Dan. 7.13

Mark 14.62

Ps. 110.1

Behold one like a son of man came (ercheto} on the clouds of heaven

You will see the son of man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming {erchomenon) with the clouds of heaven

The Lord said to my lord, Sit at mv right hand

That exaltation rather than return was envisaged has been strongly maintained by T. F. Glasson, 'The Reply to Caiaphas (Mark xiv.62)', NTS7 (1960-61) 88-93; also The Second Advent: The Origin oftheNew TestamentDoctrine (London: Epworth. 1945,31963) 6465; similarly J. A. T. Robinson. Jesus and His Coming (London: SCM. 1957) ch. 2; Barrett. Jesus The argument has been influential. Hooker takes up from Glasson and suggests that the sitting and coming should not be seen as chronologically sequential but as equally expressive of a hope of vindication (Son ofMan 166-71). Moule attempts to finesse the issue by suggesting that 'The "coming" of the Son of Man. precisely because it is his coming to God for vindication, is also his coming to earth in judgment and . . . for "visitation"' (Origin 18). Wright seems to want to include the destruction of the temple (AD 70) in the vindication which Caiaphas will see (Jesus 525-26); and. confusingly. 'the "Son of Man" will come — using the Roman armies — to crush rebel Jerusalem' (638). See also de Jonge. Early Chris-tology 92-93.

184. Evans offers an alternative in arguing that if the throne was conceived as the chariot throne (Ezekiel 1). then the 'coming' could indeed follow the 'sitting'. since the chariot throne was moving ('In What Sense?' 419-20; Davies and Allison. Matthew 3.530 also refer to LAE 22.3). In which case Luke's version presumably missed the allusion. However. Evans produces no parallel to the idea of the chariot throne with the clouds'.

185. Pace Todt, Son ofMan 37-40; Lindars. Jesus Son ofMan 110-12; Stuhlmacher. 'Messianische Gottesknecht' 147-50; Casey. Son ofMan 178-83. does not consider this possibility (though cf. Ezek. 1.4).

of transmission, most likely with the Dan. 7.13 allusion primary, then supplemented by the Ps. 110.1 allusion,186 and the resulting awkwardness causing Luke's version to resimplify the imagery.

The second notable feature is the report that Jesus' reply was accounted 'blasphemy' by the High Priest. This has created puzzlement similar to that caused by talk of God as 'the Blessed' and 'the Power' (n. 180). For on a strict definition of 'blasphemy' it is very doubtful whether there is any blasphemous content, even in the full answer of Mark 14.62. 'Blasphemy' strictly speaking referred only to naming the name ofYahweh,187 and 'Son of the Blessed' does not fall under that definition.188 How, then, could the High Priest have condemned Jesus for blasphemy? One possible answer is that the term 'blasphemy' could have been used in a looser sense (of any serious threat to Israel's conviction regarding Israel's God), and polemical rhetoric could presumably have made exaggerated claims then as

An intriguing alternative is that a saying understood as a self-referential allusion to Daniel's vision might have been taken as a claim to be the one who fulfilled the manlike figure's role in taking the second throne beside the Ancient of Days in heaven. We know that a century later even the great rabbi Akiba was accused of profaning the Shekinah for a similar speculation — that the second throne (of Dan. 7.9) was for the Messiah.190 Also that Akiba was linked with the fascinating tradition of four who shared a mystical experience in which they entered paradise (t. Hag. 2.3-4). Another of the four is reported to have hailed the second enthroned figure as a second power in heaven, and for this he is condemned in rabbinic tradition as an archheretic, because he denied the Jewish axiom of the unity/oneness of God.191 Some have suggested that this association of

186. See further my 'Are You the Messiah?' 14-18. Others maintain that Ps. 110.1 was the primary reference, supplemented by Dan. 7.13 (Perrin, Rediscovering 179; J. R. Donahue, Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark [SBLDS 10; Missoula: SBL, 1973] 172-75; Hampel, Menschensohn 179-85; B. F. Meyer, 'Appointed Deed, Appointed Doer: Jesus and the Scriptures', in Chilton and Evans, Authenticating the Activities of Jesus 155-76 [here 172-73]).

