Clouds Of Heaven Research Articles

Ruben A. Bühner. Messianic High Christology: New Testament Variants of Second Temple Judaism

Ruben A. Bühner. <i>Messianic High Christology: New Testament Variants of Second Temple Judaism</i>

Interpreting the Dutch Great Awakening (1749–1755)

In 1754, the Scottish minister John Gillies (1712–1796) published a collection of historical accounts concerning “remarkable periods of the success of the Gospel.” Its composer was a spider in a web of correspondents in Europe and North America who believed they were living in an extraordinary time of revival in Christianity. Collective conversions and signs of repentance and faith were reported from all parts of the world and placed in a large eschatological perspective. After the Protestant Reformation—the climax of church history since the New Testament—a great decline had set in comparable to the Middle Ages. The “Great Awakening” seemed to recapture the spirit of the first Pentecost and offered prospects for a further extension of God's Kingdom. By means of missionary work among the heathen peoples, the Gospel would reach the ends of earth. Finally, after the collective conversion of the Jews and a millennium of peace, the time would come for the Lord of the Church to appear on the clouds of heaven to gather the harvest of all times.

Jesus' Supposed Blasphemy (Mark 14:61b–64)

Abstract Historically, Jesus' supposed blasphemy before the Sanhedrin consisted in the claim that he would sit at God's right hand and come with the clouds of heaven, a divine mode of transport. Though replaced with "the Power" in public reporting, "Yahweh" in Jesus' actual quotation of Ps 110:1 made the supposed blasphemy deserving of death in agreement with m. Sanh. 7:5.

Jesus' Supposed Blasphemy (Mark 14:61b–64)

Abstract Historically, Jesus' supposed blasphemy before the Sanhedrin consisted in the claim that he would sit at God's right hand and come with the clouds of heaven, a divine mode of transport. Though replaced with "the Power" in public reporting, "Yahweh" in Jesus' actual quotation of Ps 110:1 made the supposed blasphemy deserving of death in agreement with m. Sanh. 7:5.

The Charge of Blasphemy in Mark 14.64

The teaching of m. Sanh. 7.5, that the ‘blasphemer’ is not culpable unless he pronounces the Name itself, is attested by Josephus and the Community Rule from Qumran. The Markan Jesus, however, does not pronounce the divine name. Philo provides evidence for a broader understanding of blasphemy, namely, claims to be divine or to possess divine power. The relevant passages are analogous to the Markan Jesus’ claims that he would be enthroned at the right hand of God and that he would ‘come with the clouds of heaven’. Both claims imply divine status, authority and power. The chief priests, as Sadducees, probably subscribed to a definition of blasphemy like that of Philo. Like other Jews of the time, they advocated the death penalty for blasphemy, but were more likely to carry it out. Mark did not wish to deny that Jesus blasphemed from the point of view of the chief priests. The narrative is ironic in the sense that what is blasphemy from the point of view of the council is true from the perspective of the implied audience.

