued

This set of notes is examining the saying of Jesus in John 6:63, from a Christological standpoint—that is, in terms of the Johannine Christology, as expressed (primarily) in the Gospel. This Christological aspect is largely established by the immediate context of the verse—particularly, the words of Jesus in vv. 61-62. However, in order to understand the significance of the Son of Man saying in v. 62, we must first examine the earlier parallel in 3:13. Here again I give vv. 12-15 in translation (cf. the previous note):

“If I told you (about) the (thing)s on earth, and you do not trust, how (then), if should tell you (about) the (thing)s above (the) heavens, will you trust? (For) indeed, no one has stepped up into heaven, if not the (one hav)ing stepped down out of heaven—the Son of Man. And, just as Moshe lifted high the snake in the desolate (land), so it is necessary (for) the Son of Man to be lifted high, (so) that every (one) trusting in him should hold (the) Life of the Age(s) [i.e., eternal life].”

There are several points of emphasis here that are clearly relevant to the context of 6:62f, and form distinct parallels in terms of the Johannine theology and mode of expression. Let us consider each of these.

1. Jesus’ self-identification as the Son of Man. Throughout the Gospel Tradition, Jesus frequently refers to himself as “the Son of Man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou), or identifies himself with that expression. In a number of the Son of Man sayings, the expression designates a heavenly figure, who functions as God’s chosen representative (in an eschatological setting), drawing upon a line of (Jewish) tradition based on Daniel 7:13-14. For more on this background, cf. Part 10 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed,” and the supplemental study on Dan 7:13-14 in relation to the Son of Man sayings. In other sayings, Jesus uses the expression in reference to his suffering and death. Both of these aspects are present in the Johannine sayings, including here in 3:13ff.

2. The use of a)nabai/nw/katabai/nw, in connection with the Son of Man figure. The Gospel of John regularly uses the common verbs a)nabai/nw (“step up”, i.e. come/go up) and katabai/nw (“step down,” i.e. come/go down) in a distinctive theological (and Christological) sense. The verb a)nabai/nw refers (or alludes) to the incarnation and mission of the Son—his “stepping down” to earth; similarly, the verb katabai/nw refers to the completion of his mission, and to his exaltation (“stepping up”) and return to the Father. Both verbs occur in the first Johannine Son of Man saying (1:51), and also here in 3:13ff. From a Christological standpoint, both verbs signify the heavenly origin of Jesus—as the Divine/eternal Son, sent to earth by God the Father. The use of the expression “Son of Man” conveys this aspect in traditional (eschatological and Messianic) language (cf. above).

3. Association with Moses traditions—fulfillment of the Moses figure-type. The context of 3:13 and 6:62, in each case, entails the application of ancient Moses-traditions to the person of Jesus. In 3:13ff, it is the ‘bronze serpent’ tradition (Num 21:9), while 6:62 (in its literary setting) is connected with the manna tradition(s) (Exod 16; Num 11:7-9; Deut 8:3ff), by way of the phrase “bread out of heaven” (6:31ff; Psalm 78:24-25; 105:40; Neh 9:15, 20). In each instance, the traditional motif and symbolism is applied to the person (and work) of Jesus, as the fulfillment of a type. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus is associated, in a comparative way, with Moses (3:14; 6:32), indicating how he, as the true fulfillment of the figure-type, far surpasses Moses himself—cf. 1:17; 5:45-46; 7:19ff; 9:28-29. There are numerous other allusions, developing this same theme (comparing Jesus with Moses and/or the Torah); beyond this, the very conception of Jesus as the Messiah, in the Gospel of John, seems to be centered (primarily) on the Messianic Prophet figure-types (including Moses as “the Prophet” who is to come)—1:21, 25; 4:25ff; 6:14; 7:40; cf. Part 3 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”.

4. Jesus’ fulfillment of the Tradition has the ultimate purpose of producing trust in him (leading to eternal life). This is clearly stated in 3:15 (continuing in vv. 16ff), and is equally prominent in the Bread of Life Discourse (6:27, 33, 35, 40, 47f, 51ff, 57-58), leading up to vv. 62-63 (cf. also v. 68).

With these important parallels in mind, let us turn to 6:62. We must keep in view the immediate context; in response to Jesus’ teaching (in the Discourse), some of his disciples declared: “This word [lo/go$] is hard—who is able to hear it?” (v. 60). The adjective sklhro/$ is typically translated “hard”, but fundamentally means “dry” (vb ske/llw, “be[come] dry”). The basic connotation is of the harshness of dry ground, etc; here, in the context of the Moses/Exodus traditions (cf. above), it almost certainly alludes to Israel’s experience during the desert/wilderness journey, when the people grumbled (for lack of food and water, etc). Indeed, this allusion would seem to be confirmed by the use of the verb goggu/zw (“murmur, mutter,” often in the sense of complaining, i.e., “grumble”); cf. LXX Exod 16:7; Num 11:1; 14:27, etc:

“And Yeshua, having seen [i.e. known] (with)in himself that his learners [i.e. disciples] were muttering [goggu/zousin] about this, said to them: ‘Does this trip you up?'” (v. 61)

The verb skandali/zw is a bit difficult to translate in English; it essentially refers to a person falling into a trap (or snare, ska/ndalon), with the verb skandali/zw denoting the cause of falling. It is typically used in a generalized and figurative sense for anything that can ‘trip up’ a person. In the New Testament, it occurs almost exclusively (26 of 29 occurrences) in the Gospel sayings/teaching of Jesus—in the Gospel of John, only here and in 16:1; for use outside of the Gospels, see 1 Cor 8:13; 2 Cor 11:29.

