The Death of the Divine Warrior

I. Introduction, Outline and
Methodology
1. Introduction

(a) The Warrior Messiah and the New Exodus Hopes of Psalms of
Solomon

In 63 BC Pompey captured Jerusalem and violated the Temple. In response to this crisis and
as a 'propaganda tract par excellence in support of the recently displaced Zadokite priests'1 the
Psalms of Solomon were composed.2 Within this document, a collection of eighteen Psalms
attributed to Solomon, Psalm 17 looks to a future hope in which a Davidic King, the Messiah,
will defeat Israel's enemies and usher in an eschatological age in which Jerusalem will be
cleansed (17.22,30), the tribes reunited (17.44) and the nations of the world will pay homage
at Jerusalem (17.31). The Messiah is a warrior figure who, in the words of John J. Collins, is
'undeniably violent'.3
See, Lord, and raise up for them their king, the son of David, to rule over your
servant Israel in the time known to you O God. Undergird him with the
strength to destroy unrighteous rulers, to purge Jerusalem from gentiles who
trample her to destruction; in wisdom and in righteousness to drive out the
sinners from the inheritance; to smash the arrogance of sinners like a potter's
jar; to shatter all their substance with an iron rod; to destroy the unlawful
nations with the word of his mouth. (17.21-24)

1.
H. C. Kim, Psalms of Solomon: A New Translation and Introduction (Highland Park: Hermit Kingdom
Press, 2008), viii.
2.
For a detailed discussion of date, provenance and theology of the Psalms of Solomon see R. B. Wright,
“Psalms of Solomon: A New Translation and Introduction,” in ed. Charlesworth The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha. Volume Two(London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1985), 639-650.
3.
John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient
Literature, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 54. This view is not shared by J. H. Charlesworth, “The
Concept of the Messiah in the Pseudepigrapha,” ANRW II 19 (1979): 188-218, 199, or J. D. Crossan, The
Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1992), 108.
Crossan writes 'And this messianic leader does not use violence, neither the actual violence of normal warfare
nor the transcendental violence of angelic destruction.' Yet as the 17.21-24 show it is the Messiah who will
trample, smash, destroy and shatter the unlawful nations.

1

This future deliverer is described in super-human terms. He is 'free from sin' (17.36),
'powerful in the holy spirit' (17.37) and called the 'Lord Messiah' (17.32).4 The nations will
come from the ends of the earth to see the anointed king and, in doing so, shall behold 'the
glory of the Lord' (17.31). Although O'Neil exaggerates when he places Ps. 17 in a discussion
of Jewish texts which show a trinitarian and incarnational theology, this Lord Messiah is
clearly a super-human figure who is in some sense divine.5 By using the word divine it is not
intended that this means that this person is to be equated with God or that he is an angelic
figure but rather that his existence cannot be explained solely in reference to normal human
and creational categories. He belongs, in a way, as a divine agent to the heavenly realm.

Alongside this future Davidic warrior king, Ps. 17 contains ample references to the ultimate
kingship of the one God of Israel. The Psalm begins and ends as follows,

'Lord, you are king forevermore,' (17.1)

'The Lord Himself is our king forevermore.' (17.46)

These kingly bookends set the theological context for understanding the Davidic messiah. He
is neither on a par nor equal with God but acts to bring God glory (17.32) and is entirely
dependent on him; 'The Lord Himself is his king.' (17.34)

Robert Rowe, who categorises this view of kingship as 'two-tier kingship', sums up his
findings concerning the Pss. of Sol.
Thus we see that the Psalms of Solomon, as a collection, not only speak of the
coming Davidic Messiah, but also of God's kingdom, to which the Messiah is
subordinate.6

The dual kingship of YHWH and his Messiah are spoken of in other parts of the Psalms of
Solomon (18.6-7; 2.30-32; 5.19). Alongside a hope that looks with longing to the coming of
Lord Messiah, the Psalms also anticipate the arrival of YHWH himself. YHWH, who had
previously deserted Jerusalem (7.1-10), will one day gather the exiled people of God and lead
them on a new Exodus (NE) to be welcomed into a restored Jerusalem. Ps. of Sol. 11, which
is intertextually related to the NE hope of Isa. 40-55, makes this clear.

4.
Many commentators and translators, including Ralph's LXX and the more recent Lexham Greek-English
LXX, emend the text to read 'the Lord's Messiah'. However Gk. and Syr. MSS all support the reading 'Lord
Messiah.' See R. B. Wright, “Psalm of Solomon: A New Translation and Introduction.”, 627, fn z. Also J. C.
O’Neill, Who Did Jesus Think He Was? (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 96-97. This same title is also found in 1 Sam.
24.6; Lam. 4.20 LXX; Superscription of Pss. of Sol. 18; Ps. 110.
5.
J. C. O’Neill, Who Did Jesus Think He Was? (1995), 96-97.
6.
R.D. Rowe, God's Kingdom and God's Son (Leiden:Brill, 2002)

2

Stand on a high place, Jerusalem, and look at your children, from the east and
west assembled by the Lord... He flattened high mountains into level ground
for them... So that Israel may proceed under the supervision of the glory of
their God. (11.2; 11.4; 11.6)7

YHWH will do again what he did in the Exodus by coming to dwell in the midst of his
people. Although, in some sense, YHWH's kingship is constant and eternal it is, in another
sense, the eschatological hope of Israel whereby heavenly kingship needs to be manifested in
the spiritual, historical and geographical situation of Israel. Drawing on the NE traditions of
Isa. 40-55 God is portrayed using mythological language as a Divine Warrior (DW) who
subdues creation in his NE march.8

The coming of YHWH to Zion and the advent of a future Davidic warrior king should not be
viewed as contradictory eschatological hopes in the Pss. of Sol. Rather, the biblical and
Second-Temple evidence suggests that this two-fold eschatological hope, bound together with
two-tier kingship, formed part of the mental furniture of many Second Temple Jews being
reinforced in story, symbol and ritual and being found in a range of biblical and post-biblical
texts.

(b) Thesis Outline

The Gospel of Mark, which was more than likely put together in its final form in the years of
the Jewish War (66-73 A.D.), reflects the eschatological framework of the Pss. of Sol. in its
narration of the final years of Jesus' life. However, rather than being a future hope, the Gospel
of Mark looks back to its eschatological fulfilment in the person and work of Jesus. By using
the phrase βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ repeatedly9 Mark emphasises that Jesus' kingdom project and
eschatological message concern the establishment of the reign of God. However, the kingly

7.
Allusions to Isa. 40-55 will be dealt with in the following chapter.
8.
So T. Longman III, and D.G. Reid, God is Warrior, SOTBT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 72-90. In a
chapter entitled 'God Wars Against the Forces of Chaos' Longman demonstrates that YHWH, as a warrior
subduing creation, is found across a range of texts including Nah. 1.4; Ps. 18.14-15; 29.10; 24.1-2; 74.12-17;
Isa. 27.1.
9.
Mk. 1.15; 4.11; 4.26; 4.30; 9.1; 9.47; 10.14-15; 10.23-25; 12.34; 14.25; 15.43.

3

reign of God is closely connected to the ministry of Jesus as the Davidic Messiah10 and Son
of God.11 In his ground-breaking study Way of the Lord Joel Marcus concludes that Mark is,
Following in the footsteps of some of his Jewish contemporaries when he
makes the motif of the kingdom of God of central importance and binds it
intimately to the notion of the kingship of the Messiah.12

Although Mark shares this conceptual framework he transforms it in at least two distinct
ways. Firstly, as widely recognised in scholarship, the manifestation of the kingdom of God
and the identity of the Messiah comes not through the the military defeat of the Kittim of
Rome or the nations but, rather, through the path of suffering, crucifixion and resurrection.
Marcus continues:
There seems to be no Jewish parallel for Mark’s thought that the Messiah’s
kingship and the kingdom of God are manifest already and in a definitive way
in his suffering and death.13

Secondly, and this points to the content of this thesis, Mark does not draw a sharp distinction,
as in 'two-tier' kingship, between the identity of Jesus and that of the one true God of Israel.
Rather, Jesus is portrayed in Mark as fulfilling, in himself, the twin eschatological hopes of
the return of YHWH to Zion and the coming of a divine Davidic messiah. For Mark, it will
be argued, Jesus is in some sense the incarnation or embodiment of YHWH. Furthermore,
through his ironic use of Scripture, Mark demonstrates that Israel, in rejecting Jesus, has
actually rejected both the arrival of their Messiah and God.

The claim of this thesis flies in the face of much of Markan scholarship which rejects the
view that Mark held to a incarnational christology in which Jesus is, in some sense, to be
ontologically identified with the one God of Israel.14

10.
Mk. 1.1; 8.29; 14.61-62; 10.47-48; 15.32.
11.
Mk. 1.1; 3.11; 5.7; 15.39.
12.
Marcus, The Way of the Lord (2004), 202.
13.
ibid. ,202.
14.
Frank Matera is typical when he says:

If a group of Christians possessed only the Gospel of Mark, they would have a different understanding of
Jesus than another group that possessed only the Gospel of John. Both groups would undoubtedly identify
Jesus as the Son of God and Son of Man, but in doing so, they would interpret these terms in different
ways. Believers nourished by the Gospel of John would view Jesus as the incarnation of the preexistent Son
of God who dwelt in God's presence: the Son of Man who descended from heaven and then ascended tot he
Father. In contrast to these believers, those nourished by the Gospel of Mark would view Jesus as the
obedient Son of God who proclaimed the kingdom of God and died a shameful death of crucifixion.
Despite this death they continued to believe that he will soon return as the glorious Son of Man who will
inaugurate God's kingdom in power.

4

The overacting structure of this thesis is as follows:

The following chapter will offer an in depth study of the Gospel of Mark demonstrating, in
the face of recent critics (such as Hatina and Moyise), that Mark presents Jesus as the
embodiment of YHWH who comes as a DW to lead his people on a NE to Zion. This will be
achieved, building upon the scholarship of Joel Marcus and Rikki Watts, by noting the
intertextual parallels between Mark and the NE traditions of Isa. 40-55.

