The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161497261, 9783161515927, 3161497260

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (München) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Friedrich Avemarie (Marburg) Judith Gundry-Volf (New Haven, CT) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL)

249

Benjamin E. Reynolds

The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John

Mohr Siebeck

Benjamin E. Reynolds, born 1977; 2003 M. Div.; 2005 Th. M. Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary; 2007 PhD at Aberdeen; currently Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Aberdeen.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-151592-7 ISBN 978-3-16-149726-1 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2008 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

For my dearest Lizzie

Preface This work is a revised version of my doctoral thesis completed at the University of Aberdeen in 2007. In the early stages of my doctoral research on the Gospel of John, when the words ‘Son of Man’ first came up in discussion with my supervisor, my initial response was to avoid them at all costs. Thankfully, I did not and since then I have had the opportunity to wade into the midst of this perennial New Testament problem. It has proven to be a fruitful experience of research and learning. This thesis would not have been possible without the guidance, advice, and encouragement of numerous people. I would like to thank my thesis examiners Dr Catrin H. Williams and Dr Peter J. Williams for their critiques and penetrating questions. They challenged me at a number of points and helped me to clarify my argument, for which I am grateful. I am also grateful to Dr Simon Gathercole for his excellent supervision and direction, and more importantly, for his friendship. Joey Dodson and Preston Sprinkle deserve many thanks for reading and critiquing the bulk of this thesis at various stages of writing. Thanks to their watchful eyes some of what they read is mercifully not included here. I would also like to express my appreciation to those who read parts of the manuscript over the past few years: Andy Angel, Ruth Edwards, Robert Gundry, Karen Jobes, and Howard Marshall. I am especially grateful to Karen Jobes, who has never ceased to be encouraging. If it had not been for her initial encouragement, I may never have pursued biblical studies in the first place. I also received some valuable criticism from those who heard portions of this work during earlier stages of writing. I am grateful to those who heard an earlier draft of chapter 6 at the Annual Seminar on the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament in 2006. I want to express my appreciation to Steve Moyise for hosting the seminar, to Elizabeth Harris for our lively debate, to Maurice Casey for his provoking questions and interest in my thesis, and to Wendy Sproston North for her affirmative comments. I would also like to thank the Johannine Seminar at the 2006 British New Testament Society Conference in Sheffield for helping me to clarify my thoughts on chapter 4. I am also grateful to the University of Aberdeen New Testament Seminar (2004–2007) for their feedback on various por-

VIII

Preface

tions of my work, and particularly to Francis Watson for his helpful comments. I am also grateful to Prof. Jörg Frey for accepting my thesis for publication in the WUNT Series II and to Henning Ziebritzki, Tanja Mix, and the editorial staff at Mohr Siebeck for their quick and proficient assistance in guiding me through the preparation of the manuscript for publication. I also would like to express my appreciation to Brian and Nicole Lugioyo for their translation help and more significantly for their friendship before, during, and after our time in Aberdeen. We look forward to the years ahead. I could not have completed my doctoral study without financial support. I would like to thank the Panacea Society for two generous grants (2005– 2006 and 2006–2007) and also to my grandfather Philip Reynolds for his seemingly boundless generosity. My parents Roger and Melissa Reynolds and my parents-in-law Don and Joan Fothergill have been behind me from the beginning and have encouraged us along this journey in numerous ways. Their visits with us in Aberdeen are cherished memories. And most importantly, I want to thank my wife Lizzie, to whom this study is dedicated. You are my best friend. Thank you for all your love, support, encouragement, and sacrifice during this whole process. I could not have done this without you…nor would I have wanted to. Thanks for filling my gaps. How I love you.

Table of Contents Preface .................................................................................................................... VII Introduction: The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John .............. 1 1. Previous Research on the Son of Man in the Gospel of John ................. 2 1.1. ‘Son of Man’ and Jesus’ Humanity ................................................ 3 1.2. The Son of Man as Human and Divine........................................... 5 1.3. ‘Son of Man’ as equivalent to ‘Son of God’ ................................... 6 1.4. The Son of Man as a Heavenly Figure ........................................... 7 1.5. Conclusion to History of Research ................................................. 9 2. Defining ‘Apocalyptic’, ‘Apocalypse’, and ‘apocalyptic Son of Man’................................................................................................... 10 2.1. Defining ‘Apocalyptic’ ................................................................ 10 2.2. Defining ‘Apocalypse’................................................................. 13 2.3. A ‘mystical Son of Man’? ............................................................ 17 3. A ‘Son of Man Concept’? ................................................................... 18 4. Structure of the Study and Criteria for Identifying the Presence of the Danielic Son of Man ..................................................................... 19

Part One: The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ and the Interpretations of this figure in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and Early Christianity Chapter 1: The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ in Daniel 7: Aramaic Daniel and the Earliest Greek Versions .................................... 27 1. Aramaic text of Daniel 7 ..................................................................... 28 1.1. The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ and the Beasts ............................... 28 1.2. The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ and the Ancient of Days ................ 29 1.3. The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ and the Holy Ones of the Most High ............................................................................................ 31 1.4. Conclusion................................................................................... 33 2. The Earliest Greek Versions of Daniel 7 ............................................. 33 2.1. The Old Greek Text of Daniel 7................................................... 34

X

Table of Contents

2.1.1. The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ and the Ancient of Days ...... 35 2.1.2. Messianic Implications ...................................................... 37 2.1.3. The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ and the Holy Ones............... 38 2.1.4. Conclusion......................................................................... 38 2.2. The Theodotion Text of Daniel 7 ................................................. 39 2.2.1. The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ and the Ancient of Days ...... 39 2.2.2. The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ and the Holy Ones............... 39 2.2.3. Conclusion......................................................................... 39 3. Summary of Daniel 7 in Aramaic and Greek ....................................... 40 Chapter 2: The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ in Jewish Apocalyptic Interpretation.......................................................................................... 41 1. The Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37–71) ......................................... 41 1.1. Influence of Daniel 7 ................................................................... 43 1.2. One Figure, Four Designations .................................................... 44 1.3. Characteristics of the Enochic Son of Man................................... 45 1.3.1. Heavenly, Preexistent, and Revealer of Heavenly Secrets .. 45 1.3.2. Royal and Messianic .......................................................... 46 1.3.3. Judgment and Salvation ..................................................... 46 1.3.4. Recognized ........................................................................ 47 1.3.5. Similarities with God ......................................................... 47 1.3.6. His Dwelling with the Righteous........................................ 48 1.3.7. Servant .............................................................................. 48 1.3.8. Human ............................................................................... 48 1.4. Conclusion................................................................................... 49 2. 4 Ezra (2 Esdras) ................................................................................ 49 2.1. Influence of Daniel 7 ................................................................... 50 2.2. The Characteristics of the Man from the Sea in the Vision and Interpretation............................................................................... 51 2.2.1. My Son .............................................................................. 51 2.2.2. Messiah ............................................................................. 52 2.2.3. Judgment and Salvation ..................................................... 52 2.2.4. Similarities with God ......................................................... 53 2.2.5. Preexistence....................................................................... 54 2.2.6. Recognized ........................................................................ 54 2.2.7. Gathering the Righteous..................................................... 54 2.3. Conclusion................................................................................... 55 2.3.1. Vision and Interpretation ................................................... 55 2.3.2. Vision as Originally Independent ....................................... 55 3. 2 Baruch (Syriac Baruch).................................................................... 56 3.1. Influence of Daniel 7 ................................................................... 57 3.2. 2 Baruch’s Messiah ..................................................................... 57

Table of Contents

XI

3.3. Conclusion................................................................................... 59 4. Summary of the Jewish Apocalyptic Interpretation ............................. 60 EXCURSUS: 4Q246 (4QapocrDan ar).................................................... 61 1.1. Similarities with Daniel ............................................................... 62 1.2. The ‘Son of God’ Figure.............................................................. 62 1.3. Conclusion................................................................................... 64 Chapter 3: The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ in Early Christian Interpretation.......................................................................................... 65 1. The Gospel According to Mark ........................................................... 66 1.1. The Influence of Daniel 7 ............................................................ 66 1.2. The Son of Man’s Authority ........................................................ 67 1.3. Judgment and the Son of Man’s Coming...................................... 68 1.4. Characteristics of the Markan Son of Man ................................... 68 2. The Gospel According to Matthew...................................................... 70 2.1. The Influence of Daniel 7 ............................................................ 70 2.2. The Son of Man in Matthew ........................................................ 70 2.3. Characteristics of the Matthean Son of Man................................. 72 3. The Gospel According to Luke............................................................ 73 3.1. Influence of Daniel 7 ................................................................... 74 3.2. The Son of Man in Luke .............................................................. 74 3.3. Characteristics of the Lukan Son of Man ..................................... 75 4. Acts of the Apostles ............................................................................ 77 4.1. Influence of Daniel 7 ................................................................... 77 4.2. Two Questions............................................................................. 78 4.3. Characteristics of the Son of Man in Acts .................................... 80 5. Revelation........................................................................................... 81 5.1 Influence of Daniel 7 .................................................................... 81 5.2. The Coming One – Rev 1.7.......................................................... 81 5.3. The Human-Like Figure among the Lampstands – Rev 1.13 ........ 81 5.4. The Human-Like Figure Seated on the Cloud – Rev 14.14........... 81 5.5. Characteristics of the Son of Man Figure in Revelation ............... 84 6. Summary of the Early Christian Interpretation .................................... 85

Part Two: The Son of Man in the Gospel of John Chapter 4: The Apocalyptic Introduction of the Johannine Son of Man – John 1.51 ............................................................................................. 89 1. ‘Apocalyptic Son of Man’ Characteristics in John 1.51 ....................... 90

XII

Table of Contents

1.1. The Recognition of the Son of Man ............................................. 90 1.2. The Son of Man as the Messiah ................................................... 91 1.3. The Son of Man as a Heavenly Figure – Heaven Opened ............. 92 2. The ‘Johannized’ Son of Man ............................................................. 96 2.1. The Son of Man as Heavenly Mediator – Gen 28.12 .................... 96 2.2. The Realized Johannine Son of Man in Comparison with the Future Son of Man of the Synoptic Sanhedrin Sayings ....................... 99 3. Conclusion ........................................................................................ 101 Chapter 5: The Ascent-Descent and Lifting Up of the Son of Man – John 3.13–14 ..................................................................................... 104 1. The Ascent-Descent of the Son of Man – John 3.13 .......................... 104 1.1. The Son of Man Reveals Heavenly Things................................. 104 1.2. The Heavenly Son of Man as Heavenly Figure and Preexistent .. 106 1.2.1. The Descent of the Son of Man ........................................ 106 1.2.2. No One Has Ascended ..................................................... 107 1.2.3. The Use of  in 3.13 .................................................. 108 1.2.4. The Son of Man’s Ascent................................................. 111 1.3. ‘Apocalyptic Son of Man’ Characteristics in 3.13 ...................... 116 2. The Son of Man Must Be Lifted Up – John 3.14 ............................... 117 2.1. The Meaning of   ............................................................. 117 2.2. Moses and the Bronze Serpent: Num 21.4–9 .............................. 117 2.3. The Johannine Comparison ........................................................ 119 2.4. ‘Lifting Up’ in the Gospel of John ............................................. 122 2.5 ‘Apocalyptic Son of Man’ Characteristics Man in 3.14 ............... 127 3. Conclusion to the Son of Man Sayings in 3.13 and 14 ....................... 128 3.1. The ‘Johannized’ Apocalyptic Son of Man ................................ 128 3.2. ‘Son of Man’ and ‘Son of God’ in the Gospel of John................ 129 Chapter 6: The Son of Man as Apocalyptic Judge – John 5.27 .............. 131 1. ‘The Son of Man’ or ‘a son of man’? ................................................ 132 1.1. Grammatical Evidence for Definiteness? ................................... 133 1.2. Contextual Evidence for Definiteness: Jesus, Judgment, and Humanity................................................................................... 135 2. The Apocalyptic Son of Man in John 5.27......................................... 137 2.1. The Johannine Son of Man and the ‘One Like a Son of Man’..... 137 2.1.1. The Verbal Link between Daniel 7.13–14 and John 5.27.. 137 2.1.2. The Judgment Theme in Daniel 7 and John 5 ................... 139 2.2. The Son of Man’s Apocalyptic Role in Resurrection.................. 140 2.3. Other ‘Apocalyptic Son of Man’ Characteristics in John 5: Recognition, Similarities with God, Salvation ........................... 142

Table of Contents

XIII

2.4. The ‘Johannized’ Son of Man .................................................... 144 3. ‘Son’ and ‘Son of Man’..................................................................... 145 4. Conclusion ........................................................................................ 145 Chapter 7: The Life-Giving Son of Man – John 6.27, 53, 62.................. 147 1. The Son of Man as Life-Giver – John 6.27 ........................................ 148 1.1. The Son of Man and Life-Giving Food ...................................... 148 1.2. The Sealing of the Son of Man................................................... 150 1.3. The Timing of the Gift of Life ................................................... 151 2. Bread from Heaven – John 6.53 ........................................................ 152 2.1. The One Descending from Heaven............................................. 153 2.2. Similarities with God ................................................................. 154 2.3. Eating the Flesh and Drinking the Blood of the Son of Man....... 155 2.4. Son of Man, Salvation, and Judgment ........................................ 159 3. The Son of Man’s Ascent and Preexistence – John 6.62 .................... 159 4. Conclusion ........................................................................................ 161 Chapter 8: The Lifted up and Recognized Son of Man – John 8.28........ 162 1. Jesus’ Origin and Identity in John 7 and 8......................................... 163 2. ‘Apocalyptic Son of Man’ Characteristics in John 8.28 ..................... 165 2.1.The Son of Man’s Origin ............................................................ 165 2.2. The Son of Man’s Relationship with God – I Am....................... 165 2.3. The Son of Man’s Shared Action with God – Judgment ............. 168 2.4. The Recognition of the Lifted Up Son of Man ........................... 169 2.4.1. What They Will Know – Jesus’ Identity........................... 170 2.4.2. The Lifting Up ................................................................. 171 2.4.3. The Timing of the Knowledge ......................................... 172 2.4.4. The Result of the Knowledge ........................................... 173 3. Conclusion ........................................................................................ 174 Chapter 9: Belief in the Son of Man – John 9.35 ................................... 175 1. The Healing, Controversies, and Jesus’ Question .............................. 176 2. ‘Apocalyptic Son of Man’ Characteristics in John 9.35 ..................... 179 2.1. Recognizing the Son of Man ...................................................... 179 2.1.1. Sight and Hearing ............................................................ 179 2.1.2. Belief as the Ultimate Johannine Recognition .................. 180 2.2. The Son of Man is Worshipped.................................................. 181 2.3. The Son of Man and Judgment................................................... 182 2.3.1. ‘For Judgment I have come into the World’ ..................... 183 2.3.2. Non-apocalyptic Judgment? ............................................. 184 2.4. The Son of Man as a Heavenly Figure and Preexistent............... 186

XIV

Table of Contents

2.5. The Son of Man’s Authority ...................................................... 186 3. ‘Son of Man’ and Jesus’ Humanity in John 9.35? .............................. 187 4. Conclusion ........................................................................................ 188 Chapter 10: The Glorification and Lifting Up of the Son of Man – John 12.23, 34 ................................................................................... 190 1. The Glorification of the Son of Man.................................................. 191 1.1. The Son of Man’s Hour of Glorification as Death, Resurrection and Return ................................................................................. 192 1.1.1. The Son of Man’s Hour................................................... .192 1.1.2. The Son of Man’s Glorification ....................................... 193 1.2. Glorification as an ‘Apocalyptic Son of Man’ Characteristic ..... 194 2. The Hour of Glorification as Judgment ............................................. 196 3. The Hour of the Son of Man’s Glorification and the ‘Lifting Up’...... 198 3.1. The Relationship Between His Glorification and ‘Lifting Up’.... 198 3.2. ‘If I am Lifted up from the Earth’ .............................................. 199 4. The Son of Man and the Messiah ...................................................... 200 5. Conclusion ........................................................................................ 203 Chapter 11: The Glorification of the Son of Man and God – John 13.31–32.................................................................................... 205 1. Now is the Son of Man Glorified ...................................................... 206 1.1. The Glorification of the Son of Man in John 13 as more than the Cross ................................................................................... 206 1.2. Present and Future Aspects of the Son of Man’s Glorification ... 207 2. ‘Apocalyptic Son of Man’ Characteristics in John 13.31–32 ............. 211 2.1. Glory and the Apocalyptic Son of Man ...................................... 211 2.2 The Heavenly Significance of the Son of Man’s Glory ............... 211 2.3. Similarities between the Son of Man and God............................ 212 3. Conclusion ........................................................................................ 213 Conclusion............................................................................................ 214 1. The Danielic son of man in Jewish Apocalyptic and Early Christian Interpretation ................................................................................... 214 2. The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John........................... 215 3. The Distinctive Features of the Johannine Son of Man ...................... 216 3.1. The Johannine Son of Man and the Realized Eschatology of John’s Gospel ............................................................................ 216 3.2. The Johannine Son of Man and Salvation .................................. 218 3.3. The ‘Lifting Up’ and Ascent-Descent Language ........................ 219

Table of Contents

XV

4. The Significance of the Apocalyptic Son of Man for Johannine Christology....................................................................................... 220 4.1. The Son of Man and Jesus’ Humanity........................................ 220 4.2. ‘Son of Man’ and ‘Son of God’.................................................. 222 4.3. Johannine Son of Man Christology and an Apocalyptic Background ............................................................................... 223 5. Some Implications of an Apocalyptic Son of Man in John................. 225 5.1. John and the Synoptics .............................................................. 225 5.2. The Genre of the Gospel of John................................................ 226 5.3. The Apocalyptic Son of Man and Docetism ............................... 227 Appendix: Tabular Representation of the Apocalyptic Characteristics .. 229 Bibliography ......................................................................................... 255 Index of References ............................................................................... 279 Index of Authors.................................................................................... 300 Index of Subjects and Key Terms........................................................... 306

Introduction

The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John Jesus’ titles in the four Gospels have played an important part in discussions of early Christology,1 and while Jesus’ titles are not the only way in which New Testament Christology can be approached,2 they communicate some of what the early Christians believed about Jesus. The title ‘Son of Man’ is one of these Christological titles, and its origin and meaning have continued to vex NT scholarship. From where does this title originate? What did it mean to the people of first century Palestine? Was ‘Son of Man’ thought of as a title before the Gospel writers used it? What did it mean to Jesus? Was there such a thing as an established ‘Son of Man concept’? Does ‘Son of Man’ refer to the ‘one like a son of man’ from Dan 7.13–14 or does it mean ‘a human being’ or ‘one like me’? The issues illustrated by these questions constitute what is called the Son of Man problem. Although scholars have even debated whether or not the Son of Man problem can be solved,3 the questions concerning the Son of Man sayings never cease to be asked in NT scholarship.4 The meaning of    

1 O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament (S.C. Guthrie and C.A.M. Hall, trans.; London: SCM, 1959); F. Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity (H. Knight and G. Ogg, trans.; London: Lutterworth, 1969); J.D.G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: An Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (London: SCM, 19892 ). Cf. W. Bousset, Kyrios Christos: A History of Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus (J.E. Steely, trans.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1970); L.W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). 2 See R. Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). 3 A.J.B. Higgins, ‘Is the Son of Man Problem Soluble?’ in E.E. Ellis and M. Wilcox (eds.), Neotestamentica et Semitica. Studies in honour of Matthew Black (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1969) 70–87; M.D. Hooker, ‘Is the Son of Man Problem Really Insoluble?’ in E. Best and R. McL. Wilson (eds.), Text and Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament presented to Matthew Black (Cambridge: CUP, 1979) 155–68; D. Burkett, The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation (SNTS.MS 107; Cambridge: CUP, 1999). 4 See most recently A.R. Angel, Chaos and the Son of Man: The Hebrew Chaoskampf Tradition in the Period 515 BCE to 200 CE (LSTS 60; London: T&T Clark, 2006) and M. Casey, The Solution to the Son of Man Problem (LNTS 343; London: T&T Clark, 2007).

2

Introduction: The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John

  for the historical Jesus is a question that will continue to be debated.5 On the other hand, the Son of Man sayings in John’s Gospel are often neglected in the Son of Man debate, mainly because the Gospel of John is not considered historical.6 Although the Gospel of John may not hold the key to the Son of Man problem, the Johannine use of the ‘Son of Man’ title is important for Johannine Christology. For this reason, the following study is unconcerned with the Son of Man problem. Rather, it is an attempt to examine the portrayal and interpretation of the Son of Man title within the framework of John’s Gospel and to determine the significance of the title for Johannine Christology.

1. Previous Research on the Son of Man in the Gospel of John Compared to the study of the Son of Man in the Synoptic Gospels, the study of the Johannine Son of Man is a relatively recent development in critical scholarship. As recently as forty years ago, introductions to studies of the Johannine Son of Man noted the dearth of published secondary literature.7 Since that time, the situation has changed significantly with a no5

For further study on the Son of Man problem see Burkett, Debate. H.E. Tödt, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (D.M. Barton, trans.; London: SCM, 1965); Hahn, Titles, 15–67. In Casey’s first book on the Son of Man, John 1.51 and 5.27 are the only Johannine sayings discussed (M. Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 [London: SPCK, 1979] 197–99; cf. M. Müller, Der Ausdruck “Menschensohn” in den Evangelien. Voraussetzungen und Bedeutung [Leiden: Brill, 1984]). See M. Casey, Is John’s Gospel True? (Routledge: London, 1996); M.M. Thompson, ‘The Historical Jesus and the Johannine Christ’, in R.A. Culpepper and C.C. Black (eds.), Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996) 21–42. Note the recent discussions of the historicity of John in F.J. Moloney, ‘The Fourth Gospel and the Jesus of History’, NTS 46 (2000) 42– 58; C.L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues and Commentary (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 2001); P.N. Anderson, The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus: Modern Foundations Reconsidered (LNTS 321; London: T&T Clark, 2006); P.N. Anderson, F. Just, T. Thatcher (eds.), John, Jesus, and History, Volume 1: A Critical Appraisal of Critical Views (Atlanta: SBL, 2007). 7 R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John (3 vols.; Tunbridge Wells: Burns & Oates, 1967) 1.529; S.S. Smalley, ‘The Johannine Son of Man Sayings’, NTS 15 (1969) 278–301; B. Lindars, ‘The Son of Man in the Johannine Christology’, in B. Lindars and S.S. Smalley (eds.), Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: Studies in Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule (Cambridge: CUP, 1973) 43–60; R. Maddox, ‘The Function of the Son of Man in the Gospel of John’, in R. Banks (ed.), Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) 186–204; F.J. Moloney, The Johannine Son of Man (Biblioteca di Scienze Religiose 14; Rome: LAS, 19782 ) 1. Cf. H. Dieckmann, ‘„Der Sohn des Menschen“ im Jo6

1. Previous Research on the Son of Man in the Gospel of John

3

table growth in the secondary literature during the late 1960s and 1970s, and this growth resulted in numerous opinions on both the origin and the meaning of John’s Son of Man. Scholars who generally agree on the origin of the Johannine use of the title do not always agree on its Christological meaning. The following survey of previous scholarship on the ‘Son of Man’ in the Gospel of John has been arranged according to four broad Christological categories: (1) the title ‘Son of Man’ as highlighting the humanity of Jesus; (2) ‘Son of Man’ as a sort of divine-Man, drawing attention to both Jesus’ humanity and divinity; (3) ‘Son of Man’ as synonymous with ‘Son of God’; (4) ‘Son of Man’ as a heavenly or divine figure. For the purposes of clarity and succinctness, each category is represented by a single scholar, but subcategories and nuances within these Christological categories are also noted. 1.1. ‘Son of Man’ and Jesus’ Humanity The Johannine use of the expression ‘Son of Man’ is commonly understood by not a few scholars as a reference to Jesus’ humanity. One of the more influential proponents of this view is Francis J. Moloney, who wrote the first major English monograph on the Son of Man in the Gospel of John. In a conscious attempt to avoid placing too much emphasis on the possible origins of the title ‘Son of Man’,8 Moloney concentrates primarily on the narrative context of the Son of Man sayings and the Christology of the Gospel of John. As the first study of its kind, it provides an excellent examination of the Johannine Son of Man sayings in their context. Throughout his thesis, Moloney argues that the Son of Man is the unique revealer of God who has come down from heaven and whose revelation causes people to judge themselves. However, Moloney understands this revelation to take place through the Son of Man as a human among humanity. This understanding leads him to conclude: ‘The Johannine Son of Man is the human Jesus, the incarnate Logos; he has come to reveal God with a unique authority and in the acceptance or refusal of this revelation the hannesevangelium’, Scholastik 2 (1927) 229–47; F.J. Moloney, ‘The Johannine Son of Man Revisited’, in G. Van Belle, J.G. van der Watt, and P. Maritz (eds.), Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by the Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar (BETL 184; Leuven: Leuven University, 2005) 177–202. 8 See Moloney’s comments in ‘A Johannine Son of Man Discussion?’ Salesianum 39 (1977) 93–102: ‘Very often scholars – perhaps under the spell of the debate over the Synoptic Son of Man – delve into the background of John’s use of the term. This is a legitimate and necessary course of research, but it pays too little attention to the Christology involved in the “putting together” of the various elements which may have formed the text as we have it now.’

4

Introduction: The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John

world judges itself.’9 For Moloney, Jesus’ humanity is so much the meaning of the expression ‘Son of Man’ that he can say that the title is ‘entirely dependent upon the incarnation’.10 Although Moloney does not focus on the possible origins of the Son of Man title in his study, he does contend that the ‘one like a son of man’ from Daniel 7 stands in the background, but he understands this background as having been reinterpreted by John via the Synoptic portrait of the Son of Man.11 Other scholars who argue that the Johannine use of ‘Son of Man’ highlights Jesus’ humanity find the background for this meaning in Psalms 8 and 80, Ezekiel, and/or the Wisdom tradition.12 Rather than seeing a reference to Jesus’ humanity, some scholars maintain that the title draws attention more specifically to Jesus’ earthly life and ministry,13 to his representative or ideal humanity,14 or his role as a human prophet.15 9

Moloney, Johannine, 220; idem, ‘Revisited’, 200. Moloney, Johannine, 213; cf. 180–81. See also E.A. Abbott, “The Son of Man” or Contributions to the Study of the Thoughts of Jesus (Cambridge: CUP, 1910) 407–563 [§3374–§3477]; E.M. Sidebottom, ‘The Son of Man as Man in the Fourth Gospel’, ExpT 68 (1957) 231–35, 280–83; idem, ‘The Ascent and Descent of the Son of Man in the Gospel of St. John’, AThR 39 (1957) 115–22; idem, The Christ of the Fourth Gospel in Light of First-Century Thought (London: SPCK, 1961); E. Ruckstuhl, ‘Die johanneische Menschensohnforschung 1957–1969’, in J. Pfammatter and F. Furger (eds.), Theologische Berichte 1 (Zurich: Benziger, 1972) 171–284; idem, ‘Abstieg und Erhöhung des johanneischen Menschensohns’, in R. Pesch and R. Schnackenburg (eds.), Jesus und der Menschensohn. Für Anton Vögtle (Freiburg: Herder, 1975) 315–41; J. Coppens, ‘Le fils de l’homme dans l’évangile johannique’, ETL 52 (1976) 28–81; C. Colpe, ‘      ’, TDNT, VIII.400–81; D.R.A. Hare, The Son of Man Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 79–111; G.W.E. Nickelsburg, ‘Son of Man’, ABD 6.137–50; Casey, Solution, 274–313. 11 Moloney, Johannine, 220. 12 See Abbott, Son of Man, 427, 464–74; Sidebottom, ‘Son of Man’, 232, 234; idem, ‘Ascent’, 117; idem, Christ, 84–96; R. Rhea, The Johannine Son of Man (AThANT 76; Zürich: Theologischer, 1990) 70. 13 E. Kinniburgh, ‘The Johannine “Son of Man”’, SE 4 (= TU 102) (F.L. Cross, ed.; Berlin: Akademie, 1968) 64–71; B. Lindars, Jesus Son of Man: A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man Sayings in the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984; first pub. London: SPCK, 1983) 145–57. J.L. Martyn (History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 20033 ] 125–36) seems to understand ‘Son of Man’ to refer to Jesus’ existence on earth based on his positive quotation of E. Käsemann (The Testament of Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17 [G. Krodel, trans.; London: SCM, 1968] 13), but Martyn’s view must be understood within the context of his ‘two-level drama’. 14 C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: CUP, 1953, 1968) 43–44, 243; Smalley, ‘Sayings’, 278–301; M. Pamment, ‘The Son of Man in the Fourth Gospel’, JTS 36 (1985) 56–66; F.F. Ramos, ‘El hijo del hombre en el cuarto evangelio’, Studium Legionense 40 (1999) 45–92. See also W.H. Cadman, The Open Heaven: The Revelation of God in the Johannine Sayings of Jesus (G.B. Caird, ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 10

1. Previous Research on the Son of Man in the Gospel of John

5

As we will see throughout the course of this study, there are a number of difficulties faced by the view that the title ‘Son of Man’ in the Gospel of John emphasizes Jesus’ humanity. Most significantly, the scholars who hold this view are often silent about Jesus’ humanity in John 9.35 when Jesus asks: ‘Do you believe in the Son of Man?’ Another difficulty involves the Son of Man’s ascent and descent. For, how can the Son of Man descend from heaven if the title is concerned with Jesus’ humanity or earthly life? The Gospel of John seems to indicate that there is some sort of heavenly or divine aspect to this figure (cf. 3.13). 1.2. The Son of Man as Human and Divine Some scholars have rightly recognized the heavenly connotation of the ‘Son of Man’ title in the Gospel of John, but they also claim that the title retains a human implication.16 In a lengthy article, the French scholar Théo Preiss argues that ‘Son of Man’ is the unifying feature of Johannine Christology and is synonymous with ‘Son’. However, Preiss maintains that le sens primitif of ‘Son of Man’, along with an ‘inclusive’ or representative aspect of the title, signifies that the Johannine Son of Man is the divine Man.17 It is the Johannine Son of Man’s representation of humanity in heaven before God that indicates his divine and human nature.18 Preiss states: ‘En tant que Fils de l’Homme préexistant, il est non seulement chef des anges, de toute la création, il est l’Homme divin, le seul homme qui mérite ce nom!’19 Preiss and others who insist that ‘Son of Man’ in the Gospel of John communicates a divine and human aspect of this figure correctly recognize the divine connotation of the title.20 On the other hand, this view still main1969) 41; W. Wink, ‘“The Son of the Man” in the Gospel of John’, in R.T. Fortna and T. Thatcher (eds.), Jesus in the Johannine Tradition (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001) 117–23. Cf. Abbott, Son of Man, 427. 15 Rhea, Johannine, 36, 43; J. Guillet, ‘Le Fils de l’homme: Titre eschatologique ou mission prophétique?’ RSR 88.4 (2000) 615–38. A fifth human category could include the view of Müller (Ausdruck, 247–60), who maintains that the expression ‘Son of Man’ originally functioned as a paraphrase for the speaker. Cf. Hare, Son of Man, 79–111. 16 Sidebottom (‘Son of Man’, 283), Nickelsburg (‘Son of Man’, 146–47), Ramos (‘Hijo, 52, 68), and Wink (‘Son of the Man’, 123) argue primarily for the human meaning of ‘Son of Man’ but allow for some sort of divine meaning. 17 T. Preiss, ‘Le fils de l’homme dans le IVe Évangile’, ETR 28 (1953) 7–61. See also T. Preiss, Life in Christ (H. Knight, trans.; SBT 13; London: SCM, 1954) 43–60. 18 Preiss, ‘Fils de l’homme’, 17–18. 19 Preiss, ‘Fils de l’homme’, 58. 20 Dieckmann, ‘Sohn des Menschen’, 242, 247; J. Héring, Le Royaume de Dieu et sa Venue. Étude sur l’espérance de Jésus et l’apôtre Paul (Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 19592 ) 254–57; F.H. Borsch, The Son of Man in Myth and History (Philadelphia: West-

6

Introduction: The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John

tains that ‘Son of Man’ has a human nuance. As mentioned above, this human meaning has a number of difficulties that will be addressed in the course of this thesis. 1.3. ‘Son of Man’ as equivalent to ‘Son of God’ A third understanding of John’s use of ‘Son of Man’ explains the title as equivalent to ‘Son of God’.21 The most substantial argument for this synonymy between the titles ‘Son of Man’ and ‘Son of God’ is made by Delbert Burkett.22 Focusing on the ascent-descent theme, Burkett asserts that Prov 30.1–4 serves as the background for the Johannine Son of Man sayings because of the combination of the words ‘ascend’ and ‘descend’ in the passage. Based on re-vocalization of the Hebrew text and some help from the Greek version of Proverbs, Burkett posits that Prov 30.1–4 presents the words of a father (‘the Man’), whom Burkett understands as God, to his son (‘the son of the Man’) who is thus ‘the Son of God’. He translates Prov 30.1 and 30.4 as follows: Store up my words, my son, receive the oracle [     

 ], says the Man to Ithiel (‘God is with me’) [      ], to ‘God is with me so that I am able’ [    ]…Who has ascended to heaven and descended? Who has gathered wind in his garments? Who has wrapped water in a mantle? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name and what is his son’s name? For you know.23

Burkett then argues that in Prov 30.4 only God and his son (‘the son of the Man’) can accomplish the ascent and descent. For Burkett, John 3.13 is ‘the key to understanding the origin and meaning of the expression “the Son of the Man” as it is used in the Fourth Gospel’,24 and he claims that Jesus’ statement about ascent and descent in John 3.13 is a reference to the ‘Son of the Man’ in Proverbs 30 (cf. Gen 28.12; minster, 1967); E. Harris, Prologue and Gospel: The Theology of the Fourth Evangelist (JSNT.S 107; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994) 116–29. Cf. C. Ham, ‘The Title “Son of Man” in the Gospel of John’, Stone-Campbell Journal 1 (1998) 67–84; J.F. McGrath, John’s Apologetic Christology: Legitimation and Development in Johannine Christology (SNTS.MS 111; Cambridge: CUP, 2001). 21 Some of the scholars who contend that ‘Son of Man’ draws attention to Jesus’ humanity have not found this view to be incompatible with synonymy between the titles ‘Son of Man’ and ‘Son of God’. See Dieckmann, ‘Sohn des Menschen’, 246–47; Preiss, ‘Fils de l’homme’, 9, 13, 18; Dodd, Interpretation, 244; Sidebottom, ‘Son of Man’, 283; Cadman, Open Heaven, 41; Wink, ‘Son of the Man’, 120. Cf. Borsch, Son of Man, 258. 22 D. Burkett, The Son of the Man in the Gospel of John (JSNT.S 56; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991). Burkett has been followed by H. Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium (HNT 6; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). 23 Burkett, Son of the Man, 51. The Hebrew listed is from the BHS. Burkett makes some emendations to the text and revocalizes some of the letters. 24 Burkett, Son of the Man, 76.

1. Previous Research on the Son of Man in the Gospel of John

7

Isa 55).25 Because Burkett understands ‘the Man’ of Prov 30.1–4 as God, he maintains that the titles ‘Son of the Man’ and ‘Son of God’ are synonymous. It is worth noting briefly two of the difficulties with Burkett’s position. Even if his exegesis of Prov 30.1–4 is correct and if there is some connection with the ascent and descent in John 3.13, Burkett is unable to show the relevance of Proverbs 30 for the rest of the Son of Man sayings in the Gospel of John.26 Secondly, Burkett dismisses Dan 7.13–14 and 4 Ezra 13 as possible backgrounds for the ‘Son of Man’ title on the grounds that       is not found in either of these texts, but neither is the phrase     found in the Greek text of Prov 30.1–4.27 Although Burkett’s argument for synonymy is more complicated than some and is based on a distinctive background, he is not alone in arguing that the Gospel of John’s Son of Man Christology is equivalent to its Son of God Christology.28 Those who equate the titles ‘Son of Man’ and ‘Son of God’ correctly recognize the heavenly nature of the Johannine Son of Man, but although ‘Son of Man’ and ‘Son of God’ are found in similar contexts and their meanings may overlap, the two titles have different implications that will become more obvious as this study progresses. 1.4 The Son of Man as a Heavenly Figure The final category to discuss includes those scholars who maintain that the Johannine Son of Man is a heavenly or divine figure. In the most recent monograph on the Johannine Son of Man, Markus Sasse grounds the Son of Man Christology in the situation of the Johannine community and argues that it was important for their identity, especially as an answer to Jewish accusations of ditheism and as an answer to questions about Jesus’ identity and death.29 Against this background, Sasse argues that the Johan25

Burkett, Son of the Man, 49–50. See a similar critique by R. Bauckham, Review of Delbert Burkett, The Son of the Man in the Gospel of John, EvQ 65 (1993) 266–68. 27 The Hebrew word that Burkett translates as ‘the Man’ is    and not   or  . In the Greek text of Proverbs, the word used is  . 28 See E.D. Freed, ‘The Son of Man in the Fourth Gospel’, JBL 86 (1967) 402–9; A.J.B. Higgins, Jesus and the Son of Man (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964) 153–84, 202; R. Schnackenburg, ‘Der Menschensohn im Johannesevangelium’, NTS 11 (1964–65) 123– 37; idem, Gospel, 1.527–42, 1.543–57; S. Kim, “The ‘Son of Man’” as the Son of God (WUNT 30; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983); R.E. Brown, An Introduction to the Gospel of John (F.J. Moloney, ed.; New York: Doubleday, 2003). Cf. M.C. de Boer (Johannine Perspectives on the Death of Jesus [CBET 17; Kampen: Pharos, 1996] 102–5, 147–217) who seems to affirm some sort of synonymy between ‘Son of Man’ and ‘Son of God’. 29 M. Sasse, Der Menschensohn im Evangelium nach Johannes (TANZ 35; Tübingen, Basel: Francke, 2000). 26

8

Introduction: The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John

nine Son of Man is a heavenly figure whose primary functions are lifegiving and judgment. He argues further that the ‘Son’ Christology is the dominant Christology of the Gospel and that ‘Son of Man’ interprets ‘Son’ and often serves as a corrective to incorrect Christological understanding.30 In distinction from the current study, Sasse understands the origin of the Johannine Son of Man to derive from a number of backgrounds. For example, the Son of Man’s function as judge derives from Daniel 7, the ‘lifting up’ sayings from the ‘martyr-theology’, and the ascent-descent sayings from OT theophanies.31 In order to describe the Son of Man figure as heavenly, Sasse maintains that the origin of the Johannine Son of Man is found in these various traditions, rather than focusing primarily on the Danielic and apocalyptic background of ‘Son of Man’. Further, Sasse does not argue for a thoroughgoing apocalyptic Son of Man in John’s Gospel. His argument that the Johannine Son of Man is a heavenly figure depends almost solely upon the Son of Man sayings in 3.13 and 6.25–59.32 Sasse relegates the ‘lifting-up’ and glorification sayings to one chapter and gives little discussion to 8.28 and 13.31–32. In addition, his chapters on 1.51, 5.27, and 9.35 are noticeably slim. The apocalyptic background of the Johannine Son of Man is more evident in each of the Johannine Son of Man sayings than Sasse’s discussion indicates. As with Sasse, some other scholars make a case for a heavenly Son of Man by combining traditional apocalyptic works (i.e., Daniel 7, the Similitudes of Enoch, and 4 Ezra) with other backgrounds that have a different center of gravity (e.g., Wisdom traditions,33 Moses’ Sinai ascent,34 etc.35). There are other scholars, however, who locate the origin of the heavenly

30

Sasse, Menschensohn, 247, 258–62. Sasse, Menschensohn, 173–74, 241. Sasse neither sufficiently explains nor defends this ‘martyr-theology’. 32 Together his chapters on John 3.13 and 6.25–59 take up 134 pages of the 166 total on the Johannine Son of Man sayings. 33 H.-M. Dion, ‘Quelques traits originaux de la conception johannique du Fils de l’Homme’, ScEccl 19 (1967) 49–65; R.G. Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, Wisdom, and the Son of Man: A Study of the Idea of Pre-Existence in the New Testament (SNTS.MS 21; Cambridge: CUP, 1973) 224–41. 34 P. Borgen, ‘Some Jewish Exegetical Traditions as Background for Son of Man Sayings in John’s Gospel (Jn 3, 13–14 and context)’, in M. de Jonge (ed.), L’Évangile de Jean (Gembloux, Belgium: Duculot, 1977) 243–58. 35 J.-A. Bühner, Der Gesandte und sein Weg im 4. Evangelium (WUNT 2.2; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1977) 374–99, 422–29; W. Roth, ‘Jesus as the Son of Man: The Scriptural Identity of a Johannine Image’, in D.E. Groh and R. Jewett (eds.), The Living Text: Essays in Honor of Ernest W. Saunders (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985) 11–26. 31

1. Previous Research on the Son of Man in the Gospel of John

9

Son of Man mainly in apocalyptic literature,36 but they make this argument on the basis of a relatively few Johannine Son of Man sayings, namely 1.51; 3.13; and/or 5.27.37 Although the heavenly nature of the Johannine Son of Man has been correctly recognized by these scholars, they fail to see ‘Son of Man’ as either originating principally in apocalyptic literature or that the apocalyptic depiction of the Johannine Son of Man is apparent in each of the Johannine Son of Man sayings and not only in a few of them.38 1.5 Conclusion to History of Research Previously, the argument for the Johannine Son of Man’s apocalyptic nature has largely depended upon a few Son of Man sayings (1.51; 3.13; and/or 5.27). Further, those who focus mainly on John 5.27 point to the theme of judgment in Daniel 7 and 1 Enoch 62 and 69 as the main evidence for an apocalyptic background. This argument is a weak support on which to hang the entire claim that John’s Son of Man is apocalyptic. Some, like Burkett, who disagree with the idea of an apocalyptic Son of 36

S. Schulz, Untersuchungen zur Menschensohn-Christologie im Johannesevangelium. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Methodengeschichte der Auslegung des 4. Evangeliums (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957); J. Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: OUP, 1991) 337–73; J. Painter, ‘The Enigmatic Johannine Son of Man’, in F. Van Segbroeck, C.M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle, and J. Verheyden (eds.), Four Gospels 1992. Festschrift Frans Neirynck (BETL 100; 3 vols.; Louvain: Peeters, 1992) 1869–87. Almost simultaneously with Schulz, Ch. de Beus (‘Het Gebruik en de Betekenis van de Uitdrukking „De Zoon des Mensen” in het Evangelie van Johannes’, NedTT 10 [1955– 56] 237–51) made the case that the Son of Man title is primarily a messianic title with no obvious earthly or heavenly aspects, but he hinted at the figure’s heavenly origin by highlighting the eschatological role of the Son of Man based upon Dan 7.13. 37 Maddox (‘Function’, 186–204) is an exception. He addresses each of the Son of Man sayings equally, but he argues that ‘Son of Man’ has assimilated to ‘Son’, although he does not think that the assimilation is complete. Uniquely, J.H. Ellens (‘Exegesis of Second Temple Texts in a Fourth Gospel Son of Man Logion’, in I. Kalini and P.J. Haas [eds.], Biblical Interpretation in Judaism and Christianity [LHBOTS 439; London: T&T Clark, 2006] 131–49) argues that the phrase ‘Son of Man’ originally referred to an eschatological judge as in the Similitudes of Enoch, but that the Gospel of John has reinterpreted the phrase to indicate Jesus’ role as savior rather than judge. A puzzling aspect of Ellens’ theory is his claim that ‘Son of Man’ was interpolated into the Gospel at a later stage, but he asserts that the interpolation occurred because a ‘proper gospel, even at the end of the first century or the beginning of the second century’ could not have been written without the phrase ‘Son of Man’ (138). Yet, Ellens fails to explain how the first edition of the Gospel appears to have been written without the phrase. 38 One scholar who does not fit easily into these four categories is M.M. Pazdan, The Son of Man: A Metaphor for Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (Zacchaeus Studies: New Testament; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991). She argues that ‘Son of Man’ functions as a metaphor for Jesus in the Gospel of John and is related to the other titles.

10

Introduction: The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John

Man, have only argued against the connection between Daniel 7 and John 5.27 in order to refute the apocalyptic nature of the Johannine Son of Man. What will be argued in the rest of this study is that the Johannine Son of Man is apocalyptic and that the evidence of this can be found throughout the Son of Man sayings, not merely in 1.51, 3.13, and/or 5.27. In addition, the Son of Man in John is connected with more apocalyptic texts than simply Daniel 7 and 1 Enoch 62 and 69. A need exists for a study that thoroughly investigates the possible relationship between the ‘one like a son of man’ in Daniel 7, the interpretations of the Danielic figure, and the Johannine Son of Man. Although it is not completely new to suggest that the Son of Man in John has a Danielic or an apocalyptic background, surprisingly, no one has written a study similar to Morna Hooker’s excellent examination of the Son of Man in Mark.39 This deficiency becomes all the more important now considering the increased interest in apocalyptic literature over the last twenty years.40 Against this backdrop of recent scholarly work on apocalyptic literature, a thorough assessment of the Son of Man in the Gospel of John with regard to the interpretations of the Danielic son of man41 should provide a constructive and valuable area of study, especially considering recent resistance to an apocalyptic Son of Man in John’s Gospel.42

2. Defining ‘Apocalyptic’, ‘Apocalypse’, and ‘apocalyptic Son of Man’ 2.1. Defining ‘Apocalyptic’ Before going further, it will be necessary to clarify the meaning of the term ‘apocalyptic’ and the phrase ‘apocalyptic Son of Man’ as used in this study. The word ‘apocalyptic’ is often used loosely in scholarship, which

39 M.D. Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark: A Study of the Background of the Term “Son of Man” and Its Use in St Mark’s Gospel (Montreal: McGill University, 1967). 40 This can be seen in the work of G. Boccaccini, J.J. Collins, G.W.E. Nickelsburg, C. Rowland, P. Sacchi, J. VanderKam and others, in the annual Enoch Seminar organized by G. Boccaccini, and in the recent ten year celebration of the Society of Biblical Literature Jewish and Christian Mysticism Group (see A.D. DeConick [ed.], Paradise Now: Essays on Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism [Symposium 11; Atlanta: SBL, 2006]). 41 ‘Son of Man’ will not be capitalized in the phrase ‘Danielic son of man’ because it is not used as a title in Daniel; however, in reference to John, where the use of the expression is titular, ‘Son of Man’ will be capitalized. 42 See especially Burkett, Son of the Man, 38–45; Rhea, Johannine, 35–39, 47; Hare, Son of Man, 83, 92.

2. Defining ‘Apocalyptic’, ‘Apocalypse’, and ‘apocalyptic Son of Man’

11

leads to a blurring of its meaning.43 Some of the confusion has been caused by the term’s use in English as both a noun and an adjective, with the noun use most likely being a derivation of the German term Apokalyptik.44 Adding to the complexity, the English noun ‘apocalyptic’ has been used to designate apocalypses (apocalyptic genre), apocalypticism (apocalyptic eschatology), and apocalyptic tradition.45 Elucidating these issues is beyond the scope of this study, but the defining of terms is not, especially since our concern is with the adjectival use of the term ‘apocalyptic’ and its relevance for the Son of Man in the Gospel of John.46 In general discussions concerning ‘the Son of Man’, the term ‘apocalyptic’ most often refers to the ‘one like a son of man’ from Daniel 7 and/or the interpretations of this figure found in Jewish apocalypses, particularly the Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra. Some of the Synoptic Son of Man sayings have been referred to as ‘apocalyptic Son of Man’ sayings.47 These ‘apocalyptic Son of Man’ sayings form the third group of Synoptic Son of Man sayings, which are also called the ‘coming’ sayings, ‘heavenly’ sayings, or ‘glorification’ sayings, and have been more readily traced back to Dan 7.13 (Mark 13.26; 14.62; Matt 24.30; 25.31; 26.64; Luke 21.27; 22.69). With regard to the Johannine Son of Man, the term ‘apocalyptic’ has been used in two different ways, either as synonymous with future eschatology or as related to the Jewish apocalypses of Daniel, 1 Enoch, and/or 4 Ezra. Elizabeth Kinniburgh understands ‘apocalyptic’ primarily as a refer43 See J.R. Davila, ‘The Animal Apocalypse and Daniel’, in G. Boccaccini (ed.), Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005) 35–38. 44 See D.C. Sim, Apocalyptic Eschatology in the Gospel of Matthew (SNTS.MS 88; Cambridge: CUP, 1996) 23–31. 45 G. Boccaccini, ‘Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition: The Contribution of Italian Scholarship’, in J.J. Collins and J.H. Charlesworth (eds.), Mysteries and Revelation: Apocalyptic Studies since the Uppsala Colloquium (JSP.S 9; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991) 33–50; J.J. Collins, ‘Prophecy, Apocalypse and Eschatology’, in L.L. Grabbe and R.D. Haak (eds.), Knowing the End from the Beginning: The Prophetic, the Apocalyptic and their Relationships (London: T&T Clark, 2003) 44–52. 46 Confusion in the meaning of ‘apocalyptic’ has also possibly arisen because of the popular use of the term to refer to world disasters and to cataclysmic events or language (see ‘Next Stop Iran?’, The Economist, February 10–16, 2007, 13: the ‘apocalyptic speeches’ of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran; ‘The politics of the Iraq War: Showcasing disunity’, The Economist, February 10–16, 2007, 48: ‘heavily armed apocalyptic factions’. Also note the movie titles ‘Apocalypse Now’ and ‘Apocalypto’). 47 N. Perrin, ‘The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition’, in A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974 [orig. Biblical Research 13 (1968) 1–23]) 57–83; Higgins, Jesus, 15; A. Yarbro Collins, ‘The Apocalyptic Son of Man Sayings’, in B.A Pearson (ed.), The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 220–28.

12

Introduction: The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John

ence to future eschatology in the Gospel of John, and on the basis of a completely realized eschatology in John, she argues that the Johannine Son of Man is not apocalyptic.48 While the term ‘apocalyptic’ does have an eschatological connotation, this does not require that it refer to the end of the world or to future eschatology.49 The fate of the wicked and the righteous is often a concern of apocalypses, but their fate is not always connected to the end of history.50 Although the phrase ‘apocalyptic Son of Man’ is used by some to indicate a purely eschatological figure, the following discussion will explain why this definition of ‘apocalyptic’ will not be used in this study. As with general discussions on the ‘Son of Man’, the more common use of the term ‘apocalyptic’ in Johannine studies is with reference to the Jewish apocalypses. Although Douglas Hare disagrees with defining the Johannine Son of Man in apocalyptic terms, he uses the word ‘apocalyptic’ to indicate a link with the Jewish apocalypses, in particular the book of Daniel. He states: ‘The nonapocalyptic nature of John’s vision of truth suggests that he would not have found the Danielic apocalypse particularly congenial.’51 Those who allow for an apocalyptic background to the Son of Man in John’s Gospel also understand the word ‘apocalyptic’ to indicate the son of man figures in Jewish apocalypses.52 Therefore, the understanding of the majority of scholars who use the phrase ‘apocalyptic Son of Man’ in discussions of the Johannine Son 48

Kinniburgh, ‘Johannine’, 70. See also Ramos, ‘Hijo’, 51, 77–78. See C. Rowland, ‘Apocalyptic, Mysticism and the New Testament’, in H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger, and P. Schäfer (eds.), Geschichte-Tradition-Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996) 405–30 at 422. 50 See J.J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 19982] 6, 9–12; idem, ‘Apocalyptic Eschatology as the Transcendence of Death’, in Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism (Boston/Leiden: Brill, 2001) 75–97; idem, ‘Response: The Apocalyptic Worldview of Daniel’, in G. Boccaccini (ed.), Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a Forgotten Connection (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005) 59–66; Davila, ‘Animal Apocalypse’, 36– 37. 51 Hare, Son of Man, 92. See also the negative views of R. Leivestad, ‘Exit the Apocalyptic Son of Man’, NTS 18 (1972) 243–67; J. Schmitt, ‘Apocalyptique et Christologie Johannique’, in Apocalypses et théologie de l’espérance. Congrès de Toulouse (1975) (LD 95; Paris: Cerf, 1977) 337–50; Burkett, Son of the Man, 16–20, 38–45; idem, Debate, 22–33, 68–81, 97–120; Rhea, Johannine, 69; Ramos, ‘Hijo’, 51. 52 See J.H. Bernard, A Critical Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to John (ICC; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928) 1.cxxx–cxxxi; de Beus, ‘Gebruik’, 237, 240; Preiss, ‘Fils de l’homme’, 8–9; Smalley, ‘Sayings’, 281–85, 301; Maddox, ‘Function’, 197 n. 3, 200 n. 3, 202 n. 4, 203; Painter, ‘Enigmatic’, 1872; Sasse, Menschensohn, 242, 247. Note that Painter sees the apocalyptic aspect of John’s Gospel as dualistic (‘Enigmatic’, 1871 n. 10; idem, ‘Theology, Eschatology and the Prologue of John’, SJT 46 [1993] 27–42; cf. Martyn, History, 130–36; Schmitt, ‘Apocalyptique’, 337; Ashton, Understanding, 383–406). Such dualism is not necessarily apocalyptic. 49

2. Defining ‘Apocalyptic’, ‘Apocalypse’, and ‘apocalyptic Son of Man’

13

of Man employ the phrase to indicate that this figure has an origin in or shows similarities with the ‘one like a son of man’ in Daniel 7 and/or the interpretations of this figure in Jewish apocalypses. This adjectival use of ‘apocalyptic’ is in accord with recent scholarship on apocalyptic literature in that the meaning of the adjective ‘apocalyptic’ should be grounded in the meaning of the literary genre of ‘apocalypse’. John Collins states: ‘The term “apocalyptic” refers first and foremost to the kind of material found in apocalypses. To use the word in any other way is to invite terminological confusion.’53 2.2. Defining ‘Apocalypse’ Since our definitions of ‘apocalyptic’ and ‘apocalyptic Son of Man’ are dependent upon a definition of ‘apocalypse’, a definition of the literary genre of apocalypse is necessary to further clarify the adjectival use of ‘apocalyptic’.54 The most significant contribution to the definition of ‘apocalypse’ was developed by the Society of Biblical Literature Genres Project. The definition, which will be our starting point for understanding the term ‘apocalypse’, states that an apocalypse is: a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another supernatural world.55

There have been various critiques and emendations made to this definition. Of special interest to this study are the criticisms raised by John Ashton, who cogently argues for a connection between the Gospel of John and apocalyptic genre. In his book, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, Ashton highlights the similar emphases on revelation both in apocalypses and in John’s Gospel, but at the same time, he notes the differences that exist between the Apocalypse of John and the Gospel of John, arguing that the Gospel is not a true apocalypse but ‘an apocalypse – in reverse, upside

53 Collins, ‘Genre’, 27; idem, ‘Prophecy’, 46. See also, K. Koch, The Rediscovery of Apocalyptic (SBT 22; London: SCM, 1972) 20, 35; Russell, Divine Disclosure, 6; Davila, ‘Animal Apocalypse’, 37. Cf. Sacchi, Jewish Apocalyptic, 35, 40–41. Contra R.E. Sturm, ‘Defining the Word “Apocalyptic”: A Problem in Biblical Criticism’, in J. Marcus and M.L. Soards (eds.), Apocalyptic and the New Testament: Essays in Honor of J. Louis Martyn (JSNT.S 24; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989) 17–48. 54 There is general agreement concerning which texts are considered apocalypses (see C. Rowland, ‘Apocalyptic Literature’, in D.A. Carson and H.G.M. Williamson (eds.), It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture: Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, SSF [Cambridge: CUP, 1988] 170–89). 55 J.J. Collins, ‘Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre’, Semeia 14 (1979) 1–20 at 9; idem, Apocalyptic Imagination, 4–5.

14

Introduction: The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John

down, inside out’.56 As such, his criticisms and proposed definition of ‘apocalypse’ are an attempt at distancing the Gospel of John from the genre of ‘apocalypse’ as defined by the SBL Genres Project. Ashton defines an apocalypse as: a narrative, composed in circumstances of political, religious, or social unrest, in the course of which an angelic being discloses heavenly mysteries, otherwise hidden, to a human seer, either indirectly, by interpreting a dream or vision, or directly, in which case the seer may believe that he has been transported to heaven in order to receive a special revelation. 57

Ashton’s first critique is that the term ‘transcendent’ in the SBL definition is ‘misleading’.58 While the term is definitely unclear on its own, Ashton appears to identify the term with the content of the revelation. However, in the original description of the SBL definition, Collins clarifies that ‘transcendence’, which he sees as the ‘key word’ of the definition, is meant to indicate the mediation of the revelation by an otherworldly being and to point to the world beyond this one.59 Although the content of the revelation recorded in an apocalypse may not be transcendent as Ashton stresses,60 this does not negate the transcendent manner of such revelation. Secondly, Ashton thinks that the theme of eschatology ‘is not a necessary feature of apocalyptic writing’.61 This view depends upon an understanding of eschatology as explicitly referring to end-time judgment. While Ashton is correct that not all apocalypses refer to the end of the world, apocalypses do share a concern for the fates of the wicked and/or the righteous (i.e., personal eschatology), even when a final judgment is not mentioned.62 Collins explains that the phrase ‘eschatological salvation’ in the SBL definition refers to afterlife and not necessarily to end-time judgment. 56

Ashton, Understanding, 405. Ashton, Understanding, 385–86; see more fully 337–406. It should be noted that both of these definitions of ‘apocalypse’ do not reflect Martyn’s understanding of a ‘twolevel drama’ being ‘at home in the thought world of Jewish apocalypticism’ (History, 130; also Schmitt, ‘Apocalyptique’, 337). A drama taking place in heaven and on earth is not evident in all apocalypses (e.g., 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch). Even the Similitudes of Enoch does not have a two stage drama between heaven and earth in the way Martyn describes. 58 Ashton, Understanding, 385. 59 Collins, ‘Introduction’, 10. 60 Ashton, Understanding, 385. See M.E. Stone, ‘Lists of Revealed Things in the Apocalyptic Literature’, in F.M. Cross, W.E. Lemke, and P.D. Miller, Jr. (eds.), Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God (Garden City: Doubleday, 1976) 414–54; D. Hellholm, ‘The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John’, Semeia 36 (1986) 13– 64. 61 Ashton, Understanding, 385. See also Rowland, Open Heaven, esp. 23–72; idem, ‘Apocalyptic,’ 405–30. 62 See the chart in Collins, ‘Jewish Apocalypses’, 28; also, ‘Apocalyptic Eschatology’, 75–97. 57

2. Defining ‘Apocalyptic’, ‘Apocalypse’, and ‘apocalyptic Son of Man’

15

He says: ‘personal afterlife is the most consistent aspect of apocalypses, and it ensures the definitive and transcendent character of that eschatology’.63 Thus, to remove all eschatological concepts from a definition of ‘apocalypse’ seems unwise and not entirely accurate. In his third critique, Ashton desires to see a clearer distinction between apocalypses and prophecy, referring to the ‘rather wavy line separating prophecy and apocalyptic’. However, the SBL definition does differentiate between prophecy and apocalypses, if one considers that prophecy is rarely mediated, often coming directly from God to the prophets. Further, the content of prophecy typically involves a prophetic commissioning or oracles of judgment rather than a revealing of heavenly mysteries.64 Ashton also criticizes the lack of reference to the social context in which apocalypses were written.65 In contrast, Collins has pointed out that discerning the social setting of the apocalypses is too difficult, since it is possible that apocalypses may not have been written in situations of unrest.66 He agrees with the suggested amendment by Adela Yarbro Collins, which addresses the functional aspect of apocalypses without narrowly defining their social context. Her amendment states that an apocalypse is ‘intended to interpret present earthly circumstances in the light of the supernatural world and of the future, and to influence both the understanding and the behavior of the audience by means of divine authority’.67 While this amendment is more general, it allows us to say what is known about the context and purpose of apocalypses without saying more than what is or can be known. Ashton’s final two critiques are that the SBL definition is too broad and would include the Gospel of John and that a definition of ‘apocalypse’ should include the mode of revelation, such as visions, dreams, and/or states of rapture or ecstasy. Regarding the breadth of the definition, it is not clear that the Gospel of John fits as ‘snugly’ into the SBL definition as 63

Collins, ‘Introduction’, 9. Cf. L.L. Grabbe, who contends that ‘apocalyptic’ is a sub-genre of ‘prophecy’ (‘Prophetic and Apocalyptic: Time for New Definitions—and New Thinking’, in L.L. Grabbe and R.D. Haak [eds.], Knowing the End from the Beginning: The Prophetic, the Apocalyptic and their Relationships [London: T&T Clark, 2003] 107–33). See Collins’ response (‘Prophecy, Apocalypse and Eschatology’, in L.L. Grabbe and R.D. Haak [eds.], Knowing the End from the Beginning: The Prophetic, the Apocalyptic and their Relationships [London: T&T Clark, 2003] 44–52). 65 A similar critique was made by Hellholm who suggested adding the following statement to the SBL definition: ‘intended for a group in crisis with the purpose of exhortation and/or consolation by means of divine authority’ (‘Problem’, 27). 66 Collins, ‘Genre’, 33; Rowland, ‘Apocalyptic Literature’, 170–89. 67 A. Yarbro Collins, ‘Introduction: Early Christian Apocalypticism’, Semeia 36 (1986) 1–11 at 7. 64

16

Introduction: The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John

Ashton claims.68 There are obvious similarities, but this does not mean that the definition is too broad. On the other hand, Ashton may be correct to include a reference to the mode of revelation in apocalypses. By doing so, he helps to explicate further the differences between ‘prophecy’ and ‘apocalypse’. At the same time, it must be noted that not all revelation in apocalypses is made known through visions, dreams, or heavenly ascents. For instance, there are sections of 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch where angels reveal heavenly mysteries apart from these modes of revelation. Neither Ezra nor Baruch ascends to heaven to see heavenly things; rather angels answer their complaints and questions (cf. 4 Ezra 3–4). Keeping in mind Ashton’s critiques and adopting the emendation of Yarbro Collins, the following revision of the SBL definition of ‘apocalypse’ will be used throughout this study. An apocalypse is: a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient often through visions, dreams, or an ascent to heaven, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another supernatural world, and an apocalypse is intended to interpret present earthly circumstances in the light of the supernatural world and of the future, and to influence both the understanding and the behavior of the audience by means of divine authority.

