QUESTION: In the book of Mark, Jesus refers to himself as the “Son of God.” In the middle of chapter 9, Jesus then uses the term “Son of Man.” What prompts this change in His reference, and can you describe the difference between theses two titles? I have a good understanding, but am having trouble putting it into words for our small group setting. Thanks!
ANSWER
I have selected two articles from the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels
SON OF GOD
This is arguably the most significant christological title in the NT. “Son of God” or its equivalents (”the Son,” “my Son,” etc.) occur more than 124 times in the NT, and may be the foremost Christological category in each of the Gospels. The NT characteristically describes Jesus’ relationship to God in terms of divine sonship. The concept itself carries a variety of meanings, including commissioning to special work, obedience, intimate fellowship, knowledge, likeness and the receiving of blessings and gifts.
- Divine Sonship in the OT, Judaism and Hellenism
- Divine Sonship in the Life and Ministry of the Historical Jesus
- Divine Sonship in the Christology of the Gospels
1. Divine Sonship in the OT, Judaism and Hellenism.
The notion of divine sonship appears in the OT with regard to three persons or groups of persons: angels (Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; Dan 3:25), Israel (Ex 4:22–23; Hos 11:1; Mal 2:10) and the king (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7; 89:26–27). When used of Israel and the king sonship emphasizes belonging in a special way to God, election to perform the service of God (i.e., to obey God) and the experience of God’s love, mercy, protection and gifts.
Although there are relatively few OT references to the king as son of God, this usage stands closer to the meaning of the title in the NT than do references to angels or even to the people as a whole. There are two emphases in the divine sonship of the king which set it apart from the sonship of the people. First, the king in his capacity as son of God exercises authority over both the people of Israel and the nations (see esp. Ps 2). Second, the divine sonship of the king has its basis in the covenant God made with David in 2 Samuel 7:4–17 (cf. Ps 89:19–45), thereby (1) restricting royal divine sonship to descendants of David, (2) laying the foundation for relating the concepts of Son of David and Son of God, and (3) infusing the notion of royal Son of God with the ideas of immutable divine promise, decree and covenant.
It is clear that the OT does not speak explicitly of the Messiah or of a specifically messianic figure as Son of God. This seems generally to be the case in post-biblical Palestinian Judaism as well. The expression refers to angels (1 Enoch 69:4–5; 71:1; Jub 1:24–25) and miracle workers (esp. Honi the circle-drawer [b. Ta>an. 24b; b. Ber. 17b; b. h\ul. 86a] and H\anina ben Dosa [m. Ta>an. 3:8]; see Vermes), but many passages that once were cited as evidence for the messianic use of Son of God have been discounted as later interpolations or mistranslations of the word for “servant.”
There are three passages in the literature from Qumran (see Dead Sea Scrolls), however, which may connect the idea of Son of God to the Messiah: 4QFlor 1:10–14 applies 2 Samuel 7:11–14 to the Messiah; 1QSa 2:11–12 could be read in terms of God begetting the Messiah; and 4QpsDan Aa (=4Q246) is reported to read “he shall be hailed as the Son of God, and they shall call him Son of the most High” (Fitzmyer). In spite of the sparsity of references which relate the Messiah to divine sonship, the observations that (1) messianic hope in the period was almost always linked to an ideal Davidic king (who in the OT is described as Son of God) and (2) some NT statements seem to assume a connection between Messiah and Son of God (e.g., Mk 14:61; Mt 16:16) suggest that the Messiah as Son of God was not totally foreign to Palestinian Judaism. Yet the Messiah was not under stood primarily in terms of Son of God.
The consideration that Son of God was not a typical messianic designation in Palestinian Judaism and that Hellenism was acquainted with descriptions of he roes, philosophers, rulers and miracle workers who were designated sons of god has led many historians to argue for the Hellenistic origin of the title as applied to Jesus. These historians claim that Hellenis tic Christians were responsible for the confession of Jesus’ divine sonship, and that they understood Jesus to be Son of God along the lines of the “divine man” (theios aneµr; see Divine Man/Theios Aner), a heroic miracle-worker. This understanding of the origin of the title in christology is today generally rejected, since (1) the Hellenistic concept stands in tension with the NT emphasis on the uniqueness of Jesus’ divine sonship as well as with the NT insistence that the divine sonship of Jesus involves primarily suffering and death (see Death of Jesus) rather than the performance of miracles (see Miracles, Miracle Stories); (2) the notion of “divine man” was not as pervasive or uniform as once thought; and (3) there is no explicit connection in Hellenistic sources between “divine man” and persons held to be “sons of the gods.” It is thus preferable to look to the OT and Palestinian Judaism for the religious background to the divine sonship of Jesus.
2. Divine Sonship in the Life and Ministry of the Historical Jesus.
The issue of divine sonship in the thinking and ministry of the historical Jesus revolves around two questions: Did Jesus consider himself to be the Son of God; and if so, how did he understand this role?
2.1. Did Jesus Consider Himself to Be the Son of God? According to the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus understood himself and his mission according to divine sonship and clearly implied that he was the Son of God. Yet there are two sets of data that may challenge the historicity of the Gospel accounts at this point.
The first challenge comes from the almost total absence in literature from Palestinian Judaism of a connection between messianic expectations and the title Son of God. This observation has led to the conclusion that neither Jesus nor his contemporaries would have thought of the Messiah in terms of Son of God, and that the christological confession of divine sonship must have arisen with the Hellenistic church, which was responsible for introducing its confession into the traditions of Jesus’ earthly ministry. But we noted above that although specific references are few, there is reason to believe that the Messiah was in fact sometimes understood in terms of divine sonship.
The second challenge involves statements in the NT which may be understood as linking the divine sonship of Jesus to his resurrection/exaltation, thereby suggesting that Jesus became Son of God at that point (esp. Acts 13:33; Rom 1:3–4). Many scholars have argued that this was the original understanding of the divine sonship of Jesus and that the early church gradually pushed the inauguration of Jesus’ status as Son of God back to the Transfiguration, then to the baptism and finally to either virginal conception (see Birth of Jesus) or pre-existence (see Logos).
Virtually everyone agrees that Romans 1:3–4 reflects an early creed that Paul has included in order to establish a point of theological contact between himself and his Roman readers. It is often claimed, furthermore, that the pre-Pauline formula lacked the phrase “in power,” and thus signified that Jesus became Son of God at the resurrection. By adding this phrase Paul has transformed the meaning of the statement so as to imply that Jesus had been Son of God all along, and that at the resurrection he became Son in a new sense. But some scholars (e.g., Dunn) have argued that “in power” may have been part of the pre-Pauline formula. Moreover, even if the original formula lacked this phrase, it is possible to construe oristhentos of verse 4 as “designated” (so RSV) rather than “appointed,” thus indicating that in the resurrection God declared Jesus to be what he had been during his earthly ministry. But ultimately the interpretation of this verse turns on prior decisions regarding the connection of Messiah with the Son title in earliest Christianity. Those who deny such a connection see a dichotomy between the earthly Jesus as Son of David and his post-resurrection status as Son of God, while those who affirm the connection between Son and Messiah argue that Davidic sonship implies divine sonship.
