The Death of the Divine Warrior


Published on

A study of the Gospel of Mark with a particular emphasis on the use of the Scriptures of Israel in presenting Jesus as the fulfilment of the New Exodus hopes of Isaiah.
By Rev Jon Swales, Curate at St George's Church, Leeds

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The Death of the Divine Warrior

  1. 1. I. Introduction, Outline andMethodology1. Introduction (a) The Warrior Messiah and the New Exodus Hopes of Psalms of SolomonIn 63 BC Pompey captured Jerusalem and violated the Temple. In response to this crisis andas a propaganda tract par excellence in support of the recently displaced Zadokite priests1 thePsalms of Solomon were composed.2 Within this document, a collection of eighteen Psalmsattributed to Solomon, Psalm 17 looks to a future hope in which a Davidic King, the Messiah,will defeat Israels enemies and usher in an eschatological age in which Jerusalem will becleansed (17.22,30), the tribes reunited (17.44) and the nations of the world will pay homageat Jerusalem (17.31). The Messiah is a warrior figure who, in the words of John J. Collins, isundeniably violent.3 See, Lord, and raise up for them their king, the son of David, to rule over your servant Israel in the time known to you O God. Undergird him with the strength to destroy unrighteous rulers, to purge Jerusalem from gentiles who trample her to destruction; in wisdom and in righteousness to drive out the sinners from the inheritance; to smash the arrogance of sinners like a potters jar; to shatter all their substance with an iron rod; to destroy the unlawful nations with the word of his mouth. (17.21-24)1. H. C. Kim, Psalms of Solomon: A New Translation and Introduction (Highland Park: Hermit KingdomPress, 2008), viii.2. For a detailed discussion of date, provenance and theology of the Psalms of Solomon see R. B. Wright,“Psalms of Solomon: A New Translation and Introduction,” in ed. Charlesworth The Old TestamentPseudepigrapha. Volume Two(London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1985), 639-650.3. John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other AncientLiterature, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 54. This view is not shared by J. H. Charlesworth, “TheConcept of the Messiah in the Pseudepigrapha,” ANRW II 19 (1979): 188-218, 199, or J. D. Crossan, TheHistorical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1992), 108.Crossan writes And this messianic leader does not use violence, neither the actual violence of normal warfarenor the transcendental violence of angelic destruction. Yet as the 17.21-24 show it is the Messiah who willtrample, smash, destroy and shatter the unlawful nations. 1
  2. 2. This future deliverer is described in super-human terms. He is free from sin (17.36),powerful in the holy spirit (17.37) and called the Lord Messiah (17.32).4 The nations willcome from the ends of the earth to see the anointed king and, in doing so, shall behold theglory of the Lord (17.31). Although ONeil exaggerates when he places Ps. 17 in a discussionof Jewish texts which show a trinitarian and incarnational theology, this Lord Messiah isclearly a super-human figure who is in some sense divine.5 By using the word divine it is notintended that this means that this person is to be equated with God or that he is an angelicfigure but rather that his existence cannot be explained solely in reference to normal humanand creational categories. He belongs, in a way, as a divine agent to the heavenly realm.Alongside this future Davidic warrior king, Ps. 17 contains ample references to the ultimatekingship of the one God of Israel. The Psalm begins and ends as follows, Lord, you are king forevermore, (17.1) The Lord Himself is our king forevermore. (17.46)These kingly bookends set the theological context for understanding the Davidic messiah. Heis neither on a par nor equal with God but acts to bring God glory (17.32) and is entirelydependent on him; The Lord Himself is his king. (17.34)Robert Rowe, who categorises this view of kingship as two-tier kingship, sums up hisfindings concerning the Pss. of Sol. Thus we see that the Psalms of Solomon, as a collection, not only speak of the coming Davidic Messiah, but also of Gods kingdom, to which the Messiah is subordinate.6The dual kingship of YHWH and his Messiah are spoken of in other parts of the Psalms ofSolomon (18.6-7; 2.30-32; 5.19). Alongside a hope that looks with longing to the coming ofLord Messiah, the Psalms also anticipate the arrival of YHWH himself. YHWH, who hadpreviously deserted Jerusalem (7.1-10), will one day gather the exiled people of God and leadthem on a new Exodus (NE) to be welcomed into a restored Jerusalem. Ps. of Sol. 11, whichis intertextually related to the NE hope of Isa. 40-55, makes this clear.4. Many commentators and translators, including Ralphs LXX and the more recent Lexham Greek-EnglishLXX, emend the text to read the Lords Messiah. However Gk. and Syr. MSS all support the reading LordMessiah. See R. B. Wright, “Psalm of Solomon: A New Translation and Introduction.”, 627, fn z. Also J. C.O’Neill, Who Did Jesus Think He Was? (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 96-97. This same title is also found in 1 Sam.24.6; Lam. 4.20 LXX; Superscription of Pss. of Sol. 18; Ps. 110.5. J. C. O’Neill, Who Did Jesus Think He Was? (1995), 96-97.6. R.D. Rowe, Gods Kingdom and Gods Son (Leiden:Brill, 2002) 2
  3. 3. Stand on a high place, Jerusalem, and look at your children, from the east and west assembled by the Lord... He flattened high mountains into level ground for them... So that Israel may proceed under the supervision of the glory of their God. (11.2; 11.4; 11.6)7YHWH will do again what he did in the Exodus by coming to dwell in the midst of hispeople. Although, in some sense, YHWHs kingship is constant and eternal it is, in anothersense, the eschatological hope of Israel whereby heavenly kingship needs to be manifested inthe spiritual, historical and geographical situation of Israel. Drawing on the NE traditions ofIsa. 40-55 God is portrayed using mythological language as a Divine Warrior (DW) whosubdues creation in his NE march.8The coming of YHWH to Zion and the advent of a future Davidic warrior king should not beviewed as contradictory eschatological hopes in the Pss. of Sol. Rather, the biblical andSecond-Temple evidence suggests that this two-fold eschatological hope, bound together withtwo-tier kingship, formed part of the mental furniture of many Second Temple Jews beingreinforced in story, symbol and ritual and being found in a range of biblical and post-biblicaltexts. (b) Thesis OutlineThe Gospel of Mark, which was more than likely put together in its final form in the years ofthe Jewish War (66-73 A.D.), reflects the eschatological framework of the Pss. of Sol. in itsnarration of the final years of Jesus life. However, rather than being a future hope, the Gospelof Mark looks back to its eschatological fulfilment in the person and work of Jesus. By usingthe phrase βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ repeatedly9 Mark emphasises that Jesus kingdom project andeschatological message concern the establishment of the reign of God. However, the kingly7. Allusions to Isa. 40-55 will be dealt with in the following chapter.8. So T. Longman III, and D.G. Reid, God is Warrior, SOTBT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 72-90. In achapter entitled God Wars Against the Forces of Chaos Longman demonstrates that YHWH, as a warriorsubduing creation, is found across a range of texts including Nah. 1.4; Ps. 18.14-15; 29.10; 24.1-2; 74.12-17;Isa. 27.1.9. Mk. 1.15; 4.11; 4.26; 4.30; 9.1; 9.47; 10.14-15; 10.23-25; 12.34; 14.25; 15.43. 3
  4. 4. reign of God is closely connected to the ministry of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah10 and Sonof God.11 In his ground-breaking study Way of the Lord Joel Marcus concludes that Mark is, Following in the footsteps of some of his Jewish contemporaries when he makes the motif of the kingdom of God of central importance and binds it intimately to the notion of the kingship of the Messiah.12Although Mark shares this conceptual framework he transforms it in at least two distinctways. Firstly, as widely recognised in scholarship, the manifestation of the kingdom of Godand the identity of the Messiah comes not through the the military defeat of the Kittim ofRome or the nations but, rather, through the path of suffering, crucifixion and resurrection.Marcus continues: There seems to be no Jewish parallel for Mark’s thought that the Messiah’s kingship and the kingdom of God are manifest already and in a definitive way in his suffering and death.13Secondly, and this points to the content of this thesis, Mark does not draw a sharp distinction,as in two-tier kingship, between the identity of Jesus and that of the one true God of Israel.Rather, Jesus is portrayed in Mark as fulfilling, in himself, the twin eschatological hopes ofthe return of YHWH to Zion and the coming of a divine Davidic messiah. For Mark, it willbe argued, Jesus is in some sense the incarnation or embodiment of YHWH. Furthermore,through his ironic use of Scripture, Mark demonstrates that Israel, in rejecting Jesus, hasactually rejected both the arrival of their Messiah and God.The claim of this thesis flies in the face of much of Markan scholarship which rejects theview that Mark held to a incarnational christology in which Jesus is, in some sense, to beontologically identified with the one God of Israel.1410. Mk. 1.1; 8.29; 14.61-62; 10.47-48; 15.32.11. Mk. 1.1; 3.11; 5.7; 15.39.12. Marcus, The Way of the Lord (2004), 202.13. ibid. ,202.14. Frank Matera is typical when he says: If a group of Christians possessed only the Gospel of Mark, they would have a different understanding of Jesus than another group that possessed only the Gospel of John. Both groups would undoubtedly identify Jesus as the Son of God and Son of Man, but in doing so, they would interpret these terms in different ways. Believers nourished by the Gospel of John would view Jesus as the incarnation of the preexistent Son of God who dwelt in Gods presence: the Son of Man who descended from heaven and then ascended tot he Father. In contrast to these believers, those nourished by the Gospel of Mark would view Jesus as the obedient Son of God who proclaimed the kingdom of God and died a shameful death of crucifixion. Despite this death they continued to believe that he will soon return as the glorious Son of Man who will inaugurate Gods kingdom in power. 4
