THE SON OF MAN IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

William J. Moulder

A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD

at the
University of St Andrews

1974

Full metadata for this item is available in

St Andrews Research Repository
at:
http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10023/11042

This item is protected by original copyright

 THE SON OF MAN IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

AND THE GOSPEL TRADITIONS

William J. Moulder

A Thesis Presented tor the Degree ot PhoDo

The Universit7 of st. Andrews
 ,

BEST COpy
..
, .AVAILABLE

, Variable print quality

 BEST COpy
AVAILABLE

TEXT IN ORIGINAL
IS CLOSE TO THE
EDGE OF THE
PAGE
 CONTENTS

PREFACE • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • vii

ABBREVIATIONS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ix

INTRODUCTION ....
~, . .
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1

CHAPTER I. THE OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND TO THE

SON OF MAN • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4
Psalms • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4
Psalm 8
Psalm 80
Daniel 7 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
6
The Parables of I Enoch •••••••••••••• 16
IV Ezra 1 3 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 30
Comparison and Summary • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 32
A Brief History of the Tradition of the Old Testament
Throne Theophany Prophetic_Commission ••••••• 33
I Kings 22
Isaiah 6
Ezekiel 1-3
Ezekiel 8-1 0
Daniel 7
I Enoch 14
I Enoch 46
I Enoch 60
I Enoch 71
Summary and Conclusion • • • • • • • • ••••••• 50
NOTES ••••••••••••••••••••••• 58
CHAPTER II.
·..
THE SON OF MAN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
OUTSIDE THE GOSPELS •••••••• " 77
Methodological Considerations •• • • • • • • • • • 77
The Son of }1an in the New Testament
Outside the Gospels • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 79
Acts 7:56
Hebrews 2:6
Revelation 1:13; 14:14
Paul's Second Man/Adam Christology
Summary
The Creativity of Jesus and the Early Commu'pity • • 88
NOTES. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
0
90

iv
 v

CHAPTER III. TEE SON OF MAN IN TEE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS • • 94

The Future' S.on of Man Sayings •••••••••••• 94
The Double Tradition
Mt. 24:27, 37, 44 = Lk. 17:24, 26; 12:40
Lk. 17:22, 30
Mt. 12:30
Mt. 12:40 = Lk. 11 :29
Mark
14:62
8:38
13:26
9:9
Special Traditions
Mt. 10:23
Mt. 13:41
Mto 16:27, 28; 19:28; 24:30, 39; 24:31; 25:31
Lk. 17:22, 30; 12:8, 9 (=Mto 10:32); 18:8; 21 :36
The Present Son of Man Sayings •••••••••••• 111
The Double Tradition
Mt. 8:20 = Lk. 9:58
Mt. 11 :19 = Lk. 7:34
Mt. 12:32 = Lk. 12:10
(Mt. 5:11 'a) Lk. 6:22
Mark
2:10
2:28
S.pecial Traditions
Mt. 13:37
Mt. 16:13
Lk. 19:10
The Suffering Son of Man Sayings •••• 149 0 ••••••

Mark
9 :12
10:45
8 : 31; 9 :31; 10: 3 3f •
14 : 21 (bis); 14 :41
Special Traditions
Mt. 26:2
Lko 22:48
Lk. 24:7
NOTES • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • 167
• • •

CHAPTER IV. TEE JOHANNlNE SON OF MAN SAYINGS • o • • • 203

Ascendinf and Descending • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • 203

John :51
3:13
6:62
Exalted and Glorified = Crucified • • • • • • • • • 225
John 3:
8:28
12:23
12: 34 (bis)
13:31
 vi

Judge ••••••••••••••••••••••• 265

John 5:27
Savior • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 274
John 6:27, 53
9:35
Daniel 7, the Son of Man and the Son (of God) • • • 289
NOTES • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • 0 • • • • • 303

CONCLUSION • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 336

EXCURSUS: A DISCUSSION OF GUNrER REIM'S STUDIEN ZUM

ALTTE..~TAMENTLICHEN HINTERGRUND DEf~ JOHANNES.-
EVANGELIUMS •••••••••••••••• 340

A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 345

 PREFACE

The present interest in New Testament christology

stems from seminary studies when working through various
aspects of biblical theology (and christology in particular)
under the tutelage of Dr. Richard N. Longeneckero When it
.,1
became necessary to select a topic for a,major research pro-
ject, it was natural that it should be in the area of New
Testamertt..christology. No christological title is more
important than the Son of Man (however formidable the pros-
pect of working on so well-worn a subject)o The continuing
appearance of new works on the Son of Man problem and the
confidence that persistent research will yield answers to
the perplexities of the subject were encouragements to pursue
a study of this intriguing christological titleo
The literature on the Son of Man is immense, though
works on the Johannine material are relatively few. One of
the most recent contributions relevant to the Johannine section
of the present study is GtinterReim's Studien zum Alttestament-
lichen Hintergrund des Johannesevangeliums. Unfortunately this
monograph became available too late to incorporate into the
main body of the thesis. A discussion of this important work
therefore appears in an excursus.
Many helpful suggestions which have now taken on more
sUbstantial form in the pages which follow came from pest-
graduate seminars in St. Marys College, orie in New Testament'

vii
 viii

christology and the other in I Enoch and other Jewish apoca-

lyptic textso To the members of those seminars I acknowledge
my indebtedness. I should like to express my gratitude also
to Principal Matthew Black for his invaluable help at every
stage of the research.
 ABBREVIATIONS

Journals

B.J.R.L. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library

C.B.Q. Catholic Biblical Quarterly

-
E.T.
J .B. L.
The Expository Times
Journal of Biblical Literature
J.T.S. The Journal of Theological Studies
N.T.S. New Testament Studies
R.B •., Revue Bibliaue
Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie religieuses
R.S.R. Recherches de Science Religieuse
S.J.T. Scottish Journal of Theology
U.S.Q.R. Union Seminary Quarterly Review

-
V.T.
Z.A.W.
Vetus Testamentum
Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
Z.N.W. Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
Z.T. K. Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche

other Abbreviations

B.Z.A.W. Beiheft zur Z.A.W.

I.C.C. International Critical Commentaries
LXX The Septuagint
M.T. Masoretic Text
New English Bible
T.D.N.T. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
ted. by G. KIttel and d. FrIedrich, '932ff.;
English trans. by G.W. Bromiley, 1964ff.; 8 vols.)

ix
 INTRODUCTION

There is no other subject in the study of the New

Testament which is more central to the understanding of the
life and ministry 'of Jesus of,·Nazareth and which is at the
same time subject to more controversy than the "Son of Man".
Perhaps more of the work of biblical scholars has been expended
on this important topic than on any other one subject, and yet
there appears to be as much disagreement as ever on the essen-
tial meaning of and the history of the title.
It is th11 factor which provides the 'raison dtetre for
yet another study of this well-worn topic. Though there is
at present no consensus among scholars on even certain basic
features of this enigmatic title, it is of course hoped that
continued research will ultimately yield answers to the pro-
blems Which at present vex all who study the matter.
Undertaking the present study may be further justified
by the difference of approach it follows. The value of taking
an approach limited to a certain line of investigation has
been demonstrated by Morna Hooker, who limited her study of
the Son of Man to Mark's Gospel only. Another such approach
is that of Frederick Borsch who, following the History of
Religions school, exp10rem the full g.mut of Near Eastern
religious documents in an attempt to shed light on the N.T.
Son or Man. It has ,been the approach of this study to examine
material closer to hand to the NoT. writers, the early church,
1
 2

and Jesus himself--the Old Test.ament (and related Jewish

apocryphal works) •. Though the influence of other factors
may have helped in the shaping of the Son of Man tradition,
the use of the O.T. and its profound influence would seem
certain.
In ',theexamination of the Synoptic Son of Man logia
it will not be necessary to study every saying in detail--
this has been done often enough '--but each major group of
sayings will be scrutinized. Mark 10:45, for example, being
perhaps the most important of the Markan passion predictions
with a clear O.T. background, will be examined '.in detail,
While other Markan passion predictions (such as 8:31; 9:31)
will not be treated in such depth.
A special empms:ls v.:111: be " given to the Johannine Son
of Man sayings in this study.' The reason for this emphasis
is the tresh interest in the Fourth Gospel, as witnessed by
the recent appearance of several major commentaries on John,
coupled with a new appreciation ot the tradition this Gospel
embodies. * At the same time, while seemingly every possible
..
avenue ot exploration has been pursued in attempting to under-
stand the Synoptic' Son of Man, the Johannine Son of Man has
been largely neglected. Only one monograph on ';thesubject,
Siegtrid Schulz's Untersuchungen zur Menschensohn-Christologie
1m JOhannesevangelium (1957), has appeared.' Even Schulz's
wO~k (now out ot print) is a relatively short monograph and
many of the logia are gi¥en only a paragraph ot discussion.
Thankfully A. J. B. Higgins does include John in his study,
 3

(Jesus and the Son of Man, 1964) and one can be gratetul.
tor Stephen Smalley-s article ('!The Johannine Son ot Man
Sayings~, N.T.S. 15 (1968-69), 278-301). But there is
still plenty ot room tor a more expanded study ot the
puzzling Son of Man in the Fourth Gospel, not only tor under-
standing the Son ot Man as presented by John, but also tor
thereby gaining possible insight into the Synoptic Son ot
Man C.~.sUb,jectlaudably inULblted by Rudolph Schnackenburg,
Johannesevangelium, I, Exkurs V) and the history ot tradition
ot:this most important christological titleo

oS'-
'This new appreciation ot John's Gospel is seen in C. H.
Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth GOSre1 (Cambridge:
University Press, 1963) and the importance 0 Doddls contri-
bution is pointed out by A. J. B. Higgins ("The Words of Jesus
According to St. John", B.J.R.L. 49 (1966-67), 363-86), who
says (p. 371) Dodd has ' • • • strengthened the case for the
view that the fourth evangelist utilized an independent tradi-
tion, which may preserve some historical elements neglected by
the synoptists 0 "
 CHAPTER I

THE OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND TO THE SON OF MAN

An1' stud1' ot the Son ot Man should include a consider-

ation ot the OoT. Son ot Man material. Theretore the main
elements ot the conception as it evolves in several places
in the O.T. will be noted: tirst in the Psalms, then in the
seventh chapter ot Daniel, and tinall1' in the extra-canonical
books ot I Enoch and IV Ezra.

Psalms

There are two important occurrences ot Son ot Man in

the Psalms: in Psa. 8:4and in Psa. 80:17.

Psalm 8

Linguistically "aon ot man" is a poetic synonym tor

man in this psalm (ct. Psa. 144:3). In this sense E. Go
Briggs is right' that the psalmist means son ot man(ki~)--
Ioe., "not an1' particular man, but the human kind, man as a
race." Still one can see the possibilities tor later theo-
logical developments it, as Briggs sa1's (p. 64), the state-
ment that man is a little lower than the Elohim is a reter-
ence back to Gen. 1 and 2, where man is made in the image ot
Elohim. This man/son ot man is the head ot the race ot men
made in the image ot God. Significantl1' this psalm is used
as a testimonium to Christ in Heb. 2:6-9.2

4
 5
Psalm 80

In Psalm 80 the use of "son of Han" is more particular.

There are two possible interpretations of Son of Man in this
Psalm: . (1) the people of God, Israel, or (2) the messianic
king. If the term (perhaps taken from Psalm §3) has been
narrowed rram a poetic designation ror the human race (synon-
ymous with~) to a term for a particular group ot men,
then it is the peoPle of God (Israel) who stand at God's
right hand, in the place of honor and favor (Psa. 110:1 ).4
Most recent commentators suggest, however, that son or man
is a reference to the king,S on whosebehalt supplication is
made, together with a request (v. 16) for victory over the
enemy. The "l.r~; W"0 ,in parallelism with son ot hlan,
n J~r~, which is thougl:itby Gunkel to be an allusion to
Benjamin, is more likely, as Kraus says, a poetic reference
to the king with an allusion to the ptsure of the king sitting
at the right hand of Yahweh (Psa. 110:1 ).6 The lJJ.¢:' Ff. has
~ v
its semantic equivalent in the Ugaritic bns, vocalized !U!-.!l!!-!.2"
and composed ot b~, "son", and nos, "man", which in same texts
is used or a courtier, and probably means a person of importance
with a genealosWi (cf. Psa. 146 :3, where "son of man" is parallel
to "princes").7 Since QJt$ 1-#- has this connotation ot one of
rank and stands parallel to the poetic reterence to the king
in .;rr'p'; W"~, it is likely the kirig is meant.
But if the primary rererenee of "son of manti in Psa.
80:17 is to the king, this does not exclude a secondary ref-
erence to Israel, since "the personiticationot Israel as
8
Jehovah's son underlies the language or the verse." This
 6
language, f'irst applied to Israel, is now applied to Israel's
king. Furthermore, the f'ather-son relationship between God
and the king developed and was possibly influenced by very
old Oriental mythology, as Kraus notes9,·though whether it
is correct to speak of'the "deity· of' the king is another
matter.
Daniel 7

The signif'icance of' Daniel's "son of'man" as back-

ground to the NoTo Son of' Man is obvious f'rom the f'act that
the most explicit ref'erence to an O.T. passage in any of' the
Son of' Man logia is to Dan. 7:13 in Mk. 14:62.10 Furthermore,
the dependence ot the N.T. Son of'Man conception on Jewish
. 11
apocalyptic literature, especiall)" Dan. 7, is \1nquestionable.
Both the theological and the historical dif'ticulties of' the
Son of' Man problem in the N.T. 12 are to be seen to some extent
in Daniells "~on ot man" as well. An examination ot Daniel's
Vision, its interpretation, and related issues is theref'ore
essential bef'ore attempting to answer same of' the questions
posed by the Son of' Man in the Gospels.
Perhaps a preliminary word should be said about Dano
8:17, the only place in Daniel beside 7:13 where "son of'mann
occurs (excepting 10:16 where the plural is used). Here, in
a vision, Gabriel addresses Daniel as "son of'man", a usage
so much reminiscent ot that in Ezekiel, where the prophet is
addressed 87 times as "son of'man", that J. Bowman takes it
Daniel has borrowed f'rom Ezekiel.13 Bowman carries this view
f'urther in his comparison ot Dan. 7 to Ezek. 1 .14 <'; The a1gni-
f'i.cance.of'Ezekiel's "son of man" is given even more weight by
 7

Go S. Duncan, who believed Jesus was primarily dependent on

Ezekielo15 Dunc~n discarded the apocalyptic associations ot
son ot man in tavor ot an understanding that made the term
merely a prophet's title, as in Ezekiel.16 Ao J. B. Higgins
rejects this view because Jesus had no prominent association
with the Spirit as Ezekiel had.17 T. W •.Manson rejects a
similar attempt by W. A. Curtis18 to tind the derivation ot·
the Synoptic Son ot Man ,in Ezekiel and the Servant ot the Lord
ot Isaiah. As Manson notes, among Jesus' sparse reterences to
Ezekiel, only one has to do with the son ot man, and then it
is God himself who is at work, not the son ot man prophet.19
This leaves the main O.T. source tor the Son ot Man in Dan. 7.
There are several notable teatures ot the vision and
its interpretation in Dan. 7. The tour beasts rise~ out ot
the sea, 7:1-8, the Ancient ot Days sits in glory and judges
"
the tour.b~asts, 7:9-12, and tinally "one like a son ot man"
comes on the clouds to be given an eternal dominion by the
Ancient ot Days, 7:13, 14. The interpretation ot the vision
tollows in 7:15-28. The tour beasts symbolize tour pagan
kings. The "one like a son ot man" represents the "saints
ot the Most High"--i. e., righteous Israel. Though a direct
equation, that. the son or man is the saints ot the Most High,
is not explicit:l.ygiven in the interpretation, it is clear
that this is what is meant. In the vision dominion was given
to the son ot man; twice in the interpretation, 7:18, 27,
it is said that dominion will be given to the s.!nt. ot the
Most High. In v. 22 the Ancient ot Days comes and judgment
is given to the saints ot the Most High, then in v. 25 the
",,'.
 8

tourth beast is said to wear out the saints ot the Most High.
The difterenee between the son ot man as apparently
an individual in the vision and the ssi nts ot the Most High
as collective in the interpretation is one of several such
ditterenees between the vision and the interpretat~on.20
More ot these ditterenees are noted by Morna Hooker:21 in
the vision the son ot man appears after the victory ot the
Ancient ot Days over the beasts, but in the interpretation
the saints ot the Most High"have been there all along. The
son ot man is absent tram the tirst part of the vision, whereas
the beasts are absent tr,am the last part ot the interpretation,
a ditterence which Hooker takes to provide a contrast between
the temporal dominion ot the pagan. kingdomS and the eternal
dominion ot the saints.22 Finally there is the ditterenee
between the dignity ot the son ot man and the suttering ot
the saints.23
Equally signiticant is the tact that certain aspects
ot the vision are not interpreted at all: ~he sea tram which
the beasts arise, and the clouds on which the son ot man comes.
This leads same scholars to believe that there was a current
mythological conception ot a son ot man well known to Daniel
and his readers which made it unnecessary to interpret these
teatureso But C. Colpe concludes trom the ditterenees between
the vision and the interpretation and the absence ot an inter-
pretation ot same items ot the Tision that Daniel has borrOwed
this visionary material tram toreign sources with which he was
not greatly tami1iar and is thus unable to interpret all the
detai1s.~ The question ot the origin ot Daniel's son ot man
 9
is a ditficult one to answer. Perhaps the answer1s"t·o be
tound somewhere midway between F. H. Borsch, who sees Daniel
as partaking wholly 01' current mythological concepts, and A.
Feu1llet, who rules out any toreign influence on Daniel's
son 01' man. Borsch surveys a great mass of Near Eastern
mythological material and concludes that Daniel is dependent
on a current mythological kingship rite because P • • • there
are too many relics tram such enthronement sagas which cannot
be titted to other baCkgrounds."25 A. Feuillet, on the other
hand, takes the originot Daniells son 01' man to be strictly
Jewish without any toreign influence.26 He tinds sufficient
background to Daniel's son 01' man in Ezekiel 1· (where God is
manitested in human torm) and the O.T. theophanies as well as
the hypostatizing 01' Wisdom in the wisdom li~.ratureo27 But
is it not possible that Daniel drew fram both backgrounds?
While Daniel's son 01' man may seem to share .._. aspects 01'
the Man mythology, there are as well many teatures which appear
to be distinctly Jewish conceptions.28
With respect to the interpretation 01' Daniel 7, the
symbolical nature 01' the term Pson of man", as 01' the tour
symbolic beasts, is made clear by the use 01' the preposition
f' "like" or "resembling" a son 01' man.29 According to T. W.
Manson, the son 01' man is not a divine, semi-divine, or angelic
figure coming down. tram heaven to bring deliverance but is a
.human figure going up to receive it.30 The son of man, as a
symbol for Israel, is a figure corresponding to the earlier
Remnant or Servant of the Lord 1'igures (and comparable to the
Body of Christ, the New Israel, the Bride 01' Christ in the
I

N.T.). From this is developed Manson's well known corporate

 10
interpretation. The tigure represents a ~ody
ot persons
united by a cammon loyalty and obligation to God."31 H. E.
Todt tollows a quite difterent line. Noting as Manson did,
the emphasis on the human character 01' the son 01' man in
contrast to the tour beasts, he nonetheless sees implied in
the yj}~ .,~? more dissimilarity to man than similarity. This
dissimilarity is due to the influenoe 01' the Urmensch myth
with its halt-divine, halt-human tigure.32 It would seem,
however, that the author's intention was to set the man (son
01' man) over against the beasts in order to emphasize ,the
humanity (or humaneness) 01' the people ot God (saints 01' the
Most High) as opposed to the bestiality 01' the pagan peoples.33
A corporate interpretation 01' Daniel's son 01' man has
tound widespread acceptance. T. W. Manson's corporate thesis
is similar to the corporate personality (or corporate solid-
ari~y) thesis 01' Ho Wheeler Robinson and otherso Noting a
certain oscillation between the group and its representative
otten tound in some Israel-mess!ah O.T. passages, Manson tinds
,
the same phenomenon in Dan. 7 and in the Gospels Son 01' Man
. sayings. Though Dano 7 uses the son 01' man as a corporate
•
symbol (as is clear trom the equation 01' the son ot man with
the saints 01' the Most High), Manson notes that it is commonly
held that the term soon became a personal title tor the Messiah,
especially a pre-existent, heavenly Messiah.34 Finally the
term appears in the Gospels in a number 01' sayings which are
susceptible to either a corporate or an individual interpre"'"·,,.·i
tation.35 Scholars have reacted variously to Manson's hypo-
thesis. H. H. Rowley, tinding an element 01' truth in Mansonls
 11

thesis, believes the collective interpretation is best suited

to the logia reterring to a tuture coming ot the Son ot Man,
inasmuch as Son ot Man is a symbol tor the coming Kingdom ot
God.36 M. Black agrees that the co~porate meaning ot the Son
ot Man, carried trom D.n. 7 into the Gospels logia, is in some
cases probable, but he cautions tAat it should.not be taken
as the only meaning.37 O. Cullmann· sees in Dan. 7:13 and in
Jesus' usage that thecor.porate meaning is present, but he
tinds the individual interpretation to be more pnominento38
C. C. McCown otters three objections to the corporate view
in the Gospelso39 (1) No Gospel passage suggests that Jesus
and his tollowers were thought ·ot as a corporate entity, called
Son ot Mano But this objection surely begs the questiono
(2) The Son ot Man in I Enoch (clearly an individual) was
probably known to Jesus and the Gospels writers. The uncer-
tainty as to the. dating ot the Similitudes opens th~s consider-
ation to question, however.40 (3) The popularity ot angelology .
and hypostatizing would tend to individualization ot the son
ot man rather than to the abstract corporate view. (The associ-
ation' with the tradition ot the throne-theophanies would.
also lead more to the individualization ot the son ot man.)
At any rate a moditication ot Mansonls view is probably the
best interpretation: the tact that son ot man is used in a
corporate senae in Dan. 7 means41 that one should not be 'sur-
prised it to some extent this collective understanding ot the
term makes its way into the Gospels Son ot Man.
In spite ot the strictly symbolic nature ot ·son ot
mann in Dan. 7, whatever its potential tor later theological
 12

developments, there has been considerable discusssion ot the

question whether "son of man~ is a messianic title. Borsch,
for example, finds that "son of man" is not a title, but it
is messianic. In view of the uses ,of son of man in Dan. 7,
8, and 10, he finds no consistency which would indicate a
technical vocabulary. Since both God, an angel (Gabriel),
and Daniel are called ~anlike" or addressed as man, the term
•
must not be taken simply to refer to humanity.42 The Danielic
tigure is messianic, in that he doe::vthe,l!1orkof messiah, but
he is not messianic, in that he is not the earthly ~ero expected
by the Jews.43 Geza Vermes, after a thorough study of.k'UlJ'l
in Jewish Aramaic, concludes "••• not one among the hundreds
of examples scrutinized by me suggests that ~ nash(a) was
ever employed as a messianic designation.~ While this does
not mean that there is philological proof that the "son of
man" was unsuitable to be used as a title,45 it does reinforce
-'

the fact that, whatever it may have been in other Jewish apoca-
lyptic literature, "son of man" was in Dan. 7 a symbol and no
more a title than the other symbols (such as lion, 7:4, bear,
7:5, or the ':berriblebeast, 7:7).
~he question of a pre-existent Son of Man also comes
into the discussion of Dan. 7. Morna Hooker, for example,
attempts to find a prior existence of the son of man in Dan. 7.
Reference has already been made to her notice of the difference
between the appearance of the son of man after the victory of
the Ancient of Days in the vision and the presence all along
of the saints of the Most High in the interpretation. Her
argument for pre-existeDce rests on understanding the underM
 13

lying myth and its application to Israel's histo~ in terms

of restoration, not ot re-creation. The restoration is the
giving back to Israel (and her representative, the Son ot Man)
the dominion which was originally hers. The saints ot the
Most High are seen in the interpretation ot Dan. 7 to have
been in existence prior to this restoration. It follows then
tor
.
Hooker that the Son ot Man who represents the saints must
have been in existence as well.46 Todt, on the other hand,
says emphatically that there is no reterence in Dan. 7 to a
primeval existence of the Son ot Man,47;andthis view would
appear to be more in line with the strictly symbolical nature
of the son ot man.
This leads to the question whether the son ot man in
Daniel may be associated withsuttering. It so, Dan. 7 may
provide (at least partially) the background tor the associ-
ation ot the Son ot Man with suttering in the Gospels .In
the same way that Hooker tinds pre-existence ot the Son ot
Man in Dan. 7 by his connection with the saints who were
present betore, she also tinds the Son ot Man associated with
suttering by his connection with the saints ot the Most High
.who doubtless endure sutfering (7:25).48 A. J. B. Higgins
objects that this view tails to give due emphasis to the
apocalyptic motit and exaggerates the suttering-vindication
theme.49 Interestingly, Borsch notes that the suttering motit,
which was essential to the Man ~h which he traced in its
varied developments, shows relatively tew traces in Danielo50
He notes the possibility that in the suttering ot the saints
their leader will also sutter but points out that this is not
 14'

the emphasis ot Dan. 7.51 It ma7 be concluded that, although

the son of man is not said to sutter in Dan. 7, the tact that
the son of man is the symbol of the saints who do sutter means
that the Son of Man is thereb7 associated with sutfering.
Traditional17 it has been believed that Jesus combined
the son of man in Dan. 7 with the Surtering Servant ot Isaiah
to establish his own teaching concerning htmselt.SoL Recent
scholar17 opinion has diftered wide17 on this subject, however.
On the one 'hand, Higgi~s teels the combination of Servant with
the Son ot Man was not original with Jesus or the Gospels
wPiters but existed in Judaism prior to Jesus.53 Borsch tinds
..
the seeds ot this idea in the enthronement m7th, which cons is-
tent17 involved the king in suttering, and in the associati·on
of the king with the Servant concept, esp.ctally at Jerusalemo54
On the ot)heiihand, this vriew is r. jected outright by both

Rowley, who cannot tind a suttering son of man in Dan. 7,55

..
and by So Mowinckel, who finds no sutfering Son ot Man anywhere
in pre-Christian Judaism056 R. H. Fuller rejects the idea of
~
a fusion of the Son of Man and the Servant, even in the teaching
ot Jesus. He maintains that Jesus distinguished two periods
in the Son ot Man sayings: the first was suftering, the second
was glorious (the coming kingdam).57 But in view ot the fact
_ ...........
that the son of man in Daniel is in same measure associated
with sutfering (the emphasis, ot course, being on his glory),
one may conclude that Dan. 7 provides a background for both a
glorious and a suffering Son of Mano58
Danie17 :18:also relevant to the discussions ot the
relation of the Son ot Man to the Kingdam of God in the Gospels.
 15

Philip Vielhauer maintains that the two ideas never come

together.$9 Because he does not tind the two together in
Q, Vielhauer believes they must be two difterent traditionso
This being the case, it Jesus spoke 01' the Kingdom 01' God,
he could not have spoken 01' the Son 01' Man. The Son 01'
.Man must be a christological title 01' the church, taken trom
Jewish apocalyptic literature where it signitied, a pre-existent
heavenly being, but not the Messiah. The. church took this
designation and applied it to Jesus at his second coming.
This view, held also by Hans Conzelmann,60 is challenged by
Eo Schweizer.61 Schweizer holds that. in some 01' the Son 01'
Man sayings there is a genuine selt-designation tram Jesuso
Most important 01' these is Mk. 14:62, which preserves the
basic meaning 01' Dan, 7:13, the exaltation 01' the Son 01' Man.
The one other genuine Son 01' Man exaltation saying is·Lk. 12:8,
where the exalted role 01' the Son of Man is that 01' witness,
not 01' judge.
I
These sayings are based on the Jewish e.s.chato-
logical beliet 01' Erniedriguns und Erhohung of the righteous
man, who may sutter and even die but will survive. death to
see his persecutors given their just punishment.62 Whatever
may be said about Schweizer's treatment 01' the Son 01' Man
sayings, the point he makes, that even one who sutters may
be exalted to see his tormentors requited, is well supported.
Thus even a suttering Son 01' Man could be associated with
glory. Daniel 7 seems to support thi1!lview, it the Son of
Man figure is associated with the suttering 01' the saints
(7:25), he is also associated with their exaltation, when they
receive the kingdom (7:18, 22, 27)0 Does the fact, that here
 16

the Son ot Man and an idea similar to the Kingdom ot God in

the Gospels are closely associated, provide turther indication
ot the importance ot the influence of Dan. 7 on the N. T. Son
ot 'Man christology?

The Parables of I Enoch

In considering the importance of I Enoch as back-

ground material to the N. T. Son of Man concept there are
two problems which must be dealt with at the outset: the
question of the date of I Enoch 37-~ and the question of
the origin ot this section must both be discussed.:
Since Ro H. Charles placed the date ot the Similitudes
in: the tirst century B.C.',63 the Similitudes have been com-
monly accepted as pre-Christian.64 This date has been chal-
lenged most by British sCholars65 and largely tor two reasons:
alleged Christian elements and the lack ot manuscript evidence
tor chapters 37-~ in the Greek and Aramaic tragments ot I
/

Enoch. Regarding the possible Christian interpolations, two

divergent viewpoints are presented by Nils Messel and Erik
Sjoberg respectively. Messel confines the genuine Son ot Man
passages (apparently all others are suspect ot Christian tam-
pering) to I Enoch 46:2-4 and 48:2, which (with Danielremploy
Son of Man as a symbol tor the people of Israel (the elect
community ot the righteous).66 Sjoberg, on the other hand,
has serious doubts that the Similitudes have an Christian
interpolations: what reasons, he asks, could there have been
why Christians should insert the Son of Man?67 This conclusion
is further substantiated by the lack of any distinctly Christian
 17

ditferentia (especially the equation of the Son of Man with

Jesus) in the Similitudes.68 Nevertheless there is the poss.i-
bility that the Parables have been influenced by the Gospelso69
But the question of relationship or dependence cannot be ans-
wered apart tr.-'omother considerations.
The second objection to a pre-Christian date tor the
Parables rests on the absence ot any tragments of chapters 37-~ .
from the extensive Greek fragments and from the Aramaic trag ..
ments found at Qumran.70 The negative evidence of ~umran is
minimized by Hooker, who feels it is not decisive/l1 and by
A. J. B. Higgins, w.ho says the lack ot evidence may be an
accident.72 The e'vidence is ignored by many other scholal"s,73
even though the weight of'the evidence is rather considerable:
the Aramaic tragments represent eleven manuscripts·, and include
most chapters except 37-71. 74 This noticeable absence has led
some scholars to feel the Par·flP.les
cannot be held as first
rate evidence tor a pre-Christian Son ot Man concept.75 C. H.
Dodd notes that the lack of a Greek text (in addition to the
absence of the Aramaic) results in great uncertainty in the
Similitudes. Furthermore, he observes, the Ethiopicversion,
where scholars are able to test it against the Greek, does not
inspire confidence. His conclusion is that it cannot be cer-
tain that the Parables are pre-Christ.ian.76
In addition to the lack of manuscript evidence tor
an early date for the Similitudes, a to~ceful argument by J. C.
Hindley, on the basis ot the historical allusions in I Enoch,
has established the possibility (it not probability) ot a date
tor the parables in the early second century AoD.77 Much of
Hindley1s argument rests on the reterence (in chapter 56) to
 18

the Parthians and the Medes, which he takes as a,retlection ot

an encounter ot Parthia with Rome and then seeks the most
plausible date tor this encounter. The position ot Sjoberg
that this was most likely40-38 B.C., when a Parthian invasion
raised Jewish hopes ot deliverance trom Rame, is rejected because
it requires the unlikely assumption that I Enoch 56:5, 6 reters
to historical events while 56:7 is prophetic, and be.ause I
Enoch rep~esents the Parthian invasion aa hostile, whereas
Josephus shows it was welcomed by the Jews. The only other
time when Parthia gained sufticient strength to have given
rise to Enoch's',statemant is A.D. 115-117, when Parthia invaded
~tr±a.possibly as tar as Antioch, during Trajan1s campaign.
other historical allusions corroborate and make this a likely
setting for I Enoch's reterence in chapter 56.
The most detailed and up to date attempt to date the
o 8
Parables ot Enochcames trom J. T. Mllik.7 Atter noting the
dependence ot parts ot the ~arables on Greek copies ot J~wish
Enochic writings, especially the Book ot the Watchers (:I Enoch

1-36), he lists the evidence in three categories: (1) negative 0

tacts, which 'indicate the Parables did not exist in the pre-
Christian era, (2) literary genre, which ties the Parables to
the Sibylline literature ot the second, third, and tourth,'
0

centuries A. D., and (3) alleged Christian elements.

The negative tacts are that the Parables are entirely
unrepresented at ~umran, though most ot the rest of I Enoch is.
The Parables are not quoted in the tirst to fourth centuries
when allusions to Enochic literature abound. There are as
well the absence of early versions (except the Ethiopic) and
 19

the silence in the Coptic literature (no Greek or Coptic

sample ot the Parables has been tound in the Egyptian
Byzantine papyri)o 79
The literary genre ot the P arabies puts them most
closely akin, in Milik's estimation, to the Sybilline Oracles
which tlourished in the second to tourth centuria.s. They are
akin stylistically, in that both are metrical poetry, with
clear diviaionsinto sections' ("Parables", ,~ooks"), and
they share a contusion in sequence ot ideas, in long and tre-
quent repetitions, lacunae, and a jumble ot historical and
eschatological plans. The Parables and the Sibylline liter-
ature have similar content as well: descriptions ot past
and tuture catastrophies, ot punishment ot sinners and happi-
ness ot the just, ot God's interventions, ot the Messiah, ot
angels and demons--in other words, a cammon interest in astro-
logical and magical SUbjects.80
Two notable parallels between the Similitudes and the
Sibylline books 'are given by Miliko The tirst has to do with
the association ot the Jewish Sibyl with the personages ot
Noah and Enoch. The Sibyl and Enoch are related in two ways
in particularo First, the Sibyl takes the name Sabbe or
Sambethe ",.thus "Sabbat", which associated her with Enoch,
the inventor ot the sacred calendar, which includes Sabbaths.
Secondly, Sibyl is made the sister ot Enoch by the Egyptian
Christianso Several inscriptions, mainly coptic, speak together
, 81
ot Enoch, the (just) scribe, and Sibyl the prophetess.
The second important parallel between the Parables
and the Sibyllines contains allusions to historical wars.
 20

This is how Mi1ik puts the case:

11 me para1t assez evident que ce texte apoca1yptique
slinspire d1evenements qui etaient contemporains d.
11auteur, las annees terrib1es d1anarchie et d1invasions
de milieu du IIIe siec1e et en particu1ier 1es campagnes
victorieuses de Sapor I qui le porterent jusqu1en Syrie
et cu1minerent avec 11emprisonnement de 11empereur Va1$rien
en septembre 260 0 • • •

Clest doncvers1'an 270 ou peu apres que je p1acerais la

composition du livre des Parabo1es. L'auteur l'a conyu
sur le mod~le des Oracles Siby11ins qui circulaient a
cette epoque, lus avidement par 1es chretiens et cites
assidUment par 1es ecrivains ecc1esiastiques: Hermas,
Athenagore, Theophi1e dlAntioche, Clement d'A1exandrie;
bient8t Lactance, Eusebe, ~.82
The third category· of evidence Mi1ik produces is the
Christian elements in the 'parables. He notes, for example,
that inl Enoch 61 :6 winged angels are' spoken of, something
completely unknown (apart from the cherubim and seraphim)
until the winged·ange1s of Christianity in the fourth cent~y
(cf. Tertul1ian, Apo1og. XXII, 8).83
How is one to evaluate Mi1ik1s evidence? The absence
of the Parables from Qumran as well as the silence on them
in early Christian writings are facts which in themselves
and by their very nature must be inconclusive. At best the
negative evidence provides an argument from silence, and this
silence, though curious and not to be taken lightly, may be
capable of explanationo
As to the literary genre and the parailals to the
Sibylline literature, again these must be carefully evaluated.
I Enoch 61 :5 and 51 :1-3, speaking as they do of the last resur-
rection, may well have their roots in Dan. 12:2, of which they
are an elaboration. (The use of Dano 7 in the Parables will
 21

be noted later.} The allusions to the warring Parthians and

Medes are more telling, though here again, Sjoberg's explanation
may be the best.
The supposed Christian~;elements must not be over-
estimated. The references to Easter, to Noah as a type of
Christ, and to the wooden arch of the angels as a cross are
not entirely clear and thus form dubious evidence. As has
been pointed out before, the supposed Christian interpolations
are merely that--interpolations--and have not to do with the
contents of the Parables.
• • • it is important to notice that all the
alleged Christian elements are in the Ethiopic trans-
lation and not in the contents translated into Ethiopic.
It is very doubtful if, by themselves, formal Christian
elements of this kind are sufficient to prove Christian
tampering with the contents. What is required is that
some one should point to features unambiguously Christian
in the latter; and it is just this which scholars have
found so extraordinarily difficult to do, for, as Charles
and many others have impressively pointed out, there is
not a single detail in the whole work which is remotely
reminiscent ot the history of the Christian Son ot Man, 84
a circumstance unparalleled in the Christian apocalypseso
Still Milikts argument retains much of its force and
one is left to consider whether some old traditions are not
embodied in what may well be later formulated writings.
Another important question regarding the Similitudes
concerns the origin of their Son ot Man concept.85 Answers
given to the problem range from a primary dependence on mytho-
logy to a dependence on Daniel. Todt, for example, believes
the Parables combine an eschatological saviour with a primal
man coneept (including the ideas of pre-existence and his
ultimate purpose)o86 But while there may be a general resem-
blance to the Man concept in Eastern mythology, such mythological
 22

details as are found in Manicheanlsm, Mandeanism, Naassenism,

and so many Gnostic groups,81 and even in some Rabbinic liter"
ature,88 are absent. There are very good reasons for believing
the origin of I Enoch's Son of Manis in Dan. 1.89 In parti-
cular I Enoch 46-48 appears to be an expanded version of Dan.
1:9-14.90 The Similitudes' Son of Man passages appear to be
an apocalyptic poetic midrash on Dan. 7 (comparable to the
"

more prosaic Jubilees). As a matter of fact, the opening

verses of the Similitudes use.the Veery language and imagery
of Daniel's Son of Man and the rest of the Similitudes more
or less amplify and adapt this motif. The cUlmination is in
the last chapter,.which identifies the figure with an histori-
cal person--Enoch.91 The Similitudes probably draw on many
sources,92 and thus have both mythological resemblances and
biblical (especially Danielic) concepts, but the figure of
the Son of Man in the Similitudes is one which has been so
much modified from mythology by biblical ideas as to be a .
"new creation", a noble, righteous, wise figure without the
excesses of Eastern mythology.93
An important matter to be conside'red is the nature
of the term "Son of Man" as it appears in the Parables: is
it a title or not? It is perhaps significant that in chapter
48 the name of the figure is changed from the Elect One to
the Son of Man after he is enthroned, apparently showing the
significance of the designation Son of Man as a title for one
who is enthroned.94 But there are linguistic reasons for
thinking that Son of Man may not be Q,title. It is a well
known fact that three Ethiopic expresiions are used to translate
 23

the Greeko95 The exact meaning of these Ethiopic expressions

is not clear, nor is it certain that they were all meant to
be "Son of Man" They may be different names for the Elect
0

One or may be a personification of the elect ones.96 The

translator himself may not have recognized the Greek term(s)
as a title, if it waso In view of this uncertainty, many
scholars doubj that a title is represented here, either in
the translation or in the original.97
Related to the matwer,J!)t
the various Ethiopic trans-
lations of the Son of Man is the problematic use of the demon-
strative with it. Sjoberg finds that the demonstrative hints
at the reference ot the Son of Man in later occurrences (except
-n :14) back to the basic description in chapter 46. This
reterence back is valid, he feels, even though the demonstra-
tive was probably absent in the original text (except 46:4
and 48:2 where it was probably in the original since in 48:2
the demonstrative follows the noun, contrary to Ethiop~c
usage).98 Some scholars take the demonstrative to indicate
that the Son of Man concept was known to the readers of I
Enoch, though it may not necessarily have been commonly
known; 99 On the other hand, T. W. Manson.argues that the
reverse is trueo He believes that the demonstrative may be
the authorf.s way of indicating that Son of Man is to be taken
in a special sense (rather than with the ususal meaning of
~an"). The demonstrative is apparently not a translation
of the Greek article since it is bot used for
(

0
.) \
EKl'f ~T05
, ,

which has its meaning clearly selt-contained and does not

need the indication of a special meaning as would Son of Man.
Manson concludes that Son of Man was an ordinary term (for
~an") with a special meaning in certain contexts (indicated
by the demonstrative).100 But there is not general agree-
ment with Manson at this point. In view of this uncertainty,
perhaps it is asking too much to find in the enigmatic use of
the demonstrative an·indication whether the concept Son of
Man was known or not.
How then is the "Son of Man" in the Parables of I
Enoch to be understood? Todt is inclined to doubt the vitality
of the figure: the vision is primarily occupied with a judg-
ment scene and the blessed salvation to follow and the Son of
Man figure is but an afterthought interjected to embody these
images.101 But Sjoberg feels the Son of Man is more than just
a symbol: it represented a heavenly reality (yet not a messianic
one, but a judge). The existence of this reality was unques-
tionable to those in the apocalyptic milieu from which the
Similitudes come.102 In response to Sjoberg's denial of the
messianic significance of the figure, it has been pointed out
that Enoch refers to the Son of Manis -anointing (48:10; 52:2;
Sjoberg,himself had noticed these) as possible indications of
messianic significance (though this is not certain since kings,
priests, and others as well as the messiah were anointed).'03
An even stronger indication·of the messianic import is found
in the parallels of the Similitudes to messianic passages' of
prophetiC scripture, both to the Davidic messiah and to the
Servant of the Lord.104
Perhaps the most significant feat'ure of the Enochic
Son of Man comes at 71 :14 where the exalted Son of Man figure
 25
is identified with the earthly Enoch. Charles was so startled
by this difficulty that he emended the text, changing the second
person to the third person. Mowinckel gets round the problem
by saying Enoch was exalted to be with the Son of Man, not to
£!. him.105 But scholars now commonly accept this verse as an
intended identification of the 'Son of Man with Enoch: Enoch
is exalted to become the one wham he procla1med.106 As Sjoberg
puts it, Enoch was elevated and identified with the pre-existent
Son of Man in heaven, though the problems this identification
presents are said to be without resolution.107 Manson, however,
attempts to solve the difficulties by discarding the jdea of
Son of Man as a pre-existent heavenly being and by applyir~
a corporate-solidarity interpretation (see below).108
It is worth noting, as Hooker, does, that the identi-
fication of Enoch with .the S.on of Man was no problem for the
author s he made no metaphysical speculations but was con-
cerned with the disc"l-osure of a secret truth, namely the
identity of God's Elect One who will preside at the last
judgment. This Son of Man and righteous one par excellence
is Enoch.109 This identification may be regarded as further
indication of the thonoughly Jewish midrashic character of
I Enoch (especially chapter 71 ), since Son of Man is identi-
110
fied with an historical figure-'--and that Enoch, not Jesus.
The identification also &llows the important :,advance I Enoch
111
makes on the Dan. 7 Son of Man symbol by individualizing it.
If the Son of Man is identified with an individual~~ is
there roam for a collective interpretation in I Enoch, as was
the original use of the term in Dan. 71 T. W. Manson finds
 26

that in $ Enoch an oscillation between the individual and

the group fulfills the historical realization of the main
elements of:the Son of Man conception. 112 'rhus Enoch incar-
nates the divine idea (but not a divine being) and is "hailed
Son of Man after he lived a righteous life on eartho He is
the first actualization in history of the Son of Man; others
follow him in the corporate Son of Man group.113 Sjoberg
and Todt both acknowledge the close rehtion of the Son of
Man in ];Enoch to a group, but they question a corPorate
interpretation or a personification.114 V. TaYlor115 and
more recent~y"F. H. Borsch116 have ruled out a collective
understanding of the Son of Man. But other scholars are
more open to the possibility. Nils Messel, 11 7 noted with
approval by M. Black,118 is particularly favorable to the
Son of Man being a collective symbol. Hooker observes that
the close connection between the individual and the group
is quite similar to that in Daniells Son of Man.119 This
"might be expected if I Enoch depends on Daniel. But given
the possibility that the Enochic Son of Man is corporate,
haw can this be reconciled with the identification of this
figure with Enoch? Manson speaks of an oscillation between
the individual and the group.120 There seems to be no reason
that this idealized Son of Man figure, though closely associ-
ated with an ideal society, could not be identified with Enoch
" 121
and still be the symbol of the Elect community.
The question whether I Enoch presents the Son of Man
as pre-existent has already bean touched upon. Todt finds
pre-existence of the Son of Man in I Enoch but with a con-
 27
cealroent before his manifestationo It was out of his pre-
existence, where he was already among the righteous community,
preserved under God's wings in the presence of Hi~ might and
concealed by the Most High, that the Son of Man appears at
last to reveal the hidden world.122 Sj~berg likewise finds
a real pre-existence of the Son of Man, but since he is inactive
before his revelation, he may be said to be concealed.123
Since he considered the identification of the Son of Man with
Enoch to be an exaltation rather than an incarnation, Sjob~rg
considered the difficulty pre-existence presented to be insol-
uble. On the other side of the question, T. W. Manson does
not find any real pre-existence at all in I Enoch.124 He
concedes there is a premundane election of the Enoch Son of
Man, but he denies that this means a premundane existence
(except in God's mind)o125 Along the same lines, Black notes
that chapter 48 comes the nearest to describing pre-existence,
but it is only the name of the Son of Man which was known
1"ltomthe beginning and this alone does not establish his pre-
existence.126 Hooker concurs in this opinion, finding in I
Enoch not pre-existence (as she found in Dan. 7) but some-
thing more like predestination (though she does not use this
term) .1~~
Is the motif of suffering associated with the Son
of Man in I E~oCh (which may be perhaps the beginning of a
synthesis of the Son of Man with the Servant of the Lord
figure)? Whether Jo' Jeremias originally held this view
or not, he has made it clear in the revised edition of
his The Servant of Obd, (1,65),
.,... ..:
that he finds no suffering
 28

associated with the Son ot Man in I Enoch. 128 The combination

with the Son ot Man ot traits describing the Servantot God is
.restricted, he believes, 129 to ·the traits exalting the Servant Is
glory: "The suggestion that this combination in Eth. En.
embraces the statements about the servantts humiliation as
well • • • ,is untenable ••,130 It is mainly against Jeremias I.

now abandoned position (it he ever held it) that SjOberg131

and Todt132 and others argue, though as Jeremias noted, a
tew others suggest the association with sufteringo133 In
addi~ion Borsch seems to tind a hint ot suftering but teels
that I Enoch, rather than depending on the Isaianic Suftering
Servant, depends tor his suftering motit on a SOlrce cammon
to I Enoch and Isaiah.134 Though perhaps there is no direct
suftering ot the Elect One or Son ot Man in I.~Enoch, tn his
identitication with the remnant which sufters he is, Hooker
teels, associated with suftering. The lack ot a strong
suftering motit is due to an individualizing of Daniells 401'1-'

p.orate Son ot Man.135 Higgins feels the reverse is true:

I Enoch is closer to an original apocalyptic concept and
Daniel is an adaptation ot it. He doubts the evidence Hooker
produces tor a Jewish exegesis ot Dan. 7 as a suffering Son
ot Man is sufticient to prove the point.136 Nevertheless
the parallels in the Similitudes to messianic prophetiC
scriptures are noteworthy.137 'One ot the most signiticant
,
ot these passages is noted by Black: I Enoch 48:4 has parallels
to Isa. 42:6; 50:4; and 61 :1,2. He concludes that it this
passage in I Enoch 48 is genuine then both Isaiah and Daniel
have been the inspiration of the Similitudes.138 Perhaps
 29

this is the beginning of.the synthesis 'of these ideas later

developed more fully in the GoSpels.139
Finally one may note that the function of the Son
of Man in I Enoch is that of vindicator of the righteous.
Sjoberg notes that the Son of Man is subordinate to God,
with the function of an eschatological judge.140 Todt gives
a detailed account of the marked emphasis on the Son of ManIs
function as judge, together with his enthronement.141 The
negative jUdgment (on the wicked) in ~ Enoch is particularly
detailed (62:2, 3, .!!S..), especiilly judgment on those who
persecute the righteous and deny the Lord's name (41:2; 45:1fo),
with the mention of the positive election (51 :2) and salva-
tion and deliverance. (48:4) of the righteous prominent as
well.142 In contrast to Daniel's Son of Man, who assumes
rule only after judgment takes place, the enigmatic Son of
Man of I Enoch is more elearly defined as an eschatological
judge of the worldo143
To set the Enoch Son of Man in context it is worth
noting that there is evidence that several concepts of apoca-
lyptic figures were developing in Palestine in the first
century B.C. and the first and second centuries A.D. I Enoch
presents but one of these figures (identified with the Patriarch
Enoch),and examples of other such figures are the Melchizedek
of Qumran and the Moses of the Samaritans. The Qumran figure
appears not to have developed to the full extent that the later
apocalyptic figures did, but the Enochic Son of Man and ;the
Samaritan Moses seem to have had a rich history. In fact it
may be possible to trace in Enoch (and in the Samaritan Moses)
 30
the influence or Christian tradition.144

IV Ezra 13

In this late145 Jewish apocry.phal work one meets

in chapter 13 the "likeness or a man" (13:3, reminiscent
or Dan. 7:13). This figure rises from the sea and flies
with the clouds of heaven, destroying everything in his
path by the voice of his mouth (13:1 -13). This series of
destructive acts ceases rather abruptly with the appearance
of a peaceable multitude (13:12) and the vision ends. The
establishment or a new reign, which would be expected, is
strangely missing. "The whole purport of the vision appears

. .
to be the defeat of the hostile powers_and
of the captives which this defeat guarantees.
..
the deliverance
~~

The dependence of this vision in IV Ezra on Dan. 7

is clearly demonstrable.147 Apart fram the reappearance in
IV Ezra 1 3 of the· manlike figure of Dan. 7:1 3, there are the
winds on the waters (Dan. 7:2; IV Ezra 13:2), the four winds
of heaven (Dan. 7:2; IV Ezra 13:5), the carved mountain (Dan.
7:34f.; IV Ezra 13:6,7), the fires (Dano 7:9f.; IV Ezra 13:10),
and the destruction of enemies by fire (Dano 7 :11; IV EZl"'a
13:11 ).148 The author admits his dependence on Daniel in
IV Ezra 12:11 f. But his use of Daniel 's.imagery is far
removed rrom what Daniel had made or it.149 It is not
possible (nor relevant) to go into a comparison of the
details of the imagery,150 but a consideration of the Son
of Man and the multitude associated with him in IV Ezra 13
may prove helpful.
 It has been shown that the concern of the author of
IV Ezra to vindicate the people of God runs right through th5
book.151 The true heirs of Adam are the people of Israel alone
(IV Ezra 6:53-59). Israelis suffering is directly connected
to Adam's sin' (IV Ezra 3:7)0 In chapter 8 (especially 26-30)
the author prays that God should not think of the wicked among
the people of Israel but rather that God should save the whole
people of Israel because of the righteous among them. In: this
same passage the "bestiality" of the rebellious against God.is
the same as in Dan. 7, though there it was non-Jews, whereas
here it is Jews (who act like non-Jews), which are represented
as beasts.152 Repeatedly the author shows that, although he
refers to the fall (7:118-26), sin (7:46), and judgment (7:70)
of all men, his primary concern is with Israelo
It is in this context that the vision of el),apter13
occurs. Ezra's vision is an attempt to deal with the question
why heathen powers, who have been rejected by God, should have
dominion over Israel, God's chosen peoPle.153 On this central

point, Ezra is facing the sane problem Dan. 7 deals with: why
are the people of Israel not given their promised inheritance
and rule over the world. "But whereas Daniel's vision expressed
his confidence that the c·orrect relationship will soon be
re-established, Ezra's prayer is one of complaint that the
existing order continues so long. ,,154
When therefore· the author of IV Ezra speaks in chapter
13 of the manlike figure, he is concerned with the exaltation
of the people of Israel. Though God's people now suffer under
 32

.the heathen (bestial)powers who dominate them, this will not

always be so. The Son of Man will arise, destroy his enemies,
and the people of God, the true Israel, will be vindicated and
exalted to their rightful reign.