The third chapter of this thesis will demonstrate that Jesus is a divine messiah figure who has
come to be enthroned in Zion. A thorough study of the scriptural traditions standing behind
Mk. 11.1-11 will show that Mark uses scriptural traditions to portray Jesus as a divine
messiah who is rejected by the the leadership of Jerusalem. The so called 'triumphal entry',
when compared with other entry narratives, is to be understood as being anti-climactic.

The fourth and final chapter will show that the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus is not the
end of the the NE story. Rather, the death of Jesus as both God and Messiah is the means by
which this NE can actually be achieved. Isa. 40-55 provides a scriptural blueprint for such
thinking.

The remainder of this chapter will deal with some methodological issues and an exposition of
monotheism and the concept of a Divine Messiah within late Second Temple Judaism.

F. J. Matera, New Testament Christology (Westminster: John Knox Press, 1999), 2. W.R Telford, who himself is
no stranger to Markan studies, makes the following comment,

This is not to say, of course, that Mark is operating with a later Nicene or Chalcedonian
understanding of Jesus' divinity. Notions of the Son of God's preexistence, mediatorial role in
creation, descent from heaven, incarnation or sinlessness are as yet undeveloped. W. R. Telford,
The Theology of the Gospel of Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 40-41.

Jimmy Dunn's significant study Christology in the Making seeks to present a survey of the NT ascertaining how
the doctrine of the incarnation developed. He concludes,

As the first century of the Christian era drew to a close we find a concept of Christ's real pre-existence
beginning to emerge, but only with the Fourth Gospel can we speak of a full blown conception of
Christ's personal pre-existence and a clear doctrine of the incarnation. J. D. G. Dunn, Christology in the
Making: A New Testament Inquiry Into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (London: SCM
Press, 1980), 258.

More recently A.Y. Collins writes 'The Synoptic Gospels do not portray Jesus as preexistent.' A. Y. Collins, and
J. J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and
Related Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 209.

5

2. Narrative, Intertextuality and Intratextuality

Mark does not write as a systematic theologian. Instead, he seeks to communicate his
christological claims through a story. Robert Tannenhill correctly states, in his essay entitled
'Gospel of Mark and Narrative Christology', that 'we learn who Jesus is through what he says
and does in the context of the action of others'.15 However, some caution is required given the
post-modern tendencies in some forms of narrative criticism. Mark, far from being a free-
floating narrative with no authorial intent, intends to communicate to a real and implied
audience. The worldview of Mark and his readers is entirely at home in the world of Second
Temple Judaism. They understand the story of Jesus from within the context of the story of
Israel, its scriptures and its climactic fulfilment in the person of Jesus.16

It is necessary to clarify further what is intended by the phrase 'implied reader'. Following
Holly Carey's suggestion, the 'reader' should be distinguished from the 'audience'.17 The
implied 'audience' is to be understood as the larger community for whom the Gospel was read
aloud, they are listeners who may or may not be biblically competent. Taking on a different
role, the implied 'reader' is to be understood as the literate individual(s) who would have been
given the task of reading out the document within, what we may presume to be, a context of
worship to the larger community. These individuals (readers) have the level of education and
ability to interpret and explain the text to the audience where needed.18 The frequent citations
and allusions to the OT in the Gospel of Mark imply the reader is biblically literate and is at

15.
R. C. Tannehill, “The Gospel of Mark as Narrative Christology,” Semeia 16 (1979): 57-95, 58.
16.
Although there is great variety in the beliefs and praxis of Second Temple Judaism it is possible to sketch
out unifying contours within this plurality. See N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God:
(London: SPCK, 1992), 244. 'There is a basic worldview, which we can plot, that lies at a deeper and more
fundamental level than these variations.' Neusner first made the distinction between 'Judaism' and 'Judaisms' J.
Neusner et al., Judaisms and Their Messiahs At the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1987). but, as M. Mach correctly quips, 'the plural still needs a singular to have any meaning.'
in ed. C.C. Newman et al. The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers From the St. Andrews
Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus (Leiden:Brill, 1999), 24.
17.
Carey, Jesus' Cry From The Cross (2009), 23-24.
18.
It must not be assumed that there is a direct correlation between illiteracy and biblical incompetence, for an
illiterate leader, particularly of a Jewish background, may likely be steeped in the texts and traditions of Israel
through liturgical and symbolic formation and the use of orality and memory. Literacy levels in antiquity may
have been as little as 10%. Christianity, however, sharing the same scriptural roots as Second Temple Judaism,
would have a had a particular textual focus. This would be true even for illiterate members of the community.
See H.Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (Yale:Yale
University Press, 1997).

6

home in the scriptures of Israel.19 This implied reader also has a high level of literary
awareness and is assumed to be aware of literary conventions such as repetition, two step
progression, framing and the placing of episodes in concentric patterns. Mark displays a great
deal of literary skill which the implied readers are expected to make use of.20 The
consequences of this are significant in that the ideal reader is able to move backwards and
forwards in the text and is not bound to a linear reading. Although the text is to be read
synchronically, this is not to mean that its meaning for the implied reader is uncovered purely
through a sequential reading of the text. I do not follow Staley who believes that post-
Gutenberg readers have distorted readings of the text in being able to flick backward and
forward21 and, himself, proposes that the Gospels should only be read in a sequential linear
manner. I concede the obvious point that narratives, as opposed to reference books, should be
read sequentially. However, this does not rule out the positing of an ideal reader who is able
to study the texts in both a linear and non-linear manner.22 A non-linear reading can enhance

19.
The scriptures of Israel played a major role in the formation of the Gospel of Mark which, according to
Thomas Hatina, 'contains approximately 30 quotations and up to 200 allusions' T.R. Hatina, In Search of a
Context: The Function of Scripture in Mark’s Narrative, LNTS Vol. 232 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
2002), 1.
20.
'His creative skill lies...in the way he has set incidents in relation to each other by means of two
related processes of arrangement. The first is the arrangement of the pericopae into a linear sequence
to form a coherent plot with its own space and time. The second is the arrangement of a complex web
of relationships between incidents by the use of a wide range of compositional, stylistic and literary
techniques: repetitional devices, such as two-step progression, three-fold patterns, reiteration of key
words; parenthetical constructions, such as intercalcations, 'insertions', framing passages and the use
of inclusio; symmetrical patterns, as such as chiasmus, ring composition, and parallelism; techniques
of foreshadowing and retrospection; and extensive use of the dynamics of parabolic speech, such as
role reversal, paradox and irony....In summary,... narrative criticism has good grounds for regarding
him as an author of considerable literary skill, who regardless of his sources, bears full responsibility
for the shape and structure of the final product.'

So, C. D. Marshall, Faith as a Theme in Mark’s Narrative (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1989),
20-21.
21.
J. L. Staley, The Print’s First Kiss: A Rhetorical Investigation of the Implied Reader in the Fourth Gospel
(Atlanta:Scholars Press, 1985). With serious and sympathetic discussion in P. M. Phillips, The Prologue of the
Fourth Gospel, LNTS 294 (London: T&T Clark, 2006).
22.
Similarly, Peterson describes the movement 'back and forth through a text':

'Parallelism interrupts the merely sequential flow of content through a systematic repetition that
requires readers and hearers to move forth and back through the text rather than simply straight
through it. Once a parallel is discerned it becomes necessary to pause, however momentarily, and
synthesise the relations between the parallels before moving forward through the text.'

See N.R. Petersen, “The Composition of Mark 4:1-8:26,” HTR 73, no. 1/2 (1980): 185-217, 204. In a similar
way Van Iersel, after sketching out a chiastic structure of Mark, describes a circular approach to text which is
present alongside that of the sequential:

A circular construction operates the other way round [to the sequential linear reading]. The reader does
not become aware of its presence until he or she has passed the centre of the construction and begins to
recognize that the components following the centre correspond in reverse sequence to those preceding

7

the ability to compare and contrast various parts of the text—the reader is able to move both
forwards and backwards—and can develop intertextual and intratextual potentialities through
multiple readings.23

In this study we will use the term intertextuality to refer to the phenomena whereby one
earlier text (e.g. part of the scriptures of Israel) is embedded (through echoes, allusion,
citation) within a later text (e.g. Gospel of Mark).24 Although the term intertextuality,
originally coined by Julia Kristeva, was framed in a post-structuralist context, it is used in
more general ways within NT scholarship as a helpful reference to the relationship between
25
the scriptures of Israel and the NT. Furthermore, we will use the term to refer also to the
relationship between one OT text and another, as well as to the relationship between an extra-
biblical text (e.g. DSS) and the scriptures of Israel.

3. Monotheism and the Divine Identity of the Davidic
King

In advance of my own specific arguments in the following chapter, it is necessary to explore
how, within Judaism it was possible to be both monotheistic and yet believe in a Divine
Messiah. We have already hinted at this in our discussion of the Pss. of Sol. but more 'divine'
flesh needs to be put on the bone of the Davidic hope. Once this comes into view it is then
possible to see that the foundation for Mark's christological claims develop and modify a
view that was already around in the Judaism of his day. This stands in line with the recent
work of Larry Hurtado who argues that the worship of Jesus by the early Christians was not a
product of Hellenistic syncretism but was, rather, 'a significant mutation or innovation in

it. Whenever the construction is recognized, the reader is invited to look back to what has been read and
connect the related elements.

B. Iersel, Mark: A Reader-Response Commentary, JSNT (Supp) Vol. 164 (London: T&T Clark, 1998), 85.
23.
Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (1992), 42.
24.
Stanley Porter suggests that the term intertextuality is unhelpful and best dropped from the academic
discipline of biblical studies. See his “The Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament: A Brief Comment
on Method and Terminology,” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and
Proposals, ed. C. A. Evans, and J. A. Sanders (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). However, the term is
so embedded within biblical studies, and has been cut free from its post-structuralist moorings, that it is still
useful short hand for describing the use of phenomena whereby one text makes use of an older text.
25.
See discussion by Carey, Jesus' Cry From The Cross (2009) 29-36.