What is it that “trips up” (skandali/zei) the disciples? In the literary context (of the Bread of Life Discourse), it can only be Jesus’ teaching identifying himself with the “bread from heaven” (cf. the discussion in the previous note). Two aspects of this identification would have been particularly problematic: (1) the implication that Jesus has come down (vb katabai/nw) from heaven, and thus has a heavenly origin; and (2) that, as the true bread, it is necessary for a person to eat Jesus. On the latter point, Jesus clearly, in the Discourse, explains this in terms of trusting in him; even so, it would have been difficult for people at the time to have understood this application of the idiom. Even more provocative is the eucharistic language in vv. 51-58, which further elaborates the problematic idea of eating Jesus (as bread) in terms of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. When viewed from the standpoint of the original historical context—i.e., teaching Jesus would have given to his disciples and others at the time (see v. 59)—this would have made no immediate sense whatsoever. The thought of consuming a person’s flesh and blood would, indeed, have struck many in the audience as harsh (and offensive).

One can certainly sympathize with the disciples’ response. Jesus’ own response, in turn, is seemingly ambiguous and enigmatic:

“(And) if, then, you should observe the Son of Man stepping up (to) where he was at first…?” (v. 62)

This curious question will be examined in the next daily note.

August 1: John 6:63 (1)

John 6:63

“The Spirit is the (thing) making (a)live, the flesh does not benefit anything! (and) the utterances which I have spoken to you are Spirit and are Life.”

This famous Spirit-reference in John 6:63 has featured as an important part of recent discussions in the series “Spiritualism and the New Testament” —cf. the article and supplemental note. I thought it worth giving more consideration to this provocative reference, looking at it particularly from a Christological standpoint. In the prior studies, the emphasis tended to be exegetical and interpretive. The mention of Jesus’ words (“utterances” r(h/mata) has naturally led commentators to explain v. 63 in relation to the words of Jesus in the Bread of Life Discourse (vv. 22-59)—that is, the statement in v. 63 further expounds the message and teaching(s) of the Discourse. Beyond this, the specific contrast between Spirit and flesh (sa/rc) has been understood, in various ways, as an explication of the use of sa/rc in vv. 51-58.

Commentators have not examined v. 63 much from the standpoint of the Johannine Christology;

A rare exception is the brief discussion by George Johnston, The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 12 (Cambridge: 1970), pp. 22-8.

however, in light of the immediate context of Jesus’ question in v. 62, a Christological examination would seem to be warranted.

Admittedly, the question in v. 62 has proven rather enigmatic, the precise thrust of it being difficult to determine—at least for readers and commentators today. Some of Jesus’ disciples themselves had complained about the difficulty of their master’s words: “This word [lo/go$] is hard—who is able to hear it?” (v. 60). While vv. 60ff may represent an originally separate tradition, unrelated to the preceding Discourse, in the literary setting of the Gospel, it can only refer to Jesus’ teaching in vv. 22-59—and, most likely, to the specific words (and the eucharistic language) in vv. 51-58.

But the thrust of the Discourse is Christological. Specifically, Jesus identifies himself as the “bread having come down out of heaven” (v. 41, 51); in contrast to the manna sent by God (through the mediation of Moses), Jesus is the true (a)lhqino/$) bread from heaven (vv. 32-33, 38ff, 55, 58; cf. v. 31; Psalm 78:25; 105:40; Neh 9:15), and the living bread (vv. 35, 48ff, 51ff)—specifically in the sense that it is ‘bread’ which gives (eternal) life to those who ‘eat’ it (vv. 40, 47, 51, 54, 57-58). The implication is that Jesus has come down (vb katabai/nw) from heaven, having been sent from God the Father.

This further implies the pre-existence Christology of the Johannine Gospel—entailing Jesus’ identity as the eternal (and pre-existent) Son (and  Logos) of God. This Christology is expressed most clearly in the Prologue (1:1-18), and again in the chap. 17 Prayer-Discourse (vv. 1-5), but it can be seen throughout the entire Gospel, running as a thread through the Discourses. Earlier in the Discourses, this thematic motif of “coming down” (lit. “stepping down,” vb katabai/nw) was associated specifically with Jesus’ identity as the “Son of Man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou). While the expression “Son of Man,” and Jesus’ use of it, is more common in the Synoptic Gospels, it occurs at a number of points of the Gospel of John as well, indicating that it was a significant part of the Johannine tradition (no less than the Synoptic).

