88 Paul Foster The first is the contemporary situation, in which people are pressed to declare publicly their allegiance to or non-alignment with Jesus. It is perhaps impossible to decide whether the setting is that of the courtroom or the synagogue, and anyway such a division may be a false one reflecting modern institutional separations that are meaningless in the ancient world. Although probably stemming from a later period, the tradition in Jn 12,42 testifies to the existence of certain crypto-Christians who, according to Martyn “had believed in Jesus, but who, in order to avoid excommunication, refused to make a public confession of that belief” (27). While perhaps not as formalized as the conflict behind the Johannine text, it nevertheless appears that for Q the contemporary horizon requires that a call be made to believers to publicly declare their faith and take the consequences that such open confession brings. To cry “Lord, Lord” (Q 6,46) in private is, for the author of Q, a Christologically bankrupt declaration, if this is not also accompanied by a public confession of faith. Such an understanding of the situation of the original readers or hearers of Q is not predicated on any specific proposal concerning social location. The most commonly held theory of a mid first- century Galilean setting for Q (28), would indeed support the case being advanced that the conflict reflected by Q was not as formalized as the that in the fourth gospel, but such a reconstruction is not vital for this discussion. While the reality of itinerancy, economic degradation, and subsistence farming that existed in first-century Galilee would cohere with the characterization of the fate of the followers of Jesus as presented by Q, it is not necessary for understanding the basis of the two-stage Son of Man Christology. Rather perception of status can potentially provide a more powerful stimulus for theological creativity than actual prevailing social conditions. To this extent it is unnecessary to become involved in speculations concerning the hypothetical social location of the community. Rather, the method adopted here is that of engaging in a close reading of the text of Q to ascertain how its Christological message may have impacted on the first readers. Recurrent themes of perceived ostracism and rejection surface in Q alongside the present Son of Man sayings. This gives an important clue that the author of the document understood this motif to be of direct relevance to readers. Such an argument is given greater weight by the fact that, as has been noted, with the final beatitude in the sequence Q 6,20-23 the author changes to a second person plural form of address to speak directly to readers. Yet there is also a second horizon which according to Q is directly related to those actions taken in the present. Open confession in the present age is seen as resulting in the Son of Man’s positive confession about such individuals in the age to come. Therefore the payoff for suffering exclusion and ostracism in the earthly existence is that one will receive inclusion and welcome in the age that is inaugurated by the Son of Man’s return. The second reference to the future role of the Son of Man concerns the unexpected nature of his return (Q 12,40). This statement, uJmei'" givnesqe (27) J.L. MARTYN, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (NTL; Louisville, KY 2003) 159. 3 (28) J.S. KLOPPENBORG, Excavating Q. The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis, MN - Edinburgh 2000) 214-261.