8

Jewish monotheistic tradition' which drew on resources and traditions already found within
Judaism.26

(a) Second Temple Jewish Monotheism

A minority of contemporary scholars argue that the term monotheism should be disregarded
as being unhelpful or, worse still, inaccurate as a description of the beliefs of Second Temple
Judaism. For Hayman, monotheism is 'misused' and a dualistic pattern is to be preferred
given the evidence demonstrating that Second Temple Jews 'functionally believed in two
Gods'.27 In a similar way, Margaret Barker, in line with Segal's study, has claimed that many
Jews, as well as the earliest christian communities, believed in a second God (YHWH the
great angel) who can be distinguished from the high God, Elohim.28 Likewise, Paula
Fredricksen argues that the term 'monotheism' should be put into retirement, for the ancient
Jewish world was was 'filled with gods'.29

26.
L. W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (Second
Edition) (Edinburgh:T&T Clark, 1998), 99. He continues 'By "mutation" I mean that earliest Christian devotion
was a direct outgrowth from, and indeed a variety of, the ancient Jewish tradition. But at an early stage it
exhibited a sudden and significant difference in character from Jewish devotion'. In this study the focus of
attention is on 'divine messiah' although, as Hurtado demonstrates, a similar line of enquiry can be taken for
personification of divine attributes (word, wisdom, etc) as well as the divine agency of angelic beings.
27.
P. Hayman, “Monotheism―A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?,” JJS Vol 42.1 (1991): 1-15, 14.
28.
Margaret Barker writes

'the evidence points consistently in one direction and indicates that pre-Christian Judaism was not
monotheistic in the sense that we use that word. The roots of Christian trinitarian theology lie in pre-
Christian Palestinian beliefs about the angels. There were many in first-century Palestine who still retained
a world-view derived from the more ancient religion of lsrael in which there was a High God and several
Sons of God, one of whom was Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel. Yahweh, the Lord, could be manifested on
earth in human form, as an angel or in the Davidic king..'

Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God (London: SPCK, 1992), 3. See also the A. F.
Segal's, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports About Christianity and Gnosticism (Brill, 1977) and
“Two Powers in Heaven and Early Christian Trinitarian Thinking,” Trinity 1.9 (2002): 73-97; also D. Boyarin's,
“The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John,” HTR 94.3 (2002), 243-84, and
“Two Powers in Heaven,” The Idea of Biblical Interpretation: Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (Leiden:Brill,
2003): 331–70.
29.
For Fredriksen:

'Modern monotheism--the belief that only one god exists, arose only with the disenchantment of
the universe in the modern period...The ancient world, by contrast, was filled with gods, and the
people who lived in it--even members of Jewish and Christian communities--knew this to be the
case. They encountered these lower gods and felt their effects fairly often...We could cope with it
better too, if 'monotheism' were retired as a term for thinking about ancient religion.'

Paula Fredriksen, “Mandatory Retirement: Ideas in the Study of Christian Origins Whose Time Has Come to

9

Although some level of caution is needed, as it would be incorrect to impose a post
enlightenment view of monotheism onto an ancient culture,30 the term monotheism may still
be a useful description of a basic Jewish belief so long as we are clear about its definition.
Hayman, for instance, includes creatio ex nihilo as a necessary requirement for monotheism.
This definition then supports his view that Second Temple Judaism was not monotheistic as
creatio ex nihilo, assuming the point should be conceded, was not firmly present in Jewish
theology until the Medieval period.31 Likewise, if a definition of monotheism includes the
rejection of the belief in other transcendent and heavenly beings then Second Temple Judaism
cannot properly be called monotheistic. As Hurtado has demonstrated, the best approach is to
to define monotheism from an analysis of the Second Temple Jewish sources which profess
to be monotheistic rather than from external and later contexts. A few examples from within
Judaism which have a bearing on the appropriateness of monotheism should suffice at
present.
There is one sovereign God, ineffable, whose dwelling is in heaven, self
sprung, unseen yet seeing all himself alone.32
For he proved first of all that there is only one God and that his power is
manifested throughout the universe, since every place is filled with his
sovereignty and none of the things which are wrought in secret by men upon
the earth escapes His knowledge. For all that a man does and all that is to
come to pass in the future are manifest to Him.33
Let us, therefore, fix deeply in ourselves this first commandment as the most
sacred of all commandments, to think that there is but one God, the most
highest, and to honor him alone; and let not the polytheistical doctrine ever
even touch the ears of any man who is accustomed to seek for the truth, with
purity and sincerity of heart.34

Go,” in Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity,
ed. D.B Capes. et al. (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007), 38.
30.
'It is mistaken to assume that we can evaluate ancient Jewish texts and beliefs in terms of whether or how
closely they meet our own preconceived idea of pure monotheism.' L. W. Hurtado, “First-Century Jewish
Monotheism,” JSNT 21 (1999):3-26, 6.
31.
P. Hayman, “Monotheism―A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?” (1991),3-4. See critique by Hurtado,
“First-Century Jewish Monotheism.” (1999), 6 fn 6, and 32-33.
32.
Sib. Orac. 3:11-12.
33.
Lett.Arist., 132 (See also 133-138) See also Wisd. of Sol. 13-15 which offers harsh but poetical denunciation
of idolatry.
34.
Philo Dec. 64-65, but also 52-81. Also, 'Some persons have conceived that the sun, and the moon, and the
other stars are independent gods, to whom they have attributed the causes of all things that exist. But Moses was
well aware that the world was created, and was like a very large city, having rulers and subjects in it; the rulers
being all the bodies which are in heaven, such as planets and fixed stars; and the subjects being all the natures
beneath the moon, hovering in the air and adjacent to the earth. But that the rulers aforesaid are not independent
and absolute, but are the viceroys of one supreme Being, the Father of all, in imitation of whom they administer

10

On the basis of the Jewish evidence, Hurtado offers the following definition of monotheism:
[Monotheism is] the belief that one Deity is universally supreme and
categorically unique from all other 'heavenly or 'divine' beings, and that
worship is properly to be given solely to this one Deity, with worship of any
other being regarded as idolatry.35

This definition is useful in that it does not rule out the existence of other transcendent figures
or even the possibility that these beings could, in some sense, be called gods. However, as the
Shema (Deut. 6.4) and the decalogue make clear (Exod. 20.3) the god of Israel is unique and
worthy of the highest level of devotion. This understanding of monotheism would actually
gain support, contra Fredricksen, from texts which speak of the uniqueness of YHWH in
comparison to the gods of the nations, angels or other heavenly figures.

Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods?
Who is like you, majestic in holiness,
awesome in glorious deeds, doing wonders?36

Margaret Barker's interesting hypothesis, in which she distinguishes between the High God
and YHWH, may also be discounted when looking at Second Temple Judaism. Even if it
were the case that Judaism arose through an evolutionary process from polytheism, through
henotheism to monotheism, it is the final form of the scriptures which matter to Jews of the
late Second Temple Period.37 In their final form numerous passages assume a direct
correspondence of YHWH with the God of gods.

For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty,
and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe.38

It is also worth noting two other points which cast serious doubt upon her thesis. The first is
that no evidence has, thus far, been produced from the Second Temple period that, as Hurtado
puts it, reflect a bitheistic pattern of devotion. 'Whatever might have been going on in pre-

with propriety and success the charge committed to their care, as he also presides over all created things in strict
accordance with justice and with law.' Philo Spec. Laws 1:13.
35.
Hurtado 'Monotheism' in DTIB, 519-521.
36.
Exod. 15.11.
37.
One is reminded of Instone-Brewer, whose outstanding study of the exegetical technique of Second Temple
Jews shows that 'they interpreted Scripture as though it were a fixed and perfect law. They regarded every word
of Scripture as consistent and equally important,' Scripture was not contradictory as standing behind all texts is
the divine author. D. I. Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis Before 70 CE (Tubingen: Mohr,
1992), 222.
38.
Deut. 10.17.

11

exilic Israelite religion, it is evidence of Roman-era Jewish practice that is relevant.'39 In other
words, there is no evidence from the Jewish world, outside of the church, that any being other
than god should be the target of worship.40

Secondly, her claim that scholars can uncover earlier bitheistic patterns of religion from the
earliest strata of the final edited texts is not without detractors and should not simply be
assumed.41

Therefore, we may conclude that one of the distinguishing beliefs of Second Temple Judaism,
which set it apart from their pagan contemporaries, was their confession that the one God is
supreme and worthy of worship. As Tacticus the pagan observer noted, 'the Jews
acknowledge one God only, and conceive of him by the mind alone.'42 Or, in the words of the
Shema,
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord
your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your
might.43

(b) The Divine King and Messiah

Alongside this concept of monotheism is the belief that the Davidic King was in some sense
divine. That is, his being, identity and function cannot be explained without reference to the
heavenly realm and that the king somehow crosses over the usual distinction between human
and heavenly beings. We will discuss the concept of divine kingship below within three

39.
L. W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity,(Grand Rapids:Eerdmans,
2003), 34.
40.
A recent book by James Dunn offers a nuanced understanding of Christian worship. For Dunn, NT worship
is through Jesus, by the power of the Spirit, to God. Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? (London: SPCK,
2010).
41.
For a helpful history of scholarship see chapter 2 of R. Gnuse, No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in
Israel (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). Also, R. Gnuse, “The Emergence of Monotheism in Ancient
Israel: A Survey of Recent Scholarship,” Religion 29, no. 4 (1999): 315-36. Of particular interest to Margaret
Barker's thesis is J. H. Tigay, “Israelite Religion: The Onomastic and Epigraphic Evidence,” Ancient Israelite
Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (Augsburg: Fortress, 1987): 157–94; J. D. Fowler, Theophoric
Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew: A Comparative Study (Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press, 1988). who
concludes that pre-exilic Israelites, on the basis of the frequency of YHWH inscriptions, may be described as
monolatrous and monotheistic with YHWH as their target. Another noteworthy critique is J. C. De Moor, The
Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997). who argues, on
the basis of ancient poems, that monotheism was firmly established before the exile and that YHWH was
equated with El before the Israelites came into Palestine.
42.
Tacitus, Histories 5:3.
43.
Deut. 6:4–7.