  5. 5. The overacting structure of this thesis is as follows:The following chapter will offer an in depth study of the Gospel of Mark demonstrating, inthe face of recent critics (such as Hatina and Moyise), that Mark presents Jesus as theembodiment of YHWH who comes as a DW to lead his people on a NE to Zion. This will beachieved, building upon the scholarship of Joel Marcus and Rikki Watts, by noting theintertextual parallels between Mark and the NE traditions of Isa. 40-55.The third chapter of this thesis will demonstrate that Jesus is a divine messiah figure who hascome to be enthroned in Zion. A thorough study of the scriptural traditions standing behindMk. 11.1-11 will show that Mark uses scriptural traditions to portray Jesus as a divinemessiah who is rejected by the the leadership of Jerusalem. The so called triumphal entry,when compared with other entry narratives, is to be understood as being anti-climactic.The fourth and final chapter will show that the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus is not theend of the the NE story. Rather, the death of Jesus as both God and Messiah is the means bywhich this NE can actually be achieved. Isa. 40-55 provides a scriptural blueprint for suchthinking.The remainder of this chapter will deal with some methodological issues and an exposition ofmonotheism and the concept of a Divine Messiah within late Second Temple Judaism. F. J. Matera, New Testament Christology (Westminster: John Knox Press, 1999), 2. W.R Telford, who himself isno stranger to Markan studies, makes the following comment, This is not to say, of course, that Mark is operating with a later Nicene or Chalcedonian understanding of Jesus divinity. Notions of the Son of Gods preexistence, mediatorial role in creation, descent from heaven, incarnation or sinlessness are as yet undeveloped. W. R. Telford, The Theology of the Gospel of Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 40-41.Jimmy Dunns significant study Christology in the Making seeks to present a survey of the NT ascertaining howthe doctrine of the incarnation developed. He concludes, As the first century of the Christian era drew to a close we find a concept of Christs real pre-existence beginning to emerge, but only with the Fourth Gospel can we speak of a full blown conception of Christs personal pre-existence and a clear doctrine of the incarnation. J. D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry Into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (London: SCM Press, 1980), 258.More recently A.Y. Collins writes The Synoptic Gospels do not portray Jesus as preexistent. A. Y. Collins, andJ. J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical andRelated Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 209. 5
  6. 6. 2. Narrative, Intertextuality and IntratextualityMark does not write as a systematic theologian. Instead, he seeks to communicate hischristological claims through a story. Robert Tannenhill correctly states, in his essay entitledGospel of Mark and Narrative Christology, that we learn who Jesus is through what he saysand does in the context of the action of others.15 However, some caution is required given thepost-modern tendencies in some forms of narrative criticism. Mark, far from being a free-floating narrative with no authorial intent, intends to communicate to a real and impliedaudience. The worldview of Mark and his readers is entirely at home in the world of SecondTemple Judaism. They understand the story of Jesus from within the context of the story ofIsrael, its scriptures and its climactic fulfilment in the person of Jesus.16It is necessary to clarify further what is intended by the phrase implied reader. FollowingHolly Careys suggestion, the reader should be distinguished from the audience.17 Theimplied audience is to be understood as the larger community for whom the Gospel was readaloud, they are listeners who may or may not be biblically competent. Taking on a differentrole, the implied reader is to be understood as the literate individual(s) who would have beengiven the task of reading out the document within, what we may presume to be, a context ofworship to the larger community. These individuals (readers) have the level of education andability to interpret and explain the text to the audience where needed.18 The frequent citationsand allusions to the OT in the Gospel of Mark imply the reader is biblically literate and is at15. R. C. Tannehill, “The Gospel of Mark as Narrative Christology,” Semeia 16 (1979): 57-95, 58.16. Although there is great variety in the beliefs and praxis of Second Temple Judaism it is possible to sketchout unifying contours within this plurality. See N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God:(London: SPCK, 1992), 244. There is a basic worldview, which we can plot, that lies at a deeper and morefundamental level than these variations. Neusner first made the distinction between Judaism and Judaisms J.Neusner et al., Judaisms and Their Messiahs At the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1987). but, as M. Mach correctly quips, the plural still needs a singular to have any ed. C.C. Newman et al. The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers From the St. AndrewsConference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus (Leiden:Brill, 1999), 24.17. Carey, Jesus Cry From The Cross (2009), 23-24.18. It must not be assumed that there is a direct correlation between illiteracy and biblical incompetence, for anilliterate leader, particularly of a Jewish background, may likely be steeped in the texts and traditions of Israelthrough liturgical and symbolic formation and the use of orality and memory. Literacy levels in antiquity mayhave been as little as 10%. Christianity, however, sharing the same scriptural roots as Second Temple Judaism,would have a had a particular textual focus. This would be true even for illiterate members of the community.See H.Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (Yale:YaleUniversity Press, 1997). 6
  7. 7. home in the scriptures of Israel.19 This implied reader also has a high level of literaryawareness and is assumed to be aware of literary conventions such as repetition, two stepprogression, framing and the placing of episodes in concentric patterns. Mark displays a greatdeal of literary skill which the implied readers are expected to make use of.20 Theconsequences of this are significant in that the ideal reader is able to move backwards andforwards in the text and is not bound to a linear reading. Although the text is to be readsynchronically, this is not to mean that its meaning for the implied reader is uncovered purelythrough a sequential reading of the text. I do not follow Staley who believes that post-Gutenberg readers have distorted readings of the text in being able to flick backward andforward21 and, himself, proposes that the Gospels should only be read in a sequential linearmanner. I concede the obvious point that narratives, as opposed to reference books, should beread sequentially. However, this does not rule out the positing of an ideal reader who is ableto study the texts in both a linear and non-linear manner.22 A non-linear reading can enhance19. The scriptures of Israel played a major role in the formation of the Gospel of Mark which, according toThomas Hatina, contains approximately 30 quotations and up to 200 allusions T.R. Hatina, In Search of aContext: The Function of Scripture in Mark’s Narrative, LNTS Vol. 232 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,2002), 1.20. His creative skill the way he has set incidents in relation to each other by means of two related processes of arrangement. The first is the arrangement of the pericopae into a linear sequence to form a coherent plot with its own space and time. The second is the arrangement of a complex web of relationships between incidents by the use of a wide range of compositional, stylistic and literary techniques: repetitional devices, such as two-step progression, three-fold patterns, reiteration of key words; parenthetical constructions, such as intercalcations, insertions, framing passages and the use of inclusio; symmetrical patterns, as such as chiasmus, ring composition, and parallelism; techniques of foreshadowing and retrospection; and extensive use of the dynamics of parabolic speech, such as role reversal, paradox and irony....In summary,... narrative criticism has good grounds for regarding him as an author of considerable literary skill, who regardless of his sources, bears full responsibility for the shape and structure of the final product. So, C. D. Marshall, Faith as a Theme in Mark’s Narrative (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1989), 20-21.21. J. L. Staley, The Print’s First Kiss: A Rhetorical Investigation of the Implied Reader in the Fourth Gospel(Atlanta:Scholars Press, 1985). With serious and sympathetic discussion in P. M. Phillips, The Prologue of theFourth Gospel, LNTS 294 (London: T&T Clark, 2006).22. Similarly, Peterson describes the movement back and forth through a text: Parallelism interrupts the merely sequential flow of content through a systematic repetition that requires readers and hearers to move forth and back through the text rather than simply straight through it. Once a parallel is discerned it becomes necessary to pause, however momentarily, and synthesise the relations between the parallels before moving forward through the text.See N.R. Petersen, “The Composition of Mark 4:1-8:26,” HTR 73, no. 1/2 (1980): 185-217, 204. In a similarway Van Iersel, after sketching out a chiastic structure of Mark, describes a circular approach to text which ispresent alongside that of the sequential: A circular construction operates the other way round [to the sequential linear reading]. The reader does not become aware of its presence until he or she has passed the centre of the construction and begins to recognize that the components following the centre correspond in reverse sequence to those preceding 7
  8. 8. the ability to compare and contrast various parts of the text—the reader is able to move bothforwards and backwards—and can develop intertextual and intratextual potentialities throughmultiple readings.23 In this study we will use the term intertextuality to refer to the phenomena whereby oneearlier text (e.g. part of the scriptures of Israel) is embedded (through echoes, allusion,citation) within a later text (e.g. Gospel of Mark).24 Although the term intertextuality,originally coined by Julia Kristeva, was framed in a post-structuralist context, it is used inmore general ways within NT scholarship as a helpful reference to the relationship between 25the scriptures of Israel and the NT. Furthermore, we will use the term to refer also to therelationship between one OT text and another, as well as to the relationship between an extra-biblical text (e.g. DSS) and the scriptures of Israel.3. Monotheism and the Divine Identity of the DavidicKingIn advance of my own specific arguments in the following chapter, it is necessary to explorehow, within Judaism it was possible to be both monotheistic and yet believe in a DivineMessiah. We have already hinted at this in our discussion of the Pss. of Sol. but more divineflesh needs to be put on the bone of the Davidic hope. Once this comes into view it is thenpossible to see that the foundation for Marks christological claims develop and modify aview that was already around in the Judaism of his day. This stands in line with the recentwork of Larry Hurtado who argues that the worship of Jesus by the early Christians was not aproduct of Hellenistic syncretism but was, rather, a significant mutation or innovation in it. Whenever the construction is recognized, the reader is invited to look back to what has been read and connect the related elements.B. Iersel, Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary, JSNT (Supp) Vol. 164 (London: T&T Clark, 1998), 85.23. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (1992), 42.24. Stanley Porter suggests that the term intertextuality is unhelpful and best dropped from the academicdiscipline of biblical studies. See his “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Commenton Method and Terminology,” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations andProposals, ed. C. A. Evans, and J. A. Sanders (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). However, the term isso embedded within biblical studies, and has been cut free from its post-structuralist moorings, that it is stilluseful short hand for describing the use of phenomena whereby one text makes use of an older text.25. See discussion by Carey, Jesus Cry From The Cross (2009) 29-36. 8