The first Son of Man saying, also utilizing the verb katabai/nw (and its parallel, a)nabai/nw, “step up”) is the enigmatic vision-saying in 1:51. The next occurs in 3:13f, which is more directly relevant to the Bread of Life Discourse. It is worth citing vv. 12-15 together:

“If I told you (about) the (thing)s on earth, and you do not trust, how (then), if should tell you (about) the (thing)s above (the) heavens, will you trust? (For) indeed, no one has stepped up into heaven, if not the (one hav)ing stepped down out of heaven—the Son of Man. And, just as Moshe lifted high the snake in the desolate (land), so it is necessary (for) the Son of Man to be lifted high, (so) that every (one) trusting in him should hold (the) Life of the Age(s) [i.e., eternal life].”

The points of emphasis in these verses are particularly significant for a proper understanding of 6:61-63, in their Johannine literary and theological context. These will be discussed in the next daily note, in preparation for applying the points to the statement in 6:62.

 

The Passion Narrative: Episode 4 (Mk 14:53-72 par)

The Interrogation (“Trial”) of Jesus before the Sanhedrin

Episode 4

The “trial” of Jesus, which the Gospel Tradition preserves in two episodes—(1) an interrogation by the Sanhedrin and (2) and examination by the Roman governor (Pilate)—has been one of the most hotly debated aspects of the Passion narrative, primarily in terms of the historicity of the differing Gospel accounts. I will not be dealing extensively with all the historical-critical questions, but I address certain points related specifically to the Sanhedrin episode in a supplemental note.

There would seem to be three primary lines of tradition preserved:

    1. What we may call the core Synoptic tradition, represented by Mark and Matthew
    2. The Lukan version, which only partly follows the Synoptic, and
    3. The Johannine, which differs considerably in various ways

Even though many critical scholars feel that John preserves the most accurate historical detail and ordering of events, I will continue the method in this series of beginning with the Synoptic Tradition, represented primarily by the Gospel of Mark.

Mark 14:53-72; Matthew 26:57-75; Luke 22:54-71

The Markan outline of the episode is as follows:

    • Vv. 53-54—Introduction, establishing the two scenes:
      • (a) The assembly of the Chief Priests, Elders and Scribes—i.e. the Council (Sanhedrin), v. 53
      • (b) Peter waiting outside in the courtyard of the High Priest, v. 54
    • Vv. 55-65—Jesus before the Council (Sanhedrin, synédrion), which may be divided into three parts:
      • The (false) witnesses against Jesus, with a report of the “Temple-saying” (vv. 55-59)
      • The question by the High Priest, with Jesus’ response (vv. 60-62)
      • The judgment against Jesus, with the subsequent mocking/mistreatment of him (vv. 63-65)
    • Vv. 66-72—Peter’s three-fold denial of Jesus

I will be discussing the scene of Peter’s denial in more detail in an upcoming note (on the Peter traditions in the Passion and Resurrection narratives). It is important to emphasize two facts:

    • The essential outline of the three denials, and the basic setting/location, are common to all four Gospels, indicating an extremely well-established and fixed tradition. The three-fold denial can be assumed (on objective grounds) to derive from a reliable historical tradition, since a single denial surely would have been sufficient in terms of its place and value in the narrative.
    • The specific details with regard to how each denial took place—where and when it occurred, who was involved, etc—differ considerably between Mark/Matthew, Luke and John. Even between Mark and Matthew, otherwise so close at this point, there are key differences. This indicates that the precise details surrounding the denials were not nearly so well-established, and remained fluid in the way they were presented by each Gospel writer. For a convenient comparative chart showing the many differences in detail, see R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, Anchor Bible [AB] Vol. 29, 29A (1970), pp. 830-1.

Each Gospel writer understood the dramatic power of the denial scene, and felt free to explore and express this creatively. Consider the slight but significant difference between the introduction in Mk 14:54 and Matt 26:58—the description of Peter in the courtyard is very close, except for the final words which set the dramatic tension:

    • Mark creates a vivid visual picture: “…and he was…warming himself toward the light [i.e. in front of the fire]”
    • While Matthew has a more psychological orientation: “..and he sat… (waiting) to see the completion [i.e. how things would end]”

The rooster crow of the original tradition is also extremely evocative, indicating that Peter suddenly awakes to realize what he has done. The effect is emphasized by his sudden weeping (in remorse/regret); Matthew and Luke share a detail in common here, specifically stating that Peter went away (outside of the courtyard): “…and going outside he wept bitterly” (Matt 26:72; par Lk 22:62). The rooster crow, together with Peter’s reaction, is the climactic moment of the episode in Mark/Matthew.

Luke (22:54-71) treats the scene differently in the way he has ordered events, placing it first in the episode, ahead of the interrogation of Jesus. The effect of this is two-fold:

    • It makes Jesus’ response to the Council (vv. 66-71) the climactic moment of the episode, and
    • It joins Peter’s denial to betrayal of Jesus by Judas (vv. 47-53 + 54-62), just as the author does in the Last Supper scene. In the earlier episode this appears to have been done, in part, to emphasize the theme of true and false discipleship, by connecting the prediction of Judas’ betrayal (vv. 21-23) to the prediction of Peter’s denial (vv. 31-34) with a short block of teaching (vv. 24-30) between.

In contrast to the accounts in Luke and John, Mark and Matthew portray the scene of Jesus before the Council in terms of a formal trial, with witnesses and the delivery of a sentence. This portrait informs the structure of the scene, with its three parts.