Acts 13:33 represents a similarly ambiguous case. On the surface this quotation from Psalm 2:7 seems to intimate that Jesus was “begotten” as Son of God at the resurrection. But it is possible to maintain with Marshall that both the flow of thought in Paul’s sermon and the analogy with Wisdom 2:13–18 indicate that Psalm 2:7 was employed not to establish Jesus’ divine sonship on the basis of his resurrection, but rather to prove that in the resurrection God con firmed the righteousness (see Justice, Righteousness) of his obedient Son. Thus, the passage links sonship to the obedience of the earthly Jesus and not to the event of the resurrection. We conclude, then, that there is no firm evidence in the NT for the view that Jesus entered into his role as Son of God at the resurrection.
Virtually all critics agree that Jesus addressed God as Abba, “Father,” and typically referred to God by this designation when teaching his disciples. These phenomena are firmly embedded in the earliest strata of Gospel tradition, and throughout the Synoptic Gospels it is almost exclusively the way Jesus speaks of God and his relationship to God. This does not necessarily imply, however, that every reference to “Father” in our Gospels was spoken by the historical Jesus; the wide disparity in the number of occurrences in the four Gospels suggests that at points the Evangelists may have inserted the designation into traditions they inherited.
Scholarly debate has focused on those passages in which Jesus refers to himself as the Son. A strong claim for authenticity can be made especially for Mark 13:32; 12:6; and Matthew 11:27/Luke 10:22. In the case of Mark 13:32 it is unlikely that the early church would have created a saying which asserted the ignorance of Jesus. The objections raised to the authenticity of the parable of the tenants (Mk 12:1–12) are not convincing. The fact that the parable contains some allegorical elements does not necessarily exclude it as coming from Jesus; and the argument that it contradicts Jesus’ reticence to speak publicly about his sonship fails to take seriously the oblique nature of this reference to the “son.” The reference to the “sending” of the son in this passage does not suggest pre-existence (as in Paul), but points rather to the calling, mission and eschatological significance of Jesus. A more difficult passage is Matthew 11:27/Luke 10:22 (see Wisdom). In the face of claims that this statement reflects a relatively late—even Johannine—christology, Jeremias has successively argued that its language, style and structure reflect Semitic usage and that the relationship between Father and Son found here accords with Jesus’ statements regarding the Father encountered throughout the Synoptic Gospels. A focus on these three statements does not imply that other passages in which Jesus speaks of himself as the Son have no historical validity. Bauckham has argued for the historical value of many of the Son sayings in the Fourth Gospel, following Cullmann’s hypothesis that behind much of the sayings material in this Gospel stands independent tradition passed on by the “beloved disciple” and preserved by the Johannine circle. Nevertheless, the task of assessing the historical character of Johannine material is extremely complicated, and it is therefore preferable to concentrate on the earliest strands of the Synoptic tradition.
2.2. How Did Jesus Understand His Divine Sonship? An examination of the authentic sayings of Jesus regarding the “Father” and the “Son” reveals the following emphases.
2.2.1. Personal Intimacy with the Father. It points to intimate personal fellowship between Jesus and God. Jesus experienced this intimate fellowship especially through prayer, and consequently addressed God in prayer almost exclusively as “Father” (Aramaic: Abba; Mk 14:36; cf. Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6). Jeremias has argued that Jesus was apparently the first Jew to address God in prayer as Abba (Jewish prayers typically used the obsolete and formalized Hebrew term Abi), and that Abba was a term of familiarity and intimacy, having originally developed from the speech of children (”daddy”). Subsequent scholarship has been unable to contradict the claim that this prayer language of Abba was original with Jesus. Although Jeremias’ employment of etymological considerations is questionable (Barr), his distinction between formal prayer speech, which suggests distance, and the more colloquial expression used to address earthly fathers bears the weight of critical scrutiny.
Jesus’ use of Abba prompts the question as to how and when Jesus came to understand himself and his messianic role in terms of this intimate filial relation ship with God. The attempt to reconstruct Jesus” messianic self-consciousness is notoriously difficult. Nevertheless, the tradition itself suggests that Jesus may have become conscious of his divine sonship at the point of his baptism. In the earliest form of the baptism account the divine voice addresses Jesus directly in the second person: “You are my beloved Son” (Mk 1:11). If this experience did not initiate Jesus’ Son-consciousness, it confirmed and informed it.
2.2.2. Obedience to the Will of God. This reference to the baptism leads to a second emphasis: Absolute obedience to the will of God understood in terms of the Suffering Servant (see Servant of Yahweh). The divine speech at the baptism accentuates obedience: “With you I am well pleased.” Moreover, the heavenly voice alludes to Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 42:1, thereby bringing together the concepts of divine sonship and the Servant of Yahweh. Thus, divine sonship is defined in terms of obedience, and obedience is described in terms of the image of the Servant. Although intertestamental Judaism sometimes connected the Messiah with the Servant of Yahweh, it failed to link vicarious suffering of the Servant to the Messiah. But there is no doubt that Jesus made this connection, and he seems to have based the connection on his understanding of his role as Son of God. Jesus’ construal of his divine sonship in terms of obedient submission to suffering and death emerges also in his prayer in Gethsemane (Mk 14:32–42).
2.2.3. The Unique Son of God. The foregoing implies a further emphasis in Jesus’ speech involving his divine sonship: it is exclusive. Jesus is Son of God in a unique sense. In his capacity as Son of God Jesus has the power to bring his followers into an experience of divine sonship, but Jesus consistently distinguishes between the sonship of disciples and his own sonship. He speaks of “my Father” and “your Father,” but never “our Father” (the “our” of the Lord’s Prayer [Mt 6:9] is what the disciples are to say). It is clear that in the authentic statements from the Synoptic Gospels Jesus did not speak of his divine sonship in terms of pre-existence or focus on ontological realities (such as his divine “œnature”). Rather, Jesus emphasized the elements of personal relation ship and active function.
3. Divine Sonship in the Christology of the Gospels.
Although there is wide disparity in the number of occurrences of “Son (of God)” and “Father” in the four Gospels, each of the Gospels gives significant attention to Jesus’ divine sonship, and may in fact present “Son of God” as the pre-eminent christological title.