  9. 9. Jewish monotheistic tradition which drew on resources and traditions already found withinJudaism.26 (a) Second Temple Jewish MonotheismA minority of contemporary scholars argue that the term monotheism should be disregardedas being unhelpful or, worse still, inaccurate as a description of the beliefs of Second TempleJudaism. For Hayman, monotheism is misused and a dualistic pattern is to be preferredgiven the evidence demonstrating that Second Temple Jews functionally believed in twoGods.27 In a similar way, Margaret Barker, in line with Segals study, has claimed that manyJews, as well as the earliest christian communities, believed in a second God (YHWH thegreat angel) who can be distinguished from the high God, Elohim.28 Likewise, PaulaFredricksen argues that the term monotheism should be put into retirement, for the ancientJewish world was was filled with gods.2926. L. W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (SecondEdition) (Edinburgh:T&T Clark, 1998), 99. He continues By "mutation" I mean that earliest Christian devotionwas a direct outgrowth from, and indeed a variety of, the ancient Jewish tradition. But at an early stage itexhibited a sudden and significant difference in character from Jewish devotion. In this study the focus ofattention is on divine messiah although, as Hurtado demonstrates, a similar line of enquiry can be taken forpersonification of divine attributes (word, wisdom, etc) as well as the divine agency of angelic beings.27. P. Hayman, “Monotheism―A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?,” JJS Vol 42.1 (1991): 1-15, 14.28. Margaret Barker writes the evidence points consistently in one direction and indicates that pre-Christian Judaism was not monotheistic in the sense that we use that word. The roots of Christian trinitarian theology lie in pre- Christian Palestinian beliefs about the angels. There were many in first-century Palestine who still retained a world-view derived from the more ancient religion of lsrael in which there was a High God and several Sons of God, one of whom was Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel. Yahweh, the Lord, could be manifested on earth in human form, as an angel or in the Davidic king..Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God (London: SPCK, 1992), 3. See also the A. F.Segals, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism (Brill, 1977) and“Two Powers in Heaven and Early Christian Trinitarian Thinking,” Trinity 1.9 (2002): 73-97; also D. Boyarins,“The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John,” HTR 94.3 (2002), 243-84, and“Two Powers in Heaven,” The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (Leiden:Brill,2003): 331–70.29. For Fredriksen: Modern monotheism--the belief that only one god exists, arose only with the disenchantment of the universe in the modern period...The ancient world, by contrast, was filled with gods, and the people who lived in it--even members of Jewish and Christian communities--knew this to be the case. They encountered these lower gods and felt their effects fairly often...We could cope with it better too, if monotheism were retired as a term for thinking about ancient religion.Paula Fredriksen, “Mandatory Retirement: Ideas in the Study of Christian Origins Whose Time Has Come to 9
  10. 10. Although some level of caution is needed, as it would be incorrect to impose a postenlightenment view of monotheism onto an ancient culture,30 the term monotheism may stillbe a useful description of a basic Jewish belief so long as we are clear about its definition.Hayman, for instance, includes creatio ex nihilo as a necessary requirement for monotheism.This definition then supports his view that Second Temple Judaism was not monotheistic ascreatio ex nihilo, assuming the point should be conceded, was not firmly present in Jewishtheology until the Medieval period.31 Likewise, if a definition of monotheism includes therejection of the belief in other transcendent and heavenly beings then Second Temple Judaismcannot properly be called monotheistic. As Hurtado has demonstrated, the best approach is toto define monotheism from an analysis of the Second Temple Jewish sources which professto be monotheistic rather than from external and later contexts. A few examples from withinJudaism which have a bearing on the appropriateness of monotheism should suffice atpresent. There is one sovereign God, ineffable, whose dwelling is in heaven, self sprung, unseen yet seeing all himself alone.32 For he proved first of all that there is only one God and that his power is manifested throughout the universe, since every place is filled with his sovereignty and none of the things which are wrought in secret by men upon the earth escapes His knowledge. For all that a man does and all that is to come to pass in the future are manifest to Him.33 Let us, therefore, fix deeply in ourselves this first commandment as the most sacred of all commandments, to think that there is but one God, the most highest, and to honor him alone; and let not the polytheistical doctrine ever even touch the ears of any man who is accustomed to seek for the truth, with purity and sincerity of heart.34Go,” in Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity,ed. D.B Capes. et al. (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007), 38.30. It is mistaken to assume that we can evaluate ancient Jewish texts and beliefs in terms of whether or howclosely they meet our own preconceived idea of pure monotheism. L. W. Hurtado, “First-Century JewishMonotheism,” JSNT 21 (1999):3-26, 6.31. P. Hayman, “Monotheism―A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?” (1991),3-4. See critique by Hurtado,“First-Century Jewish Monotheism.” (1999), 6 fn 6, and 32-33.32. Sib. Orac. 3:11-12.33. Lett.Arist., 132 (See also 133-138) See also Wisd. of Sol. 13-15 which offers harsh but poetical denunciationof idolatry.34. Philo Dec. 64-65, but also 52-81. Also, Some persons have conceived that the sun, and the moon, and theother stars are independent gods, to whom they have attributed the causes of all things that exist. But Moses waswell aware that the world was created, and was like a very large city, having rulers and subjects in it; the rulersbeing all the bodies which are in heaven, such as planets and fixed stars; and the subjects being all the naturesbeneath the moon, hovering in the air and adjacent to the earth. But that the rulers aforesaid are not independentand absolute, but are the viceroys of one supreme Being, the Father of all, in imitation of whom they administer 10
  11. 11. On the basis of the Jewish evidence, Hurtado offers the following definition of monotheism: [Monotheism is] the belief that one Deity is universally supreme and categorically unique from all other heavenly or divine beings, and that worship is properly to be given solely to this one Deity, with worship of any other being regarded as idolatry.35This definition is useful in that it does not rule out the existence of other transcendent figuresor even the possibility that these beings could, in some sense, be called gods. However, as theShema (Deut. 6.4) and the decalogue make clear (Exod. 20.3) the god of Israel is unique andworthy of the highest level of devotion. This understanding of monotheism would actuallygain support, contra Fredricksen, from texts which speak of the uniqueness of YHWH incomparison to the gods of the nations, angels or other heavenly figures. Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like you, majestic in holiness, awesome in glorious deeds, doing wonders?36Margaret Barkers interesting hypothesis, in which she distinguishes between the High Godand YHWH, may also be discounted when looking at Second Temple Judaism. Even if itwere the case that Judaism arose through an evolutionary process from polytheism, throughhenotheism to monotheism, it is the final form of the scriptures which matter to Jews of thelate Second Temple Period.37 In their final form numerous passages assume a directcorrespondence of YHWH with the God of gods. For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe.38It is also worth noting two other points which cast serious doubt upon her thesis. The first isthat no evidence has, thus far, been produced from the Second Temple period that, as Hurtadoputs it, reflect a bitheistic pattern of devotion. Whatever might have been going on in pre-with propriety and success the charge committed to their care, as he also presides over all created things in strictaccordance with justice and with law. Philo Spec. Laws 1:13.35. Hurtado Monotheism in DTIB, 519-521.36. Exod. 15.11.37. One is reminded of Instone-Brewer, whose outstanding study of the exegetical technique of Second TempleJews shows that they interpreted Scripture as though it were a fixed and perfect law. They regarded every wordof Scripture as consistent and equally important, Scripture was not contradictory as standing behind all texts isthe divine author. D. I. Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis Before 70 CE (Tubingen: Mohr,1992), 222.38. Deut. 10.17. 11