Part 1—The Witnesses against Jesus (Mk 14:55-59; Matt 26:59-62)

The Synoptic tradition here records that the Council desperately sought to find witnesses against Jesus (to support a sentence of death), but they could find no reliable testimony. The only charge brought against Jesus was a report of a saying regarding the Temple (the so-called “Temple saying”); interestingly, Matthew and Mark differ in the wording of this (as it was reported in the narrative):

“I will loose down [i.e. dissolve/destroy] this shrine made-with-hands, and through [i.e. after] three days I will build another (house) made-without-hands” (Mk 14:58)
“I am able to loose down [i.e. dissolve/destroy] the shrine of God, and through [i.e. after] three days to build (the house again)” (Matt 26:61)

Mark and Matthew both state that this report was made by false witnesses, presumably implying that the report was false (i.e. that Jesus never said any such thing). The closest we come in the Synoptics is Jesus’ prediction of the Temple’s destruction in Mark 13:2 par. However, the Gospel of John records a saying by Jesus rather similar to that which is reported by the “false” witnesses:

“Loose [i.e. dissolve/destroy] this shrine and in three days I will raise it (again)!” (Jn 2:19)

If we accept this as an authentic saying by Jesus, occurring at the time of the Temple “cleansing” scene (located close to the Passion narrative in the Synoptics), then the report of the “false” witnesses could certainly reflect the memory of such a saying. The Gospel of John, of course, specifically interprets the saying in 2:19 as referring to the death and resurrection of Jesus himself (vv. 21-22)—an interpretation most appropriate in the context of the Passion narrative. For more on the Temple saying (and cleansing) traditions, cf. my earlier notes and article on the subject.

Part 2—The Question by the High Priest (Mk 14:60-62; Matt 26:62-64)

The initial question by the High Priest (identified in Matthew as Caiaphas) relates to the testimony of the “false” witnesses, and to this Jesus gives no answer (Mk 14:60-61a). The second question is central to the episode (and the entire Passion narrative), as well as serving as the climactic statement regarding the identity of Jesus within the Synoptic Tradition. In Mark, the exchange is:

    • High Priest: “Are you the Anointed One [ho Christós], the Son of the (One) spoken well of [i.e. Blessed One, God]?” (v. 61b)
    • Jesus: “I am—and you will see the Son of Man sitting out of the giving [i.e. right-hand] (side) of the Power and coming with the clouds of Heaven!” (v. 62)

For more on this saying, see my earlier notes and the article on the title “Son of Man” in the series “Yeshua the Anointed”. The Son of Man saying here is an allusion both to Daniel 7:13 and Psalm 110:1—Scripture passages which were enormously influential in shaping early Christian thought regarding the nature and identity of Jesus. As I have argued elsewhere, in the Son of Man sayings with an eschatological orientation, Jesus appears to identify himself specifically with the heavenly figure called “Son of Man” (from Daniel’s “one like a son of man”, 7:13)—who will appear at the end-time to deliver God’s people and oversee the Judgment on humankind. Early Christian tradition associated it specifically with the image of the exalted Jesus seated at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55-56, etc).

Matthew’s version of the Son of Man saying (26:64) is close to that in Mark, but the question by the High Priest shows signs of development—i.e., it has been shaped to echo the confession by Peter in 16:16:

    • Peter: “You are the Anointed One, the Son of the Living God”
    • Caiaphas: “I require an oath out of you, according to the Living God, that you would say (to us) if you are the Anointed One, the Son of God!”

For more on the differences in this scene, see below.

Part 3—The Judgment and mistreatment of Jesus (Mk 14:63-65; Matt 26:65-68)

The reaction to Jesus’ response—in particular, the identification of himself as the heavenly/divine “Son of Man” —results in the charge of blasphemy, i.e. that he has insulted (vb. blaspheméœ) God by claiming divine status and attributes. This is the basis for their decision that he is one who holds on him [i.e. against him] the (grounds for) death (énochos thanátou estin). The mistreatment of Jesus is parallel to the more expanded tradition of his being mocked by the Roman guards (Mk 15:16-20 par), and would certainly be seen as a fulfillment of the Passion prediction in Mk 10:32-34 par.

Luke 22:54-71 and John 18:12-27

As noted above, Luke has the scenes in reverse order from that of Mark/Matthew, resulting in three distinct parts:

    • Peter’s Denial (vv. 54-62)
    • Mistreatment of Jesus (vv. 63-65)
    • Jesus before the Council (vv. 66-71)

The question of whether Luke has the more correct historical order of events is discussed in the supplemental note on the Trial episode. I mentioned the significance for the author of joining together the failure of the two disciples—Judas (the Betrayal, vv. 21-23, 47-53) and Peter (the Denial, vv. 31-34, 54-62)—to bring out the theme of true discipleship, found in vv. 25-30 and the double exhortation of the Lukan Prayer scene (vv. 40, 46). The unique detail of Jesus turning to look at Peter following the rooster crow (v. 61a) probably should be taken as parallel to the words of Jesus to Peter in vv. 31-32—a sign of care and concern. The connection also serves to enhance the dramatic moment when Peter realizes what he has done, and how it had been foreseen by Jesus (v. 61b).