3.1. Mark. “Son (of God)” appears in Mark’s Gospel only eight times and “Father” (referring to God) only four. Yet these titles surface at crucial points in Mark and play a role in the christology of the Gospel that surpasses their few occurrences (see Mark, Gospel of).
Scholars have generally recognized the importance of this title for Mark’s christology, but they have assessed its function differently. Many authorities have linked the title to the concept of divine man, described above, arguing that in this Gospel Jesus became Son of God at his baptism when the Spirit descended upon him, thus providing him with divine power according to which he performed miracles and exorcisms. There is, however, a division among scholars who hold this divine man theory: some maintain that the Evangelist himself espoused such a christology, while others contend that Mark presented this portrait of Jesus as divine man only to correct it by presenting Jesus above all as the suffering Son of man. Indeed, scholars such as Perrin have argued that because the title Son of God could be linked to the divine man concept which Mark himself rejects, Mark has subordinated this title to that of Son of man (see Son of Man), which unambiguously points to Jesus’ suffering and death.
The difficulties of employing the concept of divine man in NT christology were discussed above. In addition to these problems it should be observed that Mark gives unqualified approval to the title Son of God, and understands this title primarily in terms of Jesus’ obedient suffering and death. There is no evidence that Mark holds Son of God and Son of man in tension, nor that he gives prominence to the latter over the former. Mark indicates the importance of this title for his christology by placing it within the general heading to the Gospel (Mk 1:1). The specific meaning of Jesus’ divine sonship begins to come to expression in the account of the baptism (Mk 1:9–11), where the heavenly voice declares, “You are my beloved Son, with you I am well pleased.” This pericope indicates that God views Jesus primarily in terms of divine sonship and that Jesus’ role as Son of God involves especially obedience to his Father. As mentioned above, the heavenly declaration alludes to Isaiah 42:1 and thus links the divine sonship of Jesus to his role as the Suffering Servant of Yahweh.
God makes this announcement to Jesus alone; at this point in the narrative only God and Jesus are aware that Jesus is Son of God. In Mark 3:11 and 5:7 the demons address Jesus as “Son of (the Most High) God” (cf. Mk 1:24, 34), which seems to indicate they were privy to the divine communication at the baptism. Nevertheless, Jesus does not wish his divine sonship to be publicly announced and consequently commands the demons to be silent. The observation that Jesus also commands silence from those who were healed (Mk 1:43–44; 5:43; cf. 7:24) suggests the reason for this messianic secret. The Markan Jesus does not wish to be proclaimed as Son of God until it is clear his divine sonship involves not spectacular miracles but suffering and death. Hence, the secret of Jesus’ divine sonship is revealed only gradually. In Mark 9:7 the divine communication originally voiced at the baptism is repeated in the presence of the inner circle of the disciples, but they will not understand what it means until after the resurrection (Mk 9:9–13). In Mark 12:6, in the course of the parable of the tenants, Jesus speaks of the sending of a “son”; the religious authorities apparently understood Jesus to be referring to himself, since at the trial before the Sanhedrin they accuse him with the question “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” (Mk 15:39; cf. 12:12). Yet they remain ignorant of Jesus’ identity as Son of God, for they reject the very idea as a blasphemous claim (see Trial of Jesus).
It is only in Mark 15:39 that the secret of Jesus’ status as Son of God is fully revealed to humans. As the centurion faces the cross he declares, “Truly this man was the Son of God.” By bringing his Gospel to a climax with this christological confession at the cross, Mark indicates that Jesus is first and foremost Son of God, and that Jesus is Son of God as one who suffers and dies in obedience to God (cf. Mk 14:36). Yet this title relates not only to Jesus’ earthly mission, but also to his resurrection (Mk 12:10–11; cf. 9:9) and Second Coming (Mk 8:38; 13:32); for Mark emphasizes that it is precisely Jesus crucified as Son of God who is raised (Mk 16:6) and will return in glory (Mk 14:61–62).
3.2. Matthew. Although various scholars have seen Matthew’s focus in different titles, many today would argue that Son of God is the pre-eminent christological title in Matthew (see Matthew, Gospel of). The First Evangelist retains virtually all of Mark’s statements regarding the sonship of Jesus and the fatherhood of God, while adding ten references to Jesus as Son (of God) and forty references to God as Father. According to Matthew’s Gospel, Son of God is the only adequate christological confession, and one can come to this understanding of Jesus solely through divine revelation (Mt 16:13–17; cf. 27:51–54).
Although Matthew begins by connecting Jesus’ divine sonship to his virginal conception (Mt 1:18–25), he does not develop the notion of the divine nature of Jesus, but focuses instead on more functional aspects of Jesus’ sonship. In this Gospel Jesus is Son of God primarily in the sense that he perfectly obeys the will of his Father, especially the will of God that the Messiah must suffer and die.
The emphasis on obedience to the will of the Father appears already in the baptism narrative (Mt 3:13–17). As in Mark, the heavenly voice expresses divine approval. But Matthew goes beyond Mark in stressing the obedience of Jesus: Jesus submits to baptism “to fulfill all righteousness” (Mt 3:15; see Justice, Righteousness); and immediately after the baptism Jesus is tempted in his capacity as Son of God, and as Son of God he refuses to yield to Satan’s temptations (Mt 4:1–11; see Temptation of Jesus). Here Jesus is tempted to manifest his divine sonship through the performance of spectacular signs, but chooses instead to demonstrate his sonship through submission to the Father’s will.
This reference to temptation indicates that the Matthean Jesus struggles with the will of God regarding the nature of his messianic role. In Matthew 16:22–23 Peter assumes the role of Satan in that he, like Satan in the wilderness temptations, would turn Jesus aside from obedience to the Father” s will for the Messiah and would encourage Jesus to construe his sonship in ways other than obedient suffering and death. In Gethsemane Jesus voices his desire to avoid the “cup” of suffering, but as Son of God he yields to the will of his Father (Mt 26:39, 42; see Gethsemane). Indeed, Matthew presents the event of the crucifixion as the ultimate temptation for Jesus as well as the climactic expression of his sonship. Jesus is condemned to death on the charge that he claimed to be the Son of God (Mt 26:63). Twice the passers-by tempt Jesus to demonstrate his divine sonship by the sign of coming down from the cross (Mt 27:40, 43). But, as in his earlier temptations, Jesus refuses to yield to such appeals and dies as the righteous one who places his trust in God (Mt 27:43). In response to the obedience of Jesus his Son, God himself provides the signs (Mt 27:51–53), which prompt the centurion to declare, “Truly this was the Son of God” (Mt 27:54).