12

interrelated contexts. Firstly, (i) it appears to be embedded within the canon as part of the
ideology of kingship which existed during the time of the Davidic monarchs. Secondly, (ii)
following the exile, and with the decline of Davidic Kingship, the hopes of a future Davidic
leader became part of the eschatological future. As discussed briefly in regards to Pss. of Sol.
17, by the first century the concept of a Davidic Messiah had, in some quarters, come to be
understood in terms of a heavenly, divine or angelic figure. Some support of this position can
be found in (iii) the fusion of the Davidic hope, with reference to the cloud-riding 'son of
man' figure of Dan. 7.

(i) Divine King Ideology

Prior to the decline of kingship it appears that the Davidic King was considered to be, in
some sense, divine. Given our above discussion in relation to monotheism, we should now
perceive that the divine identity of the king would not necessarily pose a threat to
monotheism itself. A claim that something is divine, or that which exhibits transcendence or
possesses a heavenly identity, is not the same as saying that he/she/it is God or shares in his
ontological state.

In both Pss. 2 and 89, and in the promise to David found in 2 Sam. 7, the king is explicitly
referred to as the 'Son of God'.

I will tell of the decree:
The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;
today I have begotten you.44

He shall cry to me, ‘You are my Father,
my God, and the Rock of my salvation.’
And I will make him the firstborn,
the highest of the kings of the earth.45

I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.46

44.
Ps. 2.7.
45.
Ps. 89.26–27.
46.
2 Sam. 7.14. David G. Firth writes 'reflection on this text from within the OT alone justifies the claim that it
is the seedbed of messianic hope.' D. G. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel, AOTC (Nottingham: IVP, 2009). 387.

13

Furthermore, Ps. 45.6 and Isa. 9.6 make clear the divine status of the King, as he is said to be
‫( אֹלהים‬god: θεός = LXX) and ‫( אל גִּבּוֹר‬mighty god) respectively. We may add to this Ps. 110
ִ ֱ ֵ
which speaks of the King sharing the throne of God.

The Lord (‫ )יהוה‬says to my Lord (‫:)אדן‬

“Sit at my right hand,

until I make your enemies your footstool.”47

Such a view, although bizarre and strange to modern Western sensibilities, would not have
been considered unusual in either Ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia. However, a few further
comments about the ANE parallels are necessary. Firstly, the human king is subordinate to
one or more of the leading gods of the pantheon. To use biblical language, the king is not to
be confused with the 'Most High God'. Even Ps. 45, which describes the king as ‫ ,אֹלהים‬places
ִ ֱ
him in a subordinate position to another god/God when it says 'God, your God' (Ps. 45.7).

Secondly, we should exercise some caution in associating divine sonship with incarnation. It
is more likely an adoptionist view whereby the divine being of a king/pharaoh is adopted
upon enthronement, for it is here that they take up the office of kingship. 48

Thirdly, even though the language found in Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Jewish texts and
inscriptions is often both mythical and metaphorical, the divine-like character and status of
many kings and leaders would no doubt have been taken seriously by a great number within
the populous. However, we need to remind ourselves that the scriptures of Israel, bearing a
monotheistic stamp, forbid the worship and cultic veneration of anyone aside from the one
God of Israel.49

In summary, we may echo John Collins when he says 'While the King was not to be confused
with the Almighty, he was evidently exalted above the common rank of humanity.'50

47.
Ps. 110.1. See also 1 Chron. 28.5, 29:20; 2 Chron. 9.8.
48.
Egyptologist Ronald J. Leprohon writes: 'The evidence shows that the living pharaoh was not, as was once
thought, divine in nature or a god incarnate on earth. Rather, we should think of him as a human recipient of a
divine office. Any individual king was a transitory figure, while the kingship was eternal.' R. J. Leprohon,
“Royal Ideology and State Administration in Pharaonic Egypt,” in ed. J.Sasson Civilisations of the Ancient Near
East 1 (California: Scribner, 1995): 273-287, 275, cited in Collins & Collins, King and Messiah (2008), 6.
49.
Collins & Collins King and Messiah (2008), 23. 1 Chron. 29.20 is the closest we may get to such an idea.
50.
John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient
Literature (New York:Double Day, 1995), 23.

14

(ii) Post-Exilic Expectation of a Future Divine King

After the decline of Davidic Kingship the translators of the LXX did not hesitate to reproduce
statements that the king was the 'Son of God' (Pss. 2; 89) or addressed as god (Ps. 45). The
LXX differs from the MT in the case of Isa. 9.6. Although not referring to the future king as
being a god, he is to be associated with an angelic being as he is referred to as the Μεγάλης
βουλῆς ἄγγελος.51 Presumably, as Collins and Collins argue, this is to be seen less as a
demotion but more as a clarification. It would never be conceived that the King was the most
High God but, rather, that he takes his place alongside other angelic beings who minister and
serve in the divine court. In fact LXX Ps. 109.3, in talking about the sharing of God's throne,
seems to stress preexistence as well as membership of the heavenly court.

µετὰ σοῦ ἡ ἀρχὴ ἐν ἡµέρᾳ τῆς δυνάµεώς σου ἐν ταῖς λαµπρότησιν τῶν ἁγίων, ἐκ
γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐξεγέννησά σε.

With you is rule on a day of your power among the splendor of your holy ones. From
the womb, before Morning Star, I brought you forth.52

It appears plausible, or indeed likely, that the Psalms, which in their original context referred
to a contemporary member of the Davidic line (Pss. 2; 45; 89; 110), came to be understood in
an eschatological sense. The prophetic hope of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel53 looked towards
a future Davidic King and it is evident that texts initially referring to enthronement (Ps. 2; 45;
etc) came to be understood messianically.54

51.
See discussion in C. A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden:
Brill, 1998), 175-176. Collins & Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God (2008) , 59-62; W. Horbury, Jewish
Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London: SCM Press, 1998), 90-91. We may add to these verses a number of
other passages which point towards the angelomorphic identity of the king. 2 Sam. 14:17. See also 1 Sam.
29.19; 2 Sam. 19.17.

'And your servant thought, ‘The word of my lord the king will set me at rest,’ for my lord the king is
like the angel of God to discern good and evil. The Lord your God be with you!'

See Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology (1998), 175-176; C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of
Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 9-13.
52.
NETS translation.
53.
Isa. 11; Jer. 23.5-6, 33.17-22 and Ezek. 34.23-24, 37.24-25.
54.
See Tremper Longman III, “The Messiah: Explorations in the Law and Writings,” in The Messiah in the
Old and New Testaments, ed. S. E. Porter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 25. A similar argument is made by
K. M. Heim, “The Perfect King of Psalm 72,” in The Lord’s Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament

15

These Psalms were kept in the Psalter but their meaning for worshippers was transposed
into an eschatological key and became part of the messianic hope. It is clear that within
Second Temple Judaism Ps. 2 was being used to foster messianic hope. This is most
evident in Pss. of Sol. 1755 but is also found in other texts such as 4Q17456 and 1 Enoch
48.10.57

The following text, often undiscussed in books concerning messiahship, shows an
eschatological future for the house of David in which the line of David is portrayed in both
divine and angelic terms.58

And the Lord will give salvation to the tents of Judah first, that the glory of
the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem may not
surpass that of Judah. On that day the Lord will protect the inhabitants of
Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them on that day shall be like David,
and the house of David shall be like God, like the angel of the Lord, going
before them. (Zech. 12.7–8)59

We will move forward in time to explore post-biblical writings in order to establish whether
the hope of a divine Davidic messiah was part of the mental furniture of at least some Jews in
the Second Temple period. Attention should be paid to three specific texts, Similitudes of
Enoch, 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch which each use 'son of man' language from Dan. 7 to develop the

Messianic Texts, ed. P. E. Satterthwaite et al. (Carlise: Paternoster, 1995), 231 for Ps. 72. See also Collins, The
Scepter and the Star (1995) 24-28.This is exactly the point which Grant makes with reference to Ps. 2. 'Why
keep a psalm which celebrates the enthronement of the king when there is no king? It is kept because it has
come to mean something different. Ps. 2, for example, was probably recited at the coronation of each New
Davidic king, but retains its prominent place in the Psalter because its meaning for the covenant community has
changed with their change of circumstances.' James A. Grant, “The Psalms and the King,” in ed. Firth and
Johnston, Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches (Downers Grove: IVP, 2005), 111-112.
55.
In particular see 17.3; 21-25; 30-32.
56.
10 [And] yhwh [de]clares to you that he will build you a house. I will raise up your seed after you
and establish the throne of his kingdom 11 [for ev]er. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to
me...[« Why ar]e the nations [in turmoil] and hatch the peoples [idle plots? The kings of the earth
t]ake up [their posts and the ru]lers conspire together against yhwh and against 19 [his anointed one
». Inter]3 of the saying: [the kings of the na]tions [are in turmoil] and ha[tch idle plots against] the
elect ones of Israel in the last days. (4Q174 Frags. I col. 1, 21, 2 10-11, 19).
57.
For a full discussion of the reception of Ps. 2 in intertestamental and rabbinic literature see R.E. Watts,
“Mark,” in ed. Beale and Carson CNTUOT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007) 122-123.
58.
Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam (2002), 9.
59.
One commentator makes the following comment. 'Hopes are still centered on the house of David, which
shall be like God, a bold assertion, modified in the next phrase, like the angel of the Lord. Suppliants had
addressed David saying he was ‘like the angel of God’ (1 Sam. 29.9; 2 Sam. 14.17; 14.20; 19:27).' J. G.
Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary (Nottingham: IVP, 1972), 204.

16

motif of a coming Davidic King who has a divine identity.60 Although the history of research
on Dan. 7 is voluminous a few words need to be said in support of a Messianic reading of
Dan. 7.

(c) Daniel 7 - The 'Son of Man'

In Dan. 7 'one like a human being/son of man' is vindicated and enthroned (7.13-14). The
identity of this figure, who stands in contrast to the four beasts/empires, is fiercely debated.
John Collins, who himself argues that the 'son of man' figure is to be identified with Michael
the archangel,61 argues that modern scholarly solutions to this problem can be classified in the
one of the following categories.

(i) The 'Son of Man' is an exalted human being.

(ii) The 'Son of Man' is a collective symbol.