Comparison and Summarz

What has been said so far may be briefly summarized
in a comparison between Dan. 7 and other Jewish apocalyptic
literature, notably I Enoch 37-71 and IV Ezra 13, which
reveals several differences as well as s1milarities.155
'(Though the dates of these works156 mean they cannot be
sources for the N.T. Son of Man concept, they possibly
embody older traditions which are relevant to the N.T. Son
of Man.) .The Son of Man figure in the parables of I Enoch
is, as TOdt notes, the most detailed account of "that man"
in Jewish apocalyptic.157 The Parables deal with his. origin,
enthronement, and activities in judging and saving. The man
is, if not pre-existent· and concealed (46:3; 62:7), at least
forenamed (48:2, 3). He ls enthroned, judging angels and men
(61:8; 55:4). The man bears little resemblance to the man of
IV Ezra 13, where a complete course of his actions is followed.
The interest of IV Ezra is in the actions of the man, that of
I Enoch is in the person of the man. The traits of sovereignty
in I Enoch are seen in the traditional ~ast judgment scene, i~
IV Ezra in a series of destructive acts, but in Dan. 7 in the
mere conferring of a reign. Daniel's Son of Man was a corporate
swmbol, but in I Enoch, though the Son of Man is often connected
with a group, a corporate interpretation has not found wide
 33
acceptance.158 Manson does include I Enoch in his corporate
int·erpretation.159 but this view is r~Uected by TaYIOr16Q and
by Sjobergo161 Probably Son of Man is not a title in Dan. 7
and possibly not in I Enoch, but it-may be in IV Ezra. There
are important differences in what bhese works have to say
about the Son of:Man and suffering and pre-existence. All of
these differences point up the fact that the Son of Man concept
has undergone considerable development
from the time it appeared
in Dan. 7 until it is seen in IV Ezra and in the N.T. GoSpelso162
Having examined the principal occurrences of the Son
of Man in the Q.T. and related literature,163 one may now turn
to a related theme occuring in many of the works already examined.
This theme, the Q.T. throne-theophany prophetic commission, is
not irrelevant to the suudy of the Son of Man since it comes
into contact with the Son of Man in Dan. 7 and it may have
made a major contribution to the shaping of the N.To under-
standing of the Son of Man.164

A Brief History of the Tradition of the Q.T.

Throne Theophany ProphetiC Commission

In hils recent commentary on the book of Ezekiel,

Walter Zimmerli,· [discussing the call vision of Ezekiel in
chapters 1 and 2, draws attention to the fact that the vision
of God (in human form) seated on his throne followed by the
commission of the prophet, comes in the midst of a line of
devel9ping tradition which goes back through Isa. 6 to I
Kings 22:19ff.165 Although this observation is not new,166
Zimmerli discusses it in perhaps greater detail than has been
 34
done before and in so doing demonstrates the importance of
,this emergirg tradition. His remarks are w,orthcareful consid-
eration: it may indeed be possible to go beyond them to find
further points of contact in this tradition.

I Kings 22

In I Kings 22 ;19...
23 the prophet Uicaiah justifies the
unfavorable prophecy he has given King Ahab against tm prophecies
of the four hundred prophets of Israel.167 He refers to a
vision he received from God in which he saw the Lord "commission"
the prophets of Israel with a false message. Micaiah saw the
Lord sitting on a throne (v. 19), i~o~-~~)U/"
, _ I'
nflr-l1t¥
T J ~'
'11.' ~XIT ,
surrounded by hosts of heavenly bei~s i?x(j~0'1 iJ'l~'1Q
I~(~
TTl,
ID~ n: QWn ~ J.~ -7)
• - ..,. - -: T
J.
:
In the vision he hears the
Lord take counsel with His hosts, asking who will entice Ahab
to go to Ramoth-Gilead so that he may fall in battle there
('v.20). After some deliberation within the divine council,
a spirit comes forward to volunteer his services (v. 21).
When asked by the Lord how he will entice Ahab, the spirit
replies, "1 will go forth and will be a lying spirit in the
mouth of all his prophets" (v. 22)0168 The spirit is"then
commissioned to do so.

Isaiah 6

In a striking way Isa. 6 displays the same main elements

seen in I Kings 22:19-23. The description here is of Isaiah's
vision of the Lord enthroned and the prophet's subsequent call.
In spite of the obvious difference 1n that I Kings 22 has to do
with the "commission" of false prophets whereas Isa. 6 deals
 35
with a true prophet, the similarities are "close and var-Lous,,,169
These similarities notwithstanding, it is equally true that
Isaiah treats the elements of the throne theophany commission
in his own way--that is, there is definite development in the
tradition.
In his vision Isaiah sees the Lord on a lofty throne
(in His temple), Vo 10 Surrounding Him are the seraphim (v. 2),
who cry to one another in praise of Godls holiness and glory
(v. 3), as the foundations of the place shake (v. 4). The
prophet, aware of his uncleanness in the face of Godls holi-
ness, cries out (v. 5). One of the seraphim then brings a
coal from the (heavenly) altar and, touching the prophet's
mouth, cleanses him (vv. 6, 7). After this the Lord asks for
someone whom he can send to be His messenger and the prophet
volunteers (v. 8). The prophet is commissioned to go with
the foreknowledge that his message will be rejected (vvo 9-13).
Zimmerli sees several characteristics of this throne
theophany commission which occur both in I Kings 22 and in
Isa. 6. (1) In both plac811the word comes to the prophet from
the heavenly sphere of tre divine court where Yahweh is enthroned
with his attendants standing by, I Kings 22:19; cf. Isao 6:1.
(2) The attendants (more precisely defined as seraphim in
Isa. 6:2) act as mediators to the prophet on earth, I Kings 22:22;
cf. Isao 6:6, 7. (3) The deliberation begins with a question
from Yahweh to his attendants, I Kings 22:20; cf. Isa. 6:8.
(4) One attendant only out of the heavenly retinue is chosen
to whom God will listen and,who will be sent as God's messenger,
I Kings 22:21, 22; et ; Isao 6:8, 9. (5) A spirit (or w,ord) is
 36

put in the prophet's mouth, I Kings 22:22; cf. Isao 6:5-70

(6) The result of the prophetfs message is foretold as rejec-
tion, I Kings 22:22, 23; cfo Isa. 6:9_13.170

I Kings 22 Isaiah 6
I saw the Lord sitting on his 1) I saw the Lord
throne, and all the host of sitting upon a
heaven standing beside him on throne .~o •
his right hand and on his left; 2) Ab ove him stood
20) and the Lord said, ttwho will the seraphim • •
entice Ahab, that he may go 8) And I heard the
up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?" voice of the Lord
saying, ~om shall
I send, and who
will go for us?"
21 ) Then a spirit came forward and Then said I, "Here
stood befo»e the Lord, saying, am 11 Send me."
"I will entice him."

If it is established that Isa. 6 shares the main

elements of the throne theophany commission of I Kings 22,
this fact does not mean that Isaiah has not given the formula
his own peculiar slant. Especially notable is the fact that
the scene is described in terms of the Jerusalem temple (ct.
Isa. 6:1 7)"';1i1
T u-
"temple")o The throne is parallel to the ark
of the covenant; the heavenly hosts of I Kings 22 have become
in Isa. 6 the seraphim (cf 0 the cherubim on the ark of the
covenant); the smoke of Isa. 6:4 parallels the shekinah glory;
anD the c.ala of the temple altar are referred to explicitly
(Isao 6:6).171
Another development in Iaao 6 beyond the tradition or
I Kings 22 is that the prophet, who at first merely listens
to the proceedings of the divine eouned L, later actually parti-
cipates in them by addressing God directly and orfering his
services. He is then commissioned directly by God--a privi-
.~ ,*"- _- ,

"_t .~
 37
lege reserved for the spirit mediator in I Kings 22.172
Zimmer1i concludes this comparison of I Kings 22 and
Isa. 6 convinced that the two accounts prove that there existed
in the 9th-8th centuries a form of prophet's commission incor-
porating a vision of God on His throne.173 But the formula
for this tradition was not rigid, as can be seen in the way
in which the tradition appears in Isa. 6.

Ezekiel 1-3

Zimmer1i sees a similar situation when he turns to

Ezek.1-3: the traditional form of throne theophany after
which the prophet receives his commission is followed but the
j',@PIn . is not so rigidly adhered; to that Ezekiel cannot modify
it to suit his own purposes.174
(1) Ezekiel sees the throne with the likeness of a
human form upon it (1:26; 1 :28 explains this as "the appear-
ance ,of the likeness of the glory of the Lord"). Here Ezekiel
carries on the traditional vision imagery of the Lord seated
upon a throne but with the addition of the appearance Df the
Lord in human form (1:26). This was perhaps implied previously
(the Lord "sitting", I Kings' 22:19; Isa. 6:1 ) but it is made
explicit hereo The implications of the vision of God in
human form will become more important later in the tradition
(especially in Dano 7).
(2) The hosts of attendants surrounding the Lord
in I Kings 22:19, which were seen as the seraphim in Isa. 6:2,
are now in Ezek. 1 described in great detail as "living creatures"
with four faces (Ezek. 1 :5-14l and each moves about on a wheel
(Ezek. 1:1 5-24 ) 0
 38 '
(3, 4) There follows the dialogue between God and
the prophet, n~i th a question from God asking who He might
send as His messenger as in I Kings 22:20 and Isa. 6:8, but
with God-addressing the prophet directly~s in Isa. 6). The
prophet is then filled with the ~pirit and set on his feet
in order to receive his commission.
(5) In the prophet's commission the vivid imagery
of touching the prophet's mouth (his instrument of proclaiming
the message), first seen in I Kings 22:22 and Isa. 6:5-7, is
now heightened in Ezeko 2:8-3:3. Here ,the prophet is told
to open his mouth and eat what is given him, which turns out
to be a scroll inscribed with the message of mourning and
lamentation which he is to proclaim.
(6) As the spirit given to the prophets was a lying
one to deceive Ahab (I Kings 22:221'.) and a hardening one to
close the hearts of his hearers to Isaiah (Isa. 6:9-13), so
Ezekiel is to find that his hearers will not listen to his
message (Ezek. 3:7, 8).

Ezekiel 8-10

Elements of the throne theophany commission tradition

are employed again in Ezek. 8-10, though less fully than in
chapters 1-3. There is the reference to the habitation of
the Lord (1) and to His glory (Ezeko 8:1-4, 7, 14, 16) and
especially to the vision of the Lord in human form (8:2)0
The cherubim (2) are referred to (9:3)0 But the commission
(3, 4, 5) is a very different one. It is given to six execu-
tioners (9:2) and to a ~an clothed in linen" (9:2), who is
to mark out those who take no part in the sin of the people (9:4).
 39

It is a commission of evil or judgment as before. But two

important distinctions need to be noted: in Ezek. 1-3 (as
in I Kings 22 and Isa. 6) the prophet is commissioned whereas
in Ezek. 9 it is heavenlY messensers who are commissioned.
Secondly, it is worth noting the way in which the vision of
God in human form has developed. Whereas it was implied in
I Kings 22 and Isao 6, it was made explicit in Ezek. 1 :26;
and now in Ezek. 8:2 a vision of a human form representing
God appears, parallel to that in Ezek.1 :26.175 This human
form of God then commissions another human form, a ~an in
linen". in 9:2, 4. Is there here a preparation for the vision
of Dan. 7 when the enthroned God oommissioned another divine
human figure (the "Son of Man"}~76
(In addition to the recurrence of the main elements
of this continuing tradition in Ezekiel, there is also the
use he makes of details of the imagery of Isa. 6,177 most
important of which is the reference to'the coals of the altar.
In Isa. 6:6, 7 the coals are used to cleanse the prophet1s
sin whereas in Ezeko 10:2, 6, 7 (cf. 1 :13) the coals from
among the living creatures are used to destroy the city (of
Jerusalem) in judgment for her sin. But the parallel seems
to be fairly certain.)
It seems safe to conclude that Ezek. 1-3, 8-10 is in
the same line of tradition as Ieao 6 and develops this con-
tinuing tradlion of the throne theophany commission just as
Isa. 6 built on the tradition of I Kings 22. The verbal and
conceptual parallels are too extensive to be coincidental.
 40

Daniel 7

It is possible to traoe the development of this

tradition still further to the book of Daniel, espeoially
ohapter 7 whioh employs the main elements of the throne
theophany oommission, if not in all their details.
(1) There is the vision of God enthroned in heaven.
The human form, whioh in former visions (I Kings 22, Isa. 6,
and Ezek. 1 :26) represented God, is here separated from God--
possibly a development along lines similar to Ezek. 8:10.
This is perhaps the most signifioant development in the throne
theophany tradition which is found in Dan. 7. (There are the
aooompanying phenomena of fire and wheels, Dan. 7:9,10,
whioh form further links with Isa.6 and Ezekiel.)
(2) The m-yrriadsof heavenly attendants at the throne
are present here as well. They playa relatively unimportant
part, especially when oompared with what Ezekiel has made of
them. But if the suggestion of Mowinokel and Noth178 is valid,
that the "holy ones of the Most High" (7:18, 22, 25, 27) are
really divine or oelestial beings (rather than the pe0ple of
God on earth179) and the Son of Man represents them, then
these hosts of heaven are given an added-signifioanoe.
(3, 4) The oommission of Dan. 7 is not a prophetio
oommisstt,Qnas in I Kings 22, Isa. 6, and Ezek. 1-3.It is
rather the oommission of the Son of Man to reoeive a kingdom
or dominion (7:13,14). There is no dialogue between the
Son of Man and the Anoient of Days; the whole event takes
plaoe in heaven (rather than between heaven and earth) and
 41

Daniel merely sees it f'rom:;theeartho There is, however, the

communication of'Daniel on earth with one of those who stood
by in heaven (7:16, 23f'.), and this one acts as a mediator
to explain the vision.
(6) There is the note of evil consequences and judg-
ment on evil. As Isaiah and Ezekiel were told their messages
would be rejected, similarly the kingdom given to the Son of'
Man will not come until the f'ourth beast and the ten horns
have prevailed over (7:21 ) and'worn out (7:25) the holy ones
of' the Most High.
In the context of' Daniel's apocalyptic vision the
throne theophany commis,sion formula has undergone considerable
revision. But the essential features are recognizable. 180 God
is seen on His throne, with the appearance of a human form,
and a commission is given, not now to a prophet but to ,the
human f igure--the Son of llan.
(The significance of this Son of Man should now be
viewed in terms of the connection between Dan. 7 and Ezeko 1,
which; may include both literary and theological dependenceo 1 81
En tenant compte de toutes ces donn~es, on peut donc
avancer que le Fils de l'hamme de Daniel appartient
nettement a
la categorie du divin et est comme une
sorte d'incarnation de la ~loire divine, au m&me titre
que la silhouette contemp1ee par Ezekiel (1,26).1 82 )

I Enoch 14

The tradition carries on into I Enoch~throne theophanies

as well. In I Enoch 14:14ff. the writer sees a vis~on in which
God appears to him and commissions him to take a message to
the 'Watchers of heaven"--ioeo, the "sons of God" of Gen. 6:2.
 42

Again the basic elements of the throne theophany commission

•
are present.
(1) Enoch sees with a splendid house or temple (the
heavenly habitation 'of God; cf. Ezek. 10:18, 19) a lofty
throne (ef~vov ~lfl1t\&v ,14:18). Descriptions of fire under-
neath the throne and of the g10ry of qod provide further
parallels to lsa. 6:6,7 and Ezek. 1:13 (cf. 10:2,6,7).
Noticeably lacking is any'reference to a human form (yet cf.
1 7 :1 where the "sons of God" take on human form at will).
(2) The heavenly attendants are seen as well. The
wheels (14:8) r~call Ezek. 1; the seraphim of lsa. 6:2, and
the myriads of myriads (14:22) recall particularly I Kings
22:20. It is noteworthy that·here as in lsa. 6:3f. (cf.
Zimmerli, p. 20) those around the throne of God are unable
to approach it because of the glory of God which is unappr oach-s
able (14:22).
(3) God calls out one from among the hosts, in this
case Enoch (14:24). Here as throughout the tradition God
addresses the prophet and asks (or tells) him to approach
the divine throne in order to receive the prophetic commission.
(4) Enoch responds to the call of God (14:25). He is
lifted to his feet (cf. Ezek. 2:1 where Ezekiel is told to stand
on his feet to be addressed by God) by "one of the holy ones"
who causes him to approach to the door of the heavenly temple
(14:25; 15:1).
(5) He is then commissioned to go and is told what to
say (without reference to the figure of touching the prophet's
mouth), 15:2ff.
 43

(6) His message is one of evil in that it consists of

judgment on the sons of God for leaving their appointed duties
(15: 7; 16:1 ).183

I Enoch 46

In this, the next important theophany ofl: Enoch,

the basic form of the throne visions occureo (1) The writer
sees in heaven (within an enthronement context, cfo 45:3) the
Head of Days, whose description follows that of the Ancient
of Days of Daniel 7 (both have hair white like wool, Dan. 7:9;
I Enoch 46:1 b ), and with him "another being whose countenance
had the appearance of a man"184 (I Enoch 46:1 c), recalling
Daniel's Son of Man (Dan. 7:13)0
Although it is only one angel (46:1 ) wham the prophet
actually addresses, and no other heavenly hosts (2) are des-
cribed in the Vision, there ar~ in the same context, the elect
ones t46:5) who will dwell on the transformed earth (cfo 46:4,
the transformed heaven), as well as the congregations of the
Lord of Spirits .and "the faithful who hang. upon the name of
the Lord of Spirits" (46:8)0' The whole passage speaks of the'
persecuted faithful who will be vindicatedo
The prophet, although not first addressed by God (3),
responds (4) to the vision with a question to an angel about
the Son of Man. In answer (5) he is given a description of
the Son of Man (46:3, 4) and is told of the judgment (6) to
be executed against those who refuse to acknowledge him (46:5fo)
and who persecute His faithful (46:7, 8).
 44

I Enoch 60

This vision is clearly a throne theophany, "the Head

of Days sat on the throne of His glory" (60:2), but the manlike
figure (1) is missingo The angelic hosts (2) are here (60:1,
"the host of the MOst High,and the angels, a thousand thousands
and ten thousand times ten thousand"; cfo 60:2, 4). The prophet
responds to the vision (4) with ·'!agreat trembling" and fear,
falling upon his face (60:3)0 An angel is sent from Michael
to lift up the prophet (60:4), who is then addressed with a
question (3)0 The message given the prophet (5)is that,
although mercy and long suffering have been shown to those
disobedient ones on earth (60:5), punishment and judgment will
come for "those who worship not the righteous law, and for
those who deny the righteous judgement, and for those who
take His name in vain" (60:6; cf. 60:25).

I Epoch 7'1

Perhaps the most important single vision in ~ Enoch

(for the study of the Son of Man) is in chapter 7'1. Here the
spirit of the writer is translated into heaven where he sees
the holy sons of God.
(1) The throne of God is seen (v. 7) and the Head
of Days (cf. Dano 7, the Ancient of Days) appears as well
(vv. 10, 13, 14), with the accompanying fire (vvo 1 , 25).
The human form representing God has now developed into a
completely separate figure. ~the "Son of Man", the mystery
of whose identity is finally dispelled as He 1s revealed to
be none other than Enoch himself (7'1 :14). This is certainly
 45

an advance on the Danielic Son of Man figure.185

(2) The accompanying hosts are present as well:
sons of the angels (v. 1), the seraphim, cherubim, and
ophannam (v. 7), and thous ands of thous ands (vv • 8, 9, 1 3)•
(3) ~n Vo 14 God addresses the prophet who has pros-
trated himself before God and blessed God in response to the
vision he is given (4).,
(5) The word given to the prophet is not one of
commission but one of revelation. The identity of the Son
of Man is revealed as the prophet himself, Enoch.186 The
message of the Son of Manis long and peaceful reign (vv. 14-17)
contrasts with the evil consequences (6) of previous messages.
Of lesser importance, but not to be overlooked, is
the vision of I Enoch 90:20-270 Here Enoch again sees a throne
erected (in a 'pleasant land "--heaven?_),and lithe Lord of·~the
sheep" sits upon it (90:20). The fire which formerly was
associated with divine glory has become here the fire of judg-
ment in the fiery abyss (90:24, 25)0 The scene is one of
judgment rather than of commission. It lacks the extensive
parallels of Enoch 14, but the same tradition of throne theophany
may possibly be reflected in it.
A word should be said about the relationship between
these various theophanies in ~ Enoch. This subject involves
the larger question of the composition of I Enooh, its depen-
dence on sources and itscomposite nature-"a question which
187
goes beyond the scope of the present discussion. Limiting
the discussion to the theophanies of Enoch already oonsidered,
it is possible to make some observations about the relation-
ship between these visions. There can be little question that
 46
I Enoch 14 is the oldest of'the theophanies. This statement
could stand on external grounds alone. ·The first vision of
Enoch (chapters 1-36) can be dated in the second century B.Co,188
whereas the second vision of Enoch (which, as Milik points
out,189 is the right title for chapters 37-71--see '37:1, "the
second vision of Enoch") should probably be considered post-
Qumran, not only because of its failure to appear ih the
~umran fragments but also because of.literary and h;1storical
considerations.190 But a comparison of the vision in chapter
14 with the visions of ::1; Enoch 37-71 provides additional,
internal grounds for seeing I ·Enoch 14 as the oldest vision
and for believing the theophanies of the later section to be
based on it. Such a comparison shows that the vision in I
Enoch 14 has the basic c:4m·tent;-.,
of the theophanies in I Enoch
but in a less developed, less complete formo This is especi-
ally olear from the absence in chapter 14 of the appearance
of God in human formo In the place of the anthropomorphic
vision of Ezekiel, there is seated on the lofty throne (14:18-20)
the G~eat Glory, which may have, in the interests of mono-
theism and t'o~av:oidanthropomorphisms, replaced the human
figure representing GOd.191 This manlike one, or Son of Man,
reappears in the visions of both I Enoch 46 and I Enoch ~
(though not in I Enoch 60). Neither the vision in chapter 46
nor the one in chapter ~ gives a complete vision and inter-
pretation: in chapter 46 the Son of Man appears in the vision
(46:1 ) but not in the interpretation (unless Vo 3 is the inter-
pretation), whereas chapter ~ has no Son of Man in the vision192
but does have in the interpretation (71 :14)0 Chapter 71 may
 47

depend on I Enoch 46 for the interpretation of the Son of

Man (both refer to his righteousness, 46~3; 71:14; cf. 15:1 )
and it is certainly necessary to supplement I Enoch 71 with
I Enoch 46 for the Son of Man in the vision. From the most
primitive form in I Enoch 1<4 (primary Enoch) the theophanies
of secondary Enoch (46, 60, 71) have developed into their
fulness with the appearance of.the Son of l1an and the inter-
pretation of him.
In order to facilitate comparison of the theophaRies
of I Enoch, the main elements of each vision are reproduced
below:

I Enoch 14
18. And I looked and saw therein a lofty throne: its
appearance was as crystal, and the wheelstherof
as the shining sun, and there was the vision of
cherubim.
20. And the Great Glory sat bher-e.on,and His raiment
shone more brightly than the sun and was whiter
than any snow •
22. • • • ten thousand times ten thousand (stood)
before Him.
And the most holy ones who were n.e~t to Him did
not leave by night nor depart from Him.
And until then I had been prostrate on my face,
trembling: and the Lord called me with Hill own
mouth, and said to me: "Come hither, Enoch, and
hear my word. I ,
25. And one of the holy ones came to me and waked me,
and he made me rise up and approach the door: and
I bowed my face downwards •
15:1 0 And He answered and said to me, and I heard His
voice: 'Fear not, Enoch, thou righteous man and
scribe of righteousness: approach hither and hear
my voice.'
I Enoch 46
1• And there I saw One, who had a head of.days,
And His head was white like wool,
And with Him was .another being whose countenance
had the appearance of a man, •
And his face was full of graciousness, like one of
the holy angels.
 48

2.And 1 asked the angel who went with me and showed

me all the hidden things, concerning the Son 01' Man,
who he was, and whence he was~ (and) why he went
with the Head of Days?
3. And he answered and said unto me:
This is the Son of Man who hath righteousness,
With whom dwelleth righteousness, •••
5. And he shall put down kings from their, thrones • • •
. I Enoch 60

1• ••• the host 01' the Most High, and the angels,
a thousand thousands, and ten thousand t !mes ten
thousand. .
And the Head or Days sat on the throne of His glory,
and the angels and the righteous stood around Him.
And a great trembling seized me,
~. And fear took hold of!me, •• 0;,
And Michael sent another angel trom mong the ho;ty
ones and he raised me up, 0 • •
5. And Michael said unto me: I •• 0
Until this day lasted the day of His mercy;
and He hath been merciful, and longsuffering
towards those who dwell on the earth.
And when the day, and the power, and the punish-
Ment come, •• 0
When the punishment of the Lord of Spirits shall
rest upon them, • • •
I Enoch 71
5. And he translated my spirit into the heaven of
heavens, • • •
And round about were Seraphln, Cherubin, and
Ophannin, •• 0 (wbo) guard the throne 01' His
glory.
8. And I saw angels who could not be counted,
A thousand thousands, and ten thousand times
ten thousand, • •
9. ••• And many boly angels without number.
'\ O. And with them the Head 01' Days,
His head white and pure as wool, '
And His raiment indescribable.
11 • And I 1'el1 on my race, ••• '
13. And that Head of Days came with Michael • • •
thousands and ten thousands of angels without
number.
And he (the angel) came to me ang greeted me with
His voice, and •.aid unto mel
tCI'hou2artlthe Son ot Man who Is born unto righteous-
ness; • 0 •

16. And all shall walk in [thy] ways since righteousness

.never forsakes (thee]: 1193
 49

Clearly Enoch's throne visions (especially that in

chapter 14) are in line with the continuing tradition of
the throne theophany commission. What is most striking is
the fact that, while most of the main elements are used fully
in Enoch's vision, the appearance of God in human for.m or
God and a separate human form (as is so important in Dan. 7)
has now taken on an individuality of his own--the Son of Man.
This line of tradition ot prophetic vocation stands
out more clearly when contrasted with a second type which runs
through the O.T. tram Moses to Jeremiah.194 There is no vision
ot God in heaven on his throne, but rather there is an appear-
ance of God on earth. The prophet, when called by God, does not
volunteer but seeks to avoid the prophetic commission. God
must then provide signs and miracles to persuade the reluctant
prophet to accept the callo In Exodus 3, 4 Moses sees God in
a burning bush, is told he 1& to go to Pharaoh, but ofters
excuses to avoid the call ot God. God then gives the sign of
the rod changing to a serpent, the sign ot Moses' hand becoming
leprous then whole again, and the miracle ot the Nile t:llrning
to blood. Similarly Gideon in Judges 6 sees the angel ot the
Lord and is told to deliver Israel trom Midian. When Gideon
replies that he is the least of the weakest clan of Manasseh
(Judges 6:1;5), God gives the sign of the mea.t and unleavened
.
cake oftering consummed by tire (6:21) and the wet and dry
tleeces (6:37-40). Jeremiah receives his call (Jer. 1 )'but
cries to the Lord that he is only a youth (1 :'6) and does not
know how to speak. But the Lord miraculously touches his
mouth, putting the prophetic words in his mouth and giving
 50
Jeremiah the visions he is to tell to the nations.
The primary differences between these two lines of
prophetic vocation are:
(1) The manner of the vision of God= in type I
God is seen on his throne !a heaven; in type II God appears

---;;;.,.;;,_
.(not enthroned) on earth.
(2) The response of the prophet: fn type I the
prophet gladly offers himself to the prophetic service; in
type II the prophet gives excuses to avoid the call of God.
These two lines of tradition may be set out as
follows:
Type I Type II
(vision of heavenly throne) (God appears on earth)

I Kings 22 Exodus 3, 4
(Micaiah) (Moses)
Isaiah 6
Ezekiel 1-3, 8-10 Judges 6
Daniel 7
I Enoch 14 (90) Jeremiah 1

Summary and Conclusion

. Surveying the OoT. passages which lie behind the NoT.

Son of Man caxept has broughtto light certain points which
may be summarized:here. Psalm 8 speaks of the Son of Man
merely as a poetic synopym for man~ particularly in his low-
liness before God. Psalm 80 narrows the reference to speak
of the Son of Man as a particular people--Israel. Daniel 7
carries on with the thought of "Son of Man" as a figure (of
whatever origin) for Israel (the saints of the Most High).
 51

The essential meaning of the Son of Man as true humanity

is clearly brought out by the setting of the Son of Man
against the terrible beasts which symbolize the pagan .nationso
It is important to notice that Son of Man in Dan. 7 is still
a symbol and as such should not be given personal attributes
(such as pre-existence). The Idea of suffering, however, may
not be completely disassociated from the Son of Man, since
1

the saints of the Most High,whom the Son of Man represents,

suffer.
In I Enoch one is faced with the difficult, if not at
this point insoluble, question of the date of the Parables.
Milikts arguments for a late date call'for the consideration,
that, if old tradition is found in the Parables, it is pro-
bably preserved in formulations of a much later date. The
Son of Man figure has changed considerably since it was seen
in Dan. 7 and is now much more detailed and certainly to be
thought of as an individual (though still probably represen-
tative of a corporate body). In addition to spelling out
the sovereign traits of the Son of Man, particularly judgment,
"the author of the Parables is especially concerned to reveal
the mystery of the identity of the Son of Man, who turns out
to be Enoch. IV Ezra's Son of Man is a destructive individual
and lacks the corporate aspects seen in Dan. 7.
A second theme running through the O.To converges with
the Son of Man theme at Dano 7--namely the throne theophany
prophetic commission tradition. This theme can be seen to
develop from I Kings 22 through Isa. 6, Ezek. 1-3, 8-10, to
Dan. 7 and I Enoch 14, 46, 60, 71 0 What is most significant
 52
in this tradition of prophetic commission is that the cammis-
sion is accompanied by a vision of God in human form, on
his throne. In Dan. 7 and especially in ~ Enoch the human
form has become a second figure being commissioned by God--
this figure being the "Son of Man". This tradition then
supplies many of the elements of the N.T. s.on of Man christo';
logy which are not found in the O.T. Son of Man tradition
and provides for the interpretation of the Son of Man as
"glorified Israel".
There is a clear convergence in Dano 7 and I Enoch,
especially chapters 46 and 71, of these two O.T. traditions,
the Son of Man emerging as a figure symbolic, of Israel and
the prophetic call accompanied by a vision of/God in human
form. The Son of Man tradition has developed from a synonym
for man in general in Psa. 8 to a symbol for Israel, the people
of God, or, as in Dan. 7, the saints of the Most High. At
the same time the evolution of the second tradition has pro-
gressed to the point that in Dan. 7 and I Enoch 46 and 71the
manlike figure is distinct from the Ancient of Days/Head of
Days, and has became virtually a second deity. In Dan. 7 the
second of these traditions appears in Daniel's vision, whereas
the first tradition appears in his interpretation. The problem
of reconciling these two apparently conflicting traditions of
the Son of Man is a difficult one. A. Feuillet summarizes
the three attitudes takep to this problem.195 (1) Son of
Man is taken as a reference exclusively to the Messiah. This
approach separates the vision from the interpretation and under-
lines the distinction between the Son of Man and the saints of
 53

the Most High. The identification of the Son of Man with

the people of God in vv. 18, 22, 27 is the mistaken inter-
pretation of the author who did not understand the foreign
visionary material he has borrowed. (2) Son of Man is
merely a symbol for the saints of the Most High, the nation
Israel considered as a people set apart because of her electiono
(3) Son of Man is first and foremost a figure for the theo-
cratic people, but since the ancients could not conceive of
an empire without its chief and since in antiquity "there
was no fundamental distinction between the State and the chief
of State", the Messiah is included in the people of God of
the eschatolos~l era.
The difficulty with each of these views is that they
leave out one or the other of the meanings of Son of Man
which are clearly present in the two converging traditions.
The first approach fails to take account' of the Son of Man
as a symbol for Israel, the second leaves out the signifi-
cance of the Son of Man as a heavenly figure. The third
view, while attempting, to take into account both sides of
the Son of Man, fails to do full justice to the divine-heavenly
aspect of the Son of Man figure.
An aeceptable explanation must take full account of
both traditions and meantnss. of the Son of Man. Such a solu-
tion emerges when the essential data are put in the form of
the proposition: If Son of Man = Israel
and Son of Man= heavenly (divine)being
then Israel = heavenly (divine) beingo
In other words, ,_the two Son of Man traditions have developed
 54
into an "apotheosis" of Israel. The people of God, the
righteous remnant, symbolized by the manlike figure, will
be exalted and glorified and given the kingdom, as the Son
of Mano None of the aspects of the Son of Man traditions
is omitted and no separation of Daniells vision from its
interpretation is necessary. It does not hold the author
responsible for misunderstanding his borrowed material and
it has the merit of preserving the material as a literary
and theological unitYo Furthermore, it answers Feuilletis
difficulties, which had led him to say, "II est impossible
de voir dans le Fils de llhamme, soit principalement, soit
"a plus forte raison exclusivement un symbole des Saints des
Tres-H~ut.~96 In the first place the language of the vision,
"eoroingwith the clouds of heaven", which is the language of
theophanies in the Bible, is not "strange and inappropriate"
for designating the people of God on earth,1 97 if in fact
the apotheosis of Israel is what the writer had in mind. On
the contrary the language is quite in keeping with a-"deifi-
cation" of the people of Israel. The second objection to
identifying the saints with the Son of Man is that, whereas
in the interpretation of the vision it is said the four beasts
are four kings, it is not said that the Son of Man is the
people of the saints of the Most High, but that the saints
will receive the kingdom.198 The reason the angelUS interpres
does not say the Son of Man is the saints of the Most High
may be stylistic. But in v. 18 the clear implication of putting
the saints in the place of the Son of Man in the vision and
of saying the saints will receive the kingdom which was reoeived
 55

by the Son of Man in the vision, is that the two are to be

identified. The objection to the identification of the Son
of Man with the people of God because of his transcendent
199
character is,also met if the identification is understood
as symbolizing the glorification of Israel. So:·far from the
transcendent character forbidding the identification, it is
the reason for it. Finally the two levels of the activity
of the vision and the interpretation, the celestial and the
terrestrial,200 pose no problem either. Feuillet describes
this two-plane aspect of the vision:

• • • 2n est donc comme en presence de ,deux registres

d!un meme tableau:, dans la partie superieure les
'betes sont condamnees au ciel par 1'Ancien des jours
et Ie Fils de l'homme est intronise a
ses cStes; dans
Ie registre dlen bas, on a Ie retentissement terrestre
de ces ~v~nements c'lestes: les empires paiens sont
d~truits et la portion fidele du peuple chof.sf (les
Saints du Tres-Haut) recoit le royaUIne, un royaume dont
Ie chef est un etre c'le~te, ce qui est pour lui une
garantie de perennite.201
This activity in two 'spheres is entirely consistent with the
understanding of the vision as an apotheosis of Israel. The
earthly Israel will be exalted to receive a heavenly kingdom.
It is therefore the celestial Israel, not the terres-
trial, which is in view in ~n. 7. The faithful remnant,
those who have purified themselves and been refined (Dan.
12:10), rather than the national Israel, are the ones-who will
be exalted and given the kingdom. and who will awake to ever-
lasting life (Dan. 12:2). There is nothing strange in this
development which has given an almost divine status to Israel,
the Son of Man who has been exalted to God's right hand.
Apocalyptic prophecy had always given the nation a special
place among the nations in the divine plan. That this tradition
 56

should lead to a corporate apotheosis of the righteous remnant

of the chosen people is the logical development.202
CQnfirmation that the tradition was leading to a glori-
fication of Israel may be found in various places. In the War
scroll from Qumran, which is characteristically apocalyptic,
the. final conflict between Israel and her enemies, set in
an earthly scene around Jerusalem, is lifted to a supernatural
plane where the angelic hosts, including Israel's protecting
angels and Michael, take part.~ The Prince of Light is sent
to help Israel and Michael brings her eternal light.203 This
lifting of Israel's conflict to the celest.1a.l'sphere accords
well with the scene in Dan. 7 and supports the exegesis which
interprets the picture there as one of Israel's exaltation.
In the Testament of Moses chapter 10 this idea appears
again. In a passage which speaks of divine intervention at the
end of the world one reads:
8. Then thou, 0 Israel, shalt be happy,
And thou shalt mount upon the necks and wings of the
eagle,
And they shall be ended.
90 And God will exalt thee,
And He will cause thee to approach to the heaven of
the stars, .
In the place of their habitation.
10. And thou shalt look from on h±gh and shalt see thy
enemies in Gehenna,
And thou shalt recognize them and rejoice, 204
And thou shalt give thanks and gonfess thy Creator.
In a note on these lines, E.-M. Laperrousaz states 205 that
the eagle of v. 8 is not to be taken as a symbol of Rome as it
is in other passages (IV Ezra 11, 12), nor is the import of the
verse to be taken more broadly as the manifestation of Israelis
triumph over her enemies in mounting them by treading them under
 57
her feet. Rather the interpretation of Lagrange is to be
preferred: "Israel fait son ascension au ciel sur le dos de
l8aigle."206 This verse presents a graphic statement of Israel's
exaltation to heaven, as on the back of an eagle. This picture
is entirely in line with the tradition of Israel's exaltation-
;

apotheosis as seen in Dan. 7 and I Enoch.

 NOTES

1
E. G. Briggs, Psalms (2 vols., The International
Critical commentar~; Edinburgh: T. s, T. Clark, 1906-7),
I, p. 63. Cf. wii rid Stott, "'Son of Man'--A Title of
Abasement", E.T. 83 (1971~72), pp. 278-81 (especially p. 279)
for a recent<rIScussion of the Psalms as back~round to the
N.T. Son of Man.
2But the use of Psa. 8 as a testimonium to Christ
did not originate with the author of Hebrews since Psa. 8:7
is cited in I Cor. 15:27 (with Psa. 110:1, which is used in
~k. 14:62 with Dan. 7:13) in a passage where Christ is called
(hlerW1l05 = IJ)JX~ll )('U)'rl].. See Dodd, Interpretation, p. 241.
Psalm 8:5 is used of Christ as representative head of humanity
(ideal or redeemed).
3Briggs, Psalms, II, p. 209. Verse 18 is said to be
a doublet of v.·16, interpreting it messianically, based on
Ps a, 8:5; 110:1.
4 R. Kittel, Die psalmen (Kammentar zum Alten Testament,
Band XIII; Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1929), p. 270 on v. 18; cf.
Briggs, Psalms, II, p. 209, who says the editor of the psalm
may have thought of Israel placed at the right hand of God but
probably rather had in mind t~e messianic king of Psa. 110:1.
5Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalmen (2 Bde., Biblische Kommen-
tar Altes Testament, XVII 1&2; Neuklrchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag des Erziehungsvereins G.m.b.H., 1960), II, p. 559;
Mitchel Dahood, The Psalms (3ovols., The Anchor Bible, vols.
16, 17, 17a; Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday & Co., rne , , 1968),
II, p. 260, on Psa. 80:17;Briggs, rsalms, II, p , 209.
6Kraus, Psalmen, II, p. 559; Dahood, Psalms, II, p. 260;
Hans Schmidt, Die Psalmen (Handbuch zum Alten Testament, Erste
Reihe 15; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1934), p. 154.
7c• H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, Grammar, Texts in
transliteration, Cuneiform selections, Glossary, Indices (Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965), Glossary, No. 486; cf.
Dahood, Psalms, II, p. 260.
8A• F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms, With Intro-
duction and Notes (The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges;
Cambri4ge: University press, 1902), p. 488.

58
 59

9Kraus, Psalmen, II, p.,259; cf. II Kings 23:3 on

the renewal of the God-to-people relationship; cf. also Psa.
71 :20; 85:7; Hosea 6:2, 19b. See as well H. Gressmann, "Der
Ursprung der Lsr-, - judo Eschatologie," Forschung zur Religion
und Literature des A. und N.T., VI (190S), 340-54; C. H.
Kraeling, Anthro)os and Son of Man (New York: Columbia Univer-
sity Press, 1927 , pp. 130-S1•
10This fact is noted by T. W. Manson, Studies in the
Gospels and Epistles, p. 125.
11Todt, Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition, p. 22.
12 M. Black, "The Son of Man Problem in Recent Research
and Debate", B.J.R.L. 45 (1963), 305.
13Jo Bowman, "The Background of the Term 'Son of Man''',
E.T. 59 (1948), 284. Bowman notes that early midrash (Lev. R.
27ET took this Son of Man as a term of honor addressed to
Ezekiel. "Sons of men" is used in Dan. 10:16 in reference to
the angel messenger who comes to Daniel. Few scholars make
much of this reference, but it may be worth noting that it is
a heavenly being which is described as in "the likeness of the
sons of men". Cf 0 F 0 H. Borsch, The Son of Man in Myth and
History, pp. 138ff. .
14 ' ...
Among the parallels Bowman finds are the throne of
the Ancient of Days with whee,ls and fire, clouds, Ezek. 1 :4;
Dan. 7:13; four beasts in antithesis to man (though not the
same beasts), Ezeko 1 :5; Dan. 7:3f. The meaning of this Son
of man he finds to be symbolic" for Israel glorified, corpor-
ate and not individual. He notes that this meaning may not
necessarily determine the meaning in the Gospels after two
centuries of midrashic interpretation.
15Go S. Duncan Jesus, Son of Man, pp. 145, 146; so
also J. Y. Campbell, ~Son of Man" in A Theological Wordbook
of the Bible (ed by Alan Richardson; London: Macmillan,
1950), p. 2340
16Ro ~ivestad, "Exit the Apocalyptic Son of Man",
NoToS. 18 (1971."'72),24.'.3-67;
Borsch, Myth and History, PP.
'38ff., notes that "exalted" humanity is the meaning of
Son of Man when used of the prophet, whether Ezekiel or
Daniel (chapter 8).
17 A. J. B. Higgins, "Son of Man Forschun~ since IThe
Teaching of Jesus ''',New Testament Essays (ed.y A. J. B.
Higgins; Manchester: unIversity Press, 1959), p. 124.
1Sw. Ao Curtis, Jesus Christ the T~acher (Oxford:
University Press, 1943), pp. 127-43; he discusses Ecclesi-
astes 3:18-~ and Isa. 41:2 as well as Psa. 8, Ezekiel, Daniel,
and I Enoch.
 60

19T• W. Manson, Studies, p , 12!j:.

20 1.:. S .
Tvdt, ynoptic Tradition, p. 2;
4 the interpretation
robs the Son of Man of his individuality and puts the saints
of the Most High in his place!

21Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark, p. 24; Hooker takes

this inconsistency to be the unavoidable result of combin,~ng
the creation myth and history as done here in Dan. 7. She
notes that what is pictured here is a restcration, not a re-
creation, a pOint which has implications for the question of
pre-existence (see'the discussion below).
22Ibid., P. 26.
23
!2!a., P. 27. Hooker notes that this contrast must
not be overplayed since the Son of Man represents the saints
of the Most High and thus must not be disassociated from the
people's sutfering.
24 c. (\ ,..,} n I
Colpe, "0 VI os TOl) alVt:J('W7lOtJ", PP. 403-81. He argues
(P. 406) that just as Daniel has borrowed the symbols of the
beasts so also he has borrowed the man figure.
25 .
Borsch, Myth and History, pp. 141-2. Borsch notes
others in agreement with him include Bentzen, Gressmann,
Herzfeld, Kraeling, and Morgenstern (P. 141). Whereas Borsch
relates Daniel to an enthronement mythology (wherein the king
enacts God in a creation rite), Hooker carries the mythology
all the way back to creation myths themselves (Hooker, Son of
Man in Mark, PP. 11-17).
26A. Feuillet, "Le Fils de 1'homme :6e.J.)e.nielet la
tradition biblique", R.B. ,60 (1953), 170-202, 321-46.
27Feuillet's view is rejected by 3. Coppens because the
figure of wisdom was too closely associated with God to be the
basis of a Son of Man figure distinct from God; cf. 3. Coppens,
"Le messianisme sapiential et les origines litteraires du Fils
de l'homme danielique", in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient
Near East (H. H. Rowley Festschrift; ed. by M. Noth and D.
Winton Thomas, Supplements to V. T!, III (1955!), 33-41.
28For further evidence of this, see the seotion on the
throne theophany commission tradition; cf. M. Black, "The 'Son
of Man' in the Old Biblical Literature", ~60 (1949),11-15,
especially 11, 12, 14.
29T• W. Manson, Studies, P. 126. 30~. 31~.,
. Po 127.
32Todt, Synoptic Tradition, PP. 22-23; see his biblio!:
graphical notes, p. 23, n. 2, and P. 24, n. 1.
33T• W. Manson, Studies, P. 126.
 61

34Ibido, p. 127. Support for:this view comes largely

from I Enoch's individualized Son of Man and from the concept
of the Messiah in Rabbinic literature.
35 Ibid., p , 129.
6
3 H• H. Rowley, The Relevance ofAPocal~tic (London:
Lutterworth, 1944), pp. 120-2; Servant of the ~rd and Other
Essays on the Old Testament (2d ed., revIsed; London: Lutter-
worth, 1952), PP. 78-80. In this situation the meaning would
be closest to that in Dan. 7.
37M• Black, "Unsolved New Testament Problems: The'Son
of Man' in the Teaching of Jesus," ~60 (1949),32-60
. 8
3 Oscar Cullmann, The Christolo~~ of the New Testament
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 195 ,P. 159. See c. K.
Barr~t~, "The Background of Mark 10:45", in New Testament Essays,
(~Q.. !,by A.J. B. Higgins; Manchester: University Press, 1959),
po 17, no 39, who pOints out that representatives are of two
types: (1) abstraction of the community represented, without
an independent existence (eog., "John Doe"), or (2) a distinct
person (e.g., an ambassador). In favor of (2) he notes first
that Daniel knows of this kin~'of representative, especially
Michael, who acts on behalf of;the people of God (Dan. 10:13,
21; 12:1), and secondly that it is possible to identify other
visionary figures of Dano 7, such as the little horn which
represented Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), and thirdly that the
other Hebrew phrases in Daniel (8:15 has "':J.~-il{ni:)~; ~ 0:16
D:tX."J+ ..n1~J) ; 1 0:18 DJ~ n~lr;):) ) probably meant· 'Jp
U)~~.
(7:13)'and are not abstractions~ (He finds there is even less
probability that Son of Man is a mere abstraction of the people
in I Enoch.)
39C• C. McCown, "Jesus, Son of Man: A Survey of Recent
Discussion", Journal of Religion 18 (1948), 90
40see, for examp Le , M. Black, "Recent Research", po 312,
and Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark, PPo 47, 48, ·as well as the
discussion below on the date of I Enoch. Even if a pre-Christian
date of I Enoch 37-71 were certain, it would remain to be demon-
strated that Jesus or the Gospels writers knew of ito
41So Mowinckel, He That Cometh, PPo 360-2. Mowinckel
holds that Daniel 7 is a reinterpretation (and thus secondary)

s'
in a/corporate sense of an existing belief in an individual Son
of Mano Borsch, M~h and Histor po 144, doubts that Daniells
Son of Man was ide~ized beyond is individuality, but he is
not concerned with the question since the figure is a symbolic
one and, as in Dan. 2 where Nebuchadnezzar is both the king and
the kingdom, so the figure here represents both the individual
and the groupo See also R. H. Fuller, The Foundations of New
Testament Christology, p. 36, and P. 37, on po 56, where he cites
 62
Mowinckel, He That Cometh, PP. 348-53, as following Reitzen-
stein, Volz, and Kraeling, as well as E. Stauffer, Jerusalem
und Rom (Berne: Francke Verlag, 1957), p. 139, n. 7, and 0 0

Cullmann, Christology, p , 1.39. er, A. J. B. Higgins, Jesus

and the Son of Man, p. 199.
42Borsch, Myth and Historz, Po 139"n .•1 0Pierson Parker,
"The Meaning of ISon of Mani", JoB.L. 60 (1941),151-7, agrees
that there is no messianic title to be found here.
43Borsch, Myth and History, p. 143.
44aeza Vermes, "The Use of UJJ TJ/~UJ) ,.lin Jewish Aramaic",
Appendix E of M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and
Acts (3rd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967), po 327. Dr ,
Vermes finds three principal meanings of the Aramaic phrase:
a human being, an indefinite pronoun, and a circumlocution for
the first person (PP. 316f., 318f., 320f.).
Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus,
pp. 259f., finds in Dan. 7 only an imagery and not a title.
This imagery was later treated in a pesher fashion by the
Christian community. Cf. N. Perrin, "Mark XIV.62: The End
Product of a Christian Pesher Tradition?", N.ToS. 12 (1965-66),
150-5; and see the critique of Perrin by Ao J. Bo Higgins, "Is
the Son of Man Problem Insoluble?" in Neotestamentica et Semitica
(M. Black Festschrift; ed. by Eo Earle Ellis and Max Wilcox;
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1969), 70-87.
45Higgins, "Son of Man Forsch
re",
Aramaio A Proach, pp. 328-9, in a noeon
7
p , 124; Mo Blaok,
Geza Vermes study
of Uf) IJ..~II>] I~ expresses the opinion that barnash is suitable
for messianic use.
46Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark, ppo 24-5.
47Todt, Synoptic Tradition, pp. 284, 300 0

48Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark, po 27.

49Higgins, "Is the Son of Man Problem Insoluble?", p. 74.
Higgins thinks rather that Dan. 7 is a corporate reinterpretation
of an already present conception of an individual esohatological
Son of han deliverer, but not one who suffered.
50Borsch, Myth and History, po 229.
51Ibid., p. 145; cf. Mo Blackp "Servant of the Lord and
Son of Man", S.JoT. 6 (1953), 8 0

52A• Feuillet, "Le Fils de l'homme de Daniel", P. 345:

"Et la merveille, c'est qu'il trouve le moyen de realiser la
synthase de ces deux conoeptions: Ie Fils de l'hommet'qui est
venu pour servir et donner sa vie en rannon, est le merne qui
,
doit revenir un jour sur les nuees dans sa
S 1 i
gore. II He goes on
 63

to note that J~sus was condemned for saying he was the Son
of Man of Daniel, which the Sanhedrin judged to be blasphemy.
See also M. Black, "The 'Son of Man' Passion Sayings
in the Gospel Tradition", Z.NoW. 60 (1969), 1-8, where he takes
issue .with Todt and others who minimize the influence of the
Isaianic Servant.
53Higgins, "Son of Man Forsch~", p. 129. He finds
support in W. D. Davies, Paul and Ra nic Judaism (Lonctoil:!·
S.P .C.K., 1955); others in agreement are Dodd, According to
the Scriptures, p , 117, n, 2; Moule, "FrClITl
Defendant to Judge",
pp. 40-530
54Borsch, Myth and His~orl' p. 130.
55Rowley, The Servant of the Lord, p. 64, no 30
56Mowinckel, He That Cometh, p. 410; Eo Sjoberg likewise
finds no pre-Christian Jewish suffering Son of Man (Der Menschen-
sohn im lthioaischen Henochbuch[Lund: C,W.K. Gleerup, 1946),
pp. "61.; an Der Verbor ene Menschensohn in den Evan elien
(Lund: C.W.K. Gleerup, 9 ), pp. 70 • G

57Fuller, Foundations,· p. 107.