Jesus, the Merkavah, and Martyrdom in Early Christian Tradition

Proquest Information and Learning: Foreign text ommited.) Scholars have identified Dan 7:14 as merkavah vision, vision of God's throne, and as source text for an early Jewish form of mysticism called merkavah mysticism.1 9 As I watched, thrones were set in place, and an of took his throne, his clothing white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, and its wheels were burning fire. 10 A stream of fire issued and flowed out from his presence. A thousand thousands served him, and ten thousand stood attending him. The court sat in judgment and the books were opened. 11 I watched then because of the noise of the arrogant words that the horn was speaking. And as I watched, the beast was put to death, and its body destroyed and given over to be burned with fire. 12 As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for season and 13 As I watched in the night visions, I saw like son of coming on the clouds of heaven. And he came to the of and was presented before him. 14 To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is that shall never pass away, and his kingship is that shall never be destroyed. (Dan 7:9-14)2 While early Christian literature does not refer to Dan 7:9-14 as often as it does to Ps 110:1, the most quoted passage from the Jewish Bible in the NT, there are several uses that demonstrate its importance for the mystical interests of early Christians.3 This vision of Dan 7 has several elements that reappear in the Acts of the Apostles, Revelation, and the early-third-century text The Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas. These texts all share an interest in captive visionaries, enthroned figures, empowered beings who are standing, and threatening circumstances. As group, they demonstrate how merkavah vision became associated with martyrdom. I. Daniel 7 The vision in Dan 7:9-14 is the second half of lengthy vision that begins in 7:2. The visionary, Daniel, is described in this second-century B.C.E. text as an exilic Jew (Dan 1:3-7) who lived as captive under the administration of the Babylonians and the Persians (Dan 5:30-31) and found his life under threat (Dan 6:1-28). The vision in Dan 7:2-8 begins with sequence of four beasts, the fourth of which is terrifying and destructive. After Daniel's description of the fourth beast, the vision of Dan 7:9-14 follows. Here figure identified as an Ancient of Days with white hair takes his dazzling throne in court scene involving thousands of attendants. Judgment follows; the destruction of the fourth beast is announced; and the three other beasts find their lives prolonged for a season and time. As the vision continues Daniel sees an unnamed figure called one like son of man, who, after coming with the clouds of heaven, is presented before the Ancient of Days and is given everlasting dominion over all peoples. Scholarly debate has focused on the unnamed figure called the one like son of man referred to in Dan 7:13-14. Interpreters are divided over whether this figure is symbolic or an individual, usually heavenly being.4 The history of interpretation behind this passage shows how both options have been popular.5 Early Christian interpreters identified Jesus as the one like son of man, and several identified Jesus as the one like son of man who is standing. Christians were not alone in arguing for specific identity for this anonymous figure. Other Jewish groups had their candidates: Enoch, Metatron, Seth, Abel, and Michael.6 2 Ezra 13 is of the very few texts to refer to the one like son of man of Dan 7:13-14 without identifying the figure. II. Acts 7 The vision attributed to Stephen in Acts 7:54-60 includes several characteristics that illustrate its probable use of Dan 7. …

The Welsh connection: Pentecostalism and the unification church

One might have thought that of all the mainstream Christian denominations, the Pentecostalists would have been one of the most condemnatory of the Unification Church. Their belief in the inerrancy of scripture is incompatible with the many 'symbolic' interpretations given by the UC; their stress on the importance of the Lord's Supper is an obvious point of divergence from a movement which deliberately refrains from celebrating the eucharist the expectation that Christ will return on the clouds of heaven again stands in marked contrast with the UCs insistence that the Lord of the Second Advent usually identified with Sun Myung Moon, is a human figure bom of human parents. It is the purpose of this article, first to examine a chapter in the early history of Unificationism, where one Pentecostalist denomination, the Apostolic Church (founded in Wales in 1904-05) was sufficiently impressed with Unificationismat least initiallyto send out a missionary with a view to possible mutual co-operation. Second, I shall draw some conclusions about the features of Pentecostalism which make it somewhat more drawn towards Unificationism than other mainstream denominations. The story of Unificationism's encounters with the Apostolic Church began in 1956 when Mr David Kim (now President of the Unification Theological Seminary in Barrytown, New York), came from Korea to South Wales to study at the University of Swansea. Kim went to its services at Penygroes, Llanelli, and was befriended by a very welcoming congregation. At the International Conventions of Apostolic Churches at Penygroes in 1955 Kim told them that his church in Korea was very similar to theirs, and that they needed help in propagating the Christian message there. This request for help was relayed to the Australian headquarters of the Apostolic Church, who were responsible for mission in South-East Asia. They sent out Pastor Joshua McCabe, who spent some eighty days there, in which he met early leaders, such as Miss Young Oon Kim, Hyo Won Eu (the Second President, and author of the 1973 version of Divine Principle). and Sun Myung Moon himself. On these facts both the UC and the AC are agreed, although the AC wishes to make it clear that it now has no associations with Unificationism, and dissociates itself from its teachings and practices. On other significant details, however, there is disagreement. There exist accounts of McCabe's visit by each of the parties. David Kim has related his version in a testimony given to UC members in May 1984. He has also provided me with transcripts of Pastor McCabe, both delivered in early September 1956. The Apostolic Church's version can be found in a report from Pastor McCabe, written from Korea, and published in the Apostolic Herald in November of the same year. Pastor McCabe has also been obliging enough to furnish me with further details and reflections in personal correspondence. Kim states that in Korea McCabe even helped Miss Kim with the English translation of the Divine Principle (presumably the one which became the 1962 version), and indeed appeared to accept most of its teachings:

Probationes Pennae: Some Sixteenth-Century Doodles on the Theme of Folly Attributed to the Antwerp Humanist Pieter Gillis and His Colleagues*

Sometime between 1502 and 1509 one of Antwerp's city clerks took time to pen a small drawing and inscription on the flyleaf of a document in his care (fig. 1). His depiction of a naked soul seen from the backside while ascending into the clouds of heaven, succinctly labeled “ascensio,” turns out to be only the first of several dozen doodles preserved in a special class of judicial manuscripts in the Antwerp city archives. Taken as a group, these pictorial and verbal jottings provide a unique opportunity to eavesdrop upon the spontaneous mental meanderings of several Antwerpians in the age of Metsys, Erasmus, Bruegel, and Plantin. The art of doodling is revealing by its very nature, and the possibility that one of the doodlers was the humanist Pieter Gillis provides an additional incentive for the discussion of this material, which is catalogued and translated in the accompanying appendix.

The Son of Man and the Problem of Historical Knowledge

Previous articleNext article No AccessThe Son of Man and the Problem of Historical KnowledgePeter C. HodgsonPeter C. Hodgson Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Religion Volume 41, Number 2Apr., 1961 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/485320 Views: 16Total views on this site Copyright 1961 The University of ChicagoPDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

The Sign of the Son of Man

In an article published some time ago Dr Vincent Taylor drew attention to the fact that the question raised fifty years ago by Wrede in Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien had not been satisfactorily answered in all respects, and went on to suggest that the ‘Messianic secret’ is not, as Wrede supposed, merely a clumsy editorial explanation of a difficult problem, but is derived from and reflects beliefs about the nature and methods of His own Messiahship held by Jesus Himself. The views expressed in this article may be found summarised in the Introduction to Dr Taylor's Commentary on St. Mark where he writes:Jesus imposed silence because of the nature of Messiahship as he conceived it to be. To him it was not primarily a matter of status but of action. In his own estimation Jesus is Messiah in his works of healing, his exorcisms, his victory over Satanic powers, his suffering, dying, rising, and coming with the clouds of heaven. Messiahship is a destiny; it is that which he does, that which the Father is pleased to accomplish in him and which he fulfils in filial love. It is for this reason that he silences the demoniacs and commands the disciples to tell no man his secret till after the resurrection.

Jesus as Lord

In successive discussions of the title Son of God, which seems to have been Jesus' own self-designation, and Son of Man, which would seem to have been applied to him after his death by the primitive Aramaic-speaking community of believers in his second coming, we have sought to disentangle primitive from secondary tradition. We have particularly emphasized the fact that in its distinctive principles Jesus' own teaching attaches itself to the primitive form of the messianic ideal—Israel as Yahweh's son; not the later theocratic—the Davidic heir to the throne as Son of God; nor the still later apocalyptic—the supernatural deliverer coming on the clouds of heaven as the fulfilment of the promise. In agreement with this view of the teaching of Jesus, our earliest documents, the Pauline epistles, make sonship in the ethical and religious sense the essence of the glad tidings. Since the publication of our argument our conclusions have been confirmed by the important newly-discovered document, the Odes of Solomon. The confirmation is especially strong if the view of Harnack be taken, that the Odes in their original form are Jewish, rather than the view of their discoverer, J. Rendel Harris, who regards them as Christian. The Odes give irrefutable evidence of the existence in first-century Judaism, or at least in primitive Christian circles, of a doctrine of sonship in the ethical and religious sense closely in line with what we have urged as the distinctive element in the messianic consciousness of Jesus. The ideal of the odist for Israel is an ideal of spiritual sonship. By the knowledge and love of the Beloved, “the Most High and Merciful,” Israel is guaranteed not only sonship to God, but immortality, an eternal dwelling in God's presence.