All Posts By

Steve Heil

Note of the Day – May 24

By | Note of the Day | No Comments

Mark 1:12; Matthew 4:1; Luke 4:1

Following the account of Jesus’ baptism (see yesterday’s note), we find another reference to the (Holy) Spirit, in Mark 1:12:

“And straight away [i.e. immediately] the Spirit casts him out into the desolate (land).”

The use of the verb e)kba/llw (“cast/throw out”) seems rather harsh here, and this perhaps explains the different wording in Matthew/Luke (cf. below). However, in the narrative context it is appropriate in several respects:

  • It emphasizes the (forceful) power and authority of God’s Spirit
  • It stresses the abruptness and immediacy of the action—in Mark this takes place “right away” (eu)qu/$) after the baptism
  • It effectively encapsulates the difficulty and trial Jesus is forced to face at the beginning of his ministry

In verse 13 we read: “And he was in the desolate (land) forty days, being tested under [i.e. by] the Satan, and he was with the wild animals and the (heavenly) Messengers attended him”. Matthew and Luke, of course, give an expanded account of this “testing”, in a brief and dramatic dialogue form (Matt 4:2-10 / Luke 4:2b-13, part of the so-called “Q” tradition). Matthew preserves the (Markan) detail of the helping Angels (Matt 4:11b).

Matthew and Luke each record the initial action by the Spirit differently:

“Then Yeshua was led up into the desolate (land) under the Spirit, to be tested under [i.e. by] the Accuser.” (Matt 4:1)
“And Yeshua, full of the holy Spirit, turned back from the Yarden {Jordan} and was led in the Spirit in the desolate (land), being tested under [i.e. by] the Accuser for forty days.” (Luke 4:1-2a)

They both use a form of the verb a&gw (“lead, bring”), which can also have a more forceful connotation (i.e., “carry, drive,” etc), but here it is probably the leading/guiding presence and power of the Spirit that is meant. As Matthew and Luke describe the testing of Jesus in some detail, there is less reason to speak of his being cast/thrust out into the desert; rather, in this context there is greater importance to the idea of the guiding (and protecting) role of the Spirit. The image of the desolate land or “desert” (e&rhmo$) is also significant, full of symbolism from ancient Israelite and Old Testament tradition; there is a two-fold aspect:

  • as a place where prophets and people encounter God—e.g., Hosea 2:14-15, and of course the Exodus/Sinai tradition as a whole; cf. also 1 Kings 19, etc.
  • as a place of dangerous beasts and deities (“demons”/evil spirits)—Lev 16:10; Isa 13:21; 34:14, etc.

For Jesus, it is primarily a place of testing under the power and influence of the Adversary or Evil One, called according to the two traditional titles:

  • Hebrew /f*c* (´¹‰¹n), an opponent or adversary, especially in the context of one who brings a charge or accusation in (the heavenly) court. Though rare in the Old Testament, there is certainly evidence for the tradition of a specific heavenly being who takes this role (Job 1:6-7; 2:1-2, 4, 7; Zech 3:1-2), becoming much more common and prominent in texts of the post-exilic period. This word is typically transliterated in English (“Satan”), and often in Greek as well (Satana=$, as in Mk 1:12).
  • Greek dia/bolo$ (diábolos), literally one who “casts through” or “throws across” (from the verb diaba/llw), usually in terms of creating separation or opposition; specifically, the verb was often used in the negative (hostile) sense of accusation, slander, misrepresentation, deception, etc. In English idiom, we might say “one who casts suspicion”, “one who spreads lies”, etc. As a title, it is customarily transliterated into English as “Devil”.

The Spirit in Luke 3-4

There is a greater emphasis on the Spirit in Luke’s account of the beginning of Jesus’ ministry:

  • Lk 4:1a—”And Yeshua, full [plh/rh$] of the holy Spirit, turned back from the Yarden {Jordan}…”
    The adjective plh/rh$ (“full, filled [with]”) is especially common in Luke-Acts, with the expression “full of the Spirit” also occurring in Acts 6:3, 5; 7:55; 11:24. For a similar expression with the related verb plh/qw, cf. Luke 1:15, 41, 67; Acts 2:4; 4:8, 31; 9:17; 13:9.
  • Lk 4:1b-2—”…and he was led in the Spirit in the desolate land forty days, being tested…”
    For Jesus and believers being “in [e)n] the Spirit”, cf. Luke 2:27; 10:21; Acts 19:21; note also Lk 1:17, 80. The idea of being led by the Spirit is common in the New Testament, though the specific expression occurs only rarely (Rom 8:14; Gal 5:18).
  • Luke 4:14—”And Yeshua turned back in the power of the Spirit into the Galîl {Galilee}…”
    For the important combination of the (Holy) Spirit and power (du/nami$), cf. Luke 1:35; Acts 1:8; 10:38, and also in Rom 1:4, etc; note also the juxtaposition in Lk 1:17.

This leads into the scene at Nazareth where Jesus reads from Isa 61:1f (Lk 4:18): “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me…”. For the Spirit coming upon [e)pi/] Jesus and other believers, note the occurrences in Luke 1:35; 2:25; 3:22; Acts 1:8; 2:17-18; 10:44-45; 11:15; 19:6. There is a clear chiastic structure to the Holy Spirit references in Luke 3-4, demonstrating how integral the theme is to the overall narrative:

  • Lk 3:22—The Holy Spirit came down upon [e)pi/] him (Baptism/Anointing)
    • Lk 4:1a—He turned back [u(pe/streyen] full of the Spirit
      • Lk 4:1b-2—in the Spirit in the desert—being led by the Spirit—testing by the Devil
    • Lk 4:14—He turned back [u(pe/streyen] in the power of the Spirit
  • Lk 4:18—The Spirit of the Lord is upon [e)pi/] him (Anointing)

Note of the Day – May 23

By | Note of the Day | No Comments

The Baptism of Jesus (Mark 1:9-11; Matt 3:13-17; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:29-34)

The next passage in the Gospel tradition referring to the Holy Spirit is the account of Jesus’ baptism. This is narrated in all three Synoptic Gospels (Mark 1:9-11; Matt 3:13-17; Luke 3:21-22), as well as indirectly in the Gospel of John (Jn 1:26-28, 29-34). Mark provides the simplest narrative of the common tradition:

“And it came to be in those days (that) Yeshua came from Nazaret of (the) Galîl and was dunked into the Yarden {Jordan} under [i.e. by] Yohanan. And, straight away, stepping up out of the water he saw the heavens split (open) and the Spirit as a dove stepping down [i.e. coming down] into/unto him; and there came to be a voice out of the heavens (saying), ‘You are my (be)loved Son, I think good in [i.e. think well of] you’.”

There are three elements of the baptism scene:

  • The heavens splitting open (in Matt/Luke, the heavens are “opened [up]”)
  • The (holy) Spirit coming down to Jesus in the form/likeness of a dove
  • A voice from heaven which declares Jesus to be God’s Son

Each version has slight differences, but the basic sequence of events is the same. The account in John is different still (the baptism itself described by the Baptist only in vv. 32-34), though it certainly derives from the same historical tradition. Interestingly, in John’s version it is the Baptist, not a voice from heaven, who declares that Jesus is God’s Son (“I have seen and witnessed that this is the Son of God”). Let us specifically compare the descent of the Spirit in all four versions:

  • Mark 1:10: “…he [i.e. Jesus] saw the heavens being split (open) and the Spirit as a dove stepping down unto/into [ei)$] him”
  • Matt 3:16: “…and, see! the heavens were opened [for him] and he saw [the] Spirit of God stepping down as if [i.e. like] a dove [and] coming upon [e)pi/] him”
  • Luke 3:21-22: “There came to be…(the) opening up of the heaven(s) and (the) stepping down of the holy Spirit in bodily [swmatiko/$] appearance as a dove upon [e)pi/] him”
  • John 1:33: (God’s words to John) “(the one) upon whom you should see the Spirit stepping down and remaining upon him…”, confirmed by the earlier verse 32: “I looked (and saw) the Spirit stepping down as a dove out of heaven and remaining upon him”.

All four use the verb katabai/nw (lit. “step down”, i.e. “come down, descend”)—this is a basic narrative verb, but it is given special theological significance in the Gospel of John (cf. below). The descent of the Spirit is also described as something which is seen, though with some variation in the four accounts:

  • In Mark, it is Jesus who sees the heavens open and the Spirit descend as a dove; there is no indication that this is visible to anyone else.
  • In Matthew, it is simply stated that the heavens were opened, but again it is Jesus who sees the Spirit descending.
  • In Luke’s account, it would seem that the entire event was visible to all; this is reinforced by his specific reference to the Spirit coming “in a bodily appearance” as a dove.
  • In John, the Baptist sees the Spirit descending upon Jesus, with the important detail that the Spirit remains on him.

We can also see how the Gospels variously identify the Spirit here: (1) “the Spirit” (Mk, Jn), (2) “the Spirit of God” (Matt), (3) “the Holy Spirit” (Lk), indicating that, by the period of 60-70 A.D. (at the latest), all three could be used interchangeably. This is confirmed by Paul’s terminology in his letters, and indeed through the rest of the New Testament, though the expression “the Spirit of God” increasingly becomes less common (cf. 1 Jn 4:2).