Since the best way for defining the adjectival use of the word ‘apocalyptic’ is to align it with a literary type, this study of the apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John will define ‘apocalyptic’ in accordance with the above definition of ‘apocalypse’.69 Therefore, the phrase ‘apocalyptic Son of Man’ will be used to indicate the figure of the ‘one like a son of man’ found in the Jewish apocalypse of Daniel and the interpretations of that figure found in the later Jewish apocalypses (i.e., the Similitudes of Enoch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch).70 To define ‘apocalyptic Son of Man’ in this way is nothing extraordinary since it is the common understanding of the phrase, especially in discussions of the Son of Man in the Gospel of John. By defining ‘apocalyptic Son of Man’ in this way, we are in doing so in agreement with the majority of scholars who have argued both for and against this view of the Johannine Son of Man.71 68

Ashton, Understanding, 386. See Koch, Rediscovery, 35; Collins, ‘Genre’, 27. However, care must be taken not to define automatically everything within apocalypses as ‘apocalyptic’, since some of these features may not be found solely in apocalypses. See Hellholm, ‘Problem’, 23–24; Stone, ‘Lists’, esp. 435–39. 70 The specific characteristics and features of this apocalyptic Son of Man will be fleshed out in the coming chapters. 71 See notes 51 and 52 above. However, although the question of the genre of John persists, this study is not ultimately concerned with the question of whether or not the Gospel of John is an apocalypse. The concern lies with what is meant by describing 69

2. Defining ‘Apocalyptic’, ‘Apocalypse’, and ‘apocalyptic Son of Man’

17

2.3. A ‘mystical Son of Man’? One further area for discussion is the relationship between ‘apocalyptic’ and ‘mystical’, or ‘apocalypticism’ and ‘mysticism’. J.J. Kanagaraj has argued that there is ‘mysticism’ in the Gospel of John, and he contends that this ‘mysticism’ has its basis in the Merkabah mysticism of Rabbinic Judaism, which he maintains was extant in ‘pre- and post- 70 apocalyptic’.72 Some of the elements found in apocalypses and in Merkabah mysticism do appear to be similar,73 but most of these features can be drawn directly from Isaiah 6, Ezekiel 1, and Daniel 7. Thus, it cannot be confidently stated that ‘Merkabah mysticism is integral in various degrees to the apocalyptic visions current in the first century CE’.74 What can be said is that Merkabah mysticism may have developed from the apocalypses and apocalyptic tradition and not that Merkabah mysticism is present in first century apocalypses.75 For instance, the goal of Merkabah mysticism is significantly different than that of the apocalypses. G.G. Scholem states: something, namely the Son of Man, as ‘apocalyptic’. At the same time, this discussion does raise implications for the genre of John’s Gospel, implications which will be addressed briefly at the conclusion of this study. 72 J.J. Kanagaraj (‘Mysticism’ in the Gospel of John: An Inquiry into its Background [JSNT.S 158; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998] 149) seems to be using the term ‘apocalyptic’ here in the broader sense of apocalyptic tradition or apocalypticism. 73 Kanagaraj (Mysticism, 149) notes the similar interest in heavenly ascent, the glory of God on the throne, ‘angelic entourage, heavenly hymn, worship with the angels in heaven, the transformation and commissioning of the visionary’. 74 Kanagaraj, Mysticism, 149. P. Schäfer (‘The Aim and Purpose of Early Jewish Mysticism’ in Hekhalot-Studien [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988] 277–95) contends that Merkabah mysticism is even post-Rabbinic. 75 I. Gruenwald states: ‘…certain apocalyptic modes of expression and thought were adapted by the Merkavah mystics’ (Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism [Leiden: Brill, 1980] 13); and again: ‘apocalypticism…paved the way for the experiences and literature of the mystical circles from the time of the Tannaim onwards’ (28). See also C.R.A. Morray-Jones, ‘Transformational Mysticism in the Apocalyptic-Merkabah Tradition’, JJS 43.1 (1992) 1–31. Cf. A.D. DeConick (‘What is Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism?’, in A.D. DeConick [ed.], Paradise Now: Essays on Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism [Symposium 11; Atlanta: SBL, 2006] 1–24; idem; Voices of the Mystics: Early Christian Discourse in the Gospels of John and Thomas and Other Ancient Christian Literature [JSNT.S 157; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001], esp. 49–67) who combines Jewish and Christian apocalypses, Nag Hammadi literature, and merkabah and hekhalot texts under the umbrella of ‘mysticism’. She seems to understand the SBL definition of an apocalypse as primarily linear (i.e., eschatological) and thus defines ‘the mystical tradition’ as a ‘“vertical” dimension of Jewish apocalyptic thought running perpendicular to the eschatological’ (‘Early Jewish’, 21; also J.E. Fossum, The Image of the Invisible God: Essays on the Influence of Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology [(NTOA 30; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995] 1). As noted above, apocalypses clearly have a vertical element embedded in the otherworldly revelation that is revealed.

18

Introduction: The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John

‘God’s pre-existing throne, which embodies and exemplifies all forms of creation, is at once the goal and theme of [the Jewish mystic’s] mystical vision’.76 Kanagaraj even admits that ‘in apocalyptic the vision of God is nowhere regarded as an unqualified goal to be pursued as it is in Merkabah mysticism’.77 As we have seen, apocalypses are more concerned with the fate of the righteous and the wicked than with dwelling on the appearance of the heavenly throne. Visions of the heavenly throne are not found in all of the apocalypses (e.g., 4 Ezra,78 2 Baruch, the Book of the Heavenly Luminaries). Merkabah mysticism may have originated from apocalyptic tradition and apocalypses, but this does not mean that Merkabah mysticism was present in the first century. The apocalyptic Son of Man, therefore, is grounded in the apocalypses and apocalyptic tradition and not Merkabah mysticism.

3. A ‘Son of Man Concept’? There was an assumption in older scholarship that some sort of a unified portrayal of the Danielic son of man existed in Jewish apocalyptic interpretation.79 This common interpretation, often referred to as the ‘Son of Man concept’, was rightly criticized by Norman Perrin and others. Perrin states: ‘There is no sufficient relationship between the use of Son of man in I Enoch and IV Ezra for us to suppose that they are both reflections of a common conception.’80 Perrin’s criticism is correct in that there is no 76 G.G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (London: Thames & Hudson, 19553 ) 44. Cf. C. Rowland, ‘The Visions of God in Apocalyptic Literature’, JSJ 10 (1979) 137–54; Schäfer, ‘Aim and Purpose’, 293. 77 Kanagaraj, Mysticism, 116. 78 Although there is reference to God’s throne in Ezra’s prayer, Ezra does not have a vision of it (8.19–22). 79 See Tödt (Son of Man, 22–31) who has a chapter entitled ‘The Transcendent Sovereignty of the Son of Man in Jewish apocalyptic literature’. Also S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh (G.W. Anderson, trans.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1961) 415–37; Cullmann, Christology, 137–52; Borsch, Son of Man, 55–88. Cf. H. Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen 1 und Ap Joh 12 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895) 323–35. Recently, see G. Nebe, ‘The Son of Man and the Angels: Reflections on the Formation of Christology in the Context of Eschatology’, in H.G. Reventlow (ed.), Eschatology in the Bible and in Jewish and Christian Tradition (JSOT.S 243; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997) 111–31. 80 N. Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (London: SCM, 1967) 172. Also Casey, Son of Man, passim; D. Juel, Messianic Exegesis: Christological Interpretation of the Old Testament in Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 151–70. Lindars (Jesus, 3–8) calls the ‘Son of Man concept’ ‘a modern myth’ and ‘a hypothetical reconstruction’.

4. Structure of the Study and Criteria

19

unified interpretation of the Danielic figure that can be called a ‘Son of Man concept’, but although there may not be a single unified interpretation, common features do seem to exist between the various interpretations of the ‘one like a son of man’. John Collins, Adela Yarbro Collins, and Thomas Slater each argue that the interpretations of the Danielic son of man were understood to have some common characteristics in the first century.81 Delbert Burkett recently attempted to refute this idea of common features proposed by Collins, Yarbo Collins, and Slater, stating: ‘When we focus specifically on elements of these messianic portraits that come directly from Daniel 7.13, we find not a single interpretation but a diversity of perspectives.’82 Burkett understands Daniel 7 to have been used in different ways by interpreters who were explaining or describing the Messiah. He says, ‘These distinctive uses of Daniel 7.13 make it difficult to infer that authors of the first century shared a unified interpretation of this passage, beyond identifying the one like a son of man as the Messiah.’83 But can such a distinction really be made between the Messiah figure and the ‘one like a son of man’ if these interpretations depict one figure as both Son of Man and Messiah? Who is to say that the figure should be called ‘Messiah’ or ‘Son of Man’? One can just as easily say that the ‘one like a son of man’ was interpreted messianically as that the Messiah is portrayed as the Danielic son of man.84 Burkett, like Perrin, Casey, and others, is correct to highlight the diversity of interpretation concerning Daniel 7, but at the same time, common characteristics of the ‘one like a son of man’ may exist in these varied interpretations.

4. Structure of the Study and Criteria for Identifying the Presence of the Danielic Son of Man Part 1 of this study will begin by examining the figure of the ‘one like a son of man’ in the book of Daniel and the Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian interpretations of that figure. Chapter 1 will include an examina81

J.J. Collins, ‘The Son of Man in First-Century Judaism’, NTS 38 (1992) 448–66; Yarbro Collins, ‘Apocalyptic’, 220–21; T.B. Slater, ‘One Like a Son of Man in FirstCentury CE Judaism’, NTS 41 (1995) 183–98. See Nickelsburg, ‘Son of Man’, 141; Martyn, History, 131 n. 202. Cf. Tödt, Son of Man, 30–31. 82 Burkett, Debate, 113–14. See even more recently, Casey, Solution, 82–115. 83 Burkett, Debate, 114, cf. 120. Burkett seems to have traded a ‘Son of Man concept’ for a ‘Messiah concept’. 84 See W. Horbury, ‘The Messianic Associations of “The Son of Man”’, in Messianism among Jews and Christians: Twelve Biblical and Historical Studies (London: T&T Clark, 2003) 125–55.

20

Introduction: The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John

tion of the Aramaic text of Daniel 7 in its final form in order to highlight the characteristics and functions of the ‘one like a son of man’. Then the two Greek versions of Daniel 7, the Old Greek and Theodotion, will be assessed and differences of interpretation with regard to the son of man figure will be noted. In chapters 2 and 3, the interpretations of the Danielic figure in Jewish and Christian literature during the period prior to and roughly concurrent with the Gospel of John will be investigated. Three criteria will be used to determine which works should be examined. (1) Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian works that fall within the general time frame of 150 B.C. and A.D. 100 will be considered.85 (2) Are there clear verbal allusions to Daniel 7? (3) Is there a figure that is described in terms reminiscent of Daniel 7?86 These questions will be asked whether or not the phrase ‘son of man’ is used. The Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra are examples of texts which meet these criteria because of their obvious allusions to the son of man figure and other features of Daniel 7.87 Although the date of the Similitudes of Enoch is often questioned,88 it speaks of a figure equivalent to the Ancient of Days whose head is white like wool (46.1) and of another figure who is like a human being and is called ‘that son of man’ (46.1–2). In the late first century work of 4 Ezra, following Ezra’s vision of the fourth beast of Daniel 7 (4 Ezra 11–12; esp. 12.11), Ezra has a ‘dream of the night’, in which he sees a human-like figure that comes up from the sea and flies with the clouds of heaven (13.1–4). Similarly, 2 Baruch, Matthew, Mark, Luke-Acts, and Revelation meet the dating criteria, contain verbal allusions to Daniel 7, and speak of a figure reminiscent of Daniel 7. It is unclear and much debated whether 4Q246 should be considered as an interpretation of the ‘one like a son of man’. Daniel 7 and 4Q246 share verbal similarities, particularly between 4Q246 2.5 and Dan 7.27 ( 

 ) and between 4Q246 2.9 and Dan 7.14 ( ! ! ). 4Q246 also mentions a mysterious figure called ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of the Most High’. Although there is no consensus on whether or not this fig85 The terminus a quo reflects the commonly understood date by which the book of Daniel is agreed to have been in existence (see J.J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993] 24–38). The terminus ad quem is intended to include the late first century or early second century date typically given for the Gospel of John (see Brown, Introduction, 206–15). 86 See Casey, Son of Man, 5. Cf. G.K. Beale, The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984) 43–44 n. 62; Juel, Messianic Exegesis, 154–57, 160–62. 87 Casey, Son of Man, 99–100, 122; U.B. Müller, Messias und Menschensohn in jüdischen Apokalypsen und in der Offenbarung des Johannes (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1972) 38–43, 120–22; Collins, Daniel, 79–84; Beale, Use of Daniel, 313–18. 88 See chapter 2.

4. Structure of the Study and Criteria

21

ure should be understood as the Danielic son of man, 4Q246 will be examined as a possible interpretation of the Danielic son of man in an excursus to chapter 2. Works that do not meet the criteria include Hebrews 2.6, which although it uses the phrase  , is a quotation of Psalm 8. The Epistle of Barnabas likewise uses the phrase ‘son of man’, but the epistle’s lack of Danielic allusion in the context of 12.10 and its questionable date89 disqualify it from discussion. The son of man saying in Gos. Thom. 86, although parallel to Matt 8.20 and Luke 9.58, appears to indicate ‘humanity’ in general and gives no indication of Danielic allusion.90 The statement of Rabbi Akiba concerning the thrones of Dan 7.9 being for David and for the Lord is ineligible on the basis of its post-A.D. 100 date (b. Sanh. 38b; b. ag. 14a). Ezekiel the Tragedian makes reference to Moses being seated on a throne, but this text does not indicate any verbal allusion to Daniel 7 that would suggest that Moses is intended to be the son of man figure.91 In 89 R.A. Kraft (The Apostolic Fathers: A Translation and Commentary. Barnabas and the Didache [Vol. 3; New York: Thomas Nelson, 1965] 42–43) dates the text between A.D. 70 and 135. K. Wengst (Schriften des Urchristentums. Didache, Barnabasbrief, Zweiter Klemensbrief, Schrift an Diognet [München: Kösel, 1984] 114–15) argues for A.D. 130 to 132. The date A.D. 115 is taken by B.A. Pearson, ‘Cracking a Conundrum: Christian Origins in Egypt’, Studia Theologica 57 (2003) 61–75. A.D. 96–98 is maintained by P. Richardson and M.B. Shukster (‘Barnabas, Nerva, and the Yavnean Rabbis’, JTS 34 [1983] 31–55) and J. Carleton Paget (The Epistle of Barnabas [WUNT 2.64; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994] 9–30). 90 Logia 83–88 seem to involve various references to humanity, with Adam mentioned in logion 85. This grouping may suggest that Gos. Thom. 86 reflects the human meaning of ‘son of man’ that was common among the early church fathers (Ignatius, Ephes. 20.2; Justin, Dial. 100.3–4; Irenaeus, adv. Haer. 3.10.2; 16.3, 7; 17.1; 18.3–4; 19.1–2). See R. Doran (‘The Divination of Disorder: The Trajectory of Matt 8:20//Luke 9:58//Gos. Thom. 86’, in B.A. Pearson [ed.], The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991] 210–19) for a similar understanding of logion 86. Cf. H. Koester, ‘Introduction’, in B. Layton (ed.), ‘Nag Hammadi Codex II,2–7’, The Coptic Gnostic Library: A Complete Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices. Volume 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2000) 42–43) 91 The argument that there is a reference to Daniel 7 in the Exagogue has been made by P.W. van der Horst (‘Moses’ Throne Vision in Ezekiel the Dramatist’, JJS 34 [1983] 21–29) and H. Jacobson (The Exagogue of Ezekiel [Cambridge: CUP, 1983] 91). The primary evidence given for the Danielic connection is Moses’ approach to the throne and the bestowal of authority upon him; however, W.A. Meeks (The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology [NovT.S 14; Leiden: Brill, 1967] 100–175) has highlighted the wide-ranging traditions that considered Moses as king and priest (Jub. 1.4, 26; 4 Ezra 14.3–5; 2 Bar. 4.2–7; cf. Ezek. Trag. 87–89). Further Moses’ kingship was already hinted at in Ezek. Trag. 36–38, 40 (see Meeks, Prophet-King, 153). The nearest parallels to Moses’ dream in the Exagogue are Exodus 24 and Psalm 110.1, with numerous others listed by Jacobson and van der Horst (Gen 15; 37.9; 41; 49.10; Ps 45.7; 147.4; Esth 5.1–2; 1 En. 18.8; 25.3; T. Levi 2–5; Apoc. Ab. 11–12; Sib. Or. 5.414–15).

22

Introduction: The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John

addition, the Testament of Abraham will not be considered in this survey because it lacks clear allusions to Daniel 7.92 The works that meet the three criteria, thus showing a connection to the ‘one like a son of man’ from Daniel 7, will be analyzed in order to determine any similarities and differences between the various interpretations of this figure. At the conclusion of the examination of each work, any similar characteristics of the figure will be summarized, and similarities and differences between interpretations will be noted. This is not an attempt to reconstruct a ‘Son of Man concept’, but rather recognition that there may be common features in the interpretations of the Danielic son of man. In Part 2 of this study, the Gospel of John will be considered in its final form. Much previous scholarship on the Gospel has attempted to ascertain the various levels of redaction and literary development.93 This is even true with regard to the Johannine Son of Man sayings,94 but scholars have recently acknowledged the value of examining the final form of the Gospel of John.95 For the sake of convenience the evangelist will be referred to as John.96 Recently, J. Heath (‘Homer or Moses? A Hellenistic Perspective on Moses’ Throne Vision in Ezekiel Tragicus’, JJS 58 [2007] 1–18) highlights the similarities between Ezekiel’s Moses and images of Homer enthroned with a scepter. 92 P.B. Munoa, III (Four Powers in Heaven: The Interpretation of Daniel 7 in the Testament of Abraham [JSP.S 28; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998]) argues for Daniel 7 as background for the judgment scene in the Testament of Abraham. Munoa’s position is based primarily on a structural parallel between the two texts: Adam as equivalent to the Ancient of Days, Abel to the ‘one like a son of man’, the twelve tribes of Israel to the saints of the Most High, and the master to the Most High (43–81). These parallels, especially between Adam and the Ancient of Days, are not persuasive (see D.C. Allison, Jr., Testament of Abraham [CEJL; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003] 245 n. 17; 281; G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah [Minneapolis: Fortress, 20052] 326 n. 106. Cf. G.W.E. Nickelsburg, ‘Eschatology in the Testament of Abraham: A Study of the Judgment Scenes in the Two Recensions’, in G.W.E. Nickelsburg [ed.], Studies on the Testament of Abraham [SBL.SCS 6; Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1976] 23–64). 93 R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (G.R. Beasley-Murray, R.W.N. Hoare, and J.K. Riches, trans.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976); M.-É. Boismard and A. Lamouille, L’Évangile de Jean. Synopse des quatre évangiles (Paris: Cerf, 19773); R.E. Brown, The Gospel According to John [I–XII, XIII–XXI] (AB 29, 29A; New York: Doubleday, 1966–70) xxxiv–xxxix. 94 Painter, ‘Enigmatic’, 1873; de Boer, Johannine Perspectives, 147–217 ; Ellens, ‘Exegesis’, 138–46. 95 Brown, Introduction, 62–69; H. Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium (HNT 6; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005) 1–5; A.T. Lincoln, The Gospel according to St John (BNTC; London: Continuum, 2006) 1–3. See also Burkett, Son of the Man, 14; Moloney, ‘Revisited’, 201. 96 For discussions of authorship issues in the Gospel, see O. Cullmann, The Johannine Circle: Its Place in Judaism, among the disciples of Jesus and in Early Christianity. A

4. Structure of the Study and Criteria

23

The approach in Part 2 will be different from that of Part 1, namely the three criteria will no longer be used. First, we know that the Gospel of John fits within the date set for the first criterion. Second, although the Johannine Son of Man may share characteristics or features with the figure described in Jewish apocalypses (themselves significantly influenced by Daniel 7), there are no clear verbal allusions to Daniel 7 or any obvious descriptions of a figure reminiscent of Daniel 7 apart from John 5.27 (criteria 2 and 3).97 Therefore, chapters 4–11 will involve an exegetical examination of the Johannine Son of Man sayings and their narrative context. The characteristics of the Johannine Son of Man will be compared with any common characteristics that may emerge in the examination of the ‘one like a son of man’ in Daniel 7 and the interpretations of this figure (Part 1). If a common set of characteristics emerges and if the Johannine Son of Man also shares these characteristics, it may then be determined appropriate to describe the Son of Man in John’s Gospel as an apocalyptic figure, even if there may be no unmistakable influence from Daniel. The depiction of the Johannine Son of Man with apocalyptic characteristics and features that are also used to describe the ‘one like a son of man’ in Jewish apocalypses would allow for the adjective ‘apocalyptic’ to be applied to the figure in John. Any similarities that can be noted in the apocalyptic interpretations of the ‘one like a son of man’ may not indicate a ‘Son of Man concept’, which has been rightly rejected by scholarship, but they may suggest that the Johannine Son of Man is more closely associated with the Son of Man in the Synoptic Gospels than is typically accepted. They may also suggest that the apocalyptic characteristics of the Johannine Son of Man may add to a broader understanding of the function of the Son of Man title within Johannine Christology.

Study in the Origin of the Gospel of John (J. Bowden, trans.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976); R.E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple: The Life, Loves, and Hates of an Individual Church in New Testament Times (New York: Paulist Press, 1979); M. Hengel, The Johannine Question (J. Bowden, trans.; London: SCM, 1989); and recently R. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006). 97 See Casey, Son of Man, 163, 197–99.

Part One

The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ and the Interpretations of this figure in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and Early Christianity

Chapter 1

The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ in Daniel 7: Aramaic Daniel and the Earliest Greek Versions At the beginning of her study of the ‘one like a son of man’ in Daniel, Morna Hooker asks: ‘Who or what is the figure like a Son of man in Dan. 7.13?’1 Now, forty years on this question remains a valid question, and in order to determine whether the Danielic son of man has any relevance for or connection to the Son of Man in the Gospel of John, it is important to return to Daniel 7 and Professor Hooker’s question. The purpose of this chapter is to examine the ‘one like a son of man’ in Daniel 7 and to understand this figure’s identity and characteristics. The first section is a study of the son of man figure in the final form of the Aramaic text.2 In the second section, separate examinations will be made of this figure in Old Greek (OG) and Theodotion () Daniel, providing the opportunity to observe nuances in the translations that may indicate a portrayal of the ‘one like a son of man’ different from that found in Aramaic Daniel. This will be done through comparing the depiction of the son of man figure with that of (1) the beasts, (2) the Ancient of Days, and (3) the holy ones of the Most High.

1

Hooker, Son of Man, 11. For possible sources and redactional discussions, see J.A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1927) 89; J.A. Emerton, ‘The Origin of the Son of Man Imagery’, JTS 9 (1958) 225–42; L. Dequeker, ‘Daniel VII et les saints du très-haut’, ETL 36 (1960) 353–92; idem, ‘The “Saints of the Most High” in Qumran and Daniel’, OtSt 18 (1973) 108–87; J. Coppens, ‘Le Fils d’homme daniélique et les relectures de Dan., VII, 13, dans les apocryphes et les écrits du Nouveau Testament’, ETL 37 (1961) 5–51; P. Weimar, ‘Daniel 7. Eine Textanalyse’, in R. Pesch and R. Schnackenburg [eds.], Jesus und der Menschensohn (Freiburg: Herder, 1975) 11–36; A. Lacocque, The Book of Daniel (D. Pellauer, trans.; London: SPCK, 1976) 142; R. Kearns, Vorfrage zur Christologie (Vol. 2; Mohr Siebeck, 1980) 2.16–52; H.S. Kvanvig, Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure and of the Son of Man (WMANT 61; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1988) 442–555, 593–602; Collins, Daniel, 280–94; idem, The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel (HSM 16; Missoula: Scholars, 1977) 96–106. 2

28

Chapter 1: The One Like a Son of Man in Daniel 7

1. Aramaic Text of Daniel 7 1.1. The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ and the Beasts Like the book of Daniel as a whole, chapter 7 can be split into two parts: the dream (7.1–14) and its interpretation (7.15–28).3 In Daniel’s dream, the four winds of heaven stir up the great waters, and Daniel sees four beasts rise out of the sea: a lion-like beast, a bear-like beast, a leopard-like beast, and one that is fearsome, terrible, and exceedingly strong. The human-like figure who appears after these four beasts is contrasted with them. The beasts rise from the sea, but the ‘one like a son of man’ comes with the clouds of heaven. The beasts are animal-like, albeit with some unnatural4 and human-like characteristics,5 but the figure of the ‘one like a son of man’ is not beast-like and is described as    (7.13). The beasts do not approach the Ancient of Days, and their dominion is taken away (7.12, 26–27). The son of man figure approaches the Ancient of Days and receives dominion, honor, and a kingdom, an eternal dominion and a kingdom that will not be taken away or destroyed (7.14). In the interpretation of Daniel’s dream, the four beasts are explained as four kings (7.17), but the horns of the fourth beast are also kings (7.24), creating an apparent discrepancy.6 However, sense can be made of this apparent discrepancy, if one understands each beast as representative head of its kingdom: since kings are individuals yet they also represent their kingdom.7 Seyoon Kim calls this an ‘oscillation between the individual understanding as kings (v. 17) and the collective understanding as kingdoms (vs.

3

For subdivisions of the dream, see Z. Zevit, ‘The Structure and Individual Elements of Daniel 7’, ZAW 80 (1968) 385–96; G.R. Beasley-Murray, ‘The Interpretation of Daniel 7’, CBQ 45 (1983) 45–58. 4 The lion-like beast has eagle’s wings (7.4), the leopard-like beast has four heads and four wings like a bird’s (7.6), and the fourth beast has ten horns (7.7). 5 The lion-like beast stands on two feet like a man (  ) and is given a heart of a man (

 ) (7.4). The eleventh horn of the fourth beast has eyes like the eyes of a man (  ) (7.8). The leopard-like beast is given dominion (Aramaic and  7.6) and receives speech ( ) (OG 7.6), suggesting human characteristics. 6 N. Schmidt (‘The “Son of Man” in the Book of Daniel’, JBL 19 [1900] 22–28) suggests that the Aramaic reading be emended from  to  or . Cf.   

in OG and  7.17. 7 T.M. Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel: A Literary Comparison (JSOT.S 198; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995) 217; J.E. Goldingay, Daniel (Word 30; Dallas: Word, 1989) 146; N.T. Wright, ‘The Paul of History and the Apostle of Faith’, TynBul 29 (1978) 61–88. Cf. T.W. Manson, ‘The Son of Man in Daniel, Enoch and the Gospels’, BJRL 32 (1950) 171–93. See 1 Sam 6.4, 17–18 where the five lords of the Philistines are representative of the five cities of the Philistines.

1. Aramaic Text of Daniel 7

29

23ff)’.8 This oscillation suggests that the beasts are kings and representatives of their kingdoms. Although the ‘one like a son of man’ is contrasted with the four beasts, Aramaic Daniel implies that the son of man figure is a king like the beasts, especially since he is given dominion and a kingdom. The eternal nature of his dominion and kingdom may suggest a messianic undertone (7.14; cf. 7.27). In 1 Sam 7.12–13, God promised David that one of his descendants would have an eternal kingdom, and at Qumran, this promise of an eternal kingdom was understood to indicate the Messiah (4QFlor 10–12; cf. Jer 33.14–18). The kingly nature and eternal dominion may not specify that the ‘one like a son of man’ is messianic, but they certainly imply that this figure functions as a representative king.9 1.2. The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ and Ancient of Days The ‘one like a son of man’, who comes with the clouds of heaven and appears before the Ancient of Days and the myriads of angels after the judgment of the beasts (7.9–14), is depicted as similar to God. First, the son of man figure is described in a manner in which God is described. He comes with the clouds of heaven (), and in the OT, the majority of references to clouds occur in passages where God appears.10 The clouds most often refer to God’s presence: in the tabernacle (Exod 40.34–35), as the pillar of fire (Exod 13.21–22; 14.19), on Mount Sinai (Exod 19.16; 24.15–16; Deut 5.22), and in the temple (1 Kgs 8.10–11; 2 Chron 5.13– 14). God’s chariot is closely related to clouds (Jer 4.13; Ezek 1.4, 28), as is his throne (Pss 18.11; 97.2). The other OT references to clouds refer to ‘un simple phénomène naturel’:11 clouds in the sky (Gen 9.13; 1 Kgs 18.45; Job 7.9; 37.11), a cloud of incense (Ezek 8.11), and mist (LXX12 Ps 134.7; Hos 13.3). Clouds also indicate coming judgment (Hos 6.4), but even clouds of judgment are associated with God’s coming on the day of the Lord (Joel 2.2; Nah 1.3; Zeph 1.14). In the OT, clouds typically announce the appearance of God. No other being, including angels, appears with clouds in the OT. Thus, the Danielic son of man’s coming with the clouds 8

Kim, Son of Man, 18. A. Feuillet, ‘Le Fils de l’homme de Daniel et la tradition biblique’, RB 60 (1953) 170–202, 321–46. See J. Coppens, ‘Le Serviteur de Yahvé et le fils d’homme daniélique sont-ils des figures messianiques?’ ETL 39 (1963) 104–13. 10 Feuillet, ‘Fils de l’homme’, 187–89. 11 Feuillet, ‘Fils de l’homme’, 187. 12 Recognizing that the terms ‘MT’, ‘LXX’, ‘Septuagint’ are constructs, I will use ‘MT’ to refer to the text of the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft’s Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and ‘LXX’ or ‘Septuagint’ to refer to Rahlfs and Hanhart’s Septuaginta, unless otherwise noted. 9

30

Chapter 1: The One Like a Son of Man in Daniel 7

of heaven appears to have divine implications.13 Wolfgang Bittner states: ‘Es ist merkwürdig, daß die Diskussion um den Menschensohn dieses Indiz für die Göttlichkeit des Menschensohnes so selten berücksichtigt hat.’14 Since the son of man figure arrives in the throne room of the Ancient of Days, the scene seems to be heavenly.15 Daniel 7’s portrayal of the angelic host, God’s fiery wheeled-throne, and the judgment court, when compared with other descriptions of God’s throne room,16 compellingly imply a heavenly scene.17 If the ‘one like a son of man’ arrives in this heavenly scene with the clouds, his approach may be from earth to heaven,18 but Dan 7.13 merely states that the ‘one like a son of man’ was coming () with the clouds of heaven, came () to the Ancient of Days, and was brought (  ) before him. There is no hint of ascent to heaven or descent from heaven. Only simple ‘coming’ language is used, allowing for the possibility that the son of man figure was in heaven already. The second similarity between the son of man figure and the Ancient of Days is the similar response that they receive in the service rendered to them. Dan 7.14 states that all peoples, tribes, and languages will serve ( !"#) the ‘one like a son of man’. On its own the use of the word !" is not significant, but in Daniel all uses of !" prior to 7.14 refer to serving God or the gods.19 Since the son of man figure receives cultic service typically rendered to deity in Daniel, his similarity with God, which was al-

13 Lacocque, Daniel, 137; Feuillet, ‘Fils de l’homme’, 188–89; W. Bittner, ‘GottMenschensohn-Davidssohn. Eine Untersuchung zur Traditionsgeschichte von Daniel 7,13f.’, Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 35 (1985) 343–72; Rowland, Open Heaven, 181–82. C.C. Caragounis (The Son of Man: Vision and Interpretation [WUNT 38; Mohr Siebeck, 1986] 74) declares that ‘clouds are bearers of the divine presence’. 14 Bittner, ‘Gott-Menschensohn-Davidssohn’, 350. 15 Müller, Messias, 26–27. Contra Casey, Son of Man, 18–19; Goldingay, Daniel, 167; C.H.T. Fletcher-Louis, ‘The High Priest as Divine Mediator in the Hebrew Bible: Dan 7:13 as a Test Case’, SBL Seminar Papers 1997 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1997) 161–93. 16 1 Kgs 22.19–22; 1 Enoch 14; Test. Levi 2–5. Cf. Isa 6.1–13. 17 Mongomery, Daniel, 296; J. Coppens, ‘Les Saints du Très-Haut sont-ils à identifier avec les milices célestes?’, ETL 39 (1963) 94–100; Rowland, Open Heaven, 179; R.G. Kratz, ‘Die Visionen des Daniel’, in R.G. Kratz, T. Krüger, and K. Schmid (eds.), Schriftauslegung in der Schrift. Festschrift für Odil Hannes Steck zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000) 219–36. Collins (Daniel, 303) says that the scene takes place in ‘mythic space’. Also Kvanvig, Roots, 503–5. 18 Manson, ‘Son of Man’, 174. 19 Dan 3.12, 14, 17, 18, 28; 6.17, 21 (also Ezra 7.24); cf. Dan 7.27. See Feuillet, ‘Fils de l’homme’, 189; Caragounis, Son of Man, 63–66.

1. Aramaic Text of Daniel 7

31

ready indicated by his approach with the clouds of heaven, becomes more conspicuous.20 1.3. The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ and the Holy Ones of the Most High Some scholars argue that the ‘one like a son of man’ is a symbol of the holy ones of the Most High because the Danielic son of man and the holy ones both receive dominion and an eternal kingdom (7.14, 27).21 In addition, the ‘one like a son of man’ is absent from the interpretation, while the holy ones are absent from the dream. Although identity between the son of man figure and the holy ones is possible, it cannot be entirely proven, since no explicit correlation is made between the ‘one like a son of man’ and the holy ones. In fact, a few differences exist between the two: the holy ones are not presented to the Ancient of Days, war is not made against the son of man figure, and judgment is not given on behalf of him. Like the beasts, which are interpreted as kings (7.17) and kingdoms (7.23) and function as representative rulers, the ‘one like a son of man’ most likely serves as a representative ruler of the holy ones of the Most High.22 But who are these holy ones23 whom the ‘one like a son of man’ represents? The ‘holy ones’ of Daniel 7 are most often explained as the people 20 The human description used of God in Ezek 1.26 is a further similarity (see Feuillet, ‘Fils de l’homme, 182–86; Bittner, ‘Gott-Menschensohn-Davidssohn’, 348; Slater, ‘First Century’, 183–98), which may be significant considering the similar descriptions of God’s throne in Dan 7.9 and Ezekiel 1. See O. Procksch, ‘Die Berufungsvision Hesekiels’, BZAW 34 (1920) 141–49; M. Black, ‘The Throne-Theophany Prophetic Commission and the “Son of Man”: A Study in Tradition History’, in R. Hamerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs (eds.), Jews, Greeks and Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity. Essays in Honor of William David Davies (Leiden: Brill, 1976) 57–73; idem, ‘Die Apotheose Israels: eine neue Interpretation des danielischen “Menschensohn”’, in R. Pesch and R. Schnackenburg (eds.), Jesus und der Menschensohn. Für Anton Vögtle (Freiburg: Herder, 1975) 92–99; Rowland, Open Heaven, 55; D. Halperin, The Faces of the Chariot: Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiel’s Vision (TSAJ 16; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988) 76–78. 21 Casey, Son of Man, 24–25; C.F.D. Moule, ‘Neglected Features in the Problem of “the Son of Man”’, in J. Gnilka (ed.), Neues Testament und Kirche. Für Rudolph Schnackenburg (Freiburg: Herder, 1974) 413–28; L.F. Hartman and A.A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel (AB 23; New York: Doubleday, 1978) 218–19; A.A. Di Lella, ‘The One in Human Likeness and the Holy Ones of the Most High in Daniel 7’, CBQ 39 (1977) 1– 19; Kratz, ‘Visionen’, 224. Caragounis (Son of Man, 72) calls this an ‘uncritical equation of vs. 14 with the whole of vs. 27’. 22 Feuillet, ‘Fils de l’homme’, 195; Müller, Messias, 28–29; Kim, Son of Man, 18. Contra Hooker, Son of Man, 27–30; Casey, Son of Man, 24–25; Di Lella, ‘Human Likeness’, 11; Mowinckel, Cometh, 350. 23 The terms $%  , %  , and  $%   appear to be used interchangeably in 7.18–27, esp. v. 22 (Collins, Apocalyptic Vision, 126).

32

Chapter 1: The One Like a Son of Man in Daniel 7

of Israel or angels.24 Martin Noth,25 J. Coppens,26 Luc Dequeker,27 and John Collins28 all argue that the holy ones are angels. Although the philological evidence has been shown to point in both directions29 and thus to be ‘inconclusive’,30 the angelic view fails to explain how an earthly king can wage war against and wear out angels (7.21, 25).31 Noth agrees that the reference to the holy ones in 7.21 refers to humans, concluding that this verse was a later addition, but he argues that in 7.25 the verb  should be translated ‘to test’, ‘to handle roughly’, ‘to torment’, or ‘to offend’ instead of being translated ‘to wear out’.32 However, Gerhard Hasel argues that this meaning cannot be substantiated.33 On another front, Collins asserts that war against the angels could be possible on the basis of a parallelism in chapter 8 between the stars in the vision (8.10) and the holy ones in the interpretation (8.24–25), but this parallelism rests on a proposed corruption of the text at 8.2434 for which there is no textual evidence.35 Since war is waged against the holy ones and they are worn out, the view that they are humans makes the most sense (7.21, 25).36 Further, ‘in all the literature of Qumran and in the Old

24

Divinized humans may be a third possibility (see Black, ‘Throne-Theophany’, 62; idem, ‘Apotheose’, 99; Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel, 203–5). 25 M. Noth, ‘The Holy Ones of the Most High’, in The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Essays (D.R. Ap-Thomas, trans.; London: Oliver & Boyd, 1966) 215–28; orig. ‘Die Heiligen des Höchsten’, NTT 56 (1955) 146–61. 26 Coppens, ‘Fils d’homme daniélique’, 15–17; idem, ‘Saints’, 94–100; idem, ‘La Vision daniélique du fils d’homme’, VT 19 (1969) 171–82. 27 Dequeker, ‘Saints’, 108–87. 28 J.J. Collins, ‘The Son of Man and the Saints of the Most High in the Book of Daniel’, JBL 93 (1974) 50–66; idem, Apocalyptic Vision, 123–47; Goldingay, Daniel, 176–78. 29 See Dequeker, ‘Saints’, 133–62; C.W. Brekelmans, ‘The Saints of the Most High and Their Kingdoms’, OtSt 14 (1965) 305–26. 30 Collins, Apocalyptic Vision, 125; idem, Daniel, 317. 31 G.F. Hasel, ‘The Identity of “The Saints of the Most High” in Daniel 7’, Bib 56 (1975) 173–92; Di Lella, ‘Human Likeness’, 12. 32 Noth, ‘Holy Ones’, 224–25. 33 Hasel, ‘Identity’, 185–86. See also Brekelmans, ‘Saints’, 329. 34 Collins, Apocalyptic Vision, 139–140. Also Dequeker, ‘Saints’, 175–79. 35 Hebrew Daniel:    ; OG:    ; :   . 36 Di Lella, ‘Human Likeness’, 12–13; V.S. Poythress, ‘The Holy Ones of the Most High in Daniel VII’, VT 26 (1976) 208–13; Mowinckel, Cometh, 350. Also Hasel, ‘Identity’, 190–91; Casey, Son of Man, 24–25, 39–40; A.J. Ferch, The Son of Man in Daniel Seven (AUSDDS 6; Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andrews University, 1979) 175–78.

2. The Earliest Greek Versions of Daniel 7

33

Testament is never used of angels’ (7.27: $%  ),37 and there seems to be no evidence of angels inheriting earthly kingdoms (7.27).38 1.4. Conclusion According to Aramaic Daniel 7, the ‘one like a son of man’ receives dominion and a kingdom, indicating that he is a kingly representative of the holy ones of the Most High. The eternal nature of his kingdom suggests that the Danielic son of man may be messianic. Given the ‘one like a son of man’s’ theophanic arrival with the clouds of heaven to God’s throne room, Aramaic Daniel appears to portray this figure as a heavenly figure and points to his similarity with God. Also, the son of man figure receives cultic service that is similar to that which God receives in Daniel, and through this service the ‘one like a son of man’ is recognized by the peoples of the earth. Although the ‘one like a son of man’ shares similarities with God, he remains a figure distinct from the Ancient of Days, and even though the Danielic son of man appears at a judgment scene, there is no indication that the figure takes any part in judgment.39 Some of these characteristics of the ‘one like a son of man’ are muted, but we will see in the rest of this chapter and in the chapters ahead how these features were expanded and adapted in the various interpretations of this figure.

2. The Earliest Greek Versions of Daniel 7 The textual history of the Greek texts of Daniel 7 is far from simple. The Old Greek (OG), sometimes referred to as the LXX, is the standard Greek text of the OT except in Daniel, where Theodotion () became the primary Greek translation. The acceptance of  Daniel over the OG Daniel may be due to the fact that the OG translation is not as close to Aramaic Daniel as is . Although the relationship between the Aramaic and the Greek texts and between the OG and  is an on-going debate,40 we will examine both

37

Brekelmans, ‘Saints’, 325. See Di Lella, ‘Human Likeness’, 13. Contra Noth, ‘Holy Ones’, 223–24; Dequeker, ‘Saints’, 181. 38 Brekelmans, ‘Saints’, 326–28. 39 Yet there is ambiguity regarding who kills the fourth beast (Angel, Chaos, 105). 40 For various opinions on these relationships, see J. Lust, ‘Daniel 7,13 and the Septuagint’, ETL 54 (1978) 62–69; S.P. Jeansonne, The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7– 12 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1988) 131; P. Grelot, ‘Daniel VI dans la Septante’, in G. Dorival et O. Munnich (eds.),   : Selon les Septante. Trente études sur la Bible Grecque des Septante (Paris: Cerf, 1995) 103–18; Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel, 26 n. 39.

34

Chapter 1: The One Like a Son of Man in Daniel 7

Greek texts as interpretations of their Vorlage, since every translation is in some sense an interpretation.41 Jennifer Dines states: Even if it is unclear whether a divergence between the LXX and the MT comes from the translator or from his source-text, a difference of interpretation between the two texts has significance. If nothing else, it shows that there were different streams of tradition, and if the LXX witnesses to some elements of interpretation which have not otherwise been preserved in Hebrew [or Aramaic], it is a very important window onto a period of biblical 42 interpretation before the MT emerged as dominant.

2.1. The Old Greek (OG) of Daniel 7 There are two known manuscripts of the OG text of Dan. 7.13: Codex Chisianus 88 (ninth–eleventh centuries A.D.),43 supported by the SyroHexaplar (seventh century A.D.),44 and Papyrus 967 (third century A.D.).45 Of these manuscripts, only Papyrus 967 witnesses to the OG prior to Origen’s reworking of the Greek OT, and as such, priority will be given to this witness. While OG Daniel 7 is largely the same as the Aramaic text examined above, it has some noticeable differences that are significant for the interpretation of the ‘one like a son of man’.

41 K.H. Jobes and M. Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000) 86; A.A. Di Lella, ‘The Textual History of Septuagint-Daniel and Theodotion-Daniel’, in J.J. Collins and P.W. Flint (eds.), The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (Vol. 2; Leiden: Brill, 2001) 586–607; M. Hengel, The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon (M.E. Biddle, trans.; London: Continuum, 2004) xi. 42 J.M. Dines, The Septuagint (London: T&T Clark, 2004) 133. 43 See H.B. Swete, The Old Testament Text in Greek (3 vols.; Cambridge: CUP, 19124 ) 3.xii–xiii; A. Rahlfs and R. Hanhart (eds.), Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 20062); J. Ziegler (ed.), Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco (Septuaginta 16.2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954), J. Ziegler and O. Munnich (eds.), Susanna, Daniel, Bel et Draco (Septuaginta 16.2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19992). 44 Swete, Old Testament, 3.xiii; T. McLay, The OG and Th Versions of Daniel (SBLSCS 43; Atlanta: Scholars, 1996) 6–7; Di Lella, ‘Textual History’, 586–87; L.T. Stuckenbruck, ‘“One like a Son of Man as the Ancient of Days” in the Old Greek Recension of Daniel 7:13: Scribal Error or Theological Translation?’ ZNW 86 (1995) 268–76. 45 A. Geissen (ed.), Der Septuaginta-Text des Buches Daniel. Kap. 5–12 zusammen mit Susanna, Bel et Draco sowie Esther 1,1–2,15 nach dem Kölner Teil des Papyrus 967 (PTA 5; Bonn: Habelt, 1968). See N. Fernández Marcos (The Septuagint in Context. Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible [Leiden: Brill, 2000] 144) and A. Schmitt (‘Die griechischen Danieltexte [“’“ und o’] und das Theodotionproblem’, BZ 36 [1992] 1–29) who date Papyrus 967 to the second century A.D.

2. The Earliest Greek Versions of Daniel 7

35

2.1.1. The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ and the Ancient of Days One conspicuous aspect of the OG Daniel 7 is that the ‘one like a son of man’ and the Ancient of Days are more closely associated.46 In the OG, the son of man figure arrives   the clouds instead of the Aramaic’s   or ’s  . Some have suggested that the OG translator sought to be more explicit with the divine status of the ‘one like a son of man’ by saying that this figure came ‘on’ the clouds of heaven rather than ‘with’ the clouds of heaven.47 However, the significance is not with the preposition48 but with the clouds, which highlight the son of man figure’s similarity with God. 49 The most significant difference between Aramaic and OG Daniel 7 is found in 7.13 where the ‘one like a son of man’ does not come to (%) the Ancient of Days, but rather as or like (!) the Ancient of Days.50 Two possible meanings for ! in 7.13c were suggested by F.F. Bruce. Either ! has a temporal referent: ‘When the Ancient of Days came, then those standing there came to him’, or it has the same meaning as the previous ! in 7.13b: ‘he came as the Ancient of Days’.51 One of the major difficulties with the temporal meaning is that it would require a different meaning of ! in the previous line. While this is not impossible, the chiastic (P967) or synonymous structure (Codex 88) of the two lines suggests that both uses of ! should be taken to mean ‘as’ or ‘like’. P967 13 b 13 c

"#$  ! % & ! #% ' (  !  ! &#( ) # '

Codex 88 13 b ! % &! # % "#$ ' 13 c (  !  ! &# # '52 46

For the following three sections, see also B.E. Reynolds, ‘The “One Like a Son of Man” According to the Old Greek of Daniel 7,13–14’, Bib 89 (2008) 70–80. 47 Lust, ‘Daniel 7,13’, 68. 48 See Jeansonne, Old Greek, 112. 49 Feuillet, ‘Fils de l’homme’, 187–89; Bittner, ‘Gott-Menschensohn-Davidssohn’, 350; Rowland, Open Heaven, 181–82; Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel, 226–28. 50 Reasons for this translation are suggested by Montgomery, Daniel, 304; Ziegler, Daniel, 170; Ziegler and Munnich, Daniel, 338; Lust, ‘Daniel 7,13’, 62; Jeansonne, Old Greek, 96–99; F.F. Bruce, ‘The Oldest Greek Version of Daniel”, OtSt 20 (1977) 22–40; Stuckenbruck, ‘Son of Man’, 276; Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel, 262; A.F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism (SJLA 25; Leiden: Brill, 1977) 202; idem, ‘“Two Powers in Heaven” and Early Christian Trinitarian Thinking’, in S.T. Davis, et al. (eds.), Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity (New York: OUP, 1999) 73–95. 51 Bruce, ‘Greek Version’, 25. 52 The underlining notes the change of position in the verbs creating a chiastic structure in P967 and a synonymous structure in Codex 88.

36

Chapter 1: The One Like a Son of Man in Daniel 7

The indication of the OG is that a single figure comes like a son of man and arrives like the Ancient of Days,53 especially since the use of ! in the configuration !…(  !… usually signifies a parallelism.54 A further similarity between the ‘one like a son of man’ and the Ancient of Days is the way in which the OG portrays them in relation to  & # ( ! (7.13d).55 Both Papyrus 967 and Codex 88 indicate that ‘the standing ones’ approached (# % ))56 or came (#  % ))57 to the ‘one like a son of man’. In contrast, the Aramaic and  texts depict ‘the standing ones’ as presenting the ‘one like a son of man’ to the Ancient of Days.58 But in the OG 7.13d the ones who were standing before the Ancient of Days in 7.10, come and stand before the ‘one like a son of man’. This portrayal implies the ‘one like son of man’s’ exalted state before the  & # ( !and his similarity with the Ancient of Days. In Aramaic and OG Daniel 7, the son of man figure receives service similar to the service God receives. The OG uses the word  #%, which carries the connotation of service within the context of religious or cultic practice,59 which is clear from its nine uses in OG Daniel.60 The first three uses (3.12, 14, 18) designate worship of Nebuchadnezzar’s statue. The next five refer to the worship of God (3.95; 4.37a; 6.17, 21, 27), and the final use refers to the service offered to the ‘one like a son of man’ (7.14).61 The use of  #% in OG Dan 7.14 suggests that the son of man 53 For more detail, see B.E. Reynolds, ‘Another Suggestion for !  ! &# in the Old Greek of Daniel 7.13’, Henoch 30 (2008) 94–103. Contra O. Hofius, ‘Der Septuaginta-Text von Daniel 7,13–14’, ZAW 117 (2005) 73–90. 54 Joel 2.7; Isa 38.14; Ezek 38.9; Sir. 24.15. Also: Num 23.24; Deut 32.2; 2 Kdgms 22.43//Ps. 17.45; Pss 77.52; 81.7; 88.37, 38; Prov 2.4; Hos 2.5; 9.10; Nah 1.10; Isa 1.9 (cf. Rom 9.29); Wis 3.6; Sir 15.2; 28.23; 39.22; 47.18. 55  & # ( ! are the heavenly multitude of 7.10, that stands before the Ancient of Days. This is highlighted by the use of #   in 7.10, 13. Note Ziegler’s emendation (Daniel, 170). 56 967 P (Geissen, Septuaginta, 108). 57 Codex 88 – Syro-Hexaplar (Rahlfs and Hanhart, Septuaginta, 914; Ziegler and Munnich, Daniel, 170). 58 Aramaic:     $%  ; Ziegler and Munnich’s : #$  % ); Rahlfs and Hanhart’s : *  % % #$. 59 Exod 3.12; 4.23; 7.16, 26; 8.16; 9.1, 13; 10.3, 7, 8, 24, 26; 20.5; 23.24, 25; Deut 4.19, 28; 6.13; 7.4, 16; 8.19; 10.12, 20; 11.13, 16, 28; 12.2; etc. Lust, Eynikel, Hauspie, Lexicon, 368. In classical Greek, the word had a broader semantic range. See Liddell and Scott, Lexicon, 1032. 60 Meadowcroft (Aramaic Daniel, 229) argues that  #% is ‘preserved for dealings with the divine’. 61 The use of  #% in OG Daniel is largely consistent with Aramaic Daniel’s word !" , which is also used of service to deity (Dan 3.12, 14, 18, 28; 6.17, 21, 27; 7.14). There are two occasions where the OG does not use  #% where Aramaic

2. The Earliest Greek Versions of Daniel 7

37

figure is worthy of worship and, although appearing human-like, is more than human. Thus, the OG depicts the son of man figure as similar to the Ancient of Days both in similar descriptions and responses from others,62 but these similarities do not mean that the ‘one like a son of man’ is the same being as the Ancient of Days.63 As in Aramaic Daniel, the OG portrays the ‘one like a son of man’ and the Ancient of Days as two distinct figures, since the son of man figure’s authority must be given to him by someone.64 However, by describing the ‘one like a son of man’ as !  ! &#, the OG more closely associates the Ancient of Days and the ‘one like a son of man’ without identifying them. 2.1.2. Messianic Implications Whereas Aramaic and  Dan 7.14 speak of the son of man figure being given dominion, honor, and a kingdom (Aramaic:  , , ; : #$, ,   ), OG Dan 7.14 says that he was only given authority. Papyrus 967 refers to this authority as +%    (,65 and a variant marked by a hexapla mark in the Codex 88 – Syro-Hexaplar tradition adds the phrase (   between the words +%  and   ( (thus +%  (     ().66 When this kingly authority is combined with the Danielic son of man’s eternal kingdom, it becomes apparent that the OG presents more obvious kingly and messianic implications of this figure than Aramaic Daniel (cf. Pss. Sol. 17.21, 32).67

Daniel has !" – 3.17 (, ) and 7.27 (%&  ), and one occasion where the OG uses  #% and the Aramaic text does not have !" – 6.27 (!%). OG Dan 4.37 is a plus, which contains  #%. By NT times service in worship was clearly the meaning of  #% (see K.H. Jobes, ‘Distinguishing the Meaning of Greek Verbs in the Semantic Domain for Worship’, in M. Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 19942] 201–11). 62 These similarities present difficulties for E.E. Lemcio’s thesis that % &! #% indicates the lowliness of the figure (‘“Son of Man”, “Pitiable Man”, “Rejected Man”: Equivalent Expressions in the Old Greek of Daniel’, TynB 56 [2005] 43–60). 63 Contra Lust (‘Daniel 7,13’, 68) who states: ‘…in the Septuagint, the “Son of Man” and the “Ancient of Days” are the same’. 64 Stuckenbruck, ‘Son of Man’, 275. 65 Geissen, Septuaginta, 108. 66 Geissen, Septuaginta, 108–9; Ziegler and Munnich, Daniel, 338. See Hofius, ‘Septuaginta’, 79 n. 27; Kim, Son of Man, 23 n. 38. The words suggest that they were added in order to bring the text more in line with the Aramaic; however, the adjective   ( appears to have been retained instead of changing it to the noun    found in . 67 See Kim, Son of Man, 25.

38

Chapter 1: The One Like a Son of Man in Daniel 7

2.1.3. The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ and the Holy Ones Unlike Aramaic Daniel 7, the OG presents a clearer distinction between the ‘one like a son of man’ and the holy ones of the Most High. Here, the holy ones appear in Daniel’s dream and its interpretation (OG Dan 7.8: (   

 #! %! & %!). Since the OG mentions the holy ones in the dream and the interpretation, the OG implies that the ‘one like a son of man’ is not the symbol of the holy ones but rather functions more clearly as a representative king of the righteous.68 In the OG as in Aramaic Daniel, the holy ones are worn out by the eleventh horn (7.25). The verb used in the OG ((  #  ) can also mean ‘to consume’. Even if angels could be worn out by a human king, it is unlikely that they could be consumed by one. Further, the OG uses another verb in 7.21 that would seem difficult for an earthly king to cause angels to do: put them to flight ( #). Also, the angelic argument becomes almost irrelevant for the OG because the holy ones are called the ‘holy people of the Most High’ ()  ) %&-  %) rather than the ‘people of the holy ones of the Most High’ ($%  ) (7.27). 2.1.4. Conclusion Like Aramaic Daniel, the OG may present the ‘one like a son of man’ as a heavenly figure since he is described arriving in God’s throne room on clouds, and again, as in the Aramaic text, the ‘one like a son of man’ is loosely connected with judgment through his appearance at the judgment scene, although he does not take part. In contrast to Aramaic Daniel, the ‘one like a son of man’ is more closely identified with the Ancient of Days in the OG. Instead of coming to the Ancient of Days, the son of man figure arrives like the Ancient of Days. He is surrounded by  & # ( !, just as they surrounded the Ancient of Days, and he is recognized through cultic worship similar to the worship received by God elsewhere in Daniel. Thus, not only is the son of man figure similar to the Ancient of Days, he also is worthy of worship, implying a divine aspect of this figure more unmistakably than does the Aramaic text. The OG text also implies that the ‘one like a son of man’ is a messianic figure through his reception of ‘kingly authority’ and his eternal kingdom. The greater distinction between the son of man figure and the holy ones also highlights his kingly role as representative ruler over them and his relationship with them. The OG translation reveals subtle differences in the portrayal of the ‘one like a son of man’ and hints at the trajectory of future Jewish apocalyptic interpretations. 68

Reynolds, ‘One Like a Son of Man’, 78-79.

2. The Earliest Greek Versions of Daniel 7

39

2.2. The Theodotion () Text of Daniel 7 The Greek text that is referred to as Theodotion () more closely translates the Aramaic text of Daniel than does the OG, which may be why it became the standard Greek text of Daniel.69 Although  often closely follows the Aramaic, there are some differences between the two texts. 2.2.1. The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ and the Ancient of Days  presents an accurate translation of the Aramaic in 7.13–14, reflecting the son of man figure’s coming with ( ) the clouds of heaven, his coming to (!) the Ancient of Days, and his presentation to the Ancient of Days.70 Concerning the service given to the ‘one like a son of man’,  lessens any divine or cultic sense by indicating a general kind of service (%%).71 2.2.2. The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ and the Holy Ones At first glance,  seems to make the identity of the holy ones less clear. In 7.27,  gives no word for ‘people’ as do the Aramaic and OG; it reads instead &  ! %&-  %.72 But the eleventh horn makes war against the holy ones and wears them out (7.21, 25:  ), which again suggests that the holy ones are not angels but people. 2.2.3. Conclusion The ‘one like a son of man’ in  is not much different from that of Aramaic Daniel. The son of man figure appears to be a heavenly figure in his arrival with the clouds of heaven in God’s throne room. He receives dominion, honor, and a kingdom from the Ancient of Days, hinting at his kingly – and possibly messianic – role as the representative ruler of the holy ones. Although the ‘one like a son of man’ shares some similar descriptions with God, ’s use of a verb for general service instead of cultic worship creates a greater distinction between the two than in Aramaic Daniel and especially the OG.

69

Di Lella, ‘Textual History’, 588. Even though  7.13d has *  % % #$ (Rahlfs and Hanhart, Septuaginta, 914) or #$  % ) (Ziegler and Munnich, Daniel, 339) rather than the Aramaic’s   . 71  uses  #% elsewhere in Daniel but not in 6.27; 7.14; 7.27. 72 Meadowcroft (Aramaic Daniel, 287–88) suggests that this minus is ’s attempt to maintain internal consistency with ‘the holy ones’. 70

40

Chapter 1: The One Like a Son of Man in Daniel 7

3. Summary of Daniel 7 in Aramaic and Greek The ‘one like a son of man’ in Daniel 7 presents an intriguing but ambiguous visionary figure. His manner of arrival and the location of the throne room may suggest that the Danielic son of man is a heavenly figure. He appears at the conclusion of a scene of judgment, which makes his role in that judgment uncertain, but the Ancient of Days gives him dominion, honor, and a kingdom (or authority as in the OG). What is unmistakable is that the ‘one like a son of man’ shares some similarities with the Ancient of Days, which in the OG verge on identification. All three texts imply that the son of man figure is a kingly figure, indicating his association with the holy ones as their representative ruler. Since his authority and kingdom will not be destroyed, he may be a messianic king. The nations and peoples recognize him, whether they worship him or merely serve him. The OG and  texts reveal that even in translation slight changes can be made in meaning. If such differences can occur in translation, greater opportunity for variation may occur in interpretation. In the following two chapters, we will examine interpretations of the ‘one like a son of man’ from Daniel 7 in Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian literature, noting the similar and different characteristics and functions in the various interpretations.