188. See Brown, Death 521-22; pace J. Marcus, 'Mark 14:61: "Are You the Messiah-Son-of-God?"NovT 31 (1989) 125-41.

189. See again Brown, Death 522-26; also Evans, 'In What Sense?' 409-11. For the breadth of use of blasphemed and blasphemia, see BDAG adloc; D. L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus (WUNT 2.106; Tübingen: Mohr, 1998) 30-112; and note Mark 3.28-29 pars, above (§16.4b[3]).

191. b. Hag. 15a; 3 En. 16. There is a direct line of thought between Daniel 7's 'one like a son of man', Enoch's identification with the Son of Man (1 En. 71.14), and Metatron in 3En. 3-16 (note particularly 4.2 and 16).

ideas explains the blasphemy charge in Mark And though the lateness of these other traditions urges caution, we do know that a form of mysticism was practised within late Second Temple Judaism focused particularly on the chariot throne of God (Ezekiel

Taken together, these two features suggest a possible rationale underlying the reported exchange between Jesus and the High Priest as it was crystallized in the Jesus tradition, almost certainly from a very early date. The tradition was of Jesus using Daniel's vision of the manlike representation of the saints of the Most High to express his own hopes for vindication.194 This was heard as a claim that Jesus himself would be enthroned in heaven.195 In the realpolitik situation of a leadership determined to be rid of Jesus, any allusion to the

Danielic son of man could be cynically exploited to present Jesus as a threat to one of the core principles of Second Temple religion (the wholly otherness of the one God). In terms of ruling-class propaganda, such a charge would help ensure the support of the people, just as the charge of messiahship could be transposed into a threat to Caesar's kingship to ensure Pilate's support. (3) Mark 8.38 pars./Matt,10.32-33/Luke 12.8-9:

192. Rowland, Christian Origins 170-71; J. Schaberg, 'Mark 14:62: Early Christian Merkabah Imagery?', in J. Marcus and M. L. Soards, eds., Apocalyptic and the New Testament, J. L. Martyn FS (JSNTS 24; Sheffield: JSOT, 1989) 69-94; Evans, 'In What Sense?' 419-21; Wright, Jesus 642-44; Davies and Allison, Matthew 3.534; Bock, Blasphemy 113-237. As D. R. Catchpole, The Trial of Jesus (Leiden: Brill, 1971) shows, the suggestion is not new (14041). Cf. C. F. D. Moule, 'The Gravamen against Jesus', in E. P. Sanders, ed., Jesus, the Gospels and the Church, W. R. Farmer FS (Macon: Mercer University, 1987) 177-95; andHofius who presses still further in seeing here 'the claim to a status and a function which could only be grounded in an essential unity with God' ('1st Jesus der Messias?' 121).

193. There are already hints to that effect in Sir. 49.8 and 1 En. 14.18-20. The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice imply something to the same effect being practised in the worship of Qumran. Paul himself may have been a practitioner of such mysticism (2 Cor. 12:2-4) (J. W. Bowker, '"Merkabah" Visions and the Visions of Paul', JSS 16 [1971] 157-73; see also Segal, Paul the Convert). The great rabbi Yohannan ben Zakkai, founder of the rabbinic school at Yavneh following the disaster of 70, is also attested to have been a practitioner (t. Hag. 2.1).

194. This is not the same as saying Jesus thought he would become the Son of Man (denied, e.g., by Hooker, Son of Man 188), which presupposes concepts and categories ('the Son of Man') already more firmly delineated than we have seen to be likely for the time of Jesus. Chilton, however, assumes that the angelic figure of Daniel's vision ('one like a person') was a key element in Jesus' visionary practice {Rabbi Jesus 157-61), an intimacy bordering on identification (171-72); cf. his earlier '(The) Son of (the) Man, and Jesus', in Chilton and Evans, eds., Authenticating the Words of Jesus 259-87, especially 274-86.