The Lukan version of the Council scene, though clearly drawing upon the same basic tradition as Mark/Matthew, is presented in a very different form. Apart from the morning setting (v. 66a, cf. the supplemental note), Luke’s version has the following differences:

    • There is no reference to the witnesses or Temple-saying (see above), thus removing the sense that this is a formal trial.
    • Luke presents the Council as a whole questioning Jesus, rather than the High Priest specifically (vv. 66b, 70a [“they all said…”]). The Council plays a similar collective role in Luke’s version of the Roman trial scene (23:13ff, 18ff).
    • The question involving the titles “Anointed One” and “Son of God” is divided into two distinct questions, separated by the Son of Man saying by Jesus (vv. 67-70):
      • “If you are the Anointed One, say (it) to [i.e. tell] us” (v. 67)
      • Jesus: “…but from now on the Son of Man will be sitting out of the giving [i.e. right-hand] (side) of the power of God” (v. 69)
      • “Then you are the Son of God…?” (v. 70)

Historical considerations aside, this arrangement may be intended to make a theological (and Christological) point—namely, that Jesus is something more than the Anointed One (i.e. Messiah) as understood by the traditional figure-types of an expected end-time Prophet or Davidic ruler. The allusion to Psalm 110:1 reminds us of the interesting tradition, set in the general context of the Passion (the last days in Jerusalem), in which Jesus discusses the meaning and significance of this verse (Mk 12:35-37 par). For more on this, cf. my earlier series “Yeshua the Anointed” (esp. Part 8, and Part 12 on the title “Son of God”).

While the form of the Son of Man saying is relatively fixed between the Synoptic Gospels, that of Jesus’ initial answer to the question(s) by the Council differs markedly. In Mk 14:62, Jesus gives a clear affirmative answer: “I am”, while Matthew’s version (26:64) is much more ambiguous— “You said (it)”, and could be understood in the sense of “You said it, not me”. Because Luke records two separate questions, Jesus gives two answers:

    • To the question “If you are the Anointed One, tell us”: “If I say (it) to you, you will (certainly) not trust (it), and if I question you (about it), you (certainly) will not answer.” (vv. 67b-68)
    • To the question “Then are you the Son of God?”: “You say that I am.” (v. 70b)

The second Lukan answer seems to combine both the Markan and Matthean forms—truly an interesting example of variation and development within the Gospel tradition.

John 18:12-27

John’s account of this episode differs again from the Synoptics (its relation to the Lukan order/arrangement of events is discussed in the supplemental note). The two main points of difference are:

    • There is no scene of Jesus before the Council, as in the Synoptics; rather we find different interrogation scene in the house of the chief priest Annas (formerly the High Priest A.D. 6-15). The introductory notice (18:13) states that Annas was the father-in-law of the current Chief Priest Caiaphas (A.D. 18-36). Verse 19 is ambiguous, but the reference in v. 24 indicates that Annas is the “Chief Priest” interrogating Jesus (see also Luke 3:2).
    • Peter’s denial is intercut with the interrogation scene:
      • Scene 1—Jesus is arrested and let to Annas (vv. 12-14)
        —Peter’s First Denial (vv. 14-18)
      • Scene 2—Jesus is interrogated by Annas (vv. 19-24)
        —Peter’s Second and Third Denials (vv. 25-27)

Clearly John’s Gospel is drawing upon a separate line of tradition. The interrogation scene in vv. 19-24 is surprisingly undramatic, compared with the Synoptic version, but it fits the essential portrait of Jesus in the Johannine Passion narrative. As I discussed in the earlier study on Garden scene, the depiction of Jesus’ calm and commanding authority is set in contrast to Peter’s rash and violent act with the sword. The intercutting in verses 12-27, I believe, serves much the same purpose—to juxtapose Jesus’ calm and reasoned response to the interrogation (vv. 20-21) with Peter’s reaction to the ones interrogating him.

It is hard to tell how much development has gone into the tradition recorded in vv. 13-14, 19-24. We do find several Johannine themes present in Jesus’ response:

    • His presence in the world, speaking (the words of the Father)
    • His public teaching in the Synagogue and Temple, which reflects the great Discourses of chapters 6-8 and 10:22-39.
    • The emphasis on his followers (disciples) as those who bear witness to him

Overall, however, the development would seem to be slight, compared with the dialogue scenes between Jesus and Pilate in 18:33-38; 19:9-11 (to be discussed).