Chapter 2

The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ in Jewish Apocalyptic Interpretation In the previous chapter, we examined the identity and characteristics of the ‘one like a son of man’ in the Aramaic text and Greek translations of Daniel 7. There are obvious developments in the Old Greek text, while the Theodotion translation remains closer to the Aramaic. The following chapter will examine Jewish Second Temple texts that are roughly dated to the time period 150 B.C. to A.D. 100, that reveal a verbal connection to Daniel 7, and that depict a figure in terms reminiscent of Daniel 7. The purpose of this chapter is to determine how the Danielic son of man was interpreted by Jewish writers prior to and roughly contemporaneous with the Gospel of John. We will take note of the characteristics and functions of the Danielic figures in the Similitudes of Enoch, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch, observing developments and differences. 4Q246 will be addressed in an excursus at the end of the chapter.

1. The Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37–71) At the beginning of the twentieth century, the importance of the Similitudes of Enoch1 for NT studies was over-estimated,2 and this led to a re1

Unless otherwise noted, all translations are from G.W.E. Nickelsburg and J.C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004). The extant manuscripts of the Similitudes of Enoch are in Classical Ethiopic (Ge’ez) and have been translated at least once before (possibly from Greek or Aramaic). The earliest Ethiopic manuscripts date from the fifteenth century, while most are dated from the eighteenth century. See J.T. Milik, The Books of Enoch. Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976) 85; M.A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (Vol. 2; Oxford: Clarendon, 1978) 21–47; E. Isaacs, ‘1 Enoch’, OTP 1.6. D.C. Olson (‘Enoch and the Son of Man in the Epilogue of the Parables’, JSP 18 [1998] 27–38) suggests that the manuscript EMML 2080 may date from the twelfth–fourteenth centuries. 2 R.H. Charles (The Book of Enoch [Oxford: Clarendon, 1893] 41; idem, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch [Oxford: Clarendon, 19122 ] xcv) states: ‘The influence of 1 Enoch on the New Testament has been greater than that of all the other apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books taken together.’

42

Chapter 2: The One Like a Son of Man in Jewish Apocalyptic Interpretation

versal of opinion during the 1970s and into the early 1990s.3 The primary charge against the Similitudes was that its absence from Qumran indicated a post-Christian date, which J.T. Milik famously placed at A.D. 270.4 Recently, however, the scholarly consensus dates the Similitudes to the first century A.D.,5 and possibly even early in the first century.6 In addition, Similitudes is considered to be a Jewish work, highlighted by the portrayal of Enoch as the son of man figure (71.14).7 Thus, a re-evaluation of the Similitudes and its relevance for the Gospel of John should be undertaken. The Similitudes of Enoch consists of an introductory chapter (37), three parables (38–44, 45–57, 58–69) and a ‘double epilogue’ (70–71).8 The whole of the Similitudes is introduced as a second vision of Enoch (37.1), which is probably meant to distinguish it from the Book of Watchers (1– 36).9 The relationship of the final two chapters (70–71) to the rest of the Similitudes has been questioned because of their repetitive nature and the apparent discrepancy between 70.1 and 71.14 as to whether Enoch is the son of man figure or ascends to him. There are three possible explanations 3

See Milik, Enoch, 5, 91–98; Leivestad, ‘Exit’, 246–48; Burkett, Debate, 97–120. Milik, Enoch, 96. 5 E. Sjöberg, Der Menschensohn im Äthiopischen Henochbuch (Skrifter Utgivna av Kungl. Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet 1.41; Lund: Gleerup, 1946) 38; C.L. Mearns, ‘Dating the Similitudes of Enoch’, NTS 25 (1979) 360–69; Rowland, Open Heaven, 264– 267; J.H. Charlesworth, ‘The Concept of the Messiah in the Pseudepigrapha’, ANRW 19.1, 188–218; Collins, ‘Son of Man’, 452; idem, Apocalyptic Imagination, 178; J.C. VanderKam, Enoch: A Man for All Generations (Columbia: University of South Carolina, 1995) 132. Both M. Black (‘The Messianism of the Parables of Enoch’, in J.H. Charlesworth [ed.], The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992] 145–68; cf. ‘The “Parables” of Enoch [1 En 37–71] and the “Son of Man”’, ExpT 88 [1976–77] 5–8) and M.A. Knibb (‘Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha in the Light of the Scrolls’, DSD 2 [1995] 165–84; cf. ‘The Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review’, NTS 25 [1979] 345–59) reversed their views to take this position. 6 J.C. VanderKam, An Introduction to Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001) 110: late first century B.C. or early first century A.D.; S. Schreiber, ‘Henoch als Menschensohn. Zur problematischen Schlußidentifikation in den Bilderreden des äthiopischen Henochbuches (äthHen 71,14)’, ZNW 91 (2000) 1–17: first decade of the first century A.D. Even earlier dates are given by: G. Bampfylde, ‘The Similitudes of Enoch. Historical Allusions’, JSP 15 (1984) 9–31: 51–50 B.C.; J.C. Greenfield and M.E. Stone, ‘The Enochic Pentateuch and the Date of the Similitudes’, HTR 70 (1977) 51–65: 40 B.C. 7 M. Casey, ‘The Use of Term [sic] “Son of Man” in the Similitudes of Enoch’, JSJ 7 (1976) 11–29; Rowland, Open Heaven, 183, 265; Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 178; Black, ‘Messianism’, 162; Mowinckel, Cometh, 354; J.R. Davila, The Provenance of the Pseudepigrapha: Jewish, Christian, or Other? (JSJ.S 105; Leiden: Brill, 2005) 134–35. See Schreiber, ‘Henoch’, 15–17. 8 Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 178. 9 VanderKam, Early Judaism, 111. 4

1. The Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71)

43

for the discrepancy: 10 chapters 70–71 were not originally part of the Similitudes,11 Enoch is not identified with the son of man figure in 71.14, but is ‘a son of man’,12 or Enoch is understood as the son of man figure throughout the Similitudes, including 70.1.13 Recently, Daniel Olson has made an excellent case for the third view based on newly discovered manuscript evidence, which supports the view that Enoch is the son of man in 70.1, and based on an explanation of the textual variants in 70.1 within the context of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.14 Although it is impossible to give a satisfactory answer concerning the relationship of chapters 70–71 with 37–69 in this brief discussion, there appears to be no convincing rationale not to suppose that Enoch was identified as the son of man figure throughout the Similitudes.15 1.1. Influence of Daniel 7 There is no doubt that the Similitudes of Enoch interprets the ‘one like a son of man’ from Daniel 7.16 Both Daniel and the Similitudes refer to a figure with the appearance of a man (1 En. 46.2–4; Dan 7.13), the Head of Days/Ancient of Days with a head white as wool (1 En. 46.1; 71.10; Dan 7.9), ‘thousand thousands and myriad myriads’ standing before the Head 10

See Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 188–90. R.H. Charles posits a missing section between 71.13 and 71.14 and emends the second person singular pronouns in 71.14– 16 to third person singular pronouns (Enoch 19122 , 144–45). 11 J. Theisohn, Der auserwählte Richter (SUNT 12; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975) 216 n. 4; J.J. Collins, ‘The Heavenly Representative: The Son of Man in the Similitudes of Enoch’, in J.J. Collins and G.W.E. Nickelsburg (eds.), Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms (SBLSCS 12; Chico: Scholars, 1980), 111–33; Knibb, ‘Messianism’, 178–80. Müller (Messias, 55) understands 71.5–17 as secondary, while Burkett (Debate, 101–2) does so for the whole of chapter 71. M. Black (‘The Eschatology of the Similitudes of Enoch’, JTS 3 [1952] 1–10) has claimed that chapters 70– 71 are older than 37–69. 12 Mowinckel, Cometh, 440–44; Collins (‘Son of Man’, 456–57) changed his view from his previous publication ‘Heavenly Representative’. 13 Manson, ‘Son of Man’, 171–95; Sjöberg, Menschensohn, 147–89; Hooker, Son of Man, 42–43; Casey, ‘Term’, 25–28; A. Caquot, ‘Remarques sur les chapitres 70 et 71 du livre éthiopien d’Hénoch’, in Apocalypses et théologie de l’espérance (LD 95; Paris: Cerf, 1977) 111–22; J.C. VanderKam, ‘Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37–71’, in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 169–91. 14 Olson, ‘Enoch’, 27–38. 15 Previously, Collins (‘Heavenly Representative’, 122) noted the difficulty of Enoch not recognizing himself as the son of man figure, but more recently Collins (‘Son of Man’, 455–56) acknowledges the Prayer of Joseph as a possible parallel, where Jacob is human and an angel. Cf. 1 En. 39.6–9 and 11QMelch. 16 Casey, ‘Term’, 20–23; Collins, ‘Son of Man’, 452; VanderKam, ‘Righteous One’, 188.

44

Chapter 2: The One Like a Son of Man in Jewish Apocalyptic Interpretation

of Days (1 En. 40.1; 60.1–2; 71.8, 13; Dan 7.10), God’s throne (1 En. 45.3, 6; 51.3; 55.4; 61.8; 62.2,3,5; 69.27, 29; 71.7; Dan 7.9), the theme of judgment (46.5; 60.6; Dan 7.10–12, 26), kings and kingdoms (1 En. 46.5; 48.8– 10; 62.3, 6, 9; Dan 7.3–8, 17), and the opening of books in each vision (1 En. 47.3; Dan 7.10).17 These similarities and the recent scholarly consensus on the date of the Similitudes indicate that the three criteria for determining interpretation of the Danielic figure have been met.18 1.2. One Figure, Four Designations There are four designations19 found in the Similitudes of Enoch that are significant for our study of the son of man figure: ‘Righteous One’, ‘Chosen One’, ‘Son of Man’, and ‘Anointed One’. ‘Chosen One’ is used the most often in the Similitudes,20 followed closely by ‘Son of Man’.21 The designations ‘Righteous One’ (38.222; 53.6) and ‘Anointed One’ (48.10; 52.4) are each used twice. All four of these designations are commonly understood to refer to the same figure.23 First, the designations are used synonymously. In 62.1–2, 17

For more similarities, see Caragounis, Son of Man, 101–4. Isaiah and Pss. 2 and 110 are also in the background of the Enochic figure. See M. Black, The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (SVTP 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985) 189; ‘The Eschatology of the Similitudes of Enoch’, JTS 3 (1952) 1–10; Theisohn, Richter, 54–68; VanderKam, ‘Righteous’, 187–90; M. Hengel, ‘“Sit at My Right Hand!” The Enthronement of Christ at the Right Hand of God and Psalm 110:1’, in Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995) 119–225 at 185–89; D.W. Suter, Tradition and Composition in the Parables of Enoch (SBL.DS 47; Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1979) 45–61, 107–123. 19 Although it is unclear whether ‘Son of Man’ is a title because of the ambiguous use of the Ethiopic demonstrative pronoun (Casey, ‘Term’, 18), it may function as a title (Collins, ‘Heavenly Representative’, 112; see Slater, ‘Son of Man’, 194–95). Since lack of clarity exists, ‘Righteous One’, ‘Chosen One’, ‘Son of Man’, and ‘Anointed One’ will be referred to as ‘designations’ and not ‘titles’, and the figure designated as ‘Son of Man’ will be called ‘son of man figure’ or ‘Enochic son of man’. 20 39.6; 40.5; 45.3, 4; 48.6 (adjectival use); 49.2, 4; 51.3, 5; 52.6, 9; 53.6; 55.4; 61.5, 8, 10; 62.1. 21 46.2, 3, 4; 48.2; 62.5, 7, 9, 14; 63.11; 69.26, 27, 29 (twice); 70.1; 71.14, 17. There are three Ethiopic phrases that are behind ‘Son of Man’, but these phrases are most likely translation variants. See Charles, Enoch 19122 , 86–87; Black, Enoch, 206; Vanderkam, ‘Righteous One’, 174–75; Casey, ‘Term’, 18; Olson, ‘Enoch’, 34. 22 There is manuscript evidence for ‘righteousness’ in 38.2, but the context seems to suggest ‘Righteous One’. The appearing of the Righteous One before the righteous is parallel with the appearing of the light to the righteous and chosen. In 48.4, the son of man figure is referred to as the light of the nations. ‘Righteous One’ is preferred by Charles, Enoch 19122 , 70; Black, Enoch, 195; Nickelsburg, Translation, 51; Knibb, Enoch, 125; Isaac, ‘1 Enoch’, OTP, 1.30. See Theisohn, Richter, 32–33. 23 This paragraph relies on VanderKam, ‘Righteous One’, 185–87. See also Coppens, ‘Fils d’homme daniélique’, 28–31; Theisohn, Richter, 48–49; K. Müller, ‘Menschensohn 18

1. The Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71)

45

the Lord of Spirits calls the kings of the earth to see the Chosen One on the throne of glory, but in 62.5–14 the kings see the son of man figure on the throne of glory. ‘Anointed One’ is used interchangeably with ‘Chosen One’ (48.10–49.2; 52.4, 6), and ‘Righteous One’ is linked with ‘Chosen One’ (53.6). Second, all four designations describe similar features. The expressions ‘Chosen One’ and ‘Son of Man’ are used to refer to the figure’s role as judge (‘Chosen One’ – 45.3; 49.4; 51.2, 3; 55.4; 61.5, 6; ‘Son of Man’ – 69.27, 29) and to the one who sits upon the throne of glory (‘Chosen One’ – 45.3; 51.3; 55.4; 61.5, 8, 9; 62.1–3; ‘Son of Man’ – 62.5; 69.27, 29). Both designations are associated with the ‘righteous’ and ‘righteousness’ (‘Chosen One’ – 39.4–7; ‘Son of Man’ – 46.3; 48.1, 4, 7).24 Third, ‘Chosen One’ and ‘Son of Man’ are used in contexts where the other expression is expected. For example, the ‘Chosen One’ appears with the Head of Days (55.1–4), and the ‘Son of Man’ is referred to as the light of the nations (48.4). Thus, all four designations refer to the same figure in the Similitudes of Enoch and are used more or less interchangeably. 1.3. Characteristics of the Enochic Son of Man25 1.3.1. Heavenly, Preexistent, and Revealer of Heavenly Secrets While the location of the Danielic figure may only be assumed to be in heaven, the Enochic son of man is portrayed as having a heavenly origin and being preexistent. And in that hour that son of man was named in the presence of the Lord of Spirits, and his name, before the Head of Days. Even before the sun and the constellations were created, before the stars of heaven were made, his name was named before the Lord of Spirits (48.2–3). For this (reason) he was chosen and hidden in his presence before the world was created and forever (48.6). For from the beginning the son of man was hidden, and the Most High preserved him in the presence of his might, and he revealed him to the chosen (62.7).26

T.W. Manson, followed by James VanderKam, argues that the naming of the Enochic son of man is only his election by God and does not refer to und Messias. Religionsgeschichtliche Vorüberlegungen zum Menschensohnproblem in den synoptischen Evangelien’, BZ 16 (1972) 161–87; Collins, ‘Heavenly Representative’, 113; Rowland, Open Heaven, 184; Schreiber, ‘Henoch’, 3–4. 24 VanderKam, ‘Righteous One’, 187. 25 Caragounis (Son of Man, 116–19) presents the Enochic son of man as revealer, judge, vindicator of the righteous, universal ruler, and object of worship. 26 For Sjöberg (Menschensohn, 90), 62.7 is a clear indication of the Son of Man’s preexistence. See also 39.6–7; 40.5; 46.3; 70.1.

46

Chapter 2: The One Like a Son of Man in Jewish Apocalyptic Interpretation

the figure’s pre-creation existence. Manson asserts that the hiding of this figure refers to the Lord’s protection of him during his earthly life.27 In response, Maurice Casey contends that ‘hiding’ has a broader meaning and that the ‘context in 1 Enoch makes it clear that pre-mundane hiding is in view’.28 In addition, the concept of preserving along with hiding suggests some sort of preexistence (62.729; cf. 39.7),30 and the Enochic son of man as the preexistent and heavenly one, reveals the hidden things (46.3) and all the secrets of wisdom (51.3). 1.3.2. Royal and Messianic While the OG describes a more specifically messianic figure than the Aramaic and  texts, the Similitudes makes the association unambiguous. The Enochic son of man is explicitly identified as the Messiah or ‘Anointed One’ (48.10; 52.4),31 and he is depicted as a king, seated on the throne of glory, having been seated by Lord of Spirits himself (61.8; 62.232, 5). Further evidence for a messianic son of man figure can be observed in the pouring out of the spirit on the Chosen One (62.2; cf. Isa 11.2, 4) and his enthronement (51.3; 55.4; 61.8; 62.2, 5; cf. Psalm 110).33 While the messianic nature of the Danielic figure is veiled, particularly in the Aramaic and , the Enochic son of man is obviously messianic. 1.3.3. Judgment and Salvation ‘Anointed One’ is the only designation not directly associated with the Enochic son of man’s act of judging (‘Chosen One’ – 49.4; 55.4; 61.8–9; ‘Son of Man’ – 69.27; ‘Righteous One’ – 38.2; cf. 50.4; 60.634). The Danielic son of man was not depicted as a judge in either the Aramaic, OG, or  texts, even though he appeared in a context of judgment. In the Similitudes, judgment takes place after the son of man figure arrives and is 27

Manson, ‘Son of Man’, 181–85; VanderKam, ‘Righteous One’, 179–82. Casey, ‘Term’, 13. 29 VanderKam (‘Righteous’, 181) asserts that the word translated as ‘from the beginning’ in 62.7 (’em-qedmu) does not refer to the beginning of creation. Knibb (‘Messianism’, 172) responds that qedem is often used for  (1 John 1.1; 1 En. 2.2). 30 Collins, ‘Son of Man’, 455; Knibb, ‘Messianism’, 171–72. 31 Cf. Ps 2.2 with 1 En. 48.10. See Black, Enoch, 212; Theisohn, Richter, 56; Müller, Messias, 52–53. 32 Charles, Enoch 19122 , 123; Enoch 1893, 163; Black, Enoch, 235; S. Uhlig, Das Äthiopische Henochbuch (JSHRZ 5.6; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1984) 613 n. a; Nickelsburg, Translation, 79. Knibb (Enoch, 2.150) takes the verb as intransitive (i.e., the Lord of Spirits sat down). 33 Collins, ‘Son of Man’, 458; Hengel, Studies, 185–86. 34 Nickelsburg, Translation, 76; Knibb, Enoch, 2.143. 28

1. The Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71)

47

seated on the throne (48.5; 62.3–12; 69.29; cf. 38.2–3), rather than before as in Daniel. The whole judgment is given to him (69.27).35 He is said to be righteous in his judgment (50.4; cf. Isa 11.4), and righteousness is judged in his presence (62.3). The Enochic son of man’s judgment is the eschatological end-time judgment that will be punishment for sinners, but for the chosen and righteous it is life-bringing. They will be saved in his name and dwell with him forever (48.4–7; 62.11–16; cf. 71.16–17).36 1.3.4. Recognized Comparable to the Aramaic and OG texts of Daniel 7, the Enochic son of man is recognized through sight but he is also recognized through worship. At the time of his appearance, the kings of the earth will see and acknowledge him. Once the kings see the son of man figure, recognizing him for who he is (62.3, 5), they bless, glorify, and exalt him and fall on their faces in worship (62.6, 9; also 48.5; cf. 60.6). This action reveals some similarity with the glory, honor, dominion, and cultic service given to the Danielic son of man (Dan 7.14). 1.3.5. Similarities with God As with the texts of Daniel 7, the Enochic son of man is portrayed similarly to God, but in the Similitudes, the similarities are more extensive.37 This figure acts as God does and is described as God is. In the OT, the mountains melt like wax at God’s appearance (Ps 97.5; Mic 1.4; Nah 1.5; cf. 1 En. 1.4–7), the judgment of the kings of the earth is accomplished by God (Isa 24.21–23), and the day of judgment is typically known as the Day of the Lord (Joel 1.15; Amos 5.18; Obad 15; Zeph 1.14–16; Zech 14.1– 21). In the Similitudes, the mountains melt at the coming of the Chosen One (1 En. 52.6; cf. 53.7),38 the son of man figure judges (1 En. 46.5; 62.3; 69.27), and the day of judgment has become the day of the Chosen One (1 En. 61.5; cf. 45.3). Further, the son of man figure sits on the Lord of Spirits’ throne of glory (62.2, 3, 5; 69.27, 29; cf. 45.3; 51.3; 55.4; 61.8).39 These shared divine descriptions and actions between God and the Enochic son of man may suggest an explicit interpretation of OG Dan 7.13’s arrival of the ‘one like a son of man’ like the Ancient of Days. 35

Charles (Enoch 19122 , 140–41) drew attention to the similarity with John 5.22, 27. Sjöberg, Menschensohn, 77–79. Müller (‘Menschensohn’, 174) notes that the Enochic son of man guarantees peace. 37 Burkett (Debate, 100) lists the following examples. 38 Black, Enoch, 216. 39 See D. Hannah, ‘The Throne of His Glory: The Divine Throne and Heavenly Mediators in Revelation and the Similitudes of Enoch’, ZNW 94 (2003) 68–96. 36

48

Chapter 2: The One Like a Son of Man in Jewish Apocalyptic Interpretation

1.3.6. His Dwelling with the Righteous There is a close association between the son of man figure and the righteous (38.2; 39.6–7; 48.4–5; 53.6–7; 62.7–8, 13–16; cf. 52.6). The Enochic son of man is an individual figure40 and represents the righteous as their heavenly ruler.41 They will be saved in the name of the son of man figure (48.7), they will be saved on the day that he judges and will eat with him (62.13–14), and their dwelling will be with him forever (45.4–6; 71.16). 1.3.7. Servant The Enochic son of man is also interpreted as the Isaianic Servant of the Lord. He is called the light of the nations (48.4), which is a description used of the Servant of the Lord in Isa 49.6.42 The next verse in Isaiah goes on to speak of the servant being chosen and kings seeing and prostrating themselves. This is similar to the Enochic son of man figure also being called the Chosen One (62.1–2) and having the kings of the earth fall down on their faces and worship (62.6, 9) 1.3.8. Human The most distinctive feature of the Enochic son of man is that this figure can be identified with Enoch (70.1; 71.14). Enoch’s ascent to heaven need not take away from the son of man figure’s preexistence or heavenly origin, since a possible parallel can be noted with the human and angelic Jacob in the Prayer of Joseph.43 In addition, it may be possible to argue that Enoch recognizes himself as the son of man figure in 39.6–9: And in that place my eyes saw the Chosen One of righteousness and faith, and righteousness will be his days, and the righteous and chosen will be without number before him forever and ever. And I saw his dwelling beneath the wings of the Lord of Spirits, and all the righteous and chosen were mighty before him like fiery lights. And their mouths were full of blessing, and their lips praised the name of the Lord of Spirits. And righteousness did not fail before him, nor did truth fail before him. There I wished to dwell, and my spirit longed for that dwelling. There my portion has been from the first, for thus it has been established concerning me in the presence of the Lord of Spirits. In those days I praised and exalted the name of the Lord of Spirits with blessing and praise, for he has established me for blessing and praise according to the good pleasure of the Lord of Spirits.44

40

Sjöberg, Menschensohn, 97–98, 101; Hooker, Son of Man, 46; Müller, Messias, 44; Black, Enoch, 195, 197; Casey, ‘Term’, 13. Contra Manson, ‘Son of Man’, 188–89. 41 Collins, ‘Heavenly Representative’, 112–16. 42 Collins, ‘Son of Man’, 465. 43 Collins, ‘Son of Man’, 455–56. Cf. 11QMelch. 44 Emphasis mine.

2. 4 Ezra (2 Esdras)

49

1.4. Conclusion The Enochic son of man is obviously an interpretation of the ‘one like a son of man’. (1) The Enochic son of man is depicted as similar to God both in description and action. This may reflect OG Dan 7.13, even though in the Similitudes the similarities are more explicit. Yet at the same time, the line between identity and similarity is not blurred in the Similitudes as in the OG. Also, (2) the Enochic figure is recognized by the kings of the earth through sight and their blessing, glorifying, exaltation, and worship of him (cf. Dan 7.14). A few features that are only hinted at in the Danielic texts are more unambiguous in the Similitudes. (3) The Enochic son of man acts as judge, (4) is a heavenly figure, and (5) is the Messiah. In distinction from the Danielic texts, (6) the righteous will dwell with the son of man figure. This dwelling together suggests a positive association of some sort with the Enochic figure. In addition, (7) the Enochic figure is involved in the salvation of the righteous, (8) is interpreted as the Servant of the Lord, (9) is preexistent as indicated by the Lord of Spirits’ hiding and preserving of him, and most distinctly (10) the figure is identified as Enoch. The writer of the Similitudes may have taken some interpretive license in interpreting the ‘one like a son of man’ from Daniel 7, particularly regarding his heavenly origin, preexistence, messiahship, and role as judge, but the characteristics and functions of the Enochic son of man are generally similar to those of the ‘one like a son of man’ in the Danielic texts.

2. 4 Ezra (2 Esdras) The book of 4 Ezra45 is typically dated to the end of the first century A.D., largely due to the opening line of Ezra’s visions: 45

Unless otherwise noted, all quotations are from B.M. Metzger, ‘The Fourth Book of Ezra’, OTP 1.517–59. Hebrew is thought to be the original language of 4 Ezra (G.H. Box, The Ezra-Apocalypse [London: Pitman & Sons, 1912] iii; R.J. Coggins and M. A. Knibb, The First and Second Books of Esdras (Cambridge: CUP, 1979) 76; M.E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 1, 9–10; Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 195; A.P. Hayman, ‘The “Man from the Sea” in 4 Ezra 13’, JJS 49 [1998] 1–16. A.F.J. Klijn (Die Esra-Apokalypse (IV. Esra) [GCS; Berlin: Akademie, 1992] XIII) and B. Violet (Die Apokalypsen des Esra und des Baruch in Deutscher Gestalt [Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1924] XXXI–XXXIX) allow for the possibility of an Aramaic Vorlage. The texts that are currently extant are in Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, Georgian, Armenian and Arabic, plus a Coptic fragment. These texts are mostly thought to be based on (a) Greek translation(s) of the original, but the relationship between these texts and the Greek translation(s) is not completely agreed upon

50

Chapter 2: The One Like a Son of Man in Jewish Apocalyptic Interpretation

In the thirtieth year after the destruction of our city, I, Salathiel, who am also called Ezra, was in Babylon. I was troubled as I lay on my bed, and my thoughts welled up in my heart, because I saw the desolation of Zion and the wealth of those who lived in Babylon (3.1–2).46

Although the author writes of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, Jerusalem’s desolation by the Romans in A.D. 70 is the event behind this statement.47 Chapters 1–2 and 15–16 of 4 Ezra are recognized as Christian additions to a Jewish text.48 Chapters 3–14 narrate the seven visions of Ezra including their introduction and explanation. Some scholars think the sixth vision (4 Ezra 13.1–13) was an independent piece that was interpreted by the author of 4 Ezra.49 In this brief examination of the human-like figure in 4 Ezra 13, we cannot solve this complex question of the relationship between the vision and the interpretation. Thus, the vision and interpretation will be examined together in order to observe how the ‘one like a son of man’ from Daniel 7 was interpreted in this Jewish apocalypse toward the end of the first century A.D., while the features of the human-like figure based solely on the vision will be addressed in the conclusion. 2.1. Influence of Daniel 7 4 Ezra reveals clear signs of having been influenced by the book of Daniel50 and nowhere more explicitly than in 12.11: ‘The eagle which you (see H. Gunkel, ‘Das 4. Buch Esra’, in E. Kautzsch, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1900] 331–401; Klijn, EsraApokalypse, XIII; Hayman, ‘Man’, 2 n. 1; Stone, Fourth Ezra, 3). 46 Knibb, Second Esdras, 76; Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 196; B.W. Longenecker, 2 Esdras (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995) 14. Stone (Fourth Ezra, 10) dates 4 Ezra specifically to the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81–96). 47 Metzger, ‘Fourth Book’, 520; J.M. Myers, I and II Esdras (AB 42; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974) 129. 48 Metzger, ‘Fourth Book’, 517–18. 49 See the debate between M. Stone (‘The Concept of the Messiah in IV Ezra’, in J. Neusner [ed.], Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough [Leiden: Brill, 1968] 295–312; idem, ‘The Question of the Messiah in 4 Ezra’, in J. Neusner, W.S. Green, E.S. Frerichs, [eds.], Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era [Cambridge: CUP, 1987] 209–24; idem, Fourth Ezra, 210–11, 395 n. 2; 398–400) and Casey (Son of Man, 126–28). See also Gunkel, ‘Esra’, 346; Box, EzraApocalypse, 282–83; Kearns, Vorfragen, 2.52–62; Caragounis, Son of Man, 131; Collins, ‘Son of Man’, 461–62; Angel, Chaos, 158 for varying viewpoints. For suggested mythological backgrounds, see Emerton, ‘Origin’, 225–42; Müller, Messias, 108–9; Kvanvig, Roots of Apocalyptic, 524–37. 50 Hooker, Son of Man, 48; Collins, ‘Son of Man’ 462–64; Stone, ‘Question’, 213; A. Lacocque, ‘The Vision of the Eagle in 4 Esdras, a Rereading of Daniel 7 in the first century C.E.’, in K.H. Richards (ed.), SBL Seminar Papers 1981 (SBLSP 20; Chico: Schol-

2. 4 Ezra (2 Esdras)

51

saw coming up from the sea is the fourth kingdom which appeared in a vision to your brother Daniel.’ As in Daniel 7, 4 Ezra’s eagle rises from the sea (Dan 7.3; 4 Ezra 11.1), is destroyed (Dan 7.11; 4 Ezra 12.3), and is followed by the appearance of a human-like figure (Dan 7.13; 4 Ezra 13.1– 12). Further, both 4 Ezra 13 and Daniel 7 mention: a dream or vision of the night (Dan 7.2, 7, 13; 4 Ezra 13.1), a description of a human-like figure (Dan 7.13; 4 Ezra 13.3), the clouds of heaven (Dan 7.13; 4 Ezra 13.3), the sea stirred by wind (Dan 7.2; 4 Ezra 13.1), the repeated use of ‘And I looked and behold’ (Dan 7.6, 7; 4 Ezra 13.3, 6, 8), and reference to God as the ‘Most High’ (Dan 7.22, 25, 27; 4 Ezra 12.32; 13.29).51 2.2. The Characteristics of the Man from the Sea in the Vision and Interpretation 2.2.1. My Son Ezra’s human-like figure is called God’s son in the interpretation of the vision (13.32, 37, 52). The first appearance of this ‘son’ language is in 4 Ezra 7.28–29: ‘For my son52 the Messiah shall be revealed with those who are with him, and those who remain shall rejoice four hundred years. And after these years my son the Messiah shall die, and all who draw human breath’ (cf. 14.9). Michael Stone posits that ‘my son’ should read ‘my servant’, arguing that the Greek word behind the extant translations was .53 Even if  was used in a Greek translation of 4 Ezra, it does not follow that  meant ‘servant’ (or that the original Semitic word was 54  ), since the word  can just as easily mean ‘child’ or ‘son’. As ars, 1981) 237–58; H.C. Kee, ‘“The Man” in Fourth Ezra: Growth of a Tradition’, in K.H. Richards (ed.), SBL Seminar Papers 1981 (SBLSP 20; Chico: Scholars, 1981) 199– 208; M.A. Knibb, ‘Apocalyptic and Wisdom in 4 Ezra’, JSJ 13 (1982) 56–74; G.K. Beale, ‘The Problem of the Man from the Sea in IV Ezra 13 and its Relation to the Messianic Concept in John’s Apocalypse’, NovT 25 (1983) 182–88. See Casey (Son of Man, 122) who only finds similarities with Daniel in 4 Ezra 11–13. Cf. Kvanvig, Roots of Apocalyptic, 522–24. 51 Note also similarities between Dan 2.21 and 4 Ezra 13.58; Dan 2.4 and 4 Ezra 13. 6, 36. See Lacocque, ‘Vision’, 241 52 The Latin text reads filius meus Iesus. Iesus is recognized to be a Christian interpolation. See Gunkel, ‘Esra’, 370; S. Gero, ‘“My Son the Messiah”: A Note on 4Esr 7:28– 29’, ZNW 66 (1975) 264–67. 53 M.E. Stone, Features of the Eschatology of IV Ezra (HSS; Atlanta: Scholars, 1989) 71–75; idem, Fourth Ezra, 207–8. Also, Mowinckel, Cometh, 294. Gero, (‘My Son’, 264–67) argues against Stone based on the reading ‘elect’ at 7.28 in a Georgian manuscript. 54 Collins, ‘Son of Man’, 463; idem, Apocalyptic Imagination, 207–8. See Box, EzraApocalypse, 114. Iesus is an obvious sign of interpolation, but filius may reflect the Vorlage.

52

Chapter 2: The One Like a Son of Man in Jewish Apocalyptic Interpretation

Collins points out, the righteous man in Wis. 2.12–16 calls himself   (2.13) and ‘boasts’ that God is his  (2.16).55 2.2.2. Messiah The human-like figure is presented as the Messiah in the interpretation56 and more implicitly in the vision.57 First, the human-like figure destroys the ungodly nations (13.37–38), an action also carried out by the messianic lion-like figure of the eagle vision (12.32–34).58 Second, the human-like figure carries out judgment from his mouth like the Messianic branch of Isaiah 11 (4 Ezra 13.10–11, 37–39; Isa 11.1–4). Third, Ulrich Müller notes the strong parallels between the actions of the Messiah of Psalms of Solomon 17 and Ezra’s figure (4 Ezra 13.9; Pss. Sol. 17.33).59 Fourth, Jonathan Moo presents a persuasive argument that 4 Ezra 5.6 portrays the Messiah, indicating that 4 Ezra’s Messiah reigns:60 ‘and one shall reign whom those who dwell on earth do not expect’ (cf. 1 En. 62.3–5). Thus, the human-like figure in 4 Ezra serves as a symbol for the Messiah in the same way that the lion-like figure is a symbol of the Messiah in the eagle vision.61 2.2.3. Judgment and Salvation In the vision, the human-like figure acts as a warrior. Fire and sparks come forth from his mouth, burning up the warring multitude (13.10–11). In the interpretation, these actions are explained as the judgment and destruction that the Messiah will bring against the assembled nations (13.37–38).62 This forensic interpretation is not in opposition to the human-like figure’s actions in the vision63 because God carries out judgment as a divine warrior in the OT (Ps 50.3–6; Isa 66.15–16; Mic 1.2–5).64 The human-like fig-

Collins, Scepter, 165 (although Collins incorrectly cites the phrase as  ). Charlesworth, ‘Concept’, 205; Stone, ‘Concept’, 295; Caragounis, Son of Man, 130; Collins, ‘Son of Man’, 463. 57 Burkett (Debate, 105–6) notes the messianic nature of the figure in the vision. 58 The Davidic descent of the lion-like figure is explicitly stated (12.31–32; 11.37; cf. Gen 49.9). See Lacoque, ‘Vision’, 238. 59 Müller, Messias, 118–20. 60 J. Moo, ‘A Messiah Whom “The Many do not Know”? Rereading 4 Ezra 5:6–7’, JTS 58 (2007) 525–36. 61 Stone, ‘Concept’, 307; Casey, Son of Man, 129; Rowland, Open Heaven, 187. The messianic connotations highlight the figure’s divine sonship (2 Sam 7.14; Psalm 2). See Collins, ‘Son of Man’, 462–63; Box, Ezra-Apocalypse, 109, 295. 62 Note the similar actions of the Messiah in Isa 11.4 and Pss. Sol. 17.33, 35. 63 Cf. Stone, ‘Concept’, 302, 308–9. 64 Note also Pss 18.7–8; 21.9; Nah 1.2–6. 55 56

2. 4 Ezra (2 Esdras)

53

ure executes judgment in a manner similar to the lion-like figure of the eagle vision (chaps. 11–12), acting as a judge against the nations.65 Once the Messiah destroys the multitude that gather against him, he calls a peaceable multitude in the vision (13.12), and in the interpretation, he defends the remnant (13.49). The Messiah’s defense (13.49), direction (13.26), and deliverance of the righteous (12.34; cf. 13.26) imply the human-like figure’s role in the salvation of the remnant (cf. 7.27–28; 9.7–8; 12.34; 1 En. 48.7; 62.13–14).66 2.2.4. Similarities with God Not unlike the human-like figures of Daniel 7 and the Similitudes of Enoch, the man from the sea in 4 Ezra 13 is described and acts in a manner analogous to the depictions of God in the OT. Also, the people’s responses to him are similar to responses that God receives.67 First, the human-like figure flies with the clouds of heaven (13.3), suggesting similarity with God since God appears in the presence of clouds in the OT.68 Second, the man from the sea acts in a manner similar to God, burning his enemies with fire from his mouth in Ezra’s vision. God likewise consumes his enemies with fire,69 fire that proceeds from his mouth (Ps 18.8//2 Sam 22.9).70 Third, those who hear the voice of this human-like figure respond by melting. In Psalm 68.2, the wicked will perish before the Lord as wax melts before the fire. Fourth, the man from the sea carves out a mountain with his hands (13.6), which is something God does in Daniel 2.34, 44. Thus, we see that the human-like figure in 4 Ezra 13 is responded to as God is responded to and is described and acts similarly to God.

65 Caragounis (Son of Man, 131) argues that the similarity of action between the lionlike figure and the human-like figure confirms ‘almost conclusively the Son of Man’s identification with the Messiah as well as the Son of Man’s function as Judge’. 66 See Müller, Messias, 126; Stone, 4 Ezra, 405; Knibb, Esdras, 269. 67 See Stone, ‘Concept’, 308; idem, ‘Question’, 213 and Fourth Ezra, 212; Caragounis, Son of Man, 129–30; Longenecker, 2 Esdras, 79; Emerton, ‘Origin’, 237; Angel, Chaos, 153. 68 Ex 13.21; 19.9, 16; 40.34; Num 12.5; 14.14; 1 Kgs 8.10; Ps 97.2; Ezek 1.4; 10.3–4. Clouds are even referred to as God’s chariot: Ps 104.3; Isa 19.1; Jer 4.13; Nah 1.3. See above pp. 29–30. 69 Lev 10.2; 16.35; Ps 21.9; 50.3; 97.3–4; Isa 26.11; 66.15–16. 70 Emerton (‘Origin’, 237) alleges that the fire imagery comes from appearances of God in the OT. However, Horbury (‘Messianic’, 139–40) thinks that Isa 11.4 is the more likely background, while Hayman (‘Man’, 7) sees Ps 97.3; 2 Sam 22.9//Ps 18.9; and Isa 11.4 in the background. See Müller, Messias, 110; J. Schreiner, Das 4. Buch Esra (JSHRZ 5.4; Gütersloher: Gerd Mohn, 1981) 394.

54

Chapter 2: The One Like a Son of Man in Jewish Apocalyptic Interpretation

2.2.5. Preexistence The human-like figure in 4 Ezra appears to be preexistent.71 In language similar to the Similitudes, the human-like figure is ‘he whom the Most High has been keeping for many ages’ (13.26; cf. 12.32),72 but there is no indication that the man from the sea was kept in heaven as was the figure in the Similitudes.73 The revealing of the Messiah also implies preexistence since it suggest that he was previously hidden (13.32, 52; cf. 14.9).74 2.2.6. Recognized Another notable feature of the man from the sea is that he will be recognized, being heard (13.4, 33; cf. 5.6–7) and seen (13.52), but he will not be recognized until after he is revealed.75 Only ‘in the time of his day’ will those on the earth recognize the human-like figure for who he really is (13.52). As in the Similitudes, the revelation and recognition of this figure precedes the judgment of the wicked. 2.2.7. Gathering the Righteous As with Enochic figure, the human-like figure in 4 Ezra 13 is positively connected with the righteous. While the Enochic son of man dwells with and eats with the righteous, the human-like figure gathers them. He calls a peaceable multitude to himself (13.12) and defends, directs, and delivers the righteous (13.26, 49; cf. 12.34). Although Stone argues that the Messiah is not a king and does not reign over the righteous remnant,76 4 Ezra 5.6, as mentioned above, may indicate that the Messiah reigns and functions as a king.77 The use of lion imagery and the reference to the Messiah coming from the line of David are also highly suggestive of kingship and may imply that the Messiah serves as the king of the righteous (12.31–32; cf. Gen 49.9–10; 1 Kgs 10.19–20).

71 Coppens, ‘Fils d’homme daniélique’, 34; Stone, Fourth Ezra, 209; Myers, II Esdras, 315; Metzger, ‘Fourth Book’, 521; Caragounis, Son of Man, 129; A.J. Ferch, ‘The Two Aeons and the Messiah in Pseudo-Philo, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch’, AUSS 15 (1977) 135–52; Longenecker, 2 Esdras, 79. 72 For Box (Ezra-Apocalypse, 284), 13.26 affirms the figure’s preexistence. 73 Müller (Messias, 147–54) maintains that the preexistence of the Messiah in 4 Ezra is pre-mundane existence but not pre-creational existence like the Enochic son of man. Also Müller, ‘Menschensohn’, 180–81, 185. 74 Longenecker, 2 Esdras, 79. 75 In 5.6–7, the one who will reign and will be heard is unknown to the many. 76 Stone, ‘Concept’, 311. 77 See Moo, ‘Messiah’, 532–35.

2. 4 Ezra (2 Esdras)

55

2.3. Conclusion 2.3.1. Vision and Interpretation The man from the sea in the vision and interpretation of 4 Ezra 13 shares a number of common features with the ‘one like a son of man’ from the Aramaic and Greek texts of Daniel 7 and more particularly the Similitudes of Enoch.78 (1) While the Danielic texts are more subtle (although the OG is less so), the Similitudes and 4 Ezra both identify the son of man figure as the Messiah (1 En. 48.10; 4 Ezra 12–13). (2) The human-like figure of 4 Ezra carries out judgment like the Enochic son of man (1 En. 69.27; 4 Ezra 13.10–11, 37–38), (3) and as the one who directs and defends the remnant, he appears to be involved in salvation as in the Similitudes (1 En. 48.7; 62.13–14; 4 Ezra 13.26, 49; cf. 12.34). (4) The human-like figure in 4 Ezra is portrayed with descriptions, responses, and actions similar to God. He flies with the clouds (13.3), functions as a warrior-judge like some OT descriptions of God (13.10–11), and people respond to his voice by melting (13.4). (5) The human-like figures of Daniel, the Similitudes, and 4 Ezra will be recognized by those on earth at the time of their revelation. In the Aramaic, OG, and Similitudes, this recognition includes cultic service and worship (Aramaic and OG Dan 7.14; 1 En. 62.6, 9), but in 4 Ezra the recognition involves the figure being heard and seen after he is revealed (13.4, 33, 52; cf. 1 En. 62.3). (6) 4 Ezra and the Similitudes interpret the ‘one like a son of man’ as having some sort of preexistence (1 En. 62.7; 4 Ezra 13.26), a feature that is only suggestive in the Danielic texts. (7) While the figure in the Similitudes merely eats and dwells with the righteous, the human-like figure of 4 Ezra gathers a peaceable multitude. This gathering, along with his directing and defending of them (cf. 5.6: reigning), highlights the figure’s role as leader/ruler, a feature possibly connected to the eternal kingdom of the son of man figure in Daniel 7. Lastly, (8) if ‘my Son’ is actually a reference to the Messiah being called the Servant of the Lord, then the Similitudes and 4 Ezra also share the similarity of the ‘one like a son of man’ being interpreted as the Isaianic Servant.79 2.3.2. Vision as Originally Independent Even if the vision of the man from the sea can be understood to have been originally independent and if we can be sure that the vision has not been

78 Collins (‘Son of Man’, 464–65) lists five common features found in the Similitudes and 4 Ezra. They are (1) individual, (2) Messiah, (3) preexistence, (4) destruction of the wicked (judgment?), and (5) Servant of the Lord (if ‘son’ in 4 Ezra is to be taken as ‘servant’). The following summary expands upon Collins’ list. 79 Collins, ‘Son of Man’, 465.

56

Chapter 2: The One Like a Son of Man in Jewish Apocalyptic Interpretation

adapted considerably from its original form,80 the human-like figure in the vision contains most of the same characteristics as the Messiah in the interpretation of the vision.81 (1) The human-like figure shares descriptive and functional similarities with God in his flying with the clouds, causing people to melt, carving a mountain, and his causing destruction with fire (13.3–4, 6, 10). (2) He appears to be messianic in the destruction of his enemies with his mouth (cf. Isa 11.4) and in the parallels with Psalms of Solomon 17.82 (3) Since God is often depicted as carrying out judgment with fire (Lev 10.2; Num 16.35; Pss 21.9; 50.3–6; 97.3; Isa 66.15–16; Joel 2.3; cf. esp. Dan 7.10), the human-like figure’s fire-breathing can be understood as judgment against the wicked (13.10–11). (4) This figure gathers a peaceable multitude, which hints at (5) salvation since it follows the judgment of the wicked (13.12–13).83 Although the Enochic son of man and the man from the sea in 4 Ezra both interpret the ‘one like a son of man’ in Daniel 7, there is variation in their interpretations. The diversity is obvious in the enthronement of the Enochic son of man on the throne of glory and 4 Ezra’s fire-breathing figure on Mount Zion,84 but the similarities listed above suggest that there may have been some common features in the interpretation and understanding of the Danielic figure, even though these similarities do not indicate that a ‘Son of Man concept’ existed in Judaism.

3. 2 Baruch (Syriac Baruch) Like 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch85 was written pseudonymously toward the end of the first century or the beginning of the second century A.D.86 It also discusses the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 7087 in the guise of the Babylonian destruction in 586 B.C. 2 Baruch consists of visions and dialogues between the seer and heavenly mediators and is concerned with the 80

Kearns (Vorfragen, 2.52–62) attempts to distinguish earlier material in the vision. Contra Burkett, Debate, 102–14. 82 Müller, Messias, 118–20. See above p. 52. 83 See Theisohn, Richter, 144. 84 Theisohn, Richter, 145; Collins, ‘Son of Man’, 466. 85 Unless otherwise noted, all translations are from A.F.J. Klijn, ‘2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch’, OTP 1.615–52. 86 Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 283. G.B. Sayler (Have the Promises Failed? A Literary Analysis of 2 Baruch [SBL.DS 72; Chico: Scholars, 1984] 110) says that a definite date cannot be fixed, while A.F.J. Klijn (‘Die syrische Baruch-Apokalypse’, in Apokalypsen [JSHRZ 5.2; Gütersloher: Gerd Mohn, 1976] 114) dates the text between A.D. 100 and 130. 87 Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 212; Davila, Provenance, 127. 81

3. 2 Baruch (Syriac Baruch)

57

sin of the people and the importance of following the law. It looks to the future restoration of God’s people and the appearance of the Messiah. 3.1. Influence of Daniel 7 The connection between the Messiah of 2 Baruch and the Danielic son of man is recognizable in the Messiah’s appearance following a series of four kingdoms (39.3–7). At his appearance, the Messiah convicts and destroys the leader of the fourth kingdom (39.7; 40.1–2; cf. 4 Ezra 12.33; 13.37– 38), and the Messiah’s dominion lasts forever (40.3; cf. Dan 7.14). Further Danielic similarities include references to books being opened (24.1; cf. Dan 7.9), the tribulation lasting weeks of seven weeks (28.2; cf. Dan 12.10), and the cloud imagery even though the cloud imagery is used differently (53.1–3; cf. Dan 7.13). The Danielic connection may not be as obvious as in 4 Ezra, but these parallels indicate that 2 Baruch interprets Daniel’s son of man figure.88 3.2. 2 Baruch’s Messiah All three references to the Messiah in 2 Baruch are found in Baruch’s visions or the interpretations of those visions.89 Baruch’s first visionary experience begins in 22.1–2: ‘And afterward it happened that, behold, the heaven was opened, and I saw, and strength was given to me, and a voice was heard from on high which said to me: Baruch, Baruch, why are you disturbed?’ The text does not state what Baruch sees,90 but Baruch is told of a tribulation that will come (25.1–4; 27.1). Following the tribulation, the Messiah will be revealed (29.3), and there will be a time of plenty including manna from on high and feasting (29.4–8; cf. 1 En. 62.14). 2 Bar. 30.1 states: ‘And it will happen after these things when the time of the appearance of the Anointed One has been fulfilled and he returns with glory, that then all who sleep in hope of him will rise.’ This passage indicates that the time of the Messiah is temporary, but his appearance will inaugurate the beginning of the end.91 In addition, the passage suggests that the Messiah

88

Casey (Son of Man, 130) says that ‘the author of 2 Baruch was probably dependent on Daniel 7’. Contra P.-M. Bogaert, ‘Les Apocalypses contemporaines de Baruch, d’Esdras et de Jean’, in J. Lambrecht (ed.), L’Apocalypse johannique et l’Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament (BETL 53; Gembloux: Leuven University, 1980) 47–68. 89 M.F. Whitters, The Epistle of Second Baruch: A Study in Form and Message (JSP.S 42; London: Sheffield Academic, 2003) 43. 90 See Rowland, Open Heaven, 53–54. 91 R. Nir (The Destruction of Jerusalem and the Idea of Redemption in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch [SBL.EJL 20; Atlanta: SBL, 2003] 156) sees two stages or periods of the Messiah’s appearance.

58

Chapter 2: The One Like a Son of Man in Jewish Apocalyptic Interpretation

is preexistent and is a heavenly figure since he returns with glory to heaven following his appearance on earth.92 The second reference to the Messiah in 2 Baruch is found in the interpretation (chs. 39–40) of Baruch’s ‘vision of the night’ (chs. 36–37) in which a forest is flooded by a fountain. Following the flood, only one cedar remains, but it is cast down and brought to the vine. The vine speaks against the cedar, the cedar burns, and the vine grows. Baruch receives an interpretation that does not seem to match the vision.93 For example, although there is only one forest, the interpretation speaks of four kingdoms (cf. Dan 7.2–8; 4 Ezra 11–12). The Messiah, who corresponds to the vine and the fountain, appears after the fall of the fourth kingdom, and he kills and convicts the last ruler of the fourth kingdom, who was depicted by the cedar (40.1–2). The Messiah protects the chosen of God (40.2) and his dominion will last forever ‘until the world of corruption has ended and until the times which have been mentioned before have been fulfilled’ (40.3; cf. 73.1–74.4).94 The Messiah’s convicting of the last ruler reveals his role as judge,95 while his salvific role is suggested by his protection of the remnant.96 The Messiah appears again in the interpretation of Baruch’s vision of a cloud on which ‘something like great lightning appeared’ (53.1). Baruch sees the cloud covering the whole earth, and dark and bright water falls from it in repeating succession, ending with black water falling and causing destruction. Then the lightning seizes the cloud, presses it down to the earth, lights the whole earth, and occupies and takes command of the earth (53.8–10). Then twelve rivers come from the sea and become subject to the lightning. In the interpretation (56–74), the cloud represents the world. The dark and bright waters indicate various periods of sin and restoration in Israel’s history beginning with Adam, and the final black waters represent the final devastation and tribulation (70.1–8). After the last black waters: 92

R.H. Charles, ‘II Baruch, or the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch’, in R.H. Charles (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (Vol. 2; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913) 498; Klijn, ‘2 Baruch’, 1.631 n. 30b; idem, ‘BaruchApokalypse’, 142; Knibb, ‘Messianism’, 80. Müller (Messias, 143–44) considers ‘he returns with glory’ to be a Christian interpolation. 93 W. Harnisch, Verhängnis und Verheißung der Geschichte. Untersuchungen zum Zeit- und Geschichtsverständnis im 4. Buch Esra und in der syr. Baruchapokalypse (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969) 257. 94 2 Baruch also suggests that the Messiah’s dominion is temporary (40.3b). See Charles, ‘II Baruch’, 478–79; Harnisch, Verhängnis, 259; Charlesworth, ‘Concept’, 201; Ferch, ‘Two Aeons’, 148–49; Rowland, Open Heaven, 170. 95 Harnisch, Verhängnis, 258–59. 96 See R. Bauckham (‘The Messianic Interpretation of Isa. 10.34 in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2 Baruch and the Preaching of John the Baptist’, DSD 2 [1995] 202–16) for a comparison of Isaiah 11 and 2 Baruch 36–37.

3. 2 Baruch (Syriac Baruch)

59

‘it will happen…that all will be delivered into the hands of my Servant, the Anointed One’ (70.9; cf. 4 Ezra 13.26; 1 En. 69.27). Then the Messiah calls all the nations, sparing some and killing others (72.2), hinting at his gathering of the elect. The Messiah sits down ‘in eternal peace on the throne of the kingdom’ (73.1), and joy, rest, and the reversal of the curse begin (73.2–74.4; cf. Isa 11.6–8). In this vision, the Messiah is implicitly interpreted as the lightning that Baruch saw on top of the cloud,97 suggesting the similarity between the description of the Messiah and God since lightning announces the presence of God, especially in depictions of God as divine warrior (Exod 19.16; 2 Sam 22.15//Ps 18.14; Ps 77.17–18; 97.4; Ezek 1.13; Hab 3.11; Zech 9.14).98 Further, the Messiah, who is called ‘my Servant’, judges (72.2), spares the righteous (72.2), and is the messianic king (73.1). 3.3. Conclusion The figure in 2 Baruch is an interpretation of the human-like figure of Daniel 7. As in other interpretations of the Danielic son of man, (1) the figure in 2 Baruch is the Messiah or Anointed One (53.1; 70.9; cf. 1 En. 48.10; 52.4; 4 Ezra 13.37, 52). Like the Enochic son of man, he sits on the throne (73.1), and as in the Danielic texts (7.14; cf. 4Q246 2.5, 9), he has an eternal kingdom (40.3). The Messiah’s return in glory (30.1) implies that he is (2) preexistent and (3) heavenly (30.1),99 and this language of ‘return’ makes the figure’s preexistence more clear in 2 Baruch than the hiding and keeping language of the Similitudes (48.2–3, 6; 62.7) and 4 Ezra (13.26). (4) 2 Baruch’s Messiah fulfills the role of judge100 as seen in his actions as warrior-judge (40.1–2; cf. 4 Ezra 13.10–11, 37–38; Isa 11.4)101 and as judge over the nations (72.2–3; cf. 1 En. 69.27–29; Pss. Sol. 17.26, 29). (5) However, the Messiah is also involved in salvation as seen in his protection of the chosen of God (40.2; cf. 4 Ezra 13.49) and his sparing of some at the judgment (72.2). In combination with his eternal reign of peace (73.1), these salvific actions are somewhat more explicit than those in 4 Ezra (13.26, 49) and the Similitudes (48.7; 62.13–14). There is no indication of recognition through worship as in Aramaic and OG Daniel 7.14 and the Similitudes (1 En. 62.9). (6) Rather, the Messiah is recognized for who he is by sight at his revelation (29.3; 30.1–5) and sound at 97 Müller, Messias, 137–38; Bogaert, ‘Apocalypses’, 58. Note Luke 17.24 where the Son of Man is compared to lightning lighting up the sky. Cf. Matt 24.27. 98 Müller, Messias, 139. 99 Charles, ‘II Baruch’, 498; Klijn, ‘2 Baruch’, 1.631 n. 30b; idem, ‘Baruch-Apokalypse’, 142 n. 30.1b; Knibb, ‘Messianism’, 80. 100 Harnisch, Verhängnis, 258–59. 101 See Klijn, ‘2 Baruch’, 1.622 n. 40 a.

60

Chapter 2: The One Like a Son of Man in Jewish Apocalyptic Interpretation

his calling of the nations for judgment (72.2), similar to 4 Ezra (13.4, 33, 52). It is then that the wicked and righteous will know. (7) God calls the Messiah ‘my Servant’ (70.9), an Isaianic description (Isa 49.6) also used of the ‘one like a son of man’ by the Similitudes of Enoch (cf. 4 Ezra 7.28; 13.32, 37). (8) The figure in 2 Baruch is also described as similar to God, although not as strongly as in the other works. And finally, (9) like the human-like figure’s calling of the peaceable multitude and defense of the remnant in 4 Ezra, the figure in 2 Baruch calls the nations and protects the remnant. One of the distinctive features of 2 Baruch’s Messiah is the depiction of this figure as lightning. 2 Baruch also provides more detail about the figure’s kingdom and the blessings of peace and rest that it will bring. Further, 2 Baruch depicts the Danielic son of man as more obviously messianic and preexistent than any of the works we have discussed thus far. Nevertheless, even though there is variation in each interpretation, the interpretation of the ‘one like a son of man’ in 2 Baruch shares numerous similarities with the Jewish apocalyptic interpretations of the Danielic figure in the Similitudes of Enoch and 4 Ezra.

4. Summary of the Jewish Apocalyptic Interpretation The Jewish apocalyptic interpretations of the ‘one like a son of man’ reveal some common functions and characteristics. Although the origin of the figure is not always clear, the son of man figure is often depicted as a heavenly figure, especially in the Similitudes. Preexistence is noticeable in some form in the Similitudes and 4 Ezra but less questionably in 2 Baruch. All three works depict the figure as the Messiah. He executes judgment, although in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch he acts like a divine-warrior. The figure’s role in salvation, which is more obvious in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch than in the Similitudes, is connected to this judgment. The interpretations typically portray the Danielic son of man with similar descriptions or actions as God, or as receiving responses similar to God. The ‘one like a son of man’ gathers the righteous, although there is no explicit gathering in the Similitudes. He is recognized for who he is by all people, often when it is too late for the wicked, and this recognition is described as taking place through sight, hearing, acknowledgement, and/or worship. Although 4Q246 is not a clear interpretation of the Danielic figure, it also shares some of these similarities, as will be discussed in the following excursus. The common features of the Jewish apocalyptic interpretations of the ‘one like a son of man’ do not indicate an established ‘Son of Man concept’, since even the common features are often interpreted differently, but they

Excursus: 4Q246 (4QapocrDan ar)

61

seem to indicate that within this diversity of interpretation that the Danielic figure was understood to have common functions and characteristics. Some of these functions and characteristics cannot be called ‘apocalyptic’ on their own, but as a whole, they describe the ‘one like a son of man’ who is found in Jewish apocalyptic literature, and thus together they depict this apocalyptic figure. Excursus: 4Q246 (4QapocrDan ar) Much debate has surrounded the Qumran fragment 4Q246, which is also referred to as 4Qpseudo-Dand and more commonly as ‘the Son of God text’.102 It measures a mere 14.1 x 8.8 cm and contains two columns of text. Both columns have nine lines each, but the fragment is torn vertically on the right side, leaving the meaning of the first column unclear. The fourth line of the second column begins and ends with a lacuna.103 The fragment has been dated to the end of the first century B.C.,104 but the actual date of composition is unknown.105 The fragment appears to depict the interpretation of a king’s vision or dream (1.3:  ). A figure, who is called ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of the Most High’, appears in the midst of tribulation. In 2.4, the people of God arise or are raised, and the negative aspects of the tribulation are reversed. War ends and peace comes. Then, either the Son of God or the people of 102

4Q246 was originally assigned to J.T Milik for publication, who presented the text at Harvard in 1972, promising publication in Harvard Theological Review which did not immediately follow. Two years later, J.A. Fitzmyer published part of the manuscript (‘The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Study of the New Testament’, NTS 20 [1973–74] 382–407). The entire text was finally published by É. Puech (‘Fragment d’une Apocalypse en Araméen (4Q246=pseudo-Dand ) et le “Royaume de Dieu”’, RB 99 [1992] 98–131). 103 For a complete physical description, see Puech, ‘4QApocryphe de Daniel ar’, in J. VanderKam (ed.), DJD XXII (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996) 165–84. For photographs, see Puech, ‘Fragment’, 108–9; DJD XXII, Plate XI; J.A. Fitzmyer, ‘4Q246: “The Son of God” Document from Qumran’, Bib 74 (1993) 153–74. 104 According to Puech (‘Fragment’, 105), Milik dated the fragment to the last third of the first century B.C. See F.M. Cross, ‘The Structure of the Apocalypse of ‘Son of God’ (4Q246)’, in S.M. Paul, R.A. Kraft, L.H. Schiffman, and W.W. Fields (eds.), Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov (Leiden: Brill, 2003) 151–58. 105 É. Puech (‘Some Remarks on 4Q246 and 4Q521 and Qumran Messianism’, in D.W. Parry and E. Ulrich [eds.], The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues [Leiden: Brill, 1999] 545–65) argues that the content is pre-Qumranic. Cross (‘Structure’, 152) says that it is contemporary with Daniel 7–12. J.J. Collins (The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature [New York: Doubleday, 1995] 154–72) gives a post-Danielic date to the content.