It is hard to say just how this event (the descent of the Spirit) was understood in the earliest layers of Gospel tradition. The idea and imagery are not developed much in Mark’s Gospel, nor, we may assume, in the core Synoptic tradition; by contrast, the declaration of Jesus as God’s Son is much more prominent (Mk 1:1; 3:11; 5:7; 9:7; 14:61; 15:39 pars; Matt 4:3, 6 par; 14:33; 16:16; 27:43; Lk 1:32, 35). The presence of God’s Spirit in relation to Jesus takes on greater importance in the Gospel of Luke, in light of the increased emphasis on the Holy Spirit throughout Luke-Acts (as we shall see), and even more so in the Gospel of John. Here, I point out just two examples of a wider theological/Christological interpretation of the symbolism in these two Gospels:

1. Jesus as one who is anointed with the Spirit. This is an important theme in Luke, for which there is some parallel in Matthew (cf. Matt 4:1; 12:18, 28), doubtless indicating a level of Christological development by the time these Gospels were written (c. 70 A.D.). However, I would also maintain that Luke, in emphasizing Jesus as one anointed by the Spirit of God, is simply drawing upon early Gospel tradition, which identified Jesus first as an Anointed Prophet. I have discussed this in considerable detail in my recent series “Yeshua the Anointed” (cf. Parts 23). In particular, Luke brings out the association of Jesus with the Anointed herald of Isaiah 61:1ff, both in the key passage of the episode at the Synagogue in Nazareth (Lk 4:18ff), and again in Lk 7:18-23 (par Matt 11:2-6). Jesus is specifically said to have been anointed by God with the Spirit in Acts 10:38 (cf. also Acts 4:27-28). There is further Lukan support for understanding the baptism in terms of anointing by God in the variant (Western) reading at Lk 3:22—there, instead of declaring “You are my beloved Son, I think good in you”, Psalm 2:7 is cited: “You are my Son, today I have caused you to be (born)”. In Psalm 2, the ruler is said to be God’s “anointed” (j^yv!m^), and the psalm as a whole was often given a Messianic interpretation, both in Judaism and early Christianity.

2. katabai/nw and a)nabainw. In the Gospel of John, these two related verbs (“step down”, “step up”), used frequently in narration (“go/come up/down”), take on a unique theological (and Christological) meaning. The verb katabai/nw encapsulates the idea of Jesus’ coming to earth in human form (incarnation), having been sent by God from heaven—cf. Jn 3:13; 6:33, 38, 41-42, 50-51, 58. Correspondingly, the verb a)nabai/nw can refer to Jesus’ exaltation and return to the Father—Jn 3:13; 6:62; 20:17; there may be a play on words implicit in Jn 2:13; 5:1; 7:8, etc. John 1:51 combines both verbs in an image of Jesus (the Son of Man) which clearly is meant to parallel the baptism account; I have discussed this enigmatic saying of Jesus in an earlier note.

Finally, it is interesting to consider the specific symbol of the Spirit as a dove, since there is no certain precedent for this association in the Old Testament or Israelite/Jewish tradition at the time of Jesus. Commentators have pointed out passages such as Genesis 1:2; 8:8, and Song of Songs 2:12 as possibly having relevance. Luke describes this aspect of the baptism scene as a concrete (“bodily”) manifestation of God’s Spirit, similar in certain respects to the theophany in Acts 2.

Note of the Day – May 22

By | Note of the Day | No Comments

The saying of John the Baptist regarding Jesus and the Holy Spirit is found five times in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts, as discussed in the previous note—three times as part of the triple tradition (Mark 1:7-8 / Matt 3:11 / Luke 3:16) and twice as a saying of Jesus in Acts (Acts 1:5; 11:16). It is also preserved independently in the Gospel of John.

John 1:26-27, 30, 33

The Fourth Gospel’s account of Jesus’ Baptism is unique in that it is only narrated indirectly as part of John the Baptist’s testimony regarding Jesus (1:19-34ff). Interestingly, the saying corresponding to Mark 1:7-8 par is presented as two (separate) sayings by the Baptist, in verses 26-27 (also v. 30) and 33:

John 1:26-27 John 1:233
“I dunk you with water; (but) in your midst has stood (one) whom you have not seen [i.e. known], the (one) coming behind me, of whom I am not worth (enough) to loosen the straps of the (shoe) bound under (his) feet.” “And I did not see [i.e. know/recognize] him, but the (one) sending me to dunk in water, that one said to me, ‘(the one) upon whom you should see the Spirit stepping down and remaining upon him—this is the (one) dunking in (the) holy Spirit’.”

This may indicate that separate sayings have been combined together in the Synoptic tradition. The first saying has different wording in John, but it shares with Mark (and Matthew) especially the phrase “the one coming [o( e)rxo/meno$] behind me [o)pi/sw mou]”. The use of o)pi/sw mou (“behind me”) has suggested to some commentators that the historical Jesus was a disciple of John the Baptist prior to embarking on his own ministry. However, the context of the Gospel narratives as they now stand indicates no more than that Jesus appeared in public later than John, and with less prominence. The Synoptic version(s) of the saying emphasize the actual superiority of Jesus three ways:

  • The declaration that Jesus is stronger/mightier [i)sxuro/tero$] than John
  • John’s admission that he is not (worthy) enough [i(kano/$] to handle the shoes of Jesus
  • The contrast (me\nde/ construct in Matthew/Luke) between John baptizing in water, and Jesus baptizing in the holy Spirit

The Johannine version of the sayings include all three as well, though it is the first that is emphasized, with quite different language. Instead of the (comparative) adjective “stronger/mightier [i)sxuro/tero$]”, it is stated that neither John the Baptist nor the people in the crowds have seen (i.e. recognized) Jesus. This is important, for it indicates that only by way of divine revelation is Jesus’ identity (and his presence) realized (cf. Matt 16:16-17 for a comparable passage in the Synoptics). This revelation is narrated in verse 33, followed by the Baptist’s testimony “I have seen and have witnessed…” (v. 34). The saying in verses 26-27, in which John declares the superiority of Jesus, is repeated in modified form in verse 30 (also earlier in v. 15), again using different language:

“The (one) coming [e)rxo/meno$] behind me has come to be in front of me, (in) that [i.e. because] he was first (ahead) of me” (v. 15)
“A man comes [e&rxetai] behind me who has come to be in front of me, (in) that [i.e. because] he was first (ahead) of me” (v. 30)

Here the saying has been given a deeper theological (and Christological) interpretation. This involves a sequence of three key verbs:

  • “he comes [e&rxetai] behind me”
  • “he has come to be [ge/gonen] in front of me”
  • “he was [h@n] first (ahead) of me”

I have discussed this construction in some detail in an earlier note; here I will simply point out the essential significance of these verbal phrases in the context of the Johannine view of the person of Jesus:

e&rxetai (“comes”)—there are two aspects to note:

(1) The Gospel of John frequently refers to Jesus as one who has come (using the vb. e&rxomai) from God; specifically, in the Johannine prologue it is used for the divine Logos coming into the world (Jn 1:9), which primarily means the earthly life and ministry of Jesus. Within the Gospel context, his public life and ministry begins with his baptism by John.
(2) The wider Gospel tradition inherited the Messianic title of “the one coming [o( e)rxo/meno$]”, drawn largely from Malachi 3:1ff (cf. also Psalm 118:26) and applied it to Jesus. This is at the center of the question of the relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus in early Gospel tradition, which I have discussed in an earlier article. Its use in the Baptism scene identifies Jesus as the Anointed One (Messiah), i.e. God’s representative (Prophet/Messenger) whose appearance will precede and usher in the end-time Judgment. In the later scene of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, where Psalm 118:26 is cited, the title signifies Jesus as an Anointed King and Ruler from the line of David.

ge/gonen (“has come to be”)—in the Johannine prologue (Jn 1:1-18) the verb gi/nomai (“come to be, become”) is used exclusively in the sense of created beings coming into existence (esp. being born); as applied to the pre-existent person of Christ, the divine Logos, it refers to his incarnation (“the Logos came to be [e)ge/neto] flesh”, Jn 1:14).

h@n (“was”)—again, in the prologue, the verb of being ei)mi is used essentially in relation to the life and presence of God (esp. Jn 1:1-2); within the content of Johannine Christology, it is a keyword indicating the deity of Jesus.

The portion of the saying dealing with Jesus dunking (baptizing) in the Holy Spirit differs from the Synoptic in two ways:

  • There is no mention of fire (Matt/Luke “…in the holy Spirit and fire“); indeed John has virtually removed the eschatological context of God’s coming Judgment (Mark 1:2-4; Matt 3:7-10, 12 par) from the narrative.
  • It follows directly after the reference to the Holy Spirit coming down upon Jesus (to be discussed in the next daily note). This emphasizes the presence of the Spirit (“coming down and remaining upon him”) in relation to Jesus’ identity—as Anointed One (Messiah) and Son of God (v. 34).

Interestingly, it is only in the Gospel of John that we actually read of Jesus doing anything like baptizing his followers in the Spirit; this is in Jn 20:19-23, the climactic scene of Jesus with his disciples after the resurrection:

“…even as the Father has set me forth from (Him), so I (am) send(ing) you. And saying this, he blew [i.e. breathed] in/on (them) and said to them: ‘Receive (the) holy Spirit…'” (vv. 21b-22)

This should be taken as indicating what the Gospel writer (and/or his tradition) understood by ‘dunking/baptizing in the Spirit’. However, there are several other passages in the Gospel where Jesus refers to the Spirit in the context of water, and which may involve the symbolism of baptism. In Jn 4:7-26 and 7:37-39 Jesus declares that he is the source of living/eternal water, which may be identified with the Spirit (4:23-24; 7:39); here the emphasis is on the believer drinking of the water/Spirit. More directly relevant, perhaps, is Jn 3:5-6, where Jesus brings together the idea of being born out of water and out of the Spirit. Many commentators have seen here a reference to baptism—the believer is baptized both by water (the baptism ritual) and the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 8:12-17, 38-39 v.l.; 10:44-48; 11:15-17; 19:2-7). I am inclined to give somewhat more weight to the specific narrative context of the passage, i.e. as referring to a contrast between physical birth out of the mother’s womb (i.e. out of water) and spiritual birth (cf. Jn 1:12-13). Even so, the water/Spirit parallel is clear enough, and the person of Jesus—his teaching, work, and life-giving power—is specifically associated with the giving of God’s Spirit.

 

Note of the Day – May 21

By | Note of the Day | No Comments

The first passage referring to the (Holy) Spirit in the Synoptic Tradition comes from a saying/declaration by John the Baptist (Mark 1:7-8 par), which is certainly among the very oldest/earliest to be preserved in Christian tradition. The age (and authenticity) of the saying is confirmed by the fact that it is recorded no fewer than six times in the Gospels and Acts, having been transmitted independently in at least two (or more) strands of tradition. Moreover, while John the Baptist has a central place in the earliest Gospel narrative, he soon disappeared from Christian tradition generally—he is never mentioned in the New Testament outside of the Gospels and Acts, and only once in the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers (c. 90-150 A.D.), as part of a simple Gospel/creedal formula (Ignatius, Smyrneans 1:1, cf. Rom 1:3-4). Thus the prominence of John in the primitive Gospel narrative and kerygma is virtually a guarantee of authenticity.