58Hooker ~ The Son of Man in Mark, pp 1 08-9, shows how
G

the glory and suffering of the Son of Man relate to each other.
59philip Vielhauer, "Gottesreich und Menschensohn in
der Verkundigung Jesu" in Festschrift fUr Gunther Dehn (edo by
W. Schneemelcher; Neukirchen: Verlag des Buchhandlung des
Erziehungsvereins Neukirchen Kreismoers, 1957).
60 .
Hans Conzelmannj "Gegenwart und Zukunft in der syn-
optischen Tradition", Z.T,Ko 54 (1957), 277-96.
61
E. Schweizer, Lordship and Disciileshi£ (London:
SoC.M., 1960); M. Black, "Recent Research, pp. 305f.; cf.
Todt, Synoptic Tradition, pp. 298-316,
62Evidence for this belief is found in Jubilees 4:23;
10:17; and Wisdom 2-50 Schweizer follows the corporate inter-
pretation of I Enoch with Manson and concludes that I Enoch
and the sutfering righteous form a prototype of the Gospels
Son of Man, M. Black, "Recent Research", pp. 305f" criticizes
Schweizer for ignoring sayings exceptional to his view and
accepting as genuine the sayings which support it. He never-
theless.commends Schweizer for his observations regarding
Jewish eschatology and the role of suffering and exaltation
at judgment assigned the righteous.
63R, H. Charles, The Al{0cr~ha and pseude~igrapha of
the Old Testament in Enflish2 V~soi 6xford:larendon
Press, 1913}, II, p. 17. Charles placed I Enoch not before
95 B.C. when the blood of the righteous was shed (47:1,2,4),
 64

namely the Maccabeans, and not later than 64 B.C. be e.auae

Rome was not known as a world power to the writer and in
64 B.Co Rome interposed in world affairs in Judaea. Since
the Pharisees were in power 79-70 B.C., I Enoch must have
been written during 94-79 B.C. or 70-64 B.C. While Charles
notes (p, 169) that " •• 0,all critics are now agreed that
the Parables are distinct in origin from the rest of the book,
• 0 he does not reckon with the possibility of a later
• "

date for the Similitudes as is now argued by several scholars

(see below). '
611_~ .
""'Fuller,Foundations, p. 37, n, 41 (P. 57); he notes
as accepting the Parables as pre-Christian are "such diverse
scholars" as Stauffer, Mowinckel, Riesenfeld, Otto, BUltmann,
Jeremias, T6dt, Hahn, and Cullmann., .
65Fuller, Foundations~ Po 37, n. 42 (P. 57), cites
J. Y. Campbell, "The origin and Meaning of the Term son of
Man", J.ToS. 48 (1957), 145-55; Dodd, According to the Scrip-
tures~, pp, 116f.; Interpretation, pp. 242f.; and otherso .
66Nils Messel, Der Menschensohn in den Rilderreden des·
Henoch (Giessen: A. Topelmann, 1922; Beihefte 35$1 Z.A.T .W.) et
Messel has the agreement of Campbell, "Origin:' and Meaning", .
p , 148, but is criticized by M. Black, "Old Biblical Literature",
p. 12, who points out that the supposedly Christian elements are
not in the contents themselves'but in the Ethiopic translation.
Cf. Sjoberg1s criticism of Messel in Henochbuch, pp. 14ff •
. 67Sjoberg, Henochbuch. p , 1. He Is followed by Borsch,
Myth and History, p. 146, who likewise doubts any sound reasons
can be given why Christians should interject material into the
Parables, espeCially when the Son of Man is ultimately identified
with Enoch9 Even given the possibility of a pre-Christian date
~ for the Parables, Borsch still doubts much indebtedness to I
Enoch on Jesusl part. He does not mention the possibility of
Christian influence without direct Christian tampering with
the text, howevar-, See here alao G.H.Po Thompson, "The Son of
Man--Some Further Considerations", J.T~So, noso 12 (1961),203-9.
Thompson feels that Mk. 2:10 and Jno 1 :32-34 are evidence of a
first century belief in a heavenly Son of Man (as in Jubilees) •.
Higgins, Jesus and the Son of Man, p. 198, no 3, criticizes
Thompson for underestimating the christological significanoe
of thesepassageso .
As to the question of possible motivations for Christian
interpolation inI Enoch, it is possible that this might have
been thought to enhance the Christian tradition. That I Enoch
was a respected writing is clear from the fact that it is quoted
(I Enoch 1 :9) in Jude 14, 15 •. Interpolation is acknowledged in
other writings (e.g., IV Ezra). There is almost certainly inter-
polation at I Enoch 105:2 (as M. Black argues in the forthcoming
edition of the Aramaic fragments of Enoch from Qumran) and this .
supports the possibility at least of interpolations in the Parables.
 65

68Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark, pp. 47-48. She

suggests that although not Christian (because there is no
distinctively Christian interpretation of the Son ofiMan),
the Parables could be post-Christian and by a Jewish author.
Fuller, Foundations, pp. 37, 38, and The Mission and AChieve-
ment of Jesus, p. 98, finds the lack of Christian differentia
may indicate that pre-Christian tradition is embodied here.
69M• Black, "Recent Research", p , 312.
70The existing Greek fragments are catalogued and given
in a new edition of the Greek Enoch by M. Black"A~ocalYpsis
Henochi Graece, and Albert-Marie Denis, Fragmentaseudepi-
ra horum Quae Su ersunt Graece (V61o III of pseudeEi~raJha
eter1s estament Graece; edo by Ao-M. Denis and M:eonge;
Leiden: . E. J. Brill, , 970), pp. 1 -45~ Apart from citations
and allusions to I Enoch in the early Fathers (listed in full
by Black, PP. 10-14)~ only two larger portions of the Greek
version of the book of Enoch have survived. The Gizeh frag-
ment contains 1 :1-32:6 and in duplicate 19:3-21 :9. The Chester
Beatty Pap~us has 97:6-104: and 106-107, though chapters 105
and 108 (probably spurious) are gone (Black, Po 8). Besides
these fragments there exists the Vatican's tachygraphical manu-
script and several fragments in Georgiu Syncellus.
The Aramaic fragments are catalogued by J. T. Milik
and M. Black in their forthcoming edition of the Aramaic frag-
ments from Qumran and also by J. To Milik in "Problemes de la
a
Litterature Henochique- la lumi~re des Fragments Arameens de
Qumran", Harvard Theological Review 64 (1971), 333-78, on
pp. 336-7.
71Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark, ppo 47-8 0

72Higgins Jesus and the 'Son of Man, P. 199; he also

suggests the abs'nCe May be a: retlectlOii On tne theology of
Qumran. It is doubtful that the absence is accidental at any
rate. In his initial communique to the Revue Biblique ("Le
Travail d'Edition des Fragments Manuscrits de QumrCn": La
Grotte 4 de Qumran (4Q), (Communication de J. T. Milik, pp. 60-2),
R.B 63 (1956), po 60), Milik outlines the extent of the coverage
in f Enoch of the Aramaic fragments (of eight manuscripts in
cave 4) and says, "La. partie II, livre des Paraboles" manque
entierement et cela ne semble pas etre du au hasard. '
73Todt, Smaptio·· Tradition, though one of the most recent
and most thorough studies of the Son of Man problem, does not
even mention the possibility of a post-Christian datel
74Mo Black: lists those parts of I Enoch which are miSSing
from the Aramaic (inJ. T. Milik and M. Black, The Aramaic Fnag-
ments of 'J; Enoch from Qumran (Oxford: Clarendon Press, forth-
coming 1 9741 ):
Book I, chs.15-20, 24,27-30,33,34 (1.2),
Book rr, cha , 37-71 (:34l
r' .'
 66

Book III, chs. 72, 75, 80, 81 1(4 )

Book IV, chs. 831 85, 90 (3 )
Book V, chs. 95-104 (9)
As Black notes, the longest gaps are 9 chapters in Book V
(95-104> and 5 chapters in Book I (15-20)--with the notable
exception of 34 chapters in Book II.
75So Black, "Recent Research", p , 312. He'notes
that the Parables were the primary support for the view of
Bultmann, Vielhauer, Conzelmann, and ;others, that the church
took the Son of Man concept fram the: Jewish apocalyptic figure
of a pre-existent heavenly beingo
6
7. I?odd, According to the Scriptures, pp. 116, 117.
77 J. Co Hindley, "Towards a Date for the Similitudes
of Enoch", N.T.S. 14(1967-68), pp. 551-65.
78~1ilik, "Problemes de La Litt~rature H~nochique",
ppo 333-78; idem, "Turfan et Qumran: Livre des Geants juif
et manicheen~ Tradition und Glaube: Das frUhe Christendem
in seiner Umwelt (Festgabe f11r Karl Georg KUhn zum 65. Geburts-
tag; hrsg.von Gert Jeremias, Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, und Hartmut
Stegemann (Gottingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), pp.117-
27.
79I1ilik, "Problemes de la Litterature Henochique" ,
pp. 333, 3750
80Ibid
_0' PP. 375-6. 81,~0, p. 376.
_.,
82Ibid
pp. 377-80
. 83Ibid., p. 378; Tertullian, AlJologeticum..XII 8, (cd ,
E. Dekker~. C. series lat. I. (1954, 1-p.129, 340
84Black, "Old Biblical Literature", p , 12.

87See Borsch, Myth and History, for a thorough/survey

of this material.
88J• M. Creed, "The Heavenly Man", J.T.S. 26 (1925),
PP. 113-36.
89Jo W. Bowman, The Religion of Maturity (Nashville:
Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 194B), p. 225.
 67

90 '
Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark, PP. 38f. She notes
in particular I Enoch 71 :14 where the statement that Enoch is
the Son of Man born to righteousness makes righteousness the
fundamental characteristIc of the Son of Man, which is true
to Daniel's concept, as is the close connection between the
individual and the community. Cf also El.I,E. Borsch, "Mark
0

XIV.62 and I Enoch LXII.5", N.T.S. 14 (1967-68), PP. 565-67.

91Bla.ck, "Old Biblical Literat.ure" pp 0 12, 13. 'Black
finds dependence on [saiah as well (P. 15>. '
92cf• Campbell, "Origin and Meaning", p. 147; so also
Borsch, Myth and Hist·o&, po 148, who finds dependence on
Daniel (or a common source) and on mythology.
93Black, "Old Biblical Literature", p. 14,.
94Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark, po 60. Charles,
Arocr;rnha and PseudepigrapAa, II (Introduction'ft0 I Enoch),
o course feit this was due to there being different sources
brought together. Son of Man was the title in one source,
the Elect One was the title in the second source. If Charles
is right, Hooker's argument loses its force. Sjoberg1s recent
argument for the Similitudes as a literary unit is forceful
however, (er , Hindley, "Towards a Datel! P. 551) in Henoch-
buch, PP. 33-35. '
Fuller, Foundations, p. 37, feels that the Son of
Man was probably a tItle for a transcendent agent of redemp-
tion by the time of Daniel, but if not by then, certainly by
the time of I Enoch.

95In spite of the attempt of Nathaniel Schmidt, "The

Original Language of the parables of.Enoch" in Old Testament
and Semitic Studies, in memory of William Rainey Harper (ed.
by R. F. Harper and others; 2 vols.; Chicago: University
Press, 1908), II, PP. 329-49. Schmidt tries to establish the
translation. of the Ethiopic directly from the Aramaic, but
this is doubtful. Schmidt's position has recently been taken
up by E. Ullendor.:fr
in a report read to the Accademia dei Lince
(in ~ Rend.; Rome, 1959), P. 261. This position is untenable
however; mistranslatioris in the Ethiopic are due to variations
in the Greek and not in the Aramaic (Black gives examples in
his forthcoming edition of The Aramaic Fragments).
96Dodd, According to the Scriptures, pp. 116, 117.
97Ibid.; Campbell, "Origin and Meaning",·pp. 146-7.
Campbe:LJ.~.is
most emphatic in noting the great untrustworthi_
ness of'the Ethiopic translation of the Greek, its confused
arrangements, especially in the Similitudes, and the use of
three Ethiopic phrases to translate the same Greek phrase.
He concludes (P. 148): " ••• the Book of Enoch affords
not the slightest trUstworthy evidence'for the existence of
'the 'Son of Man' as a messianic title in pre-Christian times."
 68

98Sj5berg, Henochbuch, pp. 52-7. Sjoberg is followed

by Todt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 28, n. 1, and by Borsch, Myth
and History, p. 148; Borsch bakes the demonstrative to mean
"that Son of Man whom you know", presumably rrom I Enoch 46
or fronl current tradition.
99Sjoberg, Evangelien, p. 242; Borsch, Myth and History,
p. 46; M. Goguel, Jesus, p. 248; E. Percy, Die Botschaft Jesu
(Lung: Gleerup, 1953), p. 257.
100 . .
T.W. Manson,· Studies, pp. 128-30; this is corroborated
by the ract that the demonstrative is not used in the later
Ethiopic Gospels because the special meaning is well established
and can be taken for granted.
101 Todt, Synoptic Tradition, p , 30.This is in spite of
the admitted increase in sovereign attributes and a closer
relation to the saved community. The figure was, Todt reels,
rather ritted into eschatological events already there in the
tradition.
102SjOberg, Henochbuch, pp. 581'.; Todt, Synoptic Tradition,
p. 297; cr. Borsch, MYth and History, p. 154, who on the basis
of his royal man thesis says I Enoch's Son of Man is to be
thought messianic, if the Messiah was conceived of in royal
terms.
103Black, "Old Biblical Literature", p , 14. He notes
rurther the parallels in the Similitudes to messianic prophetic
scripture (as pointed out by W. Manson, Jesus the Messiah,
pp. 1731'.).
I 1OIL _ . .
.. Manson, Jesus the Messiah pp. 1731'1'. I Enoch
'"t'\tI.
48:4 is based on Isa. 42: 6; 50 :4; 61 :f -2. Cf. Black, "Old
Biblic~l Literature", p. 15.
105 Mowinckel, He That Cometh, pp. 441,. 444; Higgins,
Jesus and the Son of Man, p. 26'1, likewise doubts that Enoch
becomes the Son of Man.
106R• otto, The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man, p.
2130 Jesus, Otto says, beiieved this of himself as well.
107Sjoberg, Henochbuch, pp. 171,1851'.
108T• Wo Manson, Studies, pp. 1401'1'.
109Hooker, The ,Son of Man in Mark, p. 42.
110Black, "Old Biblical Literature", p. 13. The reasons
a late first century Jew might wish to identify the Son of Man
with someone other than Jesus are obvious. Cf. M. Black, "The
Development of Judaism in the Greek and Roman Periods" in New
Peake's Commentary on the Bible, Pp. 693-8; see p. 697 where-
 69

Black says the Similitudes are susf,ect of Christian influence

or tampering. See also M. Black, 'The Eschatology of the
Similitudes of Enoch", J.T,S,. n,s, 3 (1952), 1-10,
111 Of further interest is the importance attached by
Hindley, "Towards a Date", p. 565, to this identification of
the Son of Man with Enoch: it is taken as a poss.ible indica-
tion of the post-Christian provenance of the Similitudes as
an anti-Christian polemic by a Jewish author,
112 .
T, W. Manson, studies, pp. 138ft.: these elements
are divine election, divine protection and guidance, divinely
given righteousness, and divine vindication and eternal happi-
ness. Cf. T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus, pp. 228; idem,
Studies, p. 141. Support for this oscillation phenomenon ~n
Israel is found in such scriptures as Isa. 41 :8; Psa. 89:4;
Heb, 7:1-1 0; and Eph. 1 :40
1f3T. Wo Manson, Studies, p. 141,

114gjoberg, Henochbuch, 'pp. 86-98, 101; T8dt, Synoptic

Tradition, ppo 27f.
115V• Taylor, The Names of Jesus (London: Macmillan,
1 953 ), pp. 31f. .
116 '
Borsch, Myth and Histor:y, p, 154.
117Messel, Der Menschensohn" pp. 35ff.
118Black, "Old Biblical Literature", p , 12; ~,
"Recent Research", p. 312, where he states that the Son of
Man of I Enoch could possibly be no more than a collective
symbol (except at 71 :14)0
119Hooker, The Son of Man in Hark, pp. 43ff.
1 20See note 111.
121Black, "Old Biblical Literature", po 14; no matter
how closely associated with each other, the Elect One and the
elect ones are still clearly distinguished (cf. 51:5), so the
Enochian Son of Man is not merely a symbol for Is~ael (as was
Daniel's Son of Man).
122Todt, s~optiC Tradition, po 28; he cites 46:3 (pre-
existence) and 6~7 (concealment); cf. p. 28, no 2 on Sjoberg1s
view.
123Sjobergg Henochbuch, PP. 90-3, 102, 115, Sjoberg
finds this concealment to be the basis for the messianic
secret of the Gos~els (P. 115), to which T8dt objects (S~nopt1c
Tradition, p , 302)0 Cf. Otto, Kin~dom of God~ pp,192, 33f,;
and Borsch, M:yth and Histor:y, p. , 8, who, ,it ma;yb$ 'noted.,.,
believes there is possibly p.re-existence in I Enoch 48:2.
 70

12~. W. Manson, Studies, p. 138.

125Ibid., pp. 132, 136; cfo the premundane election of
Isr.ael (Romans 9-11) and of the church (Eph. 3:1f.; I Pet. 1:1 f. ).
Manson prefers to drop the term pre-existence altogether (as
Sjoberg, Charles, and others use it of I Enoch 48:2f.). As to
the meaning in I Enoch 48:2, Manson rejects the possibility of
a reference to the Son of Man being called into existence in
this way {as in the Primal Man myth of the Manicheans, whose
cosmology iS,Quite far removed from that of the O.T. and the
Jews )thoflgh-'·, the parallels in the ~imilitudes point' 'bo
Manichean or similar influence on them", Manson prefers to
emphasize the parallel conception in the Babylonian kingship
rites and in the O.T. (Isa. 43:1; 45:3) as an explanation for
the naming of a name, indicating a designation to a high des-
tiny. This is its probable meaning in I Enoch: a story of
pre-mundane decisions made in heaven to be fulfilled on earth.'
(It may be asked, however, whether this explanation gives full
enough account to the growing importance in JUdaism of the
"name"--that is, could "naming a name" amount to "bring into
existence"?)
126
Black, "Old Biblical Literature", p , 14.
127 .
Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark, p. 42. She notes
her difference from Sjoberg and Tbdt and her doubts that the
author of I Enoch regarded the Son of Man as pre-existent. The
naming of 48:3 does not mean creating, she contends, because ot
48:2, and the choosing before the beginning (in 48:6) need not
imply this either •..This only means that the Son of Man was to
have a part in God's plan. The terms used are, she feels, per-
haps borrowed from the Man mythology.
128
J. Jeremias and W. Zimmerli, The Servant of God
(rev. ed.; London: S.C.M. Press, 1965), p , 61.
129He believes this in I Enoch is the first synthesis
of these two terms. His position of course depends on a pre-
Christian date for the Similitudes~
130Jeremias, The Servant of God, p. 61, n. 255a; he cites
Strack-Bilu.erbeck (Kommentar, II, p. 282); J. Jeremias, "Erloser
und Erlosung im spat judentum und Urchristendem", Deutsch
Theologie 2 (1929), 196-19; and Wo Staerk, "Soter", Beitrage .
zur Forderung christlicher Theologie,2d series 31 (1933),
pp. 72-84. ,
131SjOberg, Henochbuch, pp. 116-39; idem, Evangelien,
pp. 70f. Sjoberg says that the more individual connections
between the Ebed songs and the Son of Man, the greater is
the Significance of the lack of reference to the humility
and sUffering of the son of Man.
132T6dt, SynOpttc Tradition, P. 142.
 71

133See, for example, Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, II,

p. 282, n. 1: Eine Ausnahme bilden gewisse Teile der Bilaer-
reden des Buches Henoch. Nach unser Auffassung ist es hier
den (Ebed Jahves Deuterojesajas, der von Gott zurn~~ssias
bestimmt ist. Vor antritt seines messianischen Berufs stirbt
er als Martyrer. Seitdem weilt er im Himmel bei Gott, urn
dereinst in Herrlichkeit als }1essias wiederzukehren.--Soweit
es sich hier urn Leiden des Messias designatus handelt, haben
die Aufstellungen der Bilderreden Henochs in der nachstfolgende
Zeit keine Beachtung gefunden; ••• " Bultmann takes a differ.~
ent view (TheolO~Y of the New Testament, I} p. 30; and idem,
The History or t e Synoptic Tradition, p , 155). -
1 ),-- '
3~orsch, Myth and HistorI, p. 154. He feels I Enoch
could depend on Second Isaiah for some ideas but not for the
suffering motif •
.135Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark, Po 109.
136Higgins, "Is the Son of Man Problem Insoluble?", p , 75.
137w• Manson, Jesus the Messiah, pp. 173ff.
138Black, "Old Biblical Literature", p. 14. He notes
that I Enoch's,Sonof Man is an ideal figure like that in
Isaiah, but not that in Daniel, transcending national boun-
daries (cf. Ezekiel's "son of man" as "man"). See also Sjoberg,
Henochbuch, p. 146, and Todt, Synoptic Tradition, po 298, who
feel that the Son of Man in I Enoch is not to be identified
with the Messiah, King of David's Seed. Sjoberg finds the
Isaianic passages quoted to be inconclusive of demonstrating
messianic connections and concludes: "Die festgestellen, sehr
begrenzten Beziehungen zwischen dem Menschensohn und den Ebed-
Jahve-Liedern geben also keinen hinreichenden Grund fur die
Annahme, da~ die Bilderreden den Menschensohn mit Vorstellung
des leidenden Ebed-Jahve verbunden haberis " (He italicizesthe
entire sentence, p. 12&)
139perhaps the suggestion of W. Manson (Jesus the Messiah,
p. 117) should not be overlooked: "Is it not possible that the
reat e ansion of the Son of Man doctrine accordin to which
the on of Man s exaltat
life of s esus
himself. Italics his.
140sjoberg, Henochbuch, p. 82.
141Todt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 70,n. 4; cf. po 86, n. 2,
where he cite s I Enoch 45-46; chs 53, 54 deal with the "judgment
on unbelievers. The enthronement and judging of men (55:4) and
angels (61:8f.) by the Son of Man is considered by Todt to be a
decisive step forward towards a more radically transcendent con~
cept of the Son of Man which characterized Jewish apocalyptic ism
of the Hellenistic period.
142 Ibid., p. 29. 143 .!E.!2.., p. 22 6 •
 72

1443ee, for example, what was done with Melchizedek at

Qumran, in M. de Jonge and A. S. van der Woude, '{11Q Melchizedek
and the New Testamentt', N.T.S. 12 (1965~66), pp. 301-26; and
compare the Moses "christology" of the Samaritans, in John
Macdonald, The Theology of the Samaritans (London: S.C.M. Press,
1964), pp. 147-224. .
145G• Ho Box on IV Ezra in Charles, APocr~ha and pseude-
¥igraEha, II, Pp. 552-3, dates the sources of I Ezra variously
rom efore A.D. 70 until A. D. 100, with the final redaction
ca. A.D. 120.
146Todt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 250
147'Ibid~; Wo 0 E. Oesterley, II Esdras (The Ezra Apoca-
0

lypse): with introduction and notes (Westminster Commentaries;

London: Methuen & Co. ,:£.td.,1 933), pp o· 149-500

148Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark, pp. 49f.

149Ibid., P. 56.
150 Ibid., p. 49, n. 2; whether the author took over a
vision already intact, or whether he constructed his own out
of mythological material he·'dldnQt.tmderstand but wanted to
employ, the dependence on Dan. 7 (and Dan. 2) is still there.
151 See Hooker's lengthy discussion on this subject (The
Son of Man in Mark, PP. 49-56)0 Miss Hooker suggests (P. ~
the Anthropos tradition may have influencEdIY Ezra.
152 Ibido, po 53. 153 Ibid., pp. 50f. 154 Ibid., po 5 O.

155For a discussion of the literary and material relations

between Dan. 7:9,10,13, and I Enoch 46-47; 48:2-7; 71, see
K. Muller, "Mens.chensohn und Messias: Religionsgeschichtliche
Voruberlegungen zum Menschensohnproblem in den synoptisehen
Evangelien", Biblische Zeitschrift, n.f. 16 (1972), 161-87 (in
particular pp. 175-77). .
156See the discussion above on the date of the Parables
and er 0 note 145.
157Todt, ShloptiC Tradition, PP. 27f. er, p. 22, where
Todt speaks of t s.
158See the dis~ussion.above.·
159 r• W. Manson, Studies, p. 1410
160V• Taylor, The Names of Jesus, PP. 31f.
161 Sjoberg, Henochbuch, pp , 96-8, 101. Sjoberg acknowledges
a close connection between the Son of Man and the community, but
 73
he does·not find that the Son of Man is the community's personi-
fication (Henochbuch, p. 297)0 Cf. Todt" Synoptic Tradition,
pp. 27f.
,162cf• K. Muller, "Menschensohn und Messias If, p. 178.
1630n the wisdom literature, see A. Feuillet, "Le Fils
de l'homme de Daniel", pp. 321-46, who believes that the hypo-
statizing of wisdom is behind Dan. 7 (and the Son of Man); but
compare J. Coppens, I~isdam in Israel and in the Ancient Near
East", pp. 33-41• .
164The relevance of ~this throne vision has been recognized
by Muller, "Menschensohn und Messias", p. 178"
1 6~- - .
~alter Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 1 Teilband (Ezekiel1-24),
Band XIII/1 in Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament (ed. by
Martin Noth and nans Walter Wolff; Neuklrchen V1uyn, Netherlands:
Neukirchener Verlag des E~ziehungsvereins G.m.b.H., 1969),
pp. 18-21.
166RoBo Yo Scott, "Behold, He Cometh with Clouds If, N'.'T.
S.
5 (1958-59), pp. 127-32, notes it; and the observation goes
back at least as far as G. A. Cooke, Ezekiel (I.C.C.; Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1936), pp. 20, 21. O. Pr-oc kach , "Die Berufungs-
vision Hezekiels", B.Z.A.W., 34 (1920), pp. 141-9, makes no
mention nf .it.
161Zimmerli, 168Ibid• 169 Ibi d 0, p. 1 9.
Ezekiel, I, p. 18.
-
1 72Ibid. 173Ibid•
170Ibid
____ •
174Ibid• I
171 Ibid ., pp. 1 9, 20 •
p , 21.
--" > ,

-
175w. Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary; (trans. by Cosslett
Q;uin; Old Testament Library; London: S.C .11. Press, 1970; from
Dar Prophet Hesekiel': Das Alte Testam,ent Deutsch 22/1 -2;
Gottingen: Vanderhoec.k & Ruprecht, 1965-66) I p. 1 22, thinks
the "man":·of 8:2 is probably to be identified with the "one who
sits on the throne" of 1 :26. .
176In Ezek. 40:3 and 43:7 there likewise occurs in the
temple visions a human form which appears to represent some
heavenly messenger (like the man in linen); cfo H. R. Balz,
Methodische Probleme der neutestamentlichen Christolo ie (Wissen-
sc a tl che onograp en zum Iten un Neuen Tes amen en No. 25;
Neukirchen-Vluyn, Netherlands: Neukirchener Verlag des Erzie-
hungsvereins G.m.boHo, 1967), pp. 82, 83.
177Eog., Ezekiel's preoccupation with the living creatures
owes some of its descriptions to Isaiah; cf. Ezeko 1 :11; Isa. 6:20
178Martin Noth, "The Holy Ones of the Most High" in The
Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Essats (trans. by D. Ro A~
Thomas; Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 966), pp. 215-28.
 74

179This does not mean, however, that these "holy ones"

could not have been understood as earthly saints by first
century readers.
180Balz, Methodische Probleme, p. 80, makes further
comparisons between Daniel and Ez~kiel.
181A• Feuillet, "Le Fils de l'homme de Daniel", PP. 183-90.
Feuillet lists in detail the motifs cammon to Ezekiel and Daniel
and other evidence of dependence of Daniel on Ezekiel, particu-
larly the "appearance of a man" in Dan. 8:15 and 10:16 which
is borrowed directed :from Ezekiel (P. 187). He then says, "Nous
croyons en effet qu'en l'occurrence le contact litteraire
slaccompagne d'un contact theologique d1une importance con-
siderable, car il permet d'eclairer un des problemes les plus
embrouill~s de tout I 'Ancien Testament, la signification exacte
du personnage du Fils de Ilhomme." (p 186)
0

182 .
Ibid., pp. 188-9.
183Is there evidence of literary dependence? Cf. Charles,
AIlocr:yphaand Pseudepigrapha, II, in loco on I Enoch 14:18-22.
C arIes says Enoch draws on Ezeko rn3)';-on Taa , 6, and on Dan.
7:8,10.
184Charlesl translation.
185It is not possible to discuss the complex question of
the composition pf I Enoch. However, R. Ho Charles, The Book
of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1893), p. 81 (in a note on
14 :18 ), says that the author of 71:5-8 has used a previous vision,
14:18-22, which itself is dependent on Isa. 6, Ezek. 1 :10, and
Dan. 7:8,10. However that may be, there seems to be little
question that these passages are all part of the same developing
tradition. (Cf. also Black, "Old Biblical Literature", pp. 12,
13: "The Enoch Similitudes, in particular the Son of Man passages,
resemble nothing so much as an apocalyptic poetic Midrash on
Dn 7, parallel to other such Midrashim (Jubilees, though a prose
work, is the most obvious parallel).")
,.186 The great value of this vision in I Enoch is that 'it
shC!Jls',
one kind of Son of Man tradition which was present in
JUdaism--a tradition which was willing to identify the Son of
Man with an important biblical figureo
187This is discussed by Charles, Apocrtiha and Pseude-
pigrapha, II, pp. 168-77, and by Milik in de~il in his forth-
coming publication.
188Milik, "Problemes de la Litterature Henochique",
pp. 335, 3ij.4-6o'
189 Ibid., p. 374. 190 Ibid., Pp. 333,'375-346.
191 .
"Glory" was commonly used in Palestinian Judaism to
avoid anthropomorphisms; cf. Kittel, "Jo~", ToD.NoT. II, Po 245.
 75

192Charles puts brackets between vv. 13-14 of chapter

46 with the following suggestion: "Lost passage wherein the
Son of Man was described as accompanying th~ Head of Days.
and Enoch asked one of the angels (as in 46j) concerning the
Son of Man as to who he was."
193Charles translates the second persons of vv. 14-16
as third persons.
194Zimmerli. Ezekiel. I. PPo 17-18.
195Feuil1et. "Le Fi1s'de l'honnne de Daniel". pp. 191-5.
196 Ibid •• p. 191.

197~ •• p. 192; he cites on this point Ernst Sellin.

Die israe1itisch-judische Hei1andserwartun& (Berlin. 1909).
p. 71; Hermann Gunkel. Schopfung und Chaos in TIrzeit und End-
zeit (2nd ed.; Gottingen, Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1921 ), P. 328 0

198Feuil1et. "Le Fils de l'honnne de Daniel", p. 192.

199Ibid •• p , 195: ')Le Fils de l'homme repre'sente le
peuple mess1aniq~e au meme titre que le Messie davidique,
mais son caractere transcendent l'emp~che plus encore que
ce dernier de s'identifier avec lui."
200 Ibid •• ppo 192. 195. He says (PPo 192-3) that the
opposition is between the celestial and the terrestrial. not
between the bestiality of the pagan nations and the humaneness
of the people of God. But surely both contrasts are inherent
in the passage. The fact that the human features are given
the beasts (v. 4 the winged lion stands like a man and is given
a man's mind; v. 8 the little horn has eyes like a man and a
mouth speaking great things~ may only be to emphasize the fact
that it is really men who are so inhumane and so bestial,
behaving like animals.
201
Ibid., p. 195.
202That the apotheosis of Israel was the natural develop_
ment of the tradition which gave a special position to the
chosen people was suggested by Matthew Black in a lecture
given at University College, Bangor. 7 March 1972.
203Mo Black. The Scrolls -and Chr:i.stianOrigins (Edinburgh:
Thomas Nelson & Sons, Ltd., 1961 ). Po 154.
204R. Ho Charles. "The Assumption of Moses" in Apocrypha,
and Pseudepigrapha, II, p. 422.
205E._M. Laperrousaz. LeTestament de Morse (Generale-
ment appele« Assomption de Moise »), trans. with introduction
and notes, in Semitica 19 (Paris: Adrien-Maissonneuve,1970),
p. 129, n , 8.
 76

206 ..
Quoted by Laperrousaz, ibid., p. 129, n. 8; M.-J.
Lagrange, Le JUdaisme avant J6su~ist (2nd ed.; Paris:
J. Gabalda et Cie, 1 931 ), p , 24'1, n, 1.
 CHAPTER II
THE SON OF MAN IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
OurSIDE THE GOSPELS

Methodological Considerations
Before proceeding with an investigation of the N.T.
Son of Man material, a brief word about methodol~ may be in
order. On this important matter, a great deal of helpful mater-
ial has been taken from the works of Morna Hooker, especially
hero article on meth~in NoT"Sg1 From this article in
particular the following principles have been noted:
(1) The principle of dissimilarity should be used in
a positive way to increase confidence in a saying, not in a
negative way_ Application of this pr-LncLp Le.s t o the Son of Man
sayings should indicate that particumarly the present and suffering
sayings go back to Jesus, since these hav.. no parallel outside
2
the NoTo, even if the apocalyptic sayings might have"
(2) The presence of Aramaisms is a positive indication
of the antiquity of a saying, even if it is not definite proof
of genuineness.
(3) The principle of multiple attestation should also
be used in a positive, not a negative way.
(4} Parables likely go back t<lJ>
Jesus, but details may
be later additions and the original point may have been losto
The use of paradox and irony may also point to a dominical origin.
(5) A saying must be given a "reasonable 'pedigree',
whether the saying is attributed to Jesus or the church", taking

77
 78
account at eve-ry stage of the reconstruction of what can be
known about Jesus and the ehurch.
(6) The principle of consistency or coherence should
be used to determine the Sitz im Leben for a saying and for
placing it in the life of Jesus or the community.
One additional principle (or pel:"hapsrather an exten-
sion of (4) above) to which considerable attention has been
given, is that the use of the OoT. pass~ges may indicate domini-
cal material. This principle is based on the assumption that
Jesus gave his first disciples at least a core of O.To passages
applied to his ministry, and suggested how these passages should
be developed.3 Support for this assumption may be found in
Lk. 24:24-27, 44, 45 (which, whatever else may be made of them,
at least express the belief of the early community that it was
building on Jesus' own teaching), Mk. 9:12; 14:21,49, as well
as in the many logia attributing to Jesus the use of the O.T.,
which by sheer weight of numbers must mean he in fact did use
the O.To in this way (apart from the inherent probability that
he as a good Jew would have looked to the O.T. to interpret his
ministry)o4 The early community may have added other OoT.
passages and may have developed the use of the passages beyond
Jesus· original use. But rather than assuming the presence
of OoT. material is indicative primarily of the creative activity
of the church, it may be assumed that such activity had its
roots in the teaching of Jesus. This is particularly true
with respect to two very important christological categories-_
the Son of Man and the Ser;svant of the Lord.5
Quotation need not be the only oriterion for O.T.
 ?9

background: allusion and the use of common O.T. ideas may

sometimes indicate an O.T. passage was so thoroughly imbedded
in the tradition that quotation was unnecessary.6
Another observation on method which may be made is .
that, even when it is clear that the theology of the evangelist
is in evidence in a particular saying, one is not thereby cer-
tain that he has created the material as opposed to merely
selecting from traditional material to suit his particular
emphasis or adapting it for his purposes. Even the theology
of the Evangelist may have roots deep in the tradition.?
As V. Taylor said (referring to the Servant christology,
but the same applies to the Son of Man Christology8), it would
be a mistake of method to begin with the Gospels sayings them-
selveso An examination of the Son of Man in the N.T. should
begin with the Acts and the Epistles in order to determine to
what extent there was a Son of Man christology in the early chur-ch,

The Son of Man in the New Testament

Outside the Gospels
Acts 7:56

Outside the Gospels this is the only occurrence of

the full form 0( u\C>S
c "
,ov,.. olvl:ifwtrav
J t:I /
in the N.T. 9 Sign ificantly
it is repnrted as coming from the lips of Stephen, the only
10
time the term is used by someone other than Jesus. The
questions then arise, why did Stephen speak of the Son of Man
and does this indicate a Son of Man christology in the circles
from wlltch Stephen (or the writer of Acts) came?
C. F. D. Moule suggested the reason Son of Man appears
 in Acts 7:56 but not elsewhere in the NoTo outside the Gospels
is that the title is particularly appropriate to a martyr con-
text, because Jesus as the Son of Man martyr will be vindicated
when he comes on the clouds. Furthermore, the rarity of the
term other than on the lips of Jesus maybe due to the fact
that half of its content was past (applying to Jesus' ministry
and sufferings) and half was future (applying to the Second
Coming»).1 If this suggestion is true, the Sitz im Leben of
the Son of Man title is to be found in the life of JeSUS rather
than in the life of the churcho

One recent suggestion of the reason that stephen refers

to Jesus as the Son of Man, whereas neither the disciples nor
anyone else had done so before, was that Stephen realized that
the humiliation of the Son of Man (which is the principal
meaning of the Son of Man for Stott,12 based on O.T. passages
which provide this meaning) had come to an end and that the
'.

Ancient of Days had given dominion to the Son of Man. To

Stephen Daniel's vision had come true, and the universal redemp_
tion, implied in the term "Son of Man" (which indicated it was
"
all manking, not just Israel, that was included in God's sal-
vat0ry purpose), and of which Stephen spoke in his self defense
(Acts.7:2ff.), had come to paas ,
Perhaps more appropriate to the context is the view
of Higgins that the Son of Man is seen as the intercessor or
advocate. This is,the significance of the 'Son of Man standina:
"He does not sit as a judge, but stands.,.1 3 He stands in God's
presence, as do the intercessory angels, though not before God,
but at His right hand, because he is the unique Son of Man
 81

. 14
(Psao 110.1). This shows the importance of Stephenls vision
as seeing the Son of Man both as exalted to Godls right hand
and as advocate there for those who have confessed him before
men (Lko 12:81'.; Mko 8:38).15
The question which is of most importance tor the
present study is whether Stephenis use of the Son of Man
title indicates a living Son of Man christolP8Y. Higgins
believes the fact that for Stephen the son of Man is the
exalted advocate at God's right hand i$ proof of a living
christ,Ologyo16 Even more is made of St'ephen's use of the
term by William Walker who, largely following H. M. Teeple,17
believes Acts 7:56 shows the writer of Acts associated the
Son of Man christology with Hellenistic Jewish Christianity,
or that the writer knew Stephen and his circle actually held
a Son of Man christology: "In any case, I suggest that it
was among Greek-speaking.not Aramaic-speaking, Christians
that the exegetical tradition produced the Son,~of Man christo-
logyo "18
But Walker has surely gone beyond the evidence, for
there is no other indication of a Son of Man dhristology among
the Hellenists (or anyone else, for that matter) in the book
of Acts 0 Never again does the term occur in Acts and this
fact, Luke's reticence to use it independently, in addition
to the importance attached here to God as well as to the Son
of Man (seen in the reference to $~~c( Bo,'0, and the Son of
Man standing at the right hand of God) probably indicates

o • 0
that the concept was no longer a living one, or stood
in need of explanation in the form in which it occurs, for it
 82
is odd that the Son of Man stands rather than sits at Godls
right hand.~9 Furthermore, the fact that the picture of
the Son of Man given here is almost a quotation of Dan. 7:13
and is not elaborated or developed may indicate the lack of
a·'doctrine of the Son of Man other than that he is the Son
of Man of Dan. 7. The account may also depend on Lk. 12i8
and Mk. 8:38, of which it could be seen to be the necessary
fulfil.Iil&nt'.
"When Stephen sees 'the heavens opened, and the
Son, of Man standing at the right hand of God 1, he has just
acknowledged Jesus before the Sanhedrin; now he in turn is
acknowledged by the Son of Man, standing at Godls right hand
as advocate on Stephenls behalf."20 Such dependence (on Syn-
optic logia) reinforces the secondary nature of the Son of
Man in this account, and coupled with the fact that Luke does
nothing more with the Sonrof Man title, indicates that there
was no genuinely living Son of Man christology.
Finally note should be taken of the suggestion of
21
COlpe that the "standing" of the.Son of Man came from a
Samaritan tradition which predicates standing of Q2a. If
this is so, a divine attribute has been transferred to the
Son of Man. This Samaritan theology is not well understood,
however, so that "only with reservations, then, can one venture
the opinion that acc , to t'he tradition in Acts 7 the Son of
Man takes God's place by ushering in the end in judgment and
salvation.,,22 If Colpe1s suggestion has any foundation (and
one must keep in mind his reservations and the rather skiD~y
evidenbe), a further development may be seen in the tradition
of the O.T. Son of Man throne theopnanies. If the Son of Man
 83

had in the OoT. throne theophany tradition become almost

a second deity (see the discussion in the first chapter),
here a divine attribute has been transferred to him.

Hebrews 2:6

Hebrews 2:6 quotes Psa. 8:5ff. (using a text agreeing

with the LKX; omitting the first clause ofv. 7, which also
agrees with the Hebrew23) and thus raises the question of a
Son of Man christology in the community which this epistle
represents. What the writer understood by Son of Man is not
difficult to determine. An interesting Jewish tradition says
.that these words were spoken to God by ministering angels when
Moses went up t.o-"receivethe law: "'0 Lord of the world, '
they said, 'wilt Thou give flesh and blood that precious thing
which Thou hast kept for 974 generations.1 (Ps. viii.5) Give
Thy glory rather to heaven' (Sabb. 88, 1)."24 "The thought
of manls frailty comes first.-25 But the O.To quotation is
siven christological meaning as well. The writer of Hebrews
believes that, while mankind as a whole has yet to receive the
redemption and dominion it was meant to have from its creation,
in the sufferings of Jesus this has already begun. "In some l'

way 'the son of man' was to fulfill the purpose for which man
had been created, and this in spite of his frailty and insigni-
ficance."26 No really creative use is made of the O.T. testi-
monium, however, beyond its simple application to Christ.27
~at was in the O.T. a saying about the majesty of creaturely
man, a majesty limited by God's power as Creator, now becomes
a saying about the majesty which is paradoxically ascribed to
 84
one who is lOWly._28
Is there a genuine Son of Man christology in the book
of Hebrews? The preponderance of OoTo christological titles
.Ln the iletterwith only the one reference to the Son of Man
(and that in an O.T. quotation rather than in the words of
the writer29} would indicate there is not. In the very passage
.where "Son of Man" in mentioned, it is not primarily a Son
of Man christology which is in mind, but rather a view of
Christ as the Pioneer, arx'1y6s.
(2:10), the more important
christology being the Son of God.30 But it must be granted
that the writer (and perhaps his readers) were familiar with
the Son of Man ChristOlogYo31 For, although in both Psa. 8
and Dan. 7 "Son of Man" is equivalent to "man", a real "human
being", "The fact remains that, ever since Jesus spoke of
Himself as the Son of Man, this~x:pression has had for Christians
a connotation beyond its etymological force, and it had this
connotation for the writer of Hebrews.,,32

Revelation 1 :13; 14:14

As in Acts 7:56, the Son of Man in Rev. 1 :13 and 1~:14

is seen in a vision. Here it is the returning Son of Man who
is seen (especially in 14 :14) 0 While the suffering of the now
glorified Son of Man is reflected in Rev. 1:7 ("pierced"),33
he is at present reigning and will return with the clouds34
to reap judgment on eartho35
As to the question of a continuing Son of Man christo~
logy, Higgins feels that the thoughts and expressions common
to Daniel and Revelation as well as the occurrence of the Son
 85

of Man figure in both Johannine writings (the Gospel and the

Revelation) indicates a "living interest in the Son of Man
Christologyas such."36 But there are reasons to question
this view. First, the use of Dan. 7 may indicate a simple
dependence on a well known Son of Man testimonium (reference
to Dan. 7 would seem inevitable37) without independent or
creative use of it.38 Certainly Jesus spoke of an eschato-
logical judgment of the Son of Man (Mt. 13:37ff.; 25:31ff.39)
and there is no real advance on his teaching here: the setting
in Rev. 1 and.14 is the tradition~l one of vindication and
judgment.
40Furthermore, the addition of heterogeneous mater-
ials to augment the traditional Son of Man,41 rather than
the development of inherent or as.ociated ideas may indicate
lack of real tmderstandingfOf the Son of Man concept: it at
least shows that the movement is away from a Son of Man chris-
tology. Also of significance is the transference of Son of
Man sayings to the Son of God.42
One important point t;¢l note in Rev. 1 :13 is that the
"hair like pure wool" of the Ancient of Days in Dan. 7:9 now
belongs to the Son of Man of Rev. 1 :13, 14 whose "head and
his hair were white as white WOOl." Here, as in Acts 7:56,
a divine attribute of the Ancient of Days has been transferred
to the Son of Man, or perhaps rather the son of Man and the
Ancient of Days have become one and the same143

Paul's Second Man/Adam Christology

Paul uses his Adam/Christ typology in three ways:

(1) to show the universality of grace (Rom. 5:12-21), (2) to
 86

establish the cert.ainty of the resurrection (I Cor. 15:22),

and (3) to demonstrate the certainty of the spiritual body
(I Cor. 15:45-49).44 It appears at first that these uses
bear little or no relation to the traditional Son of Man
christologyo But the Pauline passages must be examined more
closely to determine whether there is an underlying Son of
Man christology upon which Paul relieso
In Rom. 5:12 the term :J 1/0 f LVfl os , which in v ; 1 5c may
echo the Greek Son of Man title, is unnecessary, inasmuch as
the Ghrist~Adam typology is possible without the Son of Man
title, though it is made easier with it.45 Son of Man is
quite incidental to Paul's typology: "it has no relevance
to the Christology of the section, which rests on other pre-
suppositions than ap oc , Son of man Messianology. ,,46 Romans
5:12ff. may reflect the same interaction of Paul with the
current Jewish doctrine of two Adams as is seen in I Cor.
15:45-49.47
In Coro 15:21f., 44b-49, Paul, who understands the
incarnation in terms of the Son of Man, is denying the Jewish
doctrine ot: two Adam~--a doctrine which, as explained by Philo,
said that th~re was a heavenly Man (the Adam of Gen. 1 :27, who
is the heavenly man made in God's image) and there was an
earthly man (the Adam of Gen. 2:7, who is the historical first
member of the human race). Higgins believes Paul, using the
terms Adam and man instead of Son of Man, though he was aware
of a Son of Man christology, is not the first to use ~an" in
this sense.48 Rather Paul is dependent on the pre-Pauline
hymn of Philo 2 :6-11 for the substitution of "Man" for "Son of
 87
Man"--a substitution which must have taken place quite early.
In Phil. 2 Paul adapts a Greek form of an Aramaic hymn:

" • • • this Greek form of an Aramaic hymn provided Paul with

the suitable word for use in contrasting Christ as the "Man"

with Adam. ,,49 The Son of Man christology merely made possible

Paul's use of the older categories of pneumatic/psychic man--

the macrocosmic, upper, first man as opposed to the microcosmic,
lower, second l11an--withhis new typology.50 One might conclude

that I Cor. 15:45, 46 has no real Son of Man christology,

though it does show familiarity with it, but rather has an

imaginative interpretation of Adam from Gen. 1 and 2, as well

as a Jewish doctrine of two Adams, and applies this to a new
development in christology.

Summary
Can it be said then that the passages examined indicate

a living Son of Nan christology in the early Christian community?

In the passages outside the Gospels where the title Son of Man
occurs, it seems clear that the writers were familiar with
the Son of Man christology (they could hardly have been ignor-
ant of it), but there is little or no creative use made of it.
Hebrews 2:6 does little more than quote psa. e, probably a well
known Son of Man testimonium.51 The other passages, Acts7:56

and Rev. 1 :13; 14:14, merely depend on Dan. 7, an O.To testi-

monium so obvious that its use was inevitable. Likewise Paul's
second man/Adam typology, though perhaps founded on it, merely
shows familiarity with the Son of Man christology and moves

~way from it, avoiding the title and not really developing its
motifs. Taken as a whole then, the evidence outside the Gospels
 88
indicates that there was a fa-rniliari
ty with the Son of Man
christology but no extensive development of it and little
creative use of it.52 The fact that there are occurrences
of the term "Son of Man" (even if very few and in varying
constructions: Acts 7:56 is the only full form, Heb. 2:6
lacks the second article, and Rev. 1 :1 3; 14 :14 lack both

articles) means there was at least a familiarity with the

Son of Man christologYi and the fact that there are not more
means that it surely was not a living christology.

The question of a Son of Man christology in post N.T.

writings cannot be gone into, though COlpe53 and Higgins54

believe a Son of Man christology did survive into this period.

The Creativity of Jesus and the Early Community

If it is true, as the preceding survey of the N.T.

material outside the Gospels suggests it is, that there was

no living Son of Man christology being creatively developed

in the early church, how then is one to account for the use

of the term in the Gospels? Taking the Gospels accounts at

face value would give as an answer to this question that Jesus
himself used the term of himself and developed it in his own
distinctive way. It will be necessary to see whether this

answer can stand up under the weight of an examination of the

Son of Man logia themselves (for they could be and have been

taken as evidence of a Son of Man christology in the early

church). But at this point it may not be out of order to
suggest that greater attention be given to the creativity of
 89
Jesus. This plea is important to balance against the common
assumption that the Son of Man concept as it is found in the

Gospels is the product of the widespread creative activity

of the early community as it passed on the tradition.55

As long ago as 1948 V. Taylor drew attention to the

creativity of Jesus in an attempt to correct the course of

much N.T. discussion which attributes virtually all to the

ever present (but still anonymous) community56 (about which

less is known than is sometimes recognized--a fact to which

Hooker has recently called attention57). Twenty-five years

later one finds the situation very little changed and the

amount of creativity or originality ascribed to Jesus by

many scholars is still very little indeed.58 Often what

creativity has been allowed Jesus has been limited to the use

of striking phrases, parables, and metaphors. But the question

must be posed whether the founder of Christianity has not had

more to do with the formation and development of some of its

leading ideas,59 especially the development of the Son of Man
concept, particularly in the broadening of the idea to include
the earthly ministry of a genuinely human (not just anapoca-
lyptic, future) Son of Man, as well as his suffering on behalf

of others.
 NOTES

1
Morna D. Hooker, "Christology and Methodology",
17 (1970-71), 480~7, especially pp. 486-7.
2
~., pp. 483-4.
3Dodd,According to the Scriptures, p , 110.

4Bruce,' NewTestament Development of Old Testament

Themes, P. 29: "There seems to be no convincing argument for
excluding this insistence (upon fulfilment of Scripture in-the
suffering of the Son of Man] from His authentic sayings."

5Jeremias, "1141S ~oG ft, PP. 676...713.

6Bruce, NewTestament Development, p. 30.

7Cf• Stephen Smalley, "Johannine Son of Man", PP. 278-

301 , who shows this to be true even in the case of JohnJs Gospel.
8So V. Taylor, "The Origin of the Markan Passion-
sayings", N.T,S. 1 (1954-55), 159...67, especially pp. 160t.

9Higgins, Jesus and the Son of Man, p. 143.