62

Chapter 2: The One Like a Son of Man in Jewish Apocalyptic Interpretation

God have an eternal kingdom, judge in truth, are strengthened by God, are served and worshipped, and have nations given into their/his hand (2.5–9). 1.1. Similarities with Daniel As most scholars have noted, 4Q246 and Daniel share some similarities.106 John Collins notes five such similarities.107 First, there is the apparent interpretation of a king’s dream. Second, the verbal similarities between 4Q246 2.5 and Dan 7.27 (     ) and between 4Q246 2.9 and Dan 7.14 (  ) are ‘especially striking’.108 Third, the conflict is similar to that found in Daniel 2. Fourth, the verb  is used in 4Q246 2.3 and also in Dan 7.23 in reference to the trampling of the earth. Fifth, there is a structural similarity between the visions and interpretations in Daniel 7 and 4Q246.109 Added to these five, a sixth similarity is the reference to God as  (4Q246 2.1; Dan 7.22, 25, 27). While the verbal similarity between Daniel 7 and 4Q246 is evident,110 it is less clear whether the ‘Son of God’ figure is depicted in terms reminiscent of the Danielic son of man. 1.2. The ‘Son of God’ Figure Is the Son of God figure in 4Q246 positive or negative? A number of scholars argue that the figure is negative and represents one of the Seleucid

106

Note the names given to the text: Apocryphon of Daniel and Pseudo-Daniel. See H.-J. Fabry, ‘Die frühjüdische Apokalyptik als Reaktion auf Fremdherrschaft. Zur Funktion von 4Q246’, in E. Gräßer (ed.), Antikes Judentum und Frühes Christentum. Festschrift für Hartmut Stegemann zum 65. Geburtstag (BZNW 97; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999) 84–98; K.A. Kuhn, ‘The “One like a Son of Man” Becomes the “Son of God”’, CBQ 69 (2007) 22–42. 107 J.J. Collins, ‘The Son of God Text from Qumran’, in M. de Boer (ed.), From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology in Honour of Marinus de Jonge (JSNT.S 84; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993) 65–82. 108 F. García Martínez, ‘Two Messianic Figures in the Qumran Texts’, in D.W. Parry and S.D. Ricks (eds.), Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conference on the Texts from the Judean Desert, Jerusalem, 30 April 1995 (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 14–40. 109 See Kuhn, ‘Son of Man’, 28–30. 110 É. Puech, ‘Notes sur le Fragment d’Apocalypse 4Q246 – ‘Le Fils de Dieu’,’ RB 101 (1994) 533–58; A. Steudel, ‘The Eternal Reign of the People of God – Collective Expectations in Qumran Texts’, Revue de Qumran 17 (1996) 507–25; J.D.G. Dunn, ‘“Son of God” as “Son of Man” in the Dead Sea Scrolls? A Response to John Collins on 4Q246’, in S.E. Porter and C.A. Evans (eds.), The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After (JSP.S 26; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997) 198–210; Fabry, ‘Apokalyptik’, 95–97.

Excursus: 4Q246 (4QapocrDan ar)

63

kings,111 particularly Alexander Balas112 or Antiochus IV Epiphanes.113 The Antichrist has also been suggested.114 The evidence for the negative view is based primarily on the structure of the fragment, which is alleged to be two-fold. Everything before the first lacuna is thought to be negative and everything after it is positive (2.4),115 but the structure alone cannot indicate that ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of the Most High’ refer to a negative figure. In fact, the ‘Son of God’ could be the one causing the action in 2.4, raising up the people of God:   /.116 Further, the almost verbatim phrases in Luke 1.32, 35 suggest that this figure may be messianic or at least a positive figure.117 Those who view the ‘Son of God’ as a positive figure maintain that he is in some way messianic.118 Figures designated as God’s son(s) in the OT are usually positive figures: the king of Israel (2 Sam 7.14; Pss 2.7; 89.26– 27), heavenly beings/angels (Job 1.6; 2.1; 38.7; Pss 29.1; 89.6), and the people of God (Exod 4.22; Deut 14.1; Hos 2.1, 11.1; Jer 31.9; cf. Wis 2.18; 5.5; 18.13; Pss. Sol. 17.27). Parallels between the Son of God figure of 4Q246 and the Davidic king can be seen in their eternal kingdoms (4Q246 2.5; 2 Sam 7.13; cf. 4Q246 2.9) and their divine sonship (4Q246 2.1; 2 Sam 7.14; Pss 2.7; 89.26–27). The Davidic descendant was also understood to be the anointed one, the Messiah (see Ps 2.1; Isa 11). In 4Q174 (4QFlor), the one whom God will call his son is the root of Jesse (Isa 11.1), and this branch of David is referred to as the Messiah in 4Q252 111 E.M. Cook, ‘4Q246’, BBR 5 (1995) 43–66. See Horbury, (‘Messianic’, 134) who follows Puech but does not name this evil king. See also Fabry, ‘Apokalyptik’, 97. 112 See Fitzmyer, ‘Contribution’, 392; Puech, ‘Fragment’, 123. 113 Puech, ‘Notes’, 548–49; Steudel, ‘Reign’, 511–14. Puech (‘Fragment’, 130) originally left open the possibility that the figure was messianic. 114 D. Flusser, ‘The Hubris of the Antichrist in a Fragment from Qumran’, Immanuel 10 (1980) 31–37. 115 Puech, ‘Remarks’, 548; Cook, ‘4Q246’, 60; Steudel, ‘Reign’, 514–515. See J.J. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London: Routledge, 1997) 84. 116 Puech, ‘Fragment’, 107, 117; Collins, ‘Son of God’, 66; García Martínez, ‘Messianic’, 29. 117 Collins, Apocalypticism, 84; Fitzmyer, ‘Contribution’, 174; Cross, ‘Structure’, 154. Collins (Apocalypticism, 84) also notes that there is no judgment of an evil Son of God figure. 118 Collins, ‘Son of God’, passim; F.M. Cross, ‘Notes on the Doctrine of the Two Messiahs at Qumran and the Extracanonical Daniel Apocalypse (4Q246)’, in D.W. Parry and S.D. Ricks (eds.), Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conference on the Texts from the Judean Desert, Jerusalem, 30 April 1995 (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 1–13; idem, ‘Structure’, 151–58; Knibb, ‘Messianism’, 174–77; Dunn, ‘Son of God’, 209; Kuhn, ‘Son of Man’, 26–32. Also Kim, Son of Man, 20–22. Fitzmyer (‘4Q246’, 173–74; ‘Contribution’, 393) argues that this figure is a Davidic king but not messianic. Cf. García Martínez, ‘Messianic’, 28.

64

Chapter 2: The One Like a Son of Man in Jewish Apocalyptic Interpretation

(4QpGen) 5.3–4 (cf. Pss. Sol. 17).119 Although Fitzmyer argues that there is nothing in Jewish tradition to show that ‘Son of God’ had a messianic nuance,120 there seems to be a fairly clear indication that the Davidic king was understood to be the Messiah and the Son of God. With regard to 4Q246, the terms ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of the Most High’ indicate that this figure is positive, most likely a Davidic king, and possibly the Messiah. 1.3 Conclusion The clear connections to Daniel 7 increases the likelihood that the ‘Son of God’ figure of 4Q246 may be a messianic interpretation of the ‘one like a son of man’,121 but no decisive position can be made on the ‘Son of God’ figure considering the fragmentary nature of 4Q246. It is highly likely that some material preceded the existing fragment, and the construct form at the end of the fragment implies further content.122 Because of this uncertainty and the incomplete nature of column 1, 4Q246 will not be used as an interpretation of the Danielic son of man in this study. At the same time, it is worthwhile to note the links between the Son of God figure, the Danielic son of man, and the apocalyptic interpretations of the Danielic son of man. As in the Aramaic and OG of Daniel and Similitudes, (1) the ‘Son of God’ figure is recognized by the nations through service and worship (1.8:  and []; 2.7: 123). (2) The raising up of the people of God could be understood as the Son of God figure’s gathering of the righteous (2.4–5); cf. 4 Ezra 13.12–13). (3) While the Similitudes, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch clearly interpret the Danielic figure as the Messiah (1 En. 48.10; 4 Ezra 12–13; 2 Bar. 70.9), 4Q246 is more subtle like Aramaic and  Daniel. (4) On the other hand, 4Q246 is closer to the apocalyptic interpretations regarding the figure’s role in judgment (2.5: []; 1 En. 69.27; 4 Ezra 13.37–38; 2 Bar 40.1–2; 72.2–3). The bringing of peace by the Son of God figure is suggestive of salvation (2.6; cf. 2.4) and hints at possible similarities with 4 Ezra’s human-like figure calling a peaceable multitude (13.12–13) and the peace that comes after 2 Baruch’s Messiah sits on the throne of the kingdom (73.1). If it could be substantiated that the ‘Son of God’ figure of 4Q246 is actually an interpretation of the ‘one like a son of man’, 4Q246 reveals further evidence of similar characteristics in the interpretation of the Danielic figure. 119

Collins, Scepter, 163–65. Fitzmyer, ‘4Q246’, 173. See Steudel, ‘Reign’, 518. 121 Collins, Scepter, 167. 122 Collins, ‘Son of God’, 66, 74. Kuhn (‘Son of Man’, 26–32) fails to take this possibility into account. 123 Cf. Aramaic Dan 3.5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 28. 120

Chapter 3

The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ in Early Christian Interpretation Having examined the ‘one like a son of man’ in Aramaic and Greek Daniel and the Jewish apocalyptic interpretations of that figure, we will now turn our attention to the interpretations of the Danielic figure in early Christian literature. The same criteria for determining references to the Danielic figure will be used: date between 150 B.C. and A.D. 100, verbal connection to Daniel 7, and depiction of a figure in terms reminiscent of Daniel 7. In the course of this chapter, we will survey the characteristics and functions of the son of man figures in Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts, and Revelation. Scholarly literature on the Synoptic Son of Man1 sayings has often focused on their authenticity2 and/or the possible underlying Aramaic phrase.3 This study will concentrate on the final form of the Greek text of the Synoptic Gospels, and that of Acts and Revelation. Thus, no attempt will be made to answer the questions of the authenticity or the Aramaic background of the phrase        . The three traditional groupings of the Synoptic Son of Man sayings will not be used, since, as 1 Since         is more or less used as a title in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts, the expression ‘Son of Man’ will be capitalized when referring to the figure in these texts. 2 Higgins, Jesus, 13–118; Tödt, Son of Man, passim; Borsch, Son of Man, 314–401; Casey, Son of Man, 157–223; Lindars, Jesus, 17–144; Müller, Ausdruck, 89–142, 168– 205. 3 G. Vermes, ‘The Use of  / in Jewish Aramaic’, Appendix E in M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Claredon, 19673 ) 310–28; J.A. Fitzmyer, ‘The New Testament Title “Son of Man” Philologically Considered’, in A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (SBL.MS 25; Missoula: Scholars, 1979) 143–60; M. Casey, ‘General, Generic and Indefinite: The Use of the Term “Son of Man” in Aramaic Sources and in the Teaching of Jesus’, JSNT 29 (1987) 21–56; idem, ‘Method in Our Madness, and Madness in Their Methods. Some Approaches to the Son of Man Problem in Recent Scholarship’, JSNT 42 (1991) 17–43; idem, ‘The Use of the Term ( )( ) in the Aramaic Translations of the Hebrew Bible’, JSNT 54 (1994) 87–118; idem, ‘Idiom and Translation: Some Aspects of the Son of Man Problem’, NTS 41 (1995) 164–82. More recently, P. Owen and D. Shepherd, ‘Speaking up for Qumran, Dalman and the Son of Man: Was Bar Enasha a Common Term for “Man” in the Time of Jesus?’ JSNT 81 (2001) 81–122; M. Casey, ‘Aramaic Idiom and the Son of Man Problem: A Response to Owen and Shepherd’, JSNT 25 (2002) 3–32.

66

Chapter 3: The One Like a Son of Man in Early Christian Interpretation

Morna Hooker points out, the categories themselves ‘impose a predetermined pattern upon the material’.4

1. The Gospel According to Mark The Gospel of Mark contains fourteen uses of the phrase        , which appear to be ordered around the Son of Man’s authority. Hooker contends that this order follows a pattern: the revelation of the Son of Man’s authority, the rejection of his authority, and the vindication of that authority.5 The first two sayings refer to the authority of the Son of Man on earth (2.10, 28), and they are followed by a saying that introduces the themes of Jesus’ suffering, betrayal, death, and resurrection that will be repeated throughout the Gospel (8.31; cf. 9.9, 12, 31; 10.33; 14.21 [twice], 41). Jesus mentions the future coming of the Son of Man in the glory of his Father and with the holy angels (8.38; cf. 13.26; 14.62) and the Son of Man’s present activity (10.45). 1.1. Influence of Daniel 7 The Danielic son of man is generally understood to be in the background of some Markan Son of Man sayings:6 13.26 and 14.62.7 Danielic influence can be discerned in the expression       , his coming, and his coming with the clouds. Further parallels can be seen in the references to the four winds of heaven, the angels, and his coming with great power and glory (13.26–27; cf. Dan 7.2, 10, 14). As with the Jewish apocalyptic works examined above, every instance of ‘Son of Man’ in Mark does not indicate direct Danielic influence, but as a literary whole, the Gospel of Mark’s clear connection to Daniel in two places suggests 4

Hooker, Son of Man, 80. Hooker, Son of Man, 180, 190–91; S. Gathercole, ‘The Son of Man in Mark’s Gospel’, ExpTim 115 (2004) 366–72. 6 For other possible backgrounds, see G.D. Kirchhevel, ‘The “Son of Man” Passages in Mark’, BBR 9 (1999) 181–87; M. Goulder, ‘Psalm 8 and the Son of Man’, NTS 48 (2002) 18–29; J. Marcus, ‘Son of Man as Son of Adam’, RB 110 (2003) 38–61, 370–86. H.L. Chronis (‘To Reveal and to Conceal: A Literary-Critical Perspective on “the Son of Man” in Mark’, NTS 51 [2005] 459–81) has recently argued for no specific OT background. 7 Müller (Ausdruck, 91) states: ‘Im Markusevangelium aber wird Dan. 7,13 an zwei Stellen direkt zitiert, nämlich in 13,26 und 14,62’. Also Colpe, ‘ ’, 450; Tödt, Son of Man, 33–34; Casey, Son of Man, 165, 178; Lindars, Jesus, 107–8; J. Schröter, ‘The Son of Man as the Representative of God’s Kingdom: On the Interpretation of Jesus in Mark and Q’, in M. Labahn and A. Schmidt (eds.), Jesus, Mark and Q: The Teaching of Jesus and Its Earliest Records (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001) 34–68. 5

1. The Gospel According to Mark

67

that the author may have seen a broader Danielic influence for the use of the title throughout the Gospel.8 1.2. The Son of Man’s Authority In Mark 2.10, Jesus heals the paralytic man to prove that          !  ". This first Son of Man saying in Mark reveals the Son of Man’s similarity with God since the scribes ask: ‘Who is able to forgive sins except one, God?’ In addition, the reference to the Son of Man’s authority to forgive sins   " may imply that he is a heavenly figure.9 This authority to forgive sins may parallel the Danielic son of man’s reception of authority from the Ancient of Days, but as others argue, the Danielic son of man is not given the specific authority to forgive sins.10 Although the Danielic son of man’s authority over all things may implicitly include the authority to forgive sins,11 Casey responds that the humanlike figure of Daniel is a symbol for the holy ones of the Most High who conquers other kingdoms and that conquering kingdoms does not involve forgiveness.12 However, as argued above, the Danielic son of man is not a symbol of the holy ones, but rather he serves as the representative ruler of the holy ones. Consequently, the Danielic figure’s role as kingly representative suggests his ability to judge, which also includes the authority to grant forgiveness. For example, the Enochic son of man figure serves as judge, and the kings and rulers of the earth petition him for mercy because of their iniquity (62.9, 11).13 Their request for mercy implies that the kings and rulers think that the Enochic son of man has the authority to grant 8 Casey (Son of Man, 213–21), who argues against any Danielic influence as being authentic, allows for Danielic influence, both direct and indirect, at the exegetical level of the Synoptic Gospels’ composition. See I.H. Marshall, ‘The Son of Man and the Incarnation’, ExAud 7 (1991) 29–43; idem, ‘The Synoptic “Son of Man” Sayings in the Light of Linguistic Study’, in T.E. Schmidt and M. Silva (eds.), To Tell the Mystery: Essays on New Testament Eschatology in Honor of Robert H. Gundry (JSNT.S 100; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994) 72–94. 9 Borsch, Son of Man, 321 n. 2; Tödt, Son of Man, 126. Contra Hare, Son of Man, 140. 10 Casey, Son of Man, 160. J. Gnilka (Das Evangelium nach Markus [EKKNT 2; 2 vols.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1978–79] 1.101) states: ‘Vom transzendenten Menschensohn der Apokalyptik kann die Vollmacht nicht auf Jesus übertragen worden sein.’ 11 Hooker, Son of Man, 93; Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, 62–63; Caragounis, Son of Man, 189; Gathercole, ‘Son of Man’, 369. 12 Casey, ‘Method’, 29 n. 1. 13 Following their judgment, the kings and rulers desire to confess their sins before the Lord of Spirits (63.1, 5, 8–9).

68

Chapter 3: The One Like a Son of Man in Early Christian Interpretation

them forgiveness from their sins. It would seem that the authority to forgive should not be separated from the authority to judge. Thus, the Markan Son of Man’s authority to forgive sins is at least consistent with the Jewish apocalyptic interpretations of the ‘one like a son of man’, and this focus on authority may reflect an interpretation of OG Dan 7.14, where the son of man figure is said to receive kingly authority. 1.3. Judgment and the Son of Man’s Coming The Son of Man in Mark is not explicitly said to be involved in judgment, but his coming in the glory of his Father, with the holy angels (8.38), with the clouds, and with great power and glory (13.26; 14.62), followed by his being seated at the right hand of Power (14.62), appears to indicate some sort of role in judgment.14 The combination of Dan 7.13 with Ps 110.1 in Mark 14.62 may be the strongest indication of the Son of Man’s role in judgment. Psalm 110, which Jesus previously applied to himself (Mark 12.35–37), speaks of the Lord’s judgment of the nations. Mark 13 depicts further judicial events (13.5–37), and at the climax of these eschatological events of judgment, the Son of Man arrives with the clouds with great power and glory and sends out his angels to gather his elect.15 The language of being ashamed of the Son of Man (8.38) may also present a hint of judgment, especially when the parallels with denial are considered (8.34; cf. Luke 12.8–10).16 Similarly, although the ‘one like a son of man’ in Daniel 7 is not explicitly connected with judgment, the Enochic son of man figure serves as judge over the kings and rulers of the earth whose primary fault is that they have denied the Enochic son of man and the Lord of Spirits (48.10; cf. 45.1, 2; 46.7; 61.6; 67.8, 10).17 Judgment thus seems to be a function of the Markan Son of Man. 1.4. Characteristics of the Markan Son of Man The Son of Man in Mark shares a number of characteristics with the Jewish apocalyptic interpretations of the Danielic son of man. (1) The Markan Son of Man is described and acts similarly to God in his ability to forgive sins (2.7), his coming with the clouds (13.26; 14.62), and possibly his lordship over the Sabbath18 (2.28). (2) Jesus the Son of Man is the Messiah 14 Note the combination of throne/kingship and judgment in 1 Kgs 7.7; 10.9; Ps 9.4, 7; 89.14; 97.2; 122.5; Prov 20.8; Isa 16.5; Jer 22.2; Matt 19.28; Luke 22.30; Rev 20.11. Cf. Hooker, ‘Insoluble’, 162. 15 See S. Légasse, L’Évangile de Marc (LD 5; 2 vols.; Paris: Cerf, 1997) 2.816–17. 16 Tödt, Son of Man, 41; Hooker, Son of Man, 117–18. 17 See Tödt, Son of Man, 41–46; Hooker, Son of Man, 120–21. 18 Gnilka, Evangelium, 1.124.

1. The Gospel According to Mark

69

(8.27–38; 14.61–62; cf. 1 En. 48.10). (3) While the Markan Son of Man is not explicitly described as a judge, his appearance at the climax of judgment with great power and glory and the gathering of the elect suggests his role as judge (13.26–27). His being seated at the right hand of Power (14.62) may also suggest this judgment role, indicating a similarity with the Enochic son of man on his throne of glory (1 En. 62.2). (4) The Markan Son of Man’s giving of his life ‘as a ransom for many’ (10.45) hints at his role in salvation (cf. 1 En. 48.7; 62.13–14; 4 Ezra 13.26, 49; 2 Bar. 40.2; 72.2). (5) Like the human-like figure of 4 Ezra, he gathers the righteous, although in Mark they are called his elect (13.27; 4 Ezra 13.12; cf. 2 Bar. 72.2; 4Q246 2.4?). (6) The Son of Man will be recognized for who he is through being seen, as are the figures in the Similitudes, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch (14.62; 1 En. 62.3; 4 Ezra 13.52; 2 Bar. 29.3; 30.1–5). (7) That the Markan Son of Man’s is a heavenly figure is suggested by his earthly authority (2.10) and (8) possibly some sort of preexistence by his apparent coming from heaven to earth (10.45; cf. 1 En. 48.6; 62.7; 2 Bar. 30.1).19 The Markan Son of Man also presents other characteristics of the ‘one like a son of man’ different from the Jewish apocalyptic interpretations. First, the Gospel of Mark speaks of two appearances: he is already acting in the world (10.45),20 but he will come again in glory (8.38; 13.26; 14.62).21 Second, although the concept of denial of the Son of Man may be found in the Similitudes of Enoch, the rejection of the Markan Son of Man is significantly different because he experiences suffering, betrayal, death, and resurrection.22 Although the death of Mark’s Son of Man may be analogous to the death of the Messiah in 4 Ezra 7.28–29, the death and resurrection of the Son of Man is unique to the Gospels. Finally and almost too obvious to mention, Mark, in common with the rest of the early Christian literature, designates Jesus as the Son of Man, but at the same time, the Gospels and the Similitudes of Enoch each name a human figure as the Danielic son of man (Jesus and Enoch). As with the previous interpretations, the Gospel of Mark portrays the Danielic son of man with similar features to those we have already seen in the Jewish apocalyptic literature, but in addition to these, Mark adds his own nuances.

19

See S.J. Gathercole, The Preexistent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006) 259, 270–71. 20 See C. Tuckett, ‘The Present Son of Man’, JSNT 14 (1982) 58–81. 21 See U.B. Müller, ‘Parusie und Menschensohn’, ZNW 92 (2001) 1–19; E. Adams, ‘The Coming of the Son of Man in Mark’s Gospel’, TynB 56 (2005) 39–61. 22 Note the parallel action of handing over in Mark (9.31:     ; cf. 10.33:   ) and Dan 7.25 (OG:      ; :    ; cf. Aramaic Daniel).

70

Chapter 3: The One Like a Son of Man in Early Christian Interpretation

2. The Gospel According to Matthew 2.1. Influence of Daniel 7 In contrast to the Markan emphasis on the Son of Man’s authority, a coherent pattern of the Matthean Son of Man sayings has proven ‘elusive’.23 What is clear is that some of the Matthean sayings reflect direct Danielic influence (Matt 24.30; 26.64)24 and others indirect Danielic influence (10.23; 13.41; 16.28; 24.44; 25.31).25 The influence of Daniel is suggested by the phrase ‘kingdom of the Son of Man’ (16.2826; cf. 19.28; 25.34), the Son of Man’s coming (10.23; 16.27, 28; 24.27, 30, 37, 39, 44, 25.31; 26.64) and that his coming is often described in conjunction with the following: angels (16.27; 24.30–31; 25.31) and/or the clouds of heaven (24.30; 26.64). Matt 24.30–31 reflects further Danielic imagery: the tribes of the earth, power and great glory, his angels, and the four winds. 2.2. The Son of Man in Matthew The expression         is used thirty times in the Gospel of Matthew, the most uses in any one Gospel (cf. Mark, 14; Luke, 25; John, 13), and yet the first seven chapters of Matthew are devoid of the phrase. As with Mark and Luke, the majority of the Matthean uses of ‘Son of Man’ come after Jesus asks his disciples: ‘Who do people say that the Son of Man is?’ Peter answers that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Then Jesus tells his disciples that he must suffer many things, be killed, and be raised after three days (16.13–21). As in Mark 2.10, the Matthean Son of Man has authority to forgive sins  ", which is reminiscent of the authority given to the ‘one like a son of man’ (Matt 9.6; cf. OG Dan 7.14). However, Matthew concludes the 23 Gathercole, Preexistent, 259. See J.D. Kingsbury, ‘The Title “Son of Man” in Matthew’s Gospel’, CBQ 37 (1975) 193–202; M. Pamment, ‘The Son of Man in the First Gospel’, NTS 29 (1983) 116–29; Hare, Son of Man, 113–82; U. Luz, ‘The Son of Man in Matthew: Heavenly Judge or Human Christ’, JSNT 48 (1992) 3–21. 24 Casey, Son of Man, 165, 178; Lindars, Jesus, 107–8, 128–29; Hare, Son of Man, 133, 173. Contra Borsch (Son of Man, 362), followed by Pamment (‘First’, 125), who says that there are no ‘explicit quotations’ or ‘direct echoes’ from Daniel (emphasis original). 25 Casey, Son of Man, 185–92. For Casey, indirect influence means that Dan 7.13 has influenced the text at the exegetical level, but this does not indicate Danielic influence in Jesus’ historical sayings. Also Müller, Ausdruck, 108. 26 Higgins (Jesus, 106) states that the concept of the Son of Man’s kingdom comes from Daniel 7 and the Similitudes of Enoch. See J. Roloff, ‘Das Reich des Menschensohnes: ein Beitrag zur Eschatologie des Matthäus’, in M. Evang, H. Merklein, and M. Wolter (eds.), Eschatologie und Schöpfung. Festschrift für Erich Gräßer zum siebzigsten Geburtstag (BZNW 89; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997) 275–92.

2. The Gospel According to Matthew

71

pericope with a statement that initially appears to eliminate any heavenly connotation. After the paralyzed man is healed, the crowd glorifies God              (9.8). Douglas Hare maintains that this giving of authority to men indicates that         does not refer to a heavenly being.27 Nonetheless, the fact that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth is still significant.28 As in Mark 2.10, the implication seems to be that the Son of Man is a heavenly figure who also has authority on earth, even though the crowd may misunderstand these implications. Jesus’ authority is different from that of human beings (7.28–29; cf. 11.27; 21.23–27),29 and the heavenly implications of his authority are revealed further in Matt 28.18 where Jesus says that all authority on heaven and earth has been given to him by the Father.30 The Son of Man in Matthew resembles the Jewish apocalyptic interpretations of the Danielic son of man most clearly in 25.31–46.31 Like the Enochic son of man, the Matthean Son of Man is portrayed as a judge who sits on his throne of glory (19.28; 25.31), suggesting to some scholars that Matthew’s portrayal of the Son of Man is based on the Enochic figure.32 The phrase      forms a significant link between the two texts (see 1 En. 62.2, 3, 5; 69.27), but the expression is not as unique as some scholars argue.33 Hare is correct that the dependency of Matthew on the Similitudes is impossible to prove, but he fails to note that there are strong similarities between the texts that at least indicate comparable inter-

27

Hare, Son of Man, 140. Borsch, Son of Man, 321 n. 2. 29 See Müller, Ausdruck, 175–76. 30 Luz, ‘Son of Man’, 17. The mention of     and the giving of authority indicate further Danielic influence (OG Dan 7.14; Matt 25.32; Müller, Ausdruck, 119– 22). Contra Casey, Son of Man, 193. 31 Tödt, Son of Man, 77; Higgins, Jesus, 105; D. Marguerat, Le Jugement dans l’évangile de Matthieu (MdB 6; Genève: Labor et Fides, 19942 ) 488–89. See D.R. Catchpole (‘The Poor on Earth and the Son of Man in Heaven. A Re-appraisal of Matthew xxv. 31–46’, BJRL 61 [1979] 355–97) who lists twelve similarities between Matthew 25 and the Similitudes of Enoch. 32 Theisohn, Richter, 153–54; Marguerat, Jugement, 489; Davila, Provenance, 133; Müller, ‘Parusie’, 18. Caragounis (Son of Man, 171) states that Matt 19.28 and 25.31 ‘are quite likely direct quotations from the Parables’. 33 See R. Bauckham, ‘The Throne of God and Worship of Jesus’, in C.C. Newman, J.R. Davila, G.S. Lewis (eds.), The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus (Leiden: Brill, 1999) 43–69; Luz, ‘Son of Man’, 8. Contra Caragounis, Son of Man, 171. Note ‘your throne of glory’ in Jer 14.21 and Wis 9.10. 28

72

Chapter 3: The One Like a Son of Man in Early Christian Interpretation

pretations of the Danielic son of man.34 Evidence of the Matthean Son of Man’s apocalyptic nature in 25.31–46 – besides the Son of Man sitting on the throne of glory, coming in glory, his gathering of the elect, and his role as judge – can also be seen in the rewards given to the wicked and the righteous. The wicked receive eternal punishment and the righteous receive eternal life (25.46). There is no explicit mention of double resurrection in Matt 25.31–46, but the rewards and the gathering of all the nations imply a double resurrection of the righteous and wicked at the appearance of the Son of Man (25.32, 46; cf. Dan 12.2).35 2.3. Characteristics of the Matthean Son of Man The Matthean Son of Man shares numerous characteristics with the apocalyptic interpretations of the ‘one like a son of man’ from Daniel 7. (1) The Son of Man is similar to God both in description and action (13.37; 16.28; 24.27; 25.31; cf. 10.23). In the parables, the Son of Man replaces God as the sower and as the king, and the kingdom of God is the kingdom of the Son of Man. His coming with lightning is reminiscent of the appearances of God in the OT36 and is similar to the description of 2 Baruch’s Messiah as lightning. The Son of Man in Matthew (2) is the Messiah (16.13–20; 26.64), (3) acts as eschatological judge (13.41; 19.28; 25.31–46; cf. 24.30– 31; 1 En. 62.2; 69.27), and (4) plays a role in salvation as implied by his forgiveness of sins (9.6) and his giving of his life as a ransom for many (20.28). (5) He gathers the elect (24.30–31; 25.34; cf. 4 Ezra 13.12; 2 Bar. 72.2; 4Q246 2.4?). (6) He is recognized for who he is (16.27–28; 24.30; 26.64; cf. 1 En. 62.3; 4 Ezra 13.52; 2 Bar. 29.3; 30.1–5; Mark 13.26; 14.62), (7) may be a heavenly figure (9.6; cf. 28.18), and (8) possibly appears in some way preexistent (20.28; cf. 1 En. 48.6; 62.7; 2 Bar. 30.1). Other apocalyptic features can be seen in (9) his being seated on a throne of glory (19.28; 25.31), (10) his reception of authority (9.6; 12.8; cf. 28.18–20), and (11) his presence at/responsibility for a double resurrection (25.46). His sitting on a throne may be a reflection of the thrones in Dan 7.9 (cf. 1 En. 62.2), and his authority may indicate an interpretation of OG Dan 7.14. At the same time, the Son of Man in Matthew also has a number of features that are an expansion of the apocalyptic interpretation. Similarly to 34 Hare, Son of Man, 177–78. See A.I. Wilson (When Will These Things Happen? A Study of Jesus as Judge in Matthew 21–25 [PBTM; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004] 242–43) who mentions similarities and differences. 35 E. Schweizer (Das Evangelium nach Matthäus [NTD 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973] 313) notes the echo of Dan 12.2. 36 Exod 19.16; 2 Sam 22.15//Ps 18.14; Ps 77.17–18; 97.4; Ezek 1.13; Hab 3.11; Zech 9.14. See Lindars, Son of Man, 130–31.

3. The Gospel According to Luke

73

Mark, Matthew speaks of the Son of Man as someone presently acting on earth (8.20; 11.19; 16.13) and who will come again in the future on the clouds of heaven like the Danielic son of man (24.30; 26.64). Also, the Matthean Son of Man will suffer, die, and be raised from the dead. In contrast to Mark, Matthew places a greater emphasis on the judgment role of the Son of Man. The kingdom of the Son of Man is a distinctive feature of Matthew (13.41; 16.27–28; 25.34) and probably reflects the Danielic portrayal of the ‘one like a son of man’ receiving an eternal kingdom (Dan 7.14; cf. 2 Bar. 40.3; 73.1; 4Q246 2.5, 9?). Although Matthew has his own peculiarities, he interprets the Danielic son of man in line with the Jewish apocalyptic interpretations.

3. The Gospel According to Luke Luke has seven distinctive Son of Man sayings (17.22, 30; 18.8; 19.10; 21.36; 22.48; 24.7).37 The rest of the sayings are parallel to those found in Mark and/or Matthew. Because the majority of the Lukan Son of Man sayings are similar to or the same as those found in Matthew and Mark, the Gospel of Luke is thought to lack a distinctive understanding of the Son of Man. This view derives mainly from Hans Conzelmann, who asserts that Luke took over the title ‘Son of Man’ from his sources but did not know its original meaning.38 Conzelmann is followed by Carsten Colpe, who claims that there is no ‘specifically Lucan Son of Man Christology’.39 This negativity, however, has not stopped some scholars from summarizing the Lukan Son of Man as an angelic figure,40 an indication of Jesus’ humanity,41 37 G. Schneider (‘„Der Menschensohn“ in der lukanischen Christologie’, in R. Pesch and R. Schnackenburg [eds.], Jesus und der Menschensohn: Für Anton Vögtle [Freiburg: Herder, 1975] 267–82) contends that even these sayings are similar to texts in Mark and Matthew that lack the phrase     . 38 H. Conzelmann, The Theology of Saint Luke (G. Buswell, trans.; London: Faber & Faber, 1960) 170–71. 39 Colpe, ‘  ’, 459. See also J.A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (2 vols.; AB 28, 28A; New York: Doubleday, 1981, 1985) 1.211. 40 D.R. Catchpole (‘The Angelic Son of Man in Luke 12.8’, NovT 24.3 [1982] 255– 65) and B. Chilton (‘[The] Son of [The] Man, and Jesus’, in B. Chilton and C. A. Evans [eds.], Authenticating the Words of Jesus [Leiden: Brill, 1999] 259–88) argue, based on 12.8, that the Son of Man is the angelic representative of Jesus. C.H.T. Fletcher-Louis (Luke-Acts: Angels, Christology and Soteriology [WUNT 2.94; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997] esp. 225–50) contends that the Son of Man is described in angelomorphic language. 41 J.D. Kingsbury, ‘Observations on ‘the Son of Man’ in the Gospel according to Luke’, Currents in Theology and Mission 17 (1990) 283–90. See Hare, Son of Man, 77– 78.

74

Chapter 3: The One Like a Son of Man in Early Christian Interpretation

an eschatological figure,42 or ‘primarily an apocalyptic figure, the authoritative judge…whose coming…opens the final phase of salvation history….’43 3.1. Influence of Daniel 7 As with Mark and Matthew, Luke displays evidence of Danielic influence. Christopher Tuckett and Barnabas Lindars see Daniel 7.13–14 in the background of        ,44 and Maurice Casey allows for Danielic influence in 9.26; 12.40; 18.8; 21.27; 22.69.45 Noticeably in Luke, the two Danielic features of glory and clouds have a decidedly Lukan sense. In 9.26, the Son of Man comes#   #   $    $ %  " ""& ,46 while the Matthean version states that he comes  #  #         % ""&    (Matt 16.27; cf. Mark 8.38). Second, Luke portrays the Son of Man arriving in a single cloud (21.27: !&#), which is most likely linked to the single cloud at Jesus’ ascension (Acts 1.9).47 3.2. The Son of Man in Luke As in Mark, the Lukan Son of Man is introduced as the one with authority to forgive sins (5.24). There are also references to the Son of Man’s activity in the present (7.34; 9.58), and unlike Mark and Matthew, his earthly work has a strong soteriological emphasis (19.10).48 Similarly to Mark and Matthew, ‘Son of Man’ appears in sayings concerning Jesus’ suffering, death, and resurrection (9.22, 44; 18.31; 22.22; 24.7 cf. 22.48), but Luke closely connects the Son of Man’s suffering with his future coming and exaltation (17.22–30; 22.69; cf. 18.31).49 Gerhard Schneider states: ‘Das christologische Interesse des Lukas richtet sich auf den Weg des Menschensohnes und gibt zugleich dem Leiden Jesu eschatologische Qualität’.50 This ‘way’ is what Schneider calls the ‘Leidensweg’.51 For Luke, 42

C.M. Tuckett, ‘The Lukan Son of Man’, in C.M. Tuckett (ed.), Luke’s Literary Achievement: Collected Essays (JSNT.S 116; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995) 198– 217. 43 F. Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1–9:50 (Hermeneia; Vol. 1; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002) 183. 44 Lindars, Jesus, 139; Tuckett, ‘Lukan’, 213. Catchpole (‘Angelic, 261–62) sees Danielic influence in 12.8. 45 Casey, Son of Man, 161–97. 46 Tuckett, ‘Lukan’, 214. 47 See Casey, Son of Man, 177; Müller, Ausdruck, 124–25; Tuckett, ‘Lukan’, 212. 48 Schneider, ‘Menschensohn’, 282. 49 See Tödt, Son of Man, 107. 50 Schneider, ‘Menschensohn’, 276 (emphasis original).

3. The Gospel According to Luke

75

the Son of Man’s future coming (9.26; 12.40; 17.24, 30; 21.27 cf. 11.30) is dependent upon his suffering and rejection (17.25). Likewise, the exaltation of the Son of Man directly follows his suffering,52 as seen in the immediacy of his enthronement at the right hand of power:    % % (22.69; cf. ’  in Matt 26.64). Some scholars have suggested that the absence of the words      %!& %    in Luke’s version of the Sanhedrin Son of Man saying emphasizes the Son of Man’s exaltation to the right hand of God over against his future coming (Luke 22.69; cf. Mark 14.62; Matt 26.64),53 but this view appears implausible in the light of the number of references to the Son of Man’s future coming (9.26; 12.40; 18.8; 21.27; cf. 17.24, 26, 30). Rather, the lack of allusion to the Son of Man’s coming with the clouds in 22.69 primarily indicates Luke’s emphasis on the immediacy of the Son of Man’s exaltation following his suffering, death, and resurrection. 3.3. Characteristics of the Lukan Son of Man As with the son of man figures in the OG of Dan 7.13–14, the Similitudes, 4 Ezra, and 2 Baruch, (1) the Son of Man in Luke is described similarly to God. The day of the Lord is called the day of the Son of Man (17.24, 30; cf. 1 En 45.3; 61.5; 4 Ezra 13.52).54 Also, the Son of Man’s appearance on that day will be like lightning (17.24; cf. Matt 24.27), and as noted above, lightning is commonly associated with the appearance of God (Exod 19.16; 2 Sam 22.15//Ps 18.14; Ps 77.17–18; 97.4; Ezek 1.13; Hab 3.11; Zech 9.14). Strikingly, the Messiah in 2 Baruch is also depicted as lightning (53.8–9; 70.9–10). (2) The one who is the Son of Man is the Messiah (9.20–22; 22.67–69), which is also the case with every interpretation of Danielic son of man discussed thus far (e.g., 1 En. 48.10). (3) As with the Jewish apocalyptic interpretations of the figure in Daniel 7, the Lukan Son of Man acts as a judge.55 In the context of the Son of Man’s coming in 12.40, Jesus speaks of his coming to cast fire on the earth (12.40–59; cf. 4 Ezra 13.10–11). Judicial action is suggested by the Son of Man being seated at the right hand of God (22.69). In addition, the parable of the persistent widow and the unjust judge concludes with a ref-

51

Schneider, ‘Menschensohn’, 281–82. Tödt, Son of Man, 110; Schneider, ‘Menschensohn’, 271. 53 Higgins, Jesus, 96; Schneider, ‘Menschensohn’, 282; Casey, Son of Man, 184; Tuckett, ‘Lukan’, 211. See Müller, Ausdruck, 127. 54 I.H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Exeter: Paternoster, 1978) 661. 55 Tuckett, ‘Lukan’, 209. 52

76

Chapter 3: The One Like a Son of Man in Early Christian Interpretation

erence to justice and the Son of Man’s coming (18.8).56 Further, the concept of standing before the Son of Man suggests that the Son of Man is acting as a judge, even though     is not a technical term (12.36; cf. 1 En. 62.5–9).57 (4) In contrast to Mark, Matthew and the Jewish apocalypses, Luke is more explicit regarding the Son of Man’s role in salvation (21.27–28; but cf. 1 En. 48.7). He has come in the present to seek and save the lost, implying that the Son of Man’s earthly work is soteriological (19.10).58 (5) The Son of Man will be recognized for who he is by being seen and acknowledged (21.27; 12.8; cf. 17.22; 1 En. 62.3–5; 4 Ezra 13.52; 2 Bar. 29.3; 30.1–5). (6) He is also depicted as a heavenly figure: seated at the right hand of God (22.69; cf. 1 En. 62.5) and (7) may be preexistent (19.10). (8) The Lukan Son of Man also has a sense of gathering the elect, although the language is not as explicit. This can be seen, along with 19.10, in his similarity with the master whose return is awaited by his servants (12.35–40). As with Mark and Matthew, Luke refers to two comings of the Son of Man: present (7.34; 19.10) and future (9.26; 12.40; 17.24, 30; 21.27), but compared to previous interpretations of the Danielic figure, the Lukan Son of Man is distinctly Lukan. The Lukan Son of Man also suffers (9.22; 9.44; 18.31; 22.22, 48; 24.7), but for Luke, the suffering leads directly to the Son of Man’s future coming and exaltation (17.24–25; 22.69).59 There is an immediacy to his exaltation through suffering, which will take place    % % (22.69),60 and this may suggest that the Son of Man’s exaltation takes place prior to his return in glory. The Lukan portrayal of the Son of Man places a greater emphasis on believers standing firm until his return. Although Jesus makes this challenge in Mark and Matthew (Mark 13.5, 9, 23, 33, 37; Matt 24.4, 44), the Lukan Jesus challenges his hearers more often to stand firm, to be ready, and to watch, all with a readiness that is accompanied by continual prayer (12.35–40; 18.1, 8; 21.28, 34, 36; cf. 6.22). The Lukan Son of Man has many similarities with the Jewish apocalyptic interpretation of the Danielic son of man, yet the Lukan figure is most like the Son of Man figures in Mark and Matthew. At the same time, Luke places a greater emphasis on the Son of Man’s role in salvation, on being 56

Schneider, ‘Menschensohn’, 277. Higgins, Jesus, 94; Schneider, ‘Menschensohn’, 270; Fitzmeyer, Gospel, 2.1356; Tuckett, ‘Lukan’, 209; Fletcher-Louis, Luke-Acts, 234. Contra Lindars, Jesus, 138. Note the contextual similarity with Matt 25.31–46 and 1 Enoch 62 (see Fletcher-Louis, LukeActs, 233). 58 Schneider, ‘Menschensohn’, 282. 59 Tödt, Son of Man, 110; Schneider, ‘Menschensohn’, 271; Marshall, Gospel, 661. 60 Lindars, Jesus, 141; J. Plevnik, ‘Son of Man Seated at the Right Hand of God: Luke 22,69 in Lucan Christology’, Bib 72 (1991) 331–47 at 332. 57

4. Acts of the Apostles

77

ready for the Son of Man’s return, and on the necessity of his suffering for his exaltation and future coming. Luke’s integration of suffering, exaltation, and future coming is noteworthy considering the combination of these features in the Gospel of John. Together the Synoptic portraits of the Danielic son of man are extremely similar to one another, most obviously in designating Jesus as the Son of Man and in speaking of the Son of Man as one who must suffer, die, rise again, and who has already acted on earth and yet will come again. At the same time, they still retain the common features of the Jewish apocalyptic interpretations of the Danielic son of man: Messiah, role in judgment and salvation, descriptions and actions similar to God, recognized, gathering of the elect, heavenly, and possible hints of preexistence. Mark, Matthew, and Luke also reflect other characteristics and functions of the apocalyptic interpretations that are not as common, such as glory, enthronement, mercy/forgiveness, and denial of the Son of Man. Again, this is not to argue for a ‘Son of Man concept’, but the suggestion that there were common features associated with the ‘one like a son of man’ in the first century A.D., even though they may have been interpreted in various ways, appears to be more and more plausible.

4. Acts of the Apostles 4.1. Influence of Daniel 7 Stephen’s Son of Man saying in Acts 7.56 is the only use of         outside of the Gospels and the only use in the NT originating from someone other than Jesus.61 Stephen’s statement concludes his defense before the Sanhedrin (Acts 6–7). There is no verbal allusion to Daniel 7, but the close parallel between this saying and the Lukan Sanhedrin Son of Man saying suggests that Acts 7.56 should be considered in this examination.62 Both sayings take place before the Sanhedrin (Luke 22.66; Acts 6.12), and both mention blasphemy, the use of false witnesses, and Jesus’ statement against the temple. In addition, Jesus and Stephen speak to God and pray for their persecutors as they are dying (23.34, 46; Acts

61

The uses in Luke 24.7 and John 12.34 are both repetitions of Jesus’ own words. Casey (Son of Man, 200) states: ‘Luke has already written a Gospel, and the immediate orgin of the term appears to be the Gsopel traditions that he had used. It is especially reminiscent of Luke 22.69, a radical alteration of Mark 14.62 which does depend on Dan. 7.13. In this sense, the occurrence of the term “the Son of Man” can be ascribed ultimately to the influence of Dan. 7.13.’ 62

78

Chapter 3: The One Like a Son of Man in Early Christian Interpretation

7.9, 60).63 Stephen is on trial before the Sanhedrin for speaking blasphemous words against Moses and God and for claiming that Jesus of Nazareth would destroy the temple and change the traditions of Moses (Acts 6.11, 14). Appealing to Isa 66.1–2, Stephen argues that God does not dwell in houses made by men, and his point is verified by his vision of the Son of Man. God is in heaven, and the Son of Man is at his right hand.64 4.2. Two Questions Regarding this Son of Man saying, C. K. Barrett raises two questions. First, why is the Son of Man standing? And, second, why is Stephen the only one who speaks of Jesus as the Son of Man? 65 The Son of Man’s standing has occasioned numerous scholarly suggestions.66 Camille Focant’s five categories, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive, provide some clarity and are reproduced here.67 The standing of the Son of Man may indicate that Jesus (1) is welcoming the martyr Stephen,68 (2) is serving God like the angels, (3) has eschatological significance (whether the standing suggests he is between his sitting and coming,69 is yet to be seated, or is coming in a private parousia for Stephen70), (4) has a judicial

63 For more similarities, see Lindars, Jesus, 139–41 and C. Focant, ‘Du Fils de l’homme assis (Lc 22,69) au fils de l’homme debout (Ac 7,56): enjeux théologique et littéraire d’un changement sémantique’, in J. Verheyden (ed.), The Unity of Luke-Acts (Leuven: Leuven University, 1999) 563–76. 64 F. Mußner (‘Wohnung Gottes und Menschensohn nach der Stephanusperikope (Apg 6,8–8,2)’, in R. Pesch and R. Schnackenburg [eds.], Jesus und der Menschensohn. Für Anton Vögtle [Freiburg: Herder, 1975] 283–99) argues that the polemic against the temple is the central point of the passage about Stephen, which is confirmed by Stephen’s vision. 65 C.K. Barrett, ‘Stephen and the Son of Man’, in W. Eltester and F.H. Kettler (eds.), Apophoreta. Festschrift für Ernst Haenchen zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag am 10. Dezember 1964 (Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1964) 32–38. 66 See J.D.M. Derrett’s (‘The Son of Man Standing (Acts 7, 55–56)’, BeO [1988] 71– 84) list of twelve possibilities. N. Chibici-Revneanu (‘Ein himmlischer Stehplatz: Die Haltung Jesu in der Stephanusvision (Apg 7.55–56) und ihre Bedeutung’, NTS 53 [2007] 459–88) has recently categorized the views under eight headings. 67 Focant, ‘Fils de l’homme’, 564–70. Chibici-Revneanu’s position (that Jesus stands as a result of his being exalted by God as a martyr within the Lukan context of death, resurrection, and exaltation) does not fit into these five categories (‘Himmlischer Stehplatz’, 487). 68 Schneider, ‘Menschensohn’ 267–82; Plevnik, ‘Son of Man’, 340 n. 31; Hengel, Studies, 152. 69 H.P. Owen, ‘Stephen’s Vision in Acts VII.55–6’, NTS 1 (1954–55) 224–26. 70 Barrett, ‘Stephen’, 36; idem, The Acts of the Apostles (ICC; Vol. 1; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994) 384–85.

4. Acts of the Apostles

79

role (whether judge,71 accuser of persecutors, or defender of persecuted72), or (5) there is no significance to the standing.73 Unfortunately, space does not allow a thorough examination of each of these positions. The view that appears most plausible is a qualified version of the fifth view that there is no significance to the Son of Man’s standing.74 We know that Luke is aware of the Son of Man’s future coming (Luke 9.26; 12.40; 17.30; 21.27), of Jesus’ claim that he would soon be sitting at the right hand of the power of God (Luke 22.69), and of Jesus’ ascension to heaven (Acts 1.9; cf. Luke 21.27). If Luke is aware of these points, why does he say that the Son of Man is standing at the right hand of God rather than sitting (cf. Mark 14.62; Matt 26.64; Luke 22.69; Ps 110.1)? As in Luke 22.69 where the coming of the Son of Man is absent, Luke appears to be emphasizing the Son of Man’s exaltation. Stephen’s statement highlights the location of the Son of Man at the right hand of God rather than his posture.75 This view is supported by the use of the word   %, the perfect participle of ', which is used to describe the Son of Man’s stance. The semantic range of ' is broad, but it can be used to emphasize location instead of the posture of standing.76 This meaning can be found throughout Luke and Acts,77 and it appears to be the common meaning when ' is used as a perfect participle as in Acts 7.55, 56.78 In addition, Stephen’s vision is one of four visionary experiences in Luke and Acts where a participial form of ' locates the visionary figure (Luke 1.11; Acts 7.55, 56; 10.30; 16.9). This evidence suggests that   % in Acts 7.55, 56 71

Derrett, ‘Son of Man’, 77, 84. Priess, Life, 54–55; Higgins, Jesus, 145; Lindars, Jesus, 139; Tuckett, ‘Lukan’, 209–210. See Müller, Ausdruck, 140. R. Pesch (Die Apostelgeschichte [EKKNT; 2 vols.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1986] 1.263) combines judge, lawyer, and witness roles. Fletcher-Louis (Luke-Acts, 247) says that the standing reflects a defendant or accusing witness. 73 C.H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures: The Sub-Structure of New Testament Theology (London: Nisbet, 1952) 35 n. 1; Mußner, ‘Wohnung’, 291; M. Sabbe, ‘The Son of Man Saying in Acts 7, 56’, in J. Kremer (ed.), Les Actes des Apôtres: Traditions, rédaction, théologie (BETL 48; Gembloux: Leuven University, 1979) 241–79. 74 Barrett (‘Stephen’, 32), while disagreeing, says this view is ‘attractive in its simplicity’. 75 See P. Doble, ‘The Son of Man Saying in Stephen’s Witnessing: Acts 6.8–8.2’, NTS 31 (1985) 68–84. 76 BDAG, 482–83, ‘to be at a place, stand (there), be (there), w. the emphasis less on “standing” than on “being, existing”’ (emphases original). See also Louw and Nida, 2.5562. 77 Luke 7.38; 8.20; 13.25; 23.49; 24.36; Acts 7.33; 9.7; 11.13; 12.14. 78 Luke 1.11; 5.1, 2; 9.27; 18.13b; Acts 4.14; 5.23, 25; 16.9; 21.40; 22.25; 24.21; 25.10. 72

80

Chapter 3: The One Like a Son of Man in Early Christian Interpretation

does not refer to the Son of Man’s posture of standing but emphasizes his location at the right hand of God.79 However, this does not mean that   % is ‘bedeutungslos’ as Mußner contends.80 Rather, the presence of the Son of Man at the right hand of God validates Stephen’s speech and vindicates the Son of Man (Acts 7.48–50, 52): God is in heaven and the Son of Man is present at his right hand.81 But why does Stephen use the phrase        ? At the climax of Jesus’ trial before the same Sanhedrin which Stephen now faces, Jesus claimed that the Son of Man would be sitting at the right hand of the power of God. By using       in Stephen’s vision, Luke confirms that Jesus’ statement is true and what Jesus said would happen has taken place. The lack of sitting is not important (cf. Rom 8.34). The point is that the Righteous One, whom the Sanhedrin betrayed and murdered, has been exalted, vindicated, and is now present with God in heaven.82 4.3. Characteristics of the Son of Man in Acts Since Acts only has one Son of Man saying, there are fewer observable characteristics of this figure, but similarities with the apocalyptic interpretations are nonetheless evident, especially when viewed in conjunction with the Lukan Son of Man. Primarily, (1) he is a heavenly figure, currently located in heaven at the right hand of God (cf. Luke 22.69; 1 En. 62.5). (2) The designation ‘Righteous One’, which is also used of the Enochic son of man, implies the figure’s messiahship (7.52; 1 En. 38.2; 53.6).83 (3) The Son of Man’s position at the right hand of God suggests that the Son of Man has authority and also an implicit right to judge (cf. Mark 14.62; Matt 24.30). His right to judge is also implied by Stephen’s request that the Lord not to hold their sin against them (7.60). Less prominently, (4) the Son of Man is given a description used of God: $ (  (7.59). Another similar description may be seen in his location beside the heavenly throne. (5) Stephen’s request that Jesus receive his spirit suggests the Son of Man’s role in gathering the elect (cf. 4 Ezra 13.12; 2 Bar. 72.2; Mark 13.27 par.). (6) Lastly, Stephen’s speech, which culminates in the vision of the Son of Man, involves salvation, possibly suggesting a vague connection between the Son of Man and salva79

See Sabbe, ‘Son of Man’, 274. Mußner, ‘Wohnung’, 291. 81 See Doble, ‘Son of Man’, 75–76. 82 See Sabbe, ‘Son of Man’, 260. Cf. Chibici-Revneanu, ‘Himmlischer Stehplatz’, 471–75. 83 Cf. Jer 23.5; Pss. Sol. 17.32, 36–37. See Doble, ‘Son of Man’, 77; Sabbe, ‘Son of Man’, 249. 80

5. Revelation

81

tion.84 As with the Synoptic Gospels, the Son of Man in Acts is Jesus and has similar characteristics with the figures of Jewish apocalyptic interpretation.

5. Revelation 5.1. Influence of Daniel 7 Revelation makes the only other reference to the ‘one like a son of man’ in the NT writings. Revelation cites Dan 7.13 (Rev 1.7) and uses an expression similar to Dan 7.13 (Rev 1.13; 14.14: )       ; OG and  Dan 7.13: *   ).85 We will briefly discuss the interpretation of the son of man figure in Revelation and the similarities and differences with the interpretations of the Danielic figure in Jewish apocalyptic and other early Christian literature. 5.2. The Coming One – Rev 1.7 In the midst of an ongoing introduction of Jesus Christ (1.5b–7, 12–20), Revelation 1.7 essentially quotes Dan 7.13:      %+ !& %. Although      is omitted, the Danielic figure is unmistakably understood to be Jesus because Jesus is the subject of 1.5b–6.86 The conflation of Dan 7.13 with Zech 12.1087 communicates that Jesus will be recognized by ‘every eye’, that all the tribes of the earth will mourn when he comes, and that his coming is a future, universal event.88 Thus, Jesus Christ is understood to be the Danielic son of man who will come with the clouds, be seen, and mourned by all people. 5.3. The Human-Like Figure among the Lampstands – Rev 1.13 In the same context, John the seer, being in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, hears a voice behind him. When he turns, he sees seven golden lampstands, 84

See Doble, ‘Son of Man’, 76. C.F.D. Moule, ‘“The Son of Man”: Some of the Facts’, NTS 41 (1995) 277–79. For further links between Daniel and Revelation, see Casey, Son of Man, 142–50; Beale, Use of Daniel, 154–305; also, John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation (JSNT.S 166; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998) 100–5; S. Moyise, The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation (JSNT.S 115; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995) 51–54. 86 Casey, Son of Man, 143. 87 See A. Yarbro Collins, ‘The “Son of Man” Tradition and the Book of Revelation’, in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992) 536–68. 88 Yarbro Collins, ‘Revelation’, 541, 543. 85

82

Chapter 3: The One Like a Son of Man in Early Christian Interpretation

which represent the seven churches (1.12, 20), and among the lampstands, John sees )        (1.13)89 and falls at his feet as dead (1.17). As in Dan 7.13, the phrase )      does not function as a title as *     appears to in the Gospels.90 Numerous OT passages are combined in 1.12–16 to describe the humanlike figure that John sees.91 Some characteristics are similar to descriptions used of God and emphasize the son of man figure’s similarity with God. These divine descriptions may have been influenced by the depiction of the ‘one like a son of man’ in OG Dan 7.13 as *&   %. The son of man figure in Revelation has a voice as a trumpet (Exod 19.16; Rev 1.10), hair white as wool and as snow (Dan 7.9; 1 En. 46.1; Rev 1.14), and possibly the voice as many waters (Ezek 1.24; 43.2; Rev 1.15). Other features draw attention to his similarity with the heavenly figure in Dan 10.5– 6: his eyes as flaming fire and feet/legs as burnished bronze. The son of man’s long robe suggests the priestly nature of the figure, since   is commonly used to refer to the high priest’s garment (Exod 25.7; 28.4, 31; 29.5; 35.9; Zech 3.4; Wis 18.24; Sir 45.8; Josephus, Ant. 3.159).92 These OT references describe the son of man figure as similar to God and with angelic and priestly attributes.93

89 Revelation uses )   interchangeably with * (4.7; 9.7; 13.2–4) (see Müller, Ausdruck, 147). The different cases depend on the different grammatical use of the phrases. Also, attraction, such as with )   to  , is not uncommon in Revelation (see Casey, Son of Man, 145–46; cf. the variant in 11.3). 90 E. Lohse, ‘Der Menschensohn in der Johannesapokalypse’, in R. Pesch and R. Schnackenburg (eds.), Jesus und der Menschensohn. Für Anton Vögtle (Freiburg: Herder, 1975) 415–20; A.P. van Schaik, ‘ ,&&  -""&  in Apk 14’, in J. Lambrecht (ed.), L’Apocalypse johannique et l’Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament (BETL 53; Gembloux: Leuven University, 1980) 217–28. 91 See Beale, Use of Daniel, 154–77; also The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999) 205–14; Moyise, Old Testament, 37–44. 92 Beale, Revelation, 209–10; T.B. Slater, Christ and Community: A Socio-Historical Study of the Christology of Revelation (JSNT.S 178; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999) 97. Also, Lohse, ‘Menschensohn’, 417. Cf. Fletcher-Louis, ‘High Priest’, 186–93. 93 See C. Rowland, ‘The Vision of the Risen Christ in Rev. i. 13ff.: The Debt of an Early Christology to an Aspect of Jewish Angelology’, JTS 31 (1980) 1–11; Yarbro Collins, ‘Revelation’, 548–58; L.T. Stuckenbruck, Angel Veneration and Christology: A Study in Early Judaism and in the Christology of the Apocalypse of John (WUNT 2.70; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995) 211–18; R.H. Gundry, The Old is Better: New Testament Essays in Support of Traditional Interpretations (WUNT 178; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005) 377–98.