(iii)The 'Son of Man' is a heavenly being.62

Each of these positions, which bear a certain degree of plausibility, cannot be discussed in
any level of detail here. Instead, and rather briefly, we will make the case that these
subcategories are not mutually exclusive and that it is plausible to conceive of a being who is

60.
One was tempted to include 4Q246, the Aramaic Apocalypse, column II in such an analysis, which clearly
calls the future deliverer 'son of God'.

He will be called son of God, and they will call him son of the Most High. Like the sparks that you saw,
so will their kingdom be; they will rule several year[s] over the earth and crush everything; a people
will crush another people, and a province another provi[n]ce.... Until the people of God arises and
makes everyone rest from the sword. ...His kingdom will be an eternal kingdom, and all his paths in
truth. He will jud[ge] the earth in truth and all will make peace. The sword will cease from the earth,
and all the provinces will pay him homage. The great God is his strength, he will wage war for him; he
will place the peoples in his hand and cast them all away before him. His rule will be an eternal rule,
and all the abysses

In this passage a future deliverer is called 'Son of God' and 'Son of the Most High'. Fitzmyer considers this text
to be 'speaking positively of a coming Jewish ruler, who may be a successor to the Davidic throne', although his
denial that it is messianic has more to do with allegiance to the use of the specific word 'messiah' rather than the
concept itself. In this passage we read that the Davidic messiah will usher in an eternal rule. It is unclear
whether we are to presume from this that the Messiah will live eternally. This Davidic figure is an eschatological
figure of great significance, a warrior and judge who by God's strength will fight alongside God. J. A. Fitzmyer,
“The Aramaic ‘Son of God’ Text From Qumran Cave 4 (4Q246)" in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins
(Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 2000), 60. See the discussion in Collins & Collins, King and Messiah (2008), 65-72.
Also, A. M. Wolters, “The Messiah in the Qumran Documents,” in ed. S. E. Porter The Messiah in the Old and
New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 79-80.
61.
A. Y. Collins, Mark: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 318.
62.
ibid., 308-310.

17

both divine and human, and who represents the people. Prophets, priests and kings all
function in such a position. They are all human figures who represent the people but all have
access, in one degree or another, to the throne of God and can, therefore, be classified as
divine.63 As both priest and prophet, Moses represented the people before YHWH and was
able to enter the heavenly realm at Sinai (Exod. 19). Likewise, on the day of atonement the
High Priest represented the people before YHWH and, by entering into the Holy of Holies,
passed into the dwelling place of God himself. The Davidic King who, as we have seen, can
be spoken of in divine terms represents the people in a similar fashion. In one sense the
Abrahamic covenantal promise falls upon his head (Gen.17.7-8; 26.12; 2 Sam. 7:14), his
ethical behaviour has consequences for the community (Deut. 17.14-20) and, according to Ps.
110, he has a representative role as a priest.

(i) 'Son of Man' as Davidic Messiah

In Dan. 7 we see that Kings/Kingdoms are represented through the four beasts (Dan. 7.16-17;
7.23) and, upon the basis of corporate identity, it could quite easily be maintained that the
'son of man' represents a King as well as a people group. The evidence presented below
supports a Davidic reading of the 'son of man' figure in Dan. 7. It is not being maintained that
the author of Dan. 7 necessarily intended such a meaning but, rather, that a Davidic messianic
reading can be upheld when intertextually read alongside other parts of the biblical text and
that such a reading is certainly plausible for Second Temple Jews acquainted with the
scriptures of Israel. This corresponds to the pre-A.D. 70 rabbinic technique known as gezerah
shavah, whereby links are made between two texts upon the basis of a shared word or phrase.
The assumption behind this being that there is a single, divine authorship of scripture and that
God as a 'Divine legislator would always use language in a strictly consistent way.64

63.
A full discussion of the divine identity of prophets and priests cannot be given here. See Gieschen,
Angelomorphic Christology (1998), Prophets: 161-169; Priests:169-175.
64.
This is taken from a forthcoming publication by D. Instone-Brewer in ed. J Neusner et al The Midrash: An
Encyclopaedia of Biblical Interpretation in Formative Judaism. available online at http:/
/www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Instone-Brewer/TheolHermeneutics.html.(Accessed on 16/3/2012) See
also Instone-Brewer, Techniques and Assumptions in Jewish Exegesis Before 70 CE (1992), 17-18. Instone-
Brewer's study is highly significant as he demonstrates that rabbinic exegesis prior to 70 AD,

'regarded every word of Scripture as consistent and equally important, to be interpreted according to its
context and according to its primary meaning only, and recognised as a single valid text form. These
practices were found to contrast with those of later rabbis who frequently ignored the context, found
secondary meanings hidden in the text and who proposed alternate readings of the text for the purpose

18

(1) 'Son of Man'

Following a gezerah shavah method Ps. 80:17 would be of particular interest for a reader.
The psalmist, offering a lament from the exilic or post-exilic period, begs that God would:
...let your hand be on the man of your right hand,
the son of man (‫/עַל־בֶּן־אָדָ ם‬υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου) whom
you have made strong for yourself!

In this Psalm the term 'son of man' could refer to Israel but more likely refers to a restored
Davidic monarch, given the association of the right hand with Kingship found elsewhere (Ps.
110.1). This reading gains support from Tg. Ps. 80.16 which interprets the vine (80.15)
messianically.65
Although the final form of the Targum of the Psalms cannot be dated to any earlier than
the fourth century A.D (Tg. 108.11 mentions both Rome and Constantinople), it is
extremely likely that at various points these Psalms reflected both ancient and pre-
Christian traditions.66 Therefore, this Targum evidences that the 'son of man' figure of Ps.
80 was interpreted by some Aramaic speaking Jews messianically and, irrespective of
dating, adds some support to a messianic reading of MT of Ps. 80. If using the gezerah
shavah method of interpretation, in which scripture interprets scripture, a reader moving
between Dan. 7 and Ps. 80 would be predisposed to seeing the 'son of man' figure in Dan.
7 as a Davidic Messiah figure. This gains extra credibility when placed alongside the
following argument.

of exegesis.' ibid.,222.
65.
It reads: 'And remember this vine in mercy. And the branch that your right hand planted, and the King
Messiah whom you made mighty for yourself. [It is] being burned by fire and crushed; they will perish because
of the rebuke that [comes] from your presence. Let your hand be on the man to whom you have sworn with
your right hand, on the son of man whom you made mighty for yourself. We will not turn away from the fear
of you; you will sustain us and we will call on your name. O Lord God Sabaoth, bring us back from exile; shine
the splendor of your countenance upon us and we will be redeemed. Tg. Ps. 80.15-20 Trans. E. Cook available
online at http://www.webcitation.org/66CvX8bQf (Accessed on 16/3/2012). See discussion in R.E. Watts,
“Mark.” (2007), 134.
66.
As with W. H. Harris, The Descent of Christ: Ephesians 4: 7-11 and Traditional Hebrew Imagery
(Leiden:Brill, 1996), 66-74. 'The date of composition of Tg. Ps. remains very uncertain. A very tentative
suggestion would be the fourth to sixth century C.E. but this is little more than guesswork. It is possible that it
contains material belonging to more than one period.' D. M. Stec, The Targum of Psalms Vol 2,(London:
Liturgical Press, 2001,2. For example, a case can be made that the foolish king of 74.22 is Antiochus Epiphanes.

19

(2) Reading Daniel 7 Alongside Daniel 2

It is generally recognised that chapters two and seven of Daniel are theologically and
intratextually linked and that they serve to interpret and elaborate on each other. In the
context of a dream-interpretation, both texts speak of four kingdoms which follow each other.
The fourth kingdom, associated with iron and brutality in both texts, is destroyed by God
(2.44; 7.27).

At the end of the interpretation in chapter 2 we read:
And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that
shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It
shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall
stand forever, just as you saw that a stone ‫ אבן‬was cut from a mountain by no
human hand, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the
silver, and the gold. A great God has made known to the king what shall be
after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation sure. (Dan. 2.44-45)
In Dan. 7 we ask 'who/what is the Son of Man?', whereas the question in Dan. 2 concerns the
identity of the stone.When looking for scriptural resources to aid the interpretation of Dan. 2,
Ps. 118, a Psalm well known within Judaism, comes to mind. It reads '[t]he stone that the
builders rejected has become the cornerstone (Ps. 118.22).

The stone of Ps. 118 is likely to have been interpreted in an eschatological sense as a
reference to a Davidic King.67 On account of this it is easy to understand how Dan. 2 was
also interpreted messianically. Given the close parallels between Dan. 2 and 7, this would
provide a clue as to the identity of the 'son of man' figure. This is what seems to be behind
Esth. Rab. 7.10 which brings together, messianically, Gen. 49.24; Ps. 118; 22; Isa. 30.14 with
Dan. 2.45.68

67.
This Psalm is discussed in extensive detail in the third chapter of this thesis.
68.
See C. A. Evans, “Daniel in the New Testament: Visions of God’s Kingdom,” in The Book of Daniel:
Composition and Reception Vol II, ed. J. J. Collins, and P. W. Flint (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 508. We must also take
into account, as the parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mk. 12.1-12) does, the Hebrew wordplay between stone
('eben) and son (ben). Although Dan. 1-7 is written in Aramaic and one could rightly question whether word-
play is intended between the 'stone' (‫ )אבן‬of Dan. 2 and the 'son' (‫ בר‬bar) of Dan. 7, we do have evidence from
ַ
Josephus, which itself is preserved in Greek but written in Aramaic, that such specific word-play would still be
understood. Jos. War 5.272. See K. Snodgrass, Stories With Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of
Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 290 and A. C. Brunson, Psalm 118 in the Gospel of John: An
Intertextual Study on the New Exodus Pattern in the Theology of John, Vol. 2:158, WUNT (Tubingen: Mohr,
2003), 40-41. Brunson lays out some of the evidence that Second Temple Judaism had come to associate the
stone, cornerstone or foundation stone language of OT passages in a messianic and eschatological fashion. See
Tg. Isa. 28.16; Tg. Jer. 51.26; Tg. Zech. 10.4; Tg. Ps. 118.22. This is largely based on the doctoral dissertation of
K. Snodgrass. 'Christological Stone Testimonia in the New Testament' (University of St. Andrews Thesis, 1973).
See esp. pages 76-77.