10JOhn 12:34 is no real exception, since the crowd is
quoting Jesus; Colpe, "6 u\~s TOO JV&ft..roou", 461f, Cf. Bruce,
NewTestament Development, p. 28.
11
Moule, "The Influence of Circumstances OIl the use ot
Christological Terms", 247-63.
12wiltrid Stott, "tSon ot ManI...-A Title of Abasement",
P. 280.
13Higgins, Son ot Man, P. 145. 14Thid.
15Thid., p. '46. The view that Stephen sees the parousia
about to take place--i.e .•, the Son ot Man rises in order to ,
return (so H, P. Owen, "Stephenls Vision in Acts 7:55-6", N,T,S,
1 (1954-55), 224-6) is not supported by the context which makes
no reterence to the parousia (P. 145),
Ct. Moule, "From Detendant to Judge", where he s~gests
the Son ot Man stands as a witness ,. •• '. giving decisive
evidence in vindication of his oppressed disciples." (PP. 47ft.)
90
 91

16Higgins, Jesus and the Son ot Man, P. 146.

17H• M. Teeplet ~The Origin of the Son of Man Christo-
logy" , JoB,L. 84 (1955J, 213-50.
1Bwllliam 0, Walker" "The Origin of the Son of Man
Concept as applied to Jesus', J,B,L•.91 (1972), 482-90. For
a less confident suggestion of a sImilar nature, see Stephen
Smalley, "Johannine Son of Man", p. 300, who suggests a Son
of Man christology may come from a tradition" , • "which
was given expression and shape in the early kerygma, came into
the substructure of the Gospels and Acts, and survived in the
adaptations found in Rom, v and vii, phil. ii, Col, i, I Timo
iii, and so on~" He believes further that "The Son of Man
sayings in John or anywhere else need not be 'kerygmatic
therefore inauthenticl; why should they not have become keryg-
matic precisely because they were authentic?"
1 9C olpe, "c0 U(, ... .J l\ /"
I es TOO olVl)/fwtTOO ,p.
46 2.

20Bruce, New Testament Development, p. 28,

21Colpe, "0 u~~s ToG Jvf}f~'11()I)", pp. 462-3.
, 22~o, po 463, Luke's dependence on a source is
indic~ted by the plural heavens, which may correspond to a
U : ~IV in the tradition Luke used (E, Haenchen, The Acts of
the Apostles: A Oommentarz; Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1971: p , 292, ..n, 5).
23B• F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews (London:
Macmillan, 16~2), p. 478.
24Ibid" p. 43. 25Ibid•
26w. Stott, "'Son of Manl--A Title of Abasement", p. 280 0

27G• Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles (London: Macm~llan,

1953), pp. 48f., thinks the wrIter has deliberately altered\',;
the LXX to suit his christology, but this view is effectively
dismissed by R. V. G. Tasker, ~ext of the 'Corpus Pauliniumt",
N,ToS.1 (1954-5.5), 180-91 (review of Zuntz1s book).
28colpe, ~6 u~o..s TOU ~vVp:rnl)u", p , 464.
29Higgins, Jesus and the Son of Man. po 1~6,
30Stott, "'Son of Man'--A Title of Abasement~, p. 2800
31Higgins, JesuS and the Son of Man, P. 146 0

32F, F, Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1 964), 1U.!22..
 92
33Higgins, Jesus and the Son of Man, p. 148.
34G. E. Ladd, A Commentar
John (Grand Rapids : E'I-e-r~d";m~a-'n~s-,~.o;;9~7~~,--p-.~~~;;';:;;';;;";;'=";;;''
CIOUds are often associated with the
Rev. 1 :7).

35Higgins, Jesus and the Son of Man, pp. 147-8.

36
lli,2,., p. 148.
37Ibid. : "It would have been surprising had the seer
made no use of the apocalyptic Danielic Son of man. lI'

38Christ is simply introduced by a description based

on Dan. 7 (Ladd, Revelation, p. 199).

39Ladd, Revelation, p. 199.

40Smalley, "Johannine Son of Man", p. 301, n , 4,

notes the similarity to the .Tohannine SO'nof Man which he
also feels is based on traditional material.
41Cl"
o pe, 0t VIOS
l'
lOO
I II ,
c/.vl:tftvTrW '"
, p. 463 •
43R• G. Hammerton-Kelley, Pre-Existence, vHsdom, and
the Son of Man: A Stud of the Idea of Pre-existence in the
New estB.m.ent .N.T.S. Monograph No. ; ambr-Ldg e r Unl.ver-
sity Press, 1973), pP. 53-4: "In Rev. 1 :14 an attribute of
the "Ancient of Daysll in Dan. 7:9--namely his white hair--has
been transferred to the Son of Man. In Dan. 7:9, the white
robe is an attribute of "the Ancient of Days", while in Mapk
9:3 it belongs to the transfigured Jesus. This could mean
that in Mk. 9: 3, as in Rev. 1 :14, an attribute of the "Ano ient
,f
of Days has been applied to Jesus, understood as the Son of
Man.~ If this is true, then even the ascription in Rev. of
the divine attribute (the white hair of the Ancient of Days)
is no new advance but has a precedent in Mark 9.

44J• Jeremias, "A£f.tA-", T.D.N.T. I, pp. 141-3.

45Co1pe , "L
0 l\
tJlc9s I
TOU...) ClVl)'fLV'TT"llV
11\ ", p , 472 • 46Ibid.
_

47Higgins, Jesus and the Son of Man, p. 150. 48Ibid.

49Ibid, p. 152. The substitution of ''man'' for "Son

of Man" muS't1iave been natural enough, since the idea of Son
of Man as ''true man " was surely always present to some extent
in the Son of Man christology.
50 ((\ r: I ~ I'
Colpe, "0 tJlClS TB\) 01 'fWTTou", p. 471: the origin-
ally non-messianic Psa. 8 is used for the first time,in Chris-
tian tradition, probably because of cS (J~o's ,ou Jt.,,~('wrr()v.
51Colpe, "b u~o~ ToG ~f()ftm-ou ", p. 471, says I Cor.
15 makes the first use of it in a messianic sense.
 93

52perhaps Higgins' statement requires qualification:

lilt is not the case that the church had no theology of the
Son of Man, for it is present both in its original form and
in the adaptation "Man"o" (Jesus and the Son of Man, P. 152)
Cf 0 Hooker, "Christology and Methodology", Po 484; and J. A. To
Robinson, Jesus and His Coming, po 57, no 2.
53Colpe, "0 u~os TDO dvef~o-V ft, PP. 473ff.
54Higgins, Jesus and the Son of Man~ PP. 148-9.
55As an example of the widespread creativity attributed
to the Gospel writers and the early community and the/little
allowed to Jesus, see No Perrin, "Creative Use of the Son of
Man Traditions by Mark", U,S.QoRo 23 (19t>'7-68),357-650
56V• Taylor, "The Creative Element in the Thought
of Jesus" (an address given Nov. 5, 1948, at Hands~worth
College, Birmingham), in New Testament Essa~ (Grand Rapids~'
Eerdmans, 1972), pp. 36-47, especially PP. 6-7.
57Hooker, f'Christology and Methodology", po 482.
58TaYlor, "Creative Element", po 39, quoting Barth's
estimation of Jesus' creativity.
59Ibido, P. 37: ~e must face the inherent probability
that a rich and persistent movement like Christianity began with
a creative personality. This likelihood is at its strongest
when the greatest of His followers speak of Him with veneration
and awe."

I,
 CHAPTER III

THE SON OF MAN IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Having considered the O.To background to the Son of

Man and some methological questions, one is in a better position

to turn to an examination of the N.T. Son of Man, particularly

as the term occurs in the Synoptic Gospels. It may prove espec-

ially helpful to take careful note of the way in which O.To texts

are quoted, alluded to, or built upon in the development of the

Son of Man tradition. Perhaps it is best to begin with the group

of Synoptic Son of Man sayings which refer to the future coming

and glory of the Son of Man, since these sayings may most readily

be seen to stand in direct line with the O.To Son of Man back-
ground already examined, especially the tradition which stems

from Daniel 70

The Future Son of Man SAyines

The Double Tradition
Three of these logia occur in Mt. 24 (vv. 27, 37, 44 =
Lk. 17:24, 26; 12:40; as well as special Lk. 17:22, 30 and Mt.
24:30, which Fuller classifies editoria11), the "little apoca-
lypse".2 Many O.T. passages have been used to ahajie this apoca_

lyptic discourse. "In the days of Noah", Mt. 24:37ff., used Gen.
6:5,9-12 (describing the wickedness of bien); 7:6-24 (describing

the destruction of the wicked). Matthew 13:41 echoes Zeph. 1:3

in the gathering of the wicked for destructiono Matthew 26:21 28,
speaking of God's act of requiting men according to their deeds,
94
 95
recall such O.T.o passages on this subject as PSo 28:4; 62:12;
Prove 24:12; Sir. 35:19. Matthew 24:28 may reflect Job 39:39;
and Nt. 24: 31 appears to build upon Ls a , 27:1 3 and Eech. 9:14.
But Daniel 7 can be seen as the basic text in the develop-

ment of the discourse as a whole, if not in the individual logia.

In particular Mt. 24:30, 31, go directly back to Dano 7: in both

passages the Son of Man comes with the clouds of heaven (Mto 24:30;
3
Dano 7:13) • The usage of the verb €fX°,..oll
,I
as a technical term

for the eschatological appearing of the Son of Man goes back to

Dan. 7:13 (cited in both Mt. 24:30 and 26:64. following the s'ame
usage as Mark, though Matthew conforms more to the LXX text.4).

This coming of the Son of Man will be with glory (Mt. 24:30; Dan.
7:14 LXX5), with the angels (Mt. 24:31; Dan. 7:10), and with the

elect (Mt. 24: 31; Dan. 7:18 )--allelements having a foundation in

Dan. 70 The theme of "judgment is common to both passages as well.

The other saying in the double tradition is Mt. 12:40 =

Lk. 11 :30.6 This saying is present in several forms in the N.To

Perrin has organized these into four groups: a) Mark 8:12, the

most simple, b) Mt. 12:39 = Lk. 11 :29 (Q) with the addition of

"except the sign of Jonah" (cf. Mt. 16:4 duplication, which is

Matthew's version of (a)), c) the interpretation of the sign of
Jonah, Mt. 12:40 = Lk. 11:30, and d) the double saying, including
the queen of the South and the men of Ninevru~o7 After sorting

out these various forms and assigning them their place in the

history of tradition,8 Perrin concludes that the one authentic

element in the saying is the refusal of a sign, except the sign
of Jonah. (What this sign meant to Jesus and his hearers Perrin

is unable to ascertain.) The s~gn possibly referred to the future

vindication of the Son of Man, analogous to Jonah's deliverance,

 96
though there is no indication the Ninevites had any knowledge
of Jonah's deliverance. But perrin prefers to understand the

sig~ as meaning the preaching of Jonah (cf. the mention of Jonah's

preaching in Mt. 12:41). For Jesus the significance of Jonah
was the effectiveness of his preachingo9 As the sign of Jonah
was his preaching, so the preaching of Jesus will be effectiveo

And like Jonah's, Jesus' message and ministry will be vindicated ,

though it is not specified when or how; but the reference to those

who will rise at the judgment means that Jesus' work will be
. d·lca t e d •10
Vln

There are other interpretations of the sign of Jonah.

Klostermann takes it that as Jonah was for Nf.neve.ha sign--that

is, he acted under the impending threat of judgment--so the sign

for this generation will be the coming of the Son of Man to judg-
1
mento ' But Fo Filson interprets the sign (in view of Mt. 12:40)
as a reference to Jesus' resurrection,12 This view is also taken
by Ho T. France.13

The two interpretations of the sign (as the preaching

or as an eschatological event, whether Jesus' resurrection or

the parousia) need not be wholly separated. If Matthew does

refer to Jesus' resurrection and Luke to his preaching, the

former is the vindication of the latter. The eschatological

nature of the saying, made clear by the reference to judgment,

is important. Yet it is significant that in this saying the

eschatological Son of Man is tied to the earthly Jesus and his

preaching ministry and its vindication. In this respect the
term $en of Man is broad enough to include both the eschatological
and the earthly aspects which this saying includes. Here is
pe r-haps an a.nticipation of thevay in which the Fourth Gospel
 97
ties the eschatological to the present by its distinctive use

of 11 rW~V.Al (see the discussion of this in Chapter IV).

Though there are differences in the various forms of

this saying (c and d above) in their reference to Johah .. and

though they are taken by Perrin as independent, they are both ..
he believes, dominical.14 In confirmation of this view is the
fact that the antiquity of the saying may be reflected in the
Semi tisrrr "rise up", ~ ycl.O ;yaU.1 5 The likelihood that the

mention of the queen of the South may also be dominical.. inasmuch

as it is vivid and accords with Jesus' use of unlikely good

example, 16 further underlines the authentic nature of the

material in this pericope.

Concerning the O.T. elements in this logion, the obvious

use of Jonah 1 :17 (Mto 12:4017; and Jonah 1 :2; 3:5 .. in Mt. 12141)

and I Kings 10:2; 2 Chron. 9:1 (Mt. 12:42) may be noted. But
it seems unlikely that the theme of vindication (which is the

real import of this saying) has come from these passages. Is

it not possible that the real O.T. source for that theme, as

for the title Son of Man itself, is Daniel 7?

Mark
A discussion of the future Son of Man sayings in Mark

may well begin with Mark 14: 62. Because of the importance of

this saying it will be given special attention.

Nark 14:62
In his trial before the Sanhedrin (Mk. 14:53-71; parr.)
Jesus apparently gives a full confession of his messiahship to
Caiaphas. Though the orig~n of this report has been thought
a problem, the early community would certainly have obtained
 98
some information about these proceedings which were so important
tOt
010
18 The accuracy of the account (and its historicity) is
much debated howevero19 There are elements in the account which

do not follow the prescribed procedure in the Mishnah (Sanhed~in,

0 0)
lV-Vll
o 20
0 It is possible that the Sanhedrin abandoned its rules

in order to condemn Jesus regardless, but .it is more likely that

the description in Mk. 14 is that of an informal hearing for the

purpose of reaching a consensus of opinion rather than of a formal

til
r a lud gmen t21
passlng a JU
0 •

The question of the High Priest, to which Jesus replies

with the words ofMk. 14:62, is of importance. The apparent
equivalence of X r l<tiOS
'\ and
t.
0
et
v lOS
,.
"TO U
J,\
EVAOY"l"ToV
"
is problematic.
The perip~is for God is well enough attested, though usually

it is found in the formulaX·Jn If,?-uhlI?D or the Aramaic

x-m :r: 7f- ~~T·'P rather than the simple "blessed",

) \ I
f,Vl\oyv\TOS =
!T., 1n
"' T
or ;r'1
i'T"
i.:u1. But in I Enoch 77:1' "Most High" and ""He Who
is Blessed Forever" are equivalent names and in Mishnah Berakoth

7:3 there occurs "bless the Lord Who is to be blessed.u22 Thus

the simpler form does occur, discounting Joseph Klausner's view

that it is unjewish and a later addition.23 This periphasis is

more likely on the priest's lips than Matthew's ol c.'
UIOe;. TOU
"CL"'24
l7e0lJ •

But even if the ~t)l'ley'lT~

..) \ , as a periphasis is established, the use

of "Son of God" as a messianic title by Jews of Jesus t time is

not attested, though the term was used by early Christians.25

This fact suggests that the High Priest's question has been
rephrased by the Evangelists in the interest of their Christology.26
Higgins suggests that it is not wholly inconceivable that the
priest used the term, however, since it was used of kings (Psao

2:7) and the messianic expectations sprang from kingship ideaso27

",,,.- '
 99
It has been suggested that the priest used the term, which did
not express his' own messianic views, because he knew of such a

saying as Q1s (Mto 11 :27 = Lk. 10:22) or on the basis of the

parable of the wicked husbandmen (Mk. 12:1_12),28 thinking to

catch Jesus in his own wordso

In Jesus I reply there are several indications that',.'

primitive tradition has been transmitted here. The first indi-

cation is a linguistic consideration: the peculiar circumlocution

for the divine name, ,f SCIf~W!' has been shown to be a rare Jewish

idiom.29 It is attributed to James by Hegesippus (Eusebius, ii,

23), but more significantly it is used in Acts 8:10 of Simon

Magus, ~ StfV'«~fS ffYolA, (Luke having added TOl) Sce-\} , as in Lk ,

22:69'" and the /'(o{~o.)rW~ by way of explanation), meaning he was

thought to be "God". In the Gospel of peter 5:19, the cry of

dereliction, Jesus says, "Ny power, 0 power, thou hast, forsaken

me." Dalman takes the sense to be that the power which for
Jesus is God had left him--that is, God had left him. In this

case Jesus would be addressing God similarly to Psa. 59:18,

where God is addressed 'r:r Jl, "my strength".30 (Whether or not
• 'c.,

the thought of God forsaking Jesus was a difficulty for the

wrlter,31 the substitution of power for God may be a toning
down of the cry of despaJir.32,) The account of Simon Magus is
the most significant, in that it is set in the particular milieu

from which the idiom comes, namely Samaritanismo33 The idiom is

peculiar to northern Palestine,34 so it is probably from this

setting that the tradition of Mk. 14:62 coilies.

A second indication of the primitiveness of the tradition

in Mk. 14:62 is in its use of Q.T. scripture. A conflation of

Psa. 110:1a and Dan. 7:13 is used in peference to the Son of

 100
Mano35 These particular testimonia occur in some of the oldest

parts of the N.T. They appear in the speeches of Acts (2:34f.;

36
7:55f.), but paul also knew of the importance of both of these
passages, as is clear from his use of psa. 110:1 in I Cor. 15:25;

Rom. 8:34 (and cf. Eph. 1 :20; Col. 3:1) and his knowledge of
Dan. 7:13 in I Cor. 15:45f. and in Phil. 2:7,37 which is probably

earlier than the epistle itself.38 One may thus safely assume
that this influence bf Psa. 110:1 and Dan. 7:13 on N.T. Christo~

logy is at least pre-Pauline. Certainly Nark believed Jesus

himself defined Son of Man in terms of these O.T. scriptures.39
Perhaps the origin of the early Christian confession of the Christ
in terms of Psa. 110:1 (cf. Lk, 22:69 which repr;esents Jesus as

speaking of the Son of Man in terms of Psa. 110:1) and Dan. 7:13

is in the teaching of Jesus.40

If Jesus spoke something like the words of Mk. 14:62,

Was he identifying himself with the Son of Man or not? The

account shows that Caiaphas understood him to do so, for whether
the blasphemy was in the use of the title or in the assumption

of a divine prerogative,4" the priest must have understood Jesus

to refer to himself as the Son of Mano 42 It is unlilrely that

Caiaphas misunderstood Jesus (that is, Jesus really meant the

Son of Man as another43), since then there would have been no
substance in the charge of blasphemy.44 There is nothing in

the account to indicate such a misunderstanding. L~5

The difficulty has long been recognized, however, that

even if Jesus is referring to himself as the coming Son of Man,

he seems to be speaking of another. This third person for the

first person manner of speaking, referring to the Son of Man

apparently as "another", is most pronounced perhaps in Mk. 8:38.
 101

vfuat has perhaps not been fully recognized is that this

"distinction" between Jesus and the Son of Man exists in the

earthly ministry and passion sayings as well (e.g., In. 8:28;

12:34; Mt. 8:20; 11:19, par.), yet it is clear that these refer
to Jesus. Is there any reason why Jesus should have spoken in
this third person language of himself? The ~(J)l1 ~ first person
circumlocution is one answer.46 It is to avoid undue or immodest
•
emphasis on himself (possibly to dissociate himself from something

unpleasant, as suffering) that Jesus uses XW) l~, a term perfectly

suited to serve the function of a circumlocution for the first

person and to serve as a concealed title at the same time.

!t has been suggested,47 on the basis of certain Qumran

materials,48 that behind the messianic secret (and one could

suggest behind the mysterious use of the Son of Man title)

there may have been the tradition of Judaism (or some circles

in Judaism) that the Messiah, when he came, could assume the

title "Messiah" only after he had performed the work of the
messiah. On this understanding Jesus would use a messianic
title to refer to himself only indirectly, since he had not

yet finished the work of the messiah.49 This view is consistent

with C. F. D. Moule's circumstantial explanation for the sparcity

of the Son'lOfNan title outside the Gospels--namely that the title

referred in part to the past and in part to the future. Jesus
was 0
c. ( \
Vl6S
",,1\"
TOV i.tYrt-fINlTDV 0 em T1~ tllS,
(J'''' "
the suffering Son of
50
Man, and he will be
<.
0
c. ,
s
LJ I e ,0
") JIl'
U
~ .. '\
oLVV!w-nrn.J 0 Ev V6r~(\AIS. Je sus

was not designated by the latter term since it was all future
and it was improper to ascribe it to him before he successfully

accomplished this task. The former term, the Son of Man on earth,
could properly be used of Jesus (except in the Gospels which por-
 , 102

tray the situation before the accomplishment of the task) since

he had performed that task. But the church chose not to use it

(except of course in reproducing Jesus' own use of it in the

Gospels) since a less ambiguous term (J''f'&-rWifCS) could be used
to describe his common share in humanity; and such terms as
Christ, Lord, and Son of God wem preferred in referenca~ to the

glorified (as opposed to the coming) Son of Man.5'1

Does this Son of Man saying provide any indication of

the way in which the Son of Man waS defined in early tradition,

particularly with reference to OoT. scrip.ture? The development

of O.T. Son of Man scriptures and of the Son of Man Christology,

though without the title itself, is carried further in the N.T.,

especially in Paul's "'Second Adam" and the Christology of the

book of Hebrews" But what was the meaning in r1k. 14:621 The

theme of vindication seems clear enough with the reference to

Dan. 7 and to Psao 1100 If then the primary meaning of this

logion is that the Son of Man will be vindicated, then the

question arises whether the vindication is understood as exalta-
tion (8.scending to Godts right hand) or as the parousia (coming

from GOd's right hand)052

An argument in favor of exaltation is that this was the

meaning in Dano 7, as is seen in the fact that the Son of Man
goes up to God to receive a "kingdom", rather than comes from
God with ito53 Furthermore, the parousia is linked with judg-

ment, whereas it is a "reign" which is envisaged here, by the

reference to Psao 110:1054 Since the members of the Sanhedrin
obviously did not see the parousia during their lifetime, it
must be the exaltation of Jesus which is meant.55 Though the
ordCf'.here is problematic (session befDre coming) to the exaltation
 103

view, the fact that the two participles (which are without time

significance at any rate) are present, indicating simultaneous

action, alleviates this difficulty.56 In addition, Glasson says

that no Jewish exegesis of Dan. 7 takes this as a coming of the

Messiah to earth.57
On the other hand, E seems Dano 7 is used to refer to

the parousia, especially v. 22, where the Ancient of Days comes

(to earth?) and judgment is given to the saints of the Most High
. 58
(who are the Son of Man). The reference to rule in Nk. 14=62

(by the citation of Psao 110:1, wi~h Psa. 80:17 as the possib£e

bridge; cf. the vine imagery) is not r.uled out, since reign as
well as judgment appears in Dan. 7:22, in that the saints possessed
the kingdom.59 It is thus not necessary to doubt that there is

a state of exaltation, which Lk. 22:69 rather clearly shows,

preceding the parousiao60 The fact that the Sanhedrin did not

see the parousia in their lifetime is no more a problem for the

parousia view than for the exaltation (which the Sanhedrin cannot

be said to have seen either). Rather, according to this view,

the members of the Sanhedrin will be raised to see the parousia
61
at the last judgment. The order' of kcJ9titttvdY
I)

and efx()r-f-VoY
~

facilitates this view as wel162 and is compatible with the tense

63
of the participles and their simultaneous action. Finally,
Jewish exegesis of Dan. 7 does speak both of the messiah going

to God from earth (Midrash, Psa. 2:9; 21 :5) and of the messiah
coming to earth from God (Midrash, Genesis R. 13:11; Numbers R.
13:14).64 However there is support for the belief that the usual
Jewish interpretation was to understand the pa asag e symbolically. 65

Perhaps it is not necessary to decide between exaltatton

and parousia. The saying may have expressed a very general idea
 104
of vindication which could include both the imminent exaltation

and the more distant parousia.66 The present exaltation of the

Son of Nan in heaven will become an earthly reality at the

parousia.f:>7 Again there is a great deal in Hooker's reminder

that as figurative, symbolic language, this imagery should not
be pressed too far.68 The spatial terms are a language accommo-

dation and vary anyway: in Dan. 7:13 the Son of Man came; in

7:22 the Ancient of Days comes.69 But for the basic meaning in
Mk. 14:62, as in Dan. 7, one must come back to Maule's view that
the exaltation-vindication of the Son of Man was more important
70
to the writers than any ascending or descending as such.
ParentlMtically it is interesting to note what is done

with this imagery later in I Thes. 4:15-18, where it is said

that Christ will descendabd those ~mo are his will asoend to
meet him in the air at his coming. Here are used both the spatial

terms from Dano 7, rising to and coming from, and both the indi-

vidual and the corporate, Christ and those "in Christ", ideas.
Thus the Son of Man community ascends to heaven at the parousia

and the Son of Nan comes from heaven to meet it.

This raises the question of an itinerary or order of

eschatological events in this saying. Hooker argues that in

Dan. 7 the thrones are set before the arrival of the Son of Man,
Which is consistent with the order of Mk. 14:62--the vindication
is preceded by the judgment.71 The most thorough attempt at
72
est,ablishing an itinerary in this verse is that of E. Lohmeyer.
He finds three stages: 1) the exaltation to Kyrios, the Son of

Man raised to the right hand of GOd,73 2) the parousia, and 3) the

heavenly assize with the Son of Man as judge.74 But Todt1s

criticism of Lohmeyer is probably valid: no apocalyptic picture
(or itinerary) is intended, but only a public confession of Jesus'
 i 05
messiahship, with a reference to the coming and the reign to

emphasize this without setting it out in stages.75 There is

evidence of Lohmeyer's itinerary in Phil. 2:6-11 but not in

Mk. 14:62, and perhaps not clearly in any Synoptic saying76

The language here is that of imagery, describing vindication77
in exaltation and parousia, and does not intend to give an
order of events.

Fro:trJ.
this discussion of Mk. 14:62 certain implications
may be noted. First, there is the suggestion that the Son of

Nan was at least in part defined by Jesus in terms of Psa. 110

and Dan. 7:13 (with Psao 80 as a possible bridge). This means

that not only should one be alert to other Synoptic sayings in

line with this definition, but also that in the remainder of the

N.T. where these O.T. passages are used there may be an under-

lying Son of Man Christology. The development of this christo-

logy in the early church may be seen as the explication of

elements implicit in Jesus' own teaching, along certain lines

he set out. This means further that N. T. Christology is in

"~.

effect the teaching of j~sus (if elaborated) and is not some-

thing fundamentally different from his own self understanding.78

Finally, it should be reiterated that Mk. 14:62, perhaps

the most important of the future Son of Han sayings, is clearly

built on Dan. 7 (in combination with Psa. 110:1). Danie17

provides the basis for the assertion that the Son of Man," now
the defendant, will be vindicated and will become the jUdgeo79
But both the imagery of exaltation from Psa. 110 and the imagery

of exaltation from Dan. 7 are used as imagery and the conalusion

this leads to is well put by Hooker:

either we may believe that they were originally used of a

literal ascension into heaven and a "c omfng " on clouds; or
 ., ()6

we must suppose that phrases which were originally intended

to express in vivid language the vindication or Jesus and
hia claims were understood literally by the Church, which
then interpreted the vindication hope in terms of ascension
and parousia.80
But the important step has also been taken to a messianic inter-
pretation or the Son or Man--which is the logical development or
the tradition or a corporate apotheosis or the raithrul remnant
or Israel.81
A brier look at the other ruture Son or Man sayings in
Mark shows a similar dependence on Daniel 7 ror the imagery or
the vindication or the son or Man.

Mark 8:38
In Mk. 8:38 "the rererence to Dan. 7:13r or to the apoca-
lyptic tradition is Obvious."82 The angels (or heavenly inhabi-
tants) or Dan. 7:10 are here, as is the mention of the kingdom
(Mk. 9:1; cf. Dan ..7:18) and the context of judgment is certainly
the same. If, as Todt believes,83 this logion Gan fairly cer-
tainly be attributed to the preaching of Jesus, then further
"
support is found here ror the belief that Jesus defined the Son
of Man essentially in terms of Dan. 7.

Mark 13:26
Again in Mk. 13:26 it is clear that Dan. 7 stands close
at hand: the Son or Man comes on the clouds (Dan. 7:13; Mk. 13:26),
the angels are present (Dan. 7:10; Mk. 13:27), and so are the
elect (Dan..7:18, the "saints"; Mk. 13:27). The Danielic theme
of the vindication of the Son of Man and of judgment is clearly
in evidence as well. (But the idea or the regathering or the
outcast and dispersed.. Mk.1 3:27, may go back to Dt. 30:4) •
Mark 9:9
The prediction of the rising from the dead of the Son

of Man, which ocCUPS after the transfiguration, as Jesus charges

his disciples not to make known what they had seen, is then
followed by a question from the disciples about the prediction
that Elijah would return. The question itself refers to Mal.

4:5, 6, the prophecy of Elijah's return, and thus introduces

this important O.T. passage into the Son of Man tradition.

If in Mk. 9:9 the Dan. 7 Son of Man motifs are not

found, the central thought of the vindication of the Son of Man

is still primary. At this point Hooker's discussion is helpfUl:

the transfiguration experience looked forward to the vindication

of the Son of Man, the ultimate accomplishment of which the

disciples have been given a glimpse and which they are to keep

silent until the Son of Man has been vindicated. Whether or not
an originally broad description of vindication has been more

precisely defined in terms of resurrection, " ••• we may at

least conclude, however, that Jesus spoke, as in 8:31, of final

tri umph for the Son of Man after apparent disaster. ,,84

Special Traditions
A similar picture emerges when the special traditions

are examined. All of the Matthean logia reflect the influence

of Dano 7.

Matthew"0:23
In Mt. 10:23 Jesus' followers are told they will be

persecuted but will not have fled through all the towns of
Israel before the Son of Man comeso Although at first sight
this saying seems to refer to the parousia, there have been
numerous attempts to interpret the logion as referring to a
trimnph of the Son of Man prior to the parousia--netably to the
trimnph in judgment through the Romans with the destruction of

Jerusalem in the Jewish wars.85 The echo of Dan. 7:13 is not

so clear at first in Mt. 10:23, but if it is to be connected with

Mk. 8:38-9:1, which like Mt. 10:23 presents Jesus as expecting

a fulfillment of Dan. 7:13-14 within "this generation,,;86 then

Dan. 7 is not so far away. The connection with Dan. 7 is strength_

ened when it is noted ~hat the context of both passages is one

of persecution of the saints (Mt. 10:23; Dan. 7:25) and their

vindication (Mt. 10:22, 23; Dan. 7:26, 27).

Matthew 13:41
The Son of Man is here associated with the breaking in

of the kingdom. "Already on earth, amidst the sons of the evil

one, that basileia of the Son of Man is present and yet merely a

provisional entity; for admission into the basileia of the Father

still lies ahead of the sons of the basileia.,,87 The context

is an eschatological one: "The relationship between the Son of

Man as the one who sows the seed and as the one who purges his
kingdom through the agency of his angels is to be understood in

the sense that the historical activity, the sowing, of the Son of
M . ,,88
an who is Jesus, is part of the eschatolog1cal event.
The fact that Matthew has put into close juxtaposition
two different categories of Son of Man logia, present (v. 37)
and future (v. 41 ),shows hoW closely the two ideas were joined
in his thought.89 The "Son of Man" of Mt. 13:37 clearly refers
to Jesus' present activity on earth as a teacher, sowing the good
seed--that is, the sons of the kingdom.90 T,he reader would not
be surprised to find this designation of Jesus' present activity,
 109
since it has already occurred in Mt. 9:6 (Mk. 2:10); 12:8
(Mk. 2:28); and 12:32.91 Todt finds this teaching activity to

involve full authority. Jesus appears nowhere in this section

of Matthew as the lowly one. In his sowing of the sons of the
)~ I
kingdom he exerc ises unique sovereignty, which ,"~OIJ'fI"_ is confirmed
in the Son of Man's judgment of the world (v. 41 ).92 But his
sovereignty is that of one who is the chief representative of
the Son of Man community,93 and the parable of the sower and

the seed is appropriate to illustrate this relationship between

the chief representative and those who comprise the Son of Man

community (the sons of the kingdom).

The Q.T. background comes to the fore in the association

of the Son of Man with the breaking in of the kingdom and with
the sons of the kingdom, which is reminiscent of the Danielic
Son of Man who represents the saints of the Most High (sons of

the kingdom) who comprise the kingdom bein~ inaugurated. In

Mt. 13:41 the Son of Man of Dan. 7:13, the angels of Dan. 7:10,

the kingdom of Dan. 7:18, 22, 27, and the judgment of Dan. 7:22,

26, all appear.

Matthew 16:27, 28; 19:28; 24:30, 39; 24:31; 25:31

Matthew 16:27, 28 are obviously built on Dan. 7: the

angels (Dan. 7:10), the glory (Dan. 7:14), and the judgment

(Dan. 7:22, 26) all make this clear. Similarly Mt. 19:28
presents the Son of Man as well as the glorious thrones of
Dan. 7:9 and the judgment of Dan. 7:22, 26. The scene des-
cribed in Mt. 19:28 is remarkably like that in Dan. 7. Matthew

24:30, 39 are both in a Q context of judgment already discussed

and found to be in harmony with its Dan. 7 background. Matthew
24:30 also uses the testimonium Zech. 12:10ff. (found as well
 · 110

in In. "9: 37 and Rev.1 =7 ) .93a Finally Nt. 24: 31 speaks of the

~ry of the Son of Man (Dan. 7:14), the angels (Dan. 7:10), and
the glorious throne (Dan. 7:9), as does also Mt. 25:310

Luke 17:22 30; 12:8, 9;

18: 8; 21: t3

In special Luke, 17:22, 30 occur in the Q context94 of

the little apocalypse (cf. Mto 24) already discussed and found
to be in the Dan. 7 tradition. Similarly Lk. 12:8, 9 ( =Mt.
1:0:32, 33, which has 'me" rather than Son of Man) is more or less

equivalent to Mk. 8:38, where the reference to Dan. 7 is again

quite clear. Luke 18:8, whatever its place in the history of

tnadition,95 clearly speaks of vindication ("Will not God vin-

dicate His elect?" Lk. 18: 7), and judgment is implied in, "Will
he find faith on the earth?" Luke 21: 36 issues a warning of the

suddenness of the coming of "that day" and of the need to be

prepared, thus clearly implying the judgment (as in Dan. 7) to

take place then, especially in the phrase "to stand before the

Son of Man" (Lk. 21 :36; cf. Dan. 7:22, 26).

From this survey of the future Son of Man sayings it is

clear that Dan. 7 has provided the framework and the basic motifs
of the Son of Man logia: the Son of Nan, though now the defendant~
will ultimately be vindicated and will in fact become the judge •

.The fundamental idea of vindication of the Son of Man, thought of

in terms of resurrection, exaltation, parousia~96 can be traced

back to the preaching of Jesus himself.97 It can be seen that on
this point there are points of contact with the tradition of the

Fourth Gospel, most notably at In. 5:270

 111

The Present Son of Man Sayings

As seen in the background study of the O.T. and apocalyptic

literature (Chapter I), the Son of Man is a term rich in meaning.

The common tendency to take the significance of the term..as it

is developed in late Jewish apocalyptic (especially I Enoch)

and assume this is its primary significance in the N.T. errs
in concentrating on only one aspect of the term. The effect of
this tendency is often most detrimental in the treatment of the

"present" Son of Han sayings--those sayings which deal with the

:30l,l of Nan acting in his present work on earth apart from the

passion and resurrection of Jesus. This wh~le group of sayings

is rather summarily dismissed by R. Bultmann, whose only state-

ment concerning them (in his Theology of the New Testament) is
that they originated as a misunderstanding of the translation

into Greek of the Aramaic "Son of Man" which meant "I" or "a
man", but was not a title. 98 But if a wider meaning may be

allowed "Son of Man", there is good reason why these sayings

are worthy of more careful attention. The sayings in "Q" will

be examined firsto99

The Double Tradition

Matthew 8:20 - Luke 9:58

Although this saying is generally consigned to Q,"00

there are certain difference~ between Matthew and Luke. G. Bornk~

believes Matthew is the oldest exegete of this narrative and is

the one to pass it ono Furthermore only Matthew inserts the

saying in the context of the miraele of the stilling of the

storm. 101 On the other hand, the context in both Matthew and
Luke is that ofa,discipleship theme. Go W. H. Lampe, noting that
 '112

the saying is mostly 0 matejial, points out that L~ke adds the

third claimant (Lk. 9:61, 62) and even the second claimant in

Luke differs from Matthe1>T'sin that he is called by .TeS1JSand

102
is given command to proclaim the kinpdom of God. But Fo Filson

prefers Luke's setting to Matthew's, which he feels is editorial:

JVJatthewconnects Jesus' departure with the temporary visit implied

in the preceding events, whereas Luke makes it clearer that Jesus

is coing to Jerusalem.103 Lol~eyer does not see the connection

of this passage with that which precedes it. Matthew seems

rather to have a break in the narrative: the crowd is not the

(

same as the sick of v. 16 (note the absence of the article o

>1 \ I
from 0XI\OS, v, 1 R). The kE~~QlW- of v ; 18 is characteristically

Hatthean.104 Lohmeyer and H. J. Held both note that Matthew (0:1 n)

change d Mark's ~lE;).&I'Y (Mk. 4:35) to -?J1C~~~7lf' to provide a

sort of catchword link to the storm stillinp story which follows"?5

Held believes Matthew has inserted this discipleship story (vv.

19-22) into the narrative as it is in Mark in order to give

meaning to the miracle, providing this catchword link (dfftA~/Y)

as well as the direct reference to the disciples (8:23) as a

further link. The storm stilling story is thus interpreted by

Matthew as a story of discipleship. Verse 18 must be understood

(in view of 8:23) as a call to discipleship, and 8:19-22 por-

~ays the answer to this call. To facilitate all of this Matthew

moved the call at the beginning (as in Lk. 9:59) into the second

half (Mt. 8:22) since for Matthew the call had already taken

place (Mt. 8:1 8). This call in ;/:atthew8: 22 is not a first

call to discipleship, but a call to overcome reservations in

th e way 0f an un dOlVlode d dO °
lSC1P 1eshO
lp. 106

The discipleship theme is not Matthew's creation, however,

 113

for, as B. H. Fuller notes,"07 there is an emphasis in both

l"Iatthewand Luke on the challenge to discipleship, inasmuch as

following Jesus means following a lirejected-one. 'I These cha L-

lenges end with the stern warning as to the cost of disciple-

ship in the statement, "Let the dead bury the dead. ,,'"
08 N. Perrin

observes that this saying is the most radical of Jesus' sayings

on the response to the challenge to discipleship, for in

Judaism the responsibility to bury the dead was very great

and superceded all other obligations of the law. In fact

other obligations could be set aside to meet this responsibility.

Attempts to explain this saying with less force (for example,

as a mistranslation of a noun participle, "burier of the dead,"

as an imperatival infinitive, or as speaking of the spiritually

dead) are not acceptable. Indeed the radical force of this

.
saYln[; lS t
. th e b es t guaran,ee .
of lts au th en t'
lCl.t Ye>
.,Oct
' The

consequence of following Jesus will be the inevitahle severine;

· .. 'H 0
o f cer t aln relat10nsh1pso

Bultmann finds the basis of this saying, in which Son

of Nan, he feels, means man in general, in an ancient proverb

• 1
.,.,., t'
wh lch speaks of the homelessness of manlcLnd , Todt a so notes
.,
"12
the possibility of an underlying proverb. But Fuller takes

issue with Bultmann's attempt to explain this verse (as well

as Mk. 2:"0, 28; Mt. "1:"9par~; Mt. 12:32 par.) by either a

self-effacing substitute for "I" ("I have nowhere to lay my

head") or as meaning lIone"--that is, "having nowhere to lay

one's head is part of our general human lot. II" ., J. Instead

Fuller takes Son of Man as a title of majeswin all these

Passages and assumes throughout that Son of Man is derived

from pre-Christian apocalyptic traditiono Higgins also rejects

 '114

114 111:'
t he proverb suggestion of Bultmann, as does T. 1>'l. Hanson~ ./

Eut whereas Fuller takes the meaning of Son of Man as denoting

majesty, Harrson gives it a corporate interpretation: Jesus and

his followers suffer homelessness and rejection.

Todt doubts that a previous version of this saying had

Son of Man in it. He argues that the Q form did not have Son

of Nan : only the man t s offer to follow .Tesus (Mt. 8:19b; Lk ,

9:57) and the challenge to the man are original. The man is

a akad to consider that following .Tesus will mean homelessness

and deprivation. The saying should be compared to the one

which adjoins it in Q (Mt. 8:21f.; cf. Mk. 10:28par.; Mt. 10:37

par. ). In this saying the tension between .Tesus and his opponents,

"this generationh which rejects him, is seen forcefully. The

reason Jesus uses Son of Nan instead of I (in the present version
.).
of th e saylng lS, according .. 11 6 tha t J esus lS
to Todt, . Wl.th full

authori ty summoning men to f'o Ll.ow him. But Todt~,S reconstruction

is built on the assumption that Son of Man must mean a f'sovereign

one tI and that consequently "Son of Man" is a later insertion by

the church which understood Jesus as acting in this sovereign

role. But one does not have the impression that in this saying

sOvereignty".or authority in calling a follower to follow and to

suffer with him, is the exclusive or even primary meaning of

"son of Hano" "It is more likely to be a metaphorical expression

of the sense of re jection felt by Jesus which would also be

eXperienced by his disciples. Th~emay even be an allusion to

his passion and final rejection. 0 •• there is no doubt that

J 117
esus was conscious of rejection by the peopleo"

T. \-/.Hanson suggested a corporate interpretation of

th is saYlng.
. "" 8 Eultmann's interpretation of it as a reference
 115
to all mankind has already been ruled out, though it is partially
119
accepted by Cullmann. T. Preiss combined the ideas of repre-
sentation of mankind and of humility as the meaning of this
S aya• ng nc h i n i ts pres en t f arm apparen t Iy reers
,1 20 w 1· f to
Jesus himself.121 Certainly Son of ~an in Matthew and Luke is,
as Klostermann notes,122 commonly a self-designation of Jesus,

though Klostermann is not sure what the original meaning of the

term was.

In the context of Mt. 8:20 there is a contrast of the

Son of Man with the animals (foxes and birds) which have their

shelter while the Son of Man has not.123 The association of the

Son of Man with homelessness may be a point of contact with the

wisdom tradition, since wisdom is associ.ated with rejection and

homelessness (Sir. 24:7; I En. 42) as is the Son of Man here.124

The contrast of the homelessness of the Son of Man with the

animal creation (over which he was given dominion) is reminis-

Cent of Psa. 8:4ff. and the contrast in Dan. 7 between the Son

of Man (as a real human being, symbolic of the humane people of

God) and the horrible beasts (symbolic of the bestiality of the

Pagans surrounding the people of God). In the Psalm the verbs

~eferring to man's dominion over the animal creation are in the

Past tense, indicating God's purpose when he created man. "Here

then the thought connected with 'son of man' is not so much a

dominion in the future as God's purpose for man at the begin-

ning. ,,1 25 It is the more remarkable that, while the animal

c~eation over which man is to have dominion still has its home,
the Son of Man has no home. The emphasis is on the very real

humanity of the Son of Man. So far from being supernatural, he

SUffers very human frailties. He is one with the human race,126
 116

and he is lowly and rejected to the point of being homeless."27

As the Son of Man Jesus is one with men in their humanity,

enduring humiliation and rejection that is here described as
h av i
avi.ng no p It·
ace 0 lay hf s h ea.d 128

Matthew 11 :12 = Luke 7:3k

11. Dibelius classified this section as a parable which
contains a story or fable with typical motifs. He considered

the section complete in itself in Q.129 But B1Jltmann does not

believe the application of the similitude (v. 19), thoue:h old,

is from the oldest t r-adLt i on ,1 30 Ne ver-bhe Le ss there are several

indications of the antiquity of this saying. Higgins includes

among this evidence the criticism of Jesus and his disciple for

not fasting, the accusation of friendliness with outcasts, the

rejection by "this generation" of both Jesus and John the Baptist

but for opposite reasons, the lack of any allusion to John as

either an opponent or a witness to Jesus and (as Jeremias notes)

the equal plane vIi th ,Tohn on 1rlhichJesus puts himself (whereas

the church stres.sed the subordination of John).1 3" Thus Higgins

believes the say5ng is authentic and not the creation of the

chl.:.lr.ch,
though Son of Man does not, he feels, belong in the

oldest strata. (Here he has the agreement of MCNeile.132) Son

of Man could be original in the saying if it meant "man", but

Biggins (follolrTingHanson) finds this impossible in this context.133

Manson solved the problem by understanding Son of Man as meaning

"It' , but Higgins rejects this approach. He prefers to view the
Saying as it,now stands as the result of a Christian interpretation

of an original "1"."34 T6dt finds the term itself to be the

Product of the Palesti:n.ianchurch. There is no reason to think

the Hellenistic community would assign to ,Jesus an Aramaic name

 117

which it did not even use. When son of Man in the present and

similar verses is understood without the meaning of transaendant

sovereignty, there is no reason to make it a Hellenistic addition.

135
Its origin must be in the Palestinian milieuo

Po L'l.ow
lng a similar line N. Perrin notes the strong

t s f or th e au t'
a:i'gllmen bLcI
ne nua ca t y 0f . 1 36 b u t b e 1·
th·as s ay mz a.e
v es

the re ference to the Son of Nan is confessional and thus comes

from the early church. The' saying becomes confessional in Greek

with the article in the context of early Christian tradition.

But tl11 s exp Lana t Lon is not supported by the evidence of the

Gospels where Son of Man is used only by Jesus and then as a

self-designation.

If "Son of IVan" is not primarily an expression of the

faith of the early community (there is evidence in the HoT.

137
that it is not a Christological confessional term ), it is

hard to see wby it vould have been mneluded in the words of

Jesus unless it was known Jesus used the term in this way

himself. Pur-t.he
r-mor-eit has been shown that all attempts to

remove ~)on of rfun from the saying on the basis of the ~ priori

assumption that .Ie:uscannot have. used the title of himself are

~lnecessary.138 It may be better to follow E. Schweizer, who

accepts thfu 3aying (as well as others in this category) as a

genuine reference of JesuS to himself in his earthly ministry,

39
Speaking of his humanity and his humility.1

T~e main concern of this saying is the characterization

of "this generation" and their evasion of Jesus t message (as of

that of John the Baptist). In thffir objection to the association

of the Son of Nan with outcasts" Jesus' opponents use a quasi-

140
stereotyped phrase, "tax collectors and sinners." In Mk.
 . 118

2:15-17, which records Jesus sitting at table with outcasts, he

clearly Hished to be their friend. This seems also to be the

Case in Mt. 11 :19: Jesus' particular task is to call sinners

to the kingdom of God, or (as Zahn phrased it) to the supper of

GodVs reign."41 Herein Todt finds the meaning of Son of Man in

this context. Jesus bestows on sinners table fellowship, which

ornt s supper (wh i ch in TVlk.2:18ff.

means a place at the br-Ldagr-o

is contrasted with the Pharisees' fasting). As the Son of Man

Jesus acts with supreme authority in bestowing this table fellow-

ship."42 Even so, the tension was not between a transcendent

Son of Nan and men, but between Jesus (as a man) and men, (cf.

the tension in n,; 11:30; Mk• 8:38; Lk. 12:3f.). The termt1Son

of Marl1replaces «1« but in a special way--" . . . expressing

the sovereignty of the Son of Man's mission as a whole, which
is denoted by the phrase 'he is come,.11143 Nevertheless, Todt

points out the sovereignty and transcendence of the Son of Man

is not thereby brought d01-Tl1

to earth; the Son of Han will be

unrestricted by earth. But this whole understanding of Jesus'

Present work as Son of Nan is not, Todt (with Bultmann) believes,

that of Jesus himself, for then he would have understood Daniel's

Son of Man in terms of himself and not vice versa. The inter-

pretation of Jesus' present activity as that of the Son of Nan

J."s th
. e crea t lon
" " .'
of the palestlJ1lan commun i,"t y. "h4
'
There are several objections to Todt's interpretation,

however. The whole context of Mt. 11: 1 9 seems more naturally to

Paint to an emphasis on lowliness and hu~ility than on the sover-

eiGnty of l-Jhich Todt speaks. Jesus may be broad minded in the

COmpany he keeps, but this need indicate no more sovereignty

than any man possesses, though it may signal a kind of prophet ..

s
 119
~rogative (John the Baptist exercises a similar ministry

to the poor, outcasts, and lawless145). The association Todt

makes of Jesus' table fellowship with a messianic banquet would

add an element of sovereignty, but it is not clear that any

thought of a messianic banquet is really present. The regulations

which Jesus sets aside are, for the most part, those of the
Pharisees, not explicitly those of Q.T. law: it is manmade

institutions which Jesus is disregarding, not the law of God.146

The tone of slander aimed at Jesus points to humiliation and

his lowliness in associating with the lowest of mankindo147

The proverb of Mt. 11 :19b, 'Wisdom is justified by her deeds

(or children)", adds the idea of vindication and thus completes

the pattern of suffering, rejection, and vindication.148

The logion brings in the richness of the O.T. meaning

of the term, emphasizing the humanity and lowliness of the Son

of Man. Contrary to Todt' s view that the transcendence and

sovereignty of the Son of Man (if indeed the term had that

exalted meaning for Jesus and his hearers) is not brought

down to earth, it seems that this is exactly what this logion

does.149 This view (emphasizing the humanity and humility of

Jesus) presents no conflict with Dan. 7 either (though Todt

thought so), for there the emphasis is on the humanity of the

figure (as opposed to the grotesque beasts of the inhumane pagan

nations), who is representative of the people of God (or the

remnant of Israel). In this passage Jesus, as true man and

representative of mankind, is calling out the "new humanity"

(the people of God, the new Israel) from the most unlikely lot

of humans--publicans and sinners.150

This fact is noted by Walter Wink.151 He notes that
 120

152
Mt. 11 :12f. and Lk. 16:16 refer to the fact that John minis-

tered to the lawless and poor,153 the folk who were less than

finicky in keeping the law, but who John maintained could be

regenerated by baptism apart from the law. John's ministry to

these poor was regarded by the Evangelist as an eschatological

sign in relation to Jesus (Lk. 4:1 8 = Isa. 61 :1f.; Lk. 14:1 3, 20;
Lk. 9:22 = Mt. 11 :5; cf. Lk. 3:11 on sharing with the poor).

John even speaks of the Coming One as a peasant or man of the

soil (chopping trees, harvesting crops) rather than as a king.

F. W. Danker154 takes it that this passage incaporates a com-

plaint of the Pharisees against John which Jesus turns into a

praise of John's success. The Pharisees' main complaint is

that from the advent of John the reign of law and order has ended,

since the kingdom of God is publicly proclaimed and popularized

so that everyone, sinners and publicans included, and not just

the righteous, forces his way in. Then Jesus takes it up and

says that this is true. Wink continues (p. 21), saying that

here the source of conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees

is John and the question of John's authority (cf. Mk. 11 :28-33).