5. Revelation

83

5.4. The Human-Like Figure Seated on the Cloud – Rev 14.14 Revelation 14.6–20 contains judgment language from Joel 4, Jeremiah 51, and Isaiah 6394 and introduces seven heavenly beings, including )        (14.14; cf. 1.13). Reminiscent of Dan 7.13, the figure is announced with the phrase: $ . $   (cf. 4 Ezra 13.3). The human-like figure is seated upon a white cloud,95 wearing a gold crown, and holding a sharp sickle in his hand. An angel comes out from the temple and tells the one sitting on the cloud that the hour has come to harvest the earth. Some scholars have argued that this figure in 14.14 should be understood as an angel because the angel in 14.15 is called -&& -""&  and because the son of man figure obeys the command of this other angel.96 On the other hand, -&&  -""&  could just as easily refer to the angels also called -&& -""&  in 14.6, 8, 9 (cf. vv. 17, 18).97 In addition, the description of the son of man figure sitting on a cloud and wearing a gold crown implies the son of man figure’s superiority over the angels.98 Similarities between the description of the human-like figure in 14.14 and the description of Jesus as the triumphant warrior who judges and makes war with righteousness (19.11–16) also suggest that he is not an angel. 99 But does the son of man figure obey the command of the ‘other angel’? The -&& -""&  is most likely not giving a command of his own. Angels are messengers, and this ‘other angel’ comes out from the temple, from the presence of God (cf. 7.15; 11.1), suggesting that the angel serves as the mouthpiece of God and that the son of man figure is obeying God

94

G.B. Caird, A Commentary on the Revelation of St. John the Divine (BNTC; London: A&C Black, 19842 ) 189. 95 E. Lohmeyer (Die Offenbarung des Johannes [HNT 16; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 19703 ] 127) states that this is the only mention of a white cloud in the OT or NT. 96 See Müller, Messias, 190–99; Casey, Son of Man, 148–49; Müller, Ausdruck, 148– 50; J. Coppens, ‘La mention d’un Fils d’homme angélique en Ap 14, 14’, in J. Lambrecht (ed.), L’Apocalypse johannique et l’Apocalyptique dans le Nouveau Testament (BETL 53; Gembloux: Leuven University, 1980) 229. 97 Van Schaik, ‘ ,&&  -""& ’, 225; R. Bauckham, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993) 294 n. 80. Lohmeyer (Offenbarung, 123) contends that -&& merely means ‘noch einmal, wieder’. Note the different descriptions of the son of man figure and the other angel in 14.16 and 14.19. 98 Lindars, Jesus, 159; Stuckenbruck, Angel, 244. Only the son of man figure sits on a cloud, and only the son of man figure and the elders wear gold crowns (4.4, 10; cf. 9.7 where the locust-like creatures have *!  '   %#) . 99 Although see Gundry (Old is Better, 377–98) who argues that Jesus is being described in angelomorphic language.

84

Chapter 3: The One Like a Son of Man in Early Christian Interpretation

and not the angel (cf. 9.13–14; 16.1).100 As in 1.13, )        in 14.14 reflects Dan 7.13, and this human-like figure is identified with Jesus. 5.5. Characteristics of the Son of Man Figure in Revelation The son of man figure in Revelation bears a number of resemblances to other interpretations of the Danielic figure in Jewish apocalyptic and early Christianity.101 (1) The ‘one like a son of man’ in Revelation is a heavenly figure (1.7; 14.14), and (2) his preexistence may be implied through his description as   % $     (1.17; 2.8) and as     $   (3.14; cf. 1 En. 62.7). (3) He is described with descriptions usually used to portray God, such as hair white as snow (1.14; Dan 7.9). These descriptions may reflect direct interpretation of the phrase * &    % in OG Dan 7.13. (4) The ‘one like a son of man’ in Revelation is the Messiah – Jesus Christ (1.1, 2, 5). (5) His function as judge is implied by his harvesting of the earth with a sickle at the hour of judgment (14.6, 14–16)102 and the double-edged sword in his mouth (1.16; 2.12, 16; 19.11, 15; cf. Isa 11.4; 49.2; Pss. Sol. 17.35; 4 Ezra 13.10–11, 37–38; 2 Bar. 40.1–2; 72.2).103 (6) As the living one and the holder of the keys of Death and Hades, he is able to give life (1.18; cf. 2.7, 11; 3.5). (7) He is recognized for who he is through sight as evidenced by the mourning at his coming (1.7; cf. 1 En. 62.3; 4 Ezra 13.52; 2 Bar. 29.3; 30.1–5), and (8) his gathering of the righteous/elect is suggested by his harvesting of the earth (14.14–16; cf. 4 Ezra 13.12; 2 Bar. 72.2; 4Q246 2.4?; Mark 13.27 par.). Revelation’s )      may be the clearest interpretation of OG Dan 7.13–14 and shares further features with some of the Jewish apocalyptic interpretations: he reveals heavenly mysteries and secrets (1.1; 4.1; 1 En. 46.3), is portrayed with kingly attributes (14.14; OG Dan 7.14; 1 En. 62.2–3; 2 Bar. 40.3; 73.1; cf. 4Q246 2.5, 9), and is worthy of worship (1.17; Aramaic and OG Dan 7.14; 1 En. 62.9; cf. 4Q246 1.8). Similarly to 100 Stuckenbruck, Angel, 243; Slater, Christ, 154; Beale, Revelation, 772 (cf. 11.1–2; 16.17). Van Schaik (‘ ,&& -""& ’, 219) argues that the angel is the personification of God’s voice. 101 Slater (Christ, 106) lists five similarities between the son of man figures in Revelation, Similitudes of Enoch, and 4 Ezra. These similarities are (1) use of comparison as description, (2) Messiah as judge of humanity, (3) gathers the elect, (4) wars against the enemies of the righteous, and (5) reveals mysteries. 102 Lohse, ‘Menschensohn’, 418. 103 J. Fekkes, III, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation: Visionary Antecedents and their Development (JSNT.S 93; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994) 117–30.

6. Summary of the Early Christian Interpretation

85

the other early Christian interpretations, Revelation presents the son of man figure as Jesus, drawing attention to his death and resurrection (1.5, 18; 2.8; Mark 8.31 pars.). And like Acts, he is presently exalted and glorified in heaven awaiting his future return to gather his people. Unique to Revelation is the description of the son of man figure as pierced and as priestly.

6. Summary of the Early Christian Interpretation In early Christian literature, the Danielic son of man is interpreted with the same common features that were found in the Jewish apocalyptic interpretations of this figure. The Christian authors understood the Danielic son of man to be a heavenly figure, to have some kind of preexistence, to be the Messiah, to be involved in judgment and salvation, to share descriptions and actions with God, to gather the righteous, and to be recognized. These characteristics are not by themselves ‘apocalyptic’,104 but as a set of features used to describe the ‘one like a son of man’ in apocalyptic literature, they can in that sense be considered ‘apocalyptic’. As with the Jewish apocalyptic interpretations, there are still variations in the early Christian interpretations, but at the same time, the early Christian texts are more like one another, especially in their portrayal of Jesus as the son of man figure. Unlike previous interpretations, the Synoptic Gospels depict two comings of the Son of Man, both present and future. Mark, Matthew, Luke, and Revelation are also distinctive in their description of the figure as dying and rising again. The most striking representation of this figure examined thus far was seen in Luke’s focus on the Son of Man’s role in salvation and his suffering as a prerequisite for his coming and exaltation. Both of these features, as we shall see, are significant for the Johannine portrait of the Son of Man. In the second part of the thesis, we will examine the Johannine Son of Man sayings and determine whether or not these same ‘apocalyptic’ characteristics noted in the interpretations of the Danielic son of man in Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian interpretations are used in the Gospel of John’s description of the Son of Man.

104

See Hellholm, ‘Problem’, 23–24; Stone, ‘Lists’, esp. 435–39.

Part Two

The Son of Man in the Gospel of John In the first part of this study, the argument has been made that the interpretations of the ‘one like a son of man’ portray the Danielic figure with common characteristics. These similar features do not mean that the Danielic son of man is depicted in the same way by each of these texts. For example, there are obvious differences between the son of man figures in the OG of Daniel 7, the Similitudes of Enoch, 2 Baruch, and Mark, for example. However, these texts that interpret the ‘one like a son of man’ portray the son of man figure with common characteristics, even in the midst of this interpretive variation. The aim of the second part of this study is to show that the Son of Man in the Gospel of John is consistently described with these same common ‘apocalyptic Son of Man’ characteristics and, as a result, that the Johannine Son of Man can be designated as an ‘apocalyptic Son of Man’. As with the previous interpretations of the ‘one like a son of man’, the Johannine portrait has its own nuances and distinctive features, but the Son of Man in John remains thoroughly ‘apocalyptic’. The implications of this description will be discussed throughout the course of part 2 and will be summarized in the conclusion.

Chapter 4

The Apocalyptic Introduction to the Johannine Son of Man – John 1.51 The first Johannine Son of Man saying is considered one of the most mysterious of all the Son of Man sayings in the NT.1 It is also the first of the ‘Amen, amen’ sayings in John, it concludes the Johannine narration of the calling of the disciples, and it contains the last title in a series of titles attributed to Jesus. The mention of heaven opening and the connection with Jacob’s dream in Genesis 28 have also added to the mysteriousness of the saying. A number of scholars have used John 1.51 as a primary argument for the heavenly nature of the Johannine Son of Man,2 but this has not stopped others from arguing for a human meaning of the title.3 Even if there are apocalyptic features in John 1.51, this is only the first step in arguing for a thoroughgoing apocalyptic depiction of this figure that shows similarities with the Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian interpretations of the Danielic son of man. In this chapter, the argument will be made that the Son of Man in John 1.51 has three characteristics that have been shown above to be common features of the interpretations of the Danielic son of man in Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian literature. These features include the recognition of the Son of Man through seeing, that he is the Messiah, and that he is a heavenly figure. Although the Johannine Son of Man may be depicted with these common features, there remains a distinct Johannine interpretation.

1 The saying has been thought to be a separate logion that was placed at the end of this chapter by the author or redactor/s. See Bultmann, Gospel, 105 n. 2; Brown, Gospel, 88–89; Coppens, ‘Fils de l’homme’, 42; J.H. Neyrey, ‘The Jacob Allusions in John 1.51’, CBQ 44 (1982) 586–605; Ellens, ‘Exegesis’, 138–40. 2 See Ashton, Understanding, 342–48; Painter, ‘Enigmatic’, 1872–77. 3 E.C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel (F.N. Davey, ed.; London: Faber and Faber, 19672 ) 183–84.

90

Chapter 4: The Apocalyptic Introduction to the Johannine Son of Man

1. Apocalyptic Characteristics of the Son of Man in John 1.51 1.1. The Recognition of the Son of Man The first Johannine Son of Man saying begins with Jesus’ statement ‘you will see’ ( ), and this declaration highlights the theme of recognition, which has been noted above in part 1 of this thesis as a common characteristic of Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian interpretations of the Danielic son of man (1 En. 62.3–5; 4 Ezra, 13.52; 2 Bar. 29.3; 30.1–5; Mark 13.26; 14.62 pars.; Acts 7.56; Rev 1.7).  &" *  -      #" $  ""&     / $$/      0

In John 1.35–51, seeing is a recurring theme. Jesus tells Andrew and the other disciple:   $  (1.39), and Philip tells Nathanael:   $  (1.46). Both of these exhortations to ‘come and see’ call the hearer to come and recognize who Jesus is.4 The culmination of this theme is the Son of Man saying in 1.51, which as Hans-Jürgen Kuhn points out is linked with 1.39 by the use of .5 Jesus the Son of Man6 is the one who will be seen by Nathanael and the other disciples.7 Since this seeing of Jesus and the angels ascending and descending never literally happens in the Gospel, it suggests that in this seeing the disciples will recognize Jesus for who he is in his function as Son of Man on earth.8 This recognition of the Son of Man is the first hint that the Gospel of John may be depicting the Son of Man with the common characteristics that were noted in part 1: the Johannine Son of Man is recognized through seeing. In addition, this seeing highlights the Johannine connection between seeing and believing (1.50). The recognition of the Son of Man appears to fulfill in some way the promise to Nathanael that he will see ‘greater things’ (1.50). These greater

4

The theme of seeing and recognition is also noticeable in Jesus’ seeing of Nathanael (1.47, 48). 5 H.-J. Kuhn, Christologie und Wunder. Untersuchungen zu Joh 1,35–51 (Biblische Untersuchungen 18; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1988) 154. 6 U. Wilckens (Das Evangelium nach Johannes [NTD 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998] 53) states: ‘Deutlich ist mit dem „Menschensohn“ Jesus gemeint.’ 7 The singular # in 1.50 probably reflects the personal nature of Nathanael’s surprise at Jesus saying he saw him under the fig tree. The shift to the plural  in 1.51 suggests that other disciples were probably around, namely Philip and possibly Andrew and Peter (see Moloney, Gospel, 56). There is no need to posit an interpolation (contra Bultmann, Gospel, 105 n. 2; Coppens, ‘Fils de l’homme’, 42; Ellens, ‘Exegesis’, 138– 40). 8 This will become clearer as the chapter progresses.

1. Apocalyptic Characteristics of the Son of Man in John 1.51

91

things may be fulfilled primarily by 1.51, 9 Jesus’ signs which begin in 2.1– 11,10 the cross,11 or his future glorification.12 Since the meaning of 1.50 is in some way dependent upon our understanding of 1.51, we will first complete our discussion of 1.51 before returning to the ‘greater things’. 1.2. The Son of Man as the Messiah The second characteristic of the ‘apocalyptic Son of Man’ in John 1.51 is that the Son of Man is also the Messiah. Although the messianic character of the ‘one like a son of man’ is implied in Aramaic and  Daniel (but less so in the OG), all of the interpretations of this figure designate him as the Messiah. The messianic character of Jesus in John 1 cannot be missed. Andrew tells his brother Peter that they have found  1 2 '       (1.41). Philip makes the same claim to Nathanael, yet without using either title: 3 "1 4 %#   # $    !  $ (1.45).13 Nathanael’s exclamation ‘You are the Son of God, the King of Israel’ carries a messianic sense and suggests that Nathanael has accepted Philip’s claim (1.49).14 We have seen above how the title ‘Son of God’ was used in the OT and Jewish Second Temple literature to refer to the messianic ruler of Israel,15 and its use here in 1.49 reflects this messianic sense, especially its link with ‘King of Israel’.16 Jesus is called ‘King of Israel’ again at his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (12.13), where its combination with the messianic prophecy of Zech 9.9 clearly highlights the messianic implications of the title.17 Even the refer-

9 Harris, Prologue, 118; Moloney, Gospel, 56; Wilckens, Evangelium, 52. See Barrett, Gospel, 186. 10 Brown, Gospel, 83; Painter, ‘Enigmatic’, 1874; Beasley-Murray, John, 27; Lincoln, Gospel, 121–22. 11 Lindars, Son of Man, 149. 12 Maddox, ‘Function’, 190; W. Loader, ‘John 1:50–51 and the “Greater Things” of Johannine Christology’, in C. Breytenbach and H. Paulsen (eds.), Anfänge der Christologie: Festschrift für Ferdinand Hahn zum 65 Geburtstag (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991) 255–74. 13 Bultmann, Gospel, 103; C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (Philadephia: Westminster, 19782 ) 184. 14 Thyen, Johannesevangelium, 142. See Moloney, Gospel, 56. 15 2 Sam 7.14; Ps 2.7; 4Q174. See pp. 61–64 on 4Q246. 16 However, M. de Jonge (‘Jesus as Prophet and King in the Fourth Gospel’, ETL 49 [1973] 160–79) rightly points out that in John ‘Son of God’ also has a deeper meaning. 17 See J. Painter, ‘Christ and the Church in John 1, 45–51’, in M. de Jonge (ed.), L’Évangile de Jean (Gembloux: Duculot, 1977) 359–62.

92

Chapter 4: The Apocalyptic Introduction to the Johannine Son of Man

ence to the fig tree in 1.48, 50 may indicate a messianic sense when seen in conjunction with Zech 3.10, as Craig Koester persuasively argues.18 Some scholars understand the Son of Man saying that follows these messianic references to be a kind of Christological corrective.19 What is meant by this is that the disciples’ understanding of Jesus as the Messiah is inadequate, and Jesus corrects their faulty understanding with ‘Son of Man’. Markus Sasse states: ‘Jesus nimmt hier die von Nathanael in 1,49 ausgesprochenen messianischen Erwartungen (Sohn Gottes, König von Israel) auf und überbietet sie (50) im Sinne der Menschensohnchristologie.’20 Although Jesus uses the title ‘Son of Man’ after Nathanael’s exclamation, there is no apparent correction or revision of the disciples’ messianic understanding. ‘Son of Man’ is one more title that is merely added to the ‘bouquet’ of titles21 in John 1 (& " , ! %,   "  , ‘Lamb of God’, ‘Son of God’, ‘Messiah’, ‘Christ’, ‘King of Israel’). Further, in 4.25–26, Jesus actually claims to be the Messiah, and neither does he ‘correct’ Martha’s messianic exclamation in 11.26–27. The call to belief in 20.30–31 also implies that ‘Messiah’ is not an inadequate title of Jesus in the Gospel. Without correcting the previous titles, ‘Son of Man’ adds to the Johannine portrait of Jesus, and the saying in 1.51 concludes the introduction of Jesus and directs attention to Jesus’ ministry and the rest of the Gospel. 1.3. The Son of Man as a Heavenly Figure – Heaven Opened The opening of heaven reveals that the Johannine Son of Man is a heavenly figure and allows the disciples to see the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man. Nevertheless, the phrase     18

Various explanations of the fig tree have been suggested. Some say it is a symbol of studying the Torah (Bultmann, Gospel, 104 n. 6; L.P. Trudinger, ‘An Israelite in whom there is no Guile: An Interpretative Note on John 1:45–51’, EvQ 54 [1982] 117–20; A.T. Hanson, The Prophetic Gospel [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991], 39), others peace and prosperity (Barrett, Gospel, 185), and still others that it represents Israel (J.R. Michaels, ‘Nathanael Under the Fig Tree’, ExpT 78 [1966–67] 182–83; followed by Burkett, Son of the Man, 113). However, C. Koester (‘Messianic Exegesis and the Call of Nathanael [John 1.44–51]’, JSNT 39 [1990] 23–34) has offered the most convincing evidence. Koester argues that Zech 3.10 is in the background and highlights the coming of the Messiah, because it is at the coming of the messianic Branch that each person will call his neighbor from under the vine and under the fig tree. 19 Martyn, History, 128–30; Moloney, Johannine, 40, 214, 243, 252; Painter, ‘Enigmatic’, 1870, 1872–73; M. Morgen, ‘La Promesse de Jésus à Nathanael (Jn 1,51) éclairée par la hagaddah de Jacob-Israel’, RSR 67.3 (1993) 3–21; Sasse, Menschensohn, 77, 247; Ellens, ‘Exegesis’, 137. 20 Sasse, Menschensohn, 77. 21 Boismard, L’Évangile, 99.

1. Apocalyptic Characteristics of the Son of Man in John 1.51

93

 #"  has often been neglected in discussions of the Son of Man saying in John 1.51.22 Numerous references to heaven opening can be found in biblical texts. Some of these occurrences have been suggested as being significant for the interpretation of John 1.51, such as the opening of heaven at Jesus’ baptism,23 Stephen’s vision in Acts,24 or Ezekiel’s vision of the fiery chariot of God,25 but the motif of the opening of heaven extends beyond these few instances, as has been shown through the contributions of W.C. van Unnik and Fritzleo Lentzen-Deis.26 The majority of references to the opening of heaven in the OT refer to an outpouring of natural phenomena, which usually indicates blessing or judgment.27 Two instances in the later prophets, however, do not introduce a natural event but rather introduce an event that precedes a ‘heavenly experience’, such as a vision of heavenly things (cf. Ezek 1.128) or travel between heaven and earth (Isa 63.1929). 22

Some recent exceptions include Morgen, ‘Promesse’, 6–11; Kanagaraj, Mysticism, 187–88; A.R. Kerr, The Temple of Jesus’ Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John (JSNT.S 220; London: Sheffield Academic, 2002); 148–150; G.T. Manning, Jr., Echoes of a Prophet: The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John and the Literature of the Second Temple Period (JSNT.S 270; London: T&T Clark, 2004) 150–60. 23 Borsch, Son of Man, 278–79. 24 Higgins, Jesus, 157; Smalley, ‘Sayings’, 287–88; Maddox, ‘Function’, 190. 25 Kanagaraj, Mysticism, 187–88; idem, ‘Jesus the King, Merkabah Mysticism and the Gospel of John’, TynB 47 (1996) 349–366; Manning, Echoes, 150–60. 26 W.C. van Unnik, ‘Die „Geöffneten Himmel“ in der Offenbarungs-Vision des Apokryphons des Johannes’, in W. Eltester and F.H. Kettler (eds.), Apophoreta. Festschrift für Ernst Haenchen zu seinem Siebzigsten Geburtstag am 10. Dezember 1964 (Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1964) 269–80; F. Lentzen-Deis, ‘Das Motiv “Himmelsöffnung” in ver-schiedenen Gattungen der Umweltliteratur des Neuen Testaments’, Bib 50 (1969) 301–27. 27 Gen 7.11; Deut 28.12; Ps 77[78].23–24; Mal 3.10; cf. Isa 24.18. See Lentzen-Deis, ‘Himmelsöffnung’, 303. In contrast, the closing of heaven connotes a natural phenomenon being stopped (1 Kgs 8.35; cf. 1 En. 101.2; Luke 4.25). 28 Ezek 1.1: $        $.  *  %0 Manning (Echoes, 150–51) argues that John 1.51 alludes to Ezek 1.1 based on the use of the words  ,    , and  " and the similar concept of heaven opening as opposed to the gates or windows of heaven opening (cf. Gen 7.11; 8.2; Isa 24.18; Mal 3.10). On the other hand, ‘seeing’ is almost always connected with the opening of heaven, and there appears to be no difference in meaning between ‘heaven opening’ and the ‘gate’/‘window’ of heaven opening. This suggests that Ezek 1.1 does not provide the primary background for the concept of ‘heaven opened’ in John 1.51. 29 MT:  ; LXX:  " . The LXX does not explicitly refer to the Lord’s descent, but the result of heaven opening is similar to the coming of the Lord elsewhere in the OT where the mountains tremble and melt as wax (Ps 97.5; Mic 1.4; Nah 1.5). (Again, I am using ‘MT’ to refer to the text of the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft’s Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and ‘LXX’ to refer to Rahlfs and Hanhart’s Septuaginta, unless otherwise noted.)

94

Chapter 4: The Apocalyptic Introduction to the Johannine Son of Man

Similarly, Second Temple Jewish ‘heaven opened’ passages communicate ‘heavenly experiences’, whether visions of heavenly things/figures or travels between heaven and earth. 2 Bar 22.1 is a prime example of the opening of heaven introducing a heavenly vision or the impartation of heavenly mysteries. Baruch asks how long evil will last on earth, and in response, the heavens open and he sees30 and a voice speaks with him. In T. Levi 2.6, the opening of heaven allows Levi to enter heaven, and in 3 Macc 6.18, two angels are able to descend and strike fear in the hearts of the evildoers after heaven opens (cf. T. Ab. A 7.3; T. Levi 18.6; T. Jud. 24.2.).31 Likewise, the NT further demonstrates that the opening of heaven indicates a heavenly vision or travel between heaven and earth. At Jesus’ baptism, heaven opens and the Spirit descends upon him (Mark 1.10; Matt 3.16; Luke 3.21). In Acts 7.56, Stephen’s vision of the Son of Man occurs after heaven opens. The same is true of Peter’s vision in Acts 10.11. The opening of heaven in Revelation introduces both kinds of ‘heavenly experience’. John the seer enters heaven after he sees a gate opening in heaven (4.1–2), and later his vision of a rider on a white horse takes place following the opening of heaven (19.11).32 While van Unnik does not think that ‘heaven opened’ is a consistent motif,33 there seem to be similarities in the use of the motif during the Second Temple period, both in Jewish literature and in the NT. When heaven opens, a connection is made between heaven and earth, which allows for heavenly visions or travel between heaven and earth, and what is seen in heaven or comes from heaven is considered ‘otherworldly’.34 Often, the revelation that results from the connection between heaven and earth has to do with blessing and judgment.35 This is much clearer in the OT usage where blessing and judgment refer to natural phenomena, but it is also true in early Christian and Second Temple Jewish texts. Levi’s heavenly ascent 30

What specifically Baruch sees is not stated. See Rowland, Open Heaven, 53–54. Although 3 Macc 6.18 and John 1.51 both mention angels and ‘heaven opened’, they have little else in common. Contra Kinniburgh, ‘Johannine’, 65 n. 6. 32 See also Gos. Pet. 9.36 which introduces the descent of two heavenly figures: $ .      . 33 Van Unnik (‘Geöffneten’, 279–80) makes this statement with regard to a broad spectrum of material, including later Christian writing, Gnostic texts, and Latin writers such as Cicero and Virgil. 34 Lentzen-Deis, ‘Himmelsöffnung’, 327. 35 Van Unnik (‘Geöffneten’, 279–80) states: ‘In den jüdisch-altchristlichen Texten ist es nicht so sehr eine Naturerscheinung, sondern hängt zusammen mit der Vorstellung einer himmlischen Welt, die von dieser irdischen Welt durch eine Mauer, das Himmelsgewölbe, geschieden ist. Wenn sich da eine Öffnung auftut, ermöglicht sie die Verbindung dieser zwei Welten, meistens zum Segen, aber zuweilen auch zum Gericht.’ 31

1. Apocalyptic Characteristics of the Son of Man in John 1.51

95

culminates when he receives the ‘blessing of the priesthood’ (T. Levi 5.2).36 The voice from heaven and the descent of the Spirit at Jesus’ baptism serve as blessings. Similarly, Peter’s vision in Acts 10 proclaims the blessing of the gospel coming to the Gentiles. On the other hand, judgment also results with the opening of heaven. Part of Baruch’s vision following 2 Bar. 22.1 tells of the judgment and blessing that will come upon the wicked and the righteous (2 Bar. 23–30; cf. Isa 63.19; Ezek 1–3; 3 Macc 6; Rev 4; 19). The ‘open heaven’ motif implies that the Johannine Son of Man is a heavenly figure, since it is the opening of heaven that makes the vision of this figure possible. The heavenly nature of the Son of Man, along with the recognition of him and his messiahship, again indicates that the Johannine figure has characteristics similar to those in the Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian interpretations of the ‘one like a son of man’. In addition, the theme of heaven opening is itself ‘apocalyptic’ in the sense that it is found in Second Temple apocalypses (2 Baruch, Testament of Levi, Revelation, 1 Enoch) and early Christian texts that have some apocalyptic features (Mark, Matthew, Luke). 37 Just as the ‘heaven opened’ motif introduces and makes possible numerous ‘heavenly experiences’ in Jewish and early Christian literature, the use of     #"  in John 1.51 introduces the heavenly vision that the disciples will see, makes that vision possible, and may suggest a heavenly bestowal of blessing or judgment. Marinus de Jonge states: ‘John 1 starts in heaven and ends in heaven, God’s unique link with man being Jesus, the Son of God and the Son of Man.’38

36

See H.C. Kee, ‘Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs’, OTP, 1.789. Morgen (‘Promesse’, 9, see 6–10) states: ‘En général le motif de l’ouverture de cieux, d’enracinement apocalyptique, draine avec lui la thématique du jugement et de la révélation’ (emphasis original). Also Painter, ‘Enigmatic’, 1875–76. Contra Burkett, Son of the Man, 115. Cf. G. Quispel (‘Nathanael und der Menschensohn [Joh 1.51]’, ZNW 47 [1956] 281–83) and Kanagaraj (Mysticism, 191–94) who argue that John 1.51 is an allusion to Merkabah mysticism (see above pp. 17–18). S. Schulz (Untersuchungen, 99–103) makes the claim that John 1.51 is apocalyptic, but Schulz is concerned with isolating various traditional themes connected with the Johannine Son of Man without explaining their significance for the Gospel as a whole. 38 De Jonge, ‘Jesus as Prophet’, 169. 37

96

Chapter 4: The Apocalyptic Introduction to the Johannine Son of Man

2. The ‘Johannized’ Son of Man39 2.1. The Son of Man as Heavenly Mediator – Gen 28.12 The Son of Man saying in John 1.51 shares three of the common features found in the interpretations of Danielic son of man, namely recognition of the Son of Man, his messiahship, and that he is a heavenly figure. There are, however, some features of the saying that are distinctly Johannine. The first of these distinct features is the use of ‘Son of Man’ in combination with Jacob’s vision of angels ascending and descending on a ladder set up between heaven and earth (Gen 28.12). Although there is almost universal consensus that Genesis 28 is in the background of John 1.51,40 numerous possibilities have been suggested for understanding how ‘Son of Man’ relates to Jacob’s dream. The Son of Man could represent Jacob,41 the stone or place of Jacob’s dream,42 God,43 or the ladder.44 Other scholars have 39 I am taking the term ‘Johannized’ from Painter (‘Enigmatic’, 1870) who states: ‘Clearly the traditional Son of Man motif has been Johannized.’ 40 W. Michaelis is often named as an exception (‘Joh. 1,51, Gen. 28,12 und das Menschensohn-Problem’, TLZ 85 [1960] 561–78). See G. Reim’s response to Michaelis (Studien zum alttestamentlichen Hintergrund des Johannesevangeliums [SNTS.MS 22; Cambridge: CUP, 1974] 102–3). 41 C.F. Burney (The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel [Oxford: Clarendon, 1922] 115–16; H. Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel (Chicago: Argonaut, 1968 [repr. Uppsala, 1929] 35–36; Dodd, Interpretation, 245–46; Borsch, Son of Man, 280; Bultmann, Gospel, 105 n. 3; Reim, Hintergrund, 102; D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Pillar; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 163; C. Rowland, ‘John 1.51, Jewish Apocalyptic and Targumic Tradition’, NTS 30 (1984) 498–507; Wilckens, Evangelium, 53; J.E. Fossum, ‘The Son of Man’s Alter Ego: John 1.51, Targumic Traditions, and Jewish Mysticism’, The Image of the Invisible God: Essays on the Influence of Jewish Mysticism on Early Christianity (NTOA 30; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995) 135–51; K. Wengst, Das Johannesevangelium (2 vols.; TKNT 4; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000, 2001) 1.95–96. 42 J. Jeremias (‘Die Berufung des Nathanael (Jo 1,45–51)’, Angelos 3 [1930] 2–5) is the scholar most commonly associated with this position. See also Schnackenburg, Gospel, 1.320–21; Hoskyns, Fourth Gospel, 183; W.D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine (Berkeley, CA: University of California, 1974) 298; Ramos, ‘Hijo’, 63; J.C. O’Neill, ‘Son of Man, Stone of Blood (John 1:51)’, NovT 45 (2003) 374–81. D. Tovey (‘Stone of Witness and Stone of Revelation: An Exploration of Inter-textual Resonance in John 1:35–51’, Colloquium 38 [2006] 41– 58) has recently argued that there is also an intertextual relationship between the stones of Gen 28.18 and 35.14, the naming of Jacob (Gen 35.10), and the naming of Simon as Cephas or 5  in John 1.42. 43 Quispel, ‘Nathanael’, 281–83; Neyrey, ‘Jacob Allusions’, 589–94; Hanson, Prophetic Gospel, 37, esp. n. 4; Loader, ‘Greater Things’, 272. Maddox implies this view without explicitly stating it (‘Function’, 190). . 44 Bultmann, Gospel, 105 n. 3; Barrett, Gospel, 187; Ashton, Understanding, 347; Burkett, Son of the Man, 117–19; Ashton, Understanding, 347; Ridderbos, Gospel, 94;

2. The ‘Johannized’ Son of Man

97

purposely refrained from making such correlations, arguing that elements from Jacob’s dream that are not mentioned in John 1.51 should not be inferred.45 Even though the Hebrew text of Gen 28.12 is ambiguous and there was a rabbinic tradition that understood the angels ascending and descending on Jacob rather than the ladder,46 it makes the most sense that ‘Son of Man’ represents the ladder in Jacob’s dream. The Greek translation of Gen 28.12 understands the ladder as the means of the angels’ ascent and descent, which can be seen in the use of the feminine pronoun  to refer to the feminine $&. And even more significantly, a simple comparison of Gen 28.12 and John 1.51 suggests the correlation between the ladder and ‘Son of Man’: Gen 28.12 – $   ""&   / $$/ ’ 0 John 1.51 – $   ""&       /  $ $/          0

Exactly in the place where the pronoun referring to the ladder occurs in Gen 28.12 we find      %    in John 1.51.47 A frequent argument against this view is that the use of  with the accusative means ‘to’ or ‘toward’.48 The main reason given for this translation is that in John 1.51  is used with the accusative (      ) rather than the genitive as in Gen 28.12 (). However, an examination of the use of the preposition  in the Gospel of John indicates that in the majority of instances its meaning is ‘on’ or ‘upon’ when used with both the genitive and the accusative.49 This suggests that the use of  with an accusative in Morgen, ‘Promesse’, 16; R.H. Gundry, Jesus the Word According to John the Sectarian: A Paleofundamentalist Manifesto for Contemporary Evangelicalism, especially Its Elites in North America (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) 12; Ham, ‘Title’, 78–79; Kerr, Temple, 164. Hanson (Prophetic Gospel, 37) sees the Son of Man as the ladder and the Lord. Hare (Son of Man, 83), on the other hand, says that the Son of Man as the ladder is ‘grotesque, apocalyptic imagery’ that is ‘not characteristic of the Gospel’. 45 Loader, ‘Greater Things’, 271. 46 In Gen. Rab. 68.12,  in Gen 28.12 is interpreted to indicate that the angelic movement takes place on Jacob (‘on him’) rather than on the ladder (‘on it’). Burney (Aramaic Origin, 116) is possibly the first modern scholar to note this rabbinic interpretation. See also Odeberg, Fourth Gospel, 35–36. 47 H. Maillet, ‘“Au-dessus de” ou “sur”? (Jean 1/51)’, ETR 59 (1984) 207–13. 48 Rowland, ‘John 1.51’, 504–5; O’Neill, ‘Son of Man’, 375. 49 1.32; 1.33 twice; 3.36; 7.30; 7.44; 9.6; 9.15; 12.14; 12.15; 13.25; 21.20; cf. the variant in 21.4. In the Gospel of John, only three uses of  with the accusative (out of eighteen) can be translated as ‘to’ or ‘toward’ (6.16; 18.4; 19.33), and these uses could also be translated by the word ‘upon’. Further, the two uses of  with the accusative just prior to 1.51 in 1.32, 33 refer to the Spirit’s descent upon Jesus from heaven (1.33: $/ $ ’ ) (see Gundry, Old is Better, 332–33).

98

Chapter 4: The Apocalyptic Introduction to the Johannine Son of Man

John 1.51 does not mean that the angels ascend and descend to or toward the Son of Man but rather on or upon him.50 Thus, the implication of 1.51 based on the placement of      %    and the meaning of  is that the Son of Man represents the ladder of Jacob’s vision.51 The significance of the Son of Man representing the ladder and the angels ascending and descending upon him is that the Son of Man serves as the link between heaven and earth. As Jacob saw the ladder, the disciples will see one who connects heaven to earth and God the Father to humanity. In connecting heaven to earth, the Son of Man reveals and communicates the things of heaven. This can be seen throughout the Gospel: Jesus makes the Father known (1.18; 14.8–9) and discloses heavenly things (3.12). He speaks what he hears, sees, and knows from the Father (8.26, 38, 40; 12.49–50) and does what he sees the Father doing (5.20) and reveals these things to humanity. The heavenly realities are made available to those who are on earth because the Son of Man is in communication with the Father. The vision of John 1.51 serves as an apocalyptic introduction of this heavenly figure, the Son of Man, and it symbolizes his relationship with the Father and humanity and his act of revelation, which the Son of Man, as the Word, conveys from the Father to humanity.52 The Genesis 28 background offers another insight into the Son of Man saying in John 1.51. When the John and Genesis passages are compared, it is noticeable that there is no response given by the disciples who are to see the vision. In Genesis 28, after his dream, Jacob responds by saying: ‘The Lord is in this place and I did not know it…This place is fearsome. This is nothing but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven’ (LXX Gen 28.16–17). The silence of the disciples in John 1.51 may suggest that a similar response may come – or should come – when the disciples finally see the vision of the Son of Man. Similar to Jacob, the disciples will exclaim that the Son of Man is the house of God, the gate of heaven.53 We find hints of this expected exclamation in John 2 where Jesus’ body is re50

See also Maillet, ‘Au-dessus’, 207–13. Rowland’s (‘John 1.51’, 505) position requires that the preposition   is only connected with the second participle. Although 14.28 highlights the possibility of this usage, the evidence of 1.33 and 20.2 points in the other direction, especially if  most likely means ‘on’ or ‘upon’. 51 The placement of      %    in John 1.51 seems to outweigh the concerns of Loader (‘Greater Things’, 271; cf. Neyrey, ‘Jacob Allusions’, 604) that we cannot infer anything from Genesis 28 that is absent in John 1.51. 52 U. Schnelle states: ‘In Anlehnung an Gen. 28,12 erscheint er als der Ort, wo Himmel und Erde sich treffen. Jesus verkörpert die Kommunikation zwischen Gott und Mensch’ (Das Evangelium nach Johannes [THKNT 4; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1998] 56). See Sasse, Menschensohn, 78. 53 Since there is no mention of place in John 1.51, the emphasis shifts to the person of Jesus. See Ashton, Understanding, 348; Gundry, Old is Better, 332.

2. The ‘Johannized’ Son of Man

99

ferred to as the new temple, which the disciples did not understand until after Jesus was raised from the dead (2.19; cf. 4.26). A response to the vision of the Son of Man finally comes in Thomas’ declaration: ‘My Lord and my God!’ (20.28). To this Jesus replies: ‘Have you believed because you have seen me?’ (20.29).54 Because of their vision, because the disciples have seen Jesus the Son of Man, they will recognize that Jesus, the Son of Man is not only the ladder but is also the gate of heaven (cf. 10.7– 10), the way to the Father (14.6), whom he has revealed and made known (1.18; 14.8–9).55 2.2. The Realized Johannine Son of Man in comparison with the Future Son of Man of the Synoptic Sanhedrin Sayings Another distinctive Johannine feature of the Son of Man saying in John 1.51 is the realized nature of the Son of Man. Jesus’ statement ‘You will see’ implies a present emphasis because of its placement at the beginning of his ministry. This becomes more striking when this first Johannine Son of Man saying is compared with the final Son of Man saying in Mark and Matthew (cf. Luke 22.69). Similarity between John 1.51 and the Sanhedrin Son of Man sayings exist both in context and vocabulary.56 The context is similar because in both 54

Note the similarity with Jesus’ statement to Nathanael (1.50). Some scholars see the portrayal of the Son of Man in John 1.51 in angelomorphic language (C.A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence [Leiden: Brill, 1998] 280–83; Gundry, Jesus the Word, 13–14; idem, Old is Better, 332– 33. Cf. H. Windisch, ‘Angelophanien um den Menschensohn auf Erden’, ZNW 30 [1931] 215–33; idem, ‘Joh 1.51 und die Auferstehung Jesu’, ZNW 31 [1932] 199–204). Message and messenger may merge because Jesus is Word and revealer, but this merging does not indicate angelomorphic Christology (contra Gundry, Jesus the Word, 13–14). The emphasis of the passage is on the Son of Man and not the angels, just as in Jacob’s vision the emphasis is on the ladder that reaches to heaven (see W.A. Meeks, ‘The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism’, JBL 91 [1972] 44–72). An angelic connection may be possible through the reference to Jacob as an angel in the Prayer of Joseph (see Bühner, Gesandte, 388–90; Ashton, Understanding, 344), but the Gospel of John makes clear references to the patriarch Jacob and not an angelic Jacob (1.47, 51; 4.5, 12; see J.H. Neyrey, ‘Jacob Traditions and the Interpretation of John 4:10–26’, CBQ 41 [1979] 419– 37; idem, ‘Jacob Allusions’, 586–94; Koester, ‘Messianic Exegesis’, 24; Morgen, ‘Promesse’, 11–21). 56 See Colpe, ‘ ’, 468; Morgen, ‘Promesse’, 6; Ramos, ‘Hijo’, 59, 78; J. Frey, Die johanneische Eschatologie. Bände 1–3 (WUNT 96, 110, 117; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997, 1998, 2000) 3.364. S.S. Smalley (‘Johannes 1,51 und die Einleitung zum vierten Evangelium’, in R. Pesch and R. Schnackenburg [eds.], Jesus und der Menschensohn [Freiburg: Herder, 1975] 300–13) contends that John 1.51 is based on Mark 8.38 and Mark 14.62//Matt 26.64. See also Windisch, ‘Angelophanien’, 218–19; Higgins, Jesus, 157–61; Smalley, ‘Sayings’, 287–88; Schnackenburg, Gospel, 1.536–37; Brown, Gospel, 55

100

Chapter 4: The Apocalyptic Introduction to the Johannine Son of Man

instances a reference to Jesus as the Son of God/Messiah is followed by Jesus referring to himself as the Son of Man.57 In the Synoptics, the high priest asks: ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of God?’ In John 1.49, Nathanael exclaims that Jesus is the Son of God, the King of Israel. Further, Jesus’ speech in both Matt 26.64 and John 1.51 contains a change of person from singular to plural, as Hartwig Thyen has recently observed, suggesting that John 1.51 is ‘ein intertextuelles Spiel mit Mt 26,64 und seinem Kontext’.58 The Sanhedrin Son of Man sayings and the Son of Man saying in John 1.51 also serve similar purposes in their contexts by further defining who Jesus is, the Son of Man who is also the Messiah. The similar vocabulary of John 1.51 and the Sanhedrin Son of Man sayings consists in Jesus’ use of - and * *   %   , where again we see the importance of seeing/recognizing the Son of Man. The link between Matt 26.64 and John 1.51 is heightened further by the use of ’ -, which precedes Jesus’ proclamation to the Sanhedrin in Matt 26.64 and is found in some manuscripts of John 1.51.59 The use of ’ - in these manuscripts suggests that at least some early Christians may have made the connection between the final Son of Man saying in Mark and Matthew60 and the first Son of Man saying in John.61 Yet one of the significant differences between the Sanhedrin sayings and John 1.51 is that the Johannine Son of Man does not ‘come’.62 The Johannine Jesus does not proclaim at the end of his earthly life that the Son of Man will be seen coming with the clouds of heaven and seated at the right hand of God as in the Synoptic Gospels. Rather, he declares at the very beginning of his ministry that the disciples will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man. Thus,

89; Barrett, Gospel, 187; Guillet, ‘Fils de l’homme’, 634. On the other hand, Borsch (Son of Man, 278–79), Michaelis (‘Joh. 1,51’, 561–78), and Kuhn (Christologie 156–57) argue for similarities with the Synoptic baptism accounts. 57 Higgins, Jesus, 161. 58 Thyen, Johannesevangelium, 144–46. Matt 26.64: . 0&&"  6’- -$&0 John 1.51: $&" #%6  &"   -$&0 59 A 7 f 1.13 33 and the Syriac versions. As noted above, the Lukan version of the Sanhedrin saying also has a time reference:    (22.69). 60 The Lukan Sanhedrin saying is not the final Son of Man saying in Luke’s Gospel, but it is the last one spoken by Jesus (see Luke 24.7). 61 See Moloney, Johannine, 34–35. 62 Another difference is the lack of angels in Mark 14.62; Matt 26.64; and Luke 22.69, but angels are mentioned elsewhere in connection with the Son of Man’s coming (Mark 8.38; 13.26–27; Matt 16.27–28; 24.30–31; 25.31; Luke 9.26; cf. Matt 13.41; Luke 12.8).

3. Conclusion

101

it seems that in the Gospel of John the Son of Man has already come.63 Whereas the Synoptic Son of Man is expected to come and bring eschatological judgment and salvation, the Johannine Son of Man is already acting as eschatological judge and Savior in the present (3.13–18; 5.27; 9.35–41; 12.30–36).64 There is no need to wait for the Son of Man to come with the angels because the Son of Man has already come, and the angels of God are ascending and descending upon him. While Francis Moloney argues that John is following a traditional pattern but has ‘his own insight into what the title means’,65 it seems that in actuality John does not have a dramatically different understanding of the title than the Synoptics. He understands the title to refer to the heavenly Son of Man, but he places a greater emphasis on Jesus’ present work and mission rather than on his future coming. For John, the issue is one of timing rather than definition.

3. Conclusion The portrayal of the Johannine Son of Man in John 1.51 reveals three characteristics similar to the common features found in the interpretations of the Danielic son of man in Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian literature. (1) As with previous interpretations, the Johannine Son of Man is recognized for who he is by being seen (1 En. 62.3–5; 4 Ezra 13.52; Mark 13.26 pars.; Acts 7.56; Rev 1.7). The disciples who see the vision will recognize Jesus’ identity as the one who connects heaven and earth and makes the Father known. (2) Jesus the Son of Man is the Messiah, as highlighted by Andrew, Philip, and Nathanael’s statements (1.41, 45, 49; cf. 1 En. 48.10; 2 Bar. 40.1; 70.9; Mark 14.61–62 pars.; Rev 1.5; 4Q246 2.5–9?), but the title does not function as a Christological corrective. Rather, it adds to the Johannine presentation of the Son of Man without taking away from what was previously stated about Jesus.66 Lastly, the opening of heaven indicates that (3) the Son of Man is presented as a heavenly figure (1 Enoch 48.6; 62.7; 2 Bar 30.1; Mark 14.62 pars.; Acts 7.56; Rev 1.7). Two further characteristics of the apocalyptic interpretations may be implied in John 1.51. From three different perspectives, it is possible to 63

As noted previously, the Lukan Son of Man is not said to be ‘coming’ in the Sanhedrin statement because Luke has emphasized the immediacy of the Son of Man’s exaltation (p. 75). John has only taken this immediacy one step further. 64 See Schnackenburg, Gospel, 1.322; Ramos, ‘Hijo’, 79; Lincoln, Gospel, 123. 65 Moloney, Johannine, 35. 66 Contra Martyn, History, 128–30; Moloney, Johannine, 214, 243, 252; Painter, ‘Enigmatic’, 1870, 1872–73; Morgen, ‘Promesse’, 10; Sasse, Menschensohn, 77, 247; Ellens, ‘Exegesis’, 137.

102

Chapter 4: The Apocalyptic Introduction to the Johannine Son of Man

detect hints of the Son of Man’s role in (4) judgment and (5) salvation. First, in Second Temple literature, the phrase ‘heaven opened’ frequently indicates a connection between heaven and earth with some sense of future blessing or judgment. Second, the concept of recognizing the Son of Man in the various interpretations of the Danielic figure typically occurs in conjunction with judgment and/or salvation (1 En. 62.3–5; 4 Ezra 13.11, 37– 38; 2 Bar 29.3; 30.1; 40.1–2; 72.2–3; Mark 14.62 pars.; Matt 25.31; Rev 1.7; 14.14). Third, as we will soon see, the Johannine Son of Man is continually portrayed in a context of judgment, which may imply that the vision promised in 1.51 is a forward looking prediction of these more explicit references to the Son of Man’s role in judgment (3.13–18; 5.27–29; 8.28; 9.35–41; 12.30–36). The Son of Man in John 1.51 is portrayed with these three (and possibly two additional) characteristics that are common to the interpretations of the Danielic son of man in Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian literature, and not unlike these previous interpretations, the Gospel of John presents its own distinctive portrayal. First, John connects the Son of Man with the ladder of Jacob’s vision in Gen 28.12, and in so doing, highlights the Son of Man’s role as heavenly mediator, linking heaven and earth, God and humanity. Second, John 1.51’s similarity with the Sanhedrin Son of Man sayings in the Synoptic Gospels and the placement of this Johannine saying at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry suggests that Johannine Son of Man is already present. There is no need to wait for his future coming because Jesus’ disciples can already recognize him now. Rather than the Synoptic emphasis on the future coming, John emphasizes that the Son of Man’s future role is in some sense realized in the present, but as will be argued in the following chapters, this does not mean that John’s eschatology is completely realized. The Son of Man still has a future role to play (cf. 5.28– 29). What Nathanael and the other disciples will see then is not a single future event for which they must wait.67 By following Jesus, by answering the call to ‘come and see’ (1.39; cf. 1.46), they will see this heavenly vision of the Son of Man. The seeing of the apocalyptic Son of Man begins now because he has already come. His actions and words authenticate Jesus as the Son of Man who is the way to the Father. He is in continuous communication with the Father, revealing the Father and the heavenly things. By following Jesus, his disciples have this ongoing vision beginning with the first manifestations of his glory at the wedding in Cana of Galilee and culminating in Jesus’ death, resurrection, and glorious return to the Father. Only after Jesus’ resurrection will the disciples be able to respond to Jesus with an exclamation similar to Jacob’s (2.22; 12.16 cf. 67

Harris, Prologue, 118.

3. Conclusion

103

20.28). Therefore, the vision, and hence the greater things, that the disciples will see does not consist solely of the revelation of Jesus’ glory at Cana or in Jesus’ crucifixion. Rather, the vision provides an apocalyptic introduction to the Johannine Son of Man and encompasses all of Jesus’ work, his revelation and glorification of the Father, which is ultimately fulfilled in his death, resurrection, and return to the Father in glory.

Chapter 5

The Ascent-Descent and ‘Lifting Up’ of the Son of Man – John 3.13–14 After the apocalyptic introduction of the Johannine Son of Man in John 1.51, the next two Son of Man sayings appear one after the other in the midst of Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus. Nowhere else in the Gospel of John or the NT are there two adjacent references to the Son of Man, and adding further to the distinctiveness of these sayings, each of them introduces a separate Johannine Son of Man theme. In 3.13, the motif of the Son of Man’s ascent and descent appears for the first time, and likewise the ‘lifting up’ of the Son of Man in 3.14. These themes are particularly characteristic of the Johannine Son of Man, but they do not negate the Johannine Son of Man’s connection to the Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian interpretations of the Danielic figure. In fact, the Son of Man sayings in 3.13 and 14 highlight the apocalyptic characteristics of the Johannine Son of Man. Specifically, 3.13 draws attention to the Son of Man as a revealer of heavenly mysteries and as a heavenly, preexistent being. John 3.14 points to the Son of Man’s role in salvation and judgment, that he is recognized, and worthy of exaltation.

1. The Ascent-Descent of the Son of Man – John 3.13 1.1. The Son of Man Reveals the Heavenly Things In combination with Jesus’ question to Nicodemus in 3.12, the Son of Man saying in 3.13 indicates that the Johannine Son of Man who descended from heaven reveals heavenly things.1 Considering that the saying in 1.51 has already introduced the Son of Man as a heavenly mediator connecting heaven and earth, it should come as no surprise that he reveals the mysteries of heaven. In 3.12, Jesus asks Nicodemus how he will believe if Jesus should speak of    given that he has not believed  1 Moloney, Johannine, 53. Contra Sasse (Menschensohn, 132–33) who argues that Jesus’ heavenly knowledge is not grounded in his being ‘Son of Man’ but in the sending sayings.

1. The Ascent-Descent of the Son of Man – John 3.13

105

".2 What Jesus means by  " and    is not altogether clear. Generally, the earthly and heavenly things are understood to describe different aspects of either eternal life or revelation.3 Burkett takes the view that Jesus is speaking of earthly and heavenly aspects of eternal life in 3.3, 5. Being born - and being born of water and the spirit are earthly aspects of eternal life, while seeing and entering the kingdom of heaven are heavenly aspects.4 The difficulty with this view, however, is that 3.12 seems to indicate that Jesus has spoken of the earthly things but has yet to speak of the heavenly things.5 It is more likely that  " and    are descriptions of Jesus’ revelation that he brings from heaven as the Son of Man, the one descending from heaven (cf. 5.19–20; 8.29–30; 12.49–50).6 The earthly things are what Jesus has previously spoken in 3.3–8, and the revelation of   is yet to come.7 But how can birth from above be referred to as earthly? Being born -  is earthly in the sense that Jesus is using metaphors that Nicodemus, a teacher of Israel, can understand, such as wind and human birth.8 If the earthly things have already been spoken to Nicodemus, Jesus has yet to speak of the    . Raymond Brown suggests that the heavenly things are what immediately follow in 3.13–15,9 but the   are better explained by the whole of what is revealed without the aid of earthly metaphor in 3.13–21.10 Following John 3, the 2

A similar a distinction between earthly and heavenly things can be found in 4 Ezra 4.1–12, 21; Wis 9.16; 1 Cor 15.40 and Phil 2.10. See Meeks (‘Man from Heaven’, 53 n. 36 and 37) for Greco-Roman examples. Also Bultmann, Gospel, 147 n. 1. 3 Cf. Meeks (‘Man from Heaven’, 54), who suggests that the earthly/heavenly contrast is a contrast between Nicodemus and Jesus. G.C. Nicholson (Death as Departure: The Johannine Descent-Ascent Schema [SBL.DS 63; Chico: Scholars, 1983] 89) says that the earthly and heavenly statement is only a qal wahomer argument and not much stress should be placed on the difference between the earthly and heavenly things. 4 Burkett, Son of the Man, 78–80. Also Thyen, Johannesevangelium, 200–1. Similarly, Carson suggests that the earthly things are the earthly aspects of being born from above, while the heavenly things are the fulfillment of it (Gospel, 199). 5 Note the subjunctive   and the future  . 6 Moloney, Johannine, 47–48. 7 Bernard, Gospel, 110–11; Schnelle, Evangelium, 72; Sasse, Menschensohn, 125. 8 Lindars, Gospel, 155; Ridderbos, Gospel, 134. Note a similar passage in 4 Ezra 4.9– 10, where, after asking Ezra questions about the natural world, the angel says to him: ‘Perhaps you would have said to me, “I never went down into the deep, nor as yet into hell, neither did I ever ascend into heaven.” But now I have asked you only about fire and wind and the day, things which you have passed and without which you cannot exist, and you have given me no answer about them!’ (Klijn, OTP, 1.529–30). 9 Brown, Gospel, 132. 10 Schnelle, Evangelium, 72. There is much discussion on the extent of Jesus’ speech in chapter 3, largely because Nicodemus seems to disappear from the scene after 3.9. Some find a switch from Jesus’ words to that of a narrator at various points: 3.11

106

Chapter 5: The Ascent-Descent and ‘Lifting Up’ of the Son of Man

heavenly things can continue to be seen and heard throughout the entirety of Jesus’ words and actions (cf. 16.25).11 The revelation of heavenly things points to Jesus’ revelation of the Father and of himself as the way of salvation, the way to the Father,12 and this is made possible through his death, resurrection, and ascent to the Father. As with the Enochic son of man, the Son of Man in the Gospel of John reveals heavenly things (cf. 1 En. 46.3; 51.3). 1.2. The Son of Man as a Heavenly Figure and Preexistent 1.2.1. The Descent of the Son of Man After Jesus questions Nicodemus’ disbelief in the earthly things, he states: $   //$         * $     $/2 *      0

Although the angels of God have previously been said to ascend and descend on the Son of Man (1.51), 3.13 is the first indication that the Son of Man also ascends and descends (cf. 6.62).13 The saying explains that the Son of Man can reveal heavenly things because he has descended from heaven. It also highlights two further features of John’s Son of Man that are similar to those found in the interpretations of the Danielic son of man in Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian literature: the Johannine Son of Man is a heavenly figure and is preexistent. The Son of Man is described as * $     $/ in John 3.13.14 That the Son of Man has descended from heaven implies first that he comes from heaven, and second that he existed previously in heaven before descending from heaven. Moloney agrees that the Son of Man de-

(Nicholson, Death, 86–87; cf. Painter, ‘Enigmatic’, 1877 n. 37); 3.13 (Schnackenburg, Gospel, 1.380–81); 3.16 (F.F. Bruce, The Gospel of John [Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 1983], 86; Carson, Gospel, 203). From a narrative standpoint, this section is tightly connected grammatically and thematically and provides no clear break in Jesus’ speech between 3.10 and 3.21 (see Brown, Gospel, 149; Sasse, Menschensohn, 83). 11 Contra W. Thüsing who argues that the  " are the promised revelation given by Jesus during earthly life and the    refer to the realization of the promise after Jesus’ return to the Father (Die Erhöhung und Verherrlichung Jesu im Johannesevangelium [NTAbh 21; Münster: Aschendorffsche, 1960] 255–57). 12 See C. Dietzfelbinger, Das Evangelium nach Johannes. Teilband 1: Johannes 1–12 (ZBK 4.1, 4.2; 2 vols.; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2001) 1.85. 13 The words  / and $/ are also used throughout the Gospel to refer to travel to and from various locations on earth (2.12, 13; 4.47, 49, 51; 5.1, 7; 6.16; 7.8, 10, 18; 10.1; 11.55; 12.20; 21.11). 14 Nicodemus has already told Jesus:   '   &&$&  (3.2).

1. The Ascent-Descent of the Son of Man – John 3.13

107

scends, but he does not think that the title ‘Son of Man’ has anything to do with preexistence or postexistence.15 He states: For John, as logos and Son of God, Jesus, the Son of Man, preexisted and postexisted. But the names “Jesus of Nazareth” and “Son of Man” are not used to speak of those aspects. The Son of Man is certainly above (3:13) and returns to the Father (6:62), but only insofar as Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of Man, is to be identified with “the Son (of God)” and the logos.16

Moloney’s position is rooted in his argument that the title ‘Son of Man’ highlights the humanity of Jesus and specifically the incarnation, but he fails to note that there is no reference to the ‘Son (of God)’ in 3.13 (or 6.62). ‘Son (of God)’ does not appear until 3.16 when the theme of ascentdescent has been left behind. John 3.13 clearly designates the Son of Man as ‘the one who descended from heaven’. If the Son of Man descended from heaven, his descent at least implies that he previously existed in heaven and descended to earth to reveal the heavenly things. The Word did not become the Son of Man; rather, the Son of Man has become flesh.17 1.2.2. No One Has Ascended John 3.13 begins as a polemic against the belief that certain humans ascended to heaven and returned with heavenly secrets.18 The ascent of Moses is often singled out as the primary ascent being argued against because of the numerous references to Moses in the Gospel of John (1.17, 45; 3.14; 5.45, 46, etc.) and the proliferation of traditions concerning Moses’ ascent to heaven.19 But there were other figures in Jewish tradition who 15

Moloney, ‘Revisited’, 192. See also Ruckstuhl, ‘Menschensohnforschung’, 276. Moloney, Editor’s note, in Brown, Introduction, 257 n. 87. 17 Contra Moloney, Johannine, 180–81; and Ruckstuhl (‘Abstieg’, 329), who states: ‘Es scheint aber, daß nach unserer Stelle nicht der Menschensohn vom Himmel herabstieg, sondern der Herabsteigende durch den Abstieg Mensch und Menschensohn wurde.’ 18 Moloney, Johannine, 54–5; Borgen, ‘Exegetical Traditions’, 243–58; Odeberg, Fourth Gospel, 72, 88–89, 97; Meeks, Prophet-King, 297–98; Ruckstuhl, ‘Abstieg’, 325; C.H. Talbert, ‘The Myth of a Descending-Ascending Redeemer in Mediterranean Antiquity’, NTS 22 (1975–76) 418–40; Loader, ‘Greater Things’, 263; Ashton, Understanding, 350; Nicholson, Death, 91–92; Hare, Son of Man, 85; J.H. Charlesworth, ‘Did the Fourth Evangelist Know the Enoch Tradition?’ in J. Mrazek and J. Roskovec (eds.), Testimony and Interpretation: early Christology in Its Judeo-Hellenistic Milieu. Studies in Honour of Petr Pokorný (London: T&T Clark, 2004) 223–39. See Burkett (Son of the Man, 81) and Thyen (Das Johannesevangelium, 206) for dissenting viewpoints. 19 Borgen, ‘Exegetical Traditions’, 243; Meeks, Prophet-King, 297–98; Moloney, Johannine, 57; Painter, ‘Enigmatic’, 1879. Meeks states: ‘Even in passages where a mild polemic can be detected against too great an exaltation of Moses…Moses’ ascent is taken for granted…’ (Prophet-King, 205, cf. 122–5, 141, 156–9, 205–9, 241–4, 295–301; also 16

108

Chapter 5: The Ascent-Descent and ‘Lifting Up’ of the Son of Man

were thought to have ascended to heaven. Enoch is one of the more significant figures (Gen 5.24; 1 Enoch; 2 Enoch).20 Others include Levi (T. Levi 2–5), Elijah (2 Kgs 2; 1 Macc 2.58; Sir 48.9), Ezra (4 Ezra 14.48),21 Isaiah (Mart. Ascen. Isa. 7–11), Abraham (T. Ab. A 10–15), Phineas (L.A.B. 48.1–2), Zephaniah (Apoc. Zeph.), and Adam (L.A.E. 25–29).22 The number of traditions about figures ascending to heaven highlights the significance of  and the polemical force of John 3.13. Jesus makes it clear that no matter who Nicodemus may think has ascended to heaven, no one has done so; but Jesus does make an exception, the Son of Man. Unlike those others who claim to have ascended to heaven, only the Son of Man can reveal heavenly things because he is from heaven.23 1.2.3 The Use of  in 3.13 The meaning of the Son of Man’s ascent and descent in John 3.13 depends upon the Greek conjoining phrase  . The possibility exists that the phrase may be translated in English as exceptive or antithetical. The exceptive meaning would suggest that the Son of Man has descended from J. Lierman, ‘The Mosaic Pattern of John’s Christology’, in J. Lierman, [ed.], Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John [WUNT 2.219; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006] 210– 34, esp. 212). Moses was largely understood to have ascended to heaven when he received the law on Sinai (see Targums on Deut 30.12 and Ps 68.19; Philo, Mos., 1.158; Josephus, Ant., 3.88, 96; L.A.B., 12.1; cf. Ezek. Trag. 68–82. See M.J.J. Menken, ‘The Provenance and Meaning of the Old Testament Quotation in John 6:31’, NovT 30 [1988] 39–56; repr. in M.J.J. Menken, Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form [CBET 15; Kampen: Kok, 1996] 47–65). Other traditions also speak of Moses ascending at his death rather than being buried by God (Josephus Ant. 4.325–26; see A.W. Zwiep, The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology [Leiden: Brill, 1997] 64–71; Meeks, Prophet-King, 209–11). 20 An extensive tradition regarding Enoch’s ascent to heaven grew out of Gen 5.24 (1 Enoch 14; 71; see J.C. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (CBQMS 16; Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1984); idem, Man for All Generations, passim. J.H. Charlesworth (‘Fourth Evangelist’, 232) contends that the polemic in John 3.13 is directed against ‘the Enoch groups and their claim that Enoch is the one who ascended into heaven to obtain wisdom that they alone possess and the one who has been named “the Son of Man”’. 21 Ezra’s ascent is found in the Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic 1, and Armenian versions. See Metzger, ‘Fourth Book of Ezra’, OTP 1.555 n. ‘p’. This ascent seems to be an ascent at the end of Ezra’s life as Enoch’s ascent in Gen 5.24 rather than an ascent to view the heavenlies and then to descend as Enoch’s in the Book of Watchers. 22 For further discussion of heavenly ascents, see M. Himmelfarb, Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (Oxford: OUP, 1993); Zwiep, Ascension, 36–39; G.W.E. Nickelsburg, ‘Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee’, JBL 100 (1981) 575–600. 23 A similar polemic may exist in 1.18 (cf. 5.37; 6.46). Jesus is the only one to have truly seen God, although the OT says Moses, Elijah, and Isaiah saw the Lord.