20

(3) Rabbinic Support

Evidence from the rabbinic tradition demonstrates that Jewish readers steeped in scripture
would read Dan. 2 as Messianic, placing it alongside other texts to form a Messianic matrix.
Tanhuma (Termumach 7) offers a Messianic interpretation bringing together Dan. 2.34 with
Gen. 49.24, Isa. 11.4 and Ezek. 28.26. 69

In summary of our discussion so far about the 'son of man' figure; we have made a case for an
intertextual reading of Dan. 7 which points towards the identity of the 'son of man' as being a
Davidic Messiah figure. We have also seen, from rabbinic evidence, that this reading was
accepted in some quarters of the Jewish world. Delbert Burkett, in his monograph on the
current state of 'Son of Man' research, writes,
The 'one like a son of man' in Daniel has been variously interpreted as the
Messiah, an angel, or as a symbol for the people of God. Though the vision
identifies the figure with 'the people of the saints of the Most High' (Dan. 7.27)
Jewish interpreters close to the time of Jesus identified the figure as the
Messiah. Thus whether the Danielic figure originally represented the Messiah
or not, numerous scholars have believed that the expression the 'Son of Man'
in the Gospels refers to the figure understood in a messianic sense.70

(ii) 'Son of Man' as Divine

Whilst we have stressed that it is possible to read Daniel as a messianic prophecy, and we
have indeed presented some evidence for this being the case in the Jewish world, we have not
yet considered whether this figure can also be described in divine terms. Dan. 7.13 offers a
descriptive comparison (like a 'son of man') rather than just a generic expression (Son of
Man).71 Over a century ago Nathaniel Schmidt argued that the one 'like a Son of Man' did not

69.
Another later Midrash enquires about the King Messiah ruling on earth (Num. Rab. 13.14). 'Because it is
stated, 'All kings shall prostrate themselves before him: all nations shall serve him' (Ps. 72.11). And it also says
'Behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like a son of man... and there was to him given dominion...
that all people... should serve him' (Dan. 7.13-14); and 'the stone that struck the image.became a great mountain,
and filled the whole earth. (Dan. 2.35).'See discussion in C. A. Evans, “Daniel in the New Testament: Visions of
God’s Kingdom.”, 508-509.
70.
D. Burkett, The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation, SNTS Vol. 107 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1999), 23.
71.
'Any investigation of the New Testament 'son of man' traditions must take these distinctions into account'.
T. B. Slater, “One Like a Son of Man in First-Century CE Judaism,” NTS 41.02 (1995): 183-98, 184.

21

refer to the Messiah but to the archangel Michael.72 He has been followed, in more recent
years, by John Collins. In support of his argument Schmidt draws attention to several other
texts from Daniel which use a descriptive comparison to speak of an angelic figure (8.15;
10.16,18).

In the first of these references (8.15) it is clear that the one having an appearance like a
man is the angel Gabriel. In 10.16 and 10.18 Daniel is trembling before an unnamed
heavenly being and it is not clear whether the character in both verses 16 and 18 refer to
the same figure or whether they are to be distinguished from the main character of this
scene (10.5-6). 'It is not clear how many supernatural beings are involved in this scene.'73
Although we disagree with Schmidt's rejection of a messianic reading of Dan. 7 these
texts (8.15; 10.16; 10.18) do suggest that the use of a descriptive comparison language
could point to the angelic or divine identity of the figure in Dan. 7.13. In Dan. 7.13 the
one 'like a Son of Man' has access to the heavenly throne room of God for he comes
before the Ancient of Days. His method of transport also points to his divine identity as
he comes riding on a cloud.

(1) The 'Son of Man' in the Old Greek Version

In a recent presentation at SBL Benjamin Reynolds sought to show that one of the earliest
translations of Daniel, that is the Old Greek (OG)74, offers an interpretation of Dan. 7
which further stresses both the divine status of the 'son of man' figure and his Messianic
identity. Stressing the divine identity of the 'one like a Son of Man', Reynolds notes four
similarities between the 'one like a Son of Man' and the Ancient of Days. Firstly, the 'son
of man' figure arrives as/like the ancient of day, according to the OG

72.
N. Schmidt, Was ‫ בר נשא‬a Messianic Title?, JBL Vol. 15.1/2 (1896): 36-53; N. Schmidt, “The Son of Man in
the Book of Daniel,” JBL 19, No. 1 (1900): 22-28.
73.
J. E. Goldingay, Daniel, WBC Vol. 30 (Dallas: Word, 2002), 291.
74.
There are only three known witnesses to the OG text of Daniel in existence today. Codex Chisianus 88,
Syriac version translated from Greek called Syro-Hexaplar and Papyrus 967.

22

Papyrus 967 Codex 8875

v13. ἐθεώρουν ἐν v13. ἐθεώρουν ἐν
ὁράµατι τῆς νυκτὸς ὁράµατι τῆς νυκτὸς
καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν
τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὡς υἱὸς
ἀνθρώπου ἤρχετο, ἀνθρώπου ἤρχετο,
καὶ ὡς παλαιὸς ἡµερῶν καὶ ὡς παλαιὸς ἡµερῶν
παρῆν, παρῆν, καὶ οἱ
καὶ οἱ παρεστηκότες παρεστηκότες παρῆσαν
προσηγαγον αὐτῷ.
αὐτῷ.
v14. καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ v14. καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ
ἐξουσία βασιλικη, ἐξουσία,
καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τῆς γῆς
κατὰ γένη καὶ πᾶσα δόξα κατὰ γένη καὶ πᾶσα δόξα
λατρεύουσα αὐτῷ αὐτῷ λατρεύουσα, καὶ ἡ
καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία ἐξουσία αὐτοῦ ἐξουσία
αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ µὴ ἀρθῇ, καὶ αἰώνιος, ἥτις οὐ µὴ ἀρθῇ,
ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ, ἥτις οὐ µὴ καὶ ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ,
φθαρῇ. ἥτις οὐ µὴ φθαρῇ.

It is significant that in verse 13 'the one like a Son of Man' does not come to the Ancient of
Days (MT, ESV, Theo.) but, rather, he comes as or like the Ancient of Days. The 'one like a
Son of Man' is also like the Ancient of Days. This does not mean that the 'son of man' is
identified as the Ancient of Days but, as a descriptive comparison, it means that just as the
mysterious figure is like a 'son of man' so he is also like the One God of Israel. Secondly, the
OG states that the 'son of man' figure comes ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. Theo. uses the
preposition µετὰ which, following MT, shows that the 'son of man' came with the clouds. The
OG differs in that the 'son of man' figure comes on the clouds. In other words it is being
stressed more clearly that the 'son of man' is a cloud-rider and that the clouds are his method

75.
Supported by Syro-Hexaplar. See B. Reynolds, “The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ According to the Old Greek
of Daniel 7.3-14,” Bib. 89 (2008): 70-80, 71.

23

of transportation. Elsewhere in scripture clouds signify the appearance of YHWH (Exod.
40.34-35; 1 Kgs. 8.10-11; 2 Chron. 5.13-14; Ps. 18.11; Ps. 97.2; Joel 2.2; Nah. 1.3; Zeph.
1.14).
No other being, including angels, appears with clouds in the OT. Thus, the
'one like a son of man's' coming with the presence of clouds implies the
figure's similarity with the Lord and most likely indicates a heavenly being
greater than the angels.76

Thirdly, the OG states, in verse 14, that all the nations will serve him (λατρεύουσα).
Theodotion uses the word (δουλεύσουσιν). In the Greek OT this word, λατρεύω, is usually
used in the context of religious or cultic duties (Exod. 3.12).
The verb λατρεύω appears only rarely in Greek literature and appears in
the LXX almost exclusively in the religious and cultic sense of Israel’s
worship of God. It renders the Hebrew‘āḇaḏ thus clearly distinguished
from its Greek synonym δουλεύω, which is more comprehensive in
meaning.77

In the book of Daniel λατρεύω is used nine times. Three times in reference to the worship of
the statue which Nebuchadnezzar erected (3.12; 3.14; 3.18) and four times in reference to the
worship of God (3.28; 6.17; 6.21; 6.27). The final mention is in Dan. 7.14 where the 'son of
man' figure receives veneration, usually reserved only for the one God of Israel. 'The
implication for Dan. 7.13-14 in the OG is that this figure that looks like a human is
something more than human.'78

Finally, in the MT and Theo. those standing by the 'son of man' present him to the Ancient of
Days. The OG presents something different. Papyrus 967 reads οἱ παρεστηκότες προσηγαγον
αὐτῷ whilst Codex 88 has οἱ παρεστηκότες παρῆσαν αὐτῷ. The παρεστηκότες (bystanders)
refer to other members of the heavenly court (7.10) who were previously standing before the
Ancient of Days. In the OG 7.13 these bystanders stand before the 'one like a Son of Man.'
Here, we evidently have another similarity between the 'son of man' figure and the Ancient of
Days which, again, serves to portray his exalted state as the 'Son of Man.'

(iii) First Century Evidence of 'Son of Man' as both Davidic
and Divine

76.
ibid., 75.
77.
See EDNT 2:344
78.
Reynolds, “The ‘One Like a Son of Man’ According to the Old Greek of Daniel 7.3-14.”, 76.

24

(1) Similitudes of Enoch

The Similitudes of Enoch, which we will assume is free of Christian influence and dated
within the first century prior to the fall of Jerusalem,79 makes use of and develops the 'Son of
Man' motif in Dan. 7. In the Similitudes the 'Son of Man' is portrayed as an eschatological
figure who dwells in the heavenly realm. His countenance is described as being 'like that of
the holy angels' (46.1) and it appears that he is preexistent.80
For this purpose he became the Chosen One; he was concealed in the presence of
(the Lord of Spirits) prior to the creation of the world, and for eternity...For the
Son of Man was concealed from the beginning, and the most high one preserved
him in the presence of his power.