Mark 1:7-8 (par Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:16)

Mark’s short account of John the Baptist and his ministry (Mk 1:2-8), which precedes the Baptism of Jesus (vv. 9-11), climaxes with the core saying in vv. 7-8:

“The (one) stronger than me comes behind me, of whom I am not (worthy) enough to bend (down) to loosen the straps of (the shoe)s bound under his (feet). I dunked you in water, but he will dunk you in (the) holy Spirit [e)n pneu/mati a(gi/w|].”

Matthew and Luke provide a more extensive account, including additional sayings and teachings by John:

  • His words to the crowds (Matt 3:7-10 / Luke 3:7-9), exhorting them to repentance; in Matthew this is directed specifically to Pharisees and Sadducees in the crowd (v. 7).
  • The ethical instruction in Luke 3:10-14
  • The saying in Matt 3:12 / Lk 3:17 (cf. below).

The saying corresponding to Mk 1:7-8 is in Matt 3:11 / Lk 3:16. Here the three versions are presented side-by-side for comparison, with the main elements in Matthew/Luke which differ from Mark indicated by italics:

Mark 1:7-8 Matthew 3:11 Luke 3:16
“The (one) stronger than me comes behind me, of whom I am not (worthy) enough to bend (down) to loosen the straps of the (shoe)s bound under his (feet). I dunked you in water, but he will dunk you in (the) holy Spirit.” “I dunk you in water into a change-of-mind [i.e. repentance]; but the (one) coming behind me is stronger than me, of whom I am not (worthy) enough to bear/carry the (shoe)s bound under (his feet)—he will dunk you in (the) holy Spirit and fire.” “I dunk you in water; but the (one) stronger than me comes, of whom I am not (worthy) enough to loosen the straps of the (shoe)s bound under his (feet)—he will dunk you in (the) holy Spirit and fire.”

The main difference between Mark and Matthew/Luke is twofold:

First, the syntax of the saying in Matthew/Luke sets the reference to Jesus as the one coming (who is greater than John) in the middle of the contrast between baptism in water and baptism in the Spirit:

  • I dunk you in water
    —the one who comes (who is stronger)
  • He will dunk you in the Holy Spirit (and fire)

This contrast is further establish by the use of a me\nde/ construct (i.e., “on the one hand…on other hand…”), which I did not especially bring out in the translation(s) above. The result of this framework, by implication, is that baptism in the Spirit is based on the superiority of the person of Jesus as “the one (who is) coming”. For more on this, cf. below.

Secondly, Matthew and Luke both add “and (in) fire [kai\ puri/]”. This emphasizes the coming/future Judgment of God upon humankind (cf. Matt 3:7ff par), and leads in to the added saying in Matt 3:12 / Lk 3:17 (cf. below). It also results in the thematic triad:

WaterSpiritFire

all of which are associated with purification and cleansing in Old Testament tradition. Cleansing by water is common enough (Num 8:7; 19:12; Ps 51:2; Ezek 16:4; 36:25; Zech 13:1, etc), and the imagery is occasionally extended to the (symbolic) pouring out of the Spirit of God (Isa 32:15; 44:3; Ezek 36:25-26). Fire is also used as a symbol of purification; in addition to the idea of burning up garbage and refuse, there is the metallurgic imagery, whereby base metal is refined and its impurities removed through fire—cf. Psalm 12:6; Isa 4:4-5; 48:10; Dan 11:35; 12:10; Zech 13:9; Mal 3:2-3. Offerings and objects consecrated to God are also burned with fire (Ex 29:18, 34, etc; Deut 13:16; Josh 6:24). These three elements (water, fire, and the Holy Spirit) are combined in the text 1QS 4:20-21 from Qumran (cf. J. A. Fitzmyer, Luke I-IX [AB vol. 28], p. 474); note the relevant details:

  • It will occur at the (end) time of God’s visitation—i.e., an eschatological setting
  • God will purge the deeds of humankind by His Truth
    • refining (by fire) a portion of humankind (i.e., the righteous/chosen ones)
    • removing every evil spirit from their flesh
    • cleansing them from wickedness with (the) holy Spirit
    • sprinkling them with the Spirit (as with water)
  • The righteous ones are cleansed with the Spirit of Truth

The fire in Matt 3:12 / Lk 3:17 more properly refers to the coming Judgment. The threshing/winnowing separates the righteous and the wicked—perhaps more accurately it separates the wicked from the righteous (cf. 2 Kings 13:7; Prov 20:8, 26; Isa 21:10; 27:12; 30:24; 41:16; Hos 13:3; Mic 4:12-13; Hab 3:12; Jer 4:11; 15:7; Dan 2:35). The ominous closing reference to being burned up “with fire unquenchable” (puri\ a)sbe/stw|) is likely an allusion to Isa 66:24 (cf. Mark 9:43, 48 par). It may draw upon the image of the garbage-burning and furnaces of the Ge-Hinnom (Valley of Hinnom).

The importance of the saying in Mark 1:7-8 par ultimately lies in the identification of Jesus as the (end-time) figure through whom God will visit His people and bring Judgment upon humankind. This is marked by three elements in the passage:

  • Jesus is the one who comes [e&rxetai] (or the one coming [o( e)rxo/meno$]). This almost certainly derives from Malachi 3:1ff, which proved to be a central Messianic passage in the early Gospel tradition. I have discussed this in some detail in prior notes and articles.
  • He is greater/mightier [i)sxuro/tero$] than John. Luke sets the saying by John (Lk 3:16-17) in the narrative context of questions by the people as to whether John might be the Anointed One (Xristo/$, “Christ/Messiah”). As I have discussed previously, the term “Anointed One” here likely refers to an end-time Prophet according to the type of Elijah, who will precede the visitation and Judgment of God (Mal 3:1ff; 4:5-6). Vv. 16-17 are said to be John’s answer to this (cf. Jn 1:19-27).
  • He will baptize people with the Holy Spirit. Already in the Old Testament Prophets, the pouring out of God’s Spirit upon His people is seen as a mark of the coming New Age (Isa 44:3; Joel 2:28-29; Ezek 39:29; cf. also Zech 12:10). For the association with the Judgment of God, cf. above. In Acts 2:14-21, the prophecy of Joel 2:28-29 is said to have been fulfilled with the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost.

It should be noted that the saying by John the Baptist is recorded twice more, in Acts 1:5 and again in Acts 11:16, though in both these passages it is presented as a saying of Jesus, which would seem to indicate a separate tradition:

“…that Yohanan {John} dunked in water, but you will be dunked in (the) holy Spirit after not many of these days [i.e. in a few days].” (Acts 1:5)

(Peter speaking) “and I remembered the utterance of the Lord as he said, ‘Yohanan dunked in water, but you will be dunked in (the) holy Spirit’.” (Acts 11:16)

This raises the intriguing question as to whether (or to what extent) the words attributed to John in Mark 1:7-8 par in the Gospel narrative have been shaped by a saying of Jesus. Unfortunately, it is not possible to delve into this possibility in these notes; I leave it as something to ponder.

Finally, the Baptist’s saying is also attested in the Gospel of John, but with important differences, which will be dealt with in the next daily note.

Note of the Day – May 20

By | Note of the Day | No Comments

In honor of Pentecost, celebrating the coming of the (Holy) Spirit upon the first believers (cf. Acts 2:1-13ff), I will be presenting a series of Daily Notes examining all the references to the Spirit in the Gospel Tradition—i.e., the Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of John, as well as a survey of passages in the book of Acts.

With regard to the earliest layers of the Gospels and Christian tradition, it is sometimes difficult to be sure precisely what is meant when the word pneu=ma (pneúma) is used. This is due in large measure to the basic range of meaning in the word itself. The root verb pne/w fundamentally signifies “to blow”, as of the wind in nature, or the breath of a living being, these being generally related—according to the ancient (mythological) worldview, the wind could be understood or described as the “breath” of a deity. The noun pneu=ma, like the related pnoh/, refers to something blowing (or “breathing”); specifically this can mean: (a) wind or breeze, (b) breath of a living being (esp. a human being), (c) the life force/essence which animates a living being (i.e. soul/spirit), or (d) a personal/personified life-essence (“breath”), i.e. an invisible deity or “spirit-being” which animates the natural world. The Hebrew word j^Wr (rûaµ) has a similar range of meaning.

Frequently in the Old Testament, j^Wr refers to the “breath/wind/spirit” of God (YHWH)—Gen 1:2; 6:3; 41:38; Ex 31:3; 35:31; Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 6:34, et al. Primarily this signifies the presence and power of YHWH in relation to his people, especially to the prophets and rulers of Israel. There is no real indication in Old Testament tradition that the “Spirit” of YHWH is a distinct person; however, according to the ancient mindset, the attributes (power, wisdom, holiness, etc) and/or manifestation of a deity were often personified. The “Messenger” of YHWH is perhaps the most common and notable example of this religious phenomenon in the Old Testament—often it is hard to know for certain whether the tradition understands this as separate being (“Angel”) or the manifestation of YHWH himself. Early Christians, including the Gospel writers, inherited this idea of the Spirit of God. Naturally, holiness was a fundamental attribute and characteristic of God’s Spirit, though the term “Holy Spirit” (lit. “Spirit of Holiness”) itself is quite rare (Psalm 51:11; Isa 63:10-11; cf. also Dan 4:8-9, 18; 5:11), becoming more common in later Jewish writings. It is quite in keeping with the phenomena of ancient Near Eastern religion that the Holiness of God would come to be personified or understood as a person.