1. The Ascent-Descent of the Son of Man – John 3.13

109

heaven and ascended to heaven, while the antithetical meaning would indicate that no one has ascended to heaven but the Son of Man has descended from heaven. Moloney is the chief proponent of the view that   should be understood with an antithetical meaning.24 Although in his most recent statement on the issue he seems to agree with the criticism of his position, admitting that ‘this solution places an unbearable strain on the Greek’, he still maintains a similar meaning for the verse.25 Originally, Moloney interpreted 3.13 in this way: ‘There is no one who has ascended, but, contrary to the fact of the protasis, one has descended, the Son of Man.’26 In support of his position, Moloney appealed to Rev 21.27 to show that   can be translated antithetically.27 He is correct that Rev 21.27 is an example of the antithetical use of ,28 but this verse does not prove the antithetical use of the conjunction in John 3.13. In Rev 21.27, each clause has its own verb, which is not the case in John 3.13. The closest parallels to the use of   in 3.13 may be found in instances where the subject of the protasis is  and only one verb is used in the protasis and apodosis. In such constructions,   almost always has an exceptive meaning: the subject of the apodosis is the exception to the ‘no one’ of the protasis. This is the case in Rev 14.3b: $       #      $   $    &2  "   8 "0

The similarities between John 3.13 and Rev 14.3b can be seen in the conjunction  ,  as the subject of the protasis, and the use of a participial phrase in apposition to the subject of the apodosis. ‘Those who have been redeemed from the earth’ is another way of referring to the 144,000, just as ‘the one descending from heaven’ is another way of referring to the 24 Moloney, Johannine, 55. This view is also held by Sidebottom, ‘Ascent’, 115–22; idem, Christ, 120; Ruckstuhl, ‘Abstieg’, 325–26; Kanagaraj, Mysticism, 196. Cf. Hare (Son of Man, 87): ‘No one can claim to have returned from heaven with supernatural knowledge except the one who came down from heaven in the first place’; Carson (Gospel, 200): ‘…and no one [else] has ascended into heaven and remains there [so as to be able to speak about heavenly things] but only the one who has come down from heaven [is equipped to do so.]’ (brackets original); Charlesworth (‘Fourth Evangelist’, 232 n. 52): ‘And no one has ascended to heaven (and returned with   ) except the one who descended from heaven (and alone is able to reveal  )’. 25 Moloney, ‘Revisited’, 190–93. See Ashton’s critique (Understanding, 350). 26 Moloney, Johannine, 55. 27 Also Sidebottom (‘Ascent’, 122); Ruckstuhl (‘Abstieg’, 326). 28 Moloney, Johannine, 55. Contra Ashton (Understanding, 350 n. 37) and Painter (‘Enigmatic’, 1878 n. 43) who both argue that Rev 21.27 undermines Moloney’s point. His point is not undermined by Rev 21.27, but neither is it proven by it. Cf. Nicholson, Death, 94–95.

110

Chapter 5: The Ascent-Descent and ‘Lifting Up’ of the Son of Man

Son of Man. The participial phrase in Rev 14.3b should not be translated as an indicative verb, which is how Moloney and others argue the participial phrase in John 3.13 should be translated.29 The translation of Rev 14.3b is not: ‘No one was able to learn the song, but the 144,000 have been redeemed from the earth’. The 144,000 are the exception to ‘no one’. They were able to learn the song. Within the Gospel of John, the closest grammatical parallel to 3.13 is found in 17.12b (see also 14.6)30:  % &  *   &2' "!& #0

None of the disciples was lost, except Judas. Again the subject of the apodosis is the exception to the ‘no one’ of the protasis and the same verbal action is supplied. The use of   in the NT, when  is the subject of the protasis, indicates that this conjunction conveys an exceptive meaning.31 In the Gospel of John, this is also true of the use of   with .32 Thus, we can say that the Son of Man, who descended from heaven, has also ascended to heaven. The Son of Man is the exception to those who have claimed prior ascent to heaven. He has ascended, and whether intentionally or not, he is the answer to the questions posed in

29 Moloney, Johannine, 55; Sidebottom, ‘Ascent’, 122; Charlesworth, ‘Fourth Evangelist’, 232 n. 52. Nicholson highlights the fact that * $      $/ is a noun clause in apposition to       and not a verbal phrase (Death, 95). 30 Borgen argues for the exceptive meaning of 3.13 based on John 17.12 and 6.46 (‘Exegetical Traditions’, 249). 31 Matt 11.27//Luke 10.22; Mark 10.18//Luke 18.19; 1 Cor 2.11; Rev 2.17; 19.12. In John, examples of the exceptive use of   without  can be seen in 6.22; 6.46 (twice); 10.10; 19.11, 15. In each of these instances, the subject of the apodosis is part of or the same as the subject of the protasis (with the possible exception of 19.11). The uses of   in 14.2, 11; 15.22, 24 reflect the meaning ‘if not’ or ‘unless’ and do not assist this discussion. The structure of 13.10 (which has some textual issues of its own) changes verbs between clauses and does not help to clarify the meaning of   in 3.13. John 1.18, which is understood to be exceptive, is parallel in structure to 3.13, although it lacks . Some manuscripts of 1.18 contain , making the exception more explicit. 32 See 3.2; 6.44, 65. The exceptive meaning of  can also be seen when it is used at the beginning of the protasis and the apodosis has the same subject (3.3, 5; 6.53; 8.24; 20.25). A.A. Das (‘Another look at  in Galatians 2:16’, JBL 119 [2000] 529–39) says that   is normally translated as exceptive, although he sees the uses in John 5.19 and 15.4 as examples of the adversative or antithetical use. He is correct, but the issue with these verses is that the use of !’   (‘by him/itself’) in the protasis and its absence in the apodosis indicates that the verbs are different in the two clauses. In the protasis, the branch is said to be unable to bear fruit by itself. In antithesis to this, the branch can bear fruit if it remains in the vine, which is not bearing fruit by itself. The meaning of 5.19 hints in this direction since everything the Son does comes from the Father and not himself (5.19; 8.28; and 5.21–22, 26–27; 14.10).

1. The Ascent-Descent of the Son of Man – John 3.13

111

Jewish literature about who could ascend to heaven (Deut 30.12; Prov 30.4; Bar 3.29; Wis 9.16).33 1.2.4. The Son of Man’s Ascent As we have seen, the Son of Man is the only one who ascends to heaven. The use of   signifies that the Son of Man is the exception to the ‘no one’ and ascends (//$), but interpretations of this ascension must take into account the perfect tense of the verb. The Gospel of John and the Johannine epistles use the perfect tense much more frequently than any other book of the NT, with over 200 uses of the perfect indicative.34 In general, the perfect tense reflects a past action that continues to have results in the present.35 The majority of the perfects in the Gospel of John are ‘historical’ analepses, which means that the perfect refers to a past event that happened during the time frame of the narrative (cf. 1.34; 2.10; 8.31; 11.11, etc.).36 The other significant group is the ‘pre-historical’ analepses, meaning that these perfects refer to past events occurring prior to the beginning of the narrative (cf. 1.3, 18; 3.35; 5.36; 16.28; etc.). Other uses of the perfect may suggest a future sense, in which a future event is spoken of as having already taken place (cf. 4.38; 20.23). Thus, there are two basic ways in which//$, and thus the Son of Man’s ascent, can be understood. First, the ascent can be taken as a past ascent in the usual sense of the perfect verb, whether as historical or pre-historical analepsis.37 Sec-

33 This interpretation best explains the textual variant at the end of 3.13, which Barrett (Gospel, 213) and Borsch (Son of Man, 274) think is original (cf. Brown, Gospel, 133). The phrase * 9   %#  #%, which is contained in some manuscripts, locates the Son of Man in heaven. For the scribe(s) it seems, the Son of Man, who had come down from heaven, had already ascended and was in heaven. 34 M.S. Enslin, ‘The Perfect Tense in the Fourth Gospel’, JBL 55 (1936) 121–31; S. Pancaro, ‘A Statistical Approach to the Concept of Time and Eschatology in the Fourth Gospel’, Bib 50 (1969) 511–24. Frey (Eschatologie, 2.28–29, cf. 2.96–115) calls this frequent use of the perfect ‘die auffällige Perfekt-Häufung’. 35 See F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (R.W. Funk, trans.; Cambridge: CUP, 1961) 175; D.B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) 573; Abbott, Johannine Grammar, §2473, 2477. 36 G.R. O’Day (‘“I Have Overcome the World” (John 16:33): Narrative Time in John 13–17’, Semeia 53 [1991] 153–66) takes the terms ‘historical’ and ‘pre-historical’ analepses from Culpepper. See R.A. Culpepper, The Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 57. 37 Borsch, Son of Man, 272; Bühner, Gesandte, 374–99; Borgen, ‘Exegetical Traditions’; Burkett, Son of the Man; Roth, ‘Jesus’, 11–26; Thyen, Johannesevangelium, 203– 8.

112

Chapter 5: The Ascent-Descent and ‘Lifting Up’ of the Son of Man

ond, the ascent can be understood as a reference to a future ascent (cf. 20.17).38 A minority of scholars argues for the former view, namely that the ascent of the Son of Man was a past ascent.39 Frederick Borsch argues that a prior ascent of the Son of Man took place during Jesus’ earthly life, a historical analepsis. Borsch specifically relates this to a ‘liturgical and/or mythical ascent’, of which he suggests there are traces in the Synoptic baptism passages.40 Jan-A. Bühner asserts that the ascent in 3.13 is a visionary ascent in which Jesus ascends to heaven as a prophet, receives his calling, is transformed into an angelic Son of Man, and then descends.41 He finds background for this visionary calling and transformation in 2 Enoch, the Prayer of Joseph, and 11QMelch; however, Bühner offers no evidence from John’s Gospel where such a visionary call ascent may have taken place. Further, such a call ascent makes Jesus’ ascent to heaven the basis of his ability to speak of the heavenly things, but it is Jesus’ origin from above and his descent from there that makes this revelation possible. Other scholars who understand the Son of Man’s ascent as taking place prior to Jesus’ statement in 3.13 take the view that the verb refers to a prehistorical analepsis, that it presumes the Son of Man’s pre-existent state. There are differing positions, however, as to what sort of pre-incarnational ascent is meant. Burkett contends that the Son of Man’s previous ascension refers to the ascents and descents of God in the OT.42 A number of problems exist with this view. First, there is the question of whether or not the connection between Prov 30.1–4 and John 3.13 is as strong as Burkett argues that it is.43 Second, the Son of Man still must descend from heaven before he can ascend. Third, if the Son of Man must ascend to heaven before he can descend to earth, he is placed in the same position as all the others who claim to make ascensions to heaven. The significance of the Son of Man’s knowledge of heavenly things comes through his place in 38

J. Blank, Krisis. Untersuchungen zur johanneischen Christologie und Eschatologie (Freiburg im Breisgau: Lambertus, 1964) 77–78; Nicholson, Death, 91, 98; Gundry, Jesus the Word, 12; Painter, ‘Enigmatic’, 1878–79; Ashton, Understanding, 355; Ham, ‘Title’, 79 n. 67. 39 Thyen says that he could only find five scholars that hold this position (Johannesevangelium, 203). 40 Borsch, Son of Man, 273. 41 Bühner, Gesandte, 374–99. 42 Burkett, Son of the Man, 85–86. He finds further evidence for this view in John 9.5: ‘Whenever I am in the world, I am the Light of the world.’ See also Thyen, Johannesevangelium, 206–8. Cf. Sasse, Menschensohn, 154. 43 As noted in the introduction, Burkett’s conclusion is based on questionable exegesis of Proverbs 30.

1. The Ascent-Descent of the Son of Man – John 3.13

113

heaven prior to his descent and not an ascent to heaven from earth. The emphasis of 3.13 appears to be on the Son of Man’s descent from his preexistent place in heaven and not a prior ascent to heaven from earth.44 Wolfgang Roth likewise argues for a pre-incarnation ascent of the Son of Man. He understands the Son of Man to be the Son of Adam, and he relates the Son of Adam specifically to Abel: Jesus is the ‘Son of Man/Son of Adam/Abel-Reincarnate’.45 In the Testament of Abraham A 12–13, it is Abel, the Son of Adam, who sits on the throne and judges the dead. While Roth’s view provides a unique understanding of the Johannine Son of Man, he incorrectly maintains that Jesus’ statement ‘Before Abraham was, I am’ refers to a figure who lived on earth before Abraham.46 Considering that Jesus was with the Father in the beginning (1.1–2; 17.5), there seems to be no need to look to Genesis 1–11 (i.e., ‘after the foundation of the world’) for someone who precedes Abraham. Peder Borgen offers the most likely pre-incarnation ascent hypothesis, contending that the Son of Man’s ascent to heaven was a heavenly enthronement and installation to an office in terms of Dan 7.13–14.47 Particularly, Borgen claims that Jesus’ glorification follows a pattern of ascent (installation into an office), descent (carrying out the office), and return (the return to his pre-existent enthronement).48 He says: ‘On this basis Jn 3, 13 states that Moses at Mt Sinai and others did not ascend heaven [sic] to be installed in an office of glory, but Jesus, as the Son of Man had been installed in office before his descent (in the incarnation)’.49 While Borgen has shown that God’s ascents in the OT can refer to God taking his throne (cf. LXX 1 Sam 2.10; Ps 47.6; 68.19), it does not appear likely that ‘ascent to heaven’ in 3.13 refers to enthronement, considering that heaven and earth are contrasted in the context of the passage (3.12).50 The implication of 3.13 is that no one has ascended from earth to heaven.51 Since the suggested ascents of the Son of Man prior to John 3.13 do not seem to do justice to the context of Jesus’ statement, we must evaluate the view that, although //$ is in the perfect tense, the reference is to an ascent of the Son of Man that takes place after Jesus’ statement in 3.13. There are three variations on this future ascent. The first understands the words of Jesus to be those of the Evangelist, the Johannine community, 44

Moloney, Johannine, 55; Borsch, Son of Man, 272; Bultmann, Gospel, 150–51. Roth, ‘Jesus’, 20–26, esp. 25. 46 Roth, ‘Jesus’, 16–17. 47 Ridderbos allows for this possibility (Gospel, 136). It need not, as Nicholson states, ‘be regarded as little short of bizarre’ (Death, 97). 48 Borgen, ‘Exegetical Traditions’, 250–52. 49 Borgen, ‘Exegetical Traditions’, 251. 50 Note also the contrast between ‘above’ and ‘below’ (3.3, 31). 51 See Nicholson, Death, 97; Moloney, Johannine, 233. 45

114

Chapter 5: The Ascent-Descent and ‘Lifting Up’ of the Son of Man

and/or the later Church.52 From the Evangelist’s perspective, the ascent was a past event with continuing effects in the future.53 This view is possible, but then it seems strange that the Evangelist would refer to Jesus’ ascent with the perfect tense in 3.13 but to his ‘lifting up’ in 3.14 with the future tense.54 A second possible interpretation of //$ is as a ‘proleptic perfect’55 or ‘perfectum propheticum’.56 Although the perfect tense is used, Jesus’ ascent actually takes place in the future. There are other places in the Gospel of John where such a ‘strange timelessness or indifference to normal time sequence’ exists,57 where the future is understood as a present reality.58 For instance: ‘The one who believes in him is not judged, but the one who does not believe in him has already been judged ($$) because he has not believed ($) in the only begotten Son of God’ (3.18).59 Similarly, we find a strange mix of past and present in 5.24 where believers do not come into judgment ( $ $ ) but have crossed over (//$) from death to life.60 Another example is found in 4.38 where the disciples have entered into (&&) the harvest, even though there is no mention that they have yet been sent out.61 These examples indicate that there are some uses of the perfect in the Gospel of John that may refer to future events. Frey refers to a similar ‘„proleptischen“ Gebrauch des Imperfects’.62 On the other hand, if 3.13 is to be 52

Enslin, ‘Perfect Tense’, 129–31; Barrett, Gospel, 177–78; Thüsing, Erhöhung, 256; Schnackenburg, Gospel, 1.392; E. Haenchen, John (2 vols.; Hermeneia; R.W. Funk, trans.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 1.204; Nicholson, Death, 95–96; Painter, ‘Enigmatic’, 1878–79; Frey, Eschatologie, 2.133; Schnelle, Evangelium, 73. See Sasse, Menschensohn, 134–40. 53 Enslin (‘Perfect Tense’, 129) says that 3.13 is ‘impossible’ in the mouth of Jesus because Jesus had not yet ascended. 54 Ridderbos, Gospel, 136; Brown, Gospel, 149. 55 B.M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990) 304–5. 56 Frey, who takes the perfect in 3.13 as the perfect of the Evangelist, mentions this view as another possibility (Eschatologie, 2.130–31). Cf. A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1914) 898. 57 Brown, Gospel, 132. 58 O’Day says that this happens particularly in the Farewell Discourse (‘I Have Overcome’, 157). 59 R.A. Young lists this reference as an example of a ‘timeless’ perfect (Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach [Nashville: Broadman&Holman, 1994] 126). 60 Frey (Eschatologie, 2.131) also lists 16.11, 33; 17.10, 22; 19.28, 30; 20.23; 1 John 2.5. 61 Brown, Gospel, 183; cf. 132. See also John 20.23. 62 Frey (Eschatologie, 2.132) is specifically referring to 16.4b and 17.12.

1. The Ascent-Descent of the Son of Man – John 3.13

115

understood as having a future sense, it would seem that this future ascent should also apply to the  of the protasis and not just the Son of Man. The sense of 3.13 would then be: ‘No one will ascend, except the Son of Man, the one coming down from heaven.’63 But even with this difficulty, the possibility of a ‘future perfect’ in 3.13 cannot be ruled out. The third option is to understand //$ as a gnomic perfect, which indicates the general or proverbial nature of a statement.64 B.M. Fanning states: ‘The basic sense of the perfect is preserved in this [gnomic] use, but “the existing result of an antecedent occurrence” is not limited to a particular time or occasion; instead, it refers to a generic situation which could be true on numerous occasions.’65 Some examples of the gnomic perfect in the NT include the following: Rom 13.8b: "8" % '   & $0 Rom 14.23a: $  8!"#$$$2 ) $$ 0 1 Cor 7.39 (cf. Rom 7.2): "!’ '   :#  0 Jas 1.24: $  "    $ && $   &     .066

For 3.13, this would mean that //$ has a general sense: ‘No one ascends except the Son of Man the one who descended.’67 Jesus’ statement becomes a general statement that applies to everyone at all times, and the Son of Man is the exception to this statement. To argue that the perfect verb in 3.13 is a gnomic perfect does not solve all of the problems of the Son of Man’s ascent, but compared with the other possible solutions, it provides the best answer in light of the grammatical evidence. By taking //$ as a gnomic perfect, the ascent of Son of Man does not precede his descent, corresponding with his movement from heaven to earth. The Son of Man also remains the exception to the polemic against heavenly ascents. In addition, if the Son of Man’s ascent in 3.13 refers to a future event and not something that has already 63 It is also worth noting that the future perfect is typically found in the apodosis of a conditional clause, which is not the case with 3.13. Cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 581. 64 On the ‘Gnomic Perfect’, see Robertson, Grammar, 897; Blass and Debrunner, Greek Grammar, 177; and Wallace, Greek Grammar, 580–81. Cf. J.H. Moulton-N. Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Vol. 3; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963) 73. 65 Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 304. 66 See Robertson, Grammar, 897–98; Blass and Debrunner, Greek Grammar, 177; Fanning, Verbal Aspect, 304–5; Wallace, Greek Grammar, 580–81. Note Robertson’s comment (Grammar, 898): ‘Indeed some of the examples classed as gnomic are really proleptical also. Cf. Jo. 3:18; 5:24; Jas. 2:10; Ro. 13:8; 14:23.’ 67 Bultmann, Gospel, 149 n. 3, 151 n. 2; Blank, Krisis, 77 n. 79; Ridderbos, Gospel, 136; Sasse, Menschensohn, 137.

116

Chapter 5: The Ascent-Descent and ‘Lifting Up’ of the Son of Man

taken place, all three references to the ascending of Jesus in the Gospel of John allude to his post-resurrection ascent (6.62; 20.17).68 The Johannine Son of Man is a heavenly figure who has descended from heaven, become human, and will ascend to heaven. 1.3. ‘Apocalyptic Son of Man’ Characteristics in 3.13 There is no direct connection between the Johannine Son of Man in 3.13 and the ‘one like a son of man’ from Daniel 7,69 but three similarities with the interpretations of the Danielic figure in Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian literature can be discerned. Most significantly, because the Johannine Son of Man descends from heaven, (1) he is a heavenly figure and (2) is preexistent (cf. 1 En. 48.6; 62.7; 4 Ezra 13.26; 2 Bar. 30.1; Rev 1.7, 17). As a result of his heavenly origin and descent from heaven, (3) the Son of Man can reveal heavenly things. The revelation of heavenly things is not a feature that is prevalent throughout the interpretations, but it is noticeable in the Similitudes of Enoch: ‘This is the son of man who has righteousness, and righteousness dwells with him. And all the treasuries of what is hidden he will reveal’ (1 En. 46.3; cf. 51.3; Rev 1.19–20). Although only implicitly present, John 3.13 also hints at the Son of Man’s role in (4) salvation (1 En. 48.7; 62.13–14; 4 Ezra 13.26, 49; 2 Bar. 40.2; 72.2; Mark 10.45 par.; Luke 19.10; Rev 1.18). The majority of Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus prior to 3.13 concerns eternal life and entering the kingdom of God (3.3, 5–8), and what immediately follows also involves eternal life (3.14–16). However, the Son of Man’s connection to salvation is not made explicit until 3.14–15. The Johannine Son of Man is also distinct from the previous interpretations of the Danielic son of man. The language of ascent-descent is unique to the Johannine figure, although the return of 2 Baruch’s Messiah and the coming of the Markan, Matthean, and Lukan figures is not entirely different. The Johannine Son of Man’s heavenly origin and descent allow him to reveal heavenly things, which have a definite Johannine nuance. The heavenly things consist of Jesus’ words and actions, culminating in his death, resurrection and return to the Father. They reveal the Father and make eternal life and entrance into the kingdom of heaven possible. The heavenly things further clarify the vision that the disciples will see when heaven opens, and the completion of this vision brings glory to the Son of

68

Bultmann, Gospel, 150 n. 2; Ashton, Understanding, 356. Contra Ramos, ‘Hijo’,

69

Cf. Sasse, Menschensohn, 147–48.

84.

2. The Son of Man Must Be Lifted Up – John 3.14

117

Man and salvation for the righteous, those born above. While the Son of Man in John 3.13 is not depicted with all of the common characteristics found in the apocalyptic interpretations of the Danielic figure, there are some obvious similarities.

2. The Son of Man Must Be Lifted Up – John 3.14 Directly following Jesus’ statement that the descended Son of Man ascends to heaven, we find the first of the Johannine Son of Man ‘lifting up’ sayings (3.14; 8.28; 12.34). Jesus states: $ $ 81 4  '   -!#  #2 '            …

‘Lifting up’ (   ) is one of the major Johannine Son of Man themes and an interpretive crux for the Son of Man in John’s Gospel. John 3.13–14 is the only place in the Gospel where the themes of ‘ascent-descent’ and ‘lifting up’ are found alongside one another.70 The close connection of these verses is evident by the use of the $ at the beginning of 3.1471 and the repetition of the phrase ‘the Son of Man’. The lifting up of the Son of Man is often understood to refer to Jesus’ crucifixion, although opinions vary on the extent of this reference. Before coming to a conclusion on the relationship between    and the crucifixion in Johannine usage, we will examine the meaning of    in biblical usage and then John 3.14’s intertextual connection with Numbers 21 and Moses’ lifting up of the serpent in the wilderness. 2.1. The Meaning of   The word    can mean ‘to lift up’ in the literal sense, but it can also have a metaphorical sense of ‘to exalt’. The metaphorical meaning tends to be the common meaning of    in the OT and NT.72 In Acts 2.33 and 70 Borsch (Son of Man, 281) doubts whether these two phrases originally stood together. Cf. Higgins, Jesus, 161. De Boer (Johannine Perspectives, 157–58) notes what he calls ‘the spiral-like progression from the language of ascension to the language of glorification by way of the language of “lifting up”’. By this, he highlights that the first use of one theme precedes the final use of the previous theme. 71 Moloney, Johannine, 59. 72 Lindars, Jesus, 146; Ashton, Understanding, 365. For OT, see: Ex 15.2; Ps 17.47; 20.14; 33.4; 45.11; 56.6, 12; 88.18; 98.5, 9; 107.6; 117.16, 28; 148.13; Isa 2.11, 17; 5.16; 12.4; 33.10; cf. Tob 13.4, 7; Sir 43.30; 1 Mac 11.26. Other meanings include lifting up one’s heart or eyes in pride (Deut 17.20; 2 Kgs 19.22; Prov 18.12; Hos 13.6), being lifted up by the Lord (Josh 3.7; 1 Kgs 16.2; Ps 3.4; 9.14), being lifted up above one’s enemies (2 Sam 22.49; Ps 17.49; 26.6; Mic 5.8), or lifting up oneself (Deut 8.14).

118

Chapter 5: The Ascent-Descent and ‘Lifting Up’ of the Son of Man

5.31, the verb is specifically used to refer to Jesus’ ascent to the right hand of God (cf. Phil 2.9). Isa 52.13 is one of the more well known OT    passages and is often mentioned as background for the Johannine concept.73 In this passage, God’s servant will be lifted up (  ) and glorified ( ), and the servant will suffer for the sins of the people (53.4–5, 8) and die (53.9, 12). Isa 52.13 indicates that the concepts of suffering and death were not completely foreign to the meaning of    , while at the same time the verb primarily referred to exaltation. In the Gospel of John, the metaphorical meaning ‘to exalt’ does not appear to be the only meaning of    . This becomes clear in the first use of the word in 3.14 where the lifting up of the Son of Man is compared to Moses’ lifting up of the serpent in the wilderness (Num 21.4–9). In neither John 3.14 nor Numbers 21 does Moses ‘exalt’ the serpent,74 and this suggests that    has another meaning in Johannine usage.75 2.2. Moses and the Bronze Serpent: Num 21.4–9 During the Israelites’ wandering in the wilderness, God sent serpents76 among the people because of their grumbling against him and against Moses. These serpents bit the people and caused many to die. Once the people recognized their sin, they begged Moses to pray to God on their behalf. Following God’s direction, Moses made a serpent out of bronze (  ; &$ ) and set it ( !";    ) on a pole ("#";   77). When anyone who was bitten by a serpent looked upon (  !; /&) the bronze serpent, that person would live ( $%;  :). In the interpretation of this passage in Wisdom 16, the sage refers to the bronze serpent as a / &   (16.5), but at the same time, the For NT, see: Matt 23.12; Luke 1.52; 14.11; 18.14; 2 Cor 11.7. 73 Smalley, ‘Sayings’, 291; Barrett, Gospel, 214; Reim, Hintergrund, 135; Moloney, Johannine, 63; Carson, Gospel, 201; Lincoln, Gospel, 153. See J. Frey on the connections between Isa 6; 11; 52–53 and John 12 (‘“Wie Mose die Schlange in der Wüste erhöht hat…” Zur frühjüdischen Deutung der ‘ehernen Schlange’ and ihrer christologischen Rezeption in Johannes 3,14f.’, in M. Hengel and H. Löhr (eds.), Schriftauslegung im antiken Judentum und im Urchristentum [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994] 153–205). 74 The later Israelites may have worshipped the bronze serpent (2 Kgs 18.4), but there is no indication of this in Numbers 21. 75 See Lindars, Jesus, 146. 76 Num 21.6 – & %'"  $! ";   -!   . 77 T.F. Glasson (Moses in the Fourth Gospel [SBT 40; London: SCM Press, 1963] 36) suggests that the Evangelist expected his readers to catch the connection between the pole as a  and Jesus’ signs. See Frey (‘Schlange’, 189–94) for a more recent discussion of the   in Numbers 21 and John.

2. The Son of Man Must Be Lifted Up – John 3.14

119

sage clarifies that God is the one who saves and not the serpent.78 In the references to the Numbers 21 incident in John 3 and Wisdom 16, the looking upon the serpent is what brings about the salvation/healing of the one who looks. 2.3. The Johannine Comparison In John 3.14, the incident with Moses in the wilderness is compared directly with the Son of Man’s lifting up, which is made clear by the language of $ … ' …79 The comparison highlights a number of similarities that exist in both content and language. First, Moses, the bronze serpent, and the wilderness are all mentioned. Second, there is reference to the serpent’s elevated placement, and third, those who see the serpent live.80 While the existence of the comparison is obvious, the meaning of the comparison is not. Godfrey Nicholson argues that the comparison serves as a contrast between Moses and the Son of Man and continues the polemic found in 3.13. He states: ‘Moses did not ascend – he lifted something else up – but the Son of Man did ascend – he himself was lifted up.’81 There are a couple of problems with seeing 3.14 as a contrast between Moses and Jesus. First, the word ‘but’ is not a possible translation for ' ,82 especially when it is used in the grammatical structure $ … ' ….83 In 3.14, '  has the meaning ‘thus’ or ‘in the same way’. Moses’ lifting up of the serpent is similar to the Son of Man’s lifting up and does not form a contrast. Second, if Nicholson’s correlation between ‘ascent’ and ‘lift up’ is correct,

78 This same clarification is found in the targumic tradition. See Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Fragmentary Targum. R.R. Marrs quotes m. . 3.8 which has a similar interpretation (‘John 3:14–15: The Raised Serpent in the Wilderness: The Johannine Use of an Old Testament Account’, in J.E. Priest (ed.), Johannine Studies: Essays in Honor of Frank Pack [Malibu, CA: Pepperdine University, 1989] 132–47). 79 Note similarities between John 3.14 and Luke 11.30 (‘For just as [$ ] Jonah became a sign to Nineveh, so [ ' ] is the Son of Man to this generation’) and 17.26 (‘And just as [$ ] it was in the days of Noah, so [ ' ] will it also be in the days of the Son of Man’). See Nicholson, Death, 98; Marrs, ‘Raised Serpent’, 140. 80 H. Hollis (‘The Root of the Johannine Pun – 7; >,=C;5>@(John 19, 5b): An Exegetico-Theological Study of the Text in the Light of the Use of the term ,=C;5>@ Designating Jesus in

136

Chapter 6: The Son of Man as Apocalyptic Judge

tements where his opponents refer to him as -   tend to carry a sense of irony (7.46; 9.16; 10.33; 11.47; 18.29; 19.5; cf. 5.17–18).29 And also, those that call Jesus -   either do not know his name or who he is (4.29; 5.12; 9.11, 16; 18.17).30 Additionally, none of these references to Jesus’ humanity are in the context of his judgment. In the only reference to Jesus’ judgment and to humanity (though not Jesus’ humanity), Jesus states that his opponents judge according to the flesh ($), but if he judges, his judgment is true (&) because the Father is with him (8.15–17; cf. 2.25; 5.34). Again, Jesus’ judgment is linked to his close relationship and origin with the Father in contrast to the flesh (i.e., humanity). This indicates that Jesus’ humanity is unrelated to his activity as judge.31 While Jesus’ humanity is unconnected to his judgment, ‘Son of Man’ is continually found in the context of judgment in the Gospel of John.32 We have already seen that the coming of the Son of Man results in eternal life for those who believe (3.13–15) and in judgment upon those who do not believe (3.16–21; cf. 3.20–21 with 5.28–29).33 In the context of the Son of Man saying in 8.28, Jesus says that he has much to say and much to judge. The Johannine Son of Man’s relationship with judgment appears again in 9.35–41, where Jesus the Son of Man says that he has come into the world for $. In 12.30–36, the judgment of the world and its ruler follows the glorification of the Son of Man (12.23, 34).34 Since ‘Son of Man’ is often connected to the theme of judgment in the Gospel of John and since Jesus’ humanity is nowhere related to judgment, the context of the Gospel does not appear to support the view that      is indefinite or nonunique; rather, it refers to the titular use of ‘Son of Man’, the unique ‘Son

the Fourth Gospel (Analecta Gregoriana 251; Rome: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1988) 35; M.M. Thompson, The Incarnate Word: Perspectives on Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993; originally published as The Humanity of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel [Fortress 1988]) 51. 29 See W.E. Sproston, ‘“Is Not This Jesus, the Son of Joseph…?” (John 6.42): Johannine Christology as a Challenge to Faith’, JSNT 24 (1985) 77–97. 30 Schnackenburg, Gospel, 1.533. Contra Sidebottom, Christ, 96–97. Cf. 1.30; 8.40. Bernard (Gospel, 311) says that the use of ‘man’ in 8.40 is unique in the NT. 31 See Higgins, Jesus, 167. 32 Bernard, Gospel, 244; de Boer, Johannine Perspectives, 154. 33 See Lindars, Jesus, 154–55. 34 Schnackenburg, Gospel, 1.532; J.L. Kovacs, ‘“Now Shall the Ruler of This World Be Driven Out”: Jesus’ Death as Cosmic Battle in John 12.20–36’, JBL 114/2 (1995) 227–47.

2. The Apocalyptic Son of Man in John 5.27

137

of Man’, and is thus equivalent to        in the rest of the Gospel.35

2. The Apocalyptic Son of Man in John 5.27 In 5.27, the Johannine use of the title ‘Son of Man’ reflects an understanding of the title that is consistent with the Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian interpretations of the ‘one like a son of man’ from Daniel 7.36 The connection is clear enough to Louis Martyn that he asserts: ‘John 5.27 appears to be the most “traditional” Son of Man saying in the whole of the New Testament’.37 Although the apocalyptic characteristics are noticeable, the Johannine portrait of the Son of Man has its own distinct features.38 In the rest of this chapter, an examination will be made of the similarities between the son of man figures in Daniel 7 and John 5, the apocalyptic nature of the Johannine Son of Man’s role in resurrection, and other apocalyptic features of the figure in John. Attention will also be drawn to the Johannine nuances in these apocalyptic features. 2.1. The Johannine Son of Man and the ‘One Like a Son of Man’ 2.1.1. The Verbal Link between Daniel 7.13–14 and John 5.27 While the anarthrous use of    alone does not suggest a relationship with Daniel 7, there are two other links between the Son of Man in John 5 and the ‘one like a son of man’ from Daniel 7 that do: verbal similarity and the theme of judgment.39 The verbal similarity between John 5.27 and Daniel 7.13–14,40 which has been previously emphasized,41 is seen here: 35 Lindars, Jesus, 155; Ashton, Understanding, 362; B.J. Malina and R.L. Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998) 116; Frey, Eschatologie, 3.366. See comments by Bernard, Gospel, 244; Barrett, Gospel, 262. 36 Coppens, ‘Fils de l’homme’, 51. 37 Martyn, History, 133. See also Schulz, Menschensohn, 112–13; Smalley, ‘Sayings’, 292–93; Blank, Krisis, 162; Lindars, ‘Son of Man’, 52; Moloney, Johannine, 81–82; Painter, ‘Enigmatic’, 1871–72; Frey, Eschatologie, 3.366–69; Sasse, Menschensohn, 175; McGrath, Apologetic Christology, 95. 38 Schnackenburg, Gospel, 1.531; Painter, ‘Enigmatic’, 1870. 39 See Ashton, Understanding, 357–62. Similarities between Daniel 12.2 and John 5.28–29 will noted below. 40 Reim (Hintergrund, 186) categorizes the connection between Dan 7.10, 13–14 and John 5.22, 27 as an obvious allusion. 41 Schulz, Untersuchungen, 111; Moloney, Johannine, 81; Hamerton-Kelly, PreExistence, 236; Ashton, Understanding, 357–58; Painter, ‘Enigmatic’, 1872.

138

Chapter 6: The Son of Man as Apocalyptic Judge

John 5.27a – $   $ #% Dan 7.14a – $  #%  John 5.27b – )      Dan 7.13b – *   -

The use of these six words from Daniel 7.13–14 strongly indicates a connection between Daniel 7 and John 5.27. Added to the verbal similarity, the figure that both texts call    is given authority by God. Frederick Borsch challenges the connection to Daniel for three reasons. First, he thinks that for such a connection to exist there should be more Danielic features such as clouds, beasts, and the Ancient of Days. Second, the Johannine Son of Man only receives authority, while in Daniel 7 the ‘one like a son of man’ receives authority, honor, and a kingdom. Third, the figure in Daniel is not a judge.42 Regarding Borsch’s first criticism that more Danielic features should be present, most of the interpretations of the Danielic son of man that we have examined do not make use of all of the Danielic features. For instance, the Similitudes of Enoch does not mention clouds at the appearance of the son of man figure nor are there any beasts (46.1; 51.5; 62.2; cf. 4 Ezra 13). 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch do not even use the expression ‘son of man’. Thus, an allusion to Daniel 7 does not require every feature or detail of Daniel’s vision. With his second criticism, Borsch fails to note that OG Dan 7.14 states that the ‘one like a son of man’ is only given . The Aramaic and  texts state that the Son of Man figure receives three things: dominion, honor, and a kingdom (Aramaic:  '", $', $'$; : , , /&), but only   is given in the OG, which strikingly is the only item mentioned in John 5.27.43 The concept of the Son of Man’s authority is not foreign to the interpretations of the Danielic son of man. All three Synoptic Gospels present Jesus the Son of Man as having authority on earth to forgive sins (Mark 2.10; Matt 9.6; Luke 5.24; cf. Matt 28.18), and as we have seen above,44 this authority to forgive sins can be understood apocalyptically (cf. 1 En. 62.9–11).45 Borsch’s third critique will be addressed in the following section.

42

Borsch, Son of Man, 294. See also Rhea, Johannine, 35. Although   is not included in ’s list of three, the ‘one like a son of man’ in  Dan 7.14b has    . 44 See pp. 67–68. 45 Contra Borsch, Son of Man, 294. 43

2. The Apocalyptic Son of Man in John 5.27

139

2.1.2. The Judgment Theme in Daniel 7 and John 5 Borsch’s third criticism is that the son of man figure in Daniel 7 is not a judge, and therefore, no connection exists between the Son of Man in John and the Danielic figure.46 Borsch is correct that the Danielic son of man is not explicitly said to exercise judgment, but this figure is loosely connected with judgment since he arrives in the midst of a judgment scene. Not only that, but the Aramaic, OG, and  texts of Daniel 7 all speak of the ‘one like a son of man’ receiving eternal authority and an eternal kingdom (7.14b). In fact, according to the OG, the ‘one like a son of man’ receives   /&$,47 and kingship and exercising judgment do not appear to have been considered completely separate activities in Jewish understanding.48 Judgment is exercised by the one who sits on the throne of David (1 Kgs 7.7; 10.9; Ps 122.5; Isa 16.5; Jer 22.2–3).49 Isa 11.3–4 indicates that the Messiah, the shoot from Jesse, will judge the earth and strike it with the rod of his mouth. This idea is echoed in Psalms of Solomon 17, where the Messiah, the son of David, will judge Israel and the nations (17.26, 29; cf. 4 Ezra 13.10–11, 37–38). Thus, the exercising of judgment seems to have been understood as part of the role of the Davidic and messianic king. As we have seen, the later interpretations of the Danielic son of man figure portray this figure more explicitly as the Messiah and as a judge. In the Similitudes of Enoch, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and Matthew, the role of judge is an important characteristic of their interpretation of this figure (cf. Rev 14.14; Mark 13.26–27; Luke 21.27; 4Q246 2.5?). The references in the Synoptic Gospels to the Son of Man being seated at the right hand of power may suggest his judicial function (Matt 26.64; Mark 14.62; Luke 22.69; cf. Acts 7.52), especially since one of the actions that God performs upon his throne is judgment (Ps 9.7–8, 11–12, 16, 19; Isa 28.6; Joel 3.12; Rev 6.6; 20.11; cf. Ps 89.14; 96.10; 97.2). In 1 En. 69.27, we find a statement noticeably similar to those in John 5.22 and 27: ‘And he sat on the throne of his glory, and the whole judgment was given to the Son of

46

Borsch, Son of Man, 294. Also Casey, Son of Man, 42, 199. See above p. 37 on OG Daniel 7. As noted above, in the Codex 88 tradition, the phrase   $  /&$ follows the hexaplaric mark; however, the hexaplaric addition is most likely only the words $. 48 Collins (‘Son of God’, 71) states: ‘Judgment is a royal function, and the Davidic king transmits the divine justice to the people Israel (Ps. 72.1–2).’ 49 Prov 20.8 and Wis 5.23–6.1 refer more generally to a king’s role as judge. The phrase  $/  $  is found in 1 Kgs 10.9 and Jer 22.3 and is similar to the phrase that is found in John 5.27. 47

140

Chapter 6: The Son of Man as Apocalyptic Judge

Man’.50 The theme of judgment permeates interpretations of the ‘one like a son of man’, and although there is no ‘Son of Man concept’, judgment is a common feature of this figure (Similitudes, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and Revelation). Likewise, the Johannine Son of Man is also a judge, and the activity of judgment is a feature that defines this figure.51 The Son is given the authority $   because he is ‘the Son of Man’.52 Just as in the apocalyptic interpretations of Daniel 7, the Johannine Son of Man is understood as a judge. 2.2. The Son of Man’s Apocalyptic Role in Resurrection A further indication of the apocalyptic nature of the Johannine Son of Man in John 5 is found in the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked. John 5.28–29 speaks of the hour that is still to come in which those who are in the grave will hear his53 voice and will come out of the grave. Those who do good will be raised to a resurrection of life ( : ), and those who practice evil to a resurrection of judgment ( $ ). Daniel 12.2 provides a close parallel to John 5.28–29.54 OG Dan 12.2 states: $  &&   % $     %# &  "  2     :    2      2     $   .55 There are no noteworthy verbal similarities between the Greek versions of Daniel and John 5.28–29,56 but there are some conceptual similarities that are of interest. (1) Both passages refer to people who have been buried.57 (2) Two groups of people,

50

Translation by Nickelsburg, Translation, 92. Schulz (Untersuchungen, 112) asserts that the concept of handing over (Übergabe) is a specifically Jewish concept. He cites 1 En. 69.27; 45.3; 46.4–6; 48.8f.; 49.4f.; 54.2; 55.4; 65.5ff. 51 Hamerton-Kelly, Pre-Existence, 235. See also Brown, Gospel, 220; de Boer, Johannine Perspectives, 153–54. 52 Frey, Eschatologie, 3.365; see also Blank, Krisis, 162. Cf. John 3.13–21; 8.24–28; 9.35–41; 12.30–36. 53 See n. 64 below. 54 Reim, Hintergrund, 253; M.-É. Boismard, ‘L’Évolution du theme eschatologique dans les traditions johanniques’, RB 68 (1961) 507–24; Brown, Gospel, 220; Colpe, ‘ ’, 465 n. 441; N.A. Dahl, ‘“Do not Wonder!” John 5:28–29 and Johannine Eschatology Once More’, in R.T. Fortna and B.R. Gaventa (eds.), The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John in Honor of J. Louis Martyn (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1990) 322–36; Frey, Eschatologie, 3.382–84. 55 N.B. the slight differences in the Aramaic and . 56 OG and  have :   and  . 57 Frey (Eschatologie, 3.382) sees here closer connection between LXX Isa 26.19 ($ "         ) and John 5.28 (       … $  ). See also Stimpfle, Blinde, 89–90; Dahl, ‘Wonder’, 326.

2. The Apocalyptic Son of Man in John 5.27

141

the righteous and the wicked, are raised.58 (3) Both groups receive judgment that has eternal consequences, and (4) the righteous are listed first in both texts (cf. 3.20–21).59 (5) A fifth conceptual similarity is perceptible in the theme of judgment. Dan 12.2 contains no explicit mention of judgment as in John 5, but the entire context is suggestive of judgment.60 Some of the description in Dan 12.1–2 is similar to Daniel’s vision and its interpretation in Daniel 7, particularly regarding the book mentioned in 12.2 (cf. Dan 7.10). The reference to Michael the archangel in 12.1 is also suggestive of judgment.61 There are numerous references in non-biblical literature which describe the resurrection of the dead as the earth’s act of giving back the dead,62 but not many of these speak specifically of a double resurrection of the righteous and of the wicked.63 Of the texts that do mention a resurrection of the righteous and the wicked, the resurrection takes place in the context of judgment, and in the Similitudes of Enoch 46–48; 4 Ezra 7.32–36; 2 Bar. 50.2–51.3; Matt 25.31–46; and Rev 14.14, this judgment takes place following the appearance of the son of man figure. Likewise, the Gospel of John links the eschatological judgment, a double resurrection, and the appearance of the Son of Man. In 5.28, the Son of Man’s voice64 is heard by the dead in the grave and they are raised to a resurrection of life or a resurrection of judgment. This connection between the Son of Man and the es58

Collins, Daniel, 395, states: ‘No biblical text before Daniel had spoken, even metaphorically, of a double resurrection of the righteous and the wicked and a judgment of the dead’. 59 Painter, ‘Enigmatic Son of Man’, 1872. 60 G.W.E. Nickelsburg (Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism [HTS 26; Cambridge, MA: HUP, 1972] 23) contends that the resurrection ‘is in the service of judgment’. See N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and Questions of God; Vol. 3; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003) 114. 61 Michael is generally understood to play some part in judgment, although his specific role is debated. See Nickelsburg, Resurrection, 14; Wright, Resurrection, 114; C. Nicholl, ‘Michael, the Restrainer Removed (2 Thess. 2.6–7)’, JTS 51 (2000) 27–53. 62 R. Bauckham, ‘Resurrection as Giving Back the Dead’, in The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (Leiden: Brill, 1998) 269–89. 63 1 En. 51.1–5; 4 Ezra 7.28–36; 2 Bar. 50.2–51.4; Sib. Or. 4.179–92; T. Benj. 10.6– 9. Cf. Rev 20.5–6, 11–14; Matt 25.46. Although Matt 25.46 is not an explicit reference, double resurrection is implied by the reference to two kinds of rewards. See Nickelsburg (Resurrection, 134–37) who points out possible concepts of double resurrection in 1 Enoch 22. Wilckens (Evangelium, 120) also lists T.Jud. 25; T.Zeb. 10; 1 En. 91.10; 92.3– 5. 64 The pronoun in 5.28 refers back to  8    in 5.27. It is the Son of Man’s voice that will begin the resurrection of the dead. See Frey, Eschatologie, 3.382, 386; Stimpfle, Blinde, 85, 87–88; Preiss, ‘Fils de l’homme’, 9; Blank, Krisis, 178. Cf. 1 Thess 4.16–17; 1 Cor 15.52. N.B. the voice of the human-like figure in 4 Ezra 13.4, 33; cf. 5.6. Contra Moloney Editor’s Note in Brown, Introduction, 256 n. 83.

142

Chapter 6: The Son of Man as Apocalyptic Judge

chatological judgment is also found in John 12, where the judgment of the world and the ruler of the world takes place at the glorification of the Son of Man.65 Thus, the Gospel’s portrayal of the Son of Man is not only similar to Daniel, but it also shares similarities with the Jewish apocalyptic interpretations of the Danielic son of man. John 5.27 has verbal similarities with Dan 7.13–14, the theme of judgment is present in both John 5 and Daniel 7, and John 5 shares the similar concept of the double resurrection of the righteous and wicked with Daniel 12. Those Jewish apocalyptic works that interpret the Danielic son of man depict this double resurrection as taking place in conjunction with the appearance of the son of man figure. Thus with each of these three aspects, the Gospel of John portrays the Son of Man with similar themes and contexts as Daniel 7 and the Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian interpretations of the Danielic son of man,66 which suggests that Hare is far from correct to claim that John ‘would not have found the Danielic apocalypse particularly congenial’.67 2.3. Other ‘Apocalyptic Son of Man’ Characteristics in John 5: Recognition, Similarity with God, Salvation Along with the connection between the son of man figures in John 5 and Daniel 7 and the Johannine Son of Man’s role in the double resurrection, John 5 also has links with the apocalyptic interpretations of the Danielic figure. We have seen previously that the son of man figures of Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian literature are usually recognized by those on earth (1 En. 48.5; 62.3, 5; 4 Ezra 13.11–12, 52; Mark 13.26; Matt 24.30; Luke 21.27; Rev 1.7). In John 5, the Son of Man is not seen (cf. 1.51) or known (cf. 8.28), but he is recognized by being heard. Those who are in the grave will hear his voice and be raised to either a resurrection of life or a resurrection of judgment (5.28–29).68 We noted above that the human-like figure in 4 Ezra is heard and calls a peaceable multitude (4 Ezra 13.4, 33; cf. 5.6–7; 13.12; 2 Bar. 72.2). Not only are the human-like figure of 4 Ezra and the Johannine Son of Man recognized through being heard, but both gather the elect. In 4 Ezra 13.12, the human-like figure 65 Schnackenburg, Gospel, 1.531–32; G. R. Beasley-Murray, John (Word 36; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 19992 ) 213–14; Kovacs, ‘Ruler’, 245. See Blank, Krisis, 163. 66 See Schnackenburg, Gospel, 1.531; Painter, ‘Enigmatic’, 1871–72; Schnelle, Evangelium, 108. Schulz (Untersuchungen, 112–13) sees the Johannine Son of Man lying between the apocalyptic and Synoptic traditions. Cf. Lindars, ‘Son of Man’, 52. 67 Hare, Son of Man, 92. See also Schmitt, ‘Apocalyptique’, 342. 68 Note the similarity with John 11.43 where Jesus calls Lazarus forth from the grave ( ) with a great voice (! # "&#). See Brown (Gospel, 437) and Frey (Eschatologie, 3.401–2) for a discussion of the similarities between John 5 and 11.

2. The Apocalyptic Son of Man in John 5.27

143

calls the people for judgment, indicating some similarity with the Johannine Son of Man’s calling of the dead in John 5 and drawing attention to the Johannine Son of Man’s apocalyptic nature.69 Another characteristic found in John 5 that is evident in previous interpretations of the figure from Daniel 7 is the close association between God and the Son of Man both in their descriptions and actions.70 In OG Dan 7.13, the ‘one like a son of man’ is said to arrive ‘like the Ancient of Days’. This suggests that in the OG the Danielic son of man is similar to the Ancient of Days in a way that verges on identity. In the Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian literature, the ‘one like a son of man’ is described similarly to God (1 En. 52.6; 2 Bar. 53; 71; Luke 17.24; Rev 1.12– 16) and/or as acting in ways that God acts (1 En. 49.4; 4 Ezra 13.10–11, 37–38; Mark 2.10 pars.). The whole of John 5 involves Jesus’ close relationship and similarity with the Father, possibly suggesting a closer connection to OG Dan 7.13. The ‘Jews’ persecute Jesus because he healed on the Sabbath (5.16) and accuse him of claiming equality with God (5.17–18; cf. 10.33; 19.7). Later rabbinic teaching asserts that only God could work on the Sabbath.71 Jesus defends himself by claiming that he can also work on the Sabbath. Like the interpretations of the Danielic son of man, the Johannine Son of Man is similar to God because he acts in ways that God acts: healing on the Sabbath, giving life, and judging. Salvation is another similar characteristic between the Johannine Son of Man and that of the apocalyptic interpretations of the Danielic son of man. The ‘one like a son of man’, as interpreted in Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian literature, is consistently portrayed as judge at the eschatological judgment, but he is also connected with salvation and the redemption of the righteous (1 En. 48.7; 62.13–14; 4 Ezra 13.12–13, 48–49; Luke 19.10; cf. Mark 10.45//Matt 20.28; Acts 7.52–56; Rev 1.18). Likewise, the Johannine Son of Man brings salvation, although in Johannine terms he gives eternal life to those who believe in him. Whereas in the previous interpretations of the Danielic son of man the emphasis has been on judgment, the Johannine Son of Man is more openly connected with salvation (3.14–15; 6.53; 9.35–38), but his judging and life-giving form two sides of the same coin, as 5.24 highlights.72 Those who hear and believe have eternal life and have not come into judgment. They have passed from death to life. Thus, Note also his recognition through honor (5.22). Cf. Aramaic Dan 7.14: $ ' and  Dan 7.14: . 70 See J.H. Neyrey, The Gospel of John (NCBC; Cambridge: CUP, 2007) 110. 71 Moloney, Johannine, 69–70; M. Asiedu-Peprah, Johannine Sabbath Conflicts as Juridical Controversy (WUNT 2.132; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001) 77. 72 Blank (Krisis, 160, 164), followed by Stimpfle (Blinde, 89), maintains that Jesus’ function as judge is complementary to his function as life-giver. Cf. Wilckens, Evangelium, 119; Sasse, Menschensohn, 179–81. 69

144

Chapter 6: The Son of Man as Apocalyptic Judge

the Son of Man in John’s Gospel, while being the judge, also serves as lifegiver. 2.4. The ‘Johannized’ Son of Man Although the Johannine Son of Man of John 5 shares a number of similar features with the interpretations of the Danielic son of man in Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian literature, the Johannine portrait of this figure has some distinct attributes.73 The foremost characteristic of the Johannine Son of Man is the present reality of his presence and actions (cf. 1.51; 3.13–21).74 In John 5.24–29, the present realities of judgment and eternal life are found in close connection with future judgment and life. It is this juxtaposition of present and future eschatology that is one of the Johannine Son of Man’s significant distinctive features. Only those who believe now in the present can have eternal life; they have crossed over from death to life (5.24–25). In the future, all will hear the voice of the Son of Man, and in recognizing him they will rise from the tombs and be raised to a resurrection of life or judgment.75 The future and present eschatologies are compatible and complement one another.76 The hour in 5.25 refers to a spiritual resurrection that is possible in the present through belief, and the hour in 5.28 points to the future physical resurrection that will begin through the voice of the Son of Man.77 Frey states: ‘…present eschatology does not exclude the expectation of a future eschatological act (in which the present spiritual decision will come to its physical consequence)’.78 The Son’s ability to judge in the present is nothing at which to marvel because he is ‘the Son of Man’, and the Son of Man has authority to judge and give life at the eschatological resurrection (5.28–29).79 For this reason, the Johannine Son of Man can offer the benefits of that future reality now in the present.80 In contrast to the Synoptic Son of Man, the Son of Man in John carries out eschatological judgment in 73

Painter, ‘Enigmatic’, 1872; Schnackenburg, Gospel, 1.531; Lindars, ‘Son of Man’,

52. 74

See Sasse, Menschensohn, 181. See Stimpfle (Blinde, 77) for the identification of hearing and believing. 76 Blank, Krisis, 177; Dahl, ‘Wonder’, 328; Schnelle, Evangelium, 109–10; Frey, Eschatologie, 79. Contra Bultmann, Gospel, 261; Schulz, Evangelium, 89; Becker, Evangelium, 1.238; Haenchen, John, 1.253; Hanson, Prophetic Gospel, 71; also with Boismard (‘L’Évolution’, 514–18) who asserts that 5.26–30 is original but supplemented by 5.19–25. 77 Brown, Gospel, 220; Ridderbos, Gospel, 197, 201. Cf. de Beus, ‘Gebruik’, 249. 78 Frey, ‘Eschatology’, 79. 79 Hoskyns, Gospel, 271; Frey, Eschatologie, 3.388–89; Dahl, ‘Wonder’, 334. Cf. Sasse, Menschensohn, 181. 80 See Blank, Krisis, 163. 75

4. Conclusion

145

the present, even though the final consummation of this judgment is still to come at the future resurrection (5.28–29).

3. ‘Son’ and ‘Son of Man’ As with John 3.13–14, one of the issues to consider in this passage is the relationship between the titles ‘Son’ and ‘Son of Man’. Both titles are only used by Jesus in the Gospel of John. In John 5, Jesus primarily uses the title ‘Son’, but in 5.27, he says that the Son is given authority to exercise judgment because he is ‘the Son of Man’. This verse is evidence that ‘Son of Man’ and ‘Son’ are not synonymous, although some scholars understand the titles to be synonymous.81 It would make little sense if the Son received judgment because he was the Son.82 ‘Son of Man’ adds more meaning to the statement. Each title is connected with different themes, as Moloney consistently argues, but there remains fluidity amongst the themes. The themes of hearing the Father, being sent, doing the Father’s will are all common ‘Son’ themes, while judgment is considered a ‘Son of Man’ theme, and yet in 5.30 all of these themes are combined together in an ‘I’ statement of Jesus. Thus, the titles cannot be completely separated from one another since themes can be used in close proximity to each other (cf. 3.14–16). The reason for this fluidity is most likely the fact that both titles refer to Jesus.83 The titles carry their own themes and meanings, but they can be used fluidly with other themes because they refer to the same figure. Jesus is ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of Man’.84

4. Conclusion John 5.27 reveals further the apocalyptic nature of the Johannine Son of Man.85 John 5.27 highlights the strong link between the Danielic son of man and the Johannine Son of Man both in their verbal similarities and in the common theme of judgment. The concept of the double resurrection adds further correspondence between Daniel and John 5. Also, a number of other characteristics found in the Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian 81 Preiss, ‘Fils de l’homme’, 9; Freed, ‘Son of Man’, passim; Burkett, Son of the Man, 170–71; Kim, Son of Man, passim; Frey, Eschatologie, 3.366. 82 Pamment, ‘Son of Man’, 60. 83 Kinniburgh, ‘Son of Man’, 67; Pazdan, Son of Man, 85. 84 Cf. Wilckens, Evangelium, 119. 85 Dietzfelbinger (Evangelium, 1.199) states: ‘…wir echte apokalyptische Rede vor uns haben’.

146

Chapter 6: The Son of Man as Apocalyptic Judge

interpretations of the Danielic son of man are used of the Johannine Son of Man in John 5. According to John 5.27, (1) John’s Son of Man acts like the Father indicating his similarity with him (OG Dan 7.13). These actions include (2) his authority to judge (1 En. 69.27; 4 Ezra 13.37–38; 2 Bar. 40.1–2; 72.2; Matt 25.31–46; Rev 14.14–16; 4Q246 2.5?) and (3) his role in salvation as life-giver (1 En. 48.7; 62.13–14; 4 Ezra 13.26, 49; 2 Bar. 40.2; 72.2; Mark 10.45 par.; Luke 19.10; Rev 1.18). The Johannine Son of Man (4) gathers the righteous as seen in his calling the dead. His calling of the dead is reminiscent of the calling of the peaceable multitude by 4 Ezra’s human-like figure (13.12; cf. 4Q246 2.4) and the gathering of the elect by the Synoptic Son of Man (Mark 13.27; Matt 13.41; 24.31; cf. Rev 14.16). Since the dead will hear him at the resurrection, (5) he is recognized through being heard (4 Ezra 13.4, 33, 52; cf. 5.6). (6) Lastly, the Johannine Son of Man is given authority (OG Dan 7.14; cf. 1 En. 62.1–5; 69.27). The author of the Gospel of John has interpreted the Johannine Son of Man in a manner similar to the interpretations of the Danielic son of man as found in Jewish apocalyptic writings, the Synoptic Gospels, and other early Christian texts, but the portrait of the Son of Man in John’s Gospel emphasizes the Son of Man’s role in giving life and shifts the eschatological center of gravity into the present.