Behind both versions [of Mk. 11 :27-33 in Mt. 21 :23-27 and

Lk. 20:1-8] lies the notion that John has somehow been the
instrument of God in inaugurating the kingdom of God, and
this by virtue of his indiscriminate offer of baptism to
all who would repent, even tax collectors and harlots.1 55

The tendency of the church to put John in subordination to Jesus

makes it unlikely this passage is a church formulation. "Apparent_

ly we are to trace this eschatological conception of John's role in

the preaching of the kingdom back to Jesus, and unwittingly, by way

of their mumblings and grumblings, to the Pharisees themselves. ,,156

In his statement about the Pharisees' condemnation of

John as an ascetic fanatic and of Jesus as a drunkard (Mt.11:16-1~

 1 2:1

Lk , 7: 31 -51) Jesus implies a judgment on the Pharisees for

s e e i ng the difference between .Iohn and .Jesus but not perceivine

t ha t John f s call for repentance is the last war-n.ing before

judgmeet and t h.at Jesus f "licentiousness and lawlessness If are

trw sien that the messianic kl ngdom has already broken in.1 57
ID both .JOtill and .Te s us (though in different ways) the kingdom

of God has come among men. The poor and sinners recognize this

and become children of w I s dom (Lk. 7: 3.5) while the Pharisees

refuse John and Jesus and are blind to the eschatological signs.

Jesus sees ',imself in unity with Jobn who was more than a prophet:

he was a herald of the kingdom of God (Mt. 11: 19) • !'Even John Y s

negativism participates in the good news, for with John the doors

of the kingdom are thrown Hide open for all who lrJish to submit
1 ~8
to the judgml1ent of God and enter." j

It is in this context that one must understand the

meaning of the "Son of }1an", recalling the apparent double

~ntendre which would have be en present in the Aramaic. Thus

"Son of Man" could either mean "I" or it could have a special

(messianic) meaning." 59 As it appears on the lips of Jesus the

most obvious mean i nr; was "I" and only those "with ears to hear"

would catch the reference to something moreo The saying was

intelligible without being understood as a messianic title, but

the f u 11'lmpor t· lnc 1u d ed thlS. .

meanlng. 1 60 I n th'.lS respec t th e

GOspels writers vrepe right in seeing the term as messianic:

Jesus intended a covert allusion to his own identity as Son of

IVla.n. The context and this ambiguity ShOH that the complex apoca-

lyPtic Son of Man eschatology: is "realized" or brought down to

ea.rth. The final revelation of the Son of Man is still future,

but the Son of Man has nonetheless come as a true man in Jesus.

The synthesis of prophetic scriptures and Jewish apocalyptic

 '161
eschatology is realized in Jesus.

What O.T. passages can be seen as influencing the

formation of thfu saying? Daniel 7 has already been noted, as

it is the classic Son of Man passage and supplies the idea of

the Son of Man as one who is truly human (the Son of Man is

a genuine human being and the symbol of the people of God, as

opposed to the pagan beasts). In addition the motif of the

association with publicans and sinners suggests Isa. 53:'12

~here the Servant of the Lord was numbered with transgressors.

There is no verbal coincidence with this well-known O.T. passage

but the idea of associating with and thereby being identified

~ith sinners is the same.

Matthew 12:32 = Luke '12:10

There are two forms of this say.lng in the Synoptics.

One in Mk. 3:28-30 speaks of blasphemy by the sons of men,

~hereas the Q version has blasphemy against the Son of Man.

Higgins notes two possible explanations of Son of Han in Q:

1) Jesus used the term in the generic sense and Q misunderstood

the Aramaic as a messianic title, or 2) Jesus meant himself but

not in a messianic sense. He rules out both possibilities,

the second because it would mean Jesus spoke of himself as

"s on of Nan" at times and as "1" at other times, which Higgins

dOUbts, and the first possibility because there is no evidence

that Jesus used Son of Man in a generic sense. While favoring

Q., Higgins feels that the saying probably was invented by the

church (and it is not the result of a misunderstanding of the

Aramaic). But if a case be made for one saying developing from

the other, he believes, as does Bultmann,'I62 the case is better

 123
for Q as prior.163 T6dt likewise believes Mark generalized the

Q form, and thus he no longer understood Son of Man as meaning

Jesus acting on earth vd th full authority. This is, T6dt feels,

borne out in the rest of Mark's Gospel, where (except for 2:10, 28

taken from pre-J;Iarcanmaterial) Son of Nan means either the trans-

cendent coming Son of Man or the suffering Son of Man, but not the

Son of Nan acting with authority on earth. His lack of under-

standing leads Nark to make alterations.164- But rather than a

lack of understan!ing by Mark (as Ttsdt suggests) it could be that

this is not the meanipg of Son of Man in this context. On the

other hand" Fuller" like Manson" takes QI s Son of Man as a mis-
165
taken substitution for sons of men. Mark's version is then
166
taken as the original form and as an authentic saying.

Manson felt the original context of the saying was that

in Mk. 3:28.167 T~dt objects to Manson's removing the saying

from the context in Q" which T8dt regards as original, and

interpreting it by Luke (though in Mark's context). TBdt feels

that Luke's context is secondary and results from the joining

Of 12:8 to 12:10 with the catchword link. The saying should

rather, Too t feels, be in the context of Jesus' defense against

the charg~ of being in league with demons, as seen in'Mko 3:28

and in I"lto12:25-30; Lk , 11:17-23. Here the blasphemies against

Jesus are the concern and the saying follows logically. In this

Context Son of Man does not have the transcendent connotations

but is, as in Mt. 11 :19par., a designation of Jesus acting on

earth and meeting opposition.168 To connect the saying with

Lk. 12:8f. is less satisfactory, since there the Son of Man

(according to T8dt) refers to the eschatological guarantor. But

TOdt does not then reinterpret one or the other of these sayings
 124
(as hanson reinterprets Luke). Rather he attempts to fit each

saying into its place in Q. The saying on whether blasphemy

can be forgiven belongs to the Beelzebub pericope. This is

clear from Matthew's connecting the form as in Mark (Mt. 12:31)

and the form as in Q (Mt.12:32) in spite of their competing

content.169 The resultant meaning is that there is no forgive-

ness for those who oppose the clear work of the Holy Spirit in

the post resurrection Son of Mano In this way two periods are

distinguished in Q; Jesus' earthly work and the period of the

Holy Spirit.'70 In the second period the Exalted Lord reveals

himself in the Spirit. This distinction is blurred in Mark,

Todt continues, where the Holy Spirit is seen in Jesus I earthly

work (and this shows that Mark is later than Q). Possibly Mark

knew Q' s form but; re jected it because bla"sphemy against the

transcendent Son of Man (as Todt believes Mark would have

understood the term) was unthinkable. Therefore the saying was

generalized to sons of men, even though this does not accord with

the context--a practice which is consistently followed in Q

where more reproaches against the Son of Man follow. But TBdt's

argument may rest too heavily on the assumption that Mark could
only have understood Son of Man as a transcendent person. Further-

more the supposed distinction (in Q) between Jesus I earthly work

and the period of the Holy Spirit is not altogether clear cut,

since in Q (Mt. 11 :28 = Lk. 11 :20 "by the finger of God") as

Well as in Mark, Jesus does his work by the power of the Holy
SPirit.

Cullmann lists this verse with Mk. 2:27 as one where

possibly Son of Man means just men in general and is not primarily
a reference to Jesus (in this he follows H. Lietzmann).'71 But
the meaninG of this saying in the Aramaic Q (now obscured in the

Greek) vra s, according to Manson" that the one unforgiveable sin

is rejecting Jesus Y eschatological message: " ••• slander

against the disciples would put the slanderers in gravest peril,

since the srune Holy Spirit that worked in Jesus worked also in
his followers.,,'172 Likewise Bultmann interprets Son of Nan as'

equivalent to "I" or "one "; t hough Fuller disagrees." 73 This is

the most obvious meaning in the context and the one the Evangelists

appear to have had in mind. The meaning therefore is that sin

against Jesus '{.-rill

be forgiven but not sin against the Holy Spirit.

Is it possible that all of these difficulties arise out

of the fact that Jesus himself used the ambiguous Aramaic)\'U)JII

here as he did on other occasions? The clear reference to

Jesus in the context of his being accused of being in league

With Beelzebub provides the conditioR for the circumlocution

for the first person in unpleasant circumstances. Jesus would

naturally shrink from the accusation made against him. Could

he have hinted at his humblffiposition as a man which resulted

in his being subject to such slander~ If he thought of his

messianic role as the obedient Servant" then slander against

such a lowly figure might be thought to be forgiveable,,"74

whereas blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (who is the real

GUarantor here, rather than a coming Son of Man) is not

fOrgiveable.

There may beanot immediately apparent O.T. background

to this ..aying. However the meaning of Son of Han in this

Saying is consistent with the general concept of the lowly

Son of Man, suffering rejection during his ministry, seen in

other sayings which do utilize O.T. scriptures.

 126

(Matthew $:11 =) Luke 6:22

In spite of the differences between Matthew's and Luke's

forms, which mi~ht lead some to ouestion whether this is a Q

6
saying,"?5 most scholars trace the saying to the double traditiori7

But granted that Q is the underlying source, there has obviously

been some editorial work done by one or both'of the Evangelists.

Creed, noting Loisy's view that both Evangelists follow Q in

the eeneral arrangement of the sermon and Streeter's view that

LUke is closer to C', decides that both Evangelists have done

rearranging of the material."?? Creed is probably right that:ln

1 ?8
the overall arrangement Matthew's editorial work is more extensive.

An important question in this saying is whether Matthe1.J'

s

~Y6-KW E_jJOV or Luke's ¥VbK" 'ToD v~o-O 'Tb"IJ ~YBtJntfO is closer to

the original. Bultmann feels that Matthew substitut.ed "r" for

a traditional "Son of Man"."?9 The form of this saying (as of

most in this passage) in Luke may be nearer the original than:

the form in Hatthew, which shows signs of modeling the material,

as in the additions in 5:3 ("in spirit"), in 5:6 ("after right-

eousness"), and in 5:11 ("falsely,,)."80 Matthew has tried to

Clarify Jesus' point, that the characteristic of life in the

new kingdom is a reversal of the world's values, by spiritualizing

th e B·eat L tudes. " 81
. Higgins argues that, in view of Matthew's

tendency to make a clear identification of Jesus and the Son

of Man (either by introducing the title, Nt. 16:13; Mk. 8:2?,

or by replacing it with the first personal pronoun, Mt. 16:21;

Mk. 8:J1), it is likely Matthew has changed Son of Man in his

s 182
OUrce to the first personal pronoun. But, as Higgins observes,
the ttl
ex ua support is too weak to give weight to thi s conJecture;
. 181~

and what sense would the saying have made without some such phrase

at any rate? P. Vielhauer was convinced that Son of Man was

 127

taken over from Q by Luke 6:22. "85 Todt will not go so far,

but he thinks it probable that Son of Man did not originate with

LUke."86 But further confirmation of the more primitive form being

in Luke comes from Nanson I s discussion. He notes a parallel

situation to this in Lk. "2:8 where the Lucan Son of Han is

not supported by Matthew. A comparison of Mto 10:29 with Lk ,

"8:29, where Luke altered Hark" suggests that here too, Mt. 5:""
is closer to the orieinal than Lk. 6:22. Yet, on the other hand,

Lk, "2:8 is closer to Mk. 8:38 than Mt. "0:32. Manson concludes

in fa v or of the Lucan version as more original than'\'It.5:"".187

It has been argued by Bultmann that this saying is a

"new element of tradition" whi eh differs from the older elements

of tradition (Lk. 6:20f. or Mt. 5:3-9) by its form (the second

person and the greater detail in the blessing) and its content.

It has arisen ~ eventu and is therefore a creation of the church.

It is in this later element as well that the direct reference

to the person of Jesus is made, by a. Son of Man "I-saying. ,,"88

TOdt finds Bultmann convincing on this point, though he attributes

the creation to the Palestinian community whereas Bultmann credits

the Hellenistic church for its formation."89

Other considerations, however, point to the antiquity of

the SaYlng.
. The change of persons need not be such a great
problem, for there are parallels in ,Judaism."90 The more

original form in Luke has the second person throughout the

1
Passage and there is no reason to doubt it was so in Q,." 9 But

the second person directness itself need not mean the saying

came about ~ eventu. An earlier third person form may have

been changed to second person in view of the relevance of the

Saying to a later situation."92 If K_el' is right,"93 it is

not necessary to think Jesus could not have forseen persecution

 128

for his followers and have spoken this word of comfort.

The saying has undeniable Aramaic elements, which may

point to its antiq_uity. The ultimate Aramaic origin of ~Kf.D.II>q--Iv'

\ J/ C,. c, ~ • JI ,... \ n, '" /'
To ovefML l1fA-WY W5 '"n'i '- me ana ng ~rrrw<Ih' 71otl' 7TOY'tj6'Y" ~"I.V Ofv.N

is beyond que st Lon ,

" 94
The expression
) RI
(~t(.ralAACI'I Tb
\ OVOfM'"'
~, IJ Ves
I

~s, 7T trr'1 f W ) is a Semitic idiom, as clearly illustrated by

the Aramaic 'appeq> its equivalent Hebrew verb, and the old Syriac." 95

This Semitisn, as well as the ~"'~ '.:1. underlying the Son of

!'-lan,
coupled with the fact that this is a Q, saying, suggest that

this s ay i ng c ome s from the very earliest stratum of tradition.

The persecution ret'er-r-ed

to in the saying may have been
t he use of the disciples ' names as a curse. '196 If so, the saying

may be based on the curses of the synagogue directed against

early Christians. An assurance is given that the suffering of

Christians was forseen by their Lord."97 The persecution

perhaps involved "excorrununication" from the synagogue and

possibly more in additon." 98 Lampe suggests that it was the

influence of this persecution fFDm the Jews which led to the

"expansion in Luke of l'latthew'
s form of the saying. ,,"
99 It is

certainly possible that LUke has modelled the traditional material

in view of the church's present experience. To go beyond this

to the conclusion of Todt that this is a church creation (~

~ventu) is another matter.200 Todt's conclusion is based on

the meaning he gives to Son of Man and is not necessarily supported

by the reference to persecution. On the contrary, Kummel points

out that Lk. 6:22 (as well as Mt. "0:28j Mk. 8:34; 'I0:35ff.),
Which clearly envisages persecution arising during Jesus'
20"
lifetime, shows that Jesus reckoned on suffering for his discipleso

It may not have required great prophetic insight for Jesus to

 -, 129

suppose that his followers would be persecuted. Hessianic

uprisings appear to have been frequent and were often accompanied

by great slaughters by the Romans and suffering for the followers

of the messianic pretender.202 If opposition to Jesus was any-

thing like the Gospels represent it,203 and if there is any truth

behind such accounts as that of the man born blind who was cast

out of the synagogue for his allegiance to Jesus, then it would

have taken little perception for Jesus to see the possible con-

sequence for his followers and to give them a word of comfort.

The promise of blessing for those persecuted and the admonition

to rejoice are reminiscent of Ps. ~26:5, 6, and Isa. 61 :3.

Further sUbstantiation to the claim that this saying

Was created by the church is often found in the foL/<.tt(j/' "
I 0-1. •

The "futurist-eschatological" meaning of the Beatitudes, while

not apparent in their wording, is clear from their connection

With Jesus' other eschatologic.al pronouncements.204 This

beatitude is said to be an eschatological promise given to

those who endure suffering (that is, to the persecuted church)

for the sake of the Son of Man. The promise is connected to
"that day" in heaven in Lk. 6:23.205

But it is not certain that the eschatological element

in this saying means that it is a community composition. There

Were certainly adequate precedents for Jesus to draw on in giving

these Beatitudeso Even the comparative length of the last

beatitude (as well as the change in person) has parallels in

Jewish liturgy and in the O.To206 In this connection M. Black

has an important discussion of the influence of Isa. 6~ on the

Beatitudes. Luke 4:" 6 records that Jesus opened his public

ministry by reading Isa. 61. He replied in these verses (from

 130

Ls a , (y'f) to the question of John the Baptist, Mt. 11:5 = Lk , 7:220

\. It' o,
The quotation from Isaiah is f oLl.owed by J(all f'~~oLflt)S E:.<f'T,V Os.
tQ,t! ~ ) I
)\.
bLv M, (I
<tKalY~CIl"
\.
I r Il
V G~ &~. Black suggests that this was the

occasion when the Beatitudes were addressed to the disCiples and

that this was their conclusion.207 In this light it seems plausible

enough: that Jesus could have spoken the blessing of Lk. 6:220

So far from the eschatological element in the saying

Suggesting the church origin of the logion, it rather fits per-

fectly well Jesusv teaching on the kingdom of God and the

eschatology that involved. The Beatitudes spoke of the Reign

of God breaking in upon those who follow .Tesus. As Bultmann

Says, "They who await God's reign aright, hungry and sorrowing,

knowinG how poor they are...

-to these pertains the promise of

salvation."208 The essence of Jesus' teaching on this point

is well summarized by Caird. The Beatitudes sermon is a descrip-

tion of life in the new Israel, which is ~lso life in the king-
dom of God. The fulre ss of the kingdom "'rillnot come until the

end, so throughout the Beatitudes the preser..tconditions are

Cont~asted with the future.

But the good news which Jesus proclaimed was that the Kingdom
Was already breahine in upon the present, so that men could
here and now begin to enter into the ultimate blessednesso 209
Thus the Beatitudes were not merely a promise but an invitation.

This leads to the final consideration: the meaning of

liS
on of IlJan"here. Todt takes it to be a designation of the
cOmmunity for Jesus in his "sovereignty and uncompromising claim",
f
or whose sake his disciples suffer. ~O Eultmann believes that

the saying gives evidence of a "Christian conception of the

P erson of Jesus." 211

On the other hand, could not the ambiguous Aramaic

~ 101 'J. be the source of the difference between MatthevJ'and Luke

and at the aame time jndicate a covert allusion to .Tesus in a

special sense? Luke preserves the ambiguity, but Hatthew has

m ade the reference to Jesus more explicit, as was h·as ten d ency. 2'12

/\.tthe same time there may have been a corporate reference, as

in Dan. 7, which included in the fie;ure of the Son of Nan those

who suffered with the one who was the chief representative of

the people of God, for whose sake they suffered.2'13 If Jesus

saw his own role as one which would involve .

sufferlng, 2"4 he may

also have foreseen that those who followed him would suffer as

well. As Leaney says, "Son of Man It is in origin a corporate

personality and though he may be a real individual, he includes

his fellows with him (as in Dan. 7). This corporate sense is

perhapsnaver entirely absent from the Synoptics. Jesus is the

2
Son~·Man but still includes with him all who belong to him. "5
This saying well illustrates the two ideas which Jesus

Combined in ministry--the ideas of sovereignty (in the authorita-

tive "for my sake") and of surr er-Lng , 216 In addition, the thought

of the kingdom of God introducas the eschatological blessing

of the Reign of God breaking in and, as in Dan. 7, the whole

corporate notion of the Son of Man. The suffering idea is

here as well. ThOse who follow Jesus will suffer just as he

sUffers. As W. Manson said, " • • • it seems likely that Jesus

chose 'the Son of Man messiologyt because it was 'weighted with

a deeply human pathos I". And it suggested his kinship with

humanity: "It gave him back something of his own sense of one-

ness with the poor and the unfriended, the sinful and the ostra-
.
Cl.zed among his own people whom he came to save."
~7
 132

Nark

There are only two present Son of Man sayings, but

they are both of special importance.

Mark 2:" 0
The question of the place of this logion in the history

of tradition is a difficult oneo T5dt disagrees with Bultmann's

assignment of the saying to the Hellenistic community because

the apocalyptic title Son of Man is used.2"8 This sugf,estion
.. (

is disproved by the fact that Son.of Man is used. several times

in Q., where the F alestinian tradition used "Son of Man" in two

Ways: (,,)apocalyptic future Son of Man, and (2) the earthly

Jesus. In the second use it is not the transcendent Son of ~an

vJhich is in mind, but the use of the Son of Man to mean Jesus'

This usage is the reason Son of Man is introduced

into the controversy dialogues, where the main point of concern

is Jesus' authority.219 In facing the question of authority

the early church traced its authority back to Jesus, who gave

them the only authority they hado220 Since the church had to
bUild on Jesus' authority in the controversy dialogues, it

designated Jesus' earthly activity with the title of dignity,

"Son of Nan". 221

The subjection of the discussion in this logion is the

E~ou(J'[el. of Jesus~2~hom the community calls "Son of Man" because

it sees him in this position of authority--setting aside the law

(which demands the sinners' punishment) and taking the divine

~ogative of forgiveness.223 The perogative of forgiveness is

not taken from the apocalyptic title, since it is nowhere else

ascribed to that figure, thus giving rise to the suggestion that

 133
"by calline Jesus in his unique authority the Son of Man

and conceivine of Jesus' authority as including forgiveness,

the community can formulate the saying that the Son of Man has

the i\ocJ<ft~ to t'or-g

ive sins on earth. ,,224 Though the question
h
wether t· .. lS a communl·ty crea t··
hls saylng lon lS open t 0 dbt
e a e, 22r:;
-
the importance of Mk , 2:'10 as speaking of .re sus ! authority (as

Son of :Han) to forgive sins is rightly recognized.

This saying may go farther back in the history of

tradition. If, as Hooker argues, the early church could

claim such authority for (and from) Jesus, is it not possible

that this was so because of some saying which may have implicitly

carried such a claim, even if in a veiled sense? 226 Hooker feels

that a view that the saying is a creation of the church (unless

it looks beyond this passage) can be criticized in view of the

absence of "Son of Man" in other passages where it might have

been introduced by those who did not understand it.

How is "Son of Man" to be interpreted in this logion?

One view is that "Son of Man" has taken the place of a statement

about man in general. This view is the one held by Wellhausen227

and has more recently been taken up by Co Lpe ,228 This view has

been widely criticized. Vo Taylor, for example, doubts that

Mk. 2:'10, 28 should be lightly set aside as cases of NW] 1:L

being erroneeusly interpreted as a title in the primitive tradi~

tion, the true meaning having been "man".229 Taylor rather

believes this is a gen~ine utterance of Jesus, which he spoke

Without the expectation of being immediately understood.230

T8dt finds Wellhausen's view untenable in view of Mt. 9:8,

and the demands of the context of Mark 2 which show that the
Controversy is over Jesus' authority.23'1
 134

A second view is the co l.Lec-t.Lve interpretation: the

authority to forgive sins is given to the "Son of Man people",

the disciples of Jesus.232 This view is criticized by I. H.

Marshal1233 as inadequate because a collective understandinp'

of the Son of Man would still include Jesus and it would still
be his authority mediated to his followers. Matthew 9:8 lends

no real support to this view because even there the authority

given men is derived from Jesus.234

Thus the understanding of Son of Man most in harmony with

the context is that the Son of Man refers to Jesus. It is not

adequate, however, to see the Son of Man in this logion as merely

a circumlocution for "1",235 for the -€~tJ<ff.,., of Jesus is the

point of emphasis.236 Even so Hooker finds nothing to suggest

that Son of Man is a "messianic" term. Jesus t use of Son of Man

evoked no surprise. The Son of Man of Daniel and Enoch, Hooker

notes, is given authority on earth, and for~iveness, though not

mentioned there, might be expected since it is a destruction of

evil and expresses the relationship between the Son of Man and

other men. These ideas are found in I Enoch and are implied in

Daniel, insofar as Son of Man there is both corporate and indivi-

dUal.237 "This divine activity [forgiveness] is an inbreaking of

GOdls kingdom into his world, an overthrow of evil by good and a

restoration of man--in other words it is, like healing, one of

the signs of the New Age, and an eschatological event. ,,238

There may well have been a certain ambiguity to this

logion, due to the fact 'that XWJ 1:t might mean either!;, man

Or ~eneric man or could refer to the speaker. Certainly Mt. 9:8

Shows that the saying about the power of the Son of Man on earth

to forgive sins could be variously understood. Yet it was the

" arrogation of Divine authority to forgive sins by a 'mere manl

 135
which raised the cry of blasphemy from the Scribes. ,,239
However shocked his hearers were at the Son of Man's
appropriation of the authority to forpive sins, there are some
O.T. precedents for this absolution which may make it appear some-
what less radical. Psalm 103:3 and Isa. 43:25 speak of divine for-
giveness in such a way as to assert that the writer has the cer-
tainty he has been forgiven. But even more important is II Sam.
12:13 where Nathan announces to David that God had forgiven his
sin with Bathsheba. The similarity of Nathan's statment to David
("The Lord has also put away YOlrsin") and Jesus' words to the par-
alyptic ("My son, your sins are forgiven") is noteworthy. The
authority of the Son of Man to forgive sins certainly goes beyond
Nathan's simple announcement as a prophet of God's forgiveness,
but it does prepare the way for the christological develppment.
Add to this the fact that judgment (of which forgiveness may be
said to be a corollary) is a clear function of the Son of Man in
Dan. 7, and the preparation is made for the attribution to the Son
of Man of the function of forgiveness. Thus if the Son of Man of
Dan. 7 is, o~ becomes in the course of the development of the tra-
dition, a divine figure (see the discussion of the throne theophany
tradition) and the Son of Man assumes in Mk. 2:10 the divinepvero-
gative of forgiveness, then the implications of the O.T. back-
ground have been further worked out in this important 10gion.240
Additional motifs in Mark 2 may be traced to related
O.T. Son of Man passages. The thought of the inbreaking of the
reign of God241 (which the forgivaness of sins by the Son of Man
Signals) found its earliest expression in Dan. 7, where the Son
or Man and the kingdom of God are linked together.242 And the
authority of the Son of Man in his earthly ministry was antici-
pated in Psa. 8:6 which speaks of his "dominion over the works
or Thy hands" and of his "holding all things under his feet".243
 136

Mark 2:28

This passage (Mk. 2:23-28) in its present form is generally

held to be a composition of the early Christian community. Several

factors seem to indicate its late place in the history of tradition.

Not the least of these factors is the usefulness of this saying

to the early church in defence of its Sabbath doctrine.244 In

this respect it is related to Mk. 2:10, both sayings carrying

ecclesiastical doctrinal overtones. Whether this consideration

is decisive for dating the pericope or not, it should be taken

in conjunction with other factors. That it is the behavior of

the disciples and not that of Jesus which is called into auestion

here may further indicate that the story is a church composition.245

Nevertheless Jesus' opponents sometimes attacked his disciples as

a means of thereby attacking Jesus.246

What was it in the disciples' action which so offended

the Pharisees? The suggestion of Meyers, Bacon, and others that

the disciples were making a footpath through the grain field by

PlUcking up the grain is doubtful.247 The actual meaning is

clarified by comparing the parallels. The reworking of Mark in

Mt. 12:1 and Lk. 6:1 interprets the situation as one in which

the disciples, being hungry, plucked the grain to eat, since

possibly they had been and would yet be a long time without
fOOd. The Pharisees' objection concerns the breach of a Sabbath

prohibition--}:r~E: T( rrot OG<fIV TO'lS (fjlfol,(JIV ~ OVK. g~~O"T'V;

Apparently the disciples were accused of workinp' on the Sabbath--

that is, of "harvesting" grain on the Sabbath.248 This would seem

to be a breach more of the Pharisaic interpretation of the Sabbath

than of any explicit 0. T. Sabbath regulation. If this is the case,

 137

it is remarkable that, so far from challenging the Pharisees'

interpretation of the Sabbath (as he might well have done),

Jesus admits a breach of the Sabbath and then justifies it.249

The justification given for the disciples' action involves

an O.T. reference, namely I Sam. 21 :1-6, where David broke the

law. Rawlinson notes that the Midrash on I Samuel supposes that

the action of David took place on the Sabbath, giving added

relevance to this logion.250 Interesting as this may be, however,

there is no indication in the Marcan passage that David broke the

Sabbath, so the connection with I Sam. ~ must be elsewhere. It

has been suggested that the ~ssociation of Jesus with David has

messianic import.25'" Though it would be fitting for the Messiah

to appeal to David, it is doubtful there is a veiled messianic

claim here.252

The problem of this connection with Y Sam. 21 is a very

real difficulty for Haencheno He feels that the account of David's

action is so very different in nature from the situation of Jesus

that it can be reconciled to the passage as an answer of Jesus

to the Pharisees only bY' a great deal of twisting the text.

Haenchen calls notice to the words "what David did • • • when

he Was hungry" and says the narrative stems from a wrong under-

standing of the tradition which emphasized the disciples' eating

a stranger's property.253 But Cranfield's explanation of the

passage is more helpful: "The drift of the argument is that the

fact that scripture does not condemn David for his action shows

that the rigidity with which the Pharisees interpreted the ritual

law Was not in accordance with scripture, and so was not a proper
understanding of the Law itself.,,25'4

Most commentators look for some extenuating fe.a.turein

 138

both account.s which releases the transgressors frorn the ordinary

demands of the law. One suggestion is that there were extenuating

c Lr-c ums t.ances r the situation was an emergency, the disciples
0.-'5
were in real need of something to eat.c:J But it is doubtful

that the disciples were in such urgent need of food. Fuller

suggests that this was an emergency in the sense of its eschato-

. orvtanc e ,256
logical Lmp

It has also been suggested that, rather than the situation

providing extenuating factors, in which case the law could be

broken, the law Has not in fact broken at all by the disciples.

It was, according to this view, the Phar~sees' too rigid inter-

pretation of the law which was transgressed. In drawing attention

to the David story Jesus argued that since the scripbures do~ot

condemn David for his actions, the pharisees t interpretation: ,of

the law was too rigid and was not in line with the scriptures

ner the law itself.257 The Pharisees in effect breke the Sabbath

by requiring teo strict observance ef it: they had made them-

Selves ler~of the Sabbath by their regulations and must learn

who. is truly Lerd of the Sabbath.

Anether suggestien is that the extenuating factor is

the speaial pesition which David and Jesus both enjoyed. Because

ef their status, they could dispense with the lawo This is the

argument of Hooker, who says that just as David was in a special

PeSition and could set aside the Mosaic regulations, so could

Jesus as the Son of Man.258 Todt sees this as well, in that

the church is ascribing full authority to Jesuso259 Etienne

Trocm.L
t:I sum. s l't uP .tl,..fJl1S
• way: the setting aside of the Sabbath
regulations by the disciples is possible because of Jesus'

authority in the same way that the breach of the temple regulations

was Possible to those with David because of David.260 In this

 1.39

connection the additional argument in Matthew is significant.

Hatthe"T notes that the priests by virtue of their position and

their required duties on the Sabbath must violate the Sabbath

to maintain the temple ritual. Then he adds that a greater than

the temple "is here". T6dt interprets Hatthew's argument to mean

that Jesus is greater than the temple but not than the law, which

v. 8 says makes legitimate the lordship of the Son of Han over

the Sabbath. So, he finds, the saying does not make the disciples
lords over the Sabbath but traces their behavior to Jesus'
.J ~ "26.,
E~~U~f~. It may be argued whether Matthew intended to say a

greater one (that is, Jesus) or a greater thing (that is, a

higher principle, superior Law or extenuatine factor). At any

rate Matthew's interpretation tends to support the view that

Jesus did point to some factor which in the present situation

exempted hinl and his disciples from the Sabbath regulation.

The uifficulty of coordinating vv. 27 and 28 has been

much discussed. Lohmeyer thinks that v. 28 is virtually another

answer to the Sabbath problem from what v. 27 gives. In one

sense, he notes, v. 28 says more than v. 27, for by using the

word "lord" it implies that the Sabbath ordinanace first received

its validity through the Son of Man and he can confirm or abolish

it. But in another sense it says less than v. 27: it does not

make the Son of Nan the focus of the ordinance but is silent as

to the meaning it has for him.

The first saying depends on the

second, if the two sayings are to fit together at all.262-

LOhmeyer's solution is to attribute both sayings to the early

communityo Haenchen seems to think v. 27 is from the older part

of the tradition and v. 28 has a different origino Already by

s time v , 27 was too hard to accept" putting man over the

IvIarkt
 140

Sabbath as it does. The tradition which l'Iarkfollows had

already nar-r-owedthe me an Lng of v , 27 by the addition of v , 28:

not every man but only the Son of Nan could dispense with the

Sabbath. (This means the verse is no evidence that Jesus

designated himself Son of Han, but rather that it was the com-

muni ty wh i ch spoke of him in this way.) Matthew and Luke pass

on the tradition in v , 28, appropriate to their time , omitting

v. 27 in favor of the more limited v. 28.263 In doing so they

were not following a common tradition, Haenchen suggests, but

a common experience in their time.264 F. Hahn concurs in this

judgment: Mk. 2:28 is a Christological reinterpretation of

v. 27, the fundamental validity of which was questioned.265

Todt agrees th~ the difference between v. 27 and v. 28 indicates

v. 28 is an independent sayine, which he connects with Mk. 2:10

(following Campenhausen).266 Higgins' approach is similar.

Finding no reason to doubt v. 27 textually, he suggests that

HattheVlfand Luke omit it hecause of the difficulty of relating

it to v. 28,267 rather than because of its offensiveness. Verse

28 is a creation of the church which saw in the David story a

messianic meaning. If David could break the law, how much more

Could the messiah. Thus I-lk.2:28 is a Christological affirmation

like Hk. 2:10, perhaps evoked by the Pharisees I criticism of

the Palestinian church for its neglect of the Sabbath.268

On the opposite side of the question, Morna Hooker notes

that Matthew and Luke retain the very verse which is said to be

a Christian comment and discard what is said to be authentic.

She feels that Matthew and Luke support just the opposite view.269

Verse 27 has an important Rabbinic parallel. Billerbeck

cites Rabbi Simeon ben Menasja, on Exodus 3" :14, who says, "The
 14-1

Sabbath is eiven over to you, not you to the Sabbath."

Billerbeck comments that the Sabbath did not lose its valldity

by this interpretation, but it could be profaned in cases of

extreme urgency, that is, in life or death matters.270 Haenchen

states that the notion was generelly held (but with some

exceptions) that the Sabbath prevailed over all human needs.

It 'Has consecrated from the creation, as the scrihes empha sLzed ,

and was willed by God, not by man. But Jesus saw God as the

good Father, whose ordinances were given for man's good, not

to limit or distress him. In this '!Jayhe saw man as really

lord over the Sabbath. 27"1

There are other Rabbinical satements (Ex. R. 25:"11, on

Ex. "16:29; Deut. R. "I :2"1; Midr. Teh. on Fsa. 92:2) which indicate
an unde r-stano.irig that the Sabbath was not given to mankind in

general but to Israel only. The Sabbath was a privilege for

Israel to keep wh.lch the Phar-Lsees had turned into a burden,

thus opposing God's original intention. Jesus I intention was

to restore the original purpose of the Sabbath.272 Hooker

connects the Sabbath with a restoration theme, 'VJithforgiveness

and healing as a part of this restoration. In this light the

healing and its accompanying forgiveness were quite appropriately

done on the Sabbath in connection with this restorationo273

'V/hothen is this "Son of Nan" ··:.Tho

is lord of the
c t.\ '" .) l\ .L
Sabbath? If the 0 UIOS TOU o(Y"fwnfiV is to be understood

collectively, as some are;ue, it must mean either mankind in

general or the new humanity (the r-emaarrt
, new Israel). "Son

of Nan" in v. 28 Hould then be a poetic synonym for man in

v , 27, much as 'man" and "son of man". in psa. 8:4.274 The

first possibility (mankind in general) was the view of Wellhausen

and the earlier view of T. W. Manson.275 It is largely rejected

by other scholars on the gr-ounds that Jesus would not say man

in ge.neral was lord of the Sabbath which had been instituted

by God. 'l'h e second possibility is Hanson's later view: "Son

of Man" is collective as in Dan. 7:13 and represents the people

of God. This view provides a good connection between v. 27 and

v. 28 and fits the rabbinical references which limit the giving

of the Sabbath to Israel alone rather than to man in general.276

"Son of Man" as a corporate figure could thus include Jesus and

his followers and both verses 27 and 28 refer to '!Sonof Han,"

the people of God. But Higgins rejects this view without argument

because he finds no cDmpelling evidence for a collective Son of

Han in the Gospels.277 Cranfield doubts Manson's view as well,

but nevertheless notes that it is supported in the rabbinic

references and in Jubilees 2:31, as well as by the fact that

in v. 23 it is the disciples who infringed the Sabbath (which

implies that they should be included in the "Son of Nan"). Jesus

and his disciples might have regarded the claims of the kingdom

of God (tied closely with the Son of Man278) had priority over

the Sabbath observance.279 M. Black regards Mk. 2: 28 as probably

an exception to Manson's communal interpretation, though he

finds it attractive to include the disciples ~ith Jesus as

forming the Son of Han (elect community). But he notes that,

as Wellhausen said, if v. 28 follows logically v. 27, Son of

Man must be generic. If Son of Man is the eschatological com-

Ti1"Unity(instead of an individual only) there is still a non
,£6guitf£_.280

Oscar Cul1mann's discussion of Mk. 2:28 is helpful at

this point. He feels that perhaps Son of Han means mankind in

general (cr , Mt. 12:3"1f.) and refers to Jesus only secondarily.
 143

Jesus' answer- (vo 27) obviously refers to man in general, not

the Son of Nan. In v. 28 an unprejudiced view would mean that

men are lords of the Sabbath, but v. 28 has Son of Nan. Hark

apparently understood Jesus to make himself lord of the Sabbath,

else he wou Ld have used ~v~rwn"S in v ; 28 as in v , 27. So Mark

interpreted the sayine in the same way as John 5:"7 which gives

a Christological basis for non-observan.ce of the Sahbath:, But

the problem remains that in Mk. 2 the logical connection between

v , 27 and v , 28 is not clear. This means that the possibility

that Jesus did not refer to himself in v. 28 must be kept in

spi te of the Evangelist's interpretation. In other ",Tords,J..

~UJJ Has used in both verses and both places it meant man in

general. Yet the Evaneelist's interpretation (that Jesus referred

to himself) need not be excluded, if' one can accept the essential

core of Manson's later collective viewo28" On this point

Cullmann agrees with T. Preiss that 8. double interpretation of

~lOl '2 is intended, including every man and the one who represents
the many , "If man in eeneral is the one for whom the Sabbath

eXists, how much more reason will there be for the man who came

to save men to be Lord of the Sabbath.,,282

Special Traditions

£1atthev,)
.,3:37

Two present Son of Man sayings occur in the special

Matthew tradition. Matthew "3:37 occurs in a context distinctive

to Hatthew, 283 and the logion itself (or at least the term "Son

of Mad? is generally considered to be an editorial addition.284

T5dtts observation285 is significant, that Matthew has in the

interpretation of the parable of the tares and the wheat given

along side each other both sayings about the p ar-ousLa of the
 144
Son of Ean and about the earthly activity of the Son of Nan,

indicating how closely in Matthew's thinking the two aspects

of the Son of l'''.an

are connected in the figure of Jesus. 286

Something like this overlapping or joining of different categories

of the Son of JlCansayings appears also in John's Gospel (see
Chapter IV).

The meaning of this logion is not dlifficult to determine.

It refers to Jesus' activity on earth as a teacher. He SOV>TS the

seeds by his teaching and his authority as a teacher is assume d
in the title Son of Man.287 But the parable clearly refers to
the activity of judging as well and so brings in the Dan. 7 Son

of lVJ.an."Jesus is the Son of Man both as the one who teaches on

earth with full authority and as the one who will judge the

World according to 'the weightier matters' of this teaching ( cf.

Matt. 23.23; Matt. 25.31ff.).,,288

Hatthew 16:1 3

Matthew 46:13 is usually thought to be Matthew's edi-

torial adaptation of Nk. 8: 27.289 Klostermann's obJection that

Son of Man can hardly be a messianic title, otherwise Jesus'

qUestion is really no question at all,290 is countered by Todt's

argument that Matthew does not intend this as a genuine questiono

Rather it is a sort of heading to the section about Peter's

Confession, which initiates the church period.291 (Similarly

Matthew uses "Son of Man" in Ht. 26:2 as a heading to the passion

account.) From this it is clear that Hatthew understands "Son

of Man" not as a neutral self-designation but as a title of

special importance.292

Bultmann credits Luke with the addition of v. 10 to this

 145
account in Luke, noting that the saying is also appended to
different texts in Lk , 9:56 and Ht • .,8:" ., .294 But the MSS

evidence tells the story here. Matthew "8:"" and Lk. 9:56

both have very weak MS support and seem rather definitely to

be modelled after Lk. "9:"0. On the other hand the saying is

fixed firmly in L]{. "9:" 0 as far as the MS evidence goes.295

The additional grounds for suapec t Ing v • .,0 1>rhichHiggins finds

in its resemblence to Nk. 10:45296 seem rather to support it as

having an early Palestinian origin, as seen by comparing the

two sayings with I Tim. 1 :15 and 2:5f. which are in more Hellenistic

terms.297 Klostermann allowed that v , "0 may belong to the basic

text despite its having a "late form".298 The "is come" is no

indication of a late origin since it appears in Q (Mt. ".,:"9par.)

with "Son of Yan". 299 T~dt argues that since no other present

Son of Nan sayings were created by Luke, the one at Lk , "9:" 0

must have been in the traditional material peculiar to Luke. 300

The conclusion that v. "0 belongs to the basic text finds even

greater confirmation in t he parallel case of Lk , 5: 32, where

LUke added only "to repentance" to the saying (according to

BUltrnann301 ) It:is trifi.ke Ly that Lk. "9:10 was created after the
0

story of Levi, since the only common feature in the two accounts

is that both Here tax collectors. There is no reason to doubt

that the story was derived by Luke fvom a special source inde-

pendent of Mark.302 Nor is there force in Hahn's objection that

present "salvation" as the purpose of Jesua I earthly work is a

late concept. 303 It fllaythen be concluded that Luke has preserved

traditional material which he received.304

vlhat then about the tradition which Luke received? If

B111tmann's arguments that this pericope is a "unitary composition"

 146

do not mean Luke composed the story, is it possible that

Luke's predecessor produced this narrative as an expanded

version of hk. 2:14-" 7 ?305 It seems just as unlikely that

Luke's eour ce modelled the Zacenae us account after the Levi

story, l.dth wh i ch it has so little in common, as that Luke

did.306 Wellhausen's view was that Zacchaeus did not literally

"JI I
follow Jesus as did Levi because salvation had come TW, OI~W ,DlJTW
I ~

{v. 9)--that is, his whole household was converted.307 Certainly

not all of Jesus' converts literally followed him,308 so the

fact that Zacchaeus did not need not indicate the story is late,

when the physical act of following was not possible.309 But

Bultmann may be right that the saying was appended to the

Z acchaeus story. 3" 0 This proves no more, however, than that

the logion could have been an isolated or floating piece of

tradition.3""

Todt argues that, by analogy with other present Son of

Man sayings. (which he fiD;P.Swere church creations), this aayfng

C • ~., 2 . . h
annat he authentlc.~ However, thls line of reasonlng as

been criticized as circular.3"3 ThePalestini~n origin of th!

Saying has already been noted,3"4 which at least points to the

(probable) primitive origin, if not authenticity, of the saying.

It may be noted as well that v. 10 is close to Ezekiel 34:16.3"5

Th e saying fits well Jesus' use of the shepherd motif, 3"6 as in

Lk , 15:4-7 (the parable of the lost sheep). "It is quite possible

thatit was a saying without any context, which, because it was so

.2.bViously genuine, had to be fitted in somewhere. ,,3"7

Perhaps more should be said about the reference in Lk. 19:9

to salVation. Salvation is found elsewhere in Luke only in con-

nection with the Zechariah messianic prophecy (Lk. 1 :69, 7", 77).
 147
•
T h1S sayinc views the messiru11c
••
salvatlon as a present
•
real1ty,
3" 8

wh.i.ch carne to Zacchaeus and his household in the person of Jesus~'" 9

In Zacchaeusl receiving the kingdom message and with it messianic

20
salvation, whi ch showed him to be a son of Abraham,3 the

kingdom is breaking in. It is in this context that a reference

to the Son of Man, whl ch as Daniel 7 shows represents the kingdom

of God and the saints of the 110st High (the heirs of Abraham),

might be expected. 32'"-

How should "Son of Man" be understood in v , '"O? Todt

says that Jesus' mission is formulated as a general obligation

by the designation "Son of Nan". "There can be no doubt that

this designation in Lk, "9:" 0 is a name of sovereignty whi.ch

22
emphasized the legitimacy and exousia of Jesus I mission.,,3

But to find here a designation primarily of sovereignty is perhaps

to mistake the point of the saying. As Todt himself notes, 323

the opposition to Jesus in the preceding narrative (especially

in Lk. 19:7) is instructive of the meaning to be found in"Son

of llan". Rather than a sovereign Son of Man lording over his

enemies, he is the 101tJly ".3on of Ean" enduring the reproach of

men because he befriends a Lnner-s and outcasts. The similarity

to Ht. "'''':19par. is clear.32~- If a connection is made to Lk,

5:32,325 which reads, "I came to call sinners to repentance,"

a Case might be made for an underlying saying of Jesus using

~UJJ 1~ as a self designation. Luke 19:10 preserves the veiled

allusion of Jesus to himself, whereas Lk. 5:32 has made it more

eXPlicit.326 This is then no misunderstood translation of an

"I'" s aya.ng , 327 "There is no good reason why Jesus should not

have understood Ids mission in terms of the>. hI':tnging of salvation

and made the creative link between the coming of the Son of Man

and the Advent of salvation. ,,328

 It has been seen that as far as their Q.T. basis is

concerned, the pI-8Sent sayings have gone considerably beyond

the t'ut.ur-e
sayings which were built aImoe t exclusively on Dan. 70

Certainly there are some present sayings which remain close to

tbe fllture sayings in their emphasis on the extraordinary nature

of the Son of Man, 1J~8ri{... 2:10 and Mk. 2: 28 stress particul8;~ly

the Son of }lan' s special authority, by virtue of which he is

ablE: to forGive sins and to set aside the lawful observance of

the Sabbath.329 }1atthew 13:37 speaks of the special place of the

teaching of the Son of Man in the corning of the kincdom of heaven

and so again puts him in an extraordinary category. Luke" 9:10

refers to his coming to seek and to save the lost--surely a

mission beyond the powers of an ordinary man. Likewise Mt. "6:13,

though at face value only a ouest ion in which Jesus seeks to

know how the crowds have identifi ed the Son of 1-1an,is specially

important as the preface to Peter's great confession of Jesus

as the Christ.
But there is a second very important group of present

Sayings which speak rather differently of the Son of Man and

in so doing use other Q.T. texts to greatly expand the conception

of the Son of Man. In these sayings the Son of Nan is now seen

as the rejected one: he is homeless, Mt. 8:2Q = Lk. 9:58 (cf.

Psa• 8; Sir. 24:7; I Enoch 42), is slandered as a glutton,

drunkard, and friend of sinners, Mt. 11 :19 ~ Lk. 7:34 (cfo Isa.

53:12), is blasphemed, Mt. 12:32 ~ Lk. 12:"0, and is seen to

bless his I'oLl.ower-swho will surely suffer with him, Mt. 5:11 =
Lk. 6: 22"
It is readily apparent that the second of these two
groups of present sayings comes from the 'IQ" tradition, whereas
 149

the first comes only from the Marcan and special traditions.

The Suffering ~o~ of Man Sayings

Most of the Son of r-Ianpassion sayings occur in the

iVlarcantJ:i'adi
t Lon , which will be discussed first. 330

Nark
Nark 9:" 2

This prediction of the su.fferings of the Son of Nan falls

in the midst of a discussion of the return of Elijah before the

messiah comes. A question from the disciples on this aubject

had been provoked by the transfiguration and a prediction of

the rising of the Son of Man (Mk. 9:9). The O.T. passage in

mind in the Elijah discussion is obviously Hal. 4:5" 6. But

the Q.T. passage in mind when Jesus spoke of the sufferings of

the Son of Man" which are to come "as it is written" (cf. the

S~ of Mk. 8:3"" which means scriptural necessityq3") is less

easily identified. Other Son of Man logia" it will be seen"

are more precise in their reference to the O.T.

!lark ..,0 : 45

The importance of this logion cannot be overestimated.

"The [:cflol:,U,13 j!ldzo!ent on 11ark .,0:4r:;decisively helps determine

his vie..v of Jesus h Ims e Lf' , of his teaching" and of the communi tyf s
. ~~2
Wl tness to Jesus and his message. t! ___.,

The Palestinian origin of the saying is fairly certain.333

The religious use of 'AJrfOtl shows this,334as does the language oif?

Nk. "0:45" wh lch is Palestinian" in comparison with Lk , 22:27

which is mor-e Hellenistic. 335 A further comparison of r1k. "0: 45

wi th I Tim. "':"5 and 2: 5f. shows the latter to be in Hellenistic

terms" perhaps a Hellenistic rewriting of Nk. "0:45.336 Mark "0:45

has such Semitic expressions as "Son of Man"" "give his life", and
 150
"for many".337 If the logion incorporates an allusion to a
Hebrew text of Isa. 53, this is further evidence of Palestinian
origin.338 (The primitiveness of the setting, however, is much
more questionable. If, as Bultmann argues, Mk. 9:35 and Lk.
9:45b were originally isolated units, it is likely that Mk.
10:13ff. was also without setting.339 Confirmation of this
may be seen by comparing the parallel in Lk. 22:27)
If the Palestinian origin of this aaying is virtually
certain, there are many scholars who argue for an O.T. back-
ground to the saying. The strongest arguments for an allusion
to Isa. 53 are those of J. Jeremias. The allusion is seen in
the use of >..6rftN (which also shows the logion to be ancient,
coming from the earliest tradition340), from the .jrr~t formula
and the link with ~o)~o~ which is the catchword of Isa. 53,
,
and from (the reflective points to Semitic speaking
(lT~<A}"~OV.l.l

circles), which is often an allusion to Isa. 53,341 That the

Hebrew (rather than the LXX) of Isa. 53 is behind the saying
t I
is indicated by the fact that unEf renders a Semitic equivalent
( I
since urrEf with the genitive is lacking in the LXX of Isa. 53
(where there is S,.L with the accusative and TIEf{ with the
J ... \ \ ,..
genitive). A translation variant is behind the aV-" 7TOI'\I'\WV,

POinting to a Semitic urtext.342 The Semitic background appears

in the no~~~ (a Semitism) which in Greek (as in English) meant
"manY'as distinct from ''hll'',
whereas the Hebrew rabbim could have
the inclusive sense which is the meaning ofno)AwY here.343 He
argues further that no~~ef as understood in Jesus' day was used
in the inclusive sense to include Gentiles as well as Jews,344
in Isa.53.345
and Was so understood in pre-Christian times Of'1TO).).O(
 1 51

One of the strongest recent denials of Isa. 53 in

11k. "0:45 c omes from C. K. Barrett.346 Rather than AJTrcv

pointing to Isa. 53, he notes that the LXX never uses this

word for ~asam, and indeed the t"70 words have very different

meanings.347 The distinction Barrett makes has been criticized

as overly precise, however, and the ransom metaphor should not

be pressed '148
• ...; Mark "0:45 sums up the general thought in Isa.