In the New Testament, the word pneu=ma (as “breath, spirit”) is primarily used three ways:

  1. The animating life-breath or ‘soul’ of a human being, i.e. “spirit” (with a lower-case “s”)
  2. The Spirit of God (YHWH), according to Old Testament and Israelite/Jewish tradition
  3. A distinctive Christian understanding of God’s Spirit, in relation to the person of Jesus Christ and God the Father (YHWH)

For the most part, as we shall see, it is the second meaning that is most common in the Gospel tradition. Occasionally there is some uncertainty whether the first or second meaning is intended. Only in a few places do we find clear evidence for the third (Christian) meaning. By the time of the later New Testament writings (c. 70-95 A.D.), use of pneu=ma, with or without the qualifying adjective a%gio$ (“holy”), almost always indicates the Holy Spirit in the uniquely Christian sense.

In these Daily Notes, I will be adopting the following approach, looking at references to the Spirit in:

  • Passages or sayings of Jesus common to the Synoptic tradition (generally using the Gospel of Mark as a reference-point)
  • The Gospel of Luke (along with parallels in the Gospel of Matthew)
  • The Gospel of John
  • A survey of passages in the book of Acts, along with several key references from early Christian tradition elsewhere in the New Testament

Yeshua the Anointed: Conclusion

By | Exegetical/Study Series | No Comments

Throughout this series we have explored the various aspects of Messianic thought which would have been current in Judaism at the time of Jesus and the New Testament. In the period c. 150 B.C. to 100 A.D., as we have seen, there was not a single fixed idea of the “Anointed One” (Messiah/Christ); rather the term and title could refer to several different conceptions of a Messianic figure. Here, in this concluding article of the series, I will summarize each of the main figure-types which have been discussed, and how they relate to Jesus.

Prophet

In the Gospel Tradition, especially in the Synoptic Gospels, during the period of his early life and ministry (in Galilee), Jesus is identified primarily with the figure of Anointed Prophet. Indeed, where the title “the Anointed (One)” [o( xristo/$] is used in these passages, it may be that a Prophet was originally in mind. There were three different Prophetic figure-types attested in Jewish writings of the period—(1) Elijah, (2) Moses, and (3) the Anointed herald/prophet of Isaiah 61; for more, cf. Part 2.

  1. The association of an eschatological/Messianic Prophet with Elijah comes primarily from Malachi 3:1; 4:5-6. The Gospels and early Christian tradition ultimately identified John the Baptist with this Elijah who is to come (o( e)rxome/no$). However, there is some indication that, in the earliest strands of Gospel tradition, Jesus was identified with this figure. The miracles of Jesus seem to reflect the Elijah/Elisha traditions. For the relevant passages, see the discussion in Part 3 and the supplemental note. The most relevant text from Qumran in this regard is 4Q521, which appears to combine aspects of the Elijah-tradition with the Anointed herald of Isaiah 61.
  2. The Moses-tradition stems directly from the promise in Deuteronomy 18:15-19, regarding the rise of a “Prophet like Moses” (cf. also Deut 34:10ff). By the 1st century B.C., this passage had come to be interpreted in an eschatological sense; the Qumran Community expected the appearance of an end-time Prophet, according to the Moses-tradition. Deut 18:15-19 is applied directly to Jesus in Acts 3:22-23, and there are other associations with Moses in early Christian tradition as well (cf. in Part 3). The Moses-figure emphasizes teaching and instruction in the Law (cf. below).
  3. It is the Anointed herald of Isaiah 61:1ff that Jesus specifically identifies himself with in the Synoptic Gospels (Luke 4:18-20; 7:19-23 par). There are distinctive Messianic parallels in the Qumran texts 4Q521 and 11QMelch(izedek) [11Q13]. In some ways, this figure combines aspects of the Elijah and Moses types—miracles and teaching/proclamation.

It is perhaps the Transfiguration scene which best illustrates Jesus’ fulfillment of the Anointed Prophet figure, as he stands between Elijah and Moses—the two greatest Prophetic figures of the Old Testament and Israelite history. In many ways, the Transfiguration episode marks the conclusion of the period of Jesus’ (Galilean) ministry, and the beginning of his journey to Jerusalem, according to the Synoptic narrative. It also follows directly after Peter’s confession (“You are the Anointed One…”). In another way, Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem fulfills Malachi 3:1, in its original context, where the “Messenger” was not a human prophet, but a Divine/Heavenly being representing YHWH (“the Lord”) himself.

Teacher

The idea of an eschatological Teacher is especially prominent in the Qumran texts. The leading/founding figure of the Community was called “the Teacher of Righteousness”, and the (priestly) leaders in the Community follow his teaching and example. There was also the expectation for another “Teacher of Righteousness”, a Messianic figure who would appear at the end-time. This figure is likely identical with the “Interpreter of the Law”—the authoritative teaching in the Community being more or less synonymous with instruction in the Torah. The role of this figure overlaps with that of two other Messianic figure-types—the Prophet like Moses, and the Anointed Priest (cf. below). Apart from a number of interesting parallels between the historical Teacher of Righteousness and Jesus, the Gospels clearly record that a fundamental aspect of Jesus’ ministry was his teaching. The best compendium of Jesus’ teaching in the (Synoptic) Gospels is the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7, par Luke 6:20-49), which includes, as a central feature, instruction regarding the Law (Matt 5:17-48), and so also in a number of other passages. Also with Messianic implications is Jesus’ teaching on the Kingdom (of God). For more regarding these themes, cf. Parts 4 and 5. Perhaps the most relevant text from Qumran, which offers a Messianic parallel with Jesus, is 4Q541 (see esp. fragment 9).

King (Davidic Ruler)

It was the idea of a future King/Ruler from the line of David, who would appear at the end-time, which came to dominate Messianic thought, eventually becoming synonymous with the title “Anointed One” (Messiah) in Jewish tradition. This figure type ultimately derives from expressions in the Old Testament of God’s covenant with David, and the promise that the kingship will remain with his descendants (2 Sam 7:11-17; Psalms 89, 132; Isa 9:7; 11:1-9, etc), which was transformed during the exile into a future hope and expectation (Jer 23:5-6; 33:14-22; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-25). By the 1st century B.C., we find clearly expressed the idea of a coming Davidic Ruler who will subdue and judge the nations (using language from Psalm 2 and Isa 11:1-9) and restore the people of Israel, establishing the Kingdom (of God) on earth. This is best seen in the 17th and 18th of the so-called Psalms of Solomon, but the essential matrix of images and ideas is found in numerous texts from Qumran as well as other Jewish writings from the 1st century B.C./A.D (e.g., 2 Baruch, 2/4 Esdras). For more on the Old Testament and Jewish background, cf. Part 6.

Interestingly, there is some ambiguity in the application of this Messianic figure to Jesus in the Gospels and early Christian tradition. To begin with, it does not appear prominently at all in the Gospel record of the period of Jesus’ ministry (cf. above). Only with the journey to Jerusalem, and specifically, the “Triumphal Entry” into the city, does the idea of Jesus as King and Davidic Ruler come clearly into view. Throughout the Passion narrative, the title “Anointed One” unquestionably refers to a Messianic King, and there are numerous allusions to David (and the Davidic Psalms) in the fabric of the narrative. Ultimately Jesus was executed as “King of the Jews”—that is, for claiming to be a king, though there is little evidence in the Gospels that he ever did so. His responses to the Sanhedrin and Pilate, as they have come down to us, are ambiguous (cf. esp. Lk 23:67ff; Jn 18:33-37), though his answer to the High Priest’s question in Mark 14:60ff would indicate an affirmative claim. Only in the Triumphal Entry scene do we see Jesus in anything like the role of a king, but even there it is the surrounding crowds and the Gospel narrator(s) who make the specific associations with Psalm 118:25-26 and Zech 9:9ff. For more detail on these passages, cf. Part 7.

The idea of Jesus as the Anointed Davidic Ruler and the “Son of David” came to be prominent in the earliest Christian tradition, as expressed in (1) the Infancy narratives, Matt 1-2 and Luke 1-2, and (2) the preaching/proclamation of the Gospel in the book of Acts. Cf. also Romans 1:3, and the discussion in Part 8. Gradually, however, the specific identification began to disappear from Christian tradition; Jesus continued to be thought of as an exalted (Divine) King who would also appear at the end-time to judge the world, but the association with David is not emphasized much in the New Testament writings outside of the Gospels and Acts (cf. 2 Tim 2:8; Rev 3:7; 5:5; 22:16).

Priest

The figure of an Anointed Priest is known mainly from the Qumran texts, but is also attested (or implied) in several other Jewish writings of the 1st century B.C./A.D. It would seem that the Qumran Community was originally founded by priests, and that priests continued to serve the primarily leadership role. The historical Teacher of Righteousness was a priest, and doubtless this was understood of the eschatological Teacher/Interpreter as well (cf. above). In several passages, especially in the Community rule documents, we see expressed the idea(l) of dual-leadership, including the eschatological framework of and Anointed Priest along with an Anointed King/Prince. It was the Priest who had priority at Qumran, and this may partly reflect a reaction against the assumption of the High Priesthood by the Hasmonean (Maccabean) rulers in the 2nd century B.C. Several texts also suggest the tradition of a single (Messianic) Priest-King, and, in at least one document (11QMelch [11Q13]), Melchizedek serves as an eschatological and Messianic figure.

There is some evidence for priestly images and symbolism being applied to Jesus in the Gospels and early Christian tradition, but it is relatively slight. Indeed, there are only a handful of passages in the Gospels which could be said to depict Jesus in the role of a priest. The Temple “cleansing” scene, along with several of Jesus’ sayings regarding the Temple, may also be understood in a priestly context. More common is the image of Jesus as a sacrificial offering, especially the Passover Lamb in the Gospel of John (cf. also 1 Cor 5:7; 1 Pet 1:19). Only in the Letter to the Hebrews, do we find a developed conception of Jesus as a High Priest, who offers himself (his own blood) as sacrifice to atone for the sins of the people, drawing primarily upon the imagery associated with the Day of Atonement (Lev 16). Hebrews also draws heavily upon the figure of Melchizedek, who probably was understood as a divine/heavenly being, using him as the type or example, establishing the basis for the Priesthood of Jesus. For more on the subject, see throughout Part 9 as well as the supplemental study on Hebrews. In addition to 11QMelch, the text from Qumran which offers the most relevant parallels to Jesus is perhaps 4Q541.