In addition to this focus on obedience to the will of God, there are three related dimensions to Jesus’ divine sonship in Matthew: (1) As Son of God, Jesus knows the Father and his will and has unique authority to interpret that will (Mt 5:17–48; 7:28–29; 11:25–27). (2) Because Jesus is Son of God his disciples also become sons of God who address God as “Father.” Their sonship, like his, is characterized above all by obedience to God’s will (Mt 12:50). (3) Because Jesus remained the obedient Son until the end, his Father has given him “all authority in heaven and on earth” (Mt 28:18); he now reigns as Son (Mt 28:19; 24:36) and will return in that capacity (Mt 10:32; 16:27; 25:31–46).
3.3. Luke. The divine sonship of Jesus receives relatively less attention in Luke than in the other Gospels. Luke’s allusions to Jesus as Son of God are for the most part taken over from tradition, and in fact Luke omits some references to Jesus’ divine sonship found in Mark (Mk 13:32; 15:39). Still, the concept plays a significant role in Luke’s Gospel. In fact, some scholars argue that it is the foremost christological title in this Gospel (e.g., Kingsbury).
Luke establishes the basic contours of Jesus’ divine sonship in three passages at the beginning of the Gospel. The annunciation to Mary highlights several dimensions of Jesus’ divine sonship (Lk 1:32–35). First, Jesus is Son of God as one who has been conceived by the Holy Spirit. Although Luke is moving toward understanding divine sonship in ontological terms (i.e., the divine nature of Jesus), he does little to develop his christology along these lines. Rather, Luke suggests that the conception of Jesus by the Spirit (see Holy Spirit) forms the basis of Jesus’ intimate personal relationship with God, a theme that stands at the center of the presentation of divine sonship throughout the Gospel (Lk 2:49; 10:21–22). Indeed, by having Jesus address God as “Father” on the cross, Luke indicates that even at that point in Jesus’ life his intimate fellowship with God continues unabated (Lk 23:34, 46). Second, as Son of God Jesus inherits the kingdom (see Kingdom of God) which God promised to the Son of David, thus pointing to transcendent rule and authority (cf. Lk 22:28–30). Third, as Son of God Jesus is holy, set apart for the special service of bringing salvation to the people of God (Lk 1:68–69; 2:11; 19:9–10).
The second key passage for understanding Jesus’ divine sonship is the genealogy (3:23–38). The genealogy begins by describing Jesus as the “sup posed” son of Joseph, suggesting that he was not actually the son of Joseph, but Son of God through divine conception (Lk 1:32–35). But this statement also points to the mystery of Jesus’ divine sonship: God (Lk 3:22; 9:35), the devil (Lk 4:3, 9) and demons (Lk 4:41; 8:28; see Demon, Devil, Satan) address Jesus as Son of God, but humans do not. They suppose him to be son of Joseph (Lk 4:22), that is, he is explicable in purely human terms. Consequently, they tend to remain blind to his transcendent power and authority. Moreover, Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus through Adam to God (Lk 3:38), thus indicating that as God’s Son Jesus has power to bring all humanity to its destiny as sons of God.
The temptation narrative (Lk 4:1–13) demonstrates that Jesus’ divine sonship involves perfect obedience to the will of the Father (Lk 2:49; 23:47) and the exercise of authority over Satan and the forces of evil (Lk 10:17–19; 11:17–23; 13:11–17).
3.4. John. The Fourth Gospel places the divine sonship of Jesus at the center of its christology (see John, Gospel of). The Gospel speaks of “Son (of God)” twenty-nine times and refers to God as “Father” over a hundred times. Moreover, John expressly states that the purpose of his Gospel is to confirm his readers in the belief that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (Jn 20:31). Although John incorporates most of the main elements in the Synoptic presentation of Son of God, his portrait of Jesus’ divine sonship is distinct from that found in the Synoptic Gospels.
One of the points of distinction between the Synoptic portrayal of Jesus as Son of God and that of the Fourth Gospel involves the pre-existence of the Son. While the Synoptics nowhere describe Jesus’ sonship in terms of pre-existence, John begins his Gospel by linking the “Word” (logos), operative at creation, to the Son (Jn 1:1–18); and at subsequent points in the Gospel Jesus Son of God speaks of his pre-incarnate existence (Jn 8:56–58; 17:5, 24). Yet John relates Jesus’ divine sonship primarily to his earthly functioning. This Gospel emphasizes that God sent his Son into the world (Jn 3:17; 10:36; 17:18), and that he has come from the Father (Jn 3:31; 6:33–42) and is about to return to the Father (Jn 13:1–3; 14:28; 16:28; 20:17). He thus reflects God’s person and glory (Jn 1:14; 14:6–11).
Jesus’ role as Son of God is characterized by the following elements. First, Jesus Son of God perfectly obeys the will of his Father (Jn 4:34; 5:30; 6:38; 7:28; 8:29); even his coming into the world reflects his obedience to the Father’s will (Jn 8:42). Second, as Son of God Jesus shares the work of the Father (Jn 5:19; 9:4; 10:37), including those tasks belonging uniquely to God: giving life to the dead (Jn 5:21, 24; 6:40) and performing judgment (Jn 5:22, 27–29; 8:16). Indeed, Jesus says nothing except what he has heard from the Father (Jn 3:32–34; 12:49–50; 15:15) and does nothing except what he has seen the Father do (Jn 5:20; 8:38). The works he does are actually the Father’s works performed through him (Jn 5:17; 9:4; 10:32). Third, as Son of God Jesus enjoys intimate fellowship with the Father. John describes this intimacy in spatial terms: “in the bosom of the Father” (Jn 1:18). Specifically, this relationship involves (1) “knowing” the Father and his will (Jn 4:22–23; 6:45–47; 8:55; 15:15); (2) sharing in all that the Father has (Jn 16:15); and (3) enjoying special access and influence with the Father (Jn 14:13–16). Fourth, the relationship between the Father and the Son is characterized by love: The Father loves the Son (Jn 3:35; 5:20; 10:17; 17:23) and the Son loves the Father (Jn 14:31). The Father expresses his love for the Son by giving to the Son all things (Jn 3:35; 13:3), especially those who come to the Son (Jn 6:37, 44, 65; 10:29; 17:2).
All of this implies that the divine sonship of Jesus is unique; he is Son of God in a sense not true of anyone else, even believers. John calls attention to this uniqueness by designating Jesus the “only” (monogeneµs) Son (Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16) and by constantly employing the absolute forms “the Father” and “the Son.” In John’s Gospel the disciples are never called “sons,” nor do they address God as “Father.” Only once is God described as the “Father” of disciples (Jn 20:17), and there the distinction between “my Father” and “your Father” is emphasized.