53 of vicarious death and sacrifice for sin.349 The N.T. writers

are no t , a,t any ra t e, con f·a.ne d t 0 th e LY.Y 350

_,.arre B tt c~oe s no t

feel that the

~,
ciVTl
\
7TDI\AWV
,,.. points to Isa. 53 either, since

~V'Tl is bound up with and demanded by AJ-rfov.35" The ITCA~ of,

though it occurs in Ls a , 52:14, '15; 53:11, .,2 (b Ls ) , is not con-

clusive because it is a common O.T. word.352 There is no evi-

dence in the 00 ~ lolI<OV"~VGll ~). >..t S 1<1.kOV;r..l since Jebed is

I

rendered in the L"ZX by several Greek words but never by ~ lol~OvtW

Or its cognates (and it is an uncommon word in the LXX).353

C'"' ,., \ \) ,.. r:' (
Th ough dOVv-all T')V lfuX"v' oIl/TrN reflects Lsa , 73:" 2 in that

there is a measure of linguistic parallel), Lsa , 53:" 2 is

unique in the O.T. aYld its Hords are uncommon, whereas the

phrase 'f'uX~v £',&o'votl (8.S in Hark) had in the Greek period

developed its O1'1n
b ac kg r-ound other than Lsa , 53 and had come to

denote the death of a martyr or devotion of one's life in ser"\Tic~::4

Barrett's objections overlook Jeremias' main point, namely that

it is precisely because the phrases are ~-Septuagintal that

they point to a Palestinian origin of the saying and a use of

the Hebr-evr of Lsa , 53. This situation rules out the kind of

linguistic pr-ec LeLcn between Hark and the LXX which Barrett

finds lackine;. 355

Confirmation of the reference to Isa. 53 is found in the

association of the concepts in the ).J"1'fcN saying with those in

 152

eucharistic sayings, especially Mk. "4:24. Lohse finds that

Ek. "4:24 and Mk. 10:45 refer to Isa. 53 in a parallel way,356

and this ar-gument is decisive for Todt. 357 In }lk. "4: 24, "poured

out for many", a free reference to Lsa , 53: "2, "poured out his

soul to death", interpretinr.:the new covenant by means of Lsa ,

53,358 may preserve authentic tradition.359 In the parallel

p assage , Lk , 22:27 surely ret' ers to Isa. 53 and the direct

reference in Lk , 22: 37 to Lsa , _r:;3

confirms that this servant
song was in mind in v. 27.360

The co!ricidence of ideas with Phil. 2 is yet again

evidence that Isa. 53 was in mindo That Phil. 2:7 is based

on Lsa , 53: "2 is clear from the Greek

c ,>
€cllM"D"V
I
~\('tVw<rel which is

nowhere else in Greek. It is harsh and probably renders liter-

ally the "poured out his soul" of Isa. 53:12. In v , 7 $CUADS

corresponds to .,.~ (Isa. 52:13) and t"-E:xrt

, ItI '
OIGtYcl-Tov (v, 8)

shows Phil. 2:5-11 was connected with Lsa , 52:13-53:12 in that

v. "2 is here translated. The unusual Greek of Phil. 2 trans~

lated the unusual He br-evr of Tsa , 53. In a similar way 1v":k. 10:45

is a scriptural translation of Isa. 53:"2 or an adaptation of the

whole passage.361 One may then do well to agree with Higgins.

conclusion: "There seems to me to be no compelling reason for

abandoning the v i ew that Mark 10:45 has its main background

elements derived from Isa. 53.,,362

The association of Isa. 53 with the death of Jesus ~ay

Well go back to Jesus himself. n'lliether~1k. 1o:45b is dominical

in this place or not is another question.) Higgins finds the

reference in }fu. 10:45 too direct to go back to Jesus, though

he agrees Hith Jeremias that it is of great age.363 But B.

Lindars36L-I- fine_13 this. is the starting point of Christian use
 153

of Isa. 53 and gives full wei~ht to the verba Christi in Mk.

10:45; 14:24. The allusions to Isa. 53 differ from each other

and from the LXX, as the other allusions vary as well.

It is the beginning of a doctrine of the atonement. The

wide variety of non-Septuagintal phrases indicates that
the biblical work has been done at the earliest possible
period, very probably by Jesus Himself. The results have
entered into the normal Christian gpeech, and there is no
need to adduce the specific text.3 ~

There is reason to believe that further O.T. background

to Mk. 10:45 is found in Daniel, especially Dan. 12:3 which, if

it refers to Isa.53:11b, is a pre-Christian interpretation of

Ls a , 53. The "many" (rabbim) of Dan. 12:3 are those from Israel
who led many to righteousness.366 According to H. L. Ginsberg

it is unquestionable that the writer of Dan. 11,12 has identi-

fied the Servant of Isa. 52:13-53:12 with the maskilim (the

enlightened, enlighteners) of his day, and the many of the same

passage with the many of Dan. 11 :33, 34. The maskilim, like the

Servant, justify the many not only by instruction (Dan. 11 :33)

but by suffering martyrdom and then being resurrected (Dan. 12:3).

The final glory of these martyrs is strikingly similar to that of

the Servant.367 These themes of Daniel are also carried on in

I Enoch: the suffering theme,368 the same close-relation of the

Son of Man figure to his peoPle,369 and the ultimate glorificatid~?

This background in Isaiah's Servant and the Son of Man of

Daniel and Enoch shows that Judaism developed its theology of mar-

tYrdom in order to meet the contemporary situation of persecutiod7'

This fact is demonstrated by Barrett, who shows that the signifi-

cance given to suffering combined with a new "individualism" in

 154
JU~$!ism·produd6td the classic formula of Dan. 12:2. Relating
this to the Jewish corporate concepts, the martyr's death was
seen to influence the people as a whole (II Maccabees 7:37f.)
as intercessors, making atonement for Israel (cf. IV Maccabees
6:27ff.; 17:22; 18:4).372 Suffering was even said to be of
greater value than offerings, since these atone for only parti-
cular sins, whereas suffering (especially martyrdom) atones for
all sins.373 There may have been a martyr theology in the Essene
community as well.374 Thus late Judaism had a means of atone-
ment, except for heathen nations which were excluded.375
The preceding discussion shows that the O.T. and late
JUdaism provided adequate background to Mk. 10:45, making it
unnecessary to resort to supposed Pauline influence376 or to
the redemptive ideas of Hellenistic Christianity.377 It is
more likely that Mk. 10:45 represents a tradition which accounts
for the "Pauline" way of speaking about Jesus:'death, and thus
cannot be interpreted via paul.378 This renders void the argu-
ment that Lk. 22:27 is more original than Mk. 10:45, the l~er
being a rewriting of the logion in favor of Pauline redemptive
theology.379
The parallel to Mk. 10:45 in Lk. 22:27 is said to have
come down by way of a tradition independent of Mk. 10:45,380
though probably the two are ultimately derived from the same
source.381 Mark's antithesis, 00 ~/cl~OV?~Y'ot.( ~),U
rather S'al~O\'"~cnL(,

than showing alteration of Luke's form (as Bousset thought382),

is probably more original.383 Mark's Palestinian language is
certainly more primitive than Luke's more Hellenistic.384 The
g ) (~
reater age of Mark may also be indicated by the EV uf' v of
LUke which may possibly point to a later stage in the tradition.385
 155
Luke's form may be closer to the original in its omission of
the phrase found in Mk. 10:45b,386 if this addition is a gloss
on serving, which is not certain.387 The ~~~v , which views

the mission of the Son of Man as a whole, could also be later.388

Mark 10:45a may have been transmitted alone, 45b being
a secondary addition. If this is so, i~ would seem not only to
fit the context better but also to accord with Lk. 22:27 (excep-
ting of course that Luke does not have the Son of Man title).389
Mark 10:45 also fits the genera.l nature of the present
sayings, being particularly paralleled by Mt. 11 :19par. and
Lk, 19:1 0 which regarded the mission as a whole, "he is come. ,,390

There may be a limited parallel as well to Mk. 2:10, 28 (which

emphasize the Son of Man's authority on earth) in that here too,
it is his coming to serve which is the authoritative example to
the disciples that they should serve as well.3~ The latter
parallel should not be pressed, however, since Mk. 2:10, 28
are set in the context of.disputes concerning Jesus' authority.
Here there is no dispute, though there may have been a misunder-
standing of the nature of Jesus' mission. A parallel is found
as well in Mt. 8:::20,which like Mk. 10:45 relates the disciples I

behavior to Jesus and, again like Mk. 10:45, speaks of the lowly
Son of Man. Todt, whose interpretation of the present sayings
as emphasizing the full authority of the Son of Man has been
found to need qualification, thinks the humility of the Son of
Man in these earlier sayings (present sayings) was imposed upon
him from without,392 whereas in Mk. 10:45 it is represented as
an inward, voluntary humility, and as part of the Son of Man's
mission. But does this distinction stand up? In Mt. 8:20 the
homelessness of the Son of Man was perhaps due in part to the
 156

Son of E8_nts rejection by men (as Todt emphasizes), but it may

have been due as well to the nat.ure of Jesus t itlinerant ministry

and hi s personal poverty, both factors brought about voluntarily.

The scorn he incurred from eating 'rJithsinners and outcasts (:fv1t.
11 :19par.) was again due in part to his rejection by men, but

surely an inward humility prompted Jesus to associate with the

downtrodden and humiliated, before he encountered this rejection.

Again to a lesser extent this inward humility is seen in Ht. "2:32,

where the rejection and blasphemy of the Son of Man is said to

be forgi v a.b Le , Only the inwardly humble Son of }1an would willingl;')

have placed himself in such a position to encounter men's rejec-

tion and would have reacted so meekly to it. One should not
therefore eliminate this saying because it gives a "new'! view
of "inward humility'!: to do so, by emp ha.sLz Lng the thought of

authority, is to miss the point of the 10gion.393

The phrase in Hk. "o:45b poses certain interpretative

problem~. Barrett thinks that just as there is a contrast in

4.5a, a contrast is implied in ~-5b: the Son of Man gives life,

rather than destroyinG it.394 But more common is the view that

45b is a gloss on the serving saying in 45a.395 Thus Lk. 22:27

is more original in omitting 45b.396 But :Mark's addition (if

such it be) is not then to be thought to come from the "redemptive
theories of Hellenistic Christiani tyt!,397 since the Palestinian

origin of the saying is clearly established.398 The phrase in

45b could be, as Todt thinks it is, a Palestinian gloSS on the

Serving, inasmuch as 45a can stand complete without 45b.399

And it is precisely the nature of 45a, where the Son of Man of
his own volition seeks the humility of serving, which offers

the possibility of appending the Christological-soteriological

interpretation of Isa. 53 in 45b.400 In this way Mk. 10:45

 1.57

b rl . d ges the presen t' s aya.ngs an d th e p a s s a. on s ay i.ngs

. , 401 finding

the connection in the word "serve".

It has been said that a tension exists between 45a and

45b (indicating that 45b is secondary) in that 4-.5a offers a

SUmmonsto the disciples not just to follo1tJ the example of

JesusJ but to make their behavior correspond to his, whereas

ln
• I r:'b' thls
~~ correspon d ence o.f b eh'aVlor .
lS Impos
. _ s ibl~.402
c If
._,

however, the r18rtyrdom theology of Daniel is in the background

of }!:;b, then it is not inconceivable that the disciples' behavior

could c or-r-eapond to ;188'.18 t in his death as a martyr and a "r-ans om

for 'l1an:;'!. 'Ilhat this is the case might be inferred from the

conte~t as well, since the question of the disciples' place

at Jesus' right and left hands in his glory has provided the

settins for this saying.

vlhat is the cormection be twee n 45a and 45b1 Does service

include dyinc as a ranson]? A. Schweitzer thought so: "In the

Case of ,Jesus it meant the bitter sUffering of death. Both

Count as s er-vLng, inasrnuch as they establish a claim to a position

of rule in the kingdom. ,,403 If ,Tesus then thought of his passion

in terms of atonement,404 this seems to introduce a new element

into the Son of Man concept.405 But this may be more a difference

of emphasis than 8. radical new departure" redemption being an

a~ pect of serving.406 The suffering aspect does fit the context:

contrast in 45a follows the situation when

Some of the disciples vrant.e d more to be served than to serve

(Mk. 10:37), to which Jesus replied by promising that they

would suffer as he will (v.39).407

What is the meaning of Son of Nan here? Todt finds

Nk. "0:45 unique among the present sayings in that it speaks

 158

of a deliberate humility of the Son of Han. 408 B

- ut th e
distinction he draws has already been seen to be perhaps

exaggerated: both in tvlt.8: 20 and in tvlt."":" 9 there is an

Lnwar-d , essential h um.lLL ty which led the Son of Han to put

himself in the humb Le place where he could be re jected and

reproachedo Thus it is not wholly true that it is only in Mk.

10:4.s4°9 that the paradox,' appears of the sovereign one becoming

) }..A ~\
the lowly one. 4"0
J
l::-'ut
the contrast (oc.J • • .d. perhaps

indicates that it was thol~ht the Son of Han had come to be

ministered to, since Dan. 7:"4 says all peoples, nations, and

languares should serve him.41~According to Mk. 10:45, then,

t.he picture of the glorious Son of Man who comes that all
.
may serve h lrrl.. lncomp 1et e:
lS the Son of Man came t 0 serve. '-,_1 2

This serving includes suffering as well: the Son of Man will

suffer before his coming into glory. The triumph of the Son

of han Hill show God accepts the atoning suffering of martyrs

for his people (accovding to the Danielic martyr theology).

The Son et: Han has a special relationship to mankind and

suffers in a representative capacity: his suffering, like the

/ ~ \ v.c 41 3
martyrs', is happarah, A UT; 01/ 1,tvrl nolV\wy. The close
parallel to Hk. "0:45 in Lk. 22:27 is the most explicit reference
414
on the lips of Jesus to his role as Servant of the Lord.

"It is as if Jesus said, 'The Son of Man came to fulfill the

task of the ebed Yahweh. I Jesus consciously united in his

person the two central concepts of the Jewish faith, barnasha

and ~ Yahl,.Jeh.
,,415

!fark 8:Y; 9: Y' (and 9:" 2) i ., 0: 33f •

Of the other Harcan suffering Son of l1an sayings, one

may group together Nk. 8:31; 9:31 (and 9:12); and 10:33fo--all
 159

of VJhich have the same "framework", even if they do exhibit

verbal differences.416

If it crJl be established that Isa. 53 stands behind

the passion sayin£; in !Ill;::. '°:45,417 there is considerably more

dLs agr-eement. whebher- Jesus spoke of his s uf'f'cr-Lngs in t er-ns of

Isa. 53 in these passion predictiDna. In his ~ission and

AchieverrJ.ent of Jesus4:" P Fuller set out in detail the phrases in

these passion sayings which seem to reproduce the Hebrew of Iso..

TIl J.],
53: (1) set at nought, E~ov$ey1~ (Isa. 53:3)
'f
. .
• •

(2) be J:'(; j e c t ed , Mar}:::'s d.7fC~Ol(ttt~V-U paraphrases the Hehrew

77- TT,
-~ (3) the hands of 111enechoes theU'W"~
.. of Iso.. 53:3.

(In addition there are the phr-a s e s from Hk , 10:1+-:;: give his life
C',.. \ \, ~ \'" .) \. \\")
a ransom" OC>()Voll TilV' ¥-,UX'1¥ olllTC\J AVTfl'f and, for many, o(v"n 1Tclllt.W'/ •

There are the more general terms as well, of sufferine many

thincs, rroAAJ TrQ.&7.." , and being killed, ~7ToKrolV~Voll (and

tho [:;eneral term in Mk , 10:45, "minister"). Todt has posited

Sources other than Iso.. 53 for these elements of the passion

Sayings: (1) and (2) are, he feels, variant translations of

psa• 11e:22, the ~ou~ev1dlfi of m~. 9:12 occurring in a quota-

tion of the Psalm in Acts 1+=11, and the ~"o8~1{/""'.'1"~v.u. of

1+19
Mk. 8:31 occurring in a quotation of the Psalm in Mk. 12:10.
Th lS
. leaves only the .)
~'S~rSdo"'!
1'1
..w-..!Jfk.
, .Jl ''-..')
9:31 as possihly •
echo Lng

the nebreH}isham of Ls a , 53:3 (though the phrases in Mk. 10:45b

are recognized as referring to Iso.. 53).

Al though Bul tmann relegated them to the Hellenistic

20
church,4 the Palestinian milieu of these passion predictions

has been firmly established.421 Mark 9:31 is the most certainly

Palestinian, for it uses the formula 7fd..rol.&{SOO-~l E:tS Xf:1r.J.s

t/yOs , which comes from the Palestinian language milieu.422
 1 60

Inasmuch as i-ik. 8:31 and 10:33f. conform to Ml:. <S:31, they too

may be of palestinian origin. Further indication of their

Palestinian derivation is seen in the use of 'diTO((.Td.V~Vd-L (in

l'l:k. 8:31; 9:31; 10:34) not- the Hellenistic <ITI'lUeW~\ld-l., and

in the use of ~Vd-<rTt)y"aLL .1+23

It may be possible to trace this group of sayings

even farther back in the history of tradition, at the same

time noticing their O.T. roots. I. H. Marshall has offered

several arcuments wh i ch may lead beyond the Palestinian COt11-

mun i ty into the teaching of Jesus for the setting of these

. l12L~
1ogla. '

(1) There are two indications of the antiquity of the

reference to the Son of Han being delive.reii

up: (a) the charac-

teristic 7Tr:A..f''!..~{SWfAl is not linked with Christ, but rather with

Son of Han, Lord Jesus, and God's Son; and (b) if a reference

to Isa. 53 is not certain in the Gospels, it is much more evi-

dent in such pre-Pauline texts as Rom. 4:25; 8:32; and I Cor.

16:23.

(2) Psalm 118:22, which is said to have provided the

E~OUSE:.Y"'1~ of Jl'lk.
9:12 and the d7TOSO(('If-"O-~VtI-( of Mk. 8:31,

vJas known to Jesus, as Mk. 12:10 shows.425

(3) The description of the Jewish authorities is consistent

• .J") ~ I •
With what Jesus might have s ad d , and EIS X,e:tfJ...C). ot"I-
rW1t'wV 1S an

O.T. expression.

(4) That it is death rather than crucifixion which is

Spoken of indicates an early form of the prediction.

(5) The oldest resurrection predictions refer to "after

three days". This ambiguous form in Mark is changed by I\~atthew

and Luke to the later form "on the third day". The earliest
 1 61

l;:erycrnatic reference, I Cor. 15:4 (there is no indication that

"after t hr e e day::f' was used in the kerygn1a), has "on the third

day" and it is likely that the more precise "on the third day"

replaced in the keryr;m8 the original ambLguo us wor~_ing of -Te s ua ,

T1'JO Har-can Son of rJian passion predictions remain to be

discussed: Hk. 14:21 and Wik. 14:41. Both have been taken as
.
chur-ch cr-eat Lons , '~_26 but there are reasons for thinking they"

must be placed early in the history of tradition. These s ay Lng ,

IH~e others, 'nay have been in a different place--that Ls , the;)T

may have "floatedU independently in the tradition for a time,

but this does not say anything ab out their authenticity.427

v/hat indications are there of the milieu from which

these s ay.i ngs have c omeZ Both sayings employ vocabulary which

is proho.bly e ar-Ly , In }'Il(. 1L~": 21 there are four such indications:

Cc
urtelyw, mean Lng "to [';0 to death", occurs only he're

and in the F'our-t.h Gospe I (wh.ich has "I" in place of Hark's Son

of Ht:ln" cf. John 8:'Il_~, 21ff; 13:3" 33; 14:4, 28; 16:5" 10" 17).

The '.rJidespread use of the expression in John supports the general

reliability of [~. 14:21 in using the expression oh Jesus' lips~28

Behind this Gr-eelr expression l"Ylayvery Hell be the Ar amadc 71"x'"

"to Co m-ray; to fail" cease, vanish. ,,429 Probably "I go" was

for Jesus a favorite vJay of s pe akd ng , 430

, I 3
(2) ~~" for the comparative is a well attested SemitisDH" "

(3) The combination of r--tv andS'- is rare in Mark.432

!. ?, '")
(4) The wor-d play on "that man" and Son of Manl-J-_,.J
VJould

have been clear in Aramaic. It recalls Nk. 9:3" and Lk. 9:44

where there is opposition between sinful men and the Son of Man.
 162

The conclusion is justifiable then that Nk. 14:21 comes from

l
the l'alestinian language sphere. -l-34

Si;dlarly there are indioations of early' vocabulary

in 1"lk. 14:41:
_) I ~ di °
(1 ) It has been suggested that behind ~llG-Xt;;1 V, 2..lfflcult

crux interpretum" there is an Aramaic proverb wh i ch has been

misread and so gave rise to the av-m-ardGreek text of T1k. 14:41

Oh
an d to t he var-Lan
~ t 1rJ
°
ac
h DO)'
z ave s
b' "'-"'-X'"t
(J' I\.\;;' ~
\
TO T€:II\ OS
I
""all
<1.
, e tl
'1 '"'()riw
......
( •
435
..) , ,.. ,.. t \'" °
(2) The expression EIS TotS. ~E'fJe(S "T'WI dfAd-.rrWI\WV" as

Semitic.436
t)'
(3) The hour is c ome, 'l~~v
IL (
tt Wrcl.....,
(j
is paralleled by

.John 12: 23,

rt: \ /, CL
J-/l"AU~V
(Cl
'1 -r: Cl
IYet.
Q Z tu:
oO-z.60'vrl
c
0
(\
UI"-$ ,0\) ~""V1rlA.rrr""u.
('I J Il\ I

This fact, rather than pr-ovLdLngv gr-ound for dismissing HIe. 11~:41L:37
cl
indicates that Son of Nan and ~r( were linked in two 1rJidely

different traditions.438

In both Nk, 14:21 and 11+:41 Son of Man is joined with

439
l'To...f"-&{&WI"-l" as it is as weL'l in Mk, 9:31 and 10:33. These

sayings emphasize the irony of the situation in which the Son

of 1\,lan"vrhos e authority is seen in his earthly activity of

forgiving sins (rvlk. 2:"0) and being lord of the Sabbath U1k.

2:28), is delivered up to the men who deny his authority and

refuse to acknowledge him. "As in Daniel, the usurping powers

of evil are triumphant: the Son of Man is handed over into the

hands of sinnerso,,440

Special Traditions

Natthew 26:2

This saying appears as a sort of introduction to

Matthew's account of the crucifixion. The directness of this

prediction, in terms both of its apparently precise dating of

the crucifixion (after two days) and of its designating the

 163

manner of death as crucifixion, rather than a general prediction

of death as in Mk. 8:31; 9:31; 10:34, may suggest it has been
rephrased in terms indicative of the fuller understanding of
the circumstances of Jesus' death after it had occurred.

Luke 22:48
This saying most probably is not a Lukan modification
of a Markan source but is rather from the special Lukan source.441
The saying then comes from an early tradition which used the Son
of Man title in association with Jesus' betrayal. It fits well
the whole pattern of Son of Man passion sayings and is consistent
with them. It provides a dramatic climax to the whole theme, "the
Son of Man is betrayed.~2 Possibly the use of the Son of Man
title by Luke in Jesus' rebuke of Judas is meant to indicate the
enormity of the crime ~udas is committing.443 This may be true
not only because the one betrayed is the Son of Man but also be-
Cause the betrayer is himself one of the Son of Man community.

kUke 24:7
Whether this saying is the work of an editor who has
jOined together Lk. 9:22 and 9:44,444 or is a reworking of
Markan passion sayings,445 or is independent tradition,446
the language of the saying is certainly traditional.
Careful examination shows that each word and phrase
in this logion is firmly embedded in the tradition. The con-
struction (hyperbaton) of the opening of the sentence is Semitic,
more Hebrew or Aramaic than Greek.447
The g~; is used to note the necessity of the Son of
Man's betrayal, crucifixion, and rising in order to fulfill
the scriptures.448 This apodictic ~~ is absent from Mk. 9:31
but may be reflected in the ft~~Ef of Mt. 17:22 = Lko 9:44.449
 It is reflected in the Johannine Son of Man sayings, especially

-Jo hri 3: 1L~, wher-e it is s aLd the Son of Man ~ (the gE-l of

divine impero.tive1t)O) be lifted up ( .,. s uf'f'e r-Lng c r uc Lf'Lx l on

and ris in?, both of which <Tohncomprehend s in a s in["1e

l RL" 4r,1
u ~ W """I Y'd..t. ) •

The TIcl.rol~,SoY~l, v.rhether by itself a f'or=nu La as

Jererl1ias So.ys1+52or not, l~53 is widespread in the tradition,

occurring at Mk. 9:31; 10:33; 14:21,41; Lk. 22:48; Mt. 26:2.

It is certainly to be regarded as a formula when combined lf7ith

"into the hands of men/sinners fl. 454 The non-Hellenistic and

pre-l auline j

origin of the term is indicated by its occurrence

in IJre-Pauline texts (Rom. 4: 25; 8: 32; I Cor. 11: 23) which

agree with Acts.3:13 and by the fact that it is never used in

association with the title "Christfl•455

The phrase
)

~/5

traditional phrase. "Into the hands of men" is an C.T.

. 456
expr-e as Lon" (cf., e.g., Judpes. 2:14; 1S:13; 10:7; II Sam. 21 :9;

Job 16:11; ~ al.). There is a play on words in the Aramaic

behind l"lk. 9:31 ~W]., ).;}/

T T to- ~
Xlli),,:1
T T -'
"sons of men"/Son of Man.457

£nother Aremai sm occurs in Lk, 24: 7 in the use of

"'~fWTl"OS as an indefinite, ~V~l.J1{t( (= T'V~) ~f'ArTk1Ao{ (=X'uJ) '1:1.1

8
7 'r ~ (1),).45 Furthermore, the combination of "to be delivered"

With "into the hands of men/sinners" is a formula which comes

from the Palestinian milieu.459

Luke I s <:rT~Ur ~V'lt(, which is a familiar kerygmatic term,460

is often taken as a later, more precise substitution for the more

61
general 6trrOKTl:-{V(,..} (~lTCI-rClY~Vc£.l ).4 But John, by contrast,
uses the more general b'f'~Val.-L for O'Totuf~\f1t.l .462
 165

The Lat.e r , more precise Tn -rr'Tn

" I (I
'1f't€:-frl;-- of Lk. 24: 7
\ ~ t ,

h a s replaced the earlier arnbLg uo us ~6.. Tf(:JS '1~tot..S(C:f. Hk.

8:31; 9:31; 10:34, all pre_Marcan).463 This replacement of the

earlier p hr-a s e by the mor-e precise one in }lfatthew and Luke

(Mt. 1h:21 = r.i-. 9:22; T-Ji"t.17:23; 20:19 = Lk. 18:33) corresponds

to the replacement of "kill'! in the passion ann01mcements by the

4h4
kerYf,rr18tic t.e r-n "c.r-uc i f' y" (Ht. 20:19; 26:2; Lk. 24:7). In

view of the fact that the earlier kerygmatic reference (in I Cor.
, ,. ,
r'": 'lrE.F
(

whereas TrE:.IS does not

appear (cf. Acts 10:40), the conclusion is well founded that

"after three days' was the original, ambiguous wordine; used by

Jesus; it could mean 'after a short time, I but it was given

Uneo_vivoc al precis ion in the ke r-ygma , ,,465

Luke 24:7 (like Lk. 18:33) uses the probably early

term ~Vd<fT~VtLl, which is found in the pr-e=Nar-c an tradition

( ~lfk
I •
0
I): 31; I ) •.466
9: 31; 10: 31 T"00't b e ]..a e ve s th e _,
a.Vd-."-".All·
''1v.,. lS e ar 1 •
ji er-

th an the )ey"rU'1vttof
~ IvIt. f 6"'":21 = Lk. "}:22; Mt. 17:23; 20:19 ( and

Acts 10:40), primarily be c ause Clf'fhe scriptural text fundamental

to the resurre ction predictions, namely Hosea 6: 2, wh i ch has

sUpplied the 'i~ Tr(rn h/At r~ , the verb, and therefore must

SUrely have contributed this t e rm to the tradition as well. 467

But there is the possibility that the resurrection announceme'1ts

derive from a tradition based on an interpretation in terms of

resurrection of 2 non-Septuagintal text of Hosea. This possi-

bili ty is suggested by the fact that" in addition to the ~"aI<f7~ VJ..L

from Hosea 6:2 (LXX) in the resurrection sayings of Mark, there

is the ~r'r~'#.tof rTt. 16:21 = LIe. 9:22; i'1t. 17:23; 20:19. Since

the early kerygmatic reference in I Cor. '15:4 used the 'GY&i(t4

it Seems not un'l i ke Ly that the )ey-El'f~ may in fact be the o}r1(!)r
term. L\68
The likelihood of this possibility is str~hened by
 166

the e:=istence of a LTel,rish

targurn, aLmo st certainly pre-Christian,

wbich interprets Hosea 6:2 of resurrecti0n. "It seems highly

p r-obab le that t.he original inspiJ?ation of the Gospel resurrection

predictions is to be traced to this Ar-amaf.c interpretation of

Hosea 6:2. It is certainly a very old Jewish pesher tradition
indeed which is embedded in the New Testament kerygma.,,46fj

The history of tradition of this rising of the Son of

IVJanreaches its theological apex in John's Gospel when he intro-

duces the term J\fW6);\v~l (this time from I8a. 52:13,Lr70 not

froIn Hosea 6:2) as a single term embracing the whole salvation

history sequence--suffering, death, and resurrection (cf • .John

3:14).L~7'" John's distinctive contribution is that he sees the

lifting up of the .Son of Man not just finally in his exaltation/

r esurrec t"
~on btl
u a_rea d y _n
i~" l!lS crUCl"f"'
lXlon. 472

This progression of thought may be diagrammed as t'o l Lovs r

(Hosea 6:2) Targwn (Hosea 6:2) LX"C (Isa. $2: 1 3)

Aramaic behind
(Mto 16:21 = Lko 9:22) Mk. 8: 31
0-'f'W&11\"fl.l = G)" Pi' ~
Mt. 1 7: 23; 20:'" 9 9: 31 John 3:14
10: 34 8:28

Lk. 18: 33 12: 34

24:7 ($t)~1ja-9oiY'1..()1 2: 23; 13: 31

In this saying, which attributes to Jesus a prediction

of his passion and resurrection (in terms of scripture, Lk.

24:26-27), in the traditional language coming frnm very early

tradition and based on a non-Septuagintal interpretation of

Hosea 6:2, one finds a logion which, in spite of its context

in a post-resurrection appearance,473 may in fact go back to

the teaching of Jesus himselfo474
 NOTES

1R• H. Fuller, The Mission and Achievement of Jesus,

PP. 96, 97 (where he classifies the Son of Man sayings).

3N• Perrin, Rediscoveri~ the Teaching of Jesus,

Pp. 173-81; the clouds of Dan. 1M3 are taken over as a fixed
element in the presentation of the eschatological Son of Man
in early Christian tradition (cf. Mk. 13:26; 14:62). Lohmeyer
cites II Macc. 2:7 to show that clouds are an eschatological
motif.
4Jo-c• Ingelaere, "La «parabole» du jugement dernier",
~.H.P.R. 50 (1970), 23-60; he cites (p. 26) K. Stendahl, ~
choo! of St. Matthew, pp. 80, 212ff.
5In~elaere, ibid., p. 26:" "'Lamention de la gloire
doit aus sI venir de Daniel. La fcl .... apparait en effet dans
la version de la Septante en Dn. 7n4.~
" 6See the discussion of this Q saying in Anton Vogtle,
Der Spruch vom Jonaszeichen" in S~optische Studien (Alfred
Wikenhauser Festschrift; Munchen: ar! Zink Ver1ag, 1953),
PP. 272ff.
7perrin, Rediscovering, pp. 191ff.
8He finds that b, c, and d are joined editorially in
~ is a variant of b , having omitted "except the sign of Jonah"
Q'
(apparently because it was thought other signs were given, such
as Jesus' miracles). Q has the regular Semitic idiom. Perrin
concludes that Mk. 8:12 comes from Mt. 12:39 = Lk. 11 :29. D was
independent of c, since there is no mention of a sign in d.
Regarding the differences between Matthew and Luke,
McNeile prefers the order of Luke (which Matthew, he feels,
has probably reversed). The sayings were probably connected
with the sign of Jon.ahfrom the very beginning (McNeile, Matthew,
P. 182). Klostermann thinks Matthew is a development of an
older source (Matthlusevangelium, p. 245).

1. 67
 168

9perrin, Rediscovering, pp. 194-5. K. Stendahl, omitting

Mt. 12:40 as a later Christian interpretation, takes the meaning
of the si~n for Matthew to have been the preaching ministry
("Matthew I in Peake's Commentary, p. 781).
Other interpreters who feel the sign is the preaching
are Leaney (Luke, p. 92), noting Lk , 11:32, and Ellis (Luke,
p. 166), who likewise notes that in Luke the sign is the message
brought and the power in which it is manifest (Lk. 7:21ff.; cf.
In.2:18ff.).
Another view is that of W. Wink (John the Baptist in
the Gospel Tradition, p. 22, n. 2). He notes O. Cullmann (Peter,
bisciple, A!ostle. Mart;! (2d rev. and expanded ed.; trans. by
'loyd F. Fi son; Philad~phia: Westminster, 1962J pp. 21f.) com-
pares Mt. 16:17 with In. 1 :42; 21 :15f. to show that Jonah can
serve as a shortened form of John. It is possible, Wink sugpests,
that "the sign of J""onah",Lk, 11 :29, 30; Mt. 12:39-41, is a deli-
berately veiled allusion to the repentance preaching of John (cf.
C. H. Kraeling, John the Baptist [New York: Scribners, 1951),
Pp. 136f., who considers the Lukan form an authentic saying of
Jesus). By this word play John is certified as a prophet in the
tradition of Jonah, whose mission is the preaching of repentance
prior to an act of God anticipated as judgment but received as
grace. The passage would thus be one more witness to the enor-
mous sOlidarity between John and Jesus, who stakes the issue of
his entire ministry on the single eschatological sign of John's
preaching of repentance.

10perrin, Rediscovering, pp. 194-5. He draws from C.

Colpe, ,,:,v f OS ro 5 ("yfit,!",rN". The sign of Jonah is complete
and the interpretation only comes later, either from Jesus himself
Or from the early community. Matthew 12:40 interpets the sign
as in the passion predictions and the narrative of Mt. 16:21;
27:63. His interpretation of Lk. 11 :30, which takes it as a
product of the early church is disputed by T~dt, Synoptic Tradi-
.tion, pp. 53ff.
11
Klostermann, Matth~usevangelium, p. 245.
1 2F• Filson, Matthew, p. 1 52.

13R• T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, pp. 80-2;

he vigorously defends the authenticity of the saying.

14perrin, Rediscovering, pp. 194f.

15Black, Aramaic Approach, p. 134.

16R• G. Hammerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, Wisdom and the

~on of Man, p. 36, brings in the wisdom theme here, which he feels
ls important Son of Man background, in suggesting that Jesus seems
to be identified with the Son of Man in his capacity as the wise
man and the prophet greater than Solomon and Jonah respectively.

17Richard Edwards, The Si n of Jonah in the Theolo of

.the Evangelists and Q (Studies in Biblical Theology, Secon Series,
 169
No. 18; London: S.C.M., 1971), p. 97, believes Mt. 12:40 to be
the work of the Evangelist who has put the quotation in place
of the eschatological correlative he received from Q in order
to clarify the meaninp of the refusal of a sign and its exception.
18Though it is said the early Christians would have had
no eyewitnesses accessible to them so the account must be ficti-
tious; thus 1'1. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, PP. 192ff.;
H. Leitzmann, Der Prozess Jesu (Sitzungsbericht der Berliner
Akademie der Wissenchaften 14; 1931), pp. 312-22; Bultmann, ~-
optic Tradition, pp. 269ff., 433; Nineham, Mark, p. 401.
On the other hand, see A. J. B. Higgins, Jesus and the
Son of Man, p. 67 (though he still doubts the accuracy, but not
the historicity, of the account); V. Taylor, Mark, in loc.;
RUmmel, Promise. and Fulfilment, p. 50; Cranfierd; Mark-;-p".439.
It may have been Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea who gave this
report to the early Christians (though Nineham, Mark, p. 402,
rejects this as speculation). It is probable that the charges
against Jesus would have been well known, since the Jewish leaders
Would feel the need for justification of the execution of someone
as popular as Jesus.
19M• Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark, pp. 163ff., gives
a bibliography of recent attempts to uphold the reliability of
Mk. 14:62 (p. 164, n , 1). Cf. Higgins, Son of Man, pp. 66ff.;
See in particular E. Dabrowski, "The Trial of Christ in Recent
Research"~ Studia Evangelica, Vol. IV in Texte und Untersuchungen
102 (1968), pp. 21-28.
20 Nineham, Mark, p. 400.

21So M. Goguel, La Vie de Jesus, p. 495; idem, flApropos

du proces de Jesus", Z.N.W. 31 (1937), 298f.; Kthnmel, Promise and
tUlfilment, pp. 48-51; Dodd, Parables, p. 91, n. 1; Taylor, Mark,
PP. 565, 570; J. Blinzer, Trial of Jesus (trans. from 2d rev. and
enlarged ed , by Isabel and Florence McHugh; Westminster, Md.: The
Newman Press, 1959), pp. 7f. (who rather suggests, pp. 59ff., that
Mk. 14:53 was indeed a legal sentence passed on Jesus and the law
of the Mishnah had not yet come into forde).
Nineham, Mark, p. 401, notes that this view then har-
monizes with John's account (19:13ff., 24, 28ff.) which implies
informal procedings before the trial by Pilate. Cf. Mk. 15:1
(which Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, thinks earlier), confirming
this informal scene: ~I.J/A~o6'AltJv ~7b'f!rro(,/'''us$ (or 7fOl r{ rei\! -r~ )
does not mean hold a council meeting, but rather means to make a
decision, form a plot; cf. MIc. 3:6; Mt. 12:14; 22:15; 27:7; 28:12;
So W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the
New Testament and Other Earl Christian Literature (trans. and ed.
fUromW, Bauer s Griech sch-deutsches orterbuch, th ed.; Chicago:
niv. of Chicago Press, 1957); cf. Taylor, Mark, pp. 565, 646;
A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Societ and Roman-tiw in the New Testa-
~ ,(The Serum Lectures 0-; Oxfor: Un v. Press, 9 ,
l",lJ. 44f.; .Hooker, The Son of :r-1an
in Nark, p. 164,
22Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, Vol. II, p. 51; see as
rie11 Jerusal.-emTalmud, Sanh. 38a (noted by Cranfield); cf.
alman, The Words of Jesus, p. 200,
 170

23Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, p. 342. It is nonethe-

less strange that Matthew's "Semitic" Gospel does not have this
form, whereas Mark's more "Gentile" Gospel has it.
24Daiman, Words, p. 200.

25Nineham, Mark, p , 407; Dalman, Words, pp. 272, 275;

Dodd, Interpretation:-p7 253; Mowinckel, He That Cometh, pp. 293ff.,
368; Cullmann, Christology, p. 274.
26T~dt, S~O!tiC Tradition, pp. 232f.; p. 37, he finds
the scene full of ~r stological reflections, especially in the
juxtaposition of three titles, Christ, Son of God, and Son of
Man. He finds Mk. 8:38 more in line with Q. sayings and Mk. 13:26
closer to the traditional apocalyptic.
27Higgins, Son of Man, p. 68; cf. Blinzler, Trial of
Jesus, p , 102, n , 30.
28Cranfield, ~, p. 443. 29Dalman, Words, pp. 200-202.
30Ibid., p , 201; cf. Ex. 15:2; Pa a, 46:2; 81 :2; Sipbre
Num. 112 (ed. Friedm. 33a) Jerus. Talmud, Sanh. 28a; Siphre Deut.
319 for further evidence of the use of the Aramaic ~.J1/·'.:l..R- (,f
O~V~~IS ) as a substitute for God. Cf. E. Lohmeyer,Tdalii~a und
~erusalem (G~ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1936), pp. 69f.
31A• Harnack, Bruchstucke des Evan eliums oka-
lJpse des Petrus (Leipzig: J. • H nrichs, 93,
32"The Gospel of Peter", in New Testament Apocrapha (ed.
by E. Hennecke; trans. and ed. by R. McLachlan Wilson), pp. 181-2.
He finds no thought here of separation of the supreme Christ from
the body of flesh. It is closer to the canoncial Gospels than to
gnosticism, though it prepares for the latter.
33J• A. Montgomery, The Samaritans (1907), p. 215.
34E• Lohmeyer, Galila.a und Jerusalem. p. 70, has shown
this. See M. Black, The Scrolls ind ChrIstians Origins, pp. 64f.,
81;~, Aramaic Approach (3d ed.), p. 95, notes a further /
Semitism in that some texts omit the definite article before &uv~~~~
35See B. Lindars, New Testament Apolo~etic, pp. 50ff.;
Jean Danielou, "La Session ca: la Droite du Pbre, in Studia Evan-
~ellca (ed. by K.A!and~ F. L. Cross, et al., Texte und Untersuch-
~Ben 73; 1959), pp. 6b9-98.
36Dodd, According to the Scriptures, p. 35.
& 37E• Lohmeyer, Kyrios Jesu$, p. 40, notes the Pauline
~ ...9fWTTI95 (I Cor. 15:45; Dan. 7:13), the Pauline or pre-Pauline
<.y ~~elC..6~"'Tl "oi(9ptfntwr (Phil. 2:7), and the Johannine gf'lolov'
~f~v' ctYCle~c)lJ (Rev. 1 :13; 14:14) as equivalent to dr:Jl!: ';L~ of
an. 7:13. The influence of Dan. 7:13 extends to ali three of
;he Markan Coming Son of Man sayings, 14:62; 13:26 (which two
aYings TBdt feels (SYEoptic Tradition, pp. 222f.) were influenced
 171

by way of literary medium, as seen in the "unmistakable motif of

coming with the clouds") and is not so far from Mk. 8:38.
The influence of Psa. 110:1a is seen as well in Mk.
12:35-37, where the whole verse is cited but only 1a has signi-
ficance; cf. Heb. 1 :3; 8:1; 12:2 (only 1a is cited) and cf. Acts
2:34; I Cor. 15:25; Eph.1:20; Heb.1:13; 10:12f., which have both
1a and 1b. In view of the way in which Psa. 110:1a is used in
these passages it is not safe to infer 1b is implied when 1 a is
cited--that is, no reference to the negative function as judge
should be read in, but only the positive rule at God's right
hand (Todt, p. 40, n. 1). This needs to be considered with the
fact that Ps a , 110:1 a is used in conjunction with Dan. 1:13, which
is closely aligned with the judgment idea of Dan. 7:22 (which Paul
knew, I Cor. 6:2), so judgment is not to be ruled out.
8
3 R• P. Martin, _C~a_r_m~~~'_-_C~h_r~i~s~t_i_:
__ ~~~~~~~~ __ ~ __
Recent Inter retation and n the Se or-
~ ambrl pe Un v. Press,
39The fact that this public confession does not fit
Mark's theme emphasizing the messianic secret indicates that
Mark did not invent it but it must have been so imbedded in the
tradition and Mark must have been so convinced of its truth and
importance that he included it despite its not fitting.

40Todt, Synoptic Tradition, pp. 36, 222f., concedes that

psa. 110 and Dan. 7:13 have influenced early Christian thinkers
(as Dodd suggests, According to the Scriptures, pp. 67-69) but
doubts Jesus would have formulated sayings about the coming Son
of Man with reference to scripture. No support is offered for
this far reaching assumption. Jesus cannot have been ignorant
of the 0_T. and would have had reason to go to the O.,T. (as much
as the early Christians would have had) for help in shaping his
OWn tieachf.ng, One ]!leasonTodt finds no authentic sayir.gs with
scripture reference is that the very presence of ~T. references
is ruled out ~ priori.
In this connection, but following a different line,
N. Perrin suggests ("Nark 14: 62", pp. 1 50-55) that Mk. 14: 62 is
an historicization (by putting it into the mouth of Jesus) of the
jOining of two Christian pesher traditions, one starting from the
reeurrection and using Psa. 110:1 and Dan. 7:13, the other starting
from the crucifixion and using Zech. 12:10ff., expanded by adding
the idea of the parousia and Dan. 7:13. He tra.ces the development
or these tra.ditions (going back to two Jewish interpretations of
Dan. 7:13: the messiah coming from God to earth, Midr. Gen. R.
13:11; Numbers R~ 13:14; the messiah going to God from earth, Midr.
Psalms 2:9; 21 :5'; p. 151) to their conflation in Mk. 14:62. The
first leads through Acts 2: 34, Mk. 12: 35-37 (the historic.ization;
cf. the theologizing on it in Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1 :20; Col. 3:1), Acts
7:55f. (where the link is formed with Dan. 7:13 and it is histori-
Cized), and Acts 1:9 (where Luke depends on the same pesher tradi-
tion). The second tradition is seen in Rev. 1:7 (Dan. 7 in its
(econd Jewish interpretation and Psa. 110:1), Mt. 24:30; In.19:37
l81~singthe Greek text of Zech. 12:1 Ob, 1 as, 14a), historicized in
£'US:. 13: 26 (reading it into the teaching of Jesus).
In spite of the great value in much of what Perrin says,
especially in the tracing the two traditions to Mk. 14:62, he
fails to make his main point, the historicization of this pesher
 172

tradition. He finds the Christian pesher largely parallel to

Qumran pesher, but nowhere does he demonstrate that such "histori-
cization" was done at Qumran (either by creating events, or by
putting created sayings into the mouth of the "Teacher of Right-
eousness", for example). Nor is there real reason for thinking
Christians have "historicized" here, nor adequate reason to
believe this is a church creation (KUmmel, Promise, p. 51, n , 102).
Secondly, Perrin, though he notes the Qumran parallels, fails to
take into account that the example (p~radigm) for the Qumran inter-
preters was given by the Teacher of Ri§hteousness, who gave the
O.T. texts and suggested (or gave the key") how they should be
developed (F. F. Bruce, Biblical Exe esis in the umran Tests,
pp ..16, 17; see IQp,Hab. v • - ; v • n e same way
Christian interpreters may have followed the paradigm of Jesus,
as they seem to acknowledge (in such places as Mk. 14:62; cf. Lk.
24: 27). Much of Perrin I s attempt at identifying this "historici-
zation" is speculative. He does not explain why it is here in
Mark's trial sceme (of all places) that this pesher has been intro-
duced. The earliest tradition, he says (P. 155), had only
~hich certainly would have ftttaiahighchristology (as in John's
'I am" sayings). There is reason therefore to believe that Mk.
14:62 is something more like the "origin" than the "end product"
of the Christian pesher tradition.
41It was the assumption of the divinepcerogative, sitting
at the right hand of God, which actually constituted the blasphemy;
Cf. Hooker, The Son of Man in Hark, PP. 172f.; O. Linton, t'The
Trial of Jesus and the Interpretation of Psalm 110",., N.T .S. 7,
~P. 258-62. See the parallel situation in Mk. 2:5-7, where Jesus
~s accused of blasphemy for assuming a divine perogative (forgiving
sins).
42Eooker, The Son of Man in Hark, pp. 172f.; the charge
of blasphemy shows that Caiaphas took the "Son of Man" to be Jesus.
43Higgins, Son of Man, po 73.
44Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark, pp. ;72f. It is
inconceivable that Caiaphas condemned Jesus because he supposed
Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man and the disoiples preached
Jesus as the Son of Man and that both were wrong!
45p• Vielhauer, "Gottesreich und Menschensohn", p , 64,
finds Mk. 14:62 is the only place where Jesus identifies himself
expressly with the Son of Man; cf. Todt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 343.
46Vermes, "The Use of Ul r,:l lit &' Tt)' in Jewish Aramaic",
pP. 310-30.
47See J. M. Allegro, "Further Nessianic References in
~umran Literature", J.B.L. 75 (1956), 174-87 (especially PP. 176f.
~here Allegro states that the equation of the Interpreter of the
"aw with t.heQumran "messiah" is certain). Cf. J. M. Allegro,
7Fragment of a Qumran Scroll of Eschatological Midrasim", J.B.L.
7 (1958), 350-4.
48This theological position is seen at Qumran in two
documents (CDC and 4Q.Flor.): the Interpreter of the Law, a
 173

leading figure in the founding of the sect (CDC vi.7; vii.18) is

identified in 4QFlor. 10-11 and in CDC vii. 18-20 as one of the
two "messiahs" of Qumran expectation (Allegro, "Further Messianic
References", pp. 176f.). Yet other references in CDC (vii.21;
x i v , 19; xx s l ) speak of the appearance of the "messiahs" of Aar-on
and Israel as yet future. The reason that the same document (CDC)
speaks of the coming ~essiah5~ and yet identifies at least one
(possibly both; D. Flusser, "Two Notes on the Midrash on 2 Sam. 7",
Israel Exploration Journal 9 (1959), 99-109, argues strongly that
the Interpreter of the Law was a messianic pretender and suggests
the same of the Teacher of Righteousness; see also A. Dupont-Sommer,
Dead Sea Scrolls (1952); H. H. Rowley, E.T. 63, p , 382; M. Black,
~The Servant of the Lord and the Son of~n", pp. 4f.; F. F. Bruce,
The Teacher of Righteousness in the Qumran Texts, pp. 35ff.; R. N.
Longenecker, The Christology of EarlY Jewish Christianity, pp. 71-3)
with a present historical character is its theology which demands
the success of a messianic pretender before the title can be as-
cribed to him. The idea is not greatly different from than in
Haggai 2:20-23 where Zerubbabel is designated for the present as
"governor of Judah 't, but in the Day of the Lord, he will be "God's
Servant" (A. S. van der WoudA, Der messianischen Vorstellungen der
_Gemeinde von Q_umran, p. 116: in the same way Bar Kochba called
himself "prince" (~ "'W}) rather than king or messiah, since:he had
not yet done the worK expected of the messiah). Again Judas of
Galilee (Acts 5:37) was a pretender but not "messiah" when he died.
Josephus (Jewish Wars, II, 444) adds that on Judas' murder his
status as pretender was given to his son (Flusser, p. 107).
49J• C. O'Neill, "The Silence of Jesusft, N.T.S. 15, 153-
67, also suggests that the Jews would expect the Messiah not to
Claim to be messiah but to wait for God to enthrone him.
50Moule, "The Influence of Circumstances", p. 257.
51Moule, "From Defendant to Judge", p. 49.
52Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark, p. 170; Lohmeyer,
!arkus, pp. 328f., takes it as two ways of referring to divine
functions; cf. Higgins, Son of Man, p. 72.
53Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 328, doubts Dan. 7 refers to
exaltation. :Hanson, "The Son of Man in Daniel, Enoch, and the
Gospels", p. 126, says it is not a semi-divine figure coming down
from God to bring deliverance but a human figure going up to
rSeceive it. But cf. Robinson, Jesus and His Coming, pp. 45, n. 2,
1, who says the spatial terms cannot be pressed, so this is
eXaltation (as in Dan. 7) not parousia. E. Schweizer, Lor~ship
ilnd Disci~leshi" p. 39, n. 4 tand ~Der Menshensohn~, Z.N. • 50
: 959), 15-209, accepts no parousia sayings but thinks behind
J~k. 14:62 is a reference to exaltation, misunderstood as parousia
~Y Mark. For a critique of Schweizer, see M. Black, "The Son of
an Problem in Recent Research" p. 308; cf. T. F. Glasson, "The
~eply to Caiaphas (Mark xiv .62)ff, 88-93; Robinson, "Expository
roblems", 336-40; V. Taylor, Mark, p , 569.
54ThOugh P. Vielhauer, "Gottesreich", p. 54, finds no
mention of the kingdom of God here and uses this as support for
 174

his view that the kingdom of God and the Son of Man are not
associated and thus Jesus could not have identified himself
as the Son of Man.

55The 6CP~f~ is thus taken in the sense of a spiritual

experience; Kllimnel,Promise, p , 50~ n , 102, cites K. Weiss, Irrtums-
losigkeit, pp. 175ff.; G. S. Duncan, Jesus Son of Man, pp. 175ff.,
lSi; N. B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ,
PP. 240f.; V. Taylor, "The 'Son of Man' Sayings Relatinp to the
Parousia", pp. 3f.

t 56Glasson, "The Reply to Caiaphas", p. 8S; cf. Matthew's

~n)6f.Tl which it is unlikely Matthew would insert, since he has
a tenaency to eschatology; thus it is exaltation here. Cf. Hooker,
The Son of Man in Mark, p , 169; E. Schweizer, "Der l1enschensohn",
P. i95, suggests Mark misunderstood exaltation as parousia and
inverted the sequence.

