[there was] one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was brought before him. To him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, and all peoples, nations, and languages were serving him. His dominion is perpetual and will not pass away, and his kingdom will not be destroyed. (7:13-14)
When the vision is interpreted for Daniel, he’s told that the four beasts represent “four kings,” while the one like a son of man is the “saints of the Most High” who will “receive the kingdom” forever (7:17-18). “Son of man” is an idiom that refers to a human being. [1] Thus, in this vision, God’s people are represented as a human, as opposed to the wicked kingdoms which are represented as beasts. Daniel asks about the fourth beast, and is told that this will be a “fourth kingdom” which will severely oppress God’s people. But after its dominion is taken away,
the kingdom, dominion, and greatness of all the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the people, the saints of the Most High; their kingdom will be a perpetual kingdom, and all dominions will serve and obey them. (7:27) [2]
Thus, in Daniel, the ‘coming of the son of man’ doesn’t refer to a human being actually descending from heaven to earth. The “one like a son of man” is no more an actual human being than the “four beasts” are actually animals; moreover, the direction of his “coming” is to God in heaven, rather than from heaven to earth. This is symbolic language for the vindication of God’s people over their enemy, and the arrival of God’s kingdom.
Some scholars propose that in the second-Temple period, the “son of man” began to be seen as an actual heavenly being who would come to earth. This is based on a single text that refers to the Messiah as “that son of man” (1 Enoch 46:1). However, the same text uses “son of man” simply to mean ‘human being,’ not as a specific title (1 En. 39:1, 5; 42:2). After an extensive study of “son of man” in second-Temple literature, Bauckham concludes, “no Messianic figure, even those whose portrayal relied most heavily on Daniel 7:13-14, was ever called ‘the Son of Man’ [as a title]”. [3]
Jesus used the phrase “son of man” to refer to himself in the synoptic gospels, but most likely as a self-referential term rather than an actual title (such as in Ezekiel). We should only see an allusion to Daniel when he speaks of the ‘coming of the son of man,’ such as in his declaration to the Sanhedrin:
Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One?” Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the son of man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.” (Mk. 14:61-62)
This is a clear allusion to both Dan. 7:13 and Ps. 110:1 (“YHWH said to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand’”). Jesus is identifying himself, the true representative of God’s people, with the “son of man.” Implicitly, he’s also identifying the high priest and Sanhedrin, who are prosecuting him, with the “fourth beast,” the eschatological enemy of God’s people. [4] With this implication in mind, the Sanhedrin’s extreme reaction and immediate decision to execute him is unsurprising (Mk. 14:63-64/Matt. 26:65-66). He’s saying that they must be destroyed for God’s kingdom to arrive.
The Olivet discourse
Jesus’ longest judgment warning is the Olivet discourse (Mk. 13/Matt. 24-25/Lk. 21), which comes after his proclamation of destruction over Jerusalem (Matt. 23:37-39/Lk. 13:34-35). He tells his disciples that the entire second Temple complex will be destroyed, and not one stone will be left on another (Mk. 13:1-2/Matt. 24:1-2/Lk. 21:5-6). This prompts his disciples to ask, “When will these things happen, and what is the sign when they are about to happen? [Matt: ‘the sign of your coming and the end of the age?’]” (Mk. 13:3-4/Matt. 24:3/Lk. 21:7)
Because in Matthew’s account, the disciples ask about “your coming and the end of the age,” it’s often taken as a question about the (yet unfulfilled) end of the world and Jesus’ return to earth. However, in the other synoptic accounts, the disciples only ask about the destruction of the Temple. This means that, for Matthew, “your coming and the end of the age” must be the same as the Temple’s destruction. Indeed, the disciples didn’t understand that Jesus would die, be raised, and ascend to heaven until it happened (Matt. 16:21-22; Lk. 24:18-27). What they meant by “your coming,” therefore, must not be Jesus’ return from heaven (which they didn’t yet know about), but the same as the ‘coming of the son of man.’
Likewise, the “end of the age” refers to Israel’s judgment in Matthew’s gospel. [5] The “end of the age” is when a judgment will take place, when those who appear to be God’s children (but are not) will be taken out of his kingdom (13:24-30, 36-43, 47-50). This can only refer to the judgment on false Israel, when the kingdom would be taken away from them (8:11-12; 21:43). The “furnace of fire” (13:42, 50) is a symbol in the Hebrew prophets for Israel’s judgment and exile (Deut. 4:20; 1 Kgs. 8:51; Isa. 48:10; Jer. 11:4; Ezek. 22:19-22).