The proclamation that Jesus is Son of God forces the decision of faith. Persons are called to believe that Jesus is the Son whom God has sent into the world, and the decision they make regarding this call to belief will determine the quality of their present existence as well as their eternal destiny (Jn 3:17–21, 36; 5:24; 11:26). Believing in the Son is the “work” which God requires. This belief involves, specifically, obeying the Son (Jn 3:36), coming to the Son (Jn 14:6) and honoring the Son (Jn 5:23). Such belief will result in salvation (Jn 5:34) and life (Jn 6:40, 47; 20:31).
See also CHRIST; DIVINE MAN/THEIOS ANER; GOD; SON OF DAVID; SON OF MAN.
BIBLIOGRAPHY. J. Barr, “‘Abba’ Isn’t ‘Daddy,’” JTS 39 (1988) 28–47; R. Bauckham, “The Sonship of the Historical Jesus in Christology,” SJT 31 (1978) 245–60; O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963); J. D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980); J. Fitzmyer, “The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Study of the New Testament,” NTS 20 (1973–74) 382–407; F. Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology (London: Lutterworth, 1969); J. Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978); M. de Jonge, Christology in Context (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988); J. D. Kingsbury, Jesus Christ in Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981); idem, The Christology of Mark’s Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983); I. H. Marshall, The Origins of New Testament Christology (rev. ed.; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990); W. von Martitz, “uios uiothesia,” TDNT VIII.334–40; N. Perrin, A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974); R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John (New York: Crossroad, 1987); G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973); B. Witherington, The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990).
D. R. Bauer
SON OF MAN
The person whose name was Jesus (perhaps more closely defined as “Jesus of Nazareth” or as “Jesus the son of Joseph” [Jn 1:46; 6:42] to make clear which holder of the name was meant) is known by various forms of words in the Gospels and the NT generally. To some extent these forms of words are interchange able, but clearly some of them are used with specific functions and in specific contexts.
The phrase “the Son of man” (ho huios tou anthropou) is such a form of words. It is the phrase used more frequently than any other (except “Jesus” itself) to refer to Jesus in the Gospels. It occurs in all four Gospels and only once outside them (Acts 7:56; Heb 2:6 [quoting Ps 8:5] and Rev 1:13; 14:14 [alluding to Dan 7:13] have “a son of man”). Within the Gospels it is found only in sayings ascribed to Jesus; the only clear exception is John 12:34a,b where the people quote Jesus’ phrase back at him and ask to whom he is referring.
This evidence shows that “the Son of man” functions as a self-designation of some kind; it never became a way for other people to refer to Jesus, and it thus played no part in the confessional and doctrinal statements of the early church, unlike “Christ,” “Lord” and “Son of God.”
- Usage in the Gospels
- Jesus and the Son of Man
- Conclusion
1. Usage in the Gospels.
In what kind of situation is the phrase used? Why does Jesus sometimes say “I” and sometimes “the Son of man”? There is manifestly some flexibility in usage, as is seen by comparing:
- Luke 6:22 with Matthew 5:11
- Matthew 16:13 with Mark 8:27
- Luke 12:8 with Matthew 10:32
1.1. The Gospel of Mark. Broadly speaking, we can trace a pattern in the Gospel of Mark, where the phrase occurs fourteen times (Mk 2:10, 28; 8:31, 38; 9:9, 12, 31; 10:33, 45; 13:26; 14:21a, b, 41, 62).
1.1.1. The Present Authority of Jesus. Jesus speaks of his authority to forgive sins (Mk 2:10) and of his lordship of the Sabbath (Mk 2:28). In both cases the context makes it clear that it is the authority of Jesus which is at issue; he exercises it there and then; and it is an authority which would normally belong to God or to somebody authorized by him. It is possible that the phrase might signify “human” in a generic sense (i.e., any particular member of the species; see further below), but it is doubtful whether a Greek reader would take this sense from the phrase.
1.1.2. The Suffering and Resurrection of Jesus. Jesus speaks of the impending suffering, death and resurrection of the Son of man in a series of predictions which emphasize that this must happen in accordance with the Scriptures; he speaks of the mission of the Son of man as being to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many, and he speaks of himself as the Son of man in references to his impending betrayal and arrest (Mk 8:31; 9:9, 12, 31; 10:33, 45; 14:21a, b, 41; see Predictions of Jesus’ Passion and Resurrection). The threefold repetition of the prediction in Mark is particularly impressive. The sufferings of Jesus are clearly linked to his role as the Son of man; they are not mentioned explicitly without some reference to him as the Son of man.
1.1.3. The Future Coming of Jesus. There are three references to a future coming of the Son of man “in clouds with great power and glory” to gather his chosen people and reject (literally “be ashamed of”) those who were ashamed of Jesus (see Apocalyptic Teaching); this coming is associated with his being seated on the right hand of God (Mk 8:38; 13:26; 14:62). Mark 13:26 and 14:62 are clearly reminiscent of Daniel 7:13–14 where a figure “like a son of man” comes with the clouds of heaven, appears before God and is given everlasting sovereign power and dominion (see Kingdom of God). Allusions are also made to Psalm 11:1 and possibly to Zechariah 12:10. What is said in other passages in the OT about a future coming of God himself in judgment (Zech 14:5) is here attributed to the Son of man as his agent.
1.1.4. The Suffering, Vindicated and Authoritative Son of Man. With this background now coming into focus, it is possible to argue that for Mark the teaching which he attributes to Jesus identifies him as the figure prophesied by Daniel who will come as God’s agent to gather his people and act as judge. But already as a human figure Jesus acts with the authority which is inherent in this role. If we ask how the suffering and rejection of the Son of man fit into this picture, two (not necessarily exclusive) answers may be given. The first is that in Daniel 7 the Son of man is seen as the representative of “the saints of the Most High” who suffer defeat and oppression at the hands of their enemies (Dan 7:21, 25). The second is that the language used in Mark 9:12 and 10:45 and in the crucifixion narrative suggests that the Son of man undergoes the experiences of the “righteous sufferer” and the “rejected stone” in the Psalms (Ps 22; 69; 118:22) and the Servant of Yahweh (Is 52:13–53:12; see Servant of Yahweh) who suffers but is vindicated by God (see Death of Jesus). Thus, not surprisingly, motifs from several OT passages which were regarded as providing the pattern for the destiny of Jesus are coalesced to give a picture of him as the suffering, vindicated and authoritative Son of man.
It also emerges that in Mark, Jesus prefers this way of describing himself to other possibilities. It is notable that, when Jesus is identified as the “Christ” (Mk 8:29–30; 14:61–62; and implicitly in 13:21–22; 9:41 is an exception), he responds by speaking of what “the Son of man” will do. This curious fact suggests that Jesus almost wishes to replace the concept of Messiah (or Christ) by that of the Son of man. The reasons for this are not clear (see Mark, Gospel of).