Heavenly Judge/Deliverer (Son of Man)

The last Messianic figure-type is that of Heavenly Deliverer (and Judge), which parallels in many ways the Davidic Ruler type (cf. above); however, it derives from a separate tradition, that of Daniel 7:13-14, and similar thought underlying much of the book of Daniel. There divine/heavenly beings (i.e. Angels) serve in the role of end-time Ruler/Protector of the people of God. Two figures in particular stand out: (1) Michael the archangel (Dan 12:1, etc), and (2) the “one like a son of man” in Dan 7:13-14. On this latter passage, which proved to be so influential on Messianic thought in Judaism and early Christianity, cf. the supplemental study. The book of Daniel had a prominent place in the Qumran Community, and inspired a number of apocalyptic, eschatological “Pseudo-Daniel” texts. The most notable of these is the Aramaic document 4Q246, which was clearly influenced by Daniel 7; it describes the rise of a ruler (usually understood as a Messianic figure), using language and titles that have a remarkable correspondence to those applied to Jesus in Luke 1:32-35. Heavenly beings (Angels), particularly leaders such as Michael and/or the “Prince of Light”, played an important role in the eschatological and identity of the Qumran Community, which viewed itself as the righteous and holy ones on earth, parallel to the Holy Ones in heaven.

Daniel 7:13-14 and the title “Son of Man” were uniquely combined in the sayings and teachings of Jesus as preserved in the Gospel Tradition. On the study of these difficult and complex Son of Man sayings, cf. the supplemental note, as well as my series of Easter season notes. In terms of Jesus as the Messiah, there are three relevant strands of tradition represented by these Son of Man sayings:

  1. Sayings in which Jesus refers to his suffering, death (and resurrection), where, to some extent, “Son of Man” came to be treated as synonymous with “the Anointed (One)”
  2. The eschatological sayings of Jesus, where he identifies himself with a divine/heavenly figure (“the Son of Man”) who will appear at the end-time Judgment
  3. The early Christian tradition of Jesus’ exaltation to heaven (at the right hand of God) following the resurrection

All three of these strands were woven into early Christian thought, and into the Christology of the New Testament. There are only two other writings from 1st century B.C./A.D. which evince a comparable Messianic figure either called “the Son of Man” or drawn clearly from Dan 7:13-14—the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71, early 1st c. A.D.?) and chapters 11-13 of the deutero-canonical 2/4 Esdras (late 1st c. A.D.). The Similitudes provide the closest parallel to Jesus, in that we find blended the idea of a (pre-existent) heavenly being (Son of Man, also called Anointed One, Elect One, Righteous One), and the ascension/exaltation of a human being (the righteous Enoch) to a heavenly position. For more on this subject, cf. Part 10.

The Christian Development of Messianic Thought

Despite the numerous parallels with the Qumran texts and other Jewish writings of the period, there was an altogether unique and original development of Messianic thought in early Christianity, centered on the person of Jesus. This must be seen by a careful study of all the relevant passages, as presented in the articles and notes throughout this series. Here, I would summarize the dynamic according to following points:

  • By at least the early 50s A.D., Jesus had come to be identified as the “Anointed One” (Messiah/Christ) so completely that it ceased to function as a distinct title and was rather assimilated as part of his name—i.e., “Yeshua Anointed” (Jesus Christ), “Anointed Yeshua” (Christ Jesus), or even simply “Anointed” (Christ).
  • Along with this, by the same time (50s A.D.), the association with a specific and traditional Messianic figure-type, especially that of Davidic Ruler, had generally disappeared from Christian thought. Similarly, the two other figure-types attested in the Gospel Tradition—Anointed Prophet, and Son of Man—disappeared almost completely from early Christianity. In particular, the title “Son of Man” virtually does not occur in the New Testament outside of Jesus’ own words in the Gospels.
  • Jesus’ identity as Messiah (Anointed One) came to be understood almost entirely in terms of his (sacrificial) death and resurrection. Rather than deliverance of Israel from the wicked nations (i.e. the traditional role of Messianic Ruler/Judge), the imagery is transformed to emphasize salvation from sin (and the Judgment to come). Apart from the possible parallels in the Qumran texts 11Q13 and 4Q541, it is hard to find anything quite like this in Jewish writings of the period. Paul deals extensively with the death of Jesus and its atoning/saving power, but generally without traditional Messianic language and symbolism. Of all the New Testament letters, it is perhaps Hebrews which best preserves these aspects of Messianic thought, though synthesized and expressed in a highly developed Christological framework. There is a similar blending of many Messianic symbols in the book of Revelation as well. For more on Jesus’ death and resurrection, cf. Part 11.
  • Jesus’ identity as the Messiah was utterly transformed by the increasing recognition and belief in his pre-existent Deity. Probably the earliest expression of this (by c. 60 A.D.) is the Christ-hymn in Philippians 2:6-11 (cf. also Col 1:15-20), but the idea is found and/or suggested in a number of places in Paul’s letters (cf. also 1 Pet 1:20, etc). Hebrews brings together the (earlier) idea of Jesus’ exaltation to the right hand of God following the resurrection, with a belief in his pre-existent position as God’s Son, balancing the two concepts (see esp. Heb 1:1-4; 2:5-18; 5:5-10, etc). The pre-existence of Jesus, and his identity as God’s Son, is most prominent in the Gospel and First Letter of John. The Prologue to the Gospel (Jn 1:1-18) is probably the most sophisticated and developed Christological passage in the New Testament; however, the same basic ideas are expressed throughout the Gospel, especially in the great Discourses of Jesus. The Son of Man sayings in the Gospel of John draw upon the twin aspects of descent (incarnation and sacrificial death) and ascent (glorification through death and resurrection, return to the Father); for more on these sayings, cf. my recent note. For more on Jesus (and the Messiah) as Son of God, cf. Part 12.

Even though much traditional Messianic thought and language, which had once been applied to Jesus, gradually disappeared, or was transformed by the belief and theology of the early Church, the older forms were not entirely forgotten. Nor should they be by believers today. Indeed, a careful study of the Jewish writings of the period, along with an examination of the ways in which the ideas and symbols in them relate to Jesus and the development of the Gospel tradition, can be extremely valuable, providing insight into the New Testament writings and the beliefs of the earliest Christians. This need not change or alter our own beliefs about Jesus; rather, when approached with an open mind and heart, such study will certainly enhance and affirm true belief. It is hoped that this series of article has been, and may continue to be, of benefit of all who seek to study and understand the New Testament and the person of Christ.

Yeshua the Anointed: Suffering and Death of the Messiah

By | Exegetical/Study Series | No Comments

One final topic remains to be discussed in this series, in light of Jesus’ death—the idea of that the Messiah would suffer and be put to death. This was of vital importance to the early Christian understanding of Jesus as the Messiah, and appears to have been an entirely original Christian development of Messianic thought and belief. However, given the centrality of Jesus’ death in the early Gospel proclamation, to his identity as the “Anointed One”, as well as to the Christology of the New Testament as a whole, it is worth examining this aspect in relation to Messianic expectation of the period.

Fundamental to the Gospel Tradition are the three Passion predictions by Jesus, the first of which begins “it is necessary [dei=] for the Son of Man to suffer many things…” (Mark 8:31 par). In these, and other similar sayings by Jesus, he uses the expression “the Son of Man” in referring to himself; however, in Luke 24:26, 46, after the resurrection, this changes and “the Anointed (One) [o( xristo/$]” is used instead. Luke’s version of the 3rd Passion prediction includes the important addition—”all the (thing)s written through the Foretellers {Prophets} (regarding) the Son of Man will be completed”. This is the first occurrence in the Synoptic Tradition of the theme that Jesus’ death and resurrection has been foretold and/or prefigured in Scripture. It is found again (by Jesus) in Mark 9:13; 14:21, 49 pars; Matt 26:54; Luke 22:37, as well as being implied by the citations from Scripture in the Passion narrative—Mark 12:10; 14:27 pars; Matt 27:9-10; John 13:18; 15:25; 17:12; 19:24, 28, 36-37; 20:9; cf. also Mark 14:34 par and John 2:22. This becomes an important element of the early Christian witness, as recorded in Luke-Acts—cf. Luke 24:25-27, 44-49; Acts 1:16, 20; 3:18-24; 8:32-35; 10:39-43; 13:29-37; 17:2-3; 26:22-23.

The Scriptural Evidence

Where exactly was it foretold that the “Anointed One” (Messiah) would suffer and be put to death? We are not told which Scriptures Jesus “opened up” to his disciples (Lk 24:25-27, 44-46ff), but in an earlier note I provided a list of the most relevant candidates, based on evidence from the New Testament and early Christian tradition. It must be admitted, however, that it is difficult to find passages which clearly refer to the suffering and/or death of a Messianic figure. The only conceivable passage which actually uses the term “Anointed (one)” [j^yv!m*] is Daniel 9:26, where it is said that “(the) anointed (one) will be cut off and (there will be) nothing/no-one for him”. I have discussed this reference as part of a detailed note on Dan 9:24-27. It is by no means certain that j^yv!m* in vv. 25-26 denotes a Messiah as typically understood (cf. the introduction to this series for a definition); it is better to read it in the general sense of the person (king and/or high priest) who is serving as leader of the (Israelite/Jewish) people. However, there can be no doubt that, by the 1st century A.D., the prophecy of Dan 9:20-27 was being interpreted in an eschatological and Messianic sense (cf. the Qumran text 11QMelch [11Q13]), and that early Christians certainly would have applied it to Jesus, particularly in light of the allusion to Dan 9:27 in the “Eschatological Discourse” of Jesus (Mark 13:14 par), even though the passage is not otherwise attested in the New Testament writings (but cf. 2 Thess 2:1-12). I find only two other Scriptures which could fairly be understood as referring to a Messianic figure:

  • Zechariah 12:10, interpreted as referring to the death (crucifixion) of Jesus in John 19:37; Rev 1:7, and see also Matthew’s version of the Son of Man saying in the Eschatological Discourse of Jesus (Matt 24:30). In the original context, however, it is by no means clear that this refers to anything like a Messianic figure; also that he was “stabbed/pierced” (rqd) more likely refers to someone slain by the sword, i.e. in battle, etc. Cf. below on the later Jewish tradition.
  • Isaiah 52:13-53:12, the famous “Suffering Servant” passage, which early on was interpreted by believers as referring to the suffering and death of Jesus, cf. the famous episode recorded in Acts 8:32-35 (and note the interesting critical question by the Ethiopian official in v. 34). In the Gospels, it is cited directly only at Matt 8:17, in the context of Jesus’ miracles, not his death; however, the Isaian passage likely influenced the way that the Passion narrative was told and understood, corresponding (rather clearly) in certain details to Isa 53:3-9. The identity of this Servant figure in Isaiah, in terms of its original context, continues to be debated by scholars and commentators.