Chapter 7

The Life-Giving Son of Man – John 6.27, 53, 62 Our study so far has shown that the Son of Man sayings in John 1.51; 3.13, 14; and 5.27 exhibit apocalyptic features, a fact which suggests that the Johannine Son of Man may be given the description ‘apocalyptic’. When we come to the Son of Man sayings in John 6, the argument appears at first glance to falter. Scholars such as John Ashton who have made a case for a heavenly Son of Man in the Gospel of John do not base their arguments on these sayings,1 and strong criticism has been leveled against an apocalyptic view of the John 6 sayings.2 Douglas Hare states: ‘Regardless of the conjectural relationship of these statements to earlier tradition, none of them in its present context suggests that ho huios tou anthr pou is the designation for an apocalyptic, heavenly judge.’3 Robert Rhea makes a similar statement: ‘There is no trace of apocalyptic imagery to be found throughout this entire chapter. There are no clouds or angels from heaven to symbolize the apocalyptic end time.’4 Rhea is correct that there are no clouds or angels or even thrones in John 6, but as we have seen in previous chapters, explicit Danielic imagery is not necessary for the Johannine Son of Man to be considered ‘apocalyptic’. This figure can be designated as ‘apocalyptic’ if the Johannine Son of Man can be consistently described with the common features found in the interpretations of the Danielic son of man in Jewish apocalyptic literature. Against Rhea and Hare, the context of the three Son of Man sayings in John 6 does suggest that      is a title for an ‘apocalyptic, heavenly judge’. In the following chapter, the three Son of Man sayings in John 6 (6.27; 6.53; 6.62) will be discussed in relation to their narrative context and an 1

Ashton (Understanding, 356) only devotes a paragraph to the three sayings and this largely with reference to 3.13. Bühner (Gesandte, 374–401) entirely neglects these sayings. Sasse (Menschensohn, 182–230) is an exception at almost fifty pages. 2 See Colpe (‘ ’, 465) who states that the Son of Man sayings in 6.27 and 6.53 ‘diverge even more plainly from their origin in Jewish apocalyptic’. 3 Hare, Son of Man, 96. Also Schmitt, ‘Apocalyptique’, 342. 4 Rhea, Johannine, 56. Rhea’s claim that the emphasis of the discourse is on the present reality is only partially correct, since he does not take into account the simultaneous future reference, as indicated by the future tense of  (6.27; cf. 6.51) and the numerous references to Jesus raising the believer       (6.39, 40, 44, 54).

148

Chapter 7: The Life-Giving Son of Man

attempt will be made to show that each saying exhibits at least some apocalyptic features. Together these three sayings indicate that the Son of Man is an apocalyptic figure, sharing attributes typical of the interpretations of the ‘one like a son of man’ from Daniel, such as shared descriptions with God, a role in salvation and judgment, being recognized, being a heavenly figure, and preexistence.5

1. The Son of Man as Life-Giver – John 6.27 The first Son of Man saying in John 6 takes place after the feeding of the 5,000. Following the feeding, the crowd recognizes Jesus as the prophet (cf. Deut 18.15, 18) and tries to make him king. Then, the disciples depart by boat, and while they are on the Sea of Galilee, Jesus comes out to meet them, walking on the water. On the following day, the crowds see that Jesus has left and go to look for him. When they find him, they ask, ‘Rabbi, when did you come here?’ Jesus does not directly answer the crowd’s question (cf. 3.2–3). Rather, he says that they have not sought him because they saw the sign that he did, but because they ate the bread and were satisfied. Then Jesus states:               !                " #         

 $    !     % &

1.1. The Son of Man and Life-Giving Food As the one who is able to give the food that does not perish but remains to eternal life, the Son of Man plays an important role as the giver of eternal life.6 The Johannine Son of Man’s role in salvation has been noted previ5

The issue of discourse unity, which has continually beleaguered the study of John 6, will not be addressed here. For discussions concerning the unity of John 6, see esp. P.N. Anderson, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Its Unity and Disunity in Light of John 6 (WUNT 2.78; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996) 70–166. Also Bultmann, Gospel, 218– 22; C.K. Barrett, ‘Das Fleisch des Menschensohns (Joh 6, 53)’ in R. Pesch and R. Schnackenburg (eds.), Jesus und der Menschensohn: Für Anton Vögtle (Freiburg: Herder, 1975) 342–54; G. Bornkamm, ‘Die eucharistische Rede im Johannesevangelium’, ZNW 47 (1956) 161–69; H. Schürmann, ‘John 6, 51c – ein Schlüssel zur großen johanneischen Brotrede’, BZ 2 (1958) 244–62; P. Borgen, ‘The Unity of the Discourse in John 6’, ZNW 50 (1959) 277–78; Moloney, Johannine, 87–107; M. Labahn, Jesus als Lebensspender. Untersuchungen zu einer Geschichte der johanneischen Tradition anhand ihrer Wundergeschichten (BZNW 98; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999) 265–71. 6 A number of parallels exist between this interaction and Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman in John 4, including ‘living water’ and ‘living bread’ (4.10, 11; 6.50); Jesus’ ability to give each (4.10, 14; 6.27, 51); the future tense of  (4.14; 6.27);

1. The Son of Man as Life-Giver – John 6.27

149

ously (3.14–15; 5.24–29),7 but in 6.27, the distinguishing feature of his salvific role is that he gives food () that remains to eternal life. When the people ask how they are to work for this food, Jesus tells them to believe in the one whom God has sent (6.29). As elsewhere in the Gospel (3.15, 16, 36; 5.24; 20.31), belief is linked with eternal life, which suggests that the uniqueness of 6.27 lies more in the metaphor of the giving of food than in its meaning. On the other hand, food is not completely unrelated to the interpretations of the Danielic son of man, particularly considering the expectations of a messianic banquet when the age of the Messiah came (cf. Isa 25.6–8).8 In 2 Bar. 29.8 when the Messiah begins to be revealed (29.3), ‘the treasury of manna will come down again from on high, and they will eat of it in those years because these are they who will have arrived at the consummation of time’.9 In the Similitudes of Enoch 62.14, the righteous are said to eat with the son of man figure after they receive their salvation and the kings of the earth are judged. It cannot be argued that John was aware of such traditions, but the similarities are striking and worth noting, even though the Johannine portrayal is different in that the Son of Man is the one giving the food (cf. Rev 2.7). Additionally, John’s distinctiveness with regard to these Jewish apocalyptic texts is unmistakably evident in Jesus’ announcement that he himself is this food that he will give, the bread of life coming down from heaven (6.35, 41, 48).10 At the same time, however, this Johannine aspect is quite possibly more generally Christian than specifically Johannine. For example, in the Synoptic accounts of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, Jesus pronounces woe on the one who will betray the Son of Man before he gives his disciples the bread and wine that represent his body and blood (Mark 14.21–25; Matt 26.24–29; cf. Luke 22.22). All of these texts seem to interpret the son of man figure playing

the resulting eternal life (4.14; 6.27); and the similar responses of the woman and the crowd (4.15; 6.34). See Brown, Gospel, 267. Also Odeberg (Gospel, 238–39); Pazdan, Son of Man, 40; Dodd, Interpretation, 335, 337; Sasse, Menschensohn, 193, 197; P. Maritz and G. Van Belle, ‘The Imagery of Eating and Drinking in John 6:35’, in J. Frey, J.G. van der Watt, and R. Zimmermann in collaboration with G. Kern, (eds.), Imagery in the Gsopel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language (WUNT 200; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006) 333–52. 7 See Sasse, Menschensohn, 197. 8 See D.E. Smith, ‘The Messianic Banquet Reconsidered’, in B.A. Pearson (ed.), The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 64–73; A. Leiber, ‘Jewish and Christian Heavenly Meal Traditions’, in A. DeConick (ed.), Paradise Now: Essays on Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism (Symposium 11; Atlanta: SBL, 2006) 313–39. 9 Translation from Klijn, ‘2 Baruch’, OTP 1.630–31. 10 Schnelle (Evangelium, 123) states: ‘er ist Heilsgeber und Heilsgabe zugleich’.

150

Chapter 7: The Life-Giving Son of Man

some part in the end-time feast, and in Christian tradition, Jesus is this Son of Man who gives the food that is himself. 1.2. The Sealing of the Son of Man The reason that the Son of Man is able to give this life-giving food is that God the Father has sealed him. In ancient times, sealing had numerous purposes. Items were sealed in order to provide a guarantee, to indicate ownership, to serve as proof of identity, to secure property, and to validate something, such as a will.11 Typically, the verb % meant that an object was literally sealed, such as a produce container or a document. In the NT, there are examples of % used metaphorically in the sealing of people (1 Cor 1.22; Eph 1.13; 4.30; Rev 7.3, 4, 5, 8). In Revelation 7, the sealing of the servants of the Lord appears to be a manner of identification.12 The sealing of believers with the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians and Ephesians seems to serve as a validation or guarantee of salvation. Sealing is mentioned one other time in John’s Gospel. In 3.33, the one who receives Jesus’ testimony seals that God is true, which indicates that the one receiving the testimony of Jesus, the believer, attests to or confirms God’s truth.13 Although some scholars look to 3.33 to help address the meaning of the sealing in 6.27,14 these two acts of sealing have different meanings. In 3.33, the believer confirms that God is true by accepting the message of the one God has sent (cf. 3.34). On the other hand, God’s sealing of the Son of Man has to do with the Father’s witness to Jesus (5.32, 37; 8.18),15 namely that God has given Jesus the authority to do this work of life-giving (cf. 3.17; 5.20–22; 12.47).16 The sealing represents more than that the Son of Man is authenticated by the Father; God has appointed him to act as his agent, to speak his words (3.31; 8.26, 28; 12.49–50) and to do his actions (5.19, 30; 8.28). God’s sealing of the Son of Man signiG. Fitzer, ‘%" %" ' %’, TDNT, VII: 939–53; J.H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Greek Papyri and Other Non-literary Sources (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1930) 617–18; BDAG, 980. 12 See BDAG, 980. 13 See Ridderbos, Gospel, 150; Dietzfelbinger, Evangelium, 1.93; Fitzer, ‘%’, 949; Louw and Nida, Lexicon, 1.341. 14 Coppens, ‘Fils de l’homme’, 52 n. 86; Barrett, Gospel, 287; Wengst, Johannesevangelium, 1.233; Thyen, Johannesevangelium, 349. 15 Schnackenburg (Gospel, 2.38) combines testimony with sealing. Also Lincoln, Gospel, 226–27. 16 P. Borgen, ‘Tradition, Interpretation and Composition’, in M.C. de Boer (ed.), From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology in Honour of Marinus de Jonge (JSNTS 84; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993) 268–91; Brown, Gospel, 261–62. See Sasse, Menschensohn, 200; Bühner, Gesandte, 172; BDAG, 980. 11

1. The Son of Man as Life-Giver – John 6.27

151

fies that God the Father has given the Son of Man the authority to give life (cf. 3.14; 5.22, 26; also 5.27) and that the Father testifies to the Son of Man’s authority (5.32, 37).17 The Danielic son of man’s receiving of authority from the Ancient of Days and the Enochic son of man being seated upon the throne of the Lord of Spirits suggest parallels to the sealing of the Johannine Son of Man. Both of the actions in Daniel and the Similitudes, while not mentioning sealing, involve a handing over of authority from God to a son of man figure.18 The Son of Man’s sealing by the Father indicates the close relationship between the Father and the Son of Man.19 Both are able to judge and give life, which points to an alignment of function, but the Son of Man is also distinct from the Father. The Son of Man will give the food that remains to eternal life, but the Father is the source of that salvation. This is not a new concept in John’s Gospel. It has already been noted that the Father has given Jesus the authority to give life and salvation (5.21, 26; cf. 6.57) and that the Father has given all things into Jesus’ hands (3.35; cf. 13.3). 1.3. The Timing of the Gift of Life The future tense of  suggests that the Son of Man will give this lifegiving food at a future time (cf. 4.14).20 But when will this future giving of the food be? Moloney has argued that it is linked to the cross and the ‘spilling of blood’.21 Sasse, on the other hand, contends that it takes place

17 Ridderbos, Gospel, 225; Lincoln, Gospel, 226–27. Cf. Moloney, Johannine, 114; Fitzer, ‘%’, 949; Hoskyns, Gospel, 292; Brown, Gospel, 261–62. 18 Because  % is in the aorist, a number of scholars suggest various moments when the sealing of the Son of Man took place. Jesus’ baptism is a common suggestion: Colpe, ‘’, 466, esp. n. 447; Borsch, Son of Man, 298; Coppens, ‘Fils de l’homme’, 52 n. 86; Bruce, Gospel, 151; Carson, Gospel, 284; Thyen, Johannesevangelium, 349. Other suggestions include the Spirit’s descent: Bernard, Gospel, 1.191; Barrett, Gospel, 287; Keener, Gospel, 677–78; Jesus’ incarnation: Thyen, Johannesevangelium, 349; or his crucifixion: Wengst, Johannesevangelium, 1.233. Another option would be to see this as an appointment prior to the incarnation (cf. Borgen, ‘John 6’, 273–74). Ridderbos (Gospel, 225) maintains that a specific event is unlikely. 19 N.B. the word   is usually used in connection with  in the Gospel of John (see Moloney, Johannine, 66, 209). That it appears here in the same context as        suggests again that although the titles are not synonymous they both refer to Jesus, the Son of God and Son of Man, whose Father is God (cf. 8.27–28). Thyen (Johannesevangelium, 349) notes the uniqueness of   with         in John. Cf. Mark 8.38; Matt 16.27; Luke 9.26. 20 The present tense  is found in  D e ff2 and j. The NA27 reading is supported by P 75 A B W ( f1 28 33 565 700. Metzger (Textual Commentary, 182) suggests that the variant has assimilated to the present tense in 6.32. 21 Moloney, Johannine, 112, 119. Also Lindars, Jesus, 152.

152

Chapter 7: The Life-Giving Son of Man

after Jesus’ return to the Father.22 This ‘giving’ mentioned here must be understood alongside the future giving in 6.51, where Jesus says: '  ) # ! *       ' . For this reason, the future moment of giving will be addressed in the discussion of 6.53. Although the giving in 6.27 is a future event, this eternal life seems to be available to believers in the present.23 Jesus indicates that the one who presently believes in the one whom God sent receives eternal life. This becomes more explicit in 6.32 where Jesus states that Moses did not give their fathers bread from heaven but       

   )  '      !    . Thus, the benefits of this food that remains to eternal life can be experienced in the present, even though the food will be given.24 As Frey points out, there is both a present and future dimension to eternal life. It begins in the present but extends into the future.25 The tension between present and future life-giving was also depicted in 5.24–26, 28–29, where eternal life is presently realized and yet also remains a future reality. In 6.27, the heavenly manna is available now. The giving of salvation takes place in the present for those who believe in the one whom the Father has sent, suggesting that the time of the messianic age and the greater things have already begun. Eternal life stretches before and beyond the cross, even though the cross is important for the giving of the bread of life.26 As in 1.51, so here in 6.27, the Johannine Son of Man makes a future event possible in the present.27

2. Bread from Heaven – John 6.53 After Jesus tells the crowd that the work of God is to believe, they ask him for a sign so that they might see and believe. They speak of the manna that their ancestors received in the wilderness, creating a contrast between Moses and Jesus and possibly questioning their declaration of Jesus as ‘the prophet’ (6.14). Jesus emphasizes this contrast with Moses by saying that Moses did not give bread from heaven, but his Father does (6.32). In 6.35, Jesus says that he is the Bread of Life. 22 Sasse, Menschensohn, 198. Also Barrett, Gospel, 287; Pryor, ‘Johannine’, 344; Frey, Eschatologie, 3.270. 23 Bernard, Gospel, 1.195; Brown, Gospel, 264. 24 A further example of the present giving of eternal life can be seen in 10.28ab: ' !     '      !  . 25 Frey, Eschatologie, 3.270. See also Brown, Gospel, 264. 26 Frey, Eschatologie, 3.270. 27 Ham (‘Title’, 82) states: ‘John draws apocalyptic back into history’. N.B. Ham is using ‘apocalyptic’ to refer to future eschatology.

2. Bread from Heaven – John 6.53

153

There has been considerable discussion about the source of the OT quotation given by the crowd in 6.31. Most likely it is a quotation of Ps 77.24,28 but Exod 16.4, 15 may still have some influence.29 Peder Borgen has argued extensively that following the quotation, Jesus engages in a midrash of the quoted text.30 Whether Borgen’s view is entirely correct or not, it is clear that this quotation is important to the rest of the discussion in which Jesus contrasts himself, the heavenly bread that leads to life, with the earthly manna that their fathers ate. More recently, Diana Swancutt argues that Isaiah 55 gives an overall structure to the discourse, highlighting a relationship between Jesus as the Word of God and the Son of Man.31 Neither debate affects the argument here and will not be addressed except where they may be relevant to the issues under discussion. 2.1. The One Descending from Heaven As Jesus continues to speak, the identity of the food that the Son of Man will give comes more clearly into focus. This food is the true bread from heaven that the Father gives (6.32). This bread descending from heaven gives life to the world (6.33). Jesus says, ‘I am the bread of life’ (6.35). He later states that the bread which he will give is his flesh for the life of the world (6.51). In response to the dispute this causes amongst the ‘Jews’, Jesus restates this declaration in 6.53:         

"    %    '          '     +"',      &

While there is no explicit statement in John 6 that the Son of Man has descended from heaven,32 the connection between Jesus as the Son of Man and as the bread of life implies, among a number of other things, that the

28

Menken, Old Testament, 47–65; B.G. Schuchard, Scripture within Scripture. The Interrelationship of Form and Function in the Explicit Old Testament Citations in the Gospel of John (SBL.DS 133; Atlanta: Scholars, 1992) 33–46; D.M. Swancutt, ‘Hungers Assuaged by the Bread from Heaven: “Eating Jesus” as Isaian Call to Belief: The Confluence of Isaiah 55 and Psalm 78(77) in John 6.22–71’, in C.A. Evans and J.A. Sanders (eds.), Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Prophets (SSEJC 5; JSNT.S 148; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997) 218–51. 29 Reim, Hintergrund, 12–15; P. Borgen, Bread from Heaven: An Exegetical Study of the Concept of Manna in the Gospel of John and the Writings of Philo (NovT.S 10; Leiden: Brill, 1965) 59–98; E. Freed, Old Testament Quotations in the Gospel of John (NovT.S 11; Leiden: Brill, 1965) 11–16. 30 Borgen, Bread, 59–98; idem, ‘Tradition’, 275. 31 Swancutt, ‘Hungers Assuaged’, passim. See also Burkett, Son of the Man, 129–41. 32 Pryor (‘Johannine’, 343) makes this point because he argues that the descent language ‘does not derive from a Christology of a heavenly Son of Man who descends’.

154

Chapter 7: The Life-Giving Son of Man

Son of Man has descended from heaven.33 The entire discourse places a strong emphasis on the bread’s, and hence indirectly the Son of Man’s, origin in heaven (6.32) and descent from heaven (6.33, 38, 41, 42, 50, 51, 58). This focus becomes especially underlined by the grumbling that the heavenly descent causes among the ‘Jews’ (6.41, 42). Jesus has already mentioned the Son of Man’s descent in 3.13, and the connection between the two passages is clarified by the repeated wording of 3.13 in 6.51 ( '    ' ).34 The Son of Man’s descent from heaven indicates that his origin is from heaven. The Son of Man is a heavenly figure who has come to earth to give life to the world. The ‘Jews’ are incapable of understanding this (6.41–42), as are some of the disciples (6.61–65). They see Jesus as only a human being with a human father and mother,35 and likewise they understand the food as earthly and not heavenly. Jesus says that the manna in the wilderness was not bread from heaven but that Jesus the Son of Man is. He is the heavenly Son of Man who has descended from heaven and is sealed to give the life-giving food. 2.2. Similarities with God In John 6, not only is Jesus the Son of Man declared to be descended from heaven, but he also is portrayed with similar descriptions and actions as God, a feature that is not uncommon in the Gospel of John (cf. 1.1–2, 18; 5.17–18, 21–23; 10.30). First, the Son of Man is the bread of life, which is rephrased as the living bread,   )   (6.51). Just a few verses later (6.57), God is depicted as the living Father (    ). The description of God as the living God is common in the OT.36 Throughout John’s Gospel, the Father is depicted as the one who has life in himself and as the one who gives that life and the ability to give life to Jesus (1.4; 5.21, 24, 26; 6.57; 17.2). Thus, both God and the Son of Man are depicted as ‘living’ and having the ability to give life. 37

33

Schürmann, ‘Joh 6,51c’, 255–56. Dodd, Interpretation, 337. John 6.58 has similar wording but uses '   instead of ' & 35 See Odeberg, Gospel, 264; Sproston, ‘Son of Joseph’, 78–80. 36 Deut 4.33; 5.26; Josh 3.10; 1 Sam 17.36; 2 Kgs 19.4, 16; LXX Esth 6.13; Ps 41.3; 83.3; Hos 2.1; Isa 37.4, 17; Dan 6.21, 27; cf. Numb 14.21; Dan 4.34. Also Tob 13.2; 3 Macc 6.28; cf. 2 Macc 7.33 and 15.4 (‘living Lord’); Sir 18.1 (‘living one’). See M.M. Thompson, The God of the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001) 73–77; Sasse, Menschensohn, 222. 37 Note that the ‘one like a son of man’ in Revelation is also described as  and holds the key of death and Hades (1.18), suggesting his ability to give life. 34

2. Bread from Heaven – John 6.53

155

Second, one of Jesus’ actions prior to the Bread of Life discourse is walking on the water. This action has been understood as a reflection of his divine identity because of the references in the OT to God walking on the sea (Job 9.8; 38.16; Ps 76.19; cf. Isa 43.16; Hab 3.15).38 The crowd’s question (‘When did you come here?’ 6.22) draws attention to this divine action, as well as to Jesus’ heavenly nature. Third, the divine nature of the walking on the water is suggested even more by Jesus’ statement to the disciples:  $  % . This designation   hints at the divine name (Exod 3.14; Isa 43.10).39 When this is coupled with Jesus’ statements later in the chapter:    )    (6.35, 48; cf. 6.51), there appears to be at least a hint of Jesus’ divine status.40 2.3. Eating the Flesh and Drinking the Blood of the Son of Man While the language of eating has already appeared in this discourse (6.26, 31, 48),41 Jesus’ statement regarding the necessity of eating the Son of Man’s flesh and drinking his blood raises the eating to a new level, as signaled by the ‘Jews’’ disapproval (6.52). Thus, it seems that it is not the eating alone that upsets the ‘Jews’, but rather the eating of Jesus’ flesh that he will give (6.51, 53, 54). The language is clearly reminiscent of the Lord’s Supper, and that coupled with the lack of a Johannine narration of the institution at the Last Supper suggests to a number of scholars that the eating of Jesus’ flesh has to do with the Eucharist.42 While the eating and 38

Sasse, Menschensohn, 183, 185–86; Wengst, Evangelium, 1.225–26. Labahn (Lebensspender, 286–91) notes non-biblical parallels and an emphasis on Jesus’ kingdom that is not of this world (cf. 18.36). Borgen (‘Tradition’, 270; cf. Borgen, Bread, 180 n. 1) refers to the walking on water as ‘an authentic and epiphanic encounter’ that the disciples have with Jesus. 39 Brown, Gospel, 255; Wengst, Evangelium, 1.226. See also C.H. Williams, I am He: The Interpretation of ’Anî Hû’ in Jewish and Early Christian Literature (WUNT 2.113; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000) 214–28. Contra J. Painter, ‘Tradition and Interpretation in John 6’, NTS 35 (1989) 421–50. See further the discussion in chapter 8. 40 Pamment, Son of Man, 61. Labahn (Lebensspender, 301) contends that 6.20 may prepare the way for the sayings in 6.35, 41, 48, 51. 41 The giving of food (6.27, 32, 33) also implies eating, even without the use of verbs of eating. 42 Sidebottom (Christ, 133) says that the reference to the Eucharist is ‘almost inevitable’; Barrett (Gospel, 299) asserts that it ‘unmistakably points to the eucharist’. Also Bornkamm, ‘Eucharistische’, 162; Schulz, Untersuchungen, 116 n. 3; O.S. Brooks, ‘The Johannine Eucharist: Another Interpretation’, JBL 82 (1963) 293–300; Higgins, Jesus, 175; Bultmann, Gospel, 218–19; Brown, Gospel, 284–91; Becker, Evangelium, 1.204; Dietzfelbinger, Evangelium, 1.166–68. Most of the Eucharistic positions tend to rely on the assumption that the eating and drinking can only make sense in the context of the Johannine community and/or the Evangelist (see Bultmann, Gospel, 218–19; Bornkamm,

156

Chapter 7: The Life-Giving Son of Man

drinking of the Son of Man’s flesh and blood cannot be completely divorced from a Eucharistic tone, it is apparent within the narrative context that eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood serves as a metaphor for belief.43 The parallel between believing and eating is underscored by the phrase [ ]      (6.39, 40, 44, 54).44 Those who will be raised on the last day are those who see the Son and believe in him (6.40) and those who eat the Son of Man’s flesh and drink his blood (6.54).45 Both eating the Son of Man’s flesh and believing result in eternal life,46 which suggests that eating the Son of Man’s flesh and drinking his blood is a metaphor for belief.47 This was first hinted at in 6.26–29 and also 6.35.48 A further example of the parallel between eating and believing is seen in the use of   in 6.56 and 15.4–5.49 The one who eats his flesh remains in him (6.56), just as the branch remains in the vine (15.4–5). The one who does not come to Jesus will be cast out (6.37), so too the branch that does not remain in the vine (15.6).

‘Eucharistische’, 161–69; Boismard, L’Évangile, 190; cf. Brown, Gospel, 272–75, 284– 91) or in some pre-Johannine tradition (Schulz, Untersuchungen, 116 n. 3; Higgins, Jesus, 175). For a recent discussion of John 6 in relation to cannabalism in the GrecoRoman world, see J.A. Harrill, ‘Cannibalistic Language in the Fourth Gospel and GrecoRoman Polemics of Factionalism (John 6:52–66)’, JBL 127 (2008) 133–58. 43 The discourse is primarily concerned with belief in Jesus (6.29, 30, 35, 36, 40, 47, 64, 69) and eternal life (6.27, 33, 40, 47, 51, 53, 54, 57, 58, 68; cf. 6.63) See Moloney, Johannine, 106, cf. 104, 110. Numerous metaphors are used to describe belief and the way in which eternal life is gained. The work of God (6.29), coming to Jesus (6.35), seeing Jesus (6.36, 40), being given by the Father to Jesus (6.37, 65), and being drawn by the Father (6.44) are all paralleled with believing in Jesus. Eternal life comes to those who see and believe in Jesus (6.40, 47) and who eat his flesh and drink his blood (6.51, 53, 54, 57, 58). 44 Bultmann (Gospel, 219–20) understood this phrase to have been added by the ecclesiastical redactor. 45 Also, those given to Jesus will be raised on the last day (6.39), as will those who are drawn by the Father (6.44). 46 As do coming to the Father, being drawn by him, and being given by him. 47 Swancutt (‘Hungers Assuaged’, 246) sees the basis of the metaphor between eating and believing to be based in Isaiah 55 where listening and seeking God are equated with eating. Cf. Burkett, Son of the Man, 136–37. 48 Dunn (‘John VI’, 333) states: ‘vi. 35 also makes it clear that the “eating” and “drinking” is simply a vivid metaphor, highly appropriate in the circumstances, for coming to and believing in Jesus’. See also Odeberg, Gospel, 267; Bornkamm, ‘Eucharistische’, 162; Barrett, Gospel, 297; Pryor, ‘Johannine’, 344; Painter, ‘Tradition’, 445; Burkett, Son of the Man, 137; Swancutt, ‘Hungers Assuaged’, 243, 246; Sasse, Menschensohn, 221. 49 See F.J. Moore, ‘Eating the Flesh and Drinking the Blood: A Reconsideration’, AThR 48 (1966) 70–75, esp. 72–74; Barrett, ‘Fleisch’, 349; Sasse, Menschensohn, 226.

2. Bread from Heaven – John 6.53

157

Thus, the references to the eating of the Son of Man’s flesh and the drinking of his blood principally refer to belief. Any Eucharistic reference is secondary.50 Even if the eating and drinking were primarily Eucharistic, a literal eating of Jesus’ flesh and drinking of his blood is not intended.51 To think that these words allude to the literal eating of Jesus’ flesh is to make the same mistake as Nicodemus52 and to confuse the earthly and heavenly things. The flesh is of no benefit (6.63); it is the Spirit that gives life (cf. 3.6).53 Although the Eucharist is unlikely to be the main point of the eating and drinking, the flesh and blood may hint at Jesus’ death on the cross.54 Moloney is convinced that the cross and the shedding of blood are the reason the Son of Man title is used here.55 The reference to * recalls 1.14 and the enfleshment of the Word, while + most likely anticipates 19.34. With these two words there is at the very least an allusion to Jesus’ death, which suggests that the future giving of the bread of life takes place at the cross (6.27, 51), but we are again confronted with the tension between present and future eschatology. The crucifixion is the moment of the spilling of Jesus’ blood and the piercing of his flesh (19.34), but it is possible to eat his flesh and drink his blood, to believe in him, in the present (6.32, 35; cf. 6.69:   ' ).56 At the same time, this eternal life also has a future aspect beyond the cross: the resurrection on the last day (6.39, 40, 44, 54; cf. 11.24). The future giving of the life-giving food does not necessarily take place at the cross, even though the event of the 50

Anderson (Christology, 133) states: ‘it seems highly unlikely that the evangelist’s references to ingesting the flesh and blood of the Son of Man (vss. 53ff.) may be interpreted as pro-eucharistic statements in the ritualistic sense.’ 51 Dunn (‘John VI’, 332) asks, ‘If there is a deliberate eucharistic colouring in the initial miracle, why is there nothing about Jesus breaking the bread?—an action common to all the Synoptic accounts of the miracle, and to all NT accounts of the Last Supper, and a vital part of the Eucharist as known to Ignatius.’ 52 See Moloney, Johannine, 102. 53 See Dunn, ‘John VI’, 337; Painter, ‘Tradition’, 446. 54 See Schnackenburg, Gospel, 2.55; Dunn, ‘John VI’, 331; Wilckens, Evangelium, 107; Swancutt, ‘Hungers Assuaged’, 247; Pryor, ‘Johannine’, 344; Painter, ‘Tradition’, 445–46; Keener, Gospel, 690; J. Webster, Ingesting Jesus: Eating and Drinking in the Gospel of John (SBL.AB 6; Atlanta: SBL, 2003) 78 n. 35. Schürmann (‘Joh 6,51c’, 250– 51, 256, 261) sees Jesus’ death on the cross as the primary reference of the giving of Jesus’ flesh in 6.51c. 55 Moloney, Johannine, 119–20. Sasse (Menschensohn, 225), one of the few who sees no reference to the death of Jesus, states: ‘Deutlich ist m.E., daß * und + hier nicht auf den Tod Jesu bezogen werden können, sondern nur auf die lebenspendende Qualität seines irdischen Wirkens.’ 56 The Father presently gives this bread (6.32), and eternal life is available in the present through belief (3.18; 5.24; 6.29, 36, 40, 47).

158

Chapter 7: The Life-Giving Son of Man

crucifixion is important for the fulfillment of eternal life.57 The life-giving food is available before the crucifixion and its availability extends into the future.58 Just as the rivers of living water are unable to flow until after the Spirit is given (7.39; cf. 4.14), so there is a post-resurrection sense to the bread of life.59 The life-giving food, and hence eternal life, is only possible through the entire event of Jesus’ lifting up and glorification: his death, resurrection, and return to the Father.60 Now, what does this say about Jesus’ humanity? Dunn argues that eating and drinking the Son of Man means accepting Jesus’ ‘true humanity’,61 but this seems to miss the point of the discourse. The ‘Jews’ have no problem acknowledging Jesus’ humanity (6.41–42). The difficulty is in accepting his heavenly origin.62 That the Son of Man has flesh and blood means that the Son of Man has become flesh, not that ‘the Son of Man’ is a reference to Jesus’ humanity.63 The Son of Man has become human. If the title represented Jesus’ humanity, how can it be said that Jesus the Son of Man, who is the bread from heaven, descended from heaven? How can a man descend from heaven?64 This is not to deny that Jesus the Son of Man is human, rather it is a denial that the title ‘Son of Man’ is used to highlight Jesus’ humanity. Jesus the heavenly Son of Man has descended from heaven and become flesh and blood so that he can now give himself, the bread from heaven, as the life-giving food to the world.

57 Cf. Schnackenburg (Gospel, 2.36), who takes the future tense in 6.27 as a postascent giving. 58 Frey, Eschatologie, 3.270. 59 See Frey, Eschatologie, 3.270. 60 Pryor (‘Johannine’, 344) states: ‘But in the light of 6:63–64 the presence of “Son of Man” in 6:53 makes it quite clear that the eating of the flesh of Jesus is not a belief concentrating on his earthly ministry, nor is it focused in an exclusive way in the eucharistic elements, but it is essentially faith in the incarnate logos, crucified and now exalted to heaven as glorified Son of Man.’ 61 Dunn, ‘John VI’, 336. See also Brooks, ‘Johannine Eucharist’, 297–98, 299; Sasse, Menschensohn, 229. 62 See Sproston, ‘Son of Joseph’, 85–86; Thompson, Incarnate Word, 52. 63 Contra Dieckmann, ‘Sohn des Menschen’, 237; Ruckstuhl, ‘Menschensohnforschung’, 276; Sidebottom, Christ, 134–35; Moloney, Johannine, 123; Pamment, ‘Son of Man’, 61–62; Harris, Prologue, 125–26. 64 Moloney (Johannine, 122–23), while stating that the Son of Man descends from heaven, defines the descent as the incarnation. For him, Jesus is preexistent as ‘Logos’ and is ‘Son’ and ‘Son of Man’ as a human. This seems to contradict his statement that the Son of Man descended from heaven (3.13). See also Ruckstuhl, ‘Menschensohnforschung’, 276.

3. The Son of Man’s Ascent and Preexistence – John 6.62

159

2.4. Son of Man, Salvation, and Judgment When life is mentioned in relation to the Son of Man in 6.53, the reference is stated in the negative: ‘unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you do not have life in yourselves’.65 This negative reference stands in contrast to 6.27 and suggests an implicit allusion to judgment. Although judgment is not mentioned explicitly in John 6, its presence may still be noticeable in 6.53 and in the statements asserting that those who come to Jesus will not be cast out (6.37)66 and those who are given to him are not lost (6.39).67 John 6 concludes with an even stronger negative reference, where Jesus names Judas Iscariot as a devil (6.70–71; cf. 17.12). Although the Son of Man gives the life-giving food, there are those who will not accept it and are judged (15.22, 24). The Johannine emphasis is on the Son of Man as a life-giver, but he is also a bringer of judgment (cf. 5.27; 9.39).68 The Son of Man saying in 6.53 presents the Johannine Son of Man as an apocalyptic figure. As in Jewish apocalyptic interpretation, the Son of Man is a heavenly figure. He shares similarities with God and is involved in judgment and salvation. In contrast to these interpretations, John has portrayed the Son of Man’s roles in judgment and salvation as a present activity, and yet maintained a future expectation (e.g. ‘on the last day’ and ‘will give’). The Johannine distinctiveness can also be seen in that salvation comes through the giving of the Son of Man himself as food.

3. The Son of Man’s Ascent and Preexistence – John 6.62 As with the offense taken by the disciples,69 the meaning of Jesus’ response to them is not entirely obvious.70 This lack of clarity exists because Jesus’ statement is an aposiopesis, a conditional statement that has a protasis but is missing an apodosis.71 Jesus asks his disciples: 65

Painter, ‘Enigmatic’, 1883. Bernard (Gospel, 1.200) and Brown (Gospel, 276) have both pointed out the use of '  in the context of final judgment (Matt 8.12; 22.13; 25.30; Luke 13.28). See also John 12.31 and 15.6 ( ,*). 67 See 3.16; 6.27; 10.10, 28; 17.12; 18.9. Cf. the variant in 12.25 (    ). 68 Dodd, Understanding, 256; Blank, Krisis, 91, 99; Sproston, ‘Son of Joseph’, 85. 69 The offense that the disciples take most likely includes their disbelief in the Son of Man’s descent from heaven and their disgust at eating his flesh and drinking his blood. See Becker, Evangelium, 1.202. Also Kanagaraj, Mysticism, 207; Beasley-Murray, John, 96; Webster, Ingesting Jesus, 85. 70 Burkett, Son of the Man, 139; Lincoln, Gospel, 236. 71 See Moloney, Johannine, 120; Bernard, Gospel, 1.216. 66

160

Chapter 7: The Life-Giving Son of Man

   '  - !  .      !           / .    - (6.61–62). 

Since the statement lacks an apodosis, there is no way of knowing for sure if the sight of the Son of Man ascending will reduce the offense or increase it. Would the disciples be less offended or more offended if they saw the Son of Man’s ascent? Lindars thinks that the offense would be removed,72 but it is more likely that the offense will be greater,73 since the evidence from John 6 indicates that seeing does not lead to belief or understanding – the crowd does not come to Jesus because they saw the sign of the feeding (6.26); Jesus tells the crowd they have seen him and have not believed (6.36); and eternal life comes through seeing and believing (6.40). Since seeing alone does not appear to lead to belief,74 these disciples will not believe even if they see the Son of Man ascend to heaven (see 6.70). For Moloney, the hypothetical aspect of Jesus’ statement is not the sight of the Son of Man’s ascent, but the ascent itself. His view is especially noticeable in the following statement where the verb ‘to see’ is absent: ‘[Jesus] asks them if they would like “the Son of Man” to ascend “to where he was before (/ .  !   )”. For the Fourth Evangelist, there is no reason for Jesus to ascend, as other revealers are claimed as having done.’75 In disagreement with Moloney, the conditional element of Jesus’ statement depends upon whether or not the disciples will see this ascent that will take place. The ascent is not conditional, and it corresponds with his descent mentioned previously (6.33, 38, 41, 42, 50, 51, 58).76 Jesus the Son of Man has come down from heaven and will return. There is an ascent (3.13; 20.17). The Son of Man, who is Jesus, does not remain perpetually on earth or cease to exist after the cross. He returns to his glorious place with the Father, where he was before (6.62; cf. 1.1–2; 17.5). Even if the disciples were to see him return, they would not necessarily believe in him (cf. Luke 16.31). In some sense they are already able to see the angels of God ascending and descending on him now (1.51). The ascent that is spoken of here is Jesus’ return to heaven,77 and it is not a reference to his death on the cross as Pamment and Lindars argue.78 The Son of Man can ascend to where he was before (/ .  !   ) because his origin is in heaven. The ascent is the final part of 72

Lindars, Jesus, 153. Also Moloney, ‘Revisited’, 194. Bultmann, Gospel, 445; Thüsing, Erhöhung, 261. 74 See Schnelle, Evangelium, 125–26. 75 Moloney, ‘Revisited’, 195; idem, Johannine, 122–23. 76 Schnackenburg, Gospel, 2.71. 77 Dunn, ‘John VI’, 33–32; Dieckmann, ‘Sohn des Menschen’, 237. 78 Pamment, ‘Son of Man’, 62; Lindars, Jesus, 153. Thüsing (Erhöhung, 262–63) states that the ascent refers to Jesus’ return to the Father and the crucifixion. 73

4. Conclusion

161

the Son of Man’s lifting up, and it draws attention to the Son of Man’s preexistence,79 and this is further highlighted by the similarities with the ‘before’ language in the Similitudes (48.3, 6), the return of the Messiah in 2 Baruch (30.1), and Revelation’s description of the son of man figure as    (1.17) and    '  (3.14). The Johannine Son of Man was in heaven before, he descended, is now on earth making eternal life possible, and will ascend in glory, returning to heaven.

4. Conclusion Contrary to the claims of Rhea and Hare, the Son of Man in John 6 displays some strong similarities with the interpretations of the Danielic son of man found in Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian literature. (1) The Johannine Son of Man plays a role in salvation (1 En. 48.7; 62.13–14; 4 Ezra 13.26, 49; 2 Bar. 40.2; 72.2; Mark 10.45 par.; Luke 19.10; Rev 1.18), which is made possible through the giving of himself. (2) His sealing suggests a similarity with the giving of authority to the ‘one like a son of man’ in Dan 7.14 (cf. 1 En. 62.1–5; 69.27). (3) The Son of Man’s descent from heaven indicates that he is a heavenly figure (cf. 1 En. 48.6; 62.7; 2 Bar. 30.1), and (4) his ascent to where he was before implies his preexistence (1 En. 48.3, 6; 62.7; 4 Ezra 13.26; 2 Bar. 30.1; Rev 1.17; 3.14; cf. John 17.5, 24). (5) The Johannine Son of Man acts and is described similarly to God. Judgment is not explicitly mentioned in connection with the Johannine Son of Man in John 6. However, (6) the reference to eternal life in 6.53 is negative, which may suggest the Son of Man’s role in judgment considering the previous references to the Johannine Son of Man’s role in judgment (5.27; cf. 3.14–21; 9.39). (7) In addition, the Son of Man can be recognized for who he is through sight (6.62; cf. 1 En. 62.3–5; Mark 13.26 pars.; Rev 1.7). These characteristics suggest that the Johannine Son of Man in John 6 can be described as apocalyptic because he has been interpreted by John in ways that are comparable to the interpretations of the Danielic son of man in Jewish apocalyptic literature. At the same time there are distinctive Johannine emphases, namely the strong emphasis on the Son of Man as the giver of salvation and that he himself is what is given. Another Johannine emphasis is the present nature of that salvation, even though the Gospel of John retains a sense of future eschatology that can be seen in the part the Son of Man will play on the last day (6.39, 40, 44, 54). 79

Painter, ‘Enigmatic’, 1883; Odeberg, Gospel, 264; Dieckmann, ‘Sohn des Menschen’, 237. Contra Ruckstuhl, ‘Menschensohnforschung’, 276.

Chapter 8

The Lifted Up and Recognized Son of Man – John 8.28 In his article ‘Exit the Apocalyptic Son of Man’ in which he argues against an apocalyptic background for the Son of Man title, Ragnar Leivestad states: ‘It is superfluous to spend many words on viii.28.’1 Noticeably, Leivestad is not alone in spending few words on John 8.28. Recently, Markus Sasse, who contends that the Johannine Son of Man is a heavenly figure, provides no discussion of the Son of Man saying within the context of John 8.2 Although for Sasse and others 8.28 seems to get lost in the middle of the ‘lifting up’ sayings (3.14; 8.28; 12.32, 34), Leivestad gives little space to the saying because he finds few apocalyptic connotations in this passage. However, as we will shortly point out, a number of apocalyptic themes that have been noted previously in the Gospel of John also make their appearance in John 8. Again, the Johannine Son of Man is found in the context of judgment. He is a heavenly figure with a heavenly origin (‘from above’). He is described similarly to God with the divine name "  . The Son of Man will also be recognized, and he has been given authority. Together these themes suggest that more than a few words should be spent on John 8.28. The Son of Man saying in 8.28 is the second of the three Son of Man ‘lifting up’ sayings (3.14; 8.28; 12.34 [32]). The ‘lifting up’ of the Son of Man, as discussed above, refers to Jesus’ crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. There are clear allusions to the crucifixion, but other factors suggest that the ‘lifting up’ includes more than just the cross. This chapter will begin by setting the larger context of John 8. Then close attention will be paid to John 8.21–30, highlighting the judicial character of the passage, Jesus’ identity with the Father, and the recognition of the Son of Man by the ‘Jews’.

1

Leivestad, ‘Exit’, 250. Sasse (Menschensohn, 157–73, esp. 158) mentions John 8.28 on one page of his seventeen page chapter on the lifting up and glorification of the Son of Man (3.14; 8.28; 12.32–34; 12.23; 13.31–32). 2

1. Jesus’ Origin and Identity in John 7 and 8

163

1. Jesus’ Origin and Identity in John 7 and 8 John 8.12–59 is set within the larger context of Jesus’ teaching and the disputes at the Feast of Tabernacles (7.1–10.21). Much of the discourse is concerned with Jesus’ identity and origin. Before Jesus even arrives in Jerusalem for the festival, the ‘Jews’ ask:   $ D (7.11), and the people wonder if he is good or if he leads the people astray (7.12). After Jesus speaks, some of those from Jerusalem question whether or not Jesus is the Christ. They conclude that he is not the Christ because they know where he is from (7.26–27; 7.31). Later, some claim that he is the Christ or the Prophet, but his Galilean background raises doubts about these identities (7.41). The Pharisees and high priests decide that Jesus cannot be a prophet because he has come from Galilee (7.52). The questions about Jesus’ identity and origin persist in chapter 8.3 The ‘Jews’ ask him:      D (8.19),  .D (8.25), and   D (8.53). Their lack of knowledge concerning his origin continues in 9.29 when they question the man born blind. Although Jesus’ listeners do not seem to understand, Jesus speaks of his identity and his origin throughout the course of these chapters. He tells the people and the Pharisees/‘Jews’ that he is the one giving living water (7.39), the light of the world (8.12; 9.5), the light of life (8.12), the one testifying (8.18), I Am (8.24, 28, 58), the content of his words (8.25),4 the 3

The pericope adulturae (7.53–8.11), while in most Bibles, is not found in the earliest manuscripts of John, and therefore will not be discussed here. However, see C.L. Keith’s forthcoming study Jesus Began to Write: Literacy, the Pericope Adulterae, and the Gospel of John for an argument for the pericope’s thematic continuity with chapters 7–8. 4 In 8.25 we find the phrase:  ' / '$ && %  . The difficulties of the phrase lie in the accusative  , the difference between ' and ' , the present tense of && %, the variant .   at the beginning of the phrase in P 66, and the lack of a clear subject and verb. Various options exist for understanding this verse. The two general options (‘That/Why do I speak to you at all!/?’; ‘At the beginning even what I am speaking to you’) include taking  as ‘at all’ or ‘at the beginning’. Both are possible meanings since the accusative can be understood adverbially (see BDAG, 138). Since the meaning ‘from the beginning’ is usually designated by the genitive in John (: 6.64; 16.4;’ : 8.44; 15.27),   should probably not be translated as ‘from the beginning’; however, the Johannine use of  suggests that the reference here could be to the beginning of creation (1.1, 2; 8.44) or the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (2.11; 6.64; 15.27; 16.4). There is no use of  in the Gospel of John that indicates it should be translated as ‘at all’. On this basis, Jesus seems to explain to the ‘Jews’ that he is what he is saying about himself. John 8.26–27 corroborates this view in that it expands this description. Jesus has even more to speak and judge, and what he says comes from the Father. For an excellent summary of the issue, see C.C. Caragounis, ‘What did Jesus Mean By in John 8:25?’, NovT 49 (2007) 129–47. For more discussion, see R.W. Funk, ‘Payprus Bodmer II (P66) and John 8, 25’, HTR 51 (1958) 95–100; E.R.

164

Chapter 8: The Lifted Up and Recognized Son of Man

Son of Man (8.28), and the one who was before Abraham (8.58).5 None of these claims to his identity makes much sense to the crowd, the Pharisees, or the high priests because they do not recognize Jesus’ true origin or his relationship with the Father (7.28; 8.19, 42, 55; 9.29). Jesus, on the other hand, knows where he is from and where he is going (8.14; cf. 7.33–34; 8.21), and he knows the Father (8.19). John 8.12–20 and 8.21–30 are closely connected contextually and thematically. Both 8.12 and 8.21 begin with references to Jesus speaking again (8.12: & .   &&; 8.21: . . &  ).6 The concluding verses also highlight the thematic connections (8.20, 30).7 When Jesus speaks in 8.12, his claim ‘I am the light of the world’ sparks the Pharisees’ questions concerning his authority to testify to himself. Jesus explains that his testimony is valid because of his relationship with the Father (8.14, 16, 18). These judicial disputes8 lead directly into 8.21–30 and the themes related to the eighth Son of Man saying in the Gospel of John.

Smothers, ‘Two Readings in Papyrus Bodmer II’, HTR 51 (1958) 111–22; E.L. Miller, ‘The Christology of John 8:25’, TZ 36 (1980) 257–65; M.A. Pertini, ‘La genialidad grammatical de Jn 8, 25’, EstBib 56 (1998) 371–408; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 191; A. Feuillet, ‘Les ego eimi christologiques du quatrième évangile’, RSR 54 (1966) 5– 22, 218–24; Brown, Gospel, 347–48; Nicholson, Death, 115–17; Gundry, Jesus, 27–29. 5 Note the ongoing question of identity in John 10: the gate (10.2, 7); the Good Shepherd (10.11, 14). 6 The similar wording is enhanced even further by the presence or lack of  (  in different textual witnesses. For example, P75 and B lack the phrase in both verses. 7 See Nicholson, Death, 105. 8 Scholars have traditionally seen these judicial disputes as trials: A.E. Harvey, Jesus on Trial (London: SPCK, 1976); J. Neyrey, ‘Jesus the Judge: Forensic Process in John 8.21–59’, Bib 68 (1987) 509–42; idem, Gospel, 153–58; A.T. Lincoln, Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in John’s Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001) 85–96. See Dodd (Interpretation, 354) and S. Pancaro (The Law in the Fourth Gospel: The Torah and the Gospel, Moses and Jesus, Judaism and Christianity According to John [NovT.S 42; Leiden: Brill, 1975] 17) on John 9. In contrast, F.J. Moloney (Signs and Shadows: Reading John 5–12 [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996] 94) sees no trial in John 8. Asiedu-Peprah (Sabbath Conflicts, 11–38) has recently disagreed with the word ‘trial’ being used as a description of the Sabbath conflicts in John 5 and 9. He argues that these controversies do not involve a judge and are therefore two-party disputes and not threeparty disputes. For this reason, he uses the term ‘juridical controversy’ instead of ‘judicial controversy’. While he may be correct that these passages are not trials per se, Jesus is said to have the authority to judge or does judge (5.27; 8.26; 9.39).

2. ‘Apocalyptic Son of Man’ Characteristics in John 8.28

165

2. ‘Apocalyptic Son of Man’ Characteristics in John 8.28 2.1. The Son of Man’s Origin The emphasis on Jesus’ origin and identity continues in 8.21–30, where Jesus makes explicit reference to his origin in heaven. When Jesus begins speaking ‘again’ in 8.21, he makes a statement that is almost identical to one he made in 7.33–34. 7.33–34: …$  "       0 :   $       2 $ ' " 8   & 0 8.21: " 8  "  $ :  2 $  # *#   %   6 '  " 8 "    & 0

After Jesus’ declaration in 7.33–34, the ‘Jews’ were puzzled and wondered if he would go to the Greeks (7.35). After his statement in 8.21, they wonder if he plans to kill himself (8.22). The irony of this thought is thick considering that Jesus will go where they cannot go through the lifting up, which begins at the cross.9 Responding to their confusion, Jesus says that he is from above ($ %- ) and they are from below ($ %$ ). They are from this world ($     $  ) and he is not from this world ( $…$   $     ) (8.23; cf. 3.31). His origin is with his Father in heaven (1.1–2, 18), from which he has descended (3.13; 6.32– 33 with 6.51, 53) and to which he will return (6.62). Although the phrase        is not used in direct reference to Jesus’ origin from above in John 8, this heavenly origin is mentioned in the context of the Son of Man saying. Considering that elsewhere the Son of Man is said to descend from heaven, it is not improbable to observe at least some connection between ‘the Son of Man’ and his origin ‘from above’ in John 8. 2.2. The Son of Man’s Relationship with God – I Am An aspect of the apocalyptic interpretations of the ‘one like a son of man’ from Daniel 7 is that this figure is often depicted with descriptions and/or actions similar to God. This has also been true of the Johannine Son of Man, which was noted most recently in the shared description:  : % (6.51, 57). Here in 8.24 and 8.28, the relationship between God and the Son of Man verges on shared identity and not just shared characteristics. In 9 Pamment, ‘Son of Man’, 62. Schnelle (Evangelium, 156; also Thüsing, Erhöhung, 15) insists that   " for John refers to Jesus’ death. But more accurately,   " refers to Jesus’ return to the Father in heaven (7.33; 8.21; 13.3, 33, 36; 14.4–5, 28; 16.5, 10, 17; cf. 20.17). While this return does take place through the cross, it does not equate Jesus’ return with the cross. Cf. Bultmann, Gospel, 152 n. 2.

166

Chapter 8: The Lifted Up and Recognized Son of Man

8.24, Jesus tells the ‘Jews’ that if they do not believe ' "  , they will die in their sins. He repeats the ‘threat’ of their dying in their sins that was first mentioned in 8.21,10 but now he tells them that they can escape that fate through belief ' " . Jesus reiterates the importance of his identity as "  in 8.28 when he states: '               2    "  ' "  2 $ ’     % 2…

What is to be believed and known concerns Jesus the Son of Man’s identity as "   and that he does nothing on his own. Once this is known, Jesus’ opponents will not die in their sin(s) (*/*).11 But what is the significance of "   with regard to Jesus’ identity? From the ‘Jews’’ questioning reply to the first "   statement (‘Who are you?), it is painfully clear that they are still unsure of Jesus’ identity (8.24, 25). They seem to expect a predicate that would explain who Jesus is. One NT scholar to suggest supplying a predicate is Rudolph Bultmann. He contends that what would be known about Jesus was that he was the Son of Man. Bultmann maintains that "  indicates that Jesus is ‘everything that he claimed to be’ and that the title ‘Son of Man’ can refer to ‘everything that he is’.12 Some scholars have followed Bultmann in taking this view,13 but most disagree with him.14 The more probable interpretation of "   in 8.24 and 8.28 is to understand it as the absolute " 15 and a reference to the name of God.16 10 This language of ‘threat’ or ‘Drohung’ is common in German scholarship. See Bultmann, Gospel, 347; Colpe, ‘ ’, 467; Schnackenburg, Gospel, 2.197, 2.202; J. Riedl, ‘Wenn ihr den Menschensohn erhöht habt, werdet ihr erkennen (Joh 8,28)’, in R. Pesch and R. Schnackenburg (eds.), Jesus und der Menschensohn. Für Anton Vögtle (Freiburg: Herder, 1975) 355–70. 11 The word *is singular in 8.21 and plural in 8.24. 12 Bultmann, Gospel, 349. 13 See Thüsing, Erhöhung, 18; Higgins, Jesus, 169; Freed, ‘Son of Man’, 405–6; Müller, Ausdruck, 213. Bernard (Gospel, 303) lists ‘I am the Son of Man’ as a possible meaning. Nicholson (Death, 113) takes a completely different view, asserting that the predicate supplied in 8.24 should be: ‘not of this world’ and in 8.28: ‘sent by the Father and do nothing on my own’. 14 See esp. Schnackenburg, Gospel, 2.202. Also Leivestad, ‘Exit’, 250; Moloney, Johannine, 138; Hare, Son of Man, 102–3; Ashton, Understanding, 368; D.M. Ball, ‘I Am’ in John’s Gospel: Literary Background, Function and Theological Implications (JSNT.S 124; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996) 91; Williams, I am He, 270. 15 Note the other absolute uses of "   in the Gospel of John: 4.26; 8.58; 13.19; 18.5, 6, 8. There are even more uses of "   with predicates that refer to Jesus: 6.35, 41, 48, 51; 8.12, 18, 23; 10.7, 9, 11, 14; 11.25; 14.6; 15.1, 5. 16 H. Zimmermann, ‘Das absolute A"   als die neutestamentliche Offenbarungsformel’, BZ 4 (1960) 54–69; Dodd, Interpretation, 96; Riedl, ‘Menschensohn’, 357; J.C. Coetzee, ‘Jesus’ Revelation in the Ego Eimi Sayings in Jn 8 and 9’, in J.H. Petzer and

2. ‘Apocalyptic Son of Man’ Characteristics in John 8.28

167

The expression points back to the name God told to Moses from the burning bush (Exod 3.14: "  ), and it is used by God to speak of himself in LXX Isaiah (41.4; 43.10, 25; 45.18, 19; 46.4; 51.12; 52.6).17 Isaiah 43, especially v. 10, provides the closest parallel to John 8.24 and 8.28 and is most likely alluded to by John.18 Isa 43.10:"  $" 8 2&"$     $   3 &'" %$ $ '" … John 8.24:  "    '  "        *   % John 8.28: '          "   ' " …19

Not only do these verses share similar wording, but there are similar themes within the context. In Isa 43.10, God speaks of himself as witness and Israel as the servant he has chosen, and in John 8 Jesus speaks of his role as witness and of God’s testimony on his behalf (8.14, 18; cf. 5.32, 37). In Isa 43.25, God again calls himself "   and reminds Israel that he removes their iniquity ( ). Jesus, in 8.21, 24, has told the ‘Jews’ that they will die in their sin(s).20 A further parallel is that both Isaiah 43 and John 8 narrate judicial controversies. In Isaiah 43.8–13, God brings the nations to judgment with Israel serving as witness.21 In John 8, Jesus acts as a judge and witnesses against the ‘Jews’ who will die in their sin, while the Father witnesses to Jesus.22

P.J. Hartin (eds.), A South African Perspective on the New Testament: Essays by South African New Testament Scholars presented to Bruce Manning Metzger during his Visit to South Africa in 1985 (Leiden: Brill, 1986) 170–77; Burkett, Son of the Man, 150; Ball, I Am, 188–94. See also B. Hinrichs, “Ich bin”. Die Konsistenz des Johannes-Evangeliums in der Konzentration auf das Wort Jesu (Stuttgarter Bibel-Studien 133; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988) 60–61, 65; Williams, I am He, 266–75. 17 Most of these references, although not all, are translations of the Hebrew phrase   ( or a similar phrase. See Zimmermann, ‘  A "   ’, 66–69; Dodd, Interpretation, 93–96; Burkett, Son of the Man, 142–43. 18 Reim places this in his category ‘offensichtliche Anspielung’, which is found on his scale between ‘Zitate’ and ‘wahrscheinliche Anspielung’ (Hintergrund, 161–62, 172; see 97–98 for scale). Feuillet (‘Ego eimi’, 7) says that 8.24 is ‘presque une citation d’Is. 43,10’. Williams argues that analysis should include all of the Deutero-Isaiah passages as well as Deut 32.39 (I am He, 271; idem, ‘“I am” or I am he”? Self-declaratory Pronouncements in the Fourth Gospel and Rabbinic Tradition’, in R.T. Fortna and T. Thatcher [eds.], Jesus in Johannine Tradition [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001] 341–50). 19 These similarities are also noted by Ball (I Am, 188–89). 20 Burkett, Son of the Man, 152. 21 Reim, Hintergrund, 172; Schnackenburg, Gospel, 2.200; Lincoln, Truth, 38–40. 22 Neyrey, ‘Jesus’, 509–42; Lincoln, Truth, 85–96.