57Glasson, "The Reply to Caiaphas", 88-93.

58Noted by Beasley-Murray, Mark Thirteen, p. 91. He

Concludes that Dan. 7 and Jesus' teaching (especially !1k. 13: 26
and 14:62) refer to the parousia only. Cf. Higgins, Son of Man,
P. 72; Todt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 45, who points to Mk. 8:35
Where the reference to the parousia is clear, but without the
apocalyptic description and in contrast to Lk. 12:8f. The
parousia is indicated by the "stereotyped characteristics"
from the stock of tradition (so Todt).

59BeasleY-Murray, Mark Thirteen •.p. 91; Hippins, Son

of Man, p. 73, says the saying refers to ·the parousia, not-rust
to exaltation.

60Todt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 285, n. 2, finds no exalta-

tation in Mk. 14:62 and no allusion to an act of enthronement; the
Baying rather means that he who will come at the parousia comes
With the authority of one who sits at God's right hand.

61This explanation, which seems the best, is offered by

Cranfield, ~, pp. 444f., following J. P. Bercovitz.
62It avoids the necessity of postUlating that Mark misun-
derstood this as a reference to the parousia and thus inverted the
~equence (so Schweizer, "Der Mens1chensohn", p. 195). See Marshall,
The Synoptic Son of Man Sayings", p. 341.

63The simultaneous action would support Todt's view that

the Son of Man sitting and coming at the same time means he comes
'With authority (Synoptic Tradition, p. 285, n. 2).

64perrin, "Mark XIV. 62", p. 1 51 •

65Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark, p. 170, n. 1, citing

~he opinion of Rabbi Isidore Epstein, ouoted by Glasson, "The
eply to Caiaphas", p. 63.

6630 Eugen Walter, Das Kommen des Herrn II. Die Eschato-
 175
10 ische Situation nach den s 0 tischen Evan~elien (Freiburg im
relsp,au: er er, 9 , p. 9 , who takes th s as a reference to
the present experience of exaltation ~ the future witnessing of
the parousia. Jewish exegesis also takes Dan. 7 both ways (see
Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, 1.!l.1..2£.).

67Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark, p. 171. Though T~dt

(Synoptic Tradition, p , 82) feels Matthew's lTA~" and ~nJ~rn
increase the contrast of Jesus' claim and the par-ousLa announce-
ment (implying the coming Son of Man is someone else), these tem-
poral elements could be merely Matthew's way of indicating that
the parousia was not to be expected immediately. Or Matthew's
&7J1 #pTL could be lt71'fTt (certainly), so W. Michaelis, "Bxe «

gisches zur Himmelfahrt';f>redigt", Kirchenblatt f{1r d. ref. Schweiz

108 (1952), p , 115. But K_el, Promise, p. 51, doubts this is
Possible, since Lk. 22:69, ~~ /46 vS~ , shows the same need for
alteration. Luke follows Matthew' s "hereafter" but drops the
reference to the parousia (though not because it does not fit
his eschatology, as Tedt suggests [Synoptic Tradition, p. 82),
as Lk. 21 :27 shows), perhaps because it presented a problem to
understand in this context or because it was not in his sOID~ce,
if he was not following Mark. Luke's account suggests what will
be in force from now, inthe new era of the history of salvation
(Todt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 85).

68Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark, pp. 161-8; this is

the imagery of vindication and should not be pressed (p•.172);
she believes Dan. 7 meant exaltation but the church took it as
parousia.

69Robinson, Jesus and His Coming,pp. 45, n , 2, 51; thus

these terms prove very little; cf. KUmmel, Promise, p. 50.

70Moule, "From Defendant to Judge", p , 46.

71Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark, pp. 170-1; thus Mk.

14:62 is parallel to Dan. 7 and cannot be rejected on the grounds
that judgment precedes the coming of the Son of Man in Dan. 7 but
not in Mk. 14:62 (as Todt, !yhoptic Tradition, pp. 34f.).
2
7 E• Lohmeyer, Gottesknecht und Davidsohn, pp. 25f.

73wbich he refers to the stage of christology when Kyrios

is exalted to reign before the parousia.

7~odt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 38.

75Ibid., pp. 39-40; the traits of sovereignty are not

different from the apocalyptic concepts but are in a different
setting.

76Ibid., p. 39; cf. also IV Ezra 13.

77Moule, "From Defendant to Judge", p , 46.

8
7 It could mean that the whole attempt to distinguish
christology from Jesus' teaching about himself is unnecessar~
 176

79Moule, "From Defendant ". pp. 40-53.

80Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark, p. 170.
81l-!atthewBlack in a lecture given at the University
College of North Wales, Bangor, during the session 1972-73.
82Todt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 44. 83~., p. 40.
84Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark, p. 129.
8.5A• Feuillet, "Les origines et la signification de
Mt. 10,23b", C.B.Q.. 23 (1961), 182-98. Cf. R. E. Nixon's suggestion
(p. 829, on Mt. 10:23, in New Bible CornmentarI;Cede by D. Guthrie.,
~t al.; London: Inter-Varsity Press, '97qJ) that the Son of Man
Came in judgment through the Romans in the Jewish Wars. See also
R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, p. 140, n. 2.
86prance, Jesus and the Old Testament, pp. 139-40.
87Todt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 263. Todt says (p. 263~
n. 2) that in Matthew the church occupied the same position as
the fellowship bestowed by Jesus on earth. The church is corpus
Re~ixtum, but also (according to Matthew) the sons of the basileia
are in the church. But at the judgment it will not suffice to
appeal to fellowship on earth with Jesus since this fellowship
Was not a real one.
88
Cf. W. Schmauch, Das Evangelium des Matthaus, p. 223,
n , 2.
89 Todt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 1 3.
I' 5 90Ibid•

91~_, p. 135, n. 1; cf. the discussion below of

Mt. 13: 37.
92~., p. 79.
93McNeile, Matthew, p. 200. He finds no messianic refer-
ence here~ but he contrasts v. 41 (which does have a messianic
reference). If the words of v. 37 were spoken by Jesus, then
MCNeile says they point to a time after Peter fs confession, but
this seems to assume a meaeLandc context.
93aHiggins, Son of Man, p. 112; cf. Lindars, New Testa-
!!lentApologetic, p. 1 26.
94Higgins, Son of Man, pp. 83ff.
9.5Todt, Synoptic Tradition, PP. 99f.
" 96Marshall, "The Synopt ic Son of Man Sayings", p. 348:
t • • • resurrection and parousia are not two alternative descrip-
bions of the same reality. The resurrection of Jesus is the act
. y which he is exalted, and the future appearance of the Son of
~an is of one who already occupies an exalted position. Conse-
qUently, there is no conflict between the thought of the resur-
rection of Jesus and his future eoming as the Son of Man, although
the two ideas are not bro~ht into c onnexd on ;with each other in
any of the sayings; •••
 177
07
be lieves that Mk. 8: 38
, Todt, syno~tic Tradition, p. '-1-0,
at least can he trace hack to t'fiepr-each Lnz of Jesus. See Moule"s
"From Defendant", pp. 46f.
oR
I'Bultmann, Theology, I, p. 30. Bultmann has nothing
further to say about these sayings as a group and does not exerete
them individually.

99Fuller, Foundations, p. 124, rejects Mk. 2:10, 28 as

church creations, sInce they reflect Palestinian interests, but
he finds that th~ Q sayings have a freshness and an anchoring in
Jesus' ministry which makes it hard to eliminate them, even though
they do not fit the Jewish apocalyptic framework.
100Cf• TBdt, Synoptic Tradition, p , 120.

101 G. Bornkamm, "The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew",

in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, pp. 54-55.

102Lampe, "Luke", p. 833. He finds the passage reminis-

cent of the call of Elisha by Elijah (I Kings 19:19-20); this is
noted as well by Leaney, Luke, p. 173. It is noted that Elisha
Was plowing at the time. Leaney is not certain whether this
sayinp in Luke was invented or not. But it is clear that the
authority and urgency of Christ's summons rules out any such
delays as Elijah allowed. For a detailed comparison of Matthew's
and Luke's accounts, see Stendahl, "Matthew", on Mt. 8:20, p. 781.
Cf. Bultmann, Sinoptic Tradition, p. 57, where he notes that the
ideal or symbol c character of tbe situation is due to the incom-
patibility of the circumstances and the pathos of the saying.
103Filson, Matthew, p. 114.

104LOhmeyer, Mattausevangelium, p. 162; cf. Mt. 8:18; 14:9;

14:19, 28; 18:25; 27:58, 64; Lk. 18:40.
1 05Ibid., p. 162, n , 2; Lohmeyer thinks ~l1t,xer-al may
be a technicar-term for a disciple. Unfortunately there are gaps
in Lohmeyer's commentary and these occur at the places of the
other sayings in Matthew.

106Held, "Matthew as Interpreter of Miracle Stories", in

Tradition and Inter retation in Matthew, pp. 163-300; see pp. 201-3:
the rp--fAfA"""6J t of Mt. : 9 may be poss bly regarded as one of the
disciples.

107Fuller, Foundations, p. 148; cf. n , 23a (on p. 176)

~here he postUlates that the original and authentic form read,
He Who follows me has nowhere to lay his head", which corres-
Ponds to Mk. 8:34. On the authenticity of this, see E. Dinker,
Neutestamentliche Studien fur Rudol h Bultmann (ed. by W. Eltester;
d ed.; Berlin: A. Topelmann, 9 7 ,pp. -29, who suggests
the cross referred not to Jesus' cross but to the tau sign or
seal of God's ownership. ---

108perrin, Rediscovering, p. 45; so J. Jeremias, Unknown

 178

Sa~ings of Jesus (trans. by.R. H. Fuller; London: S.P.C.K.,

'9 7), pp. 54tt.; cf. Lk. 9.50f.
109perrin, Rediscovering, p. 144.
110Higgins, Son of Man, p. 126; he feels both sayings
are authentic but are not in the Son of Man category. Cf. E.
Ellis, ~, pp. 151-2, for an explanation of the sayinp- on the
burying of the dead and the Rabbir.ical tradition behind it.
111 Bultmanp, Synoptic Tradition, p. 27.

112Todt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 122.

113Fuller, Foundations, p. 43; idem, Mission and Achieve-
~, pp. 100, 106f.; cf. A. Richardson,-r:n-Introdbction to the
!heology of the New Testament (London: S.C.M. Press, 1958), p. 129.
Bultmann, Stnopt!c Tradition, p. 150, lists all these
present sayings among t ose where a reference to Jesus is a secon-
dary introduction into the saying, often done without changes or
new formulations, and very simply when a saying is put into a
Particular context: here it is by interpreting of Jesus the "Son
of Man"; cf. pp. 15-16.
114Higgins, Son of Man, pp. 123f.
115Nanson, Sayings, p. 72, says that the suggestion that
mankind in general has no home is .f~nonsense". Cf. Cullmann,
£hristology, p. 154, n. 2.
Cf. Higgins, Son of Man, p. 124; he rejects Manson's
Suggestion that foxes and birds refer to alien powers around
Israel but suggest nonetheless that foxes and birds were associ~
ated in popular Palestinian speech much as in English, "cats and
dogs". Todt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 122, also rejects Manson's
interpretation of foxas and birds as well as his corporate view.
116T8dt, Synoptic Tradition, pp. 122-3; cf. Higgins, ~
Qf Man, pp. 125-6.
117Marshall, "Synoptic Son of Man Sayings"', p. 341.
118Higgins, Son of Man, p. 124, believes that Son of Man
in the Gospels never has a corporate sense.
119Cullmann, ChristoloSY, p. 162.
120T• Preiss, Fils de l'Hamme, f.p• 29-30. Cullmann
(QhristolO~y, p. 163) thinks "Son of Man r was primarily a term
Of exaltat on but he feels it ~ also suggest humiliation.
121 Kiimrnel,Promise, p. 46, n , 93: "Matt. 8:20 makes
Sense only if Jesus is speaking of his own fate, • • • "
122Klostermann, Matthausevanselium, p. 216. He suggests
it meant "I" or was an ironieal. "dein Menchensohn" or was put in
Contrast to ~,\~1t6k~ and l1"T". y~ •
 179

123Ibid., p. 77· he notes the antithetical parallelism.

McNeile (MattheW, p. 109~ feels that if Son of Man were addressed
to one of the twelve after Caesarea Philippi (Peter's confession)
it would have made sense but not before then and not to anyone
besides the twelve. On the importance of Caesarea Philippi for
the meaning of this term, see also M. Black, "The 'Son of Man' in
the Teaching of Jesus", p , 35, who feels that "Son of Man" in Mt.
8:20par. " •• is apocalyptic title only, and Luke's Gospel is
probably historical in placing it after Caesarea Philippi."
124Hammerton-Kelly, Pre-existence, pp. 29, 43.
125See the recent discussion of Psa. 8 as background to
the "N.T. Son of Man by Wilfrid Stott., " 'Son of Man'--A Title of
Abasement", p. 279.
126Black, "Teaching of Jesus", p , 35. Johannine chris-
tology at this point is rooted in the Synoptic tradition (see
Chapter IV).
127Filson, Matthew, p. 114. He notes this is the first
time the term is used in Matthew. The term is Jesus' favorite
self-designation in all four Gospels (Mt. 13x; Mk. 14x; Lk. 25x;
In. 13x--all used by Jesus). Besicifessignifying the humble lot
of Jesus, as here, it at other times means his mission of suffering
and death and at still other times means his final triumph and
glory. The background of the term he traces to Psa. 2, Ezekiel's
s.on of man, Dan. 7:13, and I Enoch, but the merging of "Son of
Man" with suffering servant figure of Isaiah is the work of Jesus.
Vielhauer ("Jesus und del'Menschensohn", pp. 163-5)
objects to understanding this saying in terms of rejection; but,
as Marshall notes ("Synoptic Son of Man Sayings", p , 341), .hd e
reasons are not clear.
128Black, Aramaic Ap roach, p. 330, notes this verse with
others (e.g., 12:41par.; Mk. f4:62par.; Lk. 17:24par, 30) from a
core of genuine Son of Man sayings stems from Jesus' mind and
relates to both his ministry and his coming.
Cf. Stendahl, "Matthew", p. 781, who says that since
there are obviously genuine sayings in the category of "coming
glory" " ••• it would be a strange coincidence of language if
these were teohnical and no~ referring to Jesus but to a celestial
figure while the same Aram.term would also have been used conspicu-
Ously often by Jesus in an innocent meaning of "I" without any refer-
ence to the Son of Man." He believes it was rather the only term
Which Jesus wanted to use during his earthly ministry and the
traditions retain it as such.
129Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, p. 252; Manson.
~:Yingsl pp. 66-7t; T!)dt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 114.
130Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, p. 172.
131Higgins, Son of Man, p. 122; Jeremias, Parables,
P. 121, n. 75.

132H··
~ge~ns, S OD 0r M an, p. 122 ; M cN e ile, M atth ew, p. 158 ,
 180
feels the contrast between the manner of life of Jesus and of
John is based on an authentic logion but the $vangelists added
"Son of Man".
133Higgins, Son of Man, p. 122; Manson, Teaching, pp.
217ff.
134Hirgins, Son of Man, p. 123; he follows TBdt (Synoptic
Tradition, pp. 106-0) in taking the ter:M as a :rloheitsbezeichnung.
135Tedt, Synoptic Tradition, pp. 117-8; this is further
supported by Mt. 8:20par. and possIb.ly by 6:22.
136perrin, Rediscovering, p. 120. It is strongly Semitic
and easily retranslated into Aramaic. The reference to children
is an observation of Palestinian life characteristic of Jesus,
rather than of the church, as is the high view of the Baptist
and his ministry (on the same level with Jesus). The opposition
to Jesus belongs to the period of his ministry, not to the life
of the church. The parable and its application have gone together
from the beginning. They both belong to Jesus and fit together so
Well that they must have been together throughout the tradition.
137 "Son of Man" occurs only on the lips of Jesus in the
Gospels and outside the Gospels only in Acts 7 (the dying Stephen
Sees the Son of Man at God's right hand) and in Revelation. It
is conspicuous by its absence from the christological statements
of the epistles (e.g., Phil. 2:5ff. and especially from a passage
like Epho 2:6 referring as it does to the exaltation of "Christ
Jesus It to heavenly places; Col. 1:1 srr ,; et c ,) and its total
absence from Hebrews is significant. See Vernon H. Neufeld, ~
iarli~Sy Christian Confessions (Vol. V of New Testament Tools and
_tuaie2fi ed. by Bruce M. Metzger [Grand Rapids: EerdInans, 1963J),
PP. 142f. (et passim) who shows the earliest confession of the
Gospels wasof Jesus as X'lrrk (p. 142), which 'Was broadened in
the period after the resurrection to express the significance of
the death and resurrection of Jesus, a process already reflected
in the Gospels in Jesus' "interpretation", in terms of suffering
and dying of the Son of Man, of )(r,rT/r. after Peter's confession
(Mk. 8:31; cf. 9:31; 10:33 34). One must note that the Gospels
always portray "Son of Man" as the teaching title of Jesus, never
as a confession of believers.
138Marshall, "Synoptic Son of Man Sayings", p. 340.
139Schweizer, "Dar-Menschensohn", 1 85ff.; idem, "Son
of Man", J.B.L. 79 (1960), 119ff. He includes Mt. 'IT:T9par.;
8:2Opar.; 12:41par.; 24:37par. and possibly also Mk. 8:28.
Furthermore he doubts thB_tthe Markan passion predictions need
be regarded as vaticinia ex eventu but are traditional sayings
Of Suffering and rejection and authentic teaching of Jesus.
KUmmel, Promise, p. 46, n. 93, says, "Matt. 11 :19 is
an original comparison between Jesus and the Baptist, for the
good reason that the early church never saw the contrast between
them as clearly as this." (Italics his.)
 1 81

140Tbdt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 117; cf. Mt. 9:10 and

also in Q, Mt. 5:46 andLk. 6:32f.
141~., p. 115; cf. Klostermann, M!okus, p. 27.
142Todt, Synoptic Tradition, pp. 115-6; Perrin, Redis-
covering, p. 105, seems to be following the same line here.
143Todt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 116. 144Ibid, p , 117.
145See Mt. 11:1 zr , ; Lk. 16:1 6.
146Fuller, Foundations, p. 149. He says Jesus is not
rebelling against society but is bringing eschatological salva-
tion: Jesus' actions are vindicated by his resurrection. Jesus'
eating with outcasts anticipated the Messianic banquet. This is
no new interpretation of Jesus' conduct but is an explicit form
of what Jesus had asserted in view of his subsequent vindication.
(Cf. p. 247, where Fuller interprets this action and others as
giving a functional, not ontological, christological statement.)
147see, e.g., Cullmann, Christology, pp. 162-3, on the
humility of the Son of Man. H. Conzeimann, The TheologI of Luke,
has a note (p. 227, n. 2) on Lk. 7:34 in which he suggests that
v , 34 makes it plain "that sinfulness is not a characteristic of
man as such."
148Moule, "From Defendant", Pp. 82-99.
149Black, "Teaching of Jesus", p. 35, believes Jesus did
bring it down to earth.
150Bultmann, Theology, I, p , 18. Associa tion with
publicans and sinners is an act of love and encounters the
slander of "glutton and drunkard". This act of love might be
viewed as an expression of humanity at its highest (in descen-
ding to the lowest).
151Wink, John the Baptist, pp. 20-3.
152Ibid., p. 20. He says neither Matthew nor Luke have
this in its original context: Matthew has it in the group of
Baptist sayings, Luke in a discussion of the law. Matthew's
f.ormis preferred since it is more difficult and probably older.
The saying has become unintelligible by the time of the Evan-'
gelists. ·The parallelism Of~ ...~]~-rtL\ and &et{s.~.V9"'v' (Mt. 11:12)
denotes a negative act of violence (p. 21). He takes the meaning,
as does Kihmnel (Promise, p , 123; cf. E. Ka.semann,Essals on New
~estament Themes [trans. by W. J. Montague from Exegetische Ver-
~uche und Besinnungen, I Band; 2d ed.; London: S.C.M., 1964],
PP. 42f.; G. SChrenck, "81"0 .....
'" ". T.D.N.T. I, 611), to be that
f:om the Baptist's appea~ance until now the kingdom of God is
~lolently assaulted and violent men wish to rob it.
" 153This was first recognized by Lohmeyer, Johannes der
~aufer, pp. 53-6. John's ministry to the poor included converts
 182

who were tax collectors (Lk. 3:12; 7:29; Mt. 21 :32), harlots
(Mt. 21 :32), and soldiers (Lk. 3:14). Note the hyperbole, "all
the people went to hear John" (Mk. 1: 5; 11: 32par.; l-1t.3:5; Lk.
3:3; 7:29; Acts 13:24; and even Josephus, Antio., XVII.5, 2).
154F• W. Danker, "Luke 16,16--An Opposition Logion",
J.B.L. 77 (1958),231-43; noted by Mink, John the Baptist, p. 21.
155wink, John the Baptist, n- 21. 156Ibid., p, 22.
157IbidHP, 22, n , 1, citing F. Mussner, "Der nicht
erkannte Kairos Ii, Biblica 40 (1959), 599-602. He notes Bultmann,
Synoptic Tradition. pp. 172, 199, challenges the unity of 16-19,
feeling 18, 19 are an appended interpretation by the Hellenistic
church to the original 16, 17 (an authentic parable of Jesus).
~,,~V'
~nk concedes church modification of the passage (especially
and d ufOs; ro-O ~vBpCm:t-tJ appe,.r to be teqpnical terms),
but he notes the present tense of "'EyoV~I.V and EWErt.. • v1hatever
the history of transmission, it is doubtful the church would term
Jesus a "glutton and drunkard", thus arming its opponents,' or that
it created the parallelism putting Jesus and John on the same
plane when it otherwise subordinated John.
158Wink, John the Baptist, pp. 22-3.
1 59BI sc k, Aramaic Approach, p. 1 07; "Teaching of Jesus",
P. 35.
160Black, "Teaching of Jesus", p , 34.
161Ibid., ~. 35. See the various discussion of this
subject: Stendahl, ~atthew", pp. 235f.; McNeile, Matthew, p. 158;
Filson, Matthew, p. 139; Leaney, Luke, p. 146; Helmer Ringgren,
Word and Wisdom: Studies in the H ostatization of Divine uali-
t es an Functions n the Ancient Near East und: • hlssons,
"'947), p , 125JltDavies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London: S,'P.C.K.,
1955), p.156; s, Feuillet, R. B. 62 (1955), pp.195f.
162Bultmann, SynoptiC Tradition, pp. 13-14.
16JHiggins, Son of Man, p. 129.
164T8dt, S~optiC Tradition, p. 120, n. 3; he notes
Mk. 3:28f. is secon~ry to Q, Cf. Fuller, Foundations, p. 125;
"Le peche contre le Saint-Esprit", R. g.P .R. ;3
A. Pr-Ldr-Lcrrsen,
(1923), 367ff.
165Manson, Sayings, p. 110; Fuller, Foundations, p. 125.
166Manson, Sayings, p. 110. Further indication of the
antiquity of the sayIng may be seen in the Semitism, probably
trom the Aramaic original, in the expression "to say a word
With regard to (..is) or against (#(o/.T,[)" (Black, Aramaic Approach,
PP. 194-5; cf. Dan. 7:25).
 183

167Manson, Sayings, p. 110. For Manson blasphemies

against the Son of Man are unthinkable, but Todt takes Son of
Man at Lk, 12:10 as just "man'·, so the difficulty for him dis-
appears (Synoptic Tradition, p , 118, n, 1 i,
168T~dt, Synoptic Tradition, pp. 118-9.
169 Ibid., p , 119, n, 1.

170Bornkamm, "End-Expectation and Church in Matthew",

Pp. 15ff., in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew; p. 34.
171 H. I·i.etzmann,Der Menschensohn; Cullmann, Christo-
..!2gz, pp. 1 38 t 1 52ff •
172Manson, Sayings, p. 110j Fuller, Foundations,-.pp. ~-3,

1733ultmann, Theology, I, p. 30.

174"The Son of Man may be misunderstood as a human being
and people may fail to see His divine character, but that is dif-
ferent from the deliberate quenching of the conscience." (R. E.
Nixon, on Mt. 12:32, p. 832 of New Bible Commentary, ed , by D.
Guthrie, ~ ~.; London: lnter-Varsity, 1970).
175Fuller, Mission and Achievement, p. 96, n. 3, says
this may be from Q, but that there is no parallel in Matthew
(though cf. Mt. 5 :11).
176Creed, Luke, p. 90; Higgins, Son of Han, p. 119; A.
Harnack, Sayings of Jesus, pp. 52f.; Vielhauer, i'Gottesreich",
P. 52; Manson, Teaching, p. 216.
177Loisy, ~, pp. 203ff.; Creed, Luke, p. 90.
178"Matthew has imposed a better arrangement and Luke is
Closer to the loosely assorted material." (Creed, Luke, p. 90).
,..) ' Colpe, -6 uf<is
~79Bultmann, Theology, I, p , 30. Cf ..
no T.D.N.T. VII, P. 451, n , 345, who says the Son
GlV~.:.m&V",
of Man title was already inserted before Luke (cf. Tadt, S~fet,i9
lradition, pp. 114f.) and 6:23 must have been interpreted ~~-
pendently of the Son of Man title; Colpe takes Mt. 5:11 as pri-
mary against Lk. 6:22, p. 444, n. 297.
18°Leaney, Luke, p , 135.
181Caird, Luke, p. 102. Luke's version has the danger
of implying a general blessing on misfortune (which Matthew's
SPiritualizing safeguards against), but Matthew's version has
the danger of implying that an ethical standard is set for entry
into the kingdom and that men earn their blessedness by meekness,
etc. Luke's simpler version safeguards against this.),
182Higgins, Son of Man, pp. 119-20. Cf. Jeremias,
~~on on the Mount (E. M. Wood Lectures; 2d rev. ed.; London:
Athlone Press, 1961 ), p. 18.
 184

183Harnack, Sayings of Jesus, pp. 52ff.

184 Higgins, Son of Man, p. 1 20.
185vielhauer, "Gottesreich", p , 52.

186In view of Mt. 11 :19; 12:32; 8:2'0; cf. T()dt,

SYnoptic Tradition, p. 123.
187Manson, Teaching, p. 216. Perhaps an ambiguous
bar nasha lies behind the variants and both preserve a side of
the true meaning. On the Matthean variant Manson notes that the
phrase "for my sake" does not appear in Mark until after Peter's
confession (cf. Mk. 8:55; 10:29; 13:9). But Manson does not
explicitly account for the phrase in this location in JVIatthew.
There need be no objection to "Son of Man" being used before
the confession (as Mk. 2:10, 28) if "Son of Man" is taken as an
innocuous term, without messianic significance but used by Jesus
in his own way and with his own meaning, as Hunter suggests (~
and Words, p. 86).
188 Bultmann, Synontic Tradition, pp. 110, 151. Cf.
P. 127: "The addition ot the old Beatitudes of SO!f1enew ones
in which the persecuted disciples are blessed (Lk. 6:22, 23par.)
is itself part' of a specifically Christian tendency."
189Todt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 123. Higgins, Son of
Man, p. 120, also follows Bultmann, attributing to the church
Tfor the same reasons as Bultmann) the christology: "the Jesus
for faith in whom persecution has broken out is the Son of Man
in heaven."
190 Leaney,~, p , 135; cf. Isa. 63:7f.; Ecclus.
47:12ff.; 48:1ff. See D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic
ludaism, pp. 196ff.

191Matthewand Luke are in agreement on the second

Person in this saying at any rate.

192It is important to remember the principle set out by

Marshall, "The Synoptic Son of Man Sayings," p. 347, that fl ••• to
allow the presence of Christian influence in a section of a Gos-
pel is by no means to prove that each individual item has
sUffered from this influence; each item must be examined indi-
V"idually from this point of view."
193 Kummel,
" Prom i se, p. 99.
194Black, Aramaic Approach, p. 191.
195Ibid., pp. 135ff. Black cites evidence in the Jewish
Palestinian Ar-amaLc, in the Jerusalem Targum of Gen. 34: 30 (differ-
ent Hebrew phrases), and in the same Targum on Num. 13:32; cf.
Targum Provo 10:18 and the Palestinian Syriac version of Lk.
6:22. Plummer's literal interpretation of the ldiom finds no
SUpport from either the Greek or the Semitic equivalent. The
earlier violent force of the word has been lost in later Koine
and even in the LXX, as Wellhausen noted (Luke, in 10c.). Note
 185

also the Hebrew hos t ' in its idiomatic use, "to give out, to
publish"; cf. Dt:22:14, 19; Nmn. 13:32; 14:36, 37; and Pales-
tinian Talmud, Kethub. 4:2f 28b line 55.
1965track-Billerbeck, Kommentar, II, p. 159. See also
Colpe, u 0 ut os .oD !.Ivli f.!.maa", p , 451, n , 344, who also cites
Karl B. Bornhauser, Die Ber redi .t: Versuch einer Zeit .enossis-
chen Auslegung (Gutersloh: • Bertelmann, 923, •
197Leaney, Luke, p. 136; cf. Acts.28:22; I Pet. 4:14.
198Ibid., p , 135; cf. In. 9:22· 12:42 (an explicit refer-
ence to being "put out of the synagogue"); 16:1. Also Colpe,
"oc vr~5 Tev !JIv~f.!rrrrnJ ". p. 449, n , 344, takes the reference to
excommunication from the synagogue as indication of the secondary
nature of the verse, as is also seen in Jrf'i(crwrlv andY'lcr{O'"W~lV'.
199Lampe, "Luke", p. 830.
200Todt,
" Synoptic Tradition, p. 123; cf. Bultmann,
Theology, I, p. 30.
201K"
umme 1, Promise, pp. 79, 99.

202See, e.g., H. Montefiore, "Revolt in the Deaert?

(Mk. 6:30ff)", N.T.S. 8 (1961-62),135-41.
203Mt. 1 2:14f .; 13:54f .; 16:1, 1 2; 19:3f •
Prom i se, p. 49 ,n.
204 Kttrnmel,
H 9 8•
205 Todt,
II
SYfoptiC Tradition, p. 1 23; cf. Mk. 8 :3;,
8
Lk. 12:8f.par.; Mt. 9:28. But see Colpe, "0 v~~s nO dllI~rw-nOv".
P. 451, n. 345, who thinks v. 23 was independent.
206Leaney, Luke, p. 135; cf. Isa. 63:7f.; Ecclus.
47:12ff. See Daube, New Testament and Rabbinic Judais~, pp. 196ff.
207Black, Aramaic Approach, p. 158.
208Bultmann, Theology, I, p. 22.
209 Caird, ~, p. 102.
210Todt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 123. The persecution is
not on account of the coming Son of Man (when there is always a
confession or a being ashamed connected with the parousia), but
the perseeution is, Toat feels, connected with the Son of Man's
activity on earth. Fuller, Mission and Achievement, p. 96, n. 3,
and idem, Foundations, p. 176, n. 30, agrees with ~8dt.
211 Bultmann, Theology, I, p. 30.

212Higgins, Son of Man, pp. 119-20; cf. n. 8.

213Lampe, "Luke", p , 830: "••• a reference to the
-!..ufferingSon of Man, in whose character his people partake."
 186

214As argued by Jeremias, "n"",s &.od", 654-717.

215Leaney, Luke, p. 136; v. Taylor, New Testament Essays,
P. 17; Bruce, New Testament Development, p. 29.
216Hunter, Work and Words, pp. 86-7: "But (and this is
the startingly original contribution of Jesus) with sovereignty
Jesus combined the idea of service and sacrifice; ••• " .
217w• Manson, Jesus the Messiah, p. 118.
218T&dt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 127; Bultmann, Stnoptic
Tradition, p. 155. Cf. Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstite , p. 43;
he takes it as oemeindebilduni' underlining Jesus , authority to
forgive sins with the Son of an title.
219T3dt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 127; cf. Martin Albertz,
Die Botschaft des Neuen Testaments (Berlin: Evangelische Verlags-
anstalt, 1955), p , 56.
220Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, pp. 15f.
221T6dt, Synoptic Tradition, p , 128.
222Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, pp. 15-6. Cf. Fuller,
Foundations, p. 149, who says it asserts Jesus' authority against
his critics, which had been called into question by the cross,
but was vindicated by the resurrection. The forgiveness of the
paralyti~ is proleptic of the utterance of the word which he as
Son of Man will pronounce at the last judgment. While this saying
makes explicit the christology implicit in Jesus' teaching,
Fuller takes it as the work of the early church (Foundations,
P. 176, n. 25). Cf. idem, Mission and Achievement, p. 106;
Foundations, p. 124, on-Mk. 2:10, 28, as church formations.
223T8dt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 129, from H. F. von
Campenhausen, Kirchliches Arnt u~d geistliche Vollmacht in den
~rsten drei Jahrhunderten, (Thbingen: Mohr, 1953), pp. Sf.
224T8dt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 129; cf. Perrin,. Redis-
Roverin~, p. 164, where he lists this as an apocalyptic Son of
an saylng.
Todt finds further support for this s.aying as an
invention of the community. In the same way that in the parousia
Sayings Jesus makes fellowship with himself the basis of the
guarantee by the Son of Man of fellowship with God, so here
Jesus promises that his followers by virtue of their fellowship
With the coming Son of Man (Mt. 19:28) are freed already on
earth from the bondage of sin. Jesus has authority to summon
into a fellowship which guarantees entry into God's kingdom, if
men will repent (Mk. 1:1 5par.; Mt. 18: 3; 11: zorr , ). Thus T~dt
Concludes (p. 130) that though Taylor (Names, p. 27) finds this
saying authentic, it must rather in its present form in the con-
troversy dialogues have issued from the situation of the community
(Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, PP. 14ff.).
225There are at least two reasons for doubting that the
church created this saying in order to provide itself with domini-
 187
cal authority to forgive sins. One is the argument of Hooker-
(Son of Man in Mark, pp. 83f.) that the church has not inserted
Son of Han into contexts (at least not in Mark) where it might
have done so. The second reason is that to view this saying as
a church creation fails to account far the origin in the church
of the practice of proclaiming forgiveness of sins. It assumes
the saying is based on the practice, whereas it is easier to
assume the reverse is true.
226Hooker, Son of Man in Mark, p. 82, faults Bultmann,
Dibelius, T~dt, and others who take the view that the church is
justifying its own claim to forgive sins in the name of its mas-
ter on the basis of Jesus' authority, for not explaining why
Jesus 'followers would assume authority which Jesus never did.
If Dibelius' view is taken, that the declaration of forgiveness
is original but vv. 6-10 is fictitious (an invention of the
Christian preacher to explain how he understood the enco~mter),
then it may be asked whether the word of forgiveness would have
passed unchallenged or would some such argument as Mark gives
be expected. Even Dibelius admits the story never existed with-
out this element.
227Wellhausen, Marci, p. 17.
228Colpe, "0 v ~O~ roD c!i V~rJnrfl"", p. 423; Hooker, ~
Qf Man in Mark, pp. 83-4.
229Taylor, Names, pp. 27f.; Wellhausen, Marci, p. 16;
Klostermann, Markusevangelium, p. 27; Manson, TeachIng, p. 214;
F. J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity
(London, 1920-33; 5 vols.), Part I, I, p. 375; C. J. Cadoux, ~
liistoric Mission of Jesus (London: Lutterworth, 1941 ), pp. 99f.
230Taylor, Names, pp. 27f.; Mark, pp. 197-201; he feels
Mk. 2:28 is an early comment on the aaya.ng in v , 28 {Mark, p. 219f.1.
A. M. Hunter, Work and Words, p. 86, is unwilling to ser-aside
Mk. 2:10, 28, on the assumption that the title was used only
after Caeaarea Philippi. He thinks it unsafe to trim the evi-
dence to fit a neat theory, and he doubts that "Son of Man" was
a "loaded" term, but it was one which Jesus couldmould and fill
With his own meaning.
231Wellhausen, Marci, p. 17. Rawlinson, Mark, p. 25,
notes Wellhausen's view but doubts it fits the context and the
EVangelist's point of view. The argument is not that the scribes
are wrong, but that they are right--only God can forgive sins and
the Son of Man as God's representative can declare forgiveness.
The question concerns not just the use of the (supposed) title
but the exercise of a divinepr.erogative. Lagrange, Marc, p. 38,
Says the reason Wellhausen (and Loisy) do not feel this saying is
messianic is that it comes out of time, before Peter's confession.
LOisy suspects the whole discourse: there is a dilemma, if Jesus
Wanted to prove he was the Messiah, he chose his terms badly; if
he did not want to prove it, then the messianic title should not
be used here. Lagrange says the dilemma is not so ereat: the
~eal problem is the prematurity of the declaration (cf.Dalman,
~ords, p. 216). Either (1) the episode is misplaced, Mark is not
troubled to give the exact location and does not care to reveal
 188

the Jl.le
ssiah litt le by litt le, or (2) Son of Man here means "I".
Lagrange excludes (2).

232Taylor,
-
Mark, pp. 199f.

233Marshall, "Synoptic Son of Man Sayings", p. 342.

234Todt, St§0JtiC Tradition, p. 126. Haenchen's view

(Der WeS Jesu, p. ~ is something like this, since he finds this
saying as a church formation and "Son of Man" then means not "man"
but, as seen from Mt. 9:8, it means Jesus and his community whose
power to forgive sins is here legitimatized by the healing miracle.
235Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, p. 15; Fuller,
Foundations, p. 43.

236Todt, Synoptic Tradition, pp. 126-7; cf. Bultmann,

~optic Tradition, pp. 1Sf.

237Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark, pp. 92-3.

238~., p. 90. Miss Hooker notes earlier that Son of

Man is linked to the community (because of the importance of the
saying to the early church as the basis for its forgiving sin) and
Jesus' authority is extended to his followers. It is clear that
Jesus and the Son of Man are in some way identifiable (pp. 89-90).
The Son of Man's authority to forgive sins is in fact a divine
prerogative and even the Messiah was not credited this in Jewish
thought (cf. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar, I, p. 495).

239Black, "Teaching of Jesus ". p. 35. Cullmann (Chris-

1010~S' p. 160) suggests that the combination of the Son of Man
and e suffering Servant of God seen in Mk. 8:31 is also here in
Mk. 2:10 and is indeed basic to Jesus' self-consciousness. He also
feels that the collective significance of Son of Man must be con-
sidered, and especially so here in view of Mt. 18:18 where the
disCiples receive authority to bind and loose on earth (ibid.,
p. 160, n. 4; cf. Preiss, Fils de l'Homme, p. 27). The reason
Jesus preferred Son of Man to the title "Servant" is that the
former is more comprehensive (Christology, pp. 160-1; W. Manson,
iesus the Messiah, pp. 156f.).

240See Chapter I, pp. 33-50.

241Todt, Synoptic Tradition, PP. 129-30, where he quotes

Campenhausen, Kirchliches Amt, pp. 8f., in a noteworthy statement.
242Ingelaere, "La -« par-aboLe) du jugement dernier", pp. 23-
60, notes the dependence of various sayings on Dan. 7 (p. 26) and
then expresses his belief that "Son of Man" and "King" were both
christological titles which could plausibly be interchanged (p. 30).
The "Son of Man" was understood to be a "King" (p , 31) with a
kingdom and performing such divine functions as judge and shepherd
(cr. Ezek. 34).

243Swete, ~, p. 37. Whether it is possible to find,

 189

as does Hooker (Son of Man in Mark, p. 91), that the authority

of the Son of Man to forgive sins goes back to Gen. 1 :26, 30
and is part of man's dominion over earth (trr~ Tqs r~s is used
in the LXX of Gen. 1) or not may be left open.
244Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, p. 16. 245Ibid•
246Cranfield, Mark, p. 114.
247Haenchen, Der Weg Jesu, p. 119, calls the suggestion
of l1eyers "absurd" and Rawlinson, Mark, p. 33, says Bacon took
the GreBy:too literally.
248Haenchen, Der Weg Jesu, pp. 119-20.
249Cf• Rawlinson, Mark, p. 33. 250Ibid., p. 34.
251Cranfield, ~, pp. 114f. 252Ibid•

253Haenchen, Der Weg Jesu, p. 120.

254Cranfield, Mark, p. 115.
255Rawlinson, Mark, p , 33, says Jesus shows that the
law is subordinate to human need.
256Fuller, Foundations, pp. 149f.; but cf. Cranfield,
Mark, p. 11 5.
257Cranfield, Mark, p. 115.
258Hooker, Son of Man in Mark, pp. 96-7.
259Todt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 131: "There is reason
enough for their (disciple s 'J action in Jesus' full authority."
260Trocml, Formation de IIEvangile selop Nap.cJ pp.~. 136f.

261Todt, synortic Tradition, p. 132; cf. W. Manson,

Jesus the Messiah, p.16; Bornkamm, "End-Expectation and Church
Tn Matthew" in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, pp. 15ff.
262Lohmeyer, Markus, p. 66. He finds no example of
Jesus calling himself Lord or Son of Man, except where the early
church has inserted these designations. Todt, Synoptic Tradition,
P. 131, notes Lohmeyer's discussion of these verses with approval.
. 263A. J. Hultgren, "The Formation of the Sabbath Pericope
in Mark 2:23-28", pp. 39-43, decides against the possibility of
v. 27 being a later addition to Mark and thus absent from Mark
when Matthew and Luke made use of it. In spite of the omission
Of v. 27 in the Western texts of Mark, Codex Bezae (D), and some
Old Latin versions (a, c, e, ff), v. 28 is really dependent on
v. ~7 and v. 28 could not have given rise to Mk. 2:23-26 whereas
v. 27 could hav~. Two stages of the development are seen (p. 42):
(1) to the free floating dominical saying, v. 27, is added a con-
flict story, 2:23, 24, then (2) additional material, 2:25f., 28
is added.
 190
264Haenchen, Der Weg .Jesu, p. 1 21 •

265Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel, p. 43.

266Todt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 131, notes that Carnpen-
hausen places the two sayings next to each other.
267Higgins, Son of Man, pp. 28f. 268~.

269Hooker, Son of Man in Mark, pp. 95-8; Rawlinson,

Mark, p. 33.
270Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar. I, p. 5.

271 Haenchen, Der Weg .Jesu, p , 121; Rawlinson, Mark,

p. 34, quotes Abrahams (I, pp. 129ff.) to the effect that some
of the Pharisees with less rigid views of the Sabbath would have
agreed with -Jesus ,

272Hooker, Son of Man in Mark, pp. 95-8; yet the whole

nation could not be lord of the Sabbath (P. 97).

273Ibid., pp. 99-101. The suggestion of Lohmeyer, Markus-

~vangelium, pp. 65-6, is noteworthy. He thinks the positive and
negative assertions of v. 27 may veil an exegetical quarrel over
the meaning of Gen. , and 2. In Gen. 1 :26 man is made for the
Sabbath (it could be argued), since the hallowing of the Sabbath
follows the creation of man. On the other hand at Gen. 2:7 the
creation of man follows the consecration of the Sabbath, sugges-
ting that the Sabbath was made for man. Lohmeyer thinks the
sense of Mk. 2:27 is that God is Lord of man and of the Sabbath.
He ordained both and he entrusted man with the right administration
of the Sabbath, givingm~n freedom within the limits of the ordin-
ance. This meaning contrasts with the Rabbinic statement about
the Sabbath, which saw God's people as the goal of God.s ordinance.
Here man is seen in his solitude and freedom before God. Seen
historically the sayin~ relates to the Jewish ordinance and esta-
blishes the possibility of a crossing over from the .Jewish cele-
bration of the Sabbath to early Christian Sunday celebration. The
inner freedom of which it speaks has parallels only in the Fourth
Gospel (cf. In. 1 :16; 7:22f.), none in the Synoptics.

274puller, Mission and Achievement, p. 100, says .Jesus

Would have been giving free iicense to men to break the Sabbath.
Loisy, !vlarc, p , 104, concluded that it is rather the Evangelist
Who attributes to the Son of Man (.Jesus) the power over the law.
He finds no support for the Son of Man meaning man in general in
the David story (contra Wellhausen, n. 39). Haenchen, Der Weg
iesu. p. 120, notes the difficulty that v. 28 does not follow
V'. 27 (v , 28 should have "men" instead of "Son of Man") and rejects
the attempt to remove the problem by taking "Son of Man" as the
Ara..>naic
bar nasha which should be reduced to "man". Cranfield,
Mark, p.""'-8 as well denies that Son of Man meant "man'f 'but
doubts that Jv1~fJ: TOe "vG"J.nreJ is a mistranslation of bar nasha
Which should here mean '':nian'', on the basis of Rawlinson,.-g--objection
that ~sus would not have made man lord over the Sabbath.
 191

275Manson, in his earlier view (Teaching, p. 214), felt

vv. 27, 28 were both originally.2!!: nasha. Black, "Teachinf; of
Jesus", p. 33, notes the criticism of'this view which asks why
then the Greek did not translate all the same. In response he
says it is because v. 27 had )enash (0 ~V~fwrr8S), with the poetic
synonym IOJ}(',:1 in v , 28, as in Psa. 8:4. Dalman's objection
(Words, pp. 215f.) to Wellhausen, that if v. 27 had Jenash then
the same word would had to have been in the original to g1ve
o t$v tJpw-nos. in v , 28, take s no account of the saying being in
120etic form. Wellhausen took v , 28 (as 2:10) to be "man",
wrong11 elevated to "Son of Man", and on the foundation of his
~lO"VQ"" id.. , which only the Messiah could have, the connection was
made with David. Cf. Higgins, Son of Man, p. 29, where he rejects
I'1anson'sview.
276Manson, ".Hark2:27f."
277H··
1991ns, S on 0f M an, p. 28 •
278As far back as Dan. 7, where the Son of Man (= saints
of the Most High) are given "dominion and kingdom" (v. 14) and
they Npossess the kingdom for ever" (v. 18). Cf. Ingelaere, "La
~parabole). du jugement dernier", pp. 30-1.
279Cranfield, Mark, p. 117; Hooker, The Son of Man in
Mark, p. 95. ----
280Black, "Teaching of Jesus", p. 33.
281
Cullmann, Christologx, pp. 152-3.
282 Preiss, Le Fils de l'Homme, pp. 28ff.; cf. Cranfield,
p. 118; Swete, Mark, p. 50; Plummer, Luke, pp. 96-7.
283Jeremias, Parables, pp. 64-7.
-
284Higgins, Son of Man, p. 97; Todt, Synoptic Tradition,
P. 135; Fuller, Mission and Achievement, p. 96; idem, Foundations,
p , 1 76.

285TBdt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 135.

286Fuller, Mission and Achievement, p. 135.
287TOdt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 135. 288Ibid •
..289Higgins, Son of Man, p. 99; Fuller, Mission and
Achievement, p. 96.
290Klostermann, Matthausevangeliuro, p. 138.
292Ibid•
291Tgdt, Synoptic Tradition. pp. 150-1.
-
293This is the only exclusively Lukan saying to be found
in the Son of Man logia. Luke 6:22 has a rarallel in Mt. 5:11,
and Lk. 22:48 has no parallel but Lk. 18:3 and 22:22 and the
SYnoptic parallels deal with the betrayal of the Son of Man (so
 192

Stonehouse, The Witness of Luke to Christ, p , 171, n , 4.

294Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, p. 34. Higgins thinks
much the same (Son of Han, p , 76): v , 10 is superfluous, as ,-
the narrative is complete without it and the saying is also
found at Mt. 18:11. (It may be for this reason that Fuller,
Foundations, does not even discuss Lk. 19:1~) Higgins thinks
v. 9a was Jesus' word to Zacchaeus, with which the story ended:
vv. 9b, 10 are later insertions, giving different conclusions.

295T8dt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 134; in both cases (Lk.

9:56; Mt. 18:11) the MSS prove these are secondary variants and
may be dependent on Lk. 19:10. In Lk. 9:56 the interpolation
gives reason why James and John should not call down fire on the
Samaritans. "Son of Man" may not be expressive of Jesus' sover-
eignty, as T8dt suggests, but may rather refer to his mission to
be a friend and help to the needy. In. Mt. 18:11 a christological
reason for respecting little ones is indicated by T~dt, Synoptic
Iradi tion, p. 135. But a.gain the meaning may be that Jesus i
mission is to help and befriend the needy.

296Higgins, Son of Man, p. 77.

297Marshall, "Synoptic Son of Man Sayings", p. 342:
this ~hatters~ Bultmann's view that Lk. 19:10 and Mk. 10:45
are Hellenistic. Leaney, Luke, p. 241, finds the passage has
many Semitisms. Cf. Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, p. 155;
Higgins, Son of Man, pp. 76-7.

298Klostermann, Lukasevangelium, p. 184.

299Todt, Synoptic Tradition, pp. 133-4. Cf. also
Colpe, til, u\?Js. Ttl 0 ~V'&r.!rrr&-V", p , 456.

300Todt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 13].

301Bultmann, Srnoptic Tradition, pp. 92, 324; cf. Todt,

§ynoptic Tradition, po 33.
302Higgins, Son of Man, p. 76; cf. Easton, Luke,
P. 279; Levi was called to follow, Zacchaeus was not.

303Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel, p. 45; Marshall,

"Synopt ic Son of Man Sayings", p. 342, n , 11.

30~arshall, "Synoptic Son of Nan Sayings", pp. 342-3.

305Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, p. 34. He says (P. 57)
that t·he rioLrrt of the story at Lk , 19:10 was to give consolation
to the si~ers who needed it.

306See the discussion above; cf. n. 302.

307Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, p. 34.

308cf• Mk. 1 :40ff.; 2:1ff.; 3:1ff.; 5:1-20 (espeCially

~. 19 where Jesus forbids the restored Gerasene demoniac from
fOllowing him).
 193
309Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, p. 34.
311Marshall, 'Synoptic Son of Man Sayings", pp. 342,
343, n. 1 •
312TOdt, Svnoptic Tradition, p. 134; it might be argued
on the contrary that if some of the present Son of Man sayings
are authentic (and there are reasons to believe some are), the
one in Lk , 1 9:1 0 cannot be ruled out by "ana l.ogy",
313Marshall, "Synoptic Son of Man Se.yings",p. 343.
314See the above discussions (and notes 296 and 297)
on the comparison of this saying (and Mk. 10:45) with I Tim.
1 :15 and 2:5f. which shows the Synoptic saying to be free of
Hellenistic overtones and coloring. Cf. Leaney, ~, p. 241,
on the Semitisms.
315Cf. Leaney,
_ Luke, p. 241.

316Narshall, "Synoptic Son of Man Sayings", p. 343.

Cf. Ezek. 34:16. Jesus is the instrument of Yahweh's redemptive
v/ork among his people. This need not be thought an arrogant
claim. Cf. the smitten shepherd of Zech. 13:7ff. See Moule,
"Influence of Circumstances", p. 258. Cf. also In. 10.
317Manson, Teaching, p. 225 (italics added).
318Ellis, ~, p. 222. 319Caird, Luke, p. 208.
320Ellis, ~, p. 221.