  12. 12. exilic Israelite religion, it is evidence of Roman-era Jewish practice that is relevant.39 In otherwords, there is no evidence from the Jewish world, outside of the church, that any being otherthan god should be the target of worship.40Secondly, her claim that scholars can uncover earlier bitheistic patterns of religion from theearliest strata of the final edited texts is not without detractors and should not simply beassumed.41Therefore, we may conclude that one of the distinguishing beliefs of Second Temple Judaism,which set it apart from their pagan contemporaries, was their confession that the one God issupreme and worthy of worship. As Tacticus the pagan observer noted, the Jewsacknowledge one God only, and conceive of him by the mind alone.42 Or, in the words of theShema, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.43 (b) The Divine King and MessiahAlongside this concept of monotheism is the belief that the Davidic King was in some sensedivine. That is, his being, identity and function cannot be explained without reference to theheavenly realm and that the king somehow crosses over the usual distinction between humanand heavenly beings. We will discuss the concept of divine kingship below within three39. L. W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity,(Grand Rapids:Eerdmans,2003), 34.40. A recent book by James Dunn offers a nuanced understanding of Christian worship. For Dunn, NT worshipis through Jesus, by the power of the Spirit, to God. Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? (London: SPCK,2010).41. For a helpful history of scholarship see chapter 2 of R. Gnuse, No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism inIsrael (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). Also, R. Gnuse, “The Emergence of Monotheism in AncientIsrael: A Survey of Recent Scholarship,” Religion 29, no. 4 (1999): 315-36. Of particular interest to MargaretBarkers thesis is J. H. Tigay, “Israelite Religion: The Onomastic and Epigraphic Evidence,” Ancient IsraeliteReligion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (Augsburg: Fortress, 1987): 157–94; J. D. Fowler, TheophoricPersonal Names in Ancient Hebrew: A Comparative Study (Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press, 1988). whoconcludes that pre-exilic Israelites, on the basis of the frequency of YHWH inscriptions, may be described asmonolatrous and monotheistic with YHWH as their target. Another noteworthy critique is J. C. De Moor, TheRise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997). who argues, onthe basis of ancient poems, that monotheism was firmly established before the exile and that YHWH wasequated with El before the Israelites came into Palestine.42. Tacitus, Histories 5:3.43. Deut. 6:4–7. 12
  13. 13. interrelated contexts. Firstly, (i) it appears to be embedded within the canon as part of theideology of kingship which existed during the time of the Davidic monarchs. Secondly, (ii)following the exile, and with the decline of Davidic Kingship, the hopes of a future Davidicleader became part of the eschatological future. As discussed briefly in regards to Pss. of Sol.17, by the first century the concept of a Davidic Messiah had, in some quarters, come to beunderstood in terms of a heavenly, divine or angelic figure. Some support of this position canbe found in (iii) the fusion of the Davidic hope, with reference to the cloud-riding son ofman figure of Dan. 7. (i) Divine King IdeologyPrior to the decline of kingship it appears that the Davidic King was considered to be, insome sense, divine. Given our above discussion in relation to monotheism, we should nowperceive that the divine identity of the king would not necessarily pose a threat tomonotheism itself. A claim that something is divine, or that which exhibits transcendence orpossesses a heavenly identity, is not the same as saying that he/she/it is God or shares in hisontological state.In both Pss. 2 and 89, and in the promise to David found in 2 Sam. 7, the king is explicitlyreferred to as the Son of God. I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.44 He shall cry to me, ‘You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation.’ And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.45 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.4644. Ps. 2.7.45. Ps. 89.26–27.46. 2 Sam. 7.14. David G. Firth writes reflection on this text from within the OT alone justifies the claim that itis the seedbed of messianic hope. D. G. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, AOTC (Nottingham: IVP, 2009). 387. 13
  14. 14. Furthermore, Ps. 45.6 and Isa. 9.6 make clear the divine status of the King, as he is said to be‫( אֹלהים‬god: θεός = LXX) and ‫( אל גִּבּוֹר‬mighty god) respectively. We may add to this Ps. 110 ִ ֱ ֵwhich speaks of the King sharing the throne of God. The Lord (‫ )יהוה‬says to my Lord (‫:)אדן‬ “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”47Such a view, although bizarre and strange to modern Western sensibilities, would not havebeen considered unusual in either Ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia. However, a few furthercomments about the ANE parallels are necessary. Firstly, the human king is subordinate toone or more of the leading gods of the pantheon. To use biblical language, the king is not tobe confused with the Most High God. Even Ps. 45, which describes the king as ‫ ,אֹלהים‬places ִ ֱhim in a subordinate position to another god/God when it says God, your God (Ps. 45.7).Secondly, we should exercise some caution in associating divine sonship with incarnation. Itis more likely an adoptionist view whereby the divine being of a king/pharaoh is adoptedupon enthronement, for it is here that they take up the office of kingship. 48Thirdly, even though the language found in Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Jewish texts andinscriptions is often both mythical and metaphorical, the divine-like character and status ofmany kings and leaders would no doubt have been taken seriously by a great number withinthe populous. However, we need to remind ourselves that the scriptures of Israel, bearing amonotheistic stamp, forbid the worship and cultic veneration of anyone aside from the oneGod of Israel.49In summary, we may echo John Collins when he says While the King was not to be confusedwith the Almighty, he was evidently exalted above the common rank of humanity.5047. Ps. 110.1. See also 1 Chron. 28.5, 29:20; 2 Chron. 9.8.48. Egyptologist Ronald J. Leprohon writes: The evidence shows that the living pharaoh was not, as was oncethought, divine in nature or a god incarnate on earth. Rather, we should think of him as a human recipient of adivine office. Any individual king was a transitory figure, while the kingship was eternal. R. J. Leprohon,“Royal Ideology and State Administration in Pharaonic Egypt,” in ed. J.Sasson Civilisations of the Ancient NearEast 1 (California: Scribner, 1995): 273-287, 275, cited in Collins & Collins, King and Messiah (2008), 6.49. Collins & Collins King and Messiah (2008), 23. 1 Chron. 29.20 is the closest we may get to such an idea.50. John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other AncientLiterature (New York:Double Day, 1995), 23. 14
  15. 15. (ii) Post-Exilic Expectation of a Future Divine KingAfter the decline of Davidic Kingship the translators of the LXX did not hesitate to reproducestatements that the king was the Son of God (Pss. 2; 89) or addressed as god (Ps. 45). TheLXX differs from the MT in the case of Isa. 9.6. Although not referring to the future king asbeing a god, he is to be associated with an angelic being as he is referred to as the Μεγάληςβουλῆς ἄγγελος.51 Presumably, as Collins and Collins argue, this is to be seen less as ademotion but more as a clarification. It would never be conceived that the King was the mostHigh God but, rather, that he takes his place alongside other angelic beings who minister andserve in the divine court. In fact LXX Ps. 109.3, in talking about the sharing of Gods throne,seems to stress preexistence as well as membership of the heavenly court. µετὰ σοῦ ἡ ἀρχὴ ἐν ἡµέρᾳ τῆς δυνάµεώς σου ἐν ταῖς λαµπρότησιν τῶν ἁγίων, ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐξεγέννησά σε. With you is rule on a day of your power among the splendor of your holy ones. From the womb, before Morning Star, I brought you forth.52It appears plausible, or indeed likely, that the Psalms, which in their original context referredto a contemporary member of the Davidic line (Pss. 2; 45; 89; 110), came to be understood inan eschatological sense. The prophetic hope of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel53 looked towardsa future Davidic King and it is evident that texts initially referring to enthronement (Ps. 2; 45;etc) came to be understood messianically.5451. See discussion in C. A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden:Brill, 1998), 175-176. Collins & Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God (2008) , 59-62; W. Horbury, JewishMessianism and the Cult of Christ (London: SCM Press, 1998), 90-91. We may add to these verses a number ofother passages which point towards the angelomorphic identity of the king. 2 Sam. 14:17. See also 1 Sam.29.19; 2 Sam. 19.17. And your servant thought, ‘The word of my lord the king will set me at rest,’ for my lord the king is like the angel of God to discern good and evil. The Lord your God be with you!See Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology (1998), 175-176; C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory ofAdam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 9-13.52. NETS translation.53. Isa. 11; Jer. 23.5-6, 33.17-22 and Ezek. 34.23-24, 37.24-25.54. See Tremper Longman III, “The Messiah: Explorations in the Law and Writings,” in The Messiah in theOld and New Testaments, ed. S. E. Porter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 25. A similar argument is made byK. M. Heim, “The Perfect King of Psalm 72,” in The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament 15
  16. 16. These Psalms were kept in the Psalter but their meaning for worshippers was transposedinto an eschatological key and became part of the messianic hope. It is clear that withinSecond Temple Judaism Ps. 2 was being used to foster messianic hope. This is mostevident in Pss. of Sol. 1755 but is also found in other texts such as 4Q17456 and 1 Enoch48.10.57The following text, often undiscussed in books concerning messiahship, shows an eschatological future for the house of David in which the line of David is portrayed in both divine and angelic terms.58 And the Lord will give salvation to the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem may not surpass that of Judah. On that day the Lord will protect the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them on that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the angel of the Lord, going before them. (Zech. 12.7–8)59We will move forward in time to explore post-biblical writings in order to establish whetherthe hope of a divine Davidic messiah was part of the mental furniture of at least some Jews inthe Second Temple period. Attention should be paid to three specific texts, Similitudes ofEnoch, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch which each use son of man language from Dan. 7 to develop theMessianic Texts, ed. P. E. Satterthwaite et al. (Carlise: Paternoster, 1995), 231 for Ps. 72. See also Collins, TheScepter and the Star (1995) 24-28.This is exactly the point which Grant makes with reference to Ps. 2. Whykeep a psalm which celebrates the enthronement of the king when there is no king? It is kept because it hascome to mean something different. Ps. 2, for example, was probably recited at the coronation of each NewDavidic king, but retains its prominent place in the Psalter because its meaning for the covenant community haschanged with their change of circumstances. James A. Grant, “The Psalms and the King,” in ed. Firth andJohnston, Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches (Downers Grove: IVP, 2005), 111-112.55. In particular see 17.3; 21-25; 30-32.56. 10 [And] yhwh [de]clares to you that he will build you a house. I will raise up your seed after you and establish the throne of his kingdom 11 [for ev]er. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to me...[« Why ar]e the nations [in turmoil] and hatch the peoples [idle plots? The kings of the earth t]ake up [their posts and the ru]lers conspire together against yhwh and against 19 [his anointed one ». Inter]3 of the saying: [the kings of the na]tions [are in turmoil] and ha[tch idle plots against] the elect ones of Israel in the last days. (4Q174 Frags. I col. 1, 21, 2 10-11, 19).57. For a full discussion of the reception of Ps. 2 in intertestamental and rabbinic literature see R.E. Watts,“Mark,” in ed. Beale and Carson CNTUOT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007) 122-123.58. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam (2002), 9.59. One commentator makes the following comment. Hopes are still centered on the house of David, whichshall be like God, a bold assertion, modified in the next phrase, like the angel of the Lord. Suppliants hadaddressed David saying he was ‘like the angel of God’ (1 Sam. 29.9; 2 Sam. 14.17; 14.20; 19:27). J. G.Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary (Nottingham: IVP, 1972), 204. 16