It should be pointed out that neither of these passages appears to have been used or cited in the texts from Qumran; the surviving portions of the Commentary (pesher) on Isaiah do not cover 52:13-53:12. Nor would there seem to be any evidence for these Scriptures being interpreted in a Messianic sense prior to their use in the New Testament. as noted, there is an allusion to Dan 9:25 in 11QMelch, but with no suggestion of a Messianic figure suffering or dying; rather, it is the people who suffer, being held captive by the forces of wickedness (Belial), waiting for the announcement of salvation and deliverance by the “Anointed” One.

Jewish Tradition

Indeed, as most commentators today will admit, there does not appear to be any evidence for a suffering/dying Messiah in Jewish tradition before the time of Jesus and the New Testament writings. The earliest witness is probably to be found in the Dialogue with Trypho by Justin Martyr (mid-2nd century A.D.): §68, 90.1 (alluding to Isa 53:7), cf. also 36.1, 39.7. Scholars are, however, skeptical regarding the extent to which this (quasi-)fictional “Trypho” accurately represents Jewish thought of the period. The theme is not really attested in Jewish writings until the later Rabbinic period (cf. the references in Strack-Billerbeck II.273-299), where two Messiahs are distinguished—a Messiah ben-David, and a Messiah ben-Joseph (or ben-Ephraim). In some passages the Messiah ben-David is said to suffer, but he does not die; it is the Messiah ben-Joseph who is said to die (cf. Fitzmyer, pp. 1565-6). In the Babylonian Talmud (b. Sukkah 52), Zechariah 12:10 is interpreted as referring to the death of Messiah ben-Joseph, who is killed in battle. It has been suggested that this tradition is related to the defeat and death of the quasi-Messianic leader Bar-Kokhba during the second Jewish Revolt (132-135 A.D.), cf. Collins, p. 126. In the Aramaic Targum (Pseudo-)Jonathan, the ‘Suffering Servant’ of Isa 52:13-53:12 is given a Messianic interpretation, though in such a way, it would seem, as to contrast with the typical Christian understanding—the sufferings of the Messiah represent the suffering of Israel. For more on this subject, cf. J. Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel (Allen and Unwin: 1956), esp. pages 483-501.

Occasionally, scholars have suggested that the idea of suffering/dying Messiah figure may be found (or at least implied) in several of the Qumran texts, e.g.:

  • 4Q285—In fragment 5, line 4 the text (partially restored) reads: […dywd j]mx hduh aycn wtymhw, which was originally understood by some scholars as “they will put to death the Prince of the Congregation, the Branc[h of David…]”. However, today there is virtually unanimous agreement that this is incorrect, and that it should be rendered “the Prince of the Congregation, the Branc[h of David] will put him to death…”. In other words, it is not the Messianic figure who is put to death, but rather he is the one who puts to death the leader of the Kittim—this is the most natural identification based on the context. The Kittim represent the (wicked) nations, and typically serves as a cipher for the Roman Empire. This text is now considered to be part of the War Scroll (1QM, 4QM); the passage in fragment 5 provides an interpretation of Isaiah 10:34-11:1ff (cf. 4QpIsa [4Q161] 8-10:2-9).
  • 4Q541—This text seems to refer to a Priestly figure. In fragment 9, it is said that “he will atone for all the children of his generation…”, which could easily be interpreted from a Christian standpoint; however, this does not reflect the sacrificial death of a Messiah, but rather the work of an ideal eschatological/Messianic Priest. It is primarily his word and teaching which “will burn in all the ends of the earth…” and cause darkness to “vanish from the earth”. Lines 5-7 indicate suffering of a sort, in terms of lying and disparaging opposition to his teaching. This very likely reflects the history and experience of the Qumran Community. There is a difficult and obscure section in fragment 24, which has been translated (as one of several possible renderings) “…do not afflict the weak by wasting or hanging… [Let] not the nail approach him” (cf. Collins, p. 125). It has been suggested that “the nail” is a reference to crucifixion, but even if this is correct, the passage scarcely refers to the crucifixion of a Messiah.
  • A number of “Thanksgiving Hymns” (Hodayot) are thought to have been composed by, or written from the standpoint of, the Teacher of Righteousness, and possibly describe sufferings that he experienced (cf. 1QH 7:10; 8:26-27, 35-36; 9). These hymns are written using a style and language similar to that of the Old Testament Psalmist; given that a number of OT Psalms were understood by Christians as Messianic, interpreted and applied to Jesus’ suffering and death (esp. Pss 22, 41, 69), it is not surprising that commentators might interpret the hymns in a similar manner in relation to the Teacher of Righteousness. Several other texts speak of persecution and opposition to the Teacher (and the Community), especially by the “Wicked Priest” and the “Man of the Lie”.

Outside of the New Testament, the only passage from the 1st century B.C./A.D. which refers to the Messiah dying is 2/4 Esdras 7:28-29. The core of this deutero-canonical text (chaps. 3-14) is Jewish, dating from the late 1st century A.D. However, there is no indication whatever that the Messiah suffers or is put to death; it seems to be a natural death, along with a return to heaven following his 400-year reign on earth (cf. also 2 Baruch 30:1). After his departure, there will be seven days of silence, followed by the resurrection and Last Judgment (vv. 30-43). There is, perhaps, a general parallel to Jesus, in his ascension (and subsequent return), and to the idea of a Messianic Kingdom on earth (Rev 20:1-6).

Somewhat more common in Jewish writings of the period is the idea that the sufferings of the righteous have a vicarious aspect, which may bring salvation and atonement to the people. This is expressed in passages such as 2 Maccabees 7:37-38; 4 Maccabees 7:27-30; 17:19-22; among the passages from the Qumran texts that might be cited, note 1QS 5:6; 8:3f, 10; 9:4 (cf. H. Anderson, “4 Maccabees”, OTP 2:539). Messianic figures are often depicted as representatives or types of the righteous on earth, with roots going back into the Old Testament and ancient Israelite tradition, where the Anointed King (or Priest), who represents the people, and the righteous of Israel collectively, could both be referred to as God’s “Son”. Note also the precise parallel between the “Son of Man” and the people of God in Daniel 7:13ff, which proved to be so influential on Messianic thought. In the Similitudes of Enoch (1 En 37-71), the Messianic and heavenly Son of Man (also called the Righteous One), is the archetype for the righteous on earth.

Evidence from Jesus and the Gospel

If there were any doubt that the idea of a suffering/dying Messiah was generally unknown in the time of Jesus, one needs to look no further than the New Testament itself. I note the following evidence from the Gospels:

  • Peter’s reaction to the first Passion prediction by Jesus
  • Passages which indicate that the disciples did not understand that Jesus (the Son of Man, Messiah) had to suffer and die and then rise from the dead—Mark 9:32; Lk 9:45; 18:34; Jn 2:21-22; 12:16; 20:9
  • The confusion expressed by Jesus’ audience in John 12:33-34—note especially the expectation that the Anointed One (Messiah) will remain “into the Age” (i.e. forever).
  • Other passages in John which show confusion regarding the idea that Jesus must go away—Jn 8:21ff; 14:1-5; 16:16-19.
  • The taunts leveled at Jesus while on the cross, implying that the Messiah would not be allowed (or would not allow himself) to die that way—Mark 15:29-32 par; Matt 27:43; Luke 23:39ff.

More important is the way that Jesus emphasizes repeatedly, that was necessary for the Messiah (Jesus, the Son of Man) to suffer and die, and that this was foretold in the Scriptures—Mark 8:31 par; Mark 9:13; 14:21, 49 pars; Matt 26:54; Luke 22:37; 24:26, 46. The disciples do not seem to have been aware of this; even after the resurrection, they do not seem to have understood or expected it (Lk 24:19-25; Jn 20:9, etc), until Jesus himself explains it to them, “opening up” the Scriptures (and their minds). The two key passages are Luke 24:25-27 and 24:44-49:

“…all the things which the Foretellers spoke—was it not necessary (for) the Anointed (One) to suffer and to come into his honor/glory?” And beginning from Moshe and from all the Foretellers, he explained to them throughout the (thing)s about him in all the Writings. (24:25-27)
…and they said, “Was our heart not (set) on fire [in us] as he spoke with us on the way, as he opened the Writings through to us?” (v. 32)

…”it is necessary to be fulfilled all the (thing)s written about me in the Law of Moshe, and the Foretellers {Prophets} and Odes {Psalms} .” Then he opened their mind through to put together [i.e. understand] the Writings; and he said to them, “Thus it has been written (that it was necessary for) the Anointed (One) to suffer and to stand up out of the dead on the third day…” (24:44-46)

The idea that the Messiah would suffer, die and rise again was so unusual that it required special explanation (and revelation) by Jesus, with examination of the Scriptures in the light of his teaching. We find much the same dynamic at work in the book of Acts—the death of the Messiah had to be emphasized specially, and demonstrated from the Scriptures. The key references are Acts 3:18-24; 8:32-35; 10:39-43; 13:29-37; 17:2-3; 26:22-23. Moreover, it can be fairly well inferred that this would have been central to the instances where the early Christians are recorded as arguing and demonstrating that Jesus is the Anointed One (Acts 2:36; 5:42; 8:5; 9:22; 17:3; 18:5, 28). So contrary would the suffering and death (crucifixion) of the Messiah have been to the expectation of Jews at the time that it absolutely required a good deal of explanation and proof that the idea could be found in Scripture.