195. If this is a plausible way to interpret the tradition at the time of the Synoptists, then it is no less plausible for the situation of Jesus, 40-50 years earlier, since the data regarding mystical practice and misgivings about such practice (n. 193 above) are no stronger for the one than for the other.

Matt. 16.27

Mark 8.38

Luke 9.26

For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of his Father with his and then he will repay to each in accordance with his way of acting.

For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of his Father with the angels.

For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him the Son of Man will be ashamed when he comes in his and the of the Father and of the holv angels.

Matt. 10.32-33

Luke 12.8-9

32 Everyone therefore who acknowledges me

8 And I tell vou. everyone who acknowledges me

before men. I also will acknowledge before mv Father in heaven; 33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will denv

before the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God; 9 but whoever denies me before men will be denied

before my Father in heaven.

before the angels of God.

Here the influence of Dan. 7.13 is less clear, but still probable. It is impossible to now whether different teachings of Jesus are recalled in these passages. The first three of the cited passages are linked clearly by the common theme of 'the Son of Man coming injudgment', which has probably been elaborated in the Matt. 16.27 tradition to bring out the judgment theme more prominently (cf. Matt. The last four are linked by the common theme of denial/shame (on earth) being reciprocated by denial/shame at the final judgment (in heaven), which is complemented in Q by a reciprocal acknowledgment theme, whether from the store of remembered Jesus' teaching, or as an elaboration of the more threatening version. Evidently there were several versions of the saying(s) being circulated — Q, Mark, and possibly Matt. 16.27.196

Two observations are pertinent. First, Luke 12.8-9 has been the lynchpin of the dominant German view that Jesus saw the Son of Man as a heavenly figure to whom he looked for vindication of himself and his teaching, if only at the final judgment. But that view assumes that Jesus would be referring to a well-known heavenly figure (as attested in the Similitudes of Enoch), and we have seen good reason to question such an assumption.197 We have also already observed that 'the Son of Man' version has an T parallel in Matt. 10.32, so quite possibly an original bar 'enasa saying (with a play on 'men', 'son of man') is in view.198 The

196. Further discussion in Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom 291-96.

197. See above, § 16.3b; also, e.g., Hare, Son ofMan 221-24.

198. As Leivestad notes, 'It is a basic poetic device in Semitic poetry to interchange synonymous terms in parallel lines' (Jesus 117). Casey offers an Aramaic reconstruction of Mark 8.38 (Son ofMan 161-62). See further Lindars, Jesus Son ofMan 48-58, who suggests an original saying something like this: 'All who confess me before men will have a man to speak for them (i.e, an advocate) before the judgment seat of God; but all those who deny me before men problem (the decisive factor?) for many has evidently been the difficulty of conceiving that Jesus spoke of such a role for someone like himself in the final judgment.199 But is that so inconceivable?200 Alternatively, if the identity of Jesus with the Son of Man is not entirely clear, does that not make the saying's origin as an assertion of that identity less plausible?201

Second, there is some ambiguity in regard to the location of the final judgment. The Q version is clear that it will happen in heaven, before the angels or God himself. But the Mark 8.38 version allows the possibility that the coming of the Son of Man is from heaven, parallel to the coming of the kingdom (Mark 9.1 pars.). Should we then see here a transition from the heavenly scene depicted in Daniel, of the one like a son of man 'coming' with the clouds (Dan 7.13) to be enthroned and to share in God's judgment (7.9-10, 14)? That is, if Jesus did speak of the Danielic manlike figure, did he speak in terms of a coming to heaven or from heaven? Or is the coming from heaven a subsequent development in the Son of Man tradition, perhaps of a piece with the development from 'the son of man' to 'the Son of Man'?

One of the most intriguing sequences of Son of Man sayings comes in Luke 17.22-30/Matt. 24.23, 27, 37-39.