  17. 17. motif of a coming Davidic King who has a divine identity.60 Although the history of researchon Dan. 7 is voluminous a few words need to be said in support of a Messianic reading ofDan. 7. (c) Daniel 7 - The Son of ManIn Dan. 7 one like a human being/son of man is vindicated and enthroned (7.13-14). Theidentity of this figure, who stands in contrast to the four beasts/empires, is fiercely debated.John Collins, who himself argues that the son of man figure is to be identified with Michaelthe archangel,61 argues that modern scholarly solutions to this problem can be classified in theone of the following categories. (i) The Son of Man is an exalted human being. (ii) The Son of Man is a collective symbol. (iii)The Son of Man is a heavenly being.62Each of these positions, which bear a certain degree of plausibility, cannot be discussed inany level of detail here. Instead, and rather briefly, we will make the case that thesesubcategories are not mutually exclusive and that it is plausible to conceive of a being who is60. One was tempted to include 4Q246, the Aramaic Apocalypse, column II in such an analysis, which clearlycalls the future deliverer son of God. He will be called son of God, and they will call him son of the Most High. Like the sparks that you saw, so will their kingdom be; they will rule several year[s] over the earth and crush everything; a people will crush another people, and a province another provi[n]ce.... Until the people of God arises and makes everyone rest from the sword. ...His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, and all his paths in truth. He will jud[ge] the earth in truth and all will make peace. The sword will cease from the earth, and all the provinces will pay him homage. The great God is his strength, he will wage war for him; he will place the peoples in his hand and cast them all away before him. His rule will be an eternal rule, and all the abyssesIn this passage a future deliverer is called Son of God and Son of the Most High. Fitzmyer considers this textto be speaking positively of a coming Jewish ruler, who may be a successor to the Davidic throne, although hisdenial that it is messianic has more to do with allegiance to the use of the specific word messiah rather than theconcept itself. In this passage we read that the Davidic messiah will usher in an eternal rule. It is unclearwhether we are to presume from this that the Messiah will live eternally. This Davidic figure is an eschatologicalfigure of great significance, a warrior and judge who by Gods strength will fight alongside God. J. A. Fitzmyer,“The Aramaic ‘Son of God’ Text From Qumran Cave 4 (4Q246)" in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins(Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 2000), 60. See the discussion in Collins & Collins, King and Messiah (2008), 65-72.Also, A. M. Wolters, “The Messiah in the Qumran Documents,” in ed. S. E. Porter The Messiah in the Old andNew Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 79-80.61. A. Y. Collins, Mark: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 318.62. ibid., 308-310. 17
  18. 18. both divine and human, and who represents the people. Prophets, priests and kings allfunction in such a position. They are all human figures who represent the people but all haveaccess, in one degree or another, to the throne of God and can, therefore, be classified asdivine.63 As both priest and prophet, Moses represented the people before YHWH and wasable to enter the heavenly realm at Sinai (Exod. 19). Likewise, on the day of atonement theHigh Priest represented the people before YHWH and, by entering into the Holy of Holies,passed into the dwelling place of God himself. The Davidic King who, as we have seen, canbe spoken of in divine terms represents the people in a similar fashion. In one sense theAbrahamic covenantal promise falls upon his head (Gen.17.7-8; 26.12; 2 Sam. 7:14), hisethical behaviour has consequences for the community (Deut. 17.14-20) and, according to Ps.110, he has a representative role as a priest. (i) Son of Man as Davidic MessiahIn Dan. 7 we see that Kings/Kingdoms are represented through the four beasts (Dan. 7.16-17;7.23) and, upon the basis of corporate identity, it could quite easily be maintained that theson of man represents a King as well as a people group. The evidence presented belowsupports a Davidic reading of the son of man figure in Dan. 7. It is not being maintained thatthe author of Dan. 7 necessarily intended such a meaning but, rather, that a Davidic messianicreading can be upheld when intertextually read alongside other parts of the biblical text andthat such a reading is certainly plausible for Second Temple Jews acquainted with thescriptures of Israel. This corresponds to the pre-A.D. 70 rabbinic technique known as gezerahshavah, whereby links are made between two texts upon the basis of a shared word or phrase.The assumption behind this being that there is a single, divine authorship of scripture and thatGod as a Divine legislator would always use language in a strictly consistent way.6463. A full discussion of the divine identity of prophets and priests cannot be given here. See Gieschen,Angelomorphic Christology (1998), Prophets: 161-169; Priests:169-175.64. This is taken from a forthcoming publication by D. Instone-Brewer in ed. J Neusner et al The Midrash: AnEncyclopaedia of Biblical Interpretation in Formative Judaism. available online at on 16/3/2012) Seealso Instone-Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis Before 70 CE (1992), 17-18. Instone-Brewers study is highly significant as he demonstrates that rabbinic exegesis prior to 70 AD, regarded every word of Scripture as consistent and equally important, to be interpreted according to its context and according to its primary meaning only, and recognised as a single valid text form. These practices were found to contrast with those of later rabbis who frequently ignored the context, found secondary meanings hidden in the text and who proposed alternate readings of the text for the purpose 18
  19. 19. (1) Son of ManFollowing a gezerah shavah method Ps. 80:17 would be of particular interest for a reader.The psalmist, offering a lament from the exilic or post-exilic period, begs that God would: ...let your hand be on the man of your right hand, the son of man (‫/עַל־בֶּן־אָדָ ם‬υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου) whom you have made strong for yourself!In this Psalm the term son of man could refer to Israel but more likely refers to a restoredDavidic monarch, given the association of the right hand with Kingship found elsewhere (Ps.110.1). This reading gains support from Tg. Ps. 80.16 which interprets the vine (80.15)messianically.65Although the final form of the Targum of the Psalms cannot be dated to any earlier thanthe fourth century A.D (Tg. 108.11 mentions both Rome and Constantinople), it isextremely likely that at various points these Psalms reflected both ancient and pre-Christian traditions.66 Therefore, this Targum evidences that the son of man figure of Ps.80 was interpreted by some Aramaic speaking Jews messianically and, irrespective ofdating, adds some support to a messianic reading of MT of Ps. 80. If using the gezerahshavah method of interpretation, in which scripture interprets scripture, a reader movingbetween Dan. 7 and Ps. 80 would be predisposed to seeing the son of man figure in Dan.7 as a Davidic Messiah figure. This gains extra credibility when placed alongside thefollowing argument. of exegesis. ibid.,222.65. It reads: And remember this vine in mercy. And the branch that your right hand planted, and the KingMessiah whom you made mighty for yourself. [It is] being burned by fire and crushed; they will perish becauseof the rebuke that [comes] from your presence. Let your hand be on the man to whom you have sworn withyour right hand, on the son of man whom you made mighty for yourself. We will not turn away from the fearof you; you will sustain us and we will call on your name. O Lord God Sabaoth, bring us back from exile; shinethe splendor of your countenance upon us and we will be redeemed. Tg. Ps. 80.15-20 Trans. E. Cook availableonline at (Accessed on 16/3/2012). See discussion in R.E. Watts,“Mark.” (2007), 134.66. As with W. H. Harris, The Descent of Christ: Ephesians 4: 7-11 and Traditional Hebrew Imagery(Leiden:Brill, 1996), 66-74. The date of composition of Tg. Ps. remains very uncertain. A very tentativesuggestion would be the fourth to sixth century C.E. but this is little more than guesswork. It is possible that itcontains material belonging to more than one period. D. M. Stec, The Targum of Psalms Vol 2,(London:Liturgical Press, 2001,2. For example, a case can be made that the foolish king of 74.22 is Antiochus Epiphanes. 19