1.2. The Gospel of Matthew. The picture in the other two Synoptic Gospels is not markedly dissimilar. The phrase is used thirty times by Matthew. Matthew takes over thirteen of the usages in Mark (Mt 9:6; 12:8; 16:27; 17:9, 12, 22; 20:18, 28, 24:30b; 26:24a, b, 45, 64) and adds it editorially four times (Mt 16:13; 16:28; 24:30a (?); 26:2). He shares it with Luke eight times (Mt 8:20 par. Lk 9:58; Mt 11:19 par. Lk 7:34; Mt 12:32 par. Lk 12:10); Mt 12:40 par. Lk 11:30; Mt 24:27, 37, 39, 44 par. Lk 17:24, 26, 30; 12:40), and it is found in passages peculiar to Matthew five times (Mt 10:23; 13:37, 41; 19:28; 25:31).
Matthew’s new uses of the phrase fall into the same general pattern as in Mark. In a series of sayings which he shares with Luke the Son of man is an object of derision for associating with sinners (Mt 11:19) and invites his followers to share his homeless situation (Mt 8:20). There is more detailed teaching on the future coming of the Son of man which will be unexpected and catastrophic for those who are not ready for him (Mt 24:27, 37, 39, 44). The saying, which compares the way in which people treat Jesus now with the way in which they will be treated at the judgment (Mk 8:38 par. Mt 16:27), appears a second time in an expanded form in Luke 12:8–9; but in the corresponding saying in Matthew (10:32–33) the verbal contrast between Jesus and the Son of man is dropped and Jesus speaks of himself in the first person throughout. (Similarly, Mt 5:11 speaks of persecution for the sake of “me,” whereas Lk 6:22 has “the Son of man.”) Another interesting fact is that a saying which in Mark 3:28 speaks of forgiveness being extended to the sons of men for their sins and blasphemies except against the Holy Spirit, appears in Luke 12:10 in the form that if a person speaks against the Son of man he will be forgiven but not if he speaks against the Spirit (see Holy Spirit). Matthew 12:31–32 combines these two sayings (by substituting “men” for “the sons of men” in the Markan saying). The way in which the Evangelists understood this saying is debated, but it seems probable that they saw a contrast between speaking against Jesus on earth, when people might be forgiven for not recognizing who he really was, and opposition to the Holy Spirit by people (possibly disciples) when there should be no doubt that to do so was to take sides against God.
In the teaching peculiar to Matthew the Son of man is especially understood as the coming savior (see Salvation) and judge (Mt 13:41; 19:28). In Matthew 10:23 Jesus tells his disciples that they will not finish the cities of
Israel until the Son of man comes. Matthew may have seen this as a reference to the fall of Jerusalem (see Destruction of Jerusalem) under stood as the coming of the Son of man in judgment.
The general tendency in Matthew is thus to emphasize the identity of Jesus as the coming Son of man and as a figure who is rejected on earth. 1.3. The Gospel of Luke. Luke uses the phrase twenty-five times. He has equivalents to nine of the texts in Mark (Lk 5:24; 6:5; 9:22, 26, 44; 18:31; 21:27; 22:22, 69). He has the ten texts from Q which he shares with Matthew (the eight texts listed above with Lk 6:22 and 12:8). This leaves six occurrences peculiar to Luke (Lk 17:22; 18:8; 19:10; 21:36; 22:48; 24:7). In these fresh sayings we hear of the Son of man’s mission to save the lost (Lk 19:10), his betrayal by Judas (Lk 22:48; cf. Mk 14:21b) and his sufferings and resurrection (Lk 24:7—a report of what Jesus had said earlier by the two angels at the tomb), and of his future coming (Lk 17:22; 18:8; 21:36). It is evident that the picture in Luke is very similar to that in the other Gospels. A notable omission by Luke is the ransom saying in Mark 10:45 (see Ransom Saying). There is a similar saying about “service” in Luke 22:27, but it does not use “the Son of man” nor the idea of ransom. Again there is no essential difference from the general picture given in Mark.
1.4. The Gospel of John. When we turn to the Gospel of John we get a picture with similarities and differences. The phrase is used thirteen times. We can readily find references that correspond to those of the passion and resurrection of Jesus in the other Gospels. But in John the reference is to the “lifting up” of the Son of man (hypsooµ). The verb is ambiguous and can refer to “being lifted up” on a cross or to “being exalted” (Jn 3:14; 8:28; 12:34a, b). Jesus can thus refer to the final events in his life as the glorification (see Glory) of the Son of man (Jn 12:23; 13:31). Jesus also speaks of the authority to judge which has been committed to him as the Son of man (Jn 5:27), and of the power (see Authority and Power) of the Son of man to grant life (Jn 6:27). These functions are summed up in his appeal to the blind man who had been healed (see Healing) to believe in the Son of man (Jn 9:35). And the life-giving function also appears in the reference to eating the flesh of the Son of man (Jn 6:53), a phrase which doubtless reflects the language of the Last Supper (see Last Supper) but stresses the need for a spiritual partaking. Finally, there is the concept of the Son of man coming down from heaven (Jn 3:13) and ascending to where he formerly was (Jn 8:28); linked to this is the difficult saying about the angels ascending and descending on the Son of man (Jn 1:51).
2. Jesus and the Son of Man.
It is clear that the expression is used in much the same way in each of the Synoptic Gospels but that in John it is used in a wider manner. The crucial question is to what extent this usage corresponds with that of Jesus himself. We have already seen that the Evangelists can add the expression to their sources or subtract it from them. But much more far-reaching questions have been raised by modern scholarship concerning the origin of the phrase.
2.1. Son of Man and Messiah? Some scholars dispute whether Jesus expressed verbally any consciousness of being the Messiah or a messianic type of figure. It would follow that he could not have used “the Son of man” as a messianic self-designation. Or, it is claimed, Messiah and Son of man represent two different types of figure and, if Jesus identified himself as the former, he could not have identified himself also with the latter (see Christ).
Both of these claims are very doubtful. The evidence that Jesus acted in messianic ways is convincing: why otherwise did his followers recognize him as the Messiah? This makes the view that he could not have referred to himself in a messianic fashion most improbable. Further, while it is true that the traditional Jewish Messiah is an earthly figure, whereas the Son of man has transcendent features, the role assigned to the latter is messianic in that he is given dominion and authority as the representative of God’s people. This indicates, incidentally, that the claim that the Son of man is not associated with the kingdom of God in Judaism is without foundation. 2.2. Present and/or Future Son of Man? It has been observed that in those sayings where Jesus talks about the future activity of the Son of man, he is not necessarily talking about himself, and that in one or two sayings (Mk 8:38 par. Lk 12:8–9; Mk 14:62) there appears to be a distinction drawn between Jesus, presently active on earth, and the Son of man, active in the future at the last judgment. On the assumption that the early church would not have created such a distinction, it is argued that such sayings have strong claims to authenticity. It is then further argued that originally Jesus envisaged the Son of man as a figure distinct from himself. It then follows that sayings which identify Jesus as the Son of man must either be compositions by the early church or have had the phrase added to them at a later stage. If this argument is valid, it fits in with the view that Jesus did not refer to himself in messianic terms.