Jesus starts by answering the disciples’ second question about the sign that would precede the Temple’s destruction. There will be false messiahs, wars and insurrections, famines, earthquakes, and various signs, but none of these are the sign of the end (Mk. 13:5-8/Matt. 24:4-8/Lk. 21:8-11). At the same time, the disciples will themselves be persecuted, but may endure, and will spread the good news of God’s kingdom through the whole world (Mk. 13:9-13/Matt. 24:9-14/Lk. 21:12-19). But the sign that will precede the end is the “desolating sacrilege,” when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies; then those in Judea must flee, and Jerusalem will be destroyed (Mk. 13:14-23/Matt. 24:15-28/Lk. 21:20-24). [6]
When this happens, there will be great signs in the heavens (Mk. 13:24-25/Matt. 24:29/Lk. 21:25-26), which in the Hebrew prophets always symbolize the fall of a nation, especially apostate Israel. [7] Then the ‘coming of the son of man,’ the vindication of God’s true people, will take place, and their exile will be over (Mk. 13:26-27/Matt. 24:30-31/Lk. 21:27-28).
These events are often equated with Jesus’ future return to earth, but there’s no indication that the topic has changed away from Jerusalem’s fall and the Temple’s destruction. His response to the disciples’ first question, about when these things will take place, removes all doubt: these things will happen before their generation passes away (Mk. 13:28-31/Matt. 24:32-35/Lk. 21:29-33). But the exact day and hour can’t be known, not even by Jesus himself, so they must be ready lest they be caught unaware (Mk. 13:32-37/Matt. 24:36-44/Lk. 21:34-36).
Matthew’s account continues with several parables about remaining alert. Those who don’t stay alert will be punished with “the hypocrites” (24:45-51), who are Israel’s false religious leaders (6:2, 5, 16; 15:7; 23:13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29). The door will be shut to them (25:1-13), and they’ll be thrown into “outer darkness” (25:14-30). The same will happen to those Israelites who seek to lord over the gentiles and don’t recognize that many gentiles will enter God’s kingdom (Matt. 8:10-12; cf. Lk. 13:23-30). This still deals with the judgment about to come upon apostate Israel for her failure to be the light of the world.
Matthew ends his version of the Olivet discourse with a narrative (not a ‘parable’) about judgment. The subject hasn’t changed; it’s still about the ‘coming of the son of man’ (25:31). Jesus uses the analogy of a shepherd separating his flock in order to cull the male baby goats (25:32-33); a similar analogy was used in the Hebrew prophets to describe the judgment of Israel and its apostate leaders (Ezek. 34:11-22; Zech. 10:2-3). Those who treated his family well, that is, God’s true people (Matt. 12:46-50), will enter God’s kingdom and the “life of the age” (25:34-40, 46); those who mistreated his family will enter the “fire of the age” and “punishment of the age” (25:41-46).
The judgment in view at the end of the Olivet discourse, in Matt. 25:31-46, is still a concrete, historical one. The word aiōnios here doesn’t mean “eternal,” as it’s so often mistranslated, but refers to the coming aiōn, the messianic age. [8] When that age came, God’s true people would find life in it, but those who mistreated them would find only punishment.
The vindication of Jesus the Messiah
As we’ve seen, all of Jesus’ warnings about judgment, including his teachings about the ‘coming of the son of man,’ had a very concrete meaning. He was warning about what would happen to Israel if she failed to recognize that God’s kingdom had come and to finally fulfill her vocation as the light of the world. He also saw himself as being especially this ‘son of man,’ as the true representative of God’s true people; when the time came for his “fourth beast,” Israel’s apostate leaders, to be destroyed, he would be glorified and receive his kingdom.
In fact, within forty years of his death, all this happened just as he’d predicted. Because most in Israel continued to see the gentiles as enemies, failing to fulfill their vocation as the light to the gentiles, they remained on a collision course with Rome. Josephus, the Jewish historian of the late first century AD, tells us that false prophets leading Israel into insurrection multiplied over the next few decades (Antiquities 18.4.1; 20.5.1; 8.5-6). They became especially a problem during the war of AD 66-70 itself (Wars 4.9.3ff; 6.5.2) — just as Jesus had warned (Mk. 13:5-7, 21-23/Matt. 24:4-6, 23-28/Lk. 21:8-9).