  20. 20. (2) Reading Daniel 7 Alongside Daniel 2It is generally recognised that chapters two and seven of Daniel are theologically andintratextually linked and that they serve to interpret and elaborate on each other. In thecontext of a dream-interpretation, both texts speak of four kingdoms which follow each other.The fourth kingdom, associated with iron and brutality in both texts, is destroyed by God(2.44; 7.27).At the end of the interpretation in chapter 2 we read: And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever, just as you saw that a stone ‫ אבן‬was cut from a mountain by no human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure. (Dan. 2.44-45)In Dan. 7 we ask who/what is the Son of Man?, whereas the question in Dan. 2 concerns theidentity of the stone.When looking for scriptural resources to aid the interpretation of Dan. 2,Ps. 118, a Psalm well known within Judaism, comes to mind. It reads [t]he stone that thebuilders rejected has become the cornerstone (Ps. 118.22). The stone of Ps. 118 is likely to have been interpreted in an eschatological sense as a reference to a Davidic King.67 On account of this it is easy to understand how Dan. 2 was also interpreted messianically. Given the close parallels between Dan. 2 and 7, this would provide a clue as to the identity of the son of man figure. This is what seems to be behind Esth. Rab. 7.10 which brings together, messianically, Gen. 49.24; Ps. 118; 22; Isa. 30.14 with Dan. 2.45.6867. This Psalm is discussed in extensive detail in the third chapter of this thesis.68. See C. A. Evans, “Daniel in the New Testament: Visions of God’s Kingdom,” in The Book of Daniel:Composition and Reception Vol II, ed. J. J. Collins, and P. W. Flint (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 508. We must also takeinto account, as the parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mk. 12.1-12) does, the Hebrew wordplay between stone(eben) and son (ben). Although Dan. 1-7 is written in Aramaic and one could rightly question whether word-play is intended between the stone (‫ )אבן‬of Dan. 2 and the son (‫ בר‬bar) of Dan. 7, we do have evidence from ַJosephus, which itself is preserved in Greek but written in Aramaic, that such specific word-play would still beunderstood. Jos. War 5.272. See K. Snodgrass, Stories With Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables ofJesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 290 and A. C. Brunson, Psalm 118 in the Gospel of John: AnIntertextual Study on the New Exodus Pattern in the Theology of John, Vol. 2:158, WUNT (Tubingen: Mohr,2003), 40-41. Brunson lays out some of the evidence that Second Temple Judaism had come to associate thestone, cornerstone or foundation stone language of OT passages in a messianic and eschatological fashion. SeeTg. Isa. 28.16; Tg. Jer. 51.26; Tg. Zech. 10.4; Tg. Ps. 118.22. This is largely based on the doctoral dissertation ofK. Snodgrass. Christological Stone Testimonia in the New Testament (University of St. Andrews Thesis, 1973).See esp. pages 76-77. 20
  21. 21. (3) Rabbinic Support Evidence from the rabbinic tradition demonstrates that Jewish readers steeped in scripture would read Dan. 2 as Messianic, placing it alongside other texts to form a Messianic matrix. Tanhuma (Termumach 7) offers a Messianic interpretation bringing together Dan. 2.34 with Gen. 49.24, Isa. 11.4 and Ezek. 28.26. 69In summary of our discussion so far about the son of man figure; we have made a case for anintertextual reading of Dan. 7 which points towards the identity of the son of man as being aDavidic Messiah figure. We have also seen, from rabbinic evidence, that this reading wasaccepted in some quarters of the Jewish world. Delbert Burkett, in his monograph on thecurrent state of Son of Man research, writes, The one like a son of man in Daniel has been variously interpreted as the Messiah, an angel, or as a symbol for the people of God. Though the vision identifies the figure with the people of the saints of the Most High (Dan. 7.27) Jewish interpreters close to the time of Jesus identified the figure as the Messiah. Thus whether the Danielic figure originally represented the Messiah or not, numerous scholars have believed that the expression the Son of Man in the Gospels refers to the figure understood in a messianic sense.70 (ii) Son of Man as DivineWhilst we have stressed that it is possible to read Daniel as a messianic prophecy, and wehave indeed presented some evidence for this being the case in the Jewish world, we have notyet considered whether this figure can also be described in divine terms. Dan. 7.13 offers adescriptive comparison (like a son of man) rather than just a generic expression (Son ofMan).71 Over a century ago Nathaniel Schmidt argued that the one like a Son of Man did not69. Another later Midrash enquires about the King Messiah ruling on earth (Num. Rab. 13.14). Because it isstated, All kings shall prostrate themselves before him: all nations shall serve him (Ps. 72.11). And it also saysBehold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like a son of man... and there was to him given dominion...that all people... should serve him (Dan. 7.13-14); and the stone that struck the image.became a great mountain,and filled the whole earth. (Dan. 2.35).See discussion in C. A. Evans, “Daniel in the New Testament: Visions ofGod’s Kingdom.”, 508-509.70. D. Burkett, The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation, SNTS Vol. 107 (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1999), 23.71. Any investigation of the New Testament son of man traditions must take these distinctions into account.T. B. Slater, “One Like a Son of Man in First-Century CE Judaism,” NTS 41.02 (1995): 183-98, 184. 21
  22. 22. refer to the Messiah but to the archangel Michael.72 He has been followed, in more recentyears, by John Collins. In support of his argument Schmidt draws attention to several othertexts from Daniel which use a descriptive comparison to speak of an angelic figure (8.15;10.16,18).In the first of these references (8.15) it is clear that the one having an appearance like aman is the angel Gabriel. In 10.16 and 10.18 Daniel is trembling before an unnamedheavenly being and it is not clear whether the character in both verses 16 and 18 refer tothe same figure or whether they are to be distinguished from the main character of thisscene (10.5-6). It is not clear how many supernatural beings are involved in this scene.73Although we disagree with Schmidts rejection of a messianic reading of Dan. 7 thesetexts (8.15; 10.16; 10.18) do suggest that the use of a descriptive comparison languagecould point to the angelic or divine identity of the figure in Dan. 7.13. In Dan. 7.13 theone like a Son of Man has access to the heavenly throne room of God for he comesbefore the Ancient of Days. His method of transport also points to his divine identity ashe comes riding on a cloud. (1) The Son of Man in the Old Greek VersionIn a recent presentation at SBL Benjamin Reynolds sought to show that one of the earliesttranslations of Daniel, that is the Old Greek (OG)74, offers an interpretation of Dan. 7which further stresses both the divine status of the son of man figure and his Messianicidentity. Stressing the divine identity of the one like a Son of Man, Reynolds notes foursimilarities between the one like a Son of Man and the Ancient of Days. Firstly, the sonof man figure arrives as/like the ancient of day, according to the OG72. N. Schmidt, Was ‫ בר נשא‬a Messianic Title?, JBL Vol. 15.1/2 (1896): 36-53; N. Schmidt, “The Son of Man inthe Book of Daniel,” JBL 19, No. 1 (1900): 22-28.73. J. E. Goldingay, Daniel, WBC Vol. 30 (Dallas: Word, 2002), 291.74. There are only three known witnesses to the OG text of Daniel in existence today. Codex Chisianus 88,Syriac version translated from Greek called Syro-Hexaplar and Papyrus 967. 22
  23. 23. Papyrus 967 Codex 8875 v13. ἐθεώρουν ἐν v13. ἐθεώρουν ἐν ὁράµατι τῆς νυκτὸς ὁράµατι τῆς νυκτὸς καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἤρχετο, ἀνθρώπου ἤρχετο, καὶ ὡς παλαιὸς ἡµερῶν καὶ ὡς παλαιὸς ἡµερῶν παρῆν, παρῆν, καὶ οἱ καὶ οἱ παρεστηκότες παρεστηκότες παρῆσαν προσηγαγον αὐτῷ. αὐτῷ. v14. καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ v14. καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἐξουσία βασιλικη, ἐξουσία, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς κατὰ γένη καὶ πᾶσα δόξα κατὰ γένη καὶ πᾶσα δόξα λατρεύουσα αὐτῷ αὐτῷ λατρεύουσα, καὶ ἡ καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ µὴ ἀρθῇ, καὶ αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ µὴ ἀρθῇ, ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ, ἥτις οὐ µὴ καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ, φθαρῇ. ἥτις οὐ µὴ φθαρῇ.It is significant that in verse 13 the one like a Son of Man does not come to the Ancient ofDays (MT, ESV, Theo.) but, rather, he comes as or like the Ancient of Days. The one like aSon of Man is also like the Ancient of Days. This does not mean that the son of man isidentified as the Ancient of Days but, as a descriptive comparison, it means that just as themysterious figure is like a son of man so he is also like the One God of Israel. Secondly, theOG states that the son of man figure comes ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. Theo. uses thepreposition µετὰ which, following MT, shows that the son of man came with the clouds. TheOG differs in that the son of man figure comes on the clouds. In other words it is beingstressed more clearly that the son of man is a cloud-rider and that the clouds are his method75. Supported by Syro-Hexaplar. See B. Reynolds, “The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ According to the Old Greekof Daniel 7.3-14,” Bib. 89 (2008): 70-80, 71. 23
  24. 24. of transportation. Elsewhere in scripture clouds signify the appearance of YHWH (Exod.40.34-35; 1 Kgs. 8.10-11; 2 Chron. 5.13-14; Ps. 18.11; Ps. 97.2; Joel 2.2; Nah. 1.3; Zeph.1.14). No other being, including angels, appears with clouds in the OT. Thus, the one like a son of mans coming with the presence of clouds implies the figures similarity with the Lord and most likely indicates a heavenly being greater than the angels.76Thirdly, the OG states, in verse 14, that all the nations will serve him (λατρεύουσα).Theodotion uses the word (δουλεύσουσιν). In the Greek OT this word, λατρεύω, is usuallyused in the context of religious or cultic duties (Exod. 3.12). The verb λατρεύω appears only rarely in Greek literature and appears in the LXX almost exclusively in the religious and cultic sense of Israel’s worship of God. It renders the Hebrew‘āḇaḏ thus clearly distinguished from its Greek synonym δουλεύω, which is more comprehensive in meaning.77In the book of Daniel λατρεύω is used nine times. Three times in reference to the worship ofthe statue which Nebuchadnezzar erected (3.12; 3.14; 3.18) and four times in reference to theworship of God (3.28; 6.17; 6.21; 6.27). The final mention is in Dan. 7.14 where the son ofman figure receives veneration, usually reserved only for the one God of Israel. Theimplication for Dan. 7.13-14 in the OG is that this figure that looks like a human issomething more than human.78Finally, in the MT and Theo. those standing by the son of man present him to the Ancient ofDays. The OG presents something different. Papyrus 967 reads οἱ παρεστηκότες προσηγαγοναὐτῷ whilst Codex 88 has οἱ παρεστηκότες παρῆσαν αὐτῷ. The παρεστηκότες (bystanders)refer to other members of the heavenly court (7.10) who were previously standing before theAncient of Days. In the OG 7.13 these bystanders stand before the one like a Son of Man.Here, we evidently have another similarity between the son of man figure and the Ancient ofDays which, again, serves to portray his exalted state as the Son of Man. (iii) First Century Evidence of Son of Man as both Davidic and Divine76. ibid., 75.77. See EDNT 2:34478. Reynolds, “The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ According to the Old Greek of Daniel 7.3-14.”, 76. 24