Despite the wide popularity of this view among scholars influenced by R. Bultmann, it cannot be upheld. Essentially, the claim is being made that the future Son of man sayings have been reinterpreted by the early church to refer to Jesus. But there are various arguments against this view.
The crucial sayings (Mk 8:38 par. Lk 12:8–9; Mk 14:62) can be interpreted much more naturally as sayings in which Jesus draws a contrast between himself as a figure whose authority is not recognized and the Son of man as a figure whose authority cannot be gainsaid. The apparently odd switch from the first person to the third person is to be explained by the incorporation of an allusion to Daniel 7:13–14.
The theory requires that the authenticity of a very large number of occurrences of the expression as self-designations of Jesus be surrendered for no better reason than that they stand in conflict with a couple of texts whose interpretation in terms of another coming figure is highly uncertain. The fact that in so many other texts “Son of man” cannot be other than a self-designation must seriously damage the claim that the “future” texts originally spoke of a figure other than Jesus.
2.3. Son of Man As a Self-Designation of Jesus. Two lines of argument raise the question whether Jesus could have used “the Son of man” as a title to refer to himself.
2.3.1. The Interpretation of Daniel 7. In the vision of Daniel there appear four great beasts like various animals and a figure “like a son of man.” This last phrase should undoubtedly be translated “like a man” (so NEB). The Aramaic phrase is used to designate a particular member of a species, and (as in Hebrew) “man” and “son of man” can be used interchangeably to refer to an individual. The force of like is that the figure is not a man but is like a man, just as the beasts are “like” different animals. In the interpretation of Daniel’s vision the beasts represent four kingdoms and (implicitly) the manlike figure stands for “the saints of the Most High,” the (faithful) people of Israel. It can therefore be argued that the manlike figure is a symbol for a collective entity. On the other hand, it is equally plausible that the manlike figure stands for the ruler of God’s people, just as the beasts appear to represent both kingdoms and their rulers. There is no doubt that in subsequent interpretation the manlike figure was regarded as a messianic individual. This is true of 1 Enoch 37–71 and also of 4 Ezra 13 (where the actual phrase is not used, but the dependence on Dan 7 is clear). Nevertheless, it can be argued that in no sense is “a (son of) man” a title in Daniel 7.
2.3.2. Son of Man As an Aramaic Idiom of Self-Reference. There is a further idiom involving the use of the phrase “son of man.” It occurs in a number of Aramaic texts with the sense of “an individual man” but with some kind of reference to the speaker (see Languages of Jesus). The precise way in which this happens is debated.
(1) It has been argued that the phrase is used to make statements that are true of people in general and therefore of the speaker in particular (M. Casey). It is thus a kind of self-designation, but what is said is not true exclusively of the speaker. (For example, in the Palestinian Targum Cain says: “Behold thou hast cast me forth this day on the face of the ground, and from before you, Lord, it is not possible for the son of man [bar n?š] to hide.”)
(2) It has also been claimed that a speaker could use this expression to make statements that were true of himself in particular (G. Vermes). Against this interpretation it is argued that in every case cited a general or generic reference is possible. The idiom in fact seems to have arisen out of the use of the phrase to mean “a man” and hence “any man” to refer to the speaker, inasmuch as he is a man.
(3) However, there are cases where the reference is manifestly not to “everybody” but to people in a particular class, and therefore it is more accurate to say that it refers to such people, a group to which the speaker belongs (B. Lindars). (Thus: “When E. Hiyya ben Adda died … R. Levi received his valuables. This was because his teacher used to say: ‘The disciple of bar n?šâ is as dear to him as his son.’” Here the expression plainly refers to the group of teachers.) It is suggested that the idiom was used as a form of self-reference in cases where the speaker wished to show modesty or to speak of matters (such as his own death) which were distasteful—in any case in sayings where he wished to avoid speaking directly in the first person.
2.4. Evaluating the Options. The current opinion seems to favor view (3) as the appropriate explanation of the idiom. Those who hold this view then argue that there are a number of sayings in the Gospels which can be understood as examples of this usage. Jesus says something which is true of himself inasmuch as it is true of a group of people to whom he belongs.
2.4.1. Analyzing the statements as idiomatic self-references, Casey, Lindars and Vermes (the three major scholars who have done work in this area) have each determined which Son of man sayings are authentic. Their results may be compared in the following table.
Vermes has the largest number of authentic sayings because he includes sayings that are true only of the speaker (Jesus). His selection, as with that of Casey and Lindars, is reached by rejecting the sayings which reflect the influence of Daniel 7. Casey and Lindars agree substantially in their more limited selection.
There are instances where the Casey/Lindars approach to the sayings is plausible. Mark 2:10 could mean that there is a class of people with authority to forgive, including Jesus. (But the people comment with surprise that no human can forgive sins; only God can do so.) In Mark 2:28 the Sabbath is made for humanity, and therefore people in general, including Jesus, have authority over it. In Matthew 11:18 Casey finds a group of people, including Jesus, who eat and drink with tax collectors (see Taxes) and sinners and who are attacked by the Pharisees. (But the text seems to be comparing two individuals.) In Matthew 8:20 Jesus says that there is a group of people, including his disciples and himself, who have no homes, and therefore a prospective disciple must expect the same situation. This is the most cogent example, but it must be observed that Jesus could be saying that, if he himself as a messianic figure is rejected, so too will his disciples be (cf. the identical argument in Mt 10:25b; Jn 15:18, 20b). The other examples lack all cogency.
2.4.2. The effect of the approach in question is to deny that Jesus thought of himself in terms of the Son of man of Daniel 7. According to Lindars, “it carried no christological meaning as such” (Lindars, 170). Jesus remains a figure possessed of some authority, totally committed to his vocation, a prophet who believes that to speak against him is to speak against God, and by their response to him people will stand or fall at the last judgment. However, the fact that the Lindars/Casey theory simply fails to work, in that it can credibly explain such a tiny handful of sayings, must raise serious doubts about it. There is more to be said for Vermes’s understanding of the sayings, according to which Jesus used the idiom to speak of himself with modesty or to avoid a direct reference to his own death.