This heavenly Messiah (48.10; 52.4) sits upon the throne of the most high God and takes a
major role in the eschatological judgement.81 In one particular passage it appears difficult to
distinguish between the character of the 'Lord' and that of the 'Son of Man'. It is unclear or
perhaps deliberately ambiguous to distinguish which actions are those of the Lord of Spirits
and those of the Son of Man.
Thus the Lord commanded the kings, the governors, the high officials, and
the landlords and said 'Open your eyes and lift up your eyebrows-- if you
are able to recognize the Elect One!' The Lord of the Spirits has sat down
on the throne of his glory, and the spirit of righteousness has been poured
out upon him. The word of his mouth will do the sinners in, and all the
oppressors shall be eliminated.... and those who rule the earth shall fall
down before him on their faces, and worship and raise their hopes in that
Son of Man, they shall beg and plead for mercy at his feet. (62.1-3; 62.9)

79.
See J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, Second
ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 177-193.

'It is hardly conceivable, however, that a Christian author would have written about a figure called 'Son of Man'
without identifying him explicitly as Jesus. Neither is it likely that a Jewish author would have used this
imagery after the Christian identification of Jesus as the Son of Man became current.' Collins & Collins, King
and Messiah as Son of God (2008), 87.
80.
48.6 also 62.7.
81.
51.3, 'In those days, (the Elect One) shall sit on my throne. and from the conscience of his mouth shall
come out all the secrets of wisdom, for the Lord of the Spirits has given them to him and glorified him'

55.4, 'You would have to see my Elect One, how he sits on the throne of glory and judges Azaz'el and all
his company, and his army, in the name of the Lord of Spirits'

61.8, ' He placed the elect one on the throne of Glory, and he shall judge all the wicked of the holy ones in
heaven above, weighing in the balance their deeds.'

69.29 'for that Son of Man has appeared and has seated himself upon the throne of his glory; and all evil
shall disappear from before his face.'.

25

Here we have a figure who, although separate from the 'Lord of Spirits', has both an exalted
ontological status and functional role. The text goes as far to say that he will be worshipped
(cf. 48.5), although there is some debate within the scholarly literature as to what this
actually means.82

Despite the fact that no explicit attempt is made to identify this figure as a member of the
Davidic house, a number of features point in this direction. Firstly, he is described as being
the anointed Messiah, which certainly makes it a possibility that the figure is from the
Davidic line. Secondly, it appears that in at least two places 'Davidic' intertextual allusions
are used to elaborate on his identity. For instance, 49.1-4, in which the Elect one is said to
have the Spirit of Wisdom and insight, recalls the Davidic figure of Isa. 11. Likewise, the
'word of his mouth will do the sinners in' (62.1) bears a thematic correspondence to Isa. 11.4.
Thirdly, 48.10, speaking of the Lord and his anointed, contains language which is associated
with Ps. 2. Lastly, the fact that the 'Son of Man' shares the Divine throne recalls Ps. 110
which speaks of a Davidic King sitting at the right hand of God. Whilst Stuckenbruck is
correct to say 'that Similitudes makes no explicit attempt to link the figure with a Davidic
lineage.', he is mistaken when he continues, 'This apocalyptic scenario does not envision the
restoration of the Davidic monarchy'.83

The intertextual evidence laid out above strongly suggests that a link with 'Son of Man' and
Davidic lineage may actually be implicit.84 Rowland agrees,
There may be some indications that royal terminology, particularly Psalms 110
and 2 and Isaiah 11 have influenced the picture of the Son of Man as it
emerges in the Similitudes. For example, the judgement of the Son of Man on
the kings of the earth (1 Enoch 46.5f) is reminiscent of language used about
the king in Psalm 2.9, and the attribute of wisdom bestowed upon the Elect
One according to 1 Enoch 49.3 brings to mind the picture of the ideal ruler in
Isaiah 11.2.85

We may, therefore, conclude that, at around the time of the composition of Mark, it would not
be unthinkable for a Jew to conceive of a preexistent Davidic Messiah figure who shares the

82.
See R. Bauckham, 'The Throne of God and the Worship of Jesus' in Jesus and the God of Israel
(Carlisle:Paternoster, 2008) 154-181.
83.
L. T. Stuckenbruck, “Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature in Early Judaism,” in The
Messiah in the Old and New Testaments, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 100.
84.
Collins & Collins, King and Messiah (2008), 90. Although we will not discuss the position that the 'son of
man' is actually Enoch. 71.14 'Then an angel came to me, and greeted me and said to me 'You, son of man.'
85.
C. Rowland, The Open Heaven: A Study of Apocalyptic in Judaism and Early Christianity (London: SPCK,
1982), 176.

26

throne and eschatological function of the one God of Israel. We may note, in passing, that in
contrast to the Markan narrative there is no suggestion in the Similitudes of Enoch that the
'Son of Man' has an earthly existence but, rather, that he seems to dwell and function in the
heavenly realm.

(2) 4 Ezra 13

The book of 4 Ezra, probably composed around 100 A.D.,86 presents the reader with the
image of a future messianic redeemer figure (7.28-29; 11.37-12.1; 12.31-34; 13.3-3;
13.25-52; 14.9). Our attention will focus upon the material found in the sixth vision known as
'The Vision of the Man' (13.1-58). In this dream a man is seen to be coming up from the sea
(13.3) and flying with the clouds of heaven, causing all who met him to tremble:
And I looked, and behold that man flew with the the clouds of heaven; and
wherever he turned his face to look, everything under his gaze trembled and
whenever his voice issue from his mouth, all who heard his voice melted as
wax melts when it feels fire. (4 Ezra 13.13-4)

This man is attacked by 'all who had gathered together against him, to wage war with him'
but he defeats them with the flames coming from his mouth (13.8-11). Another 'peaceable
multitude' rejoice at this victory. A request is made by Ezra for an interpretation (13.14-20)
and is granted (13.21-58). In the interpretation the Most High expands on the identity of the
man from the sea. He is the one whom 'the Most High has been keeping for many ages, who
will deliver his creation' (13.26) and he is called 'my son' (13.32; 13.37; 13.52).87 This
deliverer will stand against those who oppose him (13.32-33) and, from Mount Zion, will
destroy them by the Law (13.34-38). Those who rejoice at his victory are the ten lost tribes of
Israel and the 'son' will continue to do miracles on the outskirts of the land. Elsewhere in 4
Ezra the eschatological deliverer is addressed as 'my Messiah' or my 'Son/Servant Messiah'
by the Most High God (7.28-29). The Messiah will be revealed and then die, although this
does not mean that his death is salvific but, rather, that he and all humanity will die.

86.
B. Metzger, 'The Fourth Book of Ezra' in Charlesworth Pseudepigrapha Vol 1., 517-524.
87.
Translation in Charlesworth. Things are somewhat complicated as the Latin reads, 'filius' which could be a
translation of either the 'servant' or the 'son'. See Collins & Collins, King and Messiah (2008), 94-97 and the
discussion in M. E. Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra, Hermeneia (Augsburg:
Fortress, 1990), 207-208.

27

For my son the Messiah shall be revealed with those who are with him, and
those who remain shall rejoice 400 years. And after these years my Son the
Messiah will die, and all who draw human breath. (7.27-28)

From this material we see that this future deliverer is both Davidic and Divine. His Davidic
identity is acknowledged by the fact that he is the anointed Son of the Most High. Moreover,
4 Ezra 13 makes use of the Davidic traditions from Ps. 2, whereby the enemy is defeated by
an anointed one from Mount Zion, as well as Isa. 11 where the Messianic King destroys the
wicked by the breath of his mouth. We may also note that 4 Ezra interprets the flames
coming from his mouth as representing the Torah. This may allude to Deut. 17.18-19 in
which the future king is to be skilled in Torah (cf. 2 Kings 11.12). In an earlier vision (the
eagle vision) a description is given of a lion who confronts the fourth beast (4 Ezra 11.36-46).
This likely draws upon Gen. 49.9-10 in which the line of Judah is referred to as a lion. This is
confirmed within the interpretation which states 'this is the Messiah whom the most High has
kept until the end of days, who will come from the posterity of David,'88

The heavenly or divine character of this Davidic figure is also apparent through the use of the
cloud-riding 'son of man' imagery of Dan. 7, the defeat of the enemy and the joyful reception
from those who ally themselves with the one God of Israel. 4 Ezra 12 shows that images from
the larger context of Dan. 7 are intended as it mentions a fourth beast coming from the sea.
Although in 7.27-28 the Messiah is said to die, it should be noted that his reign lasts for 400
years and he is said to 'be revealed with those who are with him', implying his preexistence
and bearing some correspondence to Zech. 14 where it is said that YHWH will come with his
holy ones. The description of this Warrior Messiah also includes imagery usually associated
with theophanic revelations of the God of Israel rather than simply a human figure. The
arrival of the 'man' in the vision is (i) preceded by wind (13.1) (ii) comes on the cloud (13.3)
(iii) uses fire as a weapon towards his enemies (13.10) (iv) who melt like wax (13.4). Each of
these four points come from biblical descriptions of God89 and, therefore, are most likely to
be theologically loaded.

88.
See Stuckenbruck, “Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature in Early Judaism.” (2007),
104-105.
89.
(i) Preceded by wind. See 1 Kgs. 19.11-12; Zech. 9.14; Job 40.6, etc. (ii) Clouds come before him. Exod.
19.9; 19.16; Num. 12.5; 14.4; 1 Kgs. 8.10-11, used as a chariot (Exod. 19.18; Isa. 14.14; 19.1; Nah. 1.3; 68.5).
(iii) Uses fire towards enemies. Isa. 66.15-16; Ps. 97.3-4; 1 Kgs. 19.12, etc. According to Ps. 18.9 it issues from
his mouth. (iv) Enemies melt like wax. Mic. 1.4; Ps. 68.3; 97.5; Judith 16.15; 1 Enoch 1.6; 52.6.

See Stone, Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (1990), 212.