  25. 25. (1) Similitudes of EnochThe Similitudes of Enoch, which we will assume is free of Christian influence and datedwithin the first century prior to the fall of Jerusalem,79 makes use of and develops the Son ofMan motif in Dan. 7. In the Similitudes the Son of Man is portrayed as an eschatologicalfigure who dwells in the heavenly realm. His countenance is described as being like that ofthe holy angels (46.1) and it appears that he is preexistent.80 For this purpose he became the Chosen One; he was concealed in the presence of (the Lord of Spirits) prior to the creation of the world, and for eternity...For the Son of Man was concealed from the beginning, and the most high one preserved him in the presence of his power.This heavenly Messiah (48.10; 52.4) sits upon the throne of the most high God and takes amajor role in the eschatological judgement.81 In one particular passage it appears difficult todistinguish between the character of the Lord and that of the Son of Man. It is unclear orperhaps deliberately ambiguous to distinguish which actions are those of the Lord of Spiritsand those of the Son of Man. Thus the Lord commanded the kings, the governors, the high officials, and the landlords and said Open your eyes and lift up your eyebrows-- if you are able to recognize the Elect One! The Lord of the Spirits has sat down on the throne of his glory, and the spirit of righteousness has been poured out upon him. The word of his mouth will do the sinners in, and all the oppressors shall be eliminated.... and those who rule the earth shall fall down before him on their faces, and worship and raise their hopes in that Son of Man, they shall beg and plead for mercy at his feet. (62.1-3; 62.9)79. See J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, Seconded. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 177-193.It is hardly conceivable, however, that a Christian author would have written about a figure called Son of Manwithout identifying him explicitly as Jesus. Neither is it likely that a Jewish author would have used thisimagery after the Christian identification of Jesus as the Son of Man became current. Collins & Collins, Kingand Messiah as Son of God (2008), 87.80. 48.6 also 62.7.81. 51.3, In those days, (the Elect One) shall sit on my throne. and from the conscience of his mouth shallcome out all the secrets of wisdom, for the Lord of the Spirits has given them to him and glorified him 55.4, You would have to see my Elect One, how he sits on the throne of glory and judges Azazel and allhis company, and his army, in the name of the Lord of Spirits 61.8, He placed the elect one on the throne of Glory, and he shall judge all the wicked of the holy ones inheaven above, weighing in the balance their deeds. 69.29 for that Son of Man has appeared and has seated himself upon the throne of his glory; and all evilshall disappear from before his face.. 25
  26. 26. Here we have a figure who, although separate from the Lord of Spirits, has both an exaltedontological status and functional role. The text goes as far to say that he will be worshipped(cf. 48.5), although there is some debate within the scholarly literature as to what thisactually means.82Despite the fact that no explicit attempt is made to identify this figure as a member of theDavidic house, a number of features point in this direction. Firstly, he is described as beingthe anointed Messiah, which certainly makes it a possibility that the figure is from theDavidic line. Secondly, it appears that in at least two places Davidic intertextual allusionsare used to elaborate on his identity. For instance, 49.1-4, in which the Elect one is said tohave the Spirit of Wisdom and insight, recalls the Davidic figure of Isa. 11. Likewise, theword of his mouth will do the sinners in (62.1) bears a thematic correspondence to Isa. 11.4.Thirdly, 48.10, speaking of the Lord and his anointed, contains language which is associatedwith Ps. 2. Lastly, the fact that the Son of Man shares the Divine throne recalls Ps. 110which speaks of a Davidic King sitting at the right hand of God. Whilst Stuckenbruck iscorrect to say that Similitudes makes no explicit attempt to link the figure with a Davidiclineage., he is mistaken when he continues, This apocalyptic scenario does not envision therestoration of the Davidic monarchy.83The intertextual evidence laid out above strongly suggests that a link with Son of Man andDavidic lineage may actually be implicit.84 Rowland agrees, There may be some indications that royal terminology, particularly Psalms 110 and 2 and Isaiah 11 have influenced the picture of the Son of Man as it emerges in the Similitudes. For example, the judgement of the Son of Man on the kings of the earth (1 Enoch 46.5f) is reminiscent of language used about the king in Psalm 2.9, and the attribute of wisdom bestowed upon the Elect One according to 1 Enoch 49.3 brings to mind the picture of the ideal ruler in Isaiah 11.2.85We may, therefore, conclude that, at around the time of the composition of Mark, it would notbe unthinkable for a Jew to conceive of a preexistent Davidic Messiah figure who shares the82. See R. Bauckham, The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus in Jesus and the God of Israel(Carlisle:Paternoster, 2008) 154-181.83. L. T. Stuckenbruck, “Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature in Early Judaism,” in TheMessiah in the Old and New Testaments, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 100.84. Collins & Collins, King and Messiah (2008), 90. Although we will not discuss the position that the son ofman is actually Enoch. 71.14 Then an angel came to me, and greeted me and said to me You, son of man.85. C. Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK,1982), 176. 26
  27. 27. throne and eschatological function of the one God of Israel. We may note, in passing, that incontrast to the Markan narrative there is no suggestion in the Similitudes of Enoch that theSon of Man has an earthly existence but, rather, that he seems to dwell and function in theheavenly realm. (2) 4 Ezra 13The book of 4 Ezra, probably composed around 100 A.D.,86 presents the reader with theimage of a future messianic redeemer figure (7.28-29; 11.37-12.1; 12.31-34; 13.3-3;13.25-52; 14.9). Our attention will focus upon the material found in the sixth vision known asThe Vision of the Man (13.1-58). In this dream a man is seen to be coming up from the sea(13.3) and flying with the clouds of heaven, causing all who met him to tremble: And I looked, and behold that man flew with the the clouds of heaven; and wherever he turned his face to look, everything under his gaze trembled and whenever his voice issue from his mouth, all who heard his voice melted as wax melts when it feels fire. (4 Ezra 13.13-4)This man is attacked by all who had gathered together against him, to wage war with himbut he defeats them with the flames coming from his mouth (13.8-11). Another peaceablemultitude rejoice at this victory. A request is made by Ezra for an interpretation (13.14-20)and is granted (13.21-58). In the interpretation the Most High expands on the identity of theman from the sea. He is the one whom the Most High has been keeping for many ages, whowill deliver his creation (13.26) and he is called my son (13.32; 13.37; 13.52).87 Thisdeliverer will stand against those who oppose him (13.32-33) and, from Mount Zion, willdestroy them by the Law (13.34-38). Those who rejoice at his victory are the ten lost tribes ofIsrael and the son will continue to do miracles on the outskirts of the land. Elsewhere in 4Ezra the eschatological deliverer is addressed as my Messiah or my Son/Servant Messiahby the Most High God (7.28-29). The Messiah will be revealed and then die, although thisdoes not mean that his death is salvific but, rather, that he and all humanity will die.86. B. Metzger, The Fourth Book of Ezra in Charlesworth Pseudepigrapha Vol 1., 517-524.87. Translation in Charlesworth. Things are somewhat complicated as the Latin reads, filius which could be atranslation of either the servant or the son. See Collins & Collins, King and Messiah (2008), 94-97 and thediscussion in M. E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra, Hermeneia (Augsburg:Fortress, 1990), 207-208. 27
  28. 28. For my son the Messiah shall be revealed with those who are with him, and those who remain shall rejoice 400 years. And after these years my Son the Messiah will die, and all who draw human breath. (7.27-28)From this material we see that this future deliverer is both Davidic and Divine. His Davidicidentity is acknowledged by the fact that he is the anointed Son of the Most High. Moreover,4 Ezra 13 makes use of the Davidic traditions from Ps. 2, whereby the enemy is defeated byan anointed one from Mount Zion, as well as Isa. 11 where the Messianic King destroys thewicked by the breath of his mouth. We may also note that 4 Ezra interprets the flamescoming from his mouth as representing the Torah. This may allude to Deut. 17.18-19 inwhich the future king is to be skilled in Torah (cf. 2 Kings 11.12). In an earlier vision (theeagle vision) a description is given of a lion who confronts the fourth beast (4 Ezra 11.36-46).This likely draws upon Gen. 49.9-10 in which the line of Judah is referred to as a lion. This isconfirmed within the interpretation which states this is the Messiah whom the most High haskept until the end of days, who will come from the posterity of David,88The heavenly or divine character of this Davidic figure is also apparent through the use of thecloud-riding son of man imagery of Dan. 7, the defeat of the enemy and the joyful receptionfrom those who ally themselves with the one God of Israel. 4 Ezra 12 shows that images fromthe larger context of Dan. 7 are intended as it mentions a fourth beast coming from the sea.Although in 7.27-28 the Messiah is said to die, it should be noted that his reign lasts for 400years and he is said to be revealed with those who are with him, implying his preexistenceand bearing some correspondence to Zech. 14 where it is said that YHWH will come with hisholy ones. The description of this Warrior Messiah also includes imagery usually associatedwith theophanic revelations of the God of Israel rather than simply a human figure. Thearrival of the man in the vision is (i) preceded by wind (13.1) (ii) comes on the cloud (13.3)(iii) uses fire as a weapon towards his enemies (13.10) (iv) who melt like wax (13.4). Each ofthese four points come from biblical descriptions of God89 and, therefore, are most likely tobe theologically loaded.88. See Stuckenbruck, “Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature in Early Judaism.” (2007),104-105.89. (i) Preceded by wind. See 1 Kgs. 19.11-12; Zech. 9.14; Job 40.6, etc. (ii) Clouds come before him. Exod.19.9; 19.16; Num. 12.5; 14.4; 1 Kgs. 8.10-11, used as a chariot (Exod. 19.18; Isa. 14.14; 19.1; Nah. 1.3; 68.5).(iii) Uses fire towards enemies. Isa. 66.15-16; Ps. 97.3-4; 1 Kgs. 19.12, etc. According to Ps. 18.9 it issues fromhis mouth. (iv) Enemies melt like wax. Mic. 1.4; Ps. 68.3; 97.5; Judith 16.15; 1 Enoch 1.6; 52.6.See Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (1990), 212. 28