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

Daniel 12:1ff

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

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

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

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

Daniel 12:1

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

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

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

1. The role of Michael

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

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

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

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

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

2. The Time of “Distress”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verses 2-4 and Conclusion

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Daniel 7:13-14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sound arguments can be made for each of these:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An important point lies in the way that heavenly and human beings are united in the term “holy ones” (Heb. <yvdwq, Aram. /yvydq). Although a few instances are uncertain or disputed, the majority of occurrences of the plural “holy ones” in the Old Testament would seem to refer to heavenly beings (i.e. Angels)—Deut 33:2; Psalm 89:5, 7; Job 5:1; 15:15; Dan 4:17; Zech 14:5, and cf. also the LXX of Exod 15:11. The only clear instances where “holy ones” refer to human beings (on earth) are in Deut 33:3 (cf. the par with verse 2); Psalm 16:3; 34:10. Especially significant is the usage in the Qumran texts, which in many ways are close to the eschatological/apocalyptic imagery and thought-world of Daniel, and, indeed, were certainly influenced by the book. The Qumran Community saw itself as connected with the Angels—the holy/righteous ones on earth, corresponding to the Holy Ones in Heaven. Indeed, they referred to themselves as “congregation of the holy ones”, and in 1QM 10:10; 12:7; 1QH 11:11-12 we find the very expression (“people of the holy ones”) as in Dan 7:27; note also the variant formula “holy ones of the people” (1QM 6:6; 16:1).

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

What of the traditional interpretation of the “one like a son of man” with the Messiah in Jewish thought? Apart from the possible example of 4Q246 from Qumran, this association does not seem to have been clearly formed until the 1st century A.D. In the Similitudes of Enoch, the Son of Man figure, certainly inspired by Daniel 7, is specifically called “(the) Anointed One” (1 En 48:10; 52:4); cf. also the context in 2/4 Esdras 13 (late 1st-century A.D.). The Messianic interpretation came to be the dominant view in Rabbinic literature (b. Sanh. 89a; Num. Rabbah 13:14, et al); even the plural “thrones” in Dan 7:9 could be understood in this light (one throne for God, one for the Messiah), as traditionally expressed by R. Akiba (b. Chag. 14a; b. Sanh. 38b).

Dan 7:13-14 in the Gospel Tradition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“…and you will look with (open) eyes (at) the Son of Man, sitting out of (the) giving (hand) [i.e. at the right hand] of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven!” (Mk 14:62)

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

From this point, we can see how, for early Christians, the Messianic interpretation of Dan 7:13-14 was applied to the person of Jesus—first in terms of his exaltation to the right hand of God in heaven (from whence he will come at the end-time Judgment), and subsequently, in terms of his pre-existent deity. According to either strand of tradition and belief, his divine/heavenly status and position was superior to that of the Angels, just as the “one like a son of man” would seem to hold a special and exalted place in the context of Daniel 7. As mentioned above, the identification of Jesus with this divine/heavenly figure appears to go back to the (authentic) early layers of Gospel tradition, and the Son of Man sayings by Jesus himself (for more on this, see in Part 10 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”).

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

April 5: Mark 9:31-32 (continued)

Mark 9:31-32, continued

“…the Son of Man is being given along into (the) hands of men”

The first portion of Jesus’ second Passion-prediction (Mk 9:31 par) is centered on the verb paradi/dwmi, “give along, give over”. Here, the specific meaning relates to giving someone over to the authorities (as an accused criminal, etc). In the first prediction, the emphasis was on Jesus’ suffering (he will “suffer many things”). An important aspect of this suffering, and the moment that will instigate Jesus’ Passion, is his betrayal (by Judas), when he will, quite literally, be “given over” into the hands of the Jewish authorities. In turn, following the interrogation before the Sanhedrin, he will be “given over” again, to the Roman authorities.

The verb paradi/dwmi is used in the Gospels almost exclusively in reference to the betrayal of Jesus. It features prominently in the Passion narrative itself (Mk 14:18, 21, 41ff par; Jn 13:2; 18:2, etc), and, in the Eschatological Discourse, Jesus tells his disciples that they will be “given over” to the authorities as well (Mk 13:9-12 par), following his own example. Elsewhere in the New Testament, the verb tends to be used in the more general (and positive) sense of the Gospel message and early Christian tradition that is “given along” from one generation to the next.

As in the first Passion-prediction, Jesus uses the title (or expression) “Son of Man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou) as a self-reference. The significance of this was discussed in a prior note (cf. also my earlier set of notes and the article in the series “Yeshua the Anointed”). Of special importance is how the title relates to the human condition, in a basic sense, but specifically to human mortality. In these (and other) “Son of Man sayings,” Jesus effectively identifies himself with the human condition, especially in its experience of suffering and death. The background of the expression “son of man” (in Old Testament poetry, etc) frequently emphasizes the limited dimension of human (mortal) life, in comparison with the Divine/Eternal life of God.

The predicate of this primary statement in the prediction is the prepositional phrase “into (the) hands of men” (ei)$ xei=ra$ a)nqrw/pwn). The expression “hands of men” simply refers to the power/control wielded by human authority. In other words, the expression is another way of saying that Jesus will be handed over to the Jewish government, the ruling authorities, in Jerusalem. The first Passion-prediction clearly refers to the interrogation of Jesus before the ruling Council (Sanhedrin) in Jerusalem, and that is the primary point of reference here as well. The betrayal by Judas led to Jesus being taken into custody by the Jewish authorities, after which his interrogation before the Sanhedrin would follow.