28

(3) 2 Baruch

In 2 Bar., which like 4 Ezra was written after the destruction of the Second Temple (32.2-4),
reference is made to an eschatological messiah in a number of its sections.90 The advent of the
Anointed One will lead to an eschatological age of Shalom (29.3-8; 73.1-7) and a time when
those who stand in rebellion to the Mighty One (God of Israel) will be judged (40.1; 30.1-5)
and the righteous will rise from their graves (30.1-5). This future deliverer may be understood
as being both Davidic and Divine, and is to be seen as Davidic for the following reasons. (i)
He is the Anointed One. (ii) He is said to sit on the throne of his kingdom (73.1) which
implicitly suggests that he is a King. (iii) The reign that he inaugurates resonates strongly
with the shalomic imagery of Isa. 11.6-9 in which Edenic conditions are restored due to the
arrival of the Spirit empowered shoot of Jesse. (iv) The Anointed one is said to return in glory
(30.1) which offers an implicit hint that he is of the Davidic line.91 If this does not suggest a
Davidic line then it may suggest his Divine identity as the one who was on earth and is now
returning from the heavenly realm.

This Davidic Messiah may also be considered as Divine given the association with Dan. 7. In
Dan. 7 four beasts/kingdoms are followed by the advent of the heavenly 'son of man' and the
death of the final beast brings in the kingdom. This corresponds to the sequence of 2 Bar.
36-40 whereby the four world kingdoms are succeeded by the advent of the Anointed One92
and the death of 'the last ruler'. This, in turn, is followed by the dominion that will last
forever. It appears that, like Enoch, a fusion of the 'son of man' with Davidic Messiah has
taken place. The following chart may clarify what has just been said:

Daniel 7 2 Baruch 36-40

Vision (1-14) followed by Explanation Vision (36.1-11) followed by
(15-28) explanation (38.1- 40.4)

90.
Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha, 617-620
91.
The return of the Messiah may be a hint that the author considers him to be a descendent from David.
Stuckenbruck, “Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature in Early Judaism.”(2007), 109.
92.
ibid., 110; R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to
Himself and His Mission (London: Tyndale Press, 1971), 180.

29

4 Beasts/Empires (4-8; 17) Fourth is 4 Empires. (39:3-5) Fourth is worse
worse than its predecessors than its predecessors (39.5)

Arrival of 'Son of Man' (13) Arrival of the 'Anointed One' (39.7)

Judgement and Death of Fourth Beast/ Judgement and Death of the Fourth
King (11; 26) King (40.1)

Eternal Kingdom (27) Eternal Kingdom (40.3)

(ii) The meaning of the 'Anointed One will begin to be revealed' can be explained with
reference to his hiddenness in heaven (as with Enoch) and his preexistence. This is further
supported through noting that, in the same literary unit, it is mentioned that 'manna will come
down from high' (29.8).

Despite obvious differences, the 'son of man' figure found in 4 Ezra, 2 Bar. and the Sim. of
Enoch do have a number of things in common. They all understand the 'Son of Man' as a
Davidide as well as further emphasising his divinity. We may then conclude that these texts
stand within the tradition of Dan. 7 and that by the first century hopes for a Davidic and
divine messiah were active in at least some quarters.

(d) Concluding Remarks

In the third section of this chapter a number of positions have been developed. Firstly, with
some nuance in regard to definitions, it has been maintained that Second Temple Judaism is
to be understood as being monotheistic. Secondly, this study has sought to show that the
scriptures of Israel considered the Davidic King to be divine. This divinity, however, is not
necessarily a challenge to monotheism. Thirdly, with the decline of Davidic kingship the
hope for a coming divine Davidic messiah figure began to grow. Fourthly, the Danielic 'Son
of Man' may be considered as a a Davidic deliverer who is also divine. Lastly, three extra-
biblical Judaic texts (Sim., 4 Ezra, 2 Bar.) provide evidence that some Second Temple Jews
looked forward to the coming of a 'Son of Man' figure who was both Davidic and divine.

The next chapter will see the launch of our exploration of the gospel of Mark. We will return
to Mark's understanding of divine Davidic messiahship as well as 'Son of Man' in the third
chapter.

30

II. Chapter Two: The March of the
Divine Warrior

1. Introduction

(a) New Exodus Motif in Isaiah

Since the mid-twentieth century a steady stream of articles and monographs have explored
the motif of a NE in Isaiah/Deutero-Isaiah93. Arguably, the most influential of these has been
B.W. Anderson's "Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah". Calling attention to ten key texts,
Anderson identifies a typological relationship between the eschatological promise for God's
people under Babylonian rule and that of the deliverance achieved in the first Exodus.

1. 40.3-5 The highway in the wilderness.
2. 41.17-20 The transformation of the wilderness.
3. 42.14-16 Yahweh leads his people in a way they know not.
4. 43.1-3 Passing through the waters and the fire.
5. 43.14-21 A way in the wilderness.
6. 48.20-21 The exodus from Babylon.

93.
B. W. Anderson, “Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah,” in ed. B. W. Anderson, and W. Harrelson Israel’s
Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honour of James Muilenburg (New York: Harper, 1962); J. Blenkinsopp, “Scope
and Depth of Exodus Tradition in Deutero-Isaiah 40-55,” in ed. Benoit The Dynamism of Biblical Tradition
(New York: Paulist Press, 1967); C. Stuhlmueller, Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah, AnBib 43 (Rome:
Biblical Institute Press, 1970); B.W. Anderson, “Exodus and Covenant in Second Isaiah and the Prophetic
Tradition,” in ed. F. M. Cross et al, Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God: (New York: Doubleday, 1976); M.
A. Fishbane, Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts (New York: Schocken Books, 1979);
D. A. Patrick, “Epiphanic Imagery in Second Isaiah’s Portrayal of a New Exodus,” HAR 8 (1984): 125-41; R. E.
Watts, “Consolation Or Confrontation? Isaiah 40-55 and the Delay of the New Exodus,” TynBul 41:1 (1990):
31-59; R. E. Watts, “Echoes From the Past: Israel’s Ancient Traditions and the Destiny of the Nations in Isaiah
40-55,” JSOT 28:4 (2004): 481-508. For a survey of scholarship on the NE/Way motif in Isaiah see Ø. Lund,
Way Metaphors and Way Topics in Isaiah 40-55, FAT 2:28 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 1-21. Claus
Westermann was able to say,

For Deutero-Isaiah the most important event in Israel's history was the Exodus. The great prominence
which he gives it is due to the fact that he himself was involved in a situation similar to it. ....Deutero-
Isaiah proclaimed the release from Babylon as a second Exodus... The place which Deutero-Isaiah
gives to the exodus is so conspicuous that all other events in Israel's history recede into the
background. An arch which spans the nation's entire history has, as its one pillar, the release from
Egypt and, as its other, the new and imminent release from Babylon.

Isaiah 40-66, OTL (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1969), 21-22.

32

7. 49.8-12 The new entry into the Promised Land.
8. 51.9-10 The new victory at the sea.
9. 52.11-12 The new exodus.
10. 55.12-13 Israel shall go out in joy and peace.94

As YHWH had defeated the Egyptians and led his people to the promised land, so the
prophetic voice proclaimed that the Babylonian bondage would end. YHWH, as the DW,
would defeat the Babylonian enemy and lead his people on a NE and be welcomed in a
restored Jerusalem. The word 'way' (‫ דרך‬in the MT, and ὁδός in the LXX) has special
significance within this NE motif,95 being used to describe the path of deliverance which
YHWH and his people will take from defeated Babylon to Jerusalem.96

Whilst the recognition of these NE themes can hardly be denied, the question remains as to
how this material fits within the larger context of Isaiah and Deutero-Isaiah. Are the promises
of a NE to be understood as a repeated motif in a collection of independent oracles made by
the prophet, thus indicating that if one changed the order of individual oracular units it would
make little difference to its meaning? Or, alternatively, should this NE motif be seen as a
repeated motif within a structure which shows some progression of thought and reflects a
larger literary unity? More specifically, how should the NE motif be understood in relation to
other major themes of Deutero-Isaiah such as the servant passages (Isa. 42.1–4; 49.1–6; 50.4–
9; 52.13–53.12) or the trial speeches (41.1-5; 41.21-29; 43.8-13; 44.6-8; 45.18-25), and what
relationship do the NE themes of Isa. 40-55 have with chapters 1-39 and 56-66? 97

94.
B. W. Anderson, "Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah" (1962), 181-82.
95.
It is used 47 times within 42 verses in the whole of Isaiah, becoming more dominant in chapters 40-66
(1-39, 14x; 40-55, 19x; 55-66, 19x). In each case that Isaiah 40-55 MT uses the word ‫ דרך‬it is translated in the
Septuagint as ὁδός or some derivative.
96.
A voice cries: “In the wilderness prepare the ‫ דרך‬of the Lord; make straight in the desert a
‫ דרך‬for our God......And I will lead the blind in a ‫ דרך‬that they do not know, in paths that
they have not known I will guide them. I will turn the darkness before them into light, the
rough places into level ground. These are the things I do, and I do not forsake them.
........Thus says the Lord, who makes a ‫ דרך‬in the sea, a path in the mighty waters, ...Behold,
I am doing a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? I will make a ‫ דרך‬in the
wilderness and rivers in the desert.......Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, the Holy One of
Israel: “I am the Lord your God, who teaches you to profit, who leads you in the ‫ דרך‬you
should go..... saying to the prisoners, ‘Come out,’ to those who are in darkness, ‘Appear.’
They shall feed along the ways; on all bare heights shall be their pasture;...... And I will
make all my mountains a ‫ ,דרך‬and my highways shall be raised up. .......Was it not you who
dried up the sea, the waters of the great deep, who made the depths of the sea a ‫ דרך‬for the
redeemed to pass over?

Isa. 40.3; 42.16; 43.16,19; 48.17; 49.9,11; 51.10. ESV with amendments.
97.
In recent years Isaianic scholarship has made a general shift towards synchronic, literary and holistic
reading of the text. David G. Firth and H. G. M. Williamson describe the current move within Isaianic

33

The Death of the Divine Warrior

The Death of the Divine Warrior

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (18)

Destacado

Destacado (20)

Similar a The Death of the Divine Warrior

Similar a The Death of the Divine Warrior (19)

Más de Jonathan Swales

Más de Jonathan Swales (20)

Último

Último (20)

The Death of the Divine Warrior