168

Chapter 8: The Lifted Up and Recognized Son of Man

Thus, the absolute "   of John 8.28 (and 8.24) and the allusion to Isa 43.10 (cf. 52.6) suggest that the Johannine Son of Man shares the same name as God (Exod 3.14; Deut 32.39) and hints at his unity with him.23 Jesus’ identity is clarified further, and at the least, the statement indicates that the Son of Man has characteristics in common with God. The shared name may also imply the Son of Man’s identification with the Father.24 On the other hand, the language of identification is not entirely accurate here since the two figures are not equated.25 As with OG Dan 7.13 where the ‘one like a son of man’ appears ‘like the Ancient of Days’ yet is not identical to the Ancient of Days, both the Son of Man and the Father appear as two distinct figures, but at the same time, the Son of Man is described with similar characteristics as God. For example, even though the Son of Man can be described as "  , he can do nothing on his own but only what the Father teaches him (8.28). The same tension is noticeable in John 5 where Jesus is given the authority to carry out the two divine prerogatives of giving life and executing judgment, but this authority is given to him by God (John 5.21–23). Andrew Lincoln states: ‘…Jesus’ identity with God, and yet his distinctiveness from God as the Son dependent on the Father, is the paradox that is characteristic of the whole Gospel, beginning with its prologue’.26 2.3. The Son of Man’s Shared Action with God – Judgment The theme of judgment is an important feature of the interpretations of the Danielic son of man in Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian literature. The Gospel of John has been no exception (3.13–21; 5.27). Thus, it is not astonishing to find the Son of Man title again located in the context of judgment. The judicial context of John 8.21–30 is highlighted by the use of judicial language:  (8.13, 14, 18),  (8.14, 17), $ (8.15, 16, 26), and $ (8.16).27 Along with this language, Jesus acts as judge, especially in 8.21, 24 where he declares that the punishment of not believing '"  is to die in one’s sin(s). In the OT, dying in one’s sin(s) implies judgment (Josh 22.20; 1 Chr 10.13; Prov 24.9; Ezek 18.24,

23

Maddox, ‘Son of Man’, 198; Williams, I am He, 273. Ball, I Am, 193. See Hare, Son of Man, 102. 25 See Schnackenburg, Gospel, 2.88; Feuillet, ‘Ego eimi’, 16. Ridderbos (Gospel, 302) states that Jesus is not being identified with God but revealing himself as the one sent by God. 26 Lincoln, Truth, 89. 27 Smalley, ‘Sayings’, 295. 24

2. ‘Apocalyptic Son of Man’ Characteristics in John 8.28

169

26–27; 33.18).28 A further judicial aspect of this section is seen in Jesus’ accusation that his hearers are ‘from below’.29 Jesus uses the word $ in 8.26, telling the ‘Jews’ that he has more to speak and more to judge concerning them. This statement implies that what he has already spoken involves judgment and that he has more judgment to carry out.30 However, there seems to be a contradiction with Jesus’ statement concerning his judging. In 8.15, he asserts that his listeners judge according to the flesh but that he judges no one. How then can he judge in 8.26, especially when we know that he did not come to judge the world but to save it (3.17)? Judgment is not the primary reason for the Johannine Son of Man’s coming. Life and salvation are the main purpose, but judgment comes as a result (3.18–21; 5.24–29; 12.48; 15.22, 24). Jesus does not judge according to the flesh as do his opponents (8.15); rather his judgment is true because he is not alone, the Father is with him (8.16).31 When Jesus mentions his judgment in 8.26, it is again connected with his relationship with the Father.32 Therefore, there is no contradiction in Jesus’ judgment. It is not that he judges no one at all. He does not judge in the same manner that his opponents judge. Whatever he hears from the Father he speaks and judges. Consequently, the Son of Man takes part in judgment as judge, and this action of judgment indicates another of his similarities with God and with the apocalyptic interpretations of the ‘one like a son of man’. 2.4. The Recognition of the Lifted Up Son of Man In the early Christian and Jewish apocalyptic interpretations of the Danielic figure, this figure is typically recognized for who he is, usually by being seen (1 En 62.3; Mark 13.26; Matt 24.30; Luke 21.27; Rev 1.7), but also by being heard (4 Ezra 5.6; 13.4, 33; cf. 13.12). In the Gospel of John this recognition is taken a step further in that it includes not only seeing (1.51; 6.62) and hearing (5.27–29), but also knowing (8.28) and believing (9.35; cf. 8.24; Luke 18.8).

28

See Brown, Gospel, 347; Neyrey, Gospel, 153, 155. Neyrey, ‘Jesus’, 518. 30 See Blank, Krisis, 228. 31 Lincoln, Truth, 85–86. 32 Williams (I am He, 273) states: ‘Furthermore, this discourse highlights Jesus’ relationship with his Father by noting that he acts as both witness and judge, for Jesus judges as a result of his unity with the Father (v. 16; cf. 5:27, 30).’ See also Brown, Gospel, 345. 29

170

Chapter 8: The Lifted Up and Recognized Son of Man

2.4.1. What They Will Know – Jesus’ Identity In 8.28, Jesus tells the ‘Jews’ that when they lift him up, then they will know (" ). The future tense implies that they currently lack knowledge concerning Jesus’ identity (8.19, 25, 53), which further suggests that his unknown identity may be hidden and requires some sort of future revelation in order to be made known to them. The revelation of hidden or heavenly things is a central theme in apocalyptic literature.33 The Similitudes of Enoch specifically speak of the Son of Man as the one who reveals all that is hidden (46.3), and ‘all the secrets of wisdom will go forth from the counsel of his mouth’ (51.3). The Enochic son of man is himself a hidden figure and is only revealed to the chosen (48.6; 62.7). The wicked are judged and punished because they have denied (i.e., not recognized) the Lord of Spirits and the son of man figure (48.10), and it is only at their judgment that they recognize the Enochic son of man by blessing, exalting, and worshipping him (62.6, 9). In the Gospel of John, Jesus has come from God and makes the Father known (1.18). He reveals the heavenly things, and his revelation is made possible through his descent from heaven (3.12–13). Similarly to the Enochic son of man, the Johannine Son of Man is being revealed and is revealing heavenly things (1.51; 3.13; 8.28). Jesus has already revealed the Father and himself through his works (5.36) and his words (8.25). He is known to some (10.14–15; cf. 14.7),34 but not all have recognized him. As the kings of the earth in the Similitudes have denied the Son of Man, so in John, Jesus’ own have not received him (1.10), some of his disciples have rejected him (6.66), and the world has not known him (17.5). In 8.28, the ‘Jews’ do not know Jesus because they do not know the Father (8.19, 27, 54–55; cf. 17.25).35 For those with eyes to see, Jesus the Son of Man is no longer a hidden figure because he has revealed himself through his words and works (1.51; 8.25; 9.35–38), but for those who do not have eyes to see, such as the ‘Jews’ in 8.28, Jesus and the Father remain hidden and unknown (9.40–41; 12.40; 17.25). But once he is lifted up they will know and recognize him as the Son of Man.36 33

See pp. 10–16 for the definition of ‘apocalyptic’ being used in this study. Dodd, Interpretation, 16–65. 35 Kanagaraj (Mysticism, 274–76) highlights the Johannine connection between knowing God, knowing Jesus, and the unity between Jesus and the Father. Cf. Dodd, Interpretation, 160, 166. 36 U. Müller (‘Zur Eigentümlichkeit des Johannesevangeliums. Das Problem des Todes Jesu’, ZNW 88 [1997] 24–55 at 43) states: ‘Natürlich zielt die Erhöhung Jesu zunächst auf den irdischen Vorgang der Kreuzigung…; doch geht die eigentlich intendierte inhaltliche Konnotation gerade darüber hinaus, weil es um die wahre Erkenntnis des Menschensohnes geht, die nur den Glaubenden zugänglich ist: Die ungläubigen Juden, 34

2. ‘Apocalyptic Son of Man’ Characteristics in John 8.28

171

They will also know two further things. First, those to whom Jesus speaks will know that he shares characteristics with God because they share the name "  . Isa 43.10, which is alluded to in John 8.28, also states: " %… ' "  . The Son of Man’s unity with the Father is highlighted in this knowledge which results from the lifting up. Second, the ‘Jews’ will know that Jesus does nothing on his own. Jesus has stated this before (5.19, 30; cf. 7.17, 28; 14.10), but he is again making clear that the Father is behind all that he does and says. He is not alone (8.16, 29). He speaks what he hears from the Father (8.26) and what the Father teaches (8.28). He does what is pleasing to the Father (8.29). That Jesus the Son of Man is able to speak the words of the Father points to his receiving authority from the Father (cf. Dan 7.14).37 While the Son of Man’s receiving of authority is stated explicitly elsewhere (5.27; 6.27), the Son of Man’s authority remains implicit in 8.28. 2.4.2. The Lifting Up The lifting up of the Son of Man was discussed more fully in chapter 5, but it is worthwhile to re-evaluate that discussion in light of John 8. Many scholars understand the use of the verb    in John’s Gospel to refer to the crucifixion.38 In John 8.28, the evidence for ‘lifting up’ being directly related to the crucifixion is based on the active voice of    (  ).39 The verb    is found in the passive voice in its other uses in John’s Gospel and consequently does not specify who carries out the lifting up (3.14; 12.34:   ; 12.32:    %). The active verb in 8.28 designates   (  as the subject, denoting them as the instigators of this event that is yet to happen ( '  ). If the ‘Jews’ are

die Jesus ans Kreuz bringen, werden ihre Tat erst dann durchschauen, wenn es zu spät ist.’ 37 Riedl, ‘Menschensohn’, 361, 367; Smalley, ‘Sayings’, 295; Bultmann, Gospel, 353; Cadman, Open Heaven, 33; Nicholson, 121–22. 38 Dieckmann, ‘Sohn des Menschen’, 238; Thüsing, Erhöhung, 15; Moloney, Johannine, 136; Becker, Evangelium, 2.296; Lindars, Jesus, 146–47; T. Knöppler, Die theo-logia crucis des Johannesevangeliums. Das Verständnis der johanneischen Inkarnations- und Erhöhungschristologie (Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1994) 160. Sasse (Menschen-sohn, 158–59) understands the ‘lifting up’ to have earthly and heavenly aspects. The earthly aspect is the crucifixion, and the heavenly aspect is Jesus’ return to the Father. 39 Schnelle (Evangelium, 157) states: ‘Die aktivische Formulierung macht unmißverständlich deutlich, daß für Johannes Kreuzigung und Erhöhung identisch sind (vgl. Joh. 12, 32f.).’

172

Chapter 8: The Lifted Up and Recognized Son of Man

the ones who bring about the lifting up (cf. 18.32), there is at the least some implication that this lifting up involves the cross.40 Thus, it cannot be denied that the ‘lifting up’ involves the cross, but at the same time, the two cannot be equated.41 The lifting up begins at the cross with the physical lifting up of the Son of Man, but the crucifixion does not complete all that is said of the lifting up.42 According to 8.28, the ‘Jews’ should know Jesus’ identity as "   and that he does nothing on his own at the lifting up, but it is clear that they do not know this at the crucifixion (cf. 19.21).43 The disciples did not even recognize these things until after the Son of Man was glorified, which appears to happen after the resurrection (2.21; 12.16; 13.7; 20.9; cf. 20.28).44 2.4.3. The Timing of the Knowledge If the ‘Jews’ do not recognize Jesus’ identity at the crucifixion, when does this recognition happen? Their apparent lack of complete knowledge of Jesus’ identity at the crucifixion suggests a possible future timing of this knowledge. A similar future aspect is also noticeable in 12.32, where, as a result of the lifting up, Jesus will draw all people to himself. The drawing of all people may begin with the cross, but it seems that all people are not drawn to him in the moment of the crucifixion. John has collapsed the events of the crucifixion, resurrection, and return to the Father in the term    , and the ‘Jews’’ recognition of Jesus’ identity seems to happen as a result of the entire lifting up. In apocalyptic interpretations of the Danielic son of man, this figure is typically recognized at the final judgment (1 En 62.9; 4 Ezra 13.52; Matt 24.30; Rev 1.7; cf. Dan 7.14; Matt 25.31). It might be possible to understand a similar end-time perspective in John 8.28, considering that Jesus’ return to the Father is included in the term    .45 This should not be sur-

40 Müller, ‘Eigentümlichkeit’, 43. Moloney (Johannine, 137) states: ‘The Jews were responsible for Jesus’ death…In the activity of crucifying Jesus the Jews have been accessories to the glorification of Jesus.’ 41 Contra Bernard, Gospel, 112–13; cf. Schnelle, Evangelium, 157. 42 Blank, Krisis, 84; Brown, Gospel, 146; Riedl, ‘Menschensohn’, 363–64; Nicholson, Death, 120; Müller, ‘Eigentümlichkeit’, 41, 43. 43 Contra Guillet, ‘Titre’, 635. 44 Becker, Evangelium, 2.379. Note also the parallel with the three Synoptic Son of Man Passion sayings that include the Son of Man’s death and resurrection. See further the discussion of the Son of Man’s glorification in chapter 10. 45 Nicholson (Death, 119) argues that this knowledge comes at the time of the Johannine community (see also Barrett, Gospel, 344; Riedl, ‘Menschensohn’, 361; Wengst, Johannesevangelium, 1.324), but it is not clear that the opponents of the community had this knowledge either. Similarly, Odeberg (Gospel, 295), who sees the lifting up as a

2. ‘Apocalyptic Son of Man’ Characteristics in John 8.28

173

prising since John 5.28–29 has already indicated that the Johannine Son of Man will be heard by those in the grave at the end of time. 2.4.4. The Result of the Knowledge Scholars have suggested three options for the result of knowledge that the ‘Jews’ will receive once they have lifted up the Son of Man. The knowledge results in (1) salvation,46 (2) judgment,47 or (3) salvation or judgment depending upon the response of the individual.48 The positive meaning of " $ in John’s Gospel is the evidence commonly given that the knowledge results in or indicates salvation. For example: ‘We have believed and know (" $) that you are the Holy One of God’ (6.69); ‘You will know (" ) the truth and the truth will set you free’ (8.32); ‘This is eternal life, that they know (" $ ) you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you sent’ (17.3).49 In addition, the combination of knowing with believing in 8.24, 8.28, and Isa 43.10 implies further this positive sense of " $ in the Gospel of John.50 While the knowledge spoken of here can refer to salvation, the implication, given the judicial context of 8.12–30 and the judgment spoken against Jesus’ listeners (8.44, 47; cf. 8.58), is that there will not be much hope for salvation once the lifting up has been accomplished.51 Like the kings of the earth in 1 Enoch 62, the recognition of the Son of Man by the ‘Jews’ will only come after it is too late (cf. 6.62). Once the Son of Man is recognized spiritual experience in the life of the believer, points out that even the Synagogue did not recognize Jesus. 46 Higgins, Jesus, 168–69; Thüsing, Erhöhung, 17–19. See Schnackenburg (Gospel, 2.202–3) for arguments for this position. 47 Bultmann, Gospel, 350, 353; Barrett, Gospel, 344; Cadman, Open Heaven, 32–33; Ridderbos, Gospel, 303–4. 48 Schnackenburg, Gospel, 2.202–3; Moloney, Johannine, 137–38; Burkett, Son of the Man, 159 n. 2; Hare, Son of Man, 103. See Williams, I am He, 270. 49 Also 10.38; 14.7, 17; 17.7–8. 50 Blank (Krisis, 229) notes: ‘das „Nicht-Erkennen“ ist identisch mit dem „NichtGlauben“, da „Erkennen“ bei Johannes ein inneres Strukturmoment des Glaubens ist.’ See also Thüsing, Erhöhung, 17. 51 Ridderbos, Gospel, 303. Schnackenburg (Gospel, 2.202–3) states: ‘an explicit prophecy of salvation does not fit the context of this bitter dispute, or make a good follow-up to the threats in vv. 21 and 24’. One of the phrases echoed throughout the secondary literature is that once the ‘Jews’ know Jesus’ identity it will be ‘too late’ or ‘zu spät’. See Bernard, Gospel, 303; Bultmann, Gospel, 350; Feuillet, ‘Ego eimi’, 15; Painter, ‘Enigmatic’, 1884; U.B. Müller, ‘Die Bedeutung des Kreuzestodes Jesu im Johannesevangelium: Erwägungen zur Kreuzestheologie im Neuen Testament’, KD 21 (1975) 49–71; idem, ‘Eigentümlichkeit’, 43; Frey, Eschatologie, 2.138 n. 29. Thüsing (Erhöhung, 16) cites Bultmann while not fully agreeing.

174

Chapter 8: The Lifted Up and Recognized Son of Man

after his lifting up, the knowledge of his identity and origin will no longer be helpful for salvation. One’s present response, whether belief or unbelief, appears to determine the judgment carried out in the end (cf. 3.18; 5.24).

3. Conclusion John 8.28 is certainly worth more than a few words about the apocalyptic nature of the Johannine Son of Man.52 Characteristics of the ‘one like a son of man’ in Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian interpretations also make their appearance in John 8. (1) The Son of Man is a heavenly figure, a feature indicated by his being ‘from above’ (1.51; 3.13; 6.62; cf. 1 En. 62.7; 2 Bar. 30.1; Mark 14.62 pars.; Acts 7.56; Rev 1.7). (2) He is similar to God specifically with the shared description ‘I Am’, but at the same time, the Son of Man is not completely identified with the Father (cf. OG Dan 7.13). The Johannine Son of Man also acts in a manner similar to God. (3) Both God and the Son of Man judge (1 En. 69.27; 4 Ezra 13.10–11, 37–38; 2 Bar. 40.1–2; 72.2; Matt 25.31–46; Rev 14.14; 4Q246 2.5?). (4) The Johannine Son of Man will be recognized for who he is in John 8.28 through knowing, and (5) this knowledge implies that he is hidden and can reveal hidden things (cf. 1 En. 48.6; 62.7; 4 Ezra 13.26). Even more implicitly in 8.28, (6) the Johannine Son of Man has been given authority by the Father (cf. 5.27; OG Dan 7.14; 1 En. 69.27; Mark 2.10 pars.). At this point in the current study, these themes are not unexpected or new to the Gospel of John. Each has been noted previously in the Gospel and now only adds to the growing apocalyptic description of the Johannine Son of Man. At the same time, the ‘Johannized’ character of the interpretation is also noticeable in the emphasis on the present reality of judgment and salvation. Yet the final consummation of this judgment and salvation is still awaited following the Son of Man’s return to the Father.

52 Schulz (Untersuchungen, 118; also see Riedl, ‘Menschensohn’, 362) goes too far to claim that ‘lifting up’ on its own indicates the Son of Man’s apocalyptic nature. I agree with his overall conclusion, but not with his argument or reasoning.

Chapter 9

Belief in the Son of Man – John 9.35 The Son of Man saying in John 9.35 is possibly the most ‘surprising’ of the Son of Man sayings in the Gospel of John1 because it is found in a question about belief in the Son of Man.2 No other saying speaks so explicitly of belief in the Son of Man as when Jesus asks the man who was blind from birth: ‘Do you believe in the Son of Man?’3 This dissimilarity from the other Johannine Son of Man sayings has resulted in John 9.35 often being placed in a category of its own and dealt with in isolation from the other sayings.4 If there is a thoroughgoing Johannine Son of Man Christology, John 9.35 should indicate some similarity with the other sayings. Although the saying does not fit neatly with the themes of ascent-descent, ‘lifting up’, and glorification, the Son of Man saying in John 9 portrays the Son of Man with recognizable apocalyptic characteristics similar to those found in early Christian and Jewish apocalyptic interpretations of the Danielic son of man. Markus Sasse makes no reference to the Son of Man’s apocalyptic or heavenly nature in his brief section on 9.35. Further, Siegfried Schulz, who finds apocalyptic tradition behind the Johannine Son of Man almost everywhere else, asserts in his commentary on the Gospel of John that the

1 Martyn (History, 133) claims that ‘none of John’s pictures of the Son of Man is more surprising’. See McGrath, Apologetic Christology, 189. 2 Whether or not the phrase ‘I believe in the Son of Man’ was used in confessional statements of the early church is outside the scope of this literary examination. Higgins (Jesus, 175) understands the saying as a baptismal confession of the Johannine Church. See Smalley, ‘Sayings’, 296; Brown, Gospel, 375, 380–82; Lindars, ‘Son of Man’, 55 n. 29. Others such as Hare (Son of Man, 104, 106) and Borsch (Son of Man, 304) disagree. 3 The reading       is witnessed by A L  7 070 0250 f 1.13 33 lat syp.h bo. The reading         is found in P66.75  B D W pc sys co. The likelihood of a change being made from   to     is extremely low. Metzger (Textual Commentary, 194) says that the reading    is ‘virtually certain’. Also Barrett, Gospel, 364; Moloney, Johannine, 149. But see de Boer (Johannine Perspectives, 105) who suggests that in Johannine redaction ‘Son of Man’ replaced ‘Son of God’. 4 Burkett (Son of the Man, 161–68) is one exception, placing it with 12.34–36 and 3.13–21 in his chapter ‘The Son of Man as the Light of the World’.

176

Chapter 9: Belief in the Son of Man

saying in 9.35 is not apocalyptic.5 He sees ‘Son of Man’ in this passage as an ‘eschatologisch-messianischen’ title,6 and he goes on to state: ‘Aber dieser Glaube an den Menschensohn zielt nicht auf den Menschensohn am Ende der Tage, sondern meint ganz unapokalyptisch die Anerkennung des gegenwärtigen Heilbringers.’7 It is clear that Schulz is using ‘apocalyptic’ to refer to the end-time, since he concludes that the figure is ‘unapokalyptisch’ because the Son of Man is primarily a present figure. However, the Son of Man in John 9.35 shares numerous characteristics in common with the interpretations of the Danielic son of man, while simultaneously presenting a distinctive Johannine portrait. By highlighting these similar apocalyptic characteristics (recognition, worship, judgment, a heavenly figure, preexistence, and authority), it will be shown that this saying, although initially ‘surprising’, is not inconsistent with the other Johannine Son of Man sayings.

1. The Healing, Controversies, and Jesus’ Question As with the Son of Man saying in 8.28, the Son of Man saying in 9.35 is set within the larger narrative context of Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles (7.1–10.21).8 Chapter 9 begins just after Jesus has made the proclamation: ‘Before Abraham was, I Am’ and exits the temple (8.58–59). After Jesus leaves the temple, he reiterates his self-designation as the light of the world, but this time he announces it only to his disciples (9.5; cf. 8.12).9 Then he heals a man blind from birth and explains to his disciples that the man’s blindness was not the result of sin. The themes of blindness and sin are woven through the rest of the narrative and concluded in 9.39–41. The concerns of the crowd and the religious leaders still surround the origin and identity of Jesus, even though Jesus is absent from the narrative in 9.8–34.10 5

In his monograph Untersuchungen zur Menschensohn-Christologie im Johannesevangelium, Schulz only addresses John 9.35 in a footnote (118 n. 4). See also (Ramos, ‘Hijo’, 90), who thinks that the Son of Man has been distanced from apocalyptic thought. 6 Schulz, Evangelium, 146; idem, Untersuchungen, 118 n. 14. 7 Schulz, Evangelium, 146. Also Rhea (Johannine, 47) who states: ‘There can be no doubt that the confession of the blind man defies the traditional, apocalyptic world-view.’ 8 J.W. Holleran (‘Seeing the Light: A Narrative Reading of John 9’, ETL 69 [1993] 5– 26) and Asiedu-Peprah (Sabbath Conflicts, 39–51) have shown not only the unity of chaps. 7–10 but also of chaps. 5–10. 9 Holleran (‘Seeing’, 22) points out that there is no indication of time here, but the narrative flows from 8.59 right into 9.1. 10 See P.D. Duke, Irony in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985) 119; Asiedu-Peprah, Sabbath Conflicts, 147.

1. The Healing, Controversies, and Jesus’ Question

177

The judicial context that was evident in chapter 8 continues in chapter 9 as no less than four scenes of judicial controversy take place concerning this Sabbath healing.11 First, the man’s neighbors question him about the healing (9.8–11). The Pharisees then ask him about the opening of his eyes (9.12–17). After this, the man’s parents are brought in to verify that he was born blind (9.18–23). Then the man is interrogated a second time (9.24– 34), but throughout this trial-like questioning, the man is not the one being prosecuted. The concern of the Pharisees is the identity and origin of Jesus, the one who has healed on the Sabbath. The blind man serves as Jesus’ witness.12 The Pharisees argue that Jesus is not from God (9.16) and that he is a sinner (9.24), yet his origin remains a mystery to them (9.29). The man’s understanding of Jesus, on the other hand, develops throughout the narrative. He sees Jesus as his healer (9.11), a prophet (9.17), one from God (9.33), and finally as the Son of Man (9.38).13 After the man declares that Jesus is from God (9.33), the Pharisees cast him out and say that he was born in sins (* ). Jesus finds the man and begins to question him himself.14 Jesus:        D Man: $ 2$2'  D Jesus: $  $ $ && % $  0 Man:  2$6

In this final questioning of the man born blind, the phrase         is found. Before looking specifically at the apocalyptic connotations of the title in John 9, it will be helpful to address the meaning of Jesus’ question. There are a few difficulties in giving a straightforward interpretation of Jesus’ question to the man born blind. First, the words  indicate that the phrase is confessional, but this confessional aspect does not entirely clarify the question, since        is used nowhere else in the NT as an object of belief.15 It is rare in the Gospel of John that any title is used as the sole object of belief without making explicit refer-

11

Dodd, Interpretation¸ 354; Pancaro, Law, 17; Lincoln, Truth, 99; Neyrey, Gospel, 170–76. Cf. Asiedu-Peprah, Sabbath Conflicts, 24–38, 131–32. 12 Pancaro, Law, 19; Asiedu-Peprah, Sabbath Conflicts, 131. 13 M. Gourgues, ‘L’aveugle-né (Jn 9). Du miracle au signe: typologie des réactions à l’égard du Fils de l’homme’, NRTh 3 (1982) 381–95; J. Painter, ‘John 9 and the Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel’, JSNT 28 (1986) 31–61. 14 Brown, Gospel, 377. 15 Nickelsburg, ‘Son of Man’, 146.

178

Chapter 9: Belief in the Son of Man

ence to ‘Jesus’.16 Typically, a believer is to believe in Jesus, namely that he is the Christ, the Son of God (20.31; cf. 6.69; 11.27). But the uniqueness of ‘Son of Man’ in a confessional statement is not the only interpretive difficulty with Jesus’ question. Second, the man seems to fail to understand all or part of what Jesus asks him, but it is not completely clear what it is that the man fails to understand. Due to his lack of understanding, the man born blind asks Jesus for clarification: ‘Who is he, Lord, that I might believe   ?’ Barrett proposes two suggestions for the meaning of the man’s question: ‘(i) I do not know what Son of man means. Who is this person? What are his functions, etc.? (ii) I know sufficiently what Son of man means. But who among men is the Son of man? How can he be identified?’17 The possibility exists that the man born blind does not understand the content of the phrase ‘the Son of Man’ (cf. 12.34; cf. 4.25–26),18 but it seems more likely that the man is asking who ‘the Son of Man’ is (Barrett’s second option).19 The man born blind desires to know who the Son of Man is so that he can believe in him. Jesus responds by saying that he himself is ‘that one’ ($ ), i.e. ‘the Son of Man’.20 Thus, it seems that the man born blind is asking Jesus who ‘the Son of Man’ is, even though such a question does not require that the man fully understand the content of the expression. The question ‘Do you believe in the Son of Man?’, therefore, draws attention to the fact that Jesus is ‘the Son of Man’, calling the man born blind to believe in him. The man recognizes ‘the Son of Man’ as at least

16

3.14–15, 16, 36; 6.40 are examples of belief related to a title without explicit mention of ‘Jesus’. 17 Barrett, Gospel, 364. 18 See Ridderbos, Gospel, 348; Rhea, Johannine, 47. 19 Barrett, Gospel, 364; Hoskyns, Fourth Gospel, 359; G. Bornkamm, ‘Die Heilung des Blindgeborenen. Johannes 9’, Geschichte und Glaube II (BEvT 53; Gesammelte Aufsätze IV; München: Chr. Kaiser, 1971) 65–72; Schulz, Evangelium, 146; Brown, Gospel, 375; Haenchen, John, 2.40. 20 M. Müller (‘“Have you Faith in the Son of Man?” (John 9:35)’, NTS 37 [1991] 291–94) has argued that ‘the Son of Man’ is functioning as a circumlocution for Jesus and not as a title, in which case Jesus’ question means: ‘Do you believe in me?’ But the man’s question: ‘Who is he, Lord, that I might believe  ?’ makes this interpretation doubtful. At the least, the man understands ‘the Son of Man’ as some sort of title and not as a self-reference for Jesus. In addition, Jesus’ response to the man’s question indicates that ‘the Son of Man’ is not a circumlocution. Jesus tells the man that he is ‘that one’ ($ ), i.e. ‘the Son of Man’ (Leivestad, ‘Exit’, 251; Lindars, Jesus, 151; Hare, Son of Man, 104; F.J. Moloney, The Gospel of John [SP 4; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1998] 298). ‘The Son of Man’ as a circumlocution ‘makes nonsense of Jesus’ answer’ (Leivestad, ‘Exit’, 251) and indicates that another interpretation is more plausible.

2. ‘Apocalyptic Son of Man’ Characteristics in John 9.35

179

some sort of title but is unsure of the identity of its bearer. Because he is ‘puzzled’ by the question, he asks Jesus who the Son of Man is.21

2. ‘Apocalyptic Son of Man’ Characteristics in John 9.35 Whether Jesus’ response explains all the man wants to know about this figure, we cannot be sure, but the man recognizes that Jesus is ‘the Son of Man’22 and is willing to say: ‘I believe, Lord’. In the context, the expression ‘the Son of Man’ appears to be functioning as a title23 as it does elsewhere in John, and it refers to an apocalyptic figure since the context reveals characteristics of this figure that are similar to those found in the Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian interpretations of the ‘one like a son of man’. 2.1. Recognizing the Son of Man One of the first ‘apocalyptic Son of Man’ characteristics to take note of is the recognition of the Son of Man by the man born blind. We have noted previously that in the interpretations of the Danielic son of man, this figure is recognized. Often, this recognition occurs through seeing. This is most clear in 1 En. 62.3: ‘And there will stand up on that day all the kings and the mighty and the exalted and those who possess the earth. And they will see and recognize that he sits on the throne of his glory…’ (also 1 En. 62.1, 5; Mark 13.26; 14.62; Matt 24.30; 26.64; Luke 21.27; Rev 1.7). Recognition also occurs through hearing (4 Ezra 5.6; 13.4, 33; cf. 13.12). The recognition of the Son of Man in the Gospel of John has often been through seeing (1.51; 6.62), but also believing (3.13), hearing (5.28–29), and knowing (8.28). 2.1.1. Sight and Hearing Here in John 9.35–41, the recognition of the Son of Man is first by sight. This seeing appears in Jesus’ roundabout answer concerning his identity as the Son of Man. Jesus does not openly state: ‘I am the Son of Man’. Rather, in response to the question ‘Who is he?’, Jesus says: ‘You have seen him and the one speaking with you is that one’ (cf. 4.26). At one level, Jesus’ statement draws attention to the physical healing he has done for this man. The man who was blind now sees Jesus the Son of Man because Jesus has opened his eyes. 21

Bernard, Gospel, 338. Dietzfelbinger, Evangelium, 1.292. 23 See Coppens, ‘Fils de l’homme, 55. 22

180

Chapter 9: Belief in the Son of Man

At another level, Jesus’ reference to the man’s ability to see reveals the man’s spiritual or heavenly recognition of Jesus the Son of Man.24 Finally, the man understands who Jesus really is.25 He has already declared that Jesus is from God (9.33). Other than Jesus himself, the man born blind is the only one in this dispute who has distinguished Jesus as being from God.26 In contrast, the ‘Jews’ call Jesus     and state that they do not even know where he is from (9.16, 29; cf. 7.27). That the man born blind has seen Jesus the Son of Man highlights both the man’s physical sight and his proper understanding of Jesus’ identity and origin. Although not explicitly stated, the man born blind also recognizes Jesus the Son of Man through the sense of hearing.27 ‘You have seen him, and the one speaking with you is that one.’ Since the man hears Jesus speaking, Jesus’ statement draws attention not only to the man’s new found sight and understanding but also to the fact that he can hear the words of the Son of Man. 2.1.2. Belief as the ultimate Johannine Recognition Belief is a major theme in the Gospel of John, but in 9.35, it overlaps with the apocalyptic recognition of the Son of Man. The man born blind’s belief in the Son of Man indicates both his apocalyptic recognition of the Son of Man and that he has reached the decisive stage in Johannine recognition of Jesus.28 The man not only sees and hears Jesus the Son of Man, but he believes in him, recognizing his identity but more importantly also becoming a true disciple. While ‘the Son of Man’ is found nowhere else in an explicit confessional statement in the NT, the Johannine Son of Man is located in other contexts of belief. In 3.14–15, those who believe have eternal life in the Son of Man, and the reference to eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of Man in 6.53 has already been shown to be equivalent to belief. In John 9.35, the man born blind believes once he has identified Jesus as the Son of Man, thereby recognizing the Son of Man. Once the man born blind makes this recognition, he brings to completion his trajectory of belief in Jesus as healer, prophet, and one from God. He now understands Jesus’ origin and identity and has received the saving knowledge of Jesus the Son of Man. 24 Sasse, Menschensohn, 235. See J. Lieu, ‘Blindness in the Johannine Tradition’, NTS 34 (1988) 83–95. 25 The use of the perfect verb  $ is suggestive of this realized aspect. 26 Lieu, ‘Blindness’, 83. 27 See Moloney, Johannine, 155. 28 Note the relationship between belief and the Son of Man in Luke 18.8: ‘When the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?’

2. ‘Apocalyptic Son of Man’ Characteristics in John 9.35

181

2.2. The Son of Man is Worshipped Once the man born blind recognizes Jesus as the Son of Man, he confesses belief and worships Jesus (9.38). The word translated as ‘worship’ is  $ . It is ‘the most frequently used word for worship in the NT and it also appears to have the largest semantic range’ of the words for worship.29 The word can refer to reverence, obeisance, prostrating oneself before another (human or divine), and general worship.30 In John’s Gospel,  $ is used nine times in Jesus’ discussion with the Samaritan woman (4.20–24)31 where the verb refers to proper worship of God. In John 12.20,  $ refers to the Greeks’ purpose in coming to Jerusalem at the Passover (12.20), indicating as in John 4 a reference to proper worship of God. While  $ does have a wide semantic range in the NT, the usage of this word in John’s Gospel suggests worship of God.32 This intimates further that when the man born blind worships Jesus ( $) there is at least some connotation of divine worship33 and some sort of similarity between God and the Son of Man since they both receive a similar response.34 John Painter asserts: ‘The understanding of the Son of Man as a figure to be worshipped is distinctly Johannine’,35 but this is not actually the case. The depiction of the Son of Man being worshipped has parallels with the worship of the ‘one like a son of man’ in Daniel 7.36 Even though  $ is not used in either of the Greek texts of Daniel 7, the word & which is used in OG Dan 7.14 carries the connotation of cultic 29

Jobes, ‘Worship’, 205. BDAG, 882–83. Also Jobes, ‘Worship’, 205. 31 The noun  $ is used in 4.23. 32 Bernard, Gospel, 339; Panackel, ,=C;5>@, 157. 33 Bultmann, Gospel, 339 n. 3; Brown, Gospel, 376; Panackel, ,=C;5>@, 157; Sasse, Menschensohn, 235; Wengst, Evangelium, 1.371. Lincoln (Truth, 102) maintains that the confession by the man is similar to Thomas’ confession in 20.28. On the other hand, Dietzfelbinger (Evangelium, 1.292) says the confession is not quite on par with that of Martha and Thomas, although it is on the way there. The possibility may exist that the man only intended to offer reverence to Jesus the Son of Man and that the reader is intended to see the deeper meaning of this man’s action (see Carson, Gospel, 378; Barrett, Gospel, 365). 34 Sasse, Menschensohn, 235. Contra Malina and Rohrbaugh (Social-Science, 174) who only seem to imply some sort of patron-client relationship. 35 Painter (‘John 9’, 32) cites his own article (‘Christ’, 359–62), but he gives no argument in that article to support his view that worship of the Son of Man is primarily Johannine. 36 G. Reim (‘Joh 9 – Tradition und zeitgenössische messianische Diskussion’, BZ 22 [1978] 245–53) offers the interesting suggestion that the worship is a messianic reference that goes back to LXX Gen 49.8–12 where Jacob tells Judah that he will be worshipped by his brothers. 30

182

Chapter 9: Belief in the Son of Man

worship, as does & in Aramaic Daniel.37 In 1 En. 62.6, when the kings and rulers see the Son of Man on the throne of his glory, they ‘bless and glorify and exalt’ him. Further, it is said that ‘all the kings and the mighty and the exalted and those who rule the earth will fall on their faces in his presence; and they will worship and set their hope on that son of man’ (62.9; also 48.5). In Daniel and the Similitudes, there is an obvious reference to the Son of Man figure as one worthy of worship. Although other NT passages do not portray the Son of Man as being worshipped, the Son of Man is described in ways that indicate he is deserving of worship: sitting on a throne of glory (Matt 25.31), seated at the right hand of God (Mark 14.62; Matt 26.64; Luke 22.69; cf. Acts 7.56), and wearing a golden crown (Rev 14.14). In Rev 1.17, John the seer falls at the feet of the son of man figure. Thus, the depictions of the ‘one like a son of man’ in Aramaic and OG Daniel and the apocalyptic interpretations indicate that this figure was understood as one worthy of worship. It is therefore not unexpected nor ‘distinctly Johannine’ that the man born blind worships Jesus once he recognizes that Jesus is the Son of Man. What is startling is that the Johannine Son of Man is worshipped on earth in the present and not at some future coming or at the eschatological judgment. 2.3. The Son of Man and Judgment Although the reappearance of the Pharisees in 9.40 may suggest that a narrative shift has occurred and therefore that 9.39–41 is unrelated to 9.1– 38,38 the context suggests otherwise. John 9 opens with the themes of sin, light, impending night, and judgment, some of which are continued from chapters 7 and 8. Throughout the judicial disputes in chapter 9, the man born blind (9.34) and Jesus (9.16, 24) are accused of being sinners, but this accusation is turned against the accusers in 9.41 (cf. 8.21, 24).39 The themes of sin and blindness that open the narrative about the man born blind (9.1–5) also close the narrative (9.39–41).40 Along with this thematic connection, the $ at the beginning of 9.39 signifies the close connection with what has preceded and introduces the last section of the narration concerning the man born blind (but cf. 10.21).41 John 9.39–41 concludes John 9.1–3842 and also leads into John 10.43 37

See above in chapter 1. Such a shift is implied by the paragraph in NA27 . 39 Moloney, Johannine, 156; Gourgues, ‘L’aveugle-né’, 394; Sasse, Menschensohn, 234–35. 40 See Holleran, ‘Seeing’, 12. 41 Thyen, Johannesevangelium, 473. The textual variant which omits 9.38 and $ . (  of 9.39 only increases further to the connection between the Son of Man 38

2. ‘Apocalyptic Son of Man’ Characteristics in John 9.35

183

2.3.1. ‘For Judgment I have come into the World’ Thus, in response to the man’s confession and worship, Jesus says: $" 8  $     .&  2'    /& /& $   /& !& " 0

Since the word translated as ‘judgment’ in this verse is $2 some have argued that the Son of Man is only causing judgment while not acting as a judge. Moloney, citing the definition of $ from BDAG,44 states: ‘To say that Jesus has come into the world  $ does not necessarily mean that he has come as a judge, but for “the judicial decision which consists in the separation of those who are willing to believe from those who are unwilling to do so”.’45 Because John 9.39 is the only use of $ in the Gospel, much of Moloney’s understanding depends upon the assumption that $ is functioning differently from $. In the BDAG definition that he cites, John 9.39 is listed as the only evidence of $ being used in this way, but it is clear from other uses of $in the NT that the word can refer to an act of judgment (Acts 24.25; Heb 2.6; Jas 3.1; 1 Pet 4.17; Rev 17.1; 20.4) or similarly to a judicial decision made by a judge (Rom 2.2; 3.8; Mark 12.40//Luke 20.47; Matt 23.13; Luke 24.20; Gal 5.10; Jas 3.1).46 To place the single Johannine usage of this word in its own category is arbitrary to say the least. Considering the uses of $ 47 and $48 in the Gospel of John and their emphasis on the act of judgment, it seems likely that $ has a similar meaning. The context of John 9.39 also points to this. Jesus has come into the world  $ in order that those who do not see might and judgment. Even with some early witnesses (P 75 * W), it is more likely that these words are original (Moloney, John, 299; contra C.L. Porter, ‘John 9:38,39a: A Liturgical Addition to the Text’, NTS 13 [1967] 387–94). 42 Blank, Krisis, 262; Bornkamm, ‘Heilung’, 71; Painter, ‘John 9’, 32; Burkett, Son of the Man, 166; Holleran, ‘Seeing’, 12–16; M. Rein, Die Heilung des Blindgeborenen (Joh 9). Tradition and Redaktion (WUNT 2.73; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995) 160–65. See Pazdan, Son of Man, 45. 43 Dodd, Understanding, 358; U. Busse, ‘Open Questions on John 10’, in J. Beutler and R.T. Fortna (eds.), The Shepherd Discourse of John 10 and its Context: Studies by members of the Johannine-Writings Seminar (SNTS.MS 67; Cambridge: CUP, 1991) 6– 17; Rein, Heilung, 160–65; Asiedu-Peprah, Sabbath Conflicts, 119. 44 See BDAG, 567. 45 Moloney, Johannine, 156; idem, John, 301; See Bernard, Gospel, 340. Burkett (Son of the Man, 167) also understands the judgment as a separation, but he likens it to the separation of the light and dark from Gen 1.3. 46 See BDAG, 567. N.B. the semantic domains of $ in Louw and Nida, Lexicon are all related to judging, judgment, and judicial settings. 47 3.17, 18; 7.24, 51; 8.15, 16, 26, 50; 12.47, 48; 16.11; 18.31. 48 3.19; 5.22, 24, 27, 29, 30; 7.24; 8.16; 12.31; 16.8, 11.

184

Chapter 9: Belief in the Son of Man

see and those who do see might become blind. The giving of sight and causing of blindness appear to be more than a mere separation of the seeing from the blind. To cause blindness suggests judgment. As the opposite of belief, blindness is not entirely left to the decision of the individual,49 since only those who are drawn by the Father come to Jesus, i.e. believe (6.44; cf. 6.40). The $ for which Jesus the Son of Man has come into the world is essentially the same as $.50 Once the man born blind finally realizes that Jesus is the Son of Man (9.38), Jesus refers to his role in judgment in his next statement. It cannot be coincidence that the Son of Man and judgment again appear in close connection in John (3.13–21; 5.24–30; 8.24–28; 12.33–50). Maddox correctly states: ‘The disclosure that Jesus is the Son of Man is only properly complete when he has declared the function of the Son of Man as the one who brings judgment into the world.’51 As has been shown above, the Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian interpretations of ‘one like a son of man’ depict this figure as a judge, particularly in the Similitudes of Enoch, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, and Matthew (cf. Mark 13.26–27; Luke 21.27; Rev 14.14). The Johannine Son of Man’s role in judgment strongly indicates that this figure has been understood apocalyptically.52 2.3.2. Non-apocalyptic Judgment? Delbert Burkett, Robert Rhea, and Hartwig Thyen have all argued that the judgment in 9.39 does not mean that the Son of Man is an apocalyptic figure. For Burkett, the Johannine Son of Man cannot be apocalyptic because even though the Enochic son of man is associated with judgment, the 49

See Lincoln, Truth, 70. Contra Moloney, Johannine, 156; Lieu, ‘Blindness’, 84; Asiedu-Peprah, Sabbath Conflicts, 152–53. 50 Blank (Krisis, 262 n. 25) states: ‘$  = Gericht, sachlich mit $  gleichbedeutend, bei Johannes hapaxlegomenon.’ See also Ridderbos, Gospel, 350; Schnackenburg, Gospel, 2.255. Neyrey (Gospel, 176) says that 9.39 returns to Jesus’ claim in 8.26. As with 8.26, the Son of Man’s judgment is in apparent contradiction with 3.17 (cf. 12.47), where Jesus has said that God has not sent the Son into the world to judge the world but to save the world. But this contradiction is only ‘superficial’ (Carson, Gospel, 378; also Barrett, Gospel, 365). Directly following 3.17, Jesus says that those who do not believe in him have already been judged (3.18). The judgment theme continues in 3.19– 21, and as in John 9, light is connected with judgment (3.19; cf. 12.34–36; see Burkett, Son of the Man, 164–68; Maddox, ‘Function’, 199): the coming of the light into the world is the judgment (  $). In John 9.5, Jesus refers to himself a second time as the light of the world, specifying that he is the light of the world when he is in the world. In 9.39, his coming into the world is for judgment. Jesus’ presence in the world as the light brings judgment, even though that is not the purpose of his coming (3.17; 12.47; see Blank, Krisis, 262–63). 51 Maddox, ‘Function’, 199. See also Neyrey, Gospel, 176. 52 See Coppens, ‘Fils de l’homme’, 55.

2. ‘Apocalyptic Son of Man’ Characteristics in John 9.35

185

judgment in John 9.39 is present judgment and not an end-time, final judgment.53 Again, this is to mistakenly equate eschatology with apocalyptic literature; not everything in apocalyptic literature concerns the end of time.54 At the same time, Burkett misses the point that in the Gospel of John the judgment that occurs in the present is final judgment. Those who do not believe are already judged (3.18). Those who believe have already crossed over to life (5.24). The future eschatological judgment has been given in the present in response to Jesus (cf. 5.24–29).55 The Son of Man in the Gospel of John is portrayed similarly to the apocalyptic interpretations of the Danielic son of man, but the acceptance or rejection of the Johannine Son of Man in the present determines the final judgment. Burkett concludes that the judgment is not apocalyptic and states: ‘The idea [of judgment] is therefore appropriately associated with Jesus as the Light, but is unrelated to the ‘Son of Man’ of 1 Enoch.’56 He is correct to connect Jesus the Light with judgment, but in fact light has exact parallels with the son of man figure of 1 En. 38.1–6. 1 En. 38.2 reads: ‘And when the Righteous One appears in the presence of the righteous, whose chosen works depend on the Lord of Spirits, and light appears to the righteous and chosen who dwell on the earth…’ The appearance of the ‘Righteous One’, who is also the son of man figure,57 parallels the appearance of the light. Following this appearance, the sinners will be judged and the kings of the earth will perish (38.3–5; cf. 62.2–11). Since the Enochic son of man is paralleled to the light, the description of the Johannine Son of Man as the Light actually adds further weight to the argument that the Johannine Son of Man is portrayed with apocalyptic characteristics.58 In disagreeing with the apocalyptic description of the Son of Man in John 9.35, Thyen and Rhea both emphasize the earthly and human aspect of the blind man’s proclamation of Jesus as the Son of Man. Thyen says that the Son of Man is ‘ein Mensch unter Menschen, und jedenfalls nicht jenes Himmelswesen von Dan 7’.59 Rhea also focuses on the earthly nature of the blind man’s proclamation and claims that the ‘judgment of the world

53

Burkett, Son of the Man, 166–67. Also Schulz, Evangelium, 146. See Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 11–12. 55 Lincoln (Truth, 70) states: ‘…if there is a positive realized eschatology of life, there is also a negative realized eschatology of judgment. Despite the primary intention of the Son’s mission—to produce the positive verdict of eternal life—for those who do not believe in this unique Son of God, this negative response produces a negative verdict ahead of time in the lawsuit: “those who do not believe are condemned already” ([3.]18b).’ 56 Burkett, Son of the Man, 167. Also Wink, ‘Son of Man’, 120. 57 Vanderkam, ‘Righteous One’, 186–87. 58 See Gourgues, ‘L’aveugle-né’, 395. 59 Thyen, Johannesevangelium, 471. 54

186

Chapter 9: Belief in the Son of Man

does not take place in the expected apocalyptic setting’ (i.e., heaven).60 Both Thyen and Rhea are correct that the interpretations in Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian literature typically portray the Danielic figure in heaven, but the Gospel of John goes out of its way to show that Jesus the Son of Man is from heaven (3.31; 8.23; cf. 1.18; 6.46; 7.29; 9.33) and has descended from heaven to earth (3.13; 6.33 with 6.53; cf. 6.62). Jesus has become flesh, but he is still the heavenly Son of Man.61 The proclamation on earth only emphasizes that this apocalyptic Son of Man has come to earth, become flesh, and is presently acting in his role as life-giver and apocalyptic judge (cf. Mark 2.10; Matt 9.6; Luke 5.24). 2.4. The Son of Man as a Heavenly Figure and Preexistent In the context of the Son of Man saying in John 9, there is evidence that Jesus the Son of Man is from heaven. The man born blind tells the Pharisees that Jesus is from God (8  ), which highlights Jesus’ origin from heaven. Jesus himself confirms this statement after the man has believed that Jesus is the Son of Man. Jesus says: ‘For judgment I have come into this world.’ He has entered into this world ( $    ), implying that he has come from outside. Since the man born blind has declared that Jesus is ‘from God’ (9.33) and we know from elsewhere in John that Jesus is ‘from above’ (3.31; 8.23; cf. 18.36) and has descended from heaven (3.13), this statement points directly to his heavenly origin.62 Jesus’ statement also clarifies that his heavenly origin includes previous existence in heaven. The word .&  (‘I have come’) not only indicates that the Son of Man is a heavenly figure but also implies Jesus’ preexistence (cf. 1.1–2, 18).63 In 9.39, the specific reason for his coming is judgment, but the Gospel of John has indicated elsewhere that he has been sent to save the world (3.17; 12.47).64 2.5. The Son of Man’s Authority Another apocalyptic characteristic of the Son of Man in John 9.35 is one that is not explicitly stated but still perceptible in two ways. Similarly to 60

Rhea, Johannine, 47. Martyn (History, 134) says that ‘we must speak in this case of the presence of the Son of Man in the world’ (emphasis original). Further he adds: ‘The traditional motif of the Son of Man as judge, so prominent in 5:27, is directly acted out in 9:35–41.’ 62 Pryor (‘Johannine’, 346) attempts to distance the connection from descent. 63 Barrett, Gospel, 365. See also Gathercole, Preexistent Son, 83–189. 64 Hamerton-Kelly (Pre-existence, 241) states: ‘Jesus is the pre-existent Son of Man on earth, whose real home is in heaven. The eschatological figure of the Son of Man has been identified with the historical Jesus by a shift in the horizon of transcendence from the future to the present, and – in the Prologue – to the past.’ See Rein, Heilung, 247–50. 61

3. ‘Son of Man’ and Jesus’ Humanity in John 9.35?

187

the ‘one like a son of man’ in Dan 7.14, the Johannine Son of Man has authority given to him by God, which is authority to give life and to judge (5.21–23, 26–27; cf. 6.27; 8.28). In John 9, as in John 5, Jesus has healed on the Sabbath. This Sabbath healing indicates that Jesus the Son of Man has God-given authority because of the life-giving connotation of the healing and the fact that only God can work on the Sabbath (cf. 5.17–30). Also, when Jesus says that he has come into the world for judgment, he directs attention to his God-given authority to judge (5.27; cf. Mark 2.10 pars.). Jesus’ authority to heal, to judge, and his origin from God suggest that the theme of authority is also associated with the Son of Man in John 9.35.

3. ‘Son of Man’ and Jesus’ Humanity in John 9.35? The belief in the Son of Man poses some significant difficulties for those who seek to argue that ‘the Son of Man’ in John’s Gospel primarily refers to the humanity of Jesus or his earthly ministry. If the phrase is meant to indicate Jesus’ humanity, how can the supreme moment of belief for the man born blind be that he believes in the human one? And in doing so, why does the man worship a human being? For Burkett and Lincoln, the Son of Man can be believed in and worshipped because for them ‘Son of Man’ is equivalent to ‘Son of God’.65 However, those who argue for a human meaning are often strangely silent on John 9.35, or if they discuss it, the humanity of Jesus is left unmentioned. Sidebottom states: ‘Wherever one turns the background against which the Johannine Son of Man moves shows him up as a human figure rather than a supernatural figure.’66 But strikingly, Sidebottom fails to turn to the saying in John 9.35 and has left us bereft of his comments on this passage. Moloney emphasizes Jesus the Son of Man as ‘the revelation of God among men’, which Moloney uses as a sort of short hand for Jesus’ humanity, but he does not mention the terms ‘human’ or ‘man’ here in relation to ‘the Son of Man’ as he does elsewhere.67 Pamment argues that in the Gospel of John the term ‘the Son of Man’ refers to Jesus’ representative humanity, but she too is unable to make a comment about Jesus’ humanity concerning John 9.35.68 And Hare, 65 Burkett, Son of the Man, 167; Lincoln, Truth, 102. Wink (‘Son of Man’, 120–21) is able to discuss belief because he understands ‘Son of Man’ to refer to the ‘archetypal HumanBeing’. ‘HumanBeing’ is the designation that Wink uses ‘in order to preserve the deliberate oddness of the title’ (118). 66 Sidebottom, ‘Son of Man’, 280. 67 Moloney, Johannine, 154–59. Cf. his concluding statements on John 5.27 (86), on John 6 (123), on John 8.28 (141), on 12.23 (180–81), and especially in his conclusion (213). See ‘Revisited’, 200–2. 68 Pamment, ‘Son of Man’ 63, 65. See also Ramos, ‘Hijo’, 57, 90.

188

Chapter 9: Belief in the Son of Man

whose argument is that ‘the Son of Man’ is a self-designation that refers to Jesus’ humanity, is forced to say, ‘Because “the Son of man” does not here function as a recognizable self-designation of Jesus (although it is revealed to be such in Jesus’ response to the man’s question), we must reckon with the possibility that in this passage the phrase is not merely a name but the bearer of theological content.’69 When the attempt is actually made to explain the belief in and worship of a human being, the difficulty of this view becomes even more apparent. Edwin Abbott is clutching at straws when he states: ‘The blind man, never having seen a man (or “son of man”) before, could not be familiar with the sight, and would therefore be free from that kind of “familiarity” which “breeds contempt” for what we often call “a mere man.”’70 These scholars have clearly found it understandably difficult to connect Johannine belief with belief in a human figure. Just this fact alone, that         is used in a Johannine confession of faith, strongly suggests that the title has divine connotations and does not refer to Jesus’ humanity.71 At the same time, this does not indicate that Jesus the Son of Man has not become human nor that ‘Son of God’ is identical or equivalent with ‘Son of Man’. The ‘Son of Man’ title communicates a divine connotation that is separate from the title ‘Son of God’. The apocalyptic characteristics linked to ‘Son of Man’ imply that in the Gospel of John       alludes to Jesus’ divinity and not his humanity.

4. Conclusion Jesus’ question to the man born blind allows the man to identify Jesus as the Son of Man through belief. The man may not fully understand the content of the title ‘Son of Man’, but he recognizes the term as a title and believes. Both his question and Jesus’ response imply that ‘the Son of Man’ is meant to be taken as a title. The Johannine Son of Man in John 9.35 shares characteristics with the Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian interpretations of the ‘one like a son of man’, and reveals a consistent interpretation in the Gospel of John, even 69

Hare, Son of Man, 106. Abbott, Son of Man, 538 n. 1. 71 Gourgues, ‘L’aveugle-né’, 395. Even Panackel ( ,=C;5>@, 155–56), who maintains that ‘the Son of Man’ in John’s Gospel refers to the incarnation of the Logos (17), says that the Son of Man saying in 9.35 points to the ‘transcendent aspect’ of the title. Panackel does not think that the Son of Man is an apocalyptic figure but rather is a ‘transcendent being’. What he means by this differentiation is unclear, but considering that ‘transcendence’ is part of the definition being used in this study for an ‘apocalypse’, his comment is significant. 70

4. Conclusion

189

in this confessional question. (1) The Johannine Son of Man is recognized in John 9, which becomes evident through the man’s seeing, hearing, and believing in Jesus the Son of Man (1 En. 62.3–5; 4 Ezra 13.4, 33; 2 Bar. 30.1; Mark 13.26 pars.; Rev 1.7; cf. John 3.14–15; 5.28–29; 8.28). (2) As with the ‘one like a son of man’, he is worthy of worship (Aramaic and OG Dan 7.14; also 1 En. 48.5; 62.9; Mark 14.62 pars.; Matt 25.31; Rev 1.17). (3) The Johannine Son of Man is involved in judgment (1 Enoch 69.27; 4 Ezra 13.10–11, 37–38; 2 Bar. 40.1–2; 72.2; Matt 25.31–46; 4Q246 2.5?), and (4) is a heavenly figure since he is ‘from God’ and has ‘come into the world’ (9.33, 39; 1 En. 48.6; 62.7; 4 Ezra 13.26; 2 Bar. 30.1; Acts 7.56; Rev 1.7). (5) These two aspects imply preexistence, when they are considered in combination with his descent and ascent to where he was before (3.13; 6.62). More implicitly, (6) the Son of Man figure is one who has been given authority (OG Dan 7.14; cf. John 5.27). In John 9, the Son of Man’s authority can be seen in Jesus’ healing of the man born blind on a Sabbath. It is also noticeable in his carrying out of judgment and his calling of the man born blind to belief (cf. 5.17–30). Further (7), hints of his similarity with God may also be apparent. As in John 5, Jesus heals on the Sabbath and thus works (cf. 5.1–17), and also the blind man’s worshipping of Jesus suggests a response usually given to God (OG Dan 7.13). For John, the Son of Man is not a heavenly figure that exists in the faroff future; rather, the Son of Man is a heavenly figure who has descended to earth and become human, and his presence on earth brings eschatological judgment in the present. Those who truly see him, who recognize him for who he is, will escape judgment and be saved. Those who do not believe become blind, remain in their sin, and are already judged. The present emphasis does not negate the apocalyptic features of this figure, but highlights the realized eschatology of John’s Gospel. The future judgment is decided in the present because the apocalyptic Son of Man has come to earth and has been revealed to the world. Jesus came to save the world, but in doing so he also brings judgment for those who do not accept him.

Chapter 10

The Glorification and Lifting Up of the Son of Man – John 12.23, 34 With the arrival of the final week of Jesus’ life, the predicted hour of the Son of Man’s glorification is announced. This glorification is linked with the Son of Man’s lifting up (3.14; 8.28), and here in John 12 we find the final two uses of    (12.32, 34). Francis Moloney has stated that the glorification of the Son of Man reveals that the Son of Man in John 12 is not connected with Jewish apocalyptic Son of Man traditions.1 For Moloney the Johannine Son of Man’s glorification cannot be described as apocalyptic since it involves his death.2 Because Moloney understands Daniel 7 to be in the background of the Johannine Son of Man, at least in some sense, his objection to an apocalyptic Son of Man in John 12 is significant. Siegfried Schulz, on the other hand, makes an explicit connection between the Son of Man’s glorification in 12.23 and the glorification of the son of man figure in 1 En. 51.3.3 While we cannot be as presumptuous as Schulz, the glorified Son of Man in John 12 has more of an apocalyptic nature than Moloney allows.4 In the following chapter, the major themes connected with the Johannine Son of Man in John 12 will be discussed: his hour, glorification, and ‘lifting up’. It will be contended that, similar to the Son of Man’s ‘lifting up’, the hour and the glorification both include the death, resurrection, and ascension of the Son of Man. This combination constitutes a significant aspect of the Johannine interpretation of the Son of Man. In John 12, the Son of Man shares a number of characteristics with the interpretations of the Danielic son of man in Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian literature: he is recognized, associated with glory, plays a part in judgment and salvation, gathers the righteous, is the Messiah, and some language may 1

Moloney, Johannine, 177. See also Hare, Son of Man, 111. 3 Schulz, Untersuchungen, 119. 4 Sasse (Menschensohn, 171–72) states that the concept of glorification goes back to the coming of the & "  from the heavenly world, but he makes no other heavenly connection or apocalyptic connection to glory in John 12. He even cites L.A.B. 19.16 and argues that the interpretation of Jesus’ death as glorification has its basis in the glorification of Moses. 2

1. The Glorification of the Son of Man

191

allude to the Son of Man as a heavenly figure. But at the same time the Son of Man in John’s Gospel is unquestionably Johannine. This is evident in the Son of Man’s glorification including his death and in the emphasis on his present rather than future action.

1. The Glorification of the Son of Man Prior to the announcement of the coming of Jesus’ hour, Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead (11.1–44). As a result of this sign, the religious leaders plot to have Jesus killed (11.45–53). Their decision is spurred by the prophecy of Caiaphas the high priest, who prophesies that Jesus would die on behalf of the nation so that all the children of God would be gathered into one (11.49–53). Jesus then attends a dinner at the home of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha, where Mary anoints the feet of Jesus (12.1–8). As Passover draws near, Jesus enters Jerusalem riding on a donkey (12.12), to the waving of palm branches and shouts of ‘Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord, the King of Israel!’ (12.13). Because of the crowd following Jesus, the Pharisees complain that the world is going after him (12.19). Directly following this comment, John writes that there were some Greeks who had come to worship during Passover (12.20). These Greeks, who were most likely non-Jewish proselytes and not Greek-speaking Jews,5 appear to serve as an explication of the world going after Jesus (12.19).6 These Greeks came wishing to see () Jesus (12.21). Seeing is of special importance in the Gospel of John (cf. 6.40), and as has been noted previously, this is particularly so with the Johannine theme of the recognition of the Son of Man (1.51; 6.62; 9.35 cf. 8.28). The concept of recognizing the Son of Man is a common theme in the Jewish apocalyptic and early Christian interpretations of the Danielic figure (1 En. 46.1; 62.1– 3; Mark 13.26; 14.62 par.; Rev 1.7). The message of the Greeks’ desire to see Jesus comes to him in a roundabout fashion from Philip to Andrew, then Philip and Andrew to Jesus.7 In response to the Greeks’ request, Jesus states: 5 H.B. Kossen, ‘Who Were the Greeks of John XII 20?’ in A.S. Geyser (ed.), Studies in John: Presented to Professor Dr J.N. Sevenster on the occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (NovT.S 24; Leiden: Brill, 1970) 97–110; K. Tsuchido, ‘AEE