In Matthew and Luke (Matt 17:22; Lk 9:44), the form of this part of the prediction is:

“the Son of Man is about to be given along into (the) hands of men”

The modal verb me/llei (“about to [be]”) + infinitive more accurately reflects the context of the Gospel narrative—that is, the betrayal will occur soon, but it is not happening right now. It represents a minor agreement between Matthew and Luke (against Mark), but is of the sort that could easily have been introduced independently. Curiously Luke omits (or otherwise does not include) the second part of the prediction (regarding the death and resurrection of Jesus). This means that the Lukan form of the prediction consists entirely of the portion cited above. The author also introduces the prediction in a distinctive (and rather dramatic) manner:

“…and all of them were knocked out upon (witnessing) the greatness of God. And, (as they) were wondering upon all the (thing)s which he did, he said to his learners [i.e. disciples], ‘You must put these words into your ears: for the Son of Man is about to be given along into (the) hands of men’.” (9:43-44)

In some ways, the Lukan version of the saying itself cuts to the heart of the message: the betrayal of Jesus, and how strikingly this contrasts with his identity as the Messiah, etc. Instead of judging and subduing the wicked in Jerusalem, Jesus (the Messiah) will be taken captive and judged by them. The betrayal marks the beginning of a great suffering and humiliation that he would face. Being given over “into the hands of men” is, by any measure, a most humiliating fate to befall the Messiah.

However, in the Passion-predictions, Jesus identifies himself, not as the Anointed One (Messiah), by as the “Son of Man”, emphasizing his connection with the human condition–and the weakness, suffering, and death which that condition entails (cf. above). The parallelism of the statement is clear enough:

    • “Son of Man”
      • given over into the
    • “hands of men”

Jesus’ suffering at the “hands of men” (i.e., by human authority) is essential to his identity as the “Son of Man”.

In the next daily note, we will turn to the second part of the prediction, which focuses on what will happen once the Son of Man (Jesus) is taken into the “hands of men”.

March 31: Mark 8:31 (continued)

Mark 8:31, continued

“…that it is necessary (for) the Son of Man to suffer many (thing)s”

As discussed in the previous note, this first Passion-prediction by Jesus marks the beginning of the second half of the Synoptic Gospel narrative. The first main section of the second half of the narrative (the Judean/Jerusalem period) focused on the journey of Jesus to Jerusalem. In the Gospel of Mark, this extends from the Passion-prediction in 8:31 to the end of chapter 10. The three Passion-predictions serve as a structuring framework for this section, with the three predictions spaced more or less an equal distance apart. The massive expansion of the Jerusalem journey section in Luke greatly distorts this literary structure; in the Lukan narrative there are nine full chapters between the second and third predictions (9:43b-44; 18:31-34).

The form of this first Passion-prediction is quite close between the Synoptic Gospels. This relative lack of variation suggests that the statement had been well-established and fixed within the Tradition, to the point that there was little opportunity (or reason) for the individual Gospel writers to adapt or modify the wording. There are four components to the prediction, four statements by Jesus regarding the things that will take place in Jerusalem. Our focus here is on the first statement, as Jesus tells his disciples that (o%ti)

“it is necessary (for) the Son of Man to suffer many (thing)s”
dei= to\n ui(o\n tou= a)nqrw/pou polla\ paqei=n

The principal action that will take place is indicated by the verbal infinitive paqei=n (“to suffer“)—that is, there will be considerable suffering for Jesus in Jerusalem. The extent (and severity) of this suffering is suggested by the substantive adjective polla/ (“many [thing]s”).

On the surface, this prediction of suffering is completely at odds with Peter’s confession identifying Jesus as the “Anointed One” (presumably the royal Messiah of the Davidic Ruler figure-type). It was certainly not thought that the Davidic Messiah would experience intense suffering when he arrived in Jerusalem; rather, he was expected to subdue the nations and establish a new (Messianic) kingdom on earth, centered at Jerusalem. The context in Luke 17:20-21 and 19:11ff suggests that at some of Jesus’ followers and observers expected the establishment of this Messianic kingdom when Jesus arrived in Jerusalem. The entire Triumphal Entry scene reflects this same expectation.

With regard to the Passion-prediction, there may be an intentional distinction being made (by Jesus) between the title “Anointed (One)” and “Son of Man”. Peter’s confession emphasizes Jesus’ identity as the Davidic Messiah (who was to appear in victory and glory), while the Passion-prediction, emphasizing Jesus’ impending suffering, focuses on his identity as “Son of Man”.

I have discussed this title at length in earlier notes and articles. The expression “son of man” (Hebrew <d*a* /B#, ben-°¹d¹m), which occurs more than 100 times in the Old Testament, fundamentally refers to a human being. In ancient Semitic idiom, /B# ben (“son”) in the construct state (“son of…”) often has the meaning of belonging to a particular group or category, and of possessing such characteristics. In this instance, “son of man” simply means “a human being”, i.e. belonging to the human race. The parallel, synonymous expression vona$ /B# (ben °§nôš), “son of (hu)mankind” occurs once (Ps 144:3); the corresponding Aramaic is vn`a$ rB^ (bar °§n¹š), only at Dan 7:13 in the OT, along with the variant forms vn rb, avn rb (as well as <da rb) attested in later Aramaic. The Biblical (and contemporary) usage of the expression can be summarized as follows:

    1. Generally (or indefinitely) of a human being (“a[ny] man”), in poetic language—with <da /b (ben °¹d¹m, “son of man”) set parallel to <da (°¹d¹m, “man”), cf. Num 23:19; Job 16:21; 25:6; 35:8; Psalm 8:4; 80:17; 144:3; 146:3; Isa 51:12; 56:2; Jer 50:40; 51:43. The dual-expression (“man…son of man…”) often is set in contrast to God [YHWH] and His nature.
    2. In divine/heavenly address to a human being (a Prophet), in Ezekiel (more than 90 times) and Daniel (Dan 8:17). The sense is something like “(as for) you, O mortal…”, again distinguishing a human being from the divine/heavenly being who addresses him.
    3. The apparently unique instance of Daniel 7:13—here “son of man” is used to describe a divine/heavenly/angelic(?) being who resembles a human.