When the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalem in November AD 66, and left just as suddenly and unexpectedly (Josephus, Wars 2.19.4-6), this gave the believers living there a short window to escape (Wars 2.20.1; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.5.3; Epiphanius, Pan. 29.7.8) in accordance with Jesus’ command (Mk. 13:14-18/Matt. 24:15-20/Lk. 20:20-21). The war that followed was certainly deserving of Jesus’ hyperbolic language (Mk. 13:19-20/Matt. 24:21-22/Lk. 21:22-24). Indeed, Josephus used similar language (Wars 5.10.5; 13.6).
Most importantly, though, the destruction of Jerusalem showed that Jesus’ message was indeed true. The war and defeat of Jerusalem proved that their view of God’s kingdom was the wrong one, which led to destruction — it put them on an inevitable collision course with Rome, which they would just as inevitably lose. Jesus’ view of God’s kingdom was the correct one, and his way would have led to life for Israel, and did for those in Israel who believed in him and escaped destruction. This effectively reversed the Sanhedrin’s verdict of Jesus, showing him to be a true prophet and the Messiah.
The early Christians saw Jerusalem’s fall as significant in a second way. They viewed the earthly Jerusalem and the Temple as symbols of the old covenant, and believed that while the new covenant had already been inaugurated, it would not come in full until those earthly shadows (which had already been rendered obsolete) were destroyed (Gal. 4:21-31; Heb. 8:13; 9:8-10; 10:8-9). Once they had been set aside, then the heavenly Jerusalem, the new covenant, could come in full (Heb. 12:18-24; Rev. 18:20-19:8; 21-22). After Jerusalem’s fall, early Christians saw this climactic event as proof of their correctness over ‘Judaism’ (Ep. Barn. 16:1-10; Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 53).
In summary, the siege and fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 was a very significant event for early Christianity in light of Jesus’ ministry. This event proved that God’s kingdom had indeed come as Jesus had said, and not as Israel had been expecting; it also proved that the old covenant had been rendered obsolete, and the new covenant had come in full. The significance of AD 70 still resounds today, vindicating Jesus over the many other false messiahs and prophets who have claimed to bring God’s kingdom.
______________________________
[1] Num. 23:19; Job 16:21; 25:6; 35:8; Ps. 8:4; 80:17; 144:3; 146:3; Isa. 51:12; 56:2; Jer. 49:18, 33; 50:40; 51:43; Ezek., too many refs to cite; Dan. 8:17.
[2] The pronoun at the end of 7:27 is masculine singular (leh), and is often taken to refer to the Most High himself (“all dominions will serve and obey him”). However, in light of the interpretation found in 7:18, the pronoun is most naturally taken to refer back to “the people” (am), which is also masculine singular. See John J. Collins, Daniel (Minneapolis, MI: Fortress Press, 1994), 322.
[3] Richard Bauckham, “Son of Man” vol. 1: Early Jewish Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: 2023), 375.
[4] N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 261.
[5] Other New Testament writers appear to have held the same view of the “end of the age.” Paul said that it was “the rulers of this age” who crucified Jesus, and they were already passing away (1 Cor. 2:6-8); in fact, he was living already at “the ends of the ages” (1 Cor. 10:11). The Hebraist also said that Jesus was sacrificed once-for-all at “the end of the ages” (Heb. 9:26).
[6] Many scholars argue that this ‘prediction’ must be dependent on historical accounts of Jerusalem’s fall, and must not have actually been spoken by Jesus. However, there are at least two specific textual allusions to Antiochus IV and the Maccabean revolt — the “desolating sacrilege” and the command to “flee to the hills” and leave everything behind (Mk. 13:14/Matt. 24:15-16/Lk. 21:21; cf. 1 Macc. 1:54; 2:27-28) — which don’t precisely match the historical events of AD 70. This indicates that Jesus’ predictions are being deliberately modeled on Israel’s past, rather than being force-fit by the evangelists to fit the historical reality of AD 70. See N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 176-179.
[7] Isa. 13:9-19; 24:4-21; 34:1-5; Jer. 4:16-26; Ezek. 32:2-8; Joel 2:10, 30-32; cf. 2 Sam. 22:8-18/Ps. 18:7-17; 4 Ezra 5:1-10.
[8] Ilaria Ramelli and David Konstan, Terms for Eternity: Aiônios and Aïdios in Classical and Christian Texts, (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2013).
No comments:
Post a Comment