References above marked “Collins” are to J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (Anchor Bible Reference Library [ABRL]: 1995).
References marked “Fitzmyer” are to J. A. Fitzmyer’s Commentary on Luke in the Anchor Bible [AB], Volume 28A (1985).
References marked “OTP” are to The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. by J. H. Charlesworth, 2 volumes (Anchor Bible Reference Library [ABRL]: 1983, 1985).

Yeshua the Anointed: Supplemental study on Daniel 9:25-27

By | Exegetical/Study Series, Supplemental Study | No Comments

Overview of Daniel 9

Daniel 9 may be outlined as follows:

  • Narrative Introduction: Context of Jeremiah’s prophecy of the seventy years (vv. 1-2)
  • Daniel’s Prayer (vv. 3-19)
  • The Prophetic Revelation (by Gabriel) to Daniel (vv. 20-27)

The revelation of verses 20-27 is connected with both the setting of Jeremiah’s prophecy and Daniel’s prayer, a fact that is sometimes neglected by commentators. In examining the prayer (vv. 3-19), we find three main divisions or points of emphasis:

  1. Confession on behalf of the people’s sin, especially in terms of their disobedience to the instruction and righteousness of God (vv. 5-11)
  2. Acknowledgment of the righteous Judgment of God (vv. 12-14)
  3. Supplication to God for mercy and redemption, in two aspects:
    (a) turning away of God’s wrath (vv. 15-16), and
    (b) that God will hear and deliver his people (Israel) and city (Jerusalem) (vv. 17-19)

The setting of the narrative is the (Judean) exile in the early Persian period (v. 1), but the revelation in vv. 20-27, as well as the visions which follow in chapters 10-11, relate to future events (from the standpoint of the narrative). This involves the destiny of God’s people and the city of Jerusalem. The prophecy of Jeremiah mentioned in v. 2, is found in Jer 25:11-12; 29:10—the land will be laid waste for 70 years by Babylon, with the peoples sent into exile, but after these 70 years God promises to visit his people and bring them back to the land (of Judah). In the context of the book of Jeremiah, this can be seen as an accurate prediction, though the “seventy years” almost certainly represents a symbolic, general time frame. However, here in Daniel, the revelation by Gabriel in 9:20-27 has given a new interpretation (or application) to Jeremiah’s prophecy—the 70 years are (re-)intepreted as 490 (70 x 7) years. Again, 490 should be taken here as a symbolic (round) number; the Community of the Dead Sea scrolls seems to have understood it in relation to the Sabbatical year-cycle and the Jubilee year (cf. 11QMelch, etc). This time period is divided as follows (vv. 25-27):

  • From the word to restore and build Jerusalem until (there is) an anointed leader—7 weeks (49 years)
  • Jerusalem will be built and fortified, but in a time of distress—62 weeks (434 years)
  • The anointed one will be “cut off” and a ruler will come to destroy the city and Temple, leading to war and sacrilege, until his destruction—1 week (7 years)

This passage teems with difficulties, and it will not be possible to address them all here. However, I believe a correct interpretation depends on three factors:

  1. Whether the 70 weeks (490 years) should be taken literally or are symbolic—the latter is certainly to be preferred, removing any need to fit the prophecy into a precise and rigid time-frame.
  2. To what does the “going forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” refer? Should this be identified with the edict of Cyrus (Ezra 1:1-4), of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:12-26), or an earlier date (c. 586) which would allow for ~49 years until the rebuilding of Jerusalem? The context of the passage here rather suggests that it refers to the “going forth” of the word/command of God, coinciding with Daniel’s prayer (v. 23). From the standpoint of the narrative, the 490 years begins with the setting in v. 1 (“the first year of Darius…”).
  3. The context of the revelation, set in verse 24, must be kept in mind, whereby the 70 weeks have been cut/decreed by God, according to the following purpose for his city and people:
    (a) to finish the rebellion, i.e. of the people against God; probably this should be understood as the period of rebellion
    (b) to complete the sins, i.e. of the people, to bring them all to completion
    (c) to cover/wipe (out) evil/iniquity, using the language of priestly, ritual sacrifice
    (d) to bring in (ever)lasting righteousness
    (e) to seal (the) vision, i.e. the prophecy by Jeremiah (v. 2), but also presumably also the visions to Daniel, etc. in the book
    (f) to anoint (the) holy of holy (place)s, i.e. the Temple and its inner sanctuary

However one chooses to interpret this passage, there can be no doubt that its orientation is eschatological—it assumes that the 70 weeks will bring about the end of the current sinful age, and the beginning of a new everlasting period (or Kingdom) of righteousness.

Interpretation and Identity of the “Anointed” in Dan 9:25-26

There are actually two figures who are called “anointed” (j^yv!m*) in this passage, which strongly indicates that the word here does not refer to a specific future/end-time figure subsequently to be known as “the Anointed (One)” (Messiah). Rather, it would seem to apply more generally to the particular leader—king and/or priest—of the people who return to the land following the exile. On the basis of the known history of the early post-exilic period in the Old Testament, the “anointed” leader who is established after the first seven weeks would likely represent the High Priest Joshua, or the (Davidic) ruler Zerubbabel, or both. For the dual-leadership of these two, cf. Zechariah 3-4; 6:9-15; their anointed status is suggested by the phrase “sons of oil” in Zech 4:14. This figure is specifically called “anointed leader [dyg]n`]”; this term often denotes a (military) commander, but can refer to any prominent person who has an (official) position of leadership “in front of” the people.

The second figure in verse 26 is more problematic; it tersely states that “following the sixty-two weeks, (the) anointed (one) will be cut off [tr@K*y], and there will be nothing/no-one [/ya@] for him”. Modern critical commentators generally consider this a reference to the High Priest Onias III, who was murdered by Menelaus c. 171 B.C. in the reign of Antiochus IV (according to 2 Maccabees 4:23-34). This is based on the view that the final seven years in Dan 9:26-27 refer to reign of Antiochus IV and the rise of the Maccabees (i.e. 171-163 B.C.). The critical view is supported by the earliest surviving interpretation of Dan 9:20-27 (1 Maccabees 1, cf. verse 54). The earliest reference to the “anointed” one (of 9:25) would seem to be in the Qumran text 11QMelch(izedek) [11Q13], where he is identified with the herald “anointed of the spirit” (Isa 61:1, also 52:7) who brings the good news of salvation and deliverance to God’s people (col. ii, lines 18-20ff). As far as I am aware, this is the only quotation or allusion to Dan 9:25-26 in the scrolls, and there do not appear to be any other references in Jewish writings of the first centuries B.C./A.D. Jerome, in his Commentary on Daniel (the oldest critical treatment of vv. 24-27), gives a confusing summary of what he considers the Jewish view of the passage, but indicates that vv. 26-27 referred to the Roman defeat of the two Jewish revolts (during the reigns of Vespasian and Hadrian). The latter relates to the quasi-Messianic leader Bar-Kokhba (132-135 A.D.).

Christians, of course, came to interpret the “anointed leader” or “anointed (one)” in vv. 25-26 as a prophecy regarding Jesus, especially of his death, when he was “cut off” and “there was none for him”. However, there is really no evidence in the New Testament itself for this association, and vv. 24-27 are not cited apart from Jesus’ mention of the bde/lugma th=$ e)rhmw/ew$ (with narrator’s comment) in Mark 13:14 par (on this, cf. below). In the Greek version of Theodotion, the seven weeks and sixty-two weeks are combined (i.e. 69 weeks), which allows for the references in vv. 25 and 26 to be understood in terms of a single Anointed figure. Christian commentators followed this way of reading the text, applying it to Jesus. However, the Masoretic Hebrew clearly separates the seven weeks from the sixty-two weeks, and is almost certainly correct, as recognized by most translations and commentaries today, and which I follow in the outline above. For more on the Christian interpretation of the passage, cf. below.

The bde/lugma tw=n e)rhmw/sewn (Dan 9:27)

In Dan 9:27, we read:

“…for half of the week he will make cease the slaughtering (of animals) and (the) offering, <m@v)m= <yx!WQv! [n~K= lu^w+, until the end/finish (that has been) cut is poured out upon (the one) laying waste”

After the “anointed” one is cut off, a ruler will come with his army to bring war and destruction upon Jerusalem (and the Temple). In v. 27a, it is stated that this conquering ruler will establish a firm agreement with the multitudes (i.e. of Judah/Jerusalem) for one week (7 years). During the first half of the week (~3+ years), he will do two notable things: (1) cause the sacrificial offerings and the Temple cultus to cease operation, and (2) the phrase left untranslated in Hebrew. Difficulties abound regarding this latter phrase; literally, the Masoretic text reads:

“and upon the wing [[nk] of despicable (thing)s he lays waste”
or, perhaps:
“and upon the wing of despicable (thing)s (the one) laying waste (comes)”

This does not make particularly good sense in the context of the verse, complicated further by the interpretation/translation in the Greek versions:

“and upon the Temple there will be a stinking (thing) of desolations [bde/lugma tw=n e)rhmw/sewn]”

The Hebrew suggests a person, whereas the Greek, perhaps understanding the “wing” [[nk] to be the side or pinnacle of the Temple (cf. Lk 4:9), seems to indicate something (an idolatrous object?) placed on the Temple structure. The earliest interpretation is found in 1 Maccabees 1:54, following the Greek rendering—the “stinking thing of desolations” [bde/lugma tw=n e)rhmw/sewn] is identified with a pagan altar that Antiochus IV had set upon the altar in the Temple (v. 59, also 4:43), and upon which, it would seem, unlawful/unclean pagan sacrifices were offered (cf. 2 Macc 6:5). In light of this, some critical commentators have proposed emending the Hebrew [nk (“wing”) to <nk (“their place”), with the expression then being <nk lu (“upon their place”, cf. Dan 11:38), i.e. the pagan altar with its sacrifices in place of the prescribed sacrificial offerings of the Temple (Collins, Daniel, p. 358). This is very reasonable, but it involves the always questionable step of emending the text (with no other external support, unfortunately 9:20-27 is not present in the Daniel scroll fragments from Qumran); it also depends on the particular interpretation of vv. 26-27 as describing the reign of Antiochus IV.