2.5. According to C. Colpe some of the sayings are generic. That is, Mark 2:10 comments on the fact that Jesus, as a human, can forgive; in Matthew 11:18–19 John is contrasted with “a human,” namely Jesus. And in Matthew 8:20 Jesus says that even animals have dens but a human such as he, Jesus, has nowhere to lay his head (Colpe, 430–33). What appears to be essentially the same view is upheld by R. Bauckham who thinks that the phrase is used indefinitely rather than generically to mean “somebody, a person,” and that it could then be used as an oblique self-reference.
We are left with a problem in that the Aramaic usage remains unclear. But it is arguable that the sayings in the Gospels are evidence that the underlying Aramaic phrase could have been used on occasion to refer to the speaker only.
This leaves us with a number of sayings where the allusion to Daniel 7 is clear. J. Dunn has suggested that Jesus began by using the Aramaic idiom to refer to himself and then recognized in the use of the same phrase in Daniel 7 an allusion to the vindication which he expected from God. This led to the use of Daniel 7 on a broader scale in his sayings, and to the development of the term as a means of referring to himself as the authoritative messianic figure. Thus, in some sayings Jesus will simply have used a self-designation, but in others he was making a conscious allusion to Daniel 7. No doubt early Christians would have understood most if not all of his sayings as references to himself as the figure of Daniel 7. The point is that not all uses of the term would necessarily have conveyed the same sense on the lips of Jesus.
To adopt this position is not necessarily to claim that all occurrences of the phrase or all the texts in which it occurs are authentic sayings of Jesus as they stand. We have to reckon with the activity of the Evangelists in adding the phrase (and also in replacing it by a personal pronoun or other equivalent; see the examples cited above). It is also possible that similar activity took place even before the writing of the Gospels. One particular problem is raised by Mark 3:28–29 and its parallels (Mt 12:31–33; Lk 12:10). It seems certain that we have two variant forms of the same basic saying. The hypothetical original said that there was forgiveness available for sins and blasphemies for/against “the son of man.” Mark’s tradition took this to mean forgiveness for humankind (collective use), but the Q tradition took it to refer to blasphemies against the man (Jesus). On this view, the Markan tradition understood the Aramaic phrase in a way that was probably not the meaning as originally intended, but, although the reference to blasphemy against Jesus dropped out, it was implicitly included in that the saying promised forgiveness of all blasphemies except those against the Spirit. In its Aramaic form, the saying probably did not refer to Jesus as “the [Danielic] Son of man,” and therefore the problem detected by modern readers as to what is the difference between speaking against the Son of man and against the Holy Spirit disappears. It is one thing to speak against Jesus under the humble appearance of a man, but it is another thing to speak against the manifest work of the Spirit (in Jesus or in anybody else).
3. Conclusion.
It emerges that two things happen in the Son of man texts.
3.1. Son of Man As Divine and Human. On the one hand, there is the phrase itself and the associations it would have for hearers and readers. In the Gospels as we have them, it points the reader to the figure in Daniel 7 who is a person with sovereign authority, a messianic figure, identified in 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra with the Messiah, God’s Son and Elect One. Such a figure would be seen as in some sense divine in that he comes from heaven, and the description of him in Daniel 7 could be taken as an apotheosis, or “deification.” He would be associated with the people of God, and in that sense the Son of man can be regarded as a corporate figure. (But the view that “Son of man” is a symbol for a corporate group which then becomes individualized in Jesus is to be rejected.) His associates are bound up with his destiny. But it must be emphasized that it is doubtful whether all of these associations would be present for the original hearers of Jesus and would have been intended by him every time he used the phrase. It is because of this dual origin of the phrase that it can be used to refer both to the humanity of Jesus and also to his divine origin. Jesus can use the term to refer to himself as a human over against God (Mk 2:10, 28), but also to indicate his divine origin. In the latter case “Son of man” is a veiled way of expressing his relationship to God (Kim).
3.2. The Son of Man’s Mission. On the other hand, this self-designation becomes the vehicle for teaching about the activity and fate of Jesus. He appears in the Synoptic Gospels as a figure of authority on earth who is not accepted by many people. He has a divinely ordained destiny, expressed in the Scriptures, which involves betrayal, rejection, suffering, death and resurrection. He has a future role in which he “comes” and brings salvation and judgment. In the Gospel of John there is greater stress laid on the fact that he comes from God and returns to be with him.
3.3. Son of Man As Jesus’ Self-Designation. When Jesus refers to his own role, he adopts this term rather than “Messiah” or “Son of God.” After the resurrection it never entered into Christian usage as a way of referring to Jesus or as a confessional term (not even in Jn 9:35–36 is it actually used by a believer; Acts 7:56 is a unique usage, probably a deliberate echo of Jesus’ own words). It was recognized as a self-designation, and it was replaced by other terms which expressed its significance with greater clarity. It was in any case a term which would not have been meaningful for non-Jews. Since modern readers on the whole do not pick up the original nuances of the term (whether as a self-designation or as an allusion to Dan 7), the example of the early church in not using it remains valid for today. There is indeed a grave danger of using “Son of man” as a means of referring to the humanity of Jesus, as opposed to his divinity (expressed by “Son of God”), whereas in fact the Danielic background suggests a figure closely associated with the Ancient of Days.
We may conclude that in Aramaic “Son of man” was not a title but a self-designation used in certain specific contexts. Jesus used it in this way. However, in Daniel 7 the phrase was used nontechnically to refer to somebody “like a man,” and hence the phrase came to be a means of reference to the person so described. Jesus took over this sense of the phrase, and thus identified his role with that of the figure in Daniel 7. Consequently, the phrase came to be used as a title of dignity for Jesus, although the memory of the fact that the idiom was used as a self-designation prevented it from being taken over by his followers.
See also CHRIST; KINGDOM OF GOD; LORD; SERVANT OF YAHWEH; SON OF DAVID; SON OF GOD.
BIBLIOGRAPHY. R. J. Bauckham, “The Son of Man: ‘A Man in my Position’ or ‘Someone,’” JSNT 2 (1985) 23–33 (with a reply by B. Lindars, ibid. 35–41); C. C. Caragounis, The Son of Man (WUNT 38; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1986); M. Casey, Son of Man (London: SPCK, 1979); idem, “General, Generic and Indefinite: The Use of the Term ‘Son of Man’ in Aramaic Sources and in the Teaching of Jesus,” JSNT 29 (1987) 21–56; C. Colpe, “o uios tou anthropou,” TDNT VIII.400–77; J. D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980); S. Kim, The Son of Man As the Son of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983); B. Lindars, Jesus Son of Man (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983); H. E. Tödt, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965); G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (New York: Harper, 1973).
I. H. Marshall
{ 1 trackback }
{ 0 comments… add one now }