Primarily, then, the expression refers to the possession of human characteristics or qualities (especially mortality), often contrasted with a heavenly or divine being (including God [YHWH] himself). It is used frequently by Jesus, and we can be certain (on entirely objective grounds) that this usage is authentic and reflects Jesus’ actual manner of speaking/teaching. The expression “son of man” (in Greek, [o(] ui(o\$ [tou=] a)nqrw/pou) is virtually non-existent in the New Testament outside of the Gospels. Moreover, every occurrence in the Gospels comes either from Jesus’ own lips or in response to his words (for the latter, cf. Lk 24:7; Jn 12:34). Outside of the Gospels it is only found in Acts 7:56 (as part of the Gospel tradition); Heb 2:8 (quoting Ps 8:4); and Rev 1:13; 14:14 (alluding to Dan 7:13, also 10:5, 16). It was only rarely used by early Christians as a title for Jesus, with other titles (“Son of God”, “Lord”, and “Christ/Messiah”) being far preferred.

There are two main categories of “Son of Man” sayings by Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels—one of which relates to his Passion (suffering and death), and the other being eschatological (heavily influenced by Dan 7:13). The Passion-predictions, of course, belong to the first category. In virtually all of the “Son of Man” sayings, Jesus seems to be using the expression “son of man” as a self-reference—a circumlocution for the pronoun “I”. While the Aramaic expression did come to be used in this manner, there is little evidence for such customary usage before the time of Jesus.

There can be no doubt that “Son of Man” in the Passion-prediction is a self-reference by Jesus. In other words, for Jesus to say “it is necessary for the Son of Man to suffer”, this is much as if he had said “it is necessary for me to suffer” (cf. the Matthean version of prediction, below). At the same time, “Son of Man” here also functions as a kind of title, especially insofar as the Passion-prediction represents a response to Peter’s confession identifying Jesus as the “Anointed One” (Messiah). While Jesus affirms Peter’s confession, he also, at the same time, points the disciples in a different direction, emphasizing his suffering as the “Son of Man”.

Even as there was no expectation of a “suffering Messiah” in Judaism at this time (for more on this, cf. my article in the series “Yeshua the Messiah”), so also there is no evidence for the idea of a “suffering Son of Man”. Conceivably, the idea could have developed from reflection on the famous ‘Suffering Servant’ passage in Isa 52:13-53:12, which early Christians did apply to Jesus’ suffering and death (Lk 22:37; Acts 3:13; 8:32-33, etc); but it hard to see how this passage would have related to the specific title “Son of Man”, prior to its application to Jesus.

In my view, a better explanation for Jesus’ usage here in the Passion-prediction involves the fundamental significance of the expression (cf. above)—as relating to the human condition, especially in its limitation, weakness, and mortality. By applying the title “Son of Man” to himself in the context of his Passion, Jesus is identifying with the human condition, particularly with regard to the experience of weakness, suffering and death. For an objective statement to this same effect, cf. the wording in the famous Christ-hymn in Philippians (2:6-11).

The use of the modal verbal form dei= (“it is necessary”) to introduce this announcement of the Son of Man’s suffering is also significant. It is relatively rare in the core Synoptic tradition, occurring only several times in the words of Jesus. The verb is more frequent in Luke, including several important instances in the Passion and Resurrection narratives, where the necessity of Jesus’ suffering is predicated upon the fact that it was prophesied in the Scriptures (22:37; 24:7, 44). This idea, however, was scarcely a Lukan invention; it reflects early Christian belief, and is stated equally clearly (by Jesus) in the Matthean Passion narrative (26:54). Indeed, it seems likely that the force of dei= in the Passion-prediction relates to the same prophetic mandate, and that this is how Jesus intended it to be understood.

As I noted above, the form of the Passion-prediction is relatively fixed within the Gospel Tradition. There are some notable differences, however. Matthew’s version (16:21) at the point we are examining here reads:

“…that it is necessary (for) him to go away into Yerushalaim and to suffer many (thing)s”

The italicized portion marks the variation from the (shorter) Markan version. Since the prediction is couched within the Synoptic narration, the Gospel writer has a bit more freedom to add explanatory detail, such as the phrase “go away into Jerusalem”, which also serves to emphasize the location where these events will take place (and the goal of the coming journey). Also noteworthy is the way that the author essentially explains the title/expression “Son of Man” as a self-reference by Jesus (on which, cf. above).

Luke’s version (9:22) here, by contrast, is identical to Mark.