Matt. 24.23, 27, 37-39

Luke 17.22-30

23 Then if anyone says to you. 'Look! Here is the Messiah!1 or 'There he is!'—do not believe it.

27 For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

22 Then he said to the disciples, 'The days are coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it. 23 They will say to you. "Look there" or "Look here!" Do not go, do not set off in pursuit.

24 For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day. 25 But first he must endure

will find that they have an accuser before the judgment seat of God' (54). It needs to be stressed again that the issue is not how an original T saying was replaced by the 'Son of Man' title or vice-versa {pace Schürmann, Gottes Reich 166-67; Crossan, Historical Jesus 248-49; P. Hoffmann, 'Der Menschensohn in Lukas 12.8', NTS 44 [1998] 357-79).

199. Funk, Five Gospels 80; Lüdemann, Jesus 343-44.

200. Jeremias pointed out that nowhere else is Jesus recalled as looking for a saving figure other than himself (Proclamation 276; similarly Lohse, 'Frage' 42-44; Marshall, Jesus 8385; Hampel, Menschensohn 159-60); we should also recall that the language of confessing and denying is more appropriate to a witness than ajudge (Hare, Son ofMan 222; also 269-71; disputed by Becker, Jesus 208-209).

201. See particularly Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom 225-27.

37 For as the days of Noah were. so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and

much suffering and be rejected by this generation. 26 Just as it was in the days of Noah, so too it will be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 They were eating and drinking, and marrying and being

marrying and giving in until

given in marriage, until the day Noah entered the

the day Noah entered the ark. 39 and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away.

cn tnn will hp

(he coming ofthe Son ofMan.

ark. and the flood came and destroyed all of them. 28 Likewise. just as it was in the days of Lot: they were eating and drinking. buying and selling. planting and building. 29 but on the day that Lot left Sodom. it rained fire and sulphur from heaven and destroyed all of them 30—it will be like that on the day that the Son of Man is revealed'.

Clearly Matthew and Luke are drawing on common material. But each has so integrated the material to his own schema that it is difficult to gain a clear impression of the tradition history involved.202 In particular. it is unclear whether Luke has introduced talk of the day(s) of the Son of Man. a phrase unique to this section. and unclear quite what was in view with the phrase.203 It seems to envisage a period (days) during which life continues in its normal round. only to be disrupted by sudden catastrophic judgment (day). That fits well enough with Jesus' warnings of impending judgment elsewhere.204 But is the implication that the son of man is a figure like Noah and Lot. warning of impending judgment. and/or that the son of man will be the major figure in the impending judgment? In the former case we would then have a parallel to the sign of Jonah (§ 15.6b) and could probably infer that an indefinite/self-referential bar 'enasa lies behind it. The latter however gives only weak support for the suggestion that Dan. 7.13 is being alluded to. or that the phrase would be heard by Jesus' audience 'as a well-known term for the eschatological agent of Unfortunately. the possibility of drawing confident conclusions as to Jesus' own usage is not strong.207

203. See further Fitzmyer, Luke 2.1168-69.

204. See above. §12.4e. Cf. Pss. Sol. 18.5: 'the appointed day at the raising up (anaxei?) of his Messiah'.

205. Cf. Hampel, Menschensohn 59-70, 79-98.

206. Pace Becker. Jesus 206; the judgment in favour of authenticity by Bultmann (History 122) and Todt {Son ofMan 48-52) depends on the assumption that reference was to a well-known figure (challenged by Perrin. Rediscovering 195-97).

207. Higgins argued for the more complex case that Luke 17.24. 26. 30 are the only genuine utterances of Jesus (apart from Luke 11.29-32 and 12.8-9). partly on the ground that they did not speak of his 'coming' (whether in exaltation or to earth). but only warned of the imminence of the (judgment) day (Son ofMan 56-72. 79. 124). See also Lindars. Jesus Son ofMan 94-97.

Study Aid

Study Aid

This Book Is One Of The Most Valuable Resources In The World When It Comes To Getting A Scholarship And Financial Support For Your Studies.

Get My Free Ebook

Post a comment