The Greek expression “the stinking (thing) of desolation [sing.]” [bde/lugma th=$ e)rhmw/sew$] is found in the New Testament, in the so-called Eschatological Discourse of Jesus (Mark 13:14 / Matt 24:15), along with the same narrator’s aside in both passages. According to the standard critical hypothesis, Matthew is reproducing Mark’s text verbatim. As part of his description of the time of intense suffering and distress about to come upon Judea and Jerusalem, the Gospel tradition records this declaration by Jesus:

“But when you see ‘the stinking (thing) of desolation’ having stood where it certainly should not (be)”—the one reading must have (this) in mind—”then the (one)s in Judea must flee into the hills…” (Mk 13:14)

While the expression clearly comes from Dan 9:27, it is by no means certain precisely what Jesus (and/or the Gospel writer[s]) understand this to be. The closest we have to an interpretation is found in Luke’s version, which seems to have transformed the reference (note the portions identical with Mark/Matthew in italics):

But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by swaths of soldiers, then know that her desolation has come near” (Lk 21:20)

It now refers simply to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem, which was fulfilled in the war of 66-70 A.D. Given the fact that so much of the Eschatological Discourse was more or less accurately fulfilled in the period leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the Gospel writers (and Jesus himself) may well have had this in mind—(re-)interpreting Dan 9:26-27 into the (current) context of the Roman Empire. Commentators, however, continue to debate whether the bde/lugma th=$ e)rhmw/sew$ is intended to describe a particular act of desecration by Rome. Among the possibilities are:

  • The emperor Gaius’ (Caligula) establishment of the imperial cult, including his statue which was to be placed in the Jerusalem Temple, transforming it into an imperial shrine (c. 40 A.D., Josephus, Antiquities 18.256-307). In his Commentary on Daniel (11:31), Jerome states that Antiochus IV had similarly set up an image of Jupiter (Zeus) Olympius in the Jerusalem Temple.
  • The destruction and despoiling of the Temple by Titus in 70 A.D.
  • The transformation of Jerusalem into a (pagan) Roman city (Aelia Capitolina) in the reign of Hadrian, following the suppression of the Jewish (Bar-Kochba) revolt in 132-135 A.D.

For those who interpret Dan 9:26-27 from a modern-day futurist standpoint (cf. below), the setting up of the “stinking thing of desolation” in Jerusalem is yet to occur. If Paul has Dan 9:27 in mind in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 (vv. 3-4), then he understands it as a person, who will take his place in the Temple, which accords with the wording of the Masoretic Hebrew text (above). Modern futurist interpretation typically identifies this figure with the “Antichrist” (1 Jn 2:18) and the Beast of Rev 13-19.

Christian Interpretation and Eschatology

The earliest surviving interpretation of Jesus as the “Anointed” of Dan 9:25-26 is probably in Clement of Alexandria’s Stromateis (Bk 1, chap. 21, late 2nd century), though it is also implied somewhat earlier in the treatment of verse 27 in the so-called Epistle of Barnabas 16 and Irenaeus’ Against Heresies V.25ff. From the early 3rd century, cf. also Tertullian’s Answer to the Jews §8, 13, and Origen, Against Celsus 6:46. For these Church Fathers, the time of Antichrist (v. 27) was represented by the false teaching and “Gnostic” views of the period, which they so eagerly sought to combat. Unfortunately, the Commentary of Hippolytus on Daniel (early-mid 3rd century) does not survive complete, but in at least one fragment (on the “abomination of desolation” in v. 27, cf. above), he provides a two-fold interpretation: it relates (1) to that set up by Antiochus IV, and (2) to that which will yet take place when Antichrist comes. Many thoughtful readers and commentators today will likely end up adopting a similar view (cf. below). In Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel, in his lengthy (and critical) discussion of vv. 24-27, he quotes from Hippolytus as well as a lengthy extract from Eusebius’ Demonstration of the Gospel (8:2). Another important citation from Hippolytus is found in the much later Commentary of Dionysius bar-Salibi on Revelation (Rev 11:2). For other relevant passages in the writings of the Church Fathers in the 4th and 5th centuries, see e.g., Eusebius’ Church History 1.6.11; 3.5.4; Theophania 4:35-36; Athanasius’ History of the Arians §§76-77; Cyril of Jerusalem, Lecture 12.19; Aphrahat, Demonstration 17.19; 21.

As indicated above, the standard modern critical view holds that Daniel 9:26-27 refers to the period of Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), the Seleucid Greco-Syrian king who ruled c. 175-164 B.C. On the whole, this is likely to be correct, given the way that the subsequent visions in chapters 10-11 seem to describe the rise and history of the Greek (Alexandrian/Hellenistic) Empire, which is usually understood as the fourth Kingdom/Beast of the visions in chapters 2 and 7 as well. Fitting the historical events precisely into the prophetic scheme of Dan 9:20-27 is rather more difficult. Identifying the “anointed” one who is “cut off” with the High Priest Onias III is certainly plausible, but far from certain. Also, as discussed above, it is not entirely clear that the actions of the coming ruler of vv. 26-27 truly match those of Antiochus in detail. Far more problematic, however, at least for those who take the inspiration of Scripture seriously, is that the eschatological Age did not come with the death of Antiochus, the re-establishment of Jewish rule under the Maccabees, and the re-dedication/consecration of the Temple. The period of the Maccabees was by no means a time of “everlasting righteousness” (9:24), as the Qumran texts and other Jewish writings of the first centuries B.C./A.D. make abundantly clear.

It is not surprising, then, that the Qumran Community and the early Christians would interpret and apply the passage according to their own eschatological viewpoint. For the earliest believers in Jesus, the coming of the end-time Judgment (and with it the return of Christ) appeared to be imminent, marked by the “birth pains” described by Jesus in the Eschatological Discourse—Roman imperial control of Judea, threat of rebellion and war, the appearance of Messianic pretenders, the persecution and arrest of believers, etc—which would culminate in the war of 66-70 A.D. with the siege and destruction of Jerusalem (and the Temple). Much, if not most, of what Jesus predicts in Mark 13 par, can be seen as more or less accurately being fulfilled in this period. It is certainly possible to understand the “stinking thing [i.e. abomination] of desolation” in this context as well, as I discuss above. However, there remains the same problem—the end did not come with these events, not after the destruction of the war of 66-70, nor the revolt of 132-5 A.D. Even if Jesus were correctly understood as the “Anointed” one of Dan 9:26, to what extent has a period of “everlasting righteousness” been established on earth?

This, in turn, has led some modern-day commentators to posit a time gap between the first 69 weeks (483 years) and the last week (7 years)—the last week is yet to be fulfilled, and will occur some time (very soon) in the future. While this may seem like a good way to harmonize Scripture and preserve its historical accuracy, unfortunately there is no support for it in the text of Daniel itself. Nothing in Dan 9:20-27 suggests any sort of gap in time (let alone of 2000+ years) before the final week. More feasible, in my view, is the idea that the events of vv. 20-27 are fulfilled at two levels—(1) the historical fulfillment culminating in the period c. 170-163 B.C., and (2) the typological fulfillment in the life and person of Jesus. According to the second (Christological) aspect, the 70 weeks have an even more pronounced symbolic sense—rather than attempting to fit them into a chronological scheme, it is better to view them as representing the fulfillment of God’s determined plan for His people. The period of distress, war, and religious persecution in vv. 26-27 is likewise representative of events which have been played out countless times throughout history, even in the case of the city of Jerusalem itself.

Returning to the original context of Daniel 9:20-27, it may be fair to ask in what sense it is eschatological. As I see it, there are two possibilities:

  1. The eschatology is real—i.e., verses 26-27 describe events which mark the end-time and the completion of the current Age.
  2. The situation of Israelite/Jewish history (regardless of how one dates the book) is being described, symbolically, using eschatological language and imagery, to express the hope and belief in God’s deliverance of his people.

The apparent chronological calculations in the passage would suggest that it is meant to show the fulfillment of historical events. According to the mainstream critical view, the book of Daniel (esp. chapters 7-12) dates from a time c. 165 B.C., and that the visions and revelations are, for the most part, ex eventu prophecies—descriptions of events which have already occurred. Traditional-critical commentators, on the other hand, are much more inclined to take the setting of the narrative at face value, holding that Dan 9:20-27 is an authentic revelation from the time of the historical Daniel (early 6th century). Neither approach, however, has been able to explain entirely how the events in vv. 25-27 have been, or will be, fulfilled in history. One should therefore take seriously the symbolic aspect of the passage, especially in its use of the Sabbatical year-cycle to mark its chronology. The year of Jubilee begins in the middle of the seventh Sabbatical year (i.e. the last “week”), on the 10th day of the 7th month, which is the Day of Atonement (cf. Daniel’s prayer and v. 24). Forty-nine (49) years precede the Jubilee, corresponding to the 490 years (49 x 10) in vv. 20-27. All of this symbolism was clearly recognized and expounded in the Qumran text 11QMelch(izedek), which happens to contains the earliest surviving direct allusion to Dan 9:25-26 (cf. above).

The text 11QMelch may also be seen as providing an interesting bit of evidence in support of viewing Jesus as the “anointed” one of Dan 9:25. As noted above, in col. ii lines 18-20, this figure in Daniel is identified with the herald “anointed of the spirit” in Isa 61:1ff—the same Messianic figure with which Jesus identifies himself in Luke 4:18-20; 7:19-23 par. This demonstrates that, by the time of Jesus, there were at least some Jews who interpreted the “anointed” of Dan 9:25 as one who would bring the good news of salvation to God’s people.

References above marked “Collins, Daniel” are to the Commentary on Daniel by John J. Collins in the Hermeneia series (Fortress Press: 1993).

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

By | Exegetical/Study Series | No Comments

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

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

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

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

The Gospel of John

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christological Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Apostolic Fathers

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

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

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

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

Yeshua the Anointed: Supplemental note on Daniel 3:25

By | Exegetical/Study Series, Supplemental Study | No Comments

Overview and Interpretation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel 3:25 and 7:13-14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christophany and Christological Interpretation

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

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

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

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

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