  29. 29. (3) 2 BaruchIn 2 Bar., which like 4 Ezra was written after the destruction of the Second Temple (32.2-4),reference is made to an eschatological messiah in a number of its sections.90 The advent of theAnointed One will lead to an eschatological age of Shalom (29.3-8; 73.1-7) and a time whenthose who stand in rebellion to the Mighty One (God of Israel) will be judged (40.1; 30.1-5)and the righteous will rise from their graves (30.1-5). This future deliverer may be understoodas being both Davidic and Divine, and is to be seen as Davidic for the following reasons. (i)He is the Anointed One. (ii) He is said to sit on the throne of his kingdom (73.1) whichimplicitly suggests that he is a King. (iii) The reign that he inaugurates resonates stronglywith the shalomic imagery of Isa. 11.6-9 in which Edenic conditions are restored due to thearrival of the Spirit empowered shoot of Jesse. (iv) The Anointed one is said to return in glory(30.1) which offers an implicit hint that he is of the Davidic line.91 If this does not suggest aDavidic line then it may suggest his Divine identity as the one who was on earth and is nowreturning from the heavenly realm.This Davidic Messiah may also be considered as Divine given the association with Dan. 7. InDan. 7 four beasts/kingdoms are followed by the advent of the heavenly son of man and thedeath of the final beast brings in the kingdom. This corresponds to the sequence of 2 Bar.36-40 whereby the four world kingdoms are succeeded by the advent of the Anointed One92and the death of the last ruler. This, in turn, is followed by the dominion that will lastforever. It appears that, like Enoch, a fusion of the son of man with Davidic Messiah hastaken place. The following chart may clarify what has just been said: Daniel 7 2 Baruch 36-40 Vision (1-14) followed by Explanation Vision (36.1-11) followed by (15-28) explanation (38.1- 40.4)90. Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha, 617-62091. The return of the Messiah may be a hint that the author considers him to be a descendent from David.Stuckenbruck, “Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature in Early Judaism.”(2007), 109.92. ibid., 110; R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages toHimself and His Mission (London: Tyndale Press, 1971), 180. 29
  30. 30. 4 Beasts/Empires (4-8; 17) Fourth is 4 Empires. (39:3-5) Fourth is worse worse than its predecessors than its predecessors (39.5) Arrival of Son of Man (13) Arrival of the Anointed One (39.7) Judgement and Death of Fourth Beast/ Judgement and Death of the Fourth King (11; 26) King (40.1) Eternal Kingdom (27) Eternal Kingdom (40.3)(ii) The meaning of the Anointed One will begin to be revealed can be explained withreference to his hiddenness in heaven (as with Enoch) and his preexistence. This is furthersupported through noting that, in the same literary unit, it is mentioned that manna will comedown from high (29.8).Despite obvious differences, the son of man figure found in 4 Ezra, 2 Bar. and the Sim. ofEnoch do have a number of things in common. They all understand the Son of Man as aDavidide as well as further emphasising his divinity. We may then conclude that these textsstand within the tradition of Dan. 7 and that by the first century hopes for a Davidic anddivine messiah were active in at least some quarters. (d) Concluding RemarksIn the third section of this chapter a number of positions have been developed. Firstly, withsome nuance in regard to definitions, it has been maintained that Second Temple Judaism isto be understood as being monotheistic. Secondly, this study has sought to show that thescriptures of Israel considered the Davidic King to be divine. This divinity, however, is notnecessarily a challenge to monotheism. Thirdly, with the decline of Davidic kingship thehope for a coming divine Davidic messiah figure began to grow. Fourthly, the Danielic Sonof Man may be considered as a a Davidic deliverer who is also divine. Lastly, three extra-biblical Judaic texts (Sim., 4 Ezra, 2 Bar.) provide evidence that some Second Temple Jewslooked forward to the coming of a Son of Man figure who was both Davidic and divine.The next chapter will see the launch of our exploration of the gospel of Mark. We will returnto Marks understanding of divine Davidic messiahship as well as Son of Man in the thirdchapter. 30
  31. 31. 31
  32. 32. II. Chapter Two: The March of theDivine Warrior1. Introduction (a) New Exodus Motif in IsaiahSince the mid-twentieth century a steady stream of articles and monographs have exploredthe motif of a NE in Isaiah/Deutero-Isaiah93. Arguably, the most influential of these has beenB.W. Andersons "Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah". Calling attention to ten key texts,Anderson identifies a typological relationship between the eschatological promise for Godspeople under Babylonian rule and that of the deliverance achieved in the first Exodus. 1. 40.3-5 The highway in the wilderness. 2. 41.17-20 The transformation of the wilderness. 3. 42.14-16 Yahweh leads his people in a way they know not. 4. 43.1-3 Passing through the waters and the fire. 5. 43.14-21 A way in the wilderness. 6. 48.20-21 The exodus from Babylon.93. B. W. Anderson, “Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah,” in ed. B. W. Anderson, and W. Harrelson Israel’sProphetic Heritage: Essays in Honour of James Muilenburg (New York: Harper, 1962); J. Blenkinsopp, “Scopeand Depth of Exodus Tradition in Deutero-Isaiah 40-55,” in ed. Benoit The Dynamism of Biblical Tradition(New York: Paulist Press, 1967); C. Stuhlmueller, Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah, AnBib 43 (Rome:Biblical Institute Press, 1970); B.W. Anderson, “Exodus and Covenant in Second Isaiah and the PropheticTradition,” in ed. F. M. Cross et al, Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God: (New York: Doubleday, 1976); M.A. Fishbane, Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts (New York: Schocken Books, 1979);D. A. Patrick, “Epiphanic Imagery in Second Isaiah’s Portrayal of a New Exodus,” HAR 8 (1984): 125-41; R. E.Watts, “Consolation Or Confrontation? Isaiah 40-55 and the Delay of the New Exodus,” TynBul 41:1 (1990):31-59; R. E. Watts, “Echoes From the Past: Israel’s Ancient Traditions and the Destiny of the Nations in Isaiah40-55,” JSOT 28:4 (2004): 481-508. For a survey of scholarship on the NE/Way motif in Isaiah see Ø. Lund,Way Metaphors and Way Topics in Isaiah 40-55, FAT 2:28 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 1-21. ClausWestermann was able to say, For Deutero-Isaiah the most important event in Israels history was the Exodus. The great prominence which he gives it is due to the fact that he himself was involved in a situation similar to it. ....Deutero- Isaiah proclaimed the release from Babylon as a second Exodus... The place which Deutero-Isaiah gives to the exodus is so conspicuous that all other events in Israels history recede into the background. An arch which spans the nations entire history has, as its one pillar, the release from Egypt and, as its other, the new and imminent release from Babylon. Isaiah 40-66, OTL (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1969), 21-22. 32
  33. 33. 7. 49.8-12 The new entry into the Promised Land. 8. 51.9-10 The new victory at the sea. 9. 52.11-12 The new exodus. 10. 55.12-13 Israel shall go out in joy and peace.94As YHWH had defeated the Egyptians and led his people to the promised land, so theprophetic voice proclaimed that the Babylonian bondage would end. YHWH, as the DW,would defeat the Babylonian enemy and lead his people on a NE and be welcomed in arestored Jerusalem. The word way (‫ דרך‬in the MT, and ὁδός in the LXX) has specialsignificance within this NE motif,95 being used to describe the path of deliverance whichYHWH and his people will take from defeated Babylon to Jerusalem.96Whilst the recognition of these NE themes can hardly be denied, the question remains as tohow this material fits within the larger context of Isaiah and Deutero-Isaiah. Are the promisesof a NE to be understood as a repeated motif in a collection of independent oracles made bythe prophet, thus indicating that if one changed the order of individual oracular units it wouldmake little difference to its meaning? Or, alternatively, should this NE motif be seen as arepeated motif within a structure which shows some progression of thought and reflects alarger literary unity? More specifically, how should the NE motif be understood in relation toother major themes of Deutero-Isaiah such as the servant passages (Isa. 42.1–4; 49.1–6; 50.4–9; 52.13–53.12) or the trial speeches (41.1-5; 41.21-29; 43.8-13; 44.6-8; 45.18-25), and whatrelationship do the NE themes of Isa. 40-55 have with chapters 1-39 and 56-66? 9794. B. W. Anderson, "Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah" (1962), 181-82.95. It is used 47 times within 42 verses in the whole of Isaiah, becoming more dominant in chapters 40-66 (1-39, 14x; 40-55, 19x; 55-66, 19x). In each case that Isaiah 40-55 MT uses the word ‫ דרך‬it is translated in the Septuagint as ὁδός or some derivative.96. A voice cries: “In the wilderness prepare the ‫ דרך‬of the Lord; make straight in the desert a ‫ דרך‬for our God......And I will lead the blind in a ‫ דרך‬that they do not know, in paths that they have not known I will guide them. I will turn the darkness before them into light, the rough places into level ground. These are the things I do, and I do not forsake them. ........Thus says the Lord, who makes a ‫ דרך‬in the sea, a path in the mighty waters, ...Behold, I am doing a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? I will make a ‫ דרך‬in the wilderness and rivers in the desert.......Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: “I am the Lord your God, who teaches you to profit, who leads you in the ‫ דרך‬you should go..... saying to the prisoners, ‘Come out,’ to those who are in darkness, ‘Appear.’ They shall feed along the ways; on all bare heights shall be their pasture;...... And I will make all my mountains a ‫ ,דרך‬and my highways shall be raised up. .......Was it not you who dried up the sea, the waters of the great deep, who made the depths of the sea a ‫ דרך‬for the redeemed to pass over? Isa. 40.3; 42.16; 43.16,19; 48.17; 49.9,11; 51.10. ESV with amendments.97. In recent years Isaianic scholarship has made a general shift towards synchronic, literary and holisticreading of the text. David G. Firth and H. G. M. Williamson describe the current move within Isaianic 33