321Even if the saying (v, 10) was isolated and introduced

to this context secondarily, it is not unrelated to the context.
322Todt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 134. He connects {pe 133)
Lk. 19:10 in meaning to Mk. 2:10, 28, but the connection holds
only when the sayings are given TSdt's interpretation.
323Ibid.
324Ibid.; T~dt sees this connection also, but takes Son
of Man as a designation of sovereignty in both places.
325Ibid.
326Higgins notes with approval that Easton (Luke, p. 279)
calls this a "public and unambiguous" USe of Son of Man (Son of
!an, p. 77). Easton takes the story as trustworthy but finds
the saying is the Evangelist's generalization.
327Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, p. 150. Marshall, "The
SYnoptic Son of Man Sayings", p. 343, says that "to criticize a
Saying because it has the form of an 'I-saying' (like Lk. 7:34)
is a case of gross letitio principii. " Todt also doubts this
entire group of say ngs came about as a result of misunderstanding
the translation into Greek. .
328Marshall, "Synoptic Son of Man Sayings", P. 343.
329Best, Temptation and Passion, pp. 164-5.
 194

330~., p. 163. Best observes that the majority of

Markan sayings about Jesus' suffering and death are put in terms
of "Son of Man". In those cases where this is not so, it is
because of the use of a metaphor which prevents reference to
the Son of 1'1an.
331Higgins, Son of Man, p. 32. See also n, 448.
332T~dt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 136.
333perrin, "Creative Use of the Son of Nan Traditions
by Mark", U.S.Q.R. 23 (1967-68), 357-65, notes the difficulty
of determining the extent of Markan redaction or composition {p.3av.
334Jeremias, "nellIs &:~u", p. 715.
335Ibid., and n , 474; cf. .Teremias, "Losegeld", pp. 258-62.
336Hi~ginS, Son of Man, p. 44; Marshall, "Synoptic Son
of Man Sayings, p. 342.
337Higgins, Son of Man, p. 44; this rules out Bultmann's
view (Synoptic Tradition, ft. 1 55) that Lk. 1 9:10; Mk. 10:45 are
Hellenistic (so Marshall,'Synoptic Son of Man Sayings", p. 342);
cf. also Hahn, Christologische Hoheitstitel, p. 45.
338J e r-ema.a l.7t,Ou ,p.
nOlIs. .G.._"'''
• e , ",... 70Lo ,

339Bultmann, syno~tic Tradition, p. 143; he suggests

(p. 144) the section vv. 4 -45 is made out of an older saying
vv. 43f. But as the following discussion shows, there is evi-
dence (v. 45) the saying is quite old and based on a testimonium.
340 Jeremlas,
. "'""
n~ls veov
Ib~" " , pp. 706 , 709 •
341Ibid., p , 710; cf. Mk. 14:24; Mt. 26:28; Mt. 20:28.
Otto, Kingdom of God and the Son of Man, p. 252, also finds links
with Isa. 53; but W. Staerk, Die EriBsungserwartung in den ost-
lichen Religionen, Sotor II (1938), pp. 93f., does not, though he
finds in Jesus ' consciousness of being "s on "I and "Savior" the
link between the parollsia and the glory sayings.
342Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, p. 179; Lohse, MHrtyrer,
P. 119, felt the allusions to Isa. ?3 presupposed use of the
Hebrew text.
) 343Jeremias~ Eucharistic Words, p. 181; cf. I Tim. 2:6
OIm>'VTfov OTlEof rrJV-rWV (cf. Rom. 8:32), note the Semitic word
Order of the prepositional phrase in Mk. 14:24. Hebrew and Aramaic
have no word for all (7.:> and t>I/:l designate totality, not sum,
hence have no plural). The lack of the article may be explained
by comparison with the LXX and the Targums and the receding dis-
tinction between the definite and the indefinite in Aramaic.
344Ibid., pp. 227-8: rabbim- TfD).Dr is almost a leitmotif
of Isa. 52:13-53:12. Cf. I Enoch L6:4-5; 48:8; 55:4; 62:1, 3, 6,
9; 63:1-11 {where Enoch takes the 7'many" as referring to the
 195
Gentiles); Wisdom of Solomon 5:1-23; cf. 2:19,20 ("many" refers
to both JeHs and Gentiles).

-
345Ibid., p. 229.

346Barrett, "The Backgr-ound of Mk.10:45", pp. 1-18.

See also M. Hooker, Jesus and the Servant, pp. 7L~-79; idem, Son
of Man in Mark, pp. 141-2. ---- ---

347Barrett, "Background of Mark 10:45", pp. 5-7: ~J"ftJV

means equivalence or substitution, whereas l~ means guil~,
compensation (KUmmel, Promise, pp. 72;..4,also doubts that ~UTrcY =
-
)asaro).

348Higgins, Son of :Han, p. 46. 349Rawlinson, Mark, pp. 147C

350Hi
- ,gg i.ns , S on 0f Man, p. 46 •
351 He ac1mit s that ~VT{ and the Hebrew equivalent occur in
Isn. 53:12, but he does not find this significantl
352Barrett, "Background of Mark 10:45", p. 7.
353Ib 'd
....2;....., p, 4•
354Ibid., pp. 4-5; cf. Higgins, Son of Man, pp. 47-8,
Who notes the phrase was used of martyrs.

3.5'5Barrett's argument ("Background of Mark 1 0:45", p. P,),

that the contrast ("not to be served, but to serve") would be
POintless if the serva~t is in mind, fails to reckon with the fact
~hat it is the "Son of Man" which demands the contrast, inasmuch as
J.t is being defined in terms of the servant. As Barret~ points out,
the most powerful motive for the contrast, 00 ••• ~~~~ , arose
out of Jesus' ministry as the humble Son of Man, not from literary
motives.
356 Lohse, Martyrer,
ffll
pp. 1 23, 126.
357Todt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 205, n , 1, says that no
Proof of Mk. 14:24 referring to Isa. 53 CHn be found in the "for
many", since it was a current Semitism, but the parallel to Nk.
10:45 would indicate reference to Isa. 53. T3dt (p. 203) none-
theless finds both references to Isa. 53 to be secondary since
I Coro 11 is the more original form of the cup word than Mk. 14:24.
Bere he follows KUmmel, Promise, pp. 73ff. On the points at which
he finds I Cor. 11 more oI'iginal TtSdt may well be right (Paul pre-
serves, the separation of the cup from the bread by the meal in
between), but the Hellenistic reformations (which Todt notes) may
account for the lack of a reference to Esa , 53, wh Lc h , as already
boted, was transmitted in the Palestinian tradition, and the appen-
ding of Isa. 53 quite early (T~dt, p. 205). The atonement reference
)f Isa. 53 is not inconsistent vdth the new covenant motif (Jer.
1 :31, see Lohse, Martxrer, p. 124, n. 3). Mark retains the Mosaic
covenant allusion (Ex. 24:8) as in the Palestinian tradition.
 196

358Lohse, Martyrer, p. 124, n , 3, thinks "pour out"

could come from sacrifice terminology as well; see also p. 125,
n. 1; cf. Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, pp. 118, 122f.
359T8dt, syno~tic Tradition, pp. 204-5, credits the
association with Isa.3 to the church; but it could go back
to Jesus (see Jeremias, "TlG(7s &.ou 'I, pp. 712ff.; Cranfield,
Mar k, p. 342).
360H··
1991ns, S on 0 f M an, p , 30
I'

361 Jeremlas,
. ",...
7T""S veO,", " ,p.
A. "
711; Dodd, According to
the Scriptures, p. 93; Higgins, Son of Man, p. 43; Cullmann,
~hristology, p. 65.
36211i·
igglns, S on of l1an,p..
' 46
-
363.Ibld., pp. 39 , 41 •

364Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, pp. 78-9.

365Ibid., p. 79; Cullmann, Christoloe;z, p. 65.
366Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, p. 229, n. 1; Isa. 52:15.
367H• L. Ginsberg, "The Oldest Interpretation of the
Suffering Servant", Pf.' 400-4, especially p , 402.
Barrett, 'Background of Mark10:45", p.10, emphati-
cally denies dependence of Dan. on Isa. 53. He finds no connection
in the haskil and hisdik since they deal with glory, not suffering,
and are common words. Furthermore, they have different meanings in
Isa. 52:13 ("attain an aim", thus speaking of the triumph of the
servant) and Dan.12: 3 (which refers back to 11 :3, 351,cf. the simi-
lar use in the Zadokite fragment 13:7 and Manual of Discipline 3:13;
9:18; Hodayoth (Meg. Gen.). But Daniel is a book which speaks of
martyrdom, as 11 :33 shows, and Dan. 7 speaks of the suffering of
the saints of the Host High under the suppression of the nations
represented by the beasts (Barrett, pp. 13-4).
Cf. W. :Hanson, Jesus the Messiah, pp. 1 73f.; F. F.
Bruce, "The Book of Daniel and the Qumran Community", in Neotes-
lrumentica et Semitica, pp. 228f.
3688ee 1 :1; 46:8; 47:2.
369The Son of Man is righteous, the people are righ~eous;
the Son of Man is elect, the people are elect; cf. Jarrett, 'Back-
ground of Mark 10:45", p. 14; l'-ianson,
"Son of Man in Daniel, Enoch
and the Gospels", pp. 188ff.
370Barrett, "Background of Marl 10:45", pp. 14-5, thinks
I En. 71, where Enoch is exalted to become the Son of Man, must
have prepared the way for the tho'~ht of one who lived on earth
being exalted to heaven and awaiting his appearance as judge.
371Ibid., p. 10; Barrett doubts that a continuity can be
established from Isaiah through Daniel and I Enoch to Nark. But
he denies the rather considerable evidence of Jeremias, "n(l{l~ Oeo~",
pP. 680-98; Aux Sourcffide la Tradition chr~tien: Melan es offerts
~M. IVlauriceGOMuel euch tel: Delachaux (1;: Niest e, 9 0 , pp. 113-
; he follows owinckel, He That Cometh, pp. 325-33,410-15.
 197
372Barrett, "Background of Nark 10:45", pp. 11 -12.
373Ibid., p , 13, n , 43; Mid. Ps. on Psa. 118:18; cf. A.
Buchler, StudIeS in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature
of the First Centur_l (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1928), pp. 175-
~9; Joseph Bonsirven, Le Judatsme alestinien au tem s du J~sus-
Christ (Paris: Beauchesne, 93_ , II, pp. 9 1'1'.;G. F. Moore,
'udaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era The A e of
anna ID vo s.; am r~ ge, ass.~ arvar n v. ress, , I,
PP. 546-52; Solomon Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology (New
York: Schocken Books, 19t51; first published in 1909 under the title
Some Aspects ••• ), pp. 307-11; Lohse, Martyrer, pp. 29-32.
On martyrdom effecting atonement, see Siphre Deut. 333
(A Rabbinic Anthology [selected and arranged with comments and intr~,
by C. J. G. Montefiore and H. Loewe; New York: Meridan Books, 1960J,
P.~226).,Higgi~s, Son of Man, pp. 471'., notes that the expression
aO\)V,M r,...,v CP"'~t)V'
c7'vr~was used of martyrs.
374Barrett, "Background of Mark 10:45", p. 13, doubts
the Dead Sea Scrolls have a clear martyr theology. But Bruce,
Rew Testament Development, p. 99, believes they did.
375cf• Nek. Ex. 21: 30, "no redemption for heathen nations";
cf. Psa , 49:81'. Jeremias, Eucharistic \olords,pp. 230-1; but Jesus
said there was a means of atonement for all people of the world in
his vicarious death (p. 231).
376H• J. Holtzmann (editor), Hand-Kommentar zum Neuen
Testament I, 1 Die Synoptlker (2d ed.; TUbingen: J. C. B. Mohr,
t9m ), p. 52; cf. A. Schweitzer, Mystery of the Kingdom of God,
PP. 21'.,who doubted Pauline influence.
377Bultmann, Synoptic tradition., pp. 144, 155; for this
reason he believes the verse to be a secondary formulation.
378Todt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 203.
379Bultmann -Synoptic Tradition, p. 144; cf. W. Bousset,
~ios Christos, P.~. Hi~gins, Son of Man, p. 45, notes that
Tf(),o/ does not appear in Paul (it is found only here and the
Parallel in Mt. 20:28 in the N.T.) and even "o!"'TfAv~f/)1/ is only
found in I Tiro. 2:6, which depends on Mk. 10:45. While Paul's
theology was distinct, it had its roots in the primitive Christian
tradition (see Taylor, lw'lark, pp. 4451'. Fuller, Nission and
!chieveitlent,pp. 561'1'.,demonstrates Isa. 53 was part of the
baCkground of this saying and shows the non-Pauline nature of
the saying (a view he later rejected).
38°Lohse, Martyrer, p. 118, doubts that one of the sayings
is derived from the other, though Mark is certainly earlier, since
it is framed in Palestinian language and refers to the Hebrew of
Isa. 53, whereas Luke is more Hellenistic.
381Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, p. 144, suggests the
~Ource of Mk. 9:35, which he believes original to Mark's text,
the absence of ~v tSfAIV- or Of4-WI in 9:35 could be more original,
hough the double saying form of the saying in Mk. 10:431'. is
more likely original (9:35 may have came from a double saying).
 382Bousset, Kyrios Christos, p. 8, n , 1.
383Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, p. 144.
384Higgins, Son of Man, p. 39. This Hellenistic tradi-
tion (in Luke) and Palestinian tradition confirm the independent
descent of the two forms.
385Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, p. 148.
38~ile Luke lacks Mt. 10:45b, he makes up for the
omission of the reference to Jesus' death by the setting he
provides (cf. Higgins, Son of Man, p. 37).
387See the discussion below on Mk. 10:45b; cf. Bousset,
~rios Christos, p. 8, n. 1, on this as a reason for taking Luke
as the more original form; cf. T8dt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 135.
How, if serving was thought inconceivable of the "Son of Man",
could this be glossed by the (presumably) even less conceivable
"death as a ransom"?
388Bousset, KUios Christos, p , 8, n, 1.

389T8dt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 137.

390Ibid.; as opposed to Bultmann, S~optiC Tradition,
P. 152, n , 1, who says in Q there are no saYl1t:!sat all about
the Son of Man as the divine envoy walking on earth in humility.
But to eliminate Ht. 11 :19; 8:20, etc., he is forced to the unten-
able position that "Son of Han" in these places is a mere misunder-
Standing.
391TBdt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 137. ~92Ibid., pp. 208-9.
393Ibid., pp. 208f., says the lowliness is seen in the
Son of han's sovereignty itself. It is difficult to find T~dt
Convincing at this point. Does it not misconstrue the meaning
of such sayings as Mt. 8:20 and Lk , 19M 0 to speak of sovereignty
rather than of service?
394Barrett, "'2heBackground of Mar-k1 0 :45", p. 9. The
source of this contrast is probably not, Barrett feels, in the
Url'l1ensch
mythology, since this is too speculative (p. 10).
395Bousset, K;l:riosChristos, P. 8, n , 1; T8dt, Synoptic
tradition, p. 136; Klostermann, Markus evangeIiurn,p. 109, says
~ost exegetes feel this way, but TOdt disagrees.
396Bultmann, Synoptic Tradition, P. 144.
-
397Ibid.

398Tcdt, S~oEtic Tradition, Pp. 203, 205; he notes

tOhse, Martyrer, p. 1 , says that the Son of Man name ru1d
as equivalent to} in the epexegetic sense confirm the Pales-
tinian origin. But to grant the Palestinian.origin is not to
refute Bousset's view that 45b is a gloss (Todt, p. 205).
399Todt, Synopt~c Tradition, PP. 203, 206. Thus v. 45b
~as already added in the Palestinian language area (as well us
 199

the reference to Isa. 53) and the formulation probably resulted

from the Lord's Supper being interpreted by Scripture (Mk. 14:24),
and in turn this insight was applied to the whole of Jesus'
miflsion (p. 210).
400Ibid., p. 209. The paradox in v. 45b is characteristic
of the sufferlng sayings and is thus extended by allusion to
"giving life for many" (p. 1 38).
401Ibid., p. 138.
402Ibid., pp. 206-7. The step by step correspondence
of Jesus' and the disciples' behavior in both Mk. 10:45 and Lk ,
22:27 leads T~dt to believe they are dependent on the same material,
though perhaps descended through different traditions (Lohse,
Mart;yrer, p. 118).
403A• Schweitzer, Mystery of the Kingdomc,0fGod, p. 9.
404Ibid., p. 6. Schweitzer believed service is the funda-
mental law of interim ethics (P. 10). Any correspondence between
Jesus' and the disciples' behavior stops here.
405This is the basis of Todt's rejection of the saying
(~optic Tradition, p. 206).
406FT...
dCg1ns, Son 0f Man, pp. 36 -.
7

407Barrett, "Background of Mark1 0:45", p. 8. He finds

this promise of suffering inconsistent with Mk. 10:45 and thus
~refers Lk. 22:27. But there need be no inconsistency, especislly
~f a martyrdom theology underlies the saying.
408Todt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 137. 409Ibid., p. 138.
410Cf., e.g., the shepherd motif, Lk. 19:10, where the.
element of sovereignty would appear to be kept to the md ndz-rum,
411Barrettt_ "Background of Nark 10:45", p. 8; cf. v , 27
and I En. 46:3-6; 4~:5; 62:8; and cf. Psa. 8:5f. (See Barrett's
n. 8 on this Psalm which was interpreted of the supernatural Son
ff Nan figure who was entitled to universal service; cf. Psa.
10:1 and I Cor. 15:27; Eph. 1 :22; Heb. 2:6-9.)
412Ibid., p. 9. Todt, synortic Tradition, p. 209; cf.
Rig~ins, Son of Man, pp. 48, 49, n.: the church added "Son of
~an ; Todt thinks the serving is the more significant in view of
he authority which made it natural for Mark to go beyond LUke
a.ndmake "I" become "Son of Man".
413Barrett, "Background of Mark 10:45", p. 14.
414Lindars, ~'Jew
Testament Apologetic, p , 78. He feels
~ha.tMk. 10:45 and Lk. 22:27 were originally separate. Cf. Kllinmel,
romise, p. 47, n. 95. He differs with Sharman, Son of Man. p. 32,
and finds Son of Man an ambiguous term without any clear connotation
Of the Son of Man as judge.
 200

415Cullmann, Christology. p. 65.

41611arshall, "Synoptic Son of Man Sayings", p. 349.
417Tfi.>dt,
SmortiC Tradition, Pp. 136, 209-11; Fuller,
Foundations, pp. 119,53 (Isa. 53 is also behind Nk. 14: 24).
418Fuller, Mission and Achievement, pp. 56-9; he follows
Jer-ema.as J ".....cL..
TI~15 veoV,. if , p , 709 •

41~-Qr.FuJJ.e!j
Foundations, pp. 118-9, 136-7.
420Bultmann, Theology, I, p. 30.
421Todt, synortic Tradition, pp. 152ff., 200-2; Fuller,
Foundations, pp. 119, 37.
422 Todt. Synopt~c Tradition, p. 16 0, n. 1, cites evi-
It .•

dence ~iven by Schlatter, MatthKus, pp. 357f. Cf. also Buchsel,

" 1TrAeql~O~IS
/ '- " , T.D.N.T. II, p. 172 lines 8 ff.; Fuller, Foundations,
P. 137.

423Fuller, Foundations, pp. 136, 137, n. 63.

424Marshall, "Synoptic Son of Man Sayings," pp. 349-50.
4250n the genuineness of Mk. 12:10, see Cranfield, ~,
368f.
42"
OWel~ha~sen, Marci, 1ll ~.; Bultmann, Synoptic Tradi-
lion, p. 152; H~gg~ns, Son of Man, pp. 50-2.
427Hooker, Son of Man in Mark, pp. 159-60.
429Bl~Ck, Aramaic Approach, pp. 302-3, argues convin-
Cingly that the usage both in Mark and John is "sufficiently
unusual to suggest alien influence" which, because of the Aramaic
COloring of John and for other reasons, he takes to be Aramaic.
430Taylor, ~, in lac.; Cranfield, Mark, p. 424.
431Blackl Aramaic Approach, p. 117; Hooker, Son of Man
1..n Mar:~, Pp. 160-1.
432Cranfield, Mark, p. 424.
433Todt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 199.
43~Black, Aramaic Approach, PP. 225-6.
-
434 Ibid., p. 1 9.
8

436Is it possibly reminiscent of the 'isham of Isa. 53?

See the discussion of Mk. 9:31 and cf. Fuller, Mission and Achieve-
~l11., p. 58.
437Higgins, Son of Man, p. 53.
438If John's theological use of JJrrJ. depends on Mk. 14:41
 201

this does not cast doubt on Mark. If John does not depend on
Hark, then hro independent traditions preserve what must surely
be 8. c:enuine rerrliniscenceof how Jesus spoke of his approaching
end.
4390ne wonders whether this fact is in itself signi-
ficant: has Mark provided these sayings with a uniform formula,
Son of }~an"lith Tfctt'.O<'& & ~V'4(, or j_sthere here a genuine r-e co L»
lection of dominical predictions (certainly in broad enough terms! )
of the Son of ~'lan'sbeing delivered up?
L1J~OHooker,The Son of Man in Mark, pp. 162-3.
441F• Rehkopf, Die Lucanische Sonderquelle: ihr Umfang
~d Sprachgebrauch (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen
Testament, 5; TUbingen: Mohr, 1959), pp. 50-6.
442Higgins, Son of Man, pp. 80-1.
443 Plummer, Luke, p , 512.
444Cf• Easton, L¥kli' p. 356; Ktlmmel, Promise, p. 72,
n. 175, says Lk. 24:7, wh c is part of the Special Tradition,
refers back to 9:44.
445Sj~berg, Der verbor ene Menschensohn in den Evan elien,
P. 236, suggests (in a note a modelling on Mk. :7.
446So Higgins, Son of Man, pp. 80-2; Black, "The 'Son of
Man' Passion Sayings:, p. 3; 'Bdt, Synoptic Tradition, pp. 176ff.,
Puts Lk. 9:44; 24:7 in the same category as Mk. ':31; 14:41.
447Black, Aramaic Approach, p. 53; idem, "The 'Son of
Man' Passion Sayings", p. 3.
448cf• w. Grundmann, "&f", T.D.N.T. II, pp. 22ff.; E.
li'ascher,"Theologische Beobachtungen zu cs~1if, Neutestamentliche
!tUdien fUr Rudolph Bultmann, Beiheft 21 zur Z.N.We (1954),
PP. 228-54.
449Black, "The 'Son of Man' Passion Sayings", p. 3.
450Todt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 191, relates the "must"
to a scriptural necessity for the Son of Man's s.ufferin~ rather
~han to an apocalyptic eschatological "must II formula: 'FrA.>m
the
teginning the reason for that 'must' is given by waTt of scrip-
Ural prophecy and is thus rendered comprehensible. '
451Black "The 'Son of Man' Passion sayings"" pp. 5-6;
SChnackenburg, ~e~ Menschensohn im Johannesevangelium', pp. 130f.
452Jeremias, "nolls e.~~",p , 707.
453Todt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 159. 454- Ibid., pP. 176-7.
455Ibid., pp. 156-9.
456Marshall, "Synoptic Son of Man Sayings", P. 349.
 202

457 Jeremias, "1Tcl.7'S <9E:o~", p , 715.

458Black, Aramaic Approach, p. 106; "The 'Son of Man'
Passion Sayings", p. 3.
459Todt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 177; Schlatter,
Matthaus, pp. 537f.
460The tradition in Luke appears also in Mt. 20:19
(which has 'fcrucif~",whereas Mk. 10:34 has "kill") and in Mt.
26:2. Cf. Black, 'The 'Son of Man' Passion Sayings", p , 3.
"Crucify" occurs in the kerygma at Acts 2:23, 36; 4:10; I Cor.
1 :23; 2:2, 8; II Cor. 13:4; Gal. 2:20; 3:1.
461Higgins, Son of Man, p. 82.
462John 3:14; 8:28; 12:34; Black, "The 'Son of Man'
Passion Saying s", pp. 5-9.
463Ttldt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 185.
464 Ibid., p. 1 84; cf. Higgins, Son of Man, p. 8 2.

465Marshall, "Synoptic Son of Man Sayin~", p. 350.

466T~dt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 185. 467Ibid.
468Higgins, Son of Man, p. 82.
469Black, "The 'Son of Man' Passion Sayings", p. 5.
470SChnaCkenburg, St. John, I, ExcursuE V, p. 536.
471Black, "The I Son of Man' Passion Sayings", pp. 5-6.
472SChnaCkenburg, St. John, I, p. 536.
473TBdt, Synoptic Tradition, p. 184: " ••• the tendency
towards the concrete is also perceivable within the post-Easter
tradition and does not at all oblige us to presuppose sayings
that had authentically issued from Jesus. "
474Higgins, Son of Man, p. 82, says that in spite of the
fact that the terminology indicates Lk. 24:7 is not a saying of
Jesus, " • • • it may preserve the knowledge that he referred to
~ls death and resurrection while still in Galilee." Cf. Black,
The 'Son of Man' Passion SayingsP, PP. 3, 8.
 OHAPTER IV

THE JOHANNINE SON OF MAN SAYINGS

The thirteen occurrences ot the term "Son of Man" in

the Fourth Goape1 may be grouped into tour categories according
to the to11owing motits: (1) ascending-descending, (2) exa1ted-
gloritied (-crucified), (3) judge,and (4) savior. 'he 10gia
will be dealt with in terms of these motifs and examined as
they occur in John under these headings.

Ascendipa and D•• oeDding

John 1 :51

The first Son ot Man logion to occur in John is a

traditional one.1 It makes clear use ot the O.T., tor it is
apparent that the story of Jacob's vision ot the ladder to
heaTen is behind John's 1magery.2 A oomparison ot the LXX
On Gen. 28:12 nth In. 1 :51 shows parallel wording.-
LXX
In.1 :51
LXx-

In.1 :51
But there are tv. signifioant variations from the LXX (apart
\ J I
trom the accusative ot rov So 0( rY&~C?v.s, which was necessari)y
altered because ot its position in the sentenoe) which suggest
that at some stage, perlilapsearly, the "brew text ot Gen.
28:12 was used or at least that resort w•• made to it in varying

203
 204
trom the LXX. Firstly, there is the variation in the tense
ot the participles: the present tense ot John may parallel
more closely the Qal plural participles ot the Hebrew IJ" 7Ji
, •
and U~}l~ The continuing traftic ot the angels tits better
•
the point the Evangelist wants to make (the unbroken connection
between heaven and earth established in Jesus as the Son ot Man~
see dl1sc~sion below). Another indication that John' s sayings
(_ C. \ '"
is based on the Hebrew is in his substitution oto uteS TOu

~"f)r~ov tor olVT'7S

) '" \If
(antecedent: Kl\lf ~
tl,). The LXX by its lise
ot the teminine makes it clear that it was on the ladder that
,
the angels moved, whereas the masculine I(j) ot the Hebrew is
ambiguous--it could be the ladder or it could be Jacob.3 Thus
the ladder, which was Jacob in some Rabbinic interpretations,4
is understood to be Jesus.5 But this parallel must not be
pressed, since at any rate, it is mainly imagery trom Jacob's
vision whi~h is used here.6
Some scholars have seen a reterence to Ezekiel 1 in
this 10gion. There is s"ome resemblance in the wording ot
\ J I 10.... (.J .. \ I) (' 1:1- ,..
Ezek. 1:1, ~..t( "tvo l{v'l O-o(V 01 0 \) fd.Vf) L, Ko(l ~, ~ov 0 fdlrT"i:.'S ~ou,
but this is not strong evidence, sine. the opening ot the heavens
Was a cammon metaphor tor the imparting ot a vision or revelation
trom God.7 There i8 similarity ot ideas in that both John and
Ezekiel speak ot visions. "Son ot Man" appears in Ezekiel also,
b~t as a designation tor the prophet, who sees the 1ikene.s ot
. \ J , ~
a heavenly man on the likene.a of a throne (LXX '\:26 f(cll e.7f1 TOO

(I In I (' f'\ c 'J (' J f ~I AI- . ~

oP.O((,vfAcl.TOS TOll fJfOVOV 0t'Pl w~"- lArS €1c:)cS O1v£tW7fOU 'I:IIVW~ ).

Thia i8 not to say that there i8 a primary al1~1on ot In. 1:51

to Ezek. 1, tor the essential ingredients in ,he Son ot Man
lagion are misling in Ezekiel: there are no angels aBd there
 20$
is no ascending-descending movem.nt. 8 But it is non.the1.ss
likely that the O.T. throne-~heophany vision may have played
sam. part in the dev.10pment ot thought 1.ading up to this
log ion.
What meaning do.s John give to the Jacob'sladd.r
imagery? On. interpr.tation sugg.sts that John is speaking
ot a heav6n1y counterpart above ("Son ot Man") to the earthly
body ot J.sus, betw ••n wbich the ang.1s trav.1.9 This int.r-
pretation is supported by the Ii'abbinic.x.g.sis ot G.n. 28
(in G.n. R. 68:18). Rabbi Yannai cit.s I.a. 49:3, taking the
"thou" to r.ter to a heavenly image 1"1'~~""(tram Greek ~1I<.tvltlV)

ot Jacob (Israel) which was on high .whi1. Jacob sl.pt below

and angels kept contact between the h.aven1y image and the
.arth1y body be1ow.10 The rabbblic int.rpr.tation ot Ha.k. 1
borders on this id.a.11 It is signiticant that the Targuma
(Onk.1os and J.ruaa1_) have God's .hekinah on the 1add.r.
Gilles Quispe1 has suggested that an e.oteric J.wish interpr.-
tation ot Ea.k. 1 and Isa. 6:1 was combined with a merkabah
mysticism in Jerusalem, which John take. up h.re: Bathanie1
is promised a vision et the enthroned· Ohl-i8t.12 In line with
this view is the possible retlection in Justin (Tr7Pho, 86:2)
ot an early Ohr1stian be1i.t that Christ was on the 1adder--i. e.,
Je8US was the localization ot the shekinah.
A second, and probably better, interpr.tation ot the
••,.ingunder.tands John to .ub.titut. "Son ot Man" ter Jacob,
Who was substituted ter the ladder in the rabbinieint.rpr.-
tation et G.n. 28:12 (based on the Bebrew .... ulin. J:t ).13
!bus the Son ot Man, being both huaan and divine, stretches
betw.en h.aven and earth to bring contiaueua contact b.tween
 206
them. This view, rather than that ot a heavenly image above
and an earthly man below, aeems preterable tor several reasons.
Pirst is the taot that the particular rabbinic interpretation
cited tor the ~'heayenl,.image" view is too late to have influ-
enced John.14 Qui,pel's view i, largely built on this, has
onl,.weak support t~am John (12:41 being the onl,.verse he ean
Cite, then he gives it an interpretation prejudioed to his view),
and is largely speculative. Seoondly, the "heavenly image"
view makes more out ot the uae ot "glory" aa a means ot circum-
locution tor the divine name or a. an avoidance ot anthropo--
morphiams tor God than the evidence warrants. To interpret
thi8 glory as having a 8eparate exiatence tram God surely goes
beyond what the Jewish writers intended.15 Thirdly, the idea
ot a heavenly image ot the Son ot Man above is toreign to John's
way ot thinking. It ia not the heavenly image ot the Son ot
Man above with which Jesu8 haa cCllDllunion
on earth. Rather it
ia God tme Father with wham Jesus as the Son is in contin.ous
rellowship and union.16 Here the view that the Son ot Man is
the ladcilerstretohed between heaven and earth tits better John's
concept. It is not that Jesua communea with hia heavenly image
whioh in turn commune. with God in heaven. This would make
the heavenly image the mediator. Rather J•• na •• God'. Son
communicate. directly with God: Je.ua i8 the Xediator between
God and men. Thi •• ediatorial ottice is pictured by the ladder
.tretohed between heaven and earth:17 ju.t a. the ladder esta-
bliaheacontact between two place. (heaven and earth), the
.ediator eatabli.hes contact between two per.ona (God in heaven
and man on earth). This view haa the support ot the rabbinic
•
interpretation ot Gen. 28:12 which understood ,~ to reter to
 207
Jacob.18
.J ,

It tits the .eaning ot err( better as well. Though

) \
it is true that ~( with the accuaative, can •• an either move-

-
ment .. a goal or movement
aeems that
across a surface
in this context ot dual movement
(or medium),
(ascending and
it

descending) that it dual goals were intended (the heavenly

image above and the earthly man below), this sense could have
been expreased aore clear17 by uaing ~~~ twice and stating the
J
ho goals. Or it could have been .xpresaed by using eis: , aa
('/

:tor example in Prove 30:4, (LXX), or better, by using f!!:w5 , as

~ ,
in Paa. 117: 26 (LXX). On t&e other hand, err( is the correct
n.-poaition to use to expreas mov ••• nt across the ladder (which
is what the LXX has, iTT) d6~s ).19 Thia is probably John's
meaning. But i:t it is ditticult to decide preci ••ly how John
intended the picture to be taken, his basic meaning i. clear
.nough: in the Son ot Man a oontinuous lin. 01 cemlllnUlioatien
is ••t up betwe.n h.av.n and earth.20
The use of the ~Yol...~(V'f;"V~JbJ.~~(."(;IV .otif has otten
led sch.lars to s.e a Gnostic background to this lOgion.~
QUisp.l susaest. the ,.... may come trom IJ; in the technical
'.nse it had in the merkabah my.tic! .. : it. obscurity could
have .uited it to be u.ed ot the a.cent to. the threne world
(and 11obn.. e4 ot the descent). 22 iDI.11 go b.twe.n the .nthroned
ChrLst and Nathaniel, to wha. the pr ..ia. il giYen ot a yi.ion
ot Christ on the threna •..A parallel idea i. found iD the Gospel
ot Peter 36-40, where th.re ia an account ot ang.l.&.c.nding
tr_ heaven and alc.ndift8 with J•• lI.. But it is doubttul John
b..cl the sam. thing in .Lnc! a. tll.ewrit.r ot the Go.pel ot P.ter,
bl addition to which the ord.r ot the •••• nt-d •••• nt i. revex-sed
in the Gosp.l ot Pet.r.23 Qui.pel's y1.w 4emaad. too muoh tram
 208
the TJ ~: in the LXX ~"'~~I'v(dV translates mo.'ly n':~(Qal)
and koLTd-~d~v'~tV mostly "]~ (flal). It is not satistactor,. to
suggest the angels go between Wathaniel and the Son ot Man,24
tor though Nathaniel was the new Jacob in v. 47, the Son ot Man
is the new Jacob in v. $1.2$ Apparently Nathaniel brought to
mind the Jacob story, Which istben applied to the Son ot Man
Who is the real n.w Jacob in v. $1. The tocus is no longer on
( A
Nathaniel, tor Jesus ha. changed to the plural address (ct. V~IV

and f, CPt;If6e ). 26
A better understanding ot the aacent-de.cent motit is
that ot Bultmann: this is a mythological plctmr. tor the un-
broken tellow.~ip b.tween Je.u. and the Pather.27 John ha.
borrow.d this pic~ure t.agery tram the Jacob story to illustrate
thi8 one~:po1nt. The d.ta11 •• hould not b. pr ••••d turther.28
The theme ot a.c.nd.ing and de.cenel1ng, .....t:·flr_ 1t.
u•• 1n the Jacob story, is not an ttnuaual one but was rath.r
GOBBon in Jewi.h thought a. a .ytholog1cal-s~olieal t~.
In Paa. 107126 the lite ot sailors (who see the worka ot nlnt)

ls deacribed: they mount up to heaven and go down aga1n. The

Psalmist sp.aks ot God's omnipres.nce, saying (1n Paa. 13$:8)
that it ~•.aacencl. to heav.n (dvotf~ E1so~~vfJV ; f:>j~J or
-ak.a his bed in Sh.ol, God 1s there. Speaking ot the knowl.dge
ot God, Agur the 80n ot Jak.b aak. (in Prove 30:4) who has asc.n-
t.d up into heaven and .e.c.nd.4. Applied to .ore .unclane mattera
there 1s the proverb (Prov. 2$:7) that one should humbly take a
low aeat at a banquet, a1nce it i* better to be r.1.e4 than to
b. put lower. 'l'heindepenelenee anel treed_ otthe h_an .pirit
1. Characteriled by an Upward and downward. mo••• ent (Eccle.. 3:21 ).
Pl'on.uncing God-s judgmentAmo. an-I"thAt th.ugh the'lficked eliab
 209
to heaven, God will bring the. down (Am.s 9:2; ot .9: 5). The
motit occura as well in I _.oh 12-16, which has been suggested
aa the prototype ot thia motit in the N.~.29 since the apoca-
lyptic imagery ia Tery similar, even it the theol08Y i. not.
The motit is uaed in a similar way in the N.T. John
3:13 aak. who haa a••encle.iDte heaTen (to attain knowledge
ot God) except the Son ot Man who came down tram heaven (ct.
Ram. 10:6; PreT~ 30:4). Epheaian. 4:9, 10 apeak ot Ohrist
ascending and desoending. In the matter ot ethica, men are
warned not to be proud, aince he vho exalta htm.elt ahall be
humbled (ct. Prove 25:7), as Oapernaua v.s exalted but vas to
be 'b1"OU8htlow (M.tt. 11 t 23; Lk. 10:13). Thu. the wide.pread
U.e ot this motif mean. it i. not unusual that John .hould u.e
it here. It alao an.wer. the que.tion et or4er, vhy the ••cen-
cling precede. the desoencling. ~hi. waa the order oomaoDly used
in this motit and, ~.gardle.s ot any theological implications
thia might introauc.,30 thi. i. the order to1lowed here.
It i. not without .ignitiaan'e that Nathaniel addre.sed
Jesua a. the Son ot God, the King ot Israel, but '_hatJ ••us
replied in teras ot the Son ot Man. !here i. perhaps more to
this .Ub.titution ot title. than just the author'. piling up
ot Chri.tological titl •• tor Je.us.31 Thi. Son ot Man i. appar-
e.t11 ab_ the traDscendent, heavenly tigure et levish apoca-
IJPtic, but i. rath.r Jesus vho, a. the Son otMaa, iavorking
on earth vhile in camalDlion vith the Patbitr.32- "'lda'iathe
OQ17 title in the oaapter that Jeaua u.es ot himae1t, a tact
that may retlect a hi.t.rt.al re.iniaceno. that Je.ua did uae
thia title, •• distinct tram the title. Ii••• hi. by the dis-
,cipl•• atter the resurrection, •• g., S.D ot GOd.,,33
 210
The relation ot In. 1:51 to the Synoptic Son ot Man
logia i. important. It i. probable that the starting point
tor John was the Synoptic (e.pecially Mk. 13:26; 14:62) and
other Jewish apocalJ.Ptic sayings about the Son ot Man.3~ Th.
variant -dn>d..fTI, though ;used in In. 13:19 and 14:7 i. lIlost
likely taken tram Mt. 26:6~, .hoving that In. 1:51 was thought
to be related to Mt. 26:64.35 But, as already noted, In. 1:51
i. not an apocalyptic prediction. The Son ot Man here is
e.sentially the earthly Son ot Man, as both BUltmann36 and
R. Schnackenbnrg emphasise (again.t Qui.pel). The open heavens
and the mini.tering ansel. may .how a connection with the
Mark-Matthew bapti.m and temptation narrative., not with the
passion,37 though SchDackenburg doubt. a recollection ot Mk.
1:13 i. intended.38
The proble. to fir.t century Christians ot God's
transcendence and his imBan.... (His revelation and Hi. pre-
sence on earth) may be retlected in In. 1:51. John, it is
suggested, used the O.T. tigure ot the angel ot the Lord,
combined with his beliet in the presenoe ot God in Christ,
a. well as an esoteric interpretation ot I.a. 6:1and Ezek.
1:26.39 But against thi. view, there i. no indication that
John used the O.T. angel ot the DOrd here, nor i8 I••• 6:1
or Ezek. 1:26 really relevant. John has ·solve4- the problem
merely by illustratinl the inoarnation in t.rm. ot the Jaoob
ladder iaagery.40 There ••••• to be no attempt to .xplioate
doctrine but only to piouWre the Son ot Man as the .ediator
b.tween hea.en and earth.41 •••• Je.us i8 m&kins the point
that tlaagh the lite ot the Son ot Han a connexi.n haa been
deci.ively e.tabliah~ between the historical and the eternal."42
 211
The desire to depl.t Chri.t as the "new temple" .a7
be in .ind in Ja. 1:$1 •. Alluding to Jaoob's dream, same rabbis
1dent1tied the stone whioh Jaoob slept aa the toundation
OR

atone ot the temple at Jeruaalem.-3 There ia al.o a tradition

t. the ettect that JacOb'a ladder "-ked the sib~, ot the ne.
temple (Gen. B. 68:12; 69: 7). "What John would appear to be
aa7ing theretore i. that the bond joining heaven and earth ia
no longer the temple ot Jeru.al .. , wh.re the glor7 or pr.aerice
ot God waa hidden in the ho17 ot holi.a, but Chriat, in wham
the divine glor7 ia ..de vi.ible."4~
Theu.e ot G.n. 28:12 will be aeen 1ncreasing17 to be
important aa other logla and the O. T. t.attaonia uaed with
them in John are examined. The Jacob'. la44er .tor7 .a. Cler-
tain17 an important event iD Iarael's histor7. SG va. the
plague ot anak.. and the atrang. oure pro'Yid.d in a bra ,un
••rpent (NUlllber.21). So vaa the proviaion ot:a&lUUl in the
wlld.rn.... All th •••• v.nta are r.tl ••ted in the Johannin.
Son ot Man aa7inga, augg.ating that the Son ot Man r.-.nacted
at l.aatcertain e'Y.nta in the h1ator7 ot I.r.e1, aino. he ia
the new Iara.l.
It then the SOD ot Man in In.. 1:.51, W,pGn vh_ the
angela ot God aac.nd and d.aoend, represents ln hia awn p.r.on
the n.w Iara.1, it ia in the aaae wa7 that Jaoob, wham he nGW
~.Placea, repr ••• nt.d the old Iara.l. "Jacob, a. the ano.ator
ot the nation ot I...el, aumaariz.a in hi. p.raon the id.al
Ia~a.l in po.se, juat aa our Lord, at the oth.r end ot the line,
.a--..riz •• it in .a •• a8 the SOD ot Man."45 In this wa7 the
JQbannine Son ot Man la corporate (repre ••ntati'Ye)~ a. well
.a indi'Yidua1. John teaches that God haa providentially worked
 212

through the historical rev.lation to 1Ira.l.47 Now God ls

revealing (through the "opened heavena") h~aelr in the medi~
atorship (pictured by the tratfic ot the angels) ot the Son ot
-
Man (as representative ot the new people). In John's mind,
the new I.rael i. the new humanity, tho•• recipients ot the
••• revelation ot God mediated in Ohrist, who in the deepest
sense is not only their king (v. 49) but their inclusive repre-
sentative--they are in hta and he in the•• 48 So tar tram Son
ot Man havill8 no special Jlaportance in John, as Lagrange aug,p

gests,49 the t.rm is rather loaded with .eaning tor the Evan-
g.list. And it there i. a turth.r conn.ction with Isa. 49:3, 5,
as Small.,. suggests, then" ••• Like the Servant ot Yahweh,
Jesus a8 the representative ot the true Israel not only glori-
ties God but also is gloritied by hi. atter .uttering (Isa.
xlix.3, 5). ,,~~t>

John 3:13
In this logion the same ~Vd,~alrVE.tv- r<"/'T~rV~ them.
•
oocurs as in In. 1.51. 51 .But, whereas In. 1: 51 built on Oen.

28:12, In. 3:13 retl.ets Prove 30:4 and D.ut. 30:12.

The ascent-descent motit appears in both Prov. 30:~,
; .J I_'\
TIS o(Vi.:f'-' e/S"'T2'V
~ ,
DViti..voV' ~I
, ·'8
Kol""r'l
( )
LXX,
"T ...
.'!.._ .'~~'.!~ "'1
It) 0 ..r\ I~,-i1 L, IJ
'~
(M!, Qal pertect), and in In. 3:13 wh.r. the Gre.k has the
J f /
P.rtect tense, atYf~'1~V ,and the aorist participl. Kd-,d..fGts.
An additional similarity is the .ention ot wind (ProY. 30:4b;
In. 3:8) and water (Prov. 30:40; Jll. 3:5', thoU8h theT are
treated ditterently. A third cODDeotion with Proy. 30:4 is
the .ention ot "son" in 30:.e (LXX ..,{"V6trS, variut uf~; I
M'l'

l~), suggesting the possibil1t7 that John has .oved tr_ 1.3
 213
to DiX' 12. (uJJ i ;:1) or 0
(c\.
u lOS
,..
TO tJ
J fl
01VO'f
(
v.rrreu. Perhaps the
ao.t .igniticant connection bet.een In. 3:13 and Prove 30:4
i8 their .imilar context and me .. 1ng: both .peak ot the
attaining ot knowledge ot heav.nly thiag. by a••ending into
heaven and returning to .arth to reveal thia .upernatural
knowledge. 52
John 3:13 i•• tm1lar to 3D. 1:51 not only in the u.e
ot the a.cent-de.cent motit. but a180 iD tbe eontra8t ot the
heavenly and the earthly. In In. 1:$1 the Son ot Man. the
ne. Israel. was in oanstant tellow.hip with God above, esta-
bli.bing p.rmanent ea.aunloation between h.av.n and .arth.
aere in John 3 the Son otMal'l aaaia·brins. .ontact betwe.n
heaven aDd earth. tor onl7 •• haa as.en4ed to heaven to attain
knowledge ot spiritual thins. and the. de ••ended with thi.
kn.wledge.
!he contra.t ln John3 between the Nh.avenly" an4 the
".arthly" .ay b. not.d, tor lt tw. '. th••• r\DU'liR8thr.1Igh this
Chapter.
In h.aveD. On .apth
JD. 3:11 what we hav. ..en aDd know we .p.ak te.tity aD.
12 heaven17 thing. earthly thing.
13 a•• eftde4 ifttoh.aven Son ot Man ...e down
1~. (how 011. oan .har.
1fttlal•• pirltual 1mowle",e
which only the Son ot Man baa and wAloh A. otter.:
OD •• hare. lt on17 by bellevlae In'tll. S.n ot Man
who aust b. litt.. up)
, ct.3:32 wut he ha•• een and. heard
3:31 c".'frClll above t•

.14 1(~_,;,.GeA.•• nt
A. t. til••• &niDI ot the lo!lo~ ,(3:13). the .e.oe.t i.
•...11y enough under.tood ot the incarnation. It ·1. the o_on
-"7 John r.ter. to Chri.,I. oam1ng 1n the tle.h, K~T~~(~av
 214
Ek TDU oUf~vcG (ct. 6:33, 38, 41, 42, 50, 51, 58), and this
is ~iquely Johannine.53
/.
The primary ditticulty is in uDderstanding the ;xYd.-(>r: f'1. Ktv•
What is to be made ot the pertect tense, which apparently
implies this ascending has already taken place? Barrett
teels this reflects the post-resurrection situation. and John
is reflecting back on the ascension'ot J.sus atter the resur-
rection.54 Bernard (with Lagrange) interpret. the tense only
as a denial that anyone had previously gone into heaven to
know heavenly things: what especially reters to the Son ot
Man is the descent, not the ascent.5S This understanding of
-:Xvo(t6-f'1'" J(H' is more in line with the meaning ot Pro'Y..30:4.·
The que.tions (apparently modelled atter Job 38,cf. Prove
8:24-29) aaked in Prove 30:4 speak ot divine acts, but the
subject is not God (which is precluded by the reterence to
a son and by the ascent-descent motif which shows that earth
is the starting place). Prov.rbs 30:4 should be.understood
then as a sarcastic description of a man who has supernatural
power and understanding and who can speak authoritatively of
Godls nature and adm1niBtration.56 John, knowing that in
Jesus God does have a son, and believing Jesus possessed
Bpecial knowledge of -God.ls nature and administration", has
answered the questions of Prove 30:4 by saying that the Son
of Man is the only one who tits thia description and thus Is
a.ble to speak of things heavenly and thing. earthl,-.57
The notion of someone going up into heaven to obtain
SPiritual knowledge is retlected in Jewish apooalyptic as well:
Enoch (I ER. 70:1 .!i passim), Abraham (TestUlent of Abraham),
and Isaiah ascend to attain such knowledge.58 But as alrea.dy
 215

noted, John reflects more the kind of imagery found in Prove

30:4 and Deut. 30:12 than that in the legends of Jewish apoca-

lyptic.59 Whether the original understanding of the ascent-

descent of the Son of Man had, under the influence of the post-

:re'surrection preaching, come to be understood as a reference to

the ascension it may not be possible to say.60 The order of

ascent-descent is against the later understanding, but it may

have been possible to understand them in a reverse order.

C ..J'./
The variant on v , 13, which introduces the phrase 0 Wy
.J r J ("
~v T~ lal fd.V'f is significant and is relevant to the previous

discussion. The variant is probably not original. The argu-

ments against it advanced by Bernard seem valid,61 and the

papyri (p66, 75) are against it as well. Yet Barrett argues

for it,62 because it presents the difficulty that at the moment

of speaking the Son of Man was on earth. It was to remove this

difficulty that ~, B, W, etc., omit it and the old Syriac version

""~mproves "" It. But th e var i ant may in fact reflect the post-
ascension standpoint when the Son of Man who had descended from

heaven to earth in his incarnation was again in heaven.

If any special meaning is to be attached to the ascent,

it may be that the pre-existence of the Son of Man is in mind, as

l"n the prologue.63 J In this logion .John is developing a theme per-
haps implicit in classical Jewish apocalyptic. In I En. 48:2-3,

though it is doubtful there is a real pre-existence of the Son of

Man, there is the potential for reading the idea into this Son of

Man passage. In the same way that John has reworked many classical

themes of the Son of Man, including the primary function as judge,

~hich appears only in In. 5, the Evangelist has developed the pre-

eJeistence motif by making explicit what was to him at least implicit

in the classical Son of Man tradition.64
 216
The Son of Man is the only one in a position to speak
authoritatively of heavenly things since he alone has ascended
into heaven (that is, in his pre-existence) and has descended
(in his incarnation) to bring this knowledge to men.65 He is
not so obviously the new Israel here as in In. 1:51, but this
idea is not far away. The true people ot God (the new Israel),
who through Jesus the Son ot Man as their Representative have
received the knowledge ot heavenly things, are rejected by
the Jews, the old Israel.66 This way ot understanding the
Son of Man is apparently John's own development ot an inde-
pendent tradition, inasmuoh as there is no iynoptic parallel
to it (though cf. Rom. 10:6, 7; Eph. 4:8-10).67
This interpretation ot the Son ot Man as the new Israel
is underlined by the allusion to Deut. 30:12. What makes this
allusion probable is not only the fact that the ascent-descent
motit is in Deut. 30 (Moses ascended Mt. Sinai, God desoended
in his shekinah glory) but also their similar meaning: Deut.
30 says that Godls commandment is near his people, not far off
where an ascent to heaven to obtain spiritual knowledge and a
descent to reveal it would be required; John 3:13 ascribes to
the Son of Man the unique position of one who has ascended to
heaven (to receive divine knowledge) and descended~o reveal
it) •
The allusion to Deut. 30:12 becomes most striking in
the rendering ot the Targum Neophiti, which reads:

l~n )(~(jQ)( PO" ID

~'I~.J] tlWO
tl :J. -, il n.,( 1 _}.j} {j ~ J~ 7_]~ .,t 1r.J
~ '7 ~ ~J ~ JI ~ In
't
 217
As M. McNamara notes,68 probably the idea of Moses
ascending to heaven to receive the law comes from Ex. 19:20
which .~aks of the LOrd descending on Mt. Sinai and calling
Moses, who then goes up. The theophany at Mt. Sinai is simi-
larly spoken of in Pseudo-Philo and IV Ezra. Since the latter
two works are early (first century A.D.), they suggest the
tradition of the Targum is also early69 and thus possibly con-
temporary to John. Was John thinking that the New Moses70 had
arrived (descended) in the Son of Man after he had ascended to
heaven to receive the New Law to give to the New Israel (of
whom he was also the representative)?71

John 6:62

This Son of Man logion employs the by now familiar

~ ; /
olYo(fol<f15 theme (cf. 1 :51; ):1). Though the Kd.Ta<fol'J'IS is not
used in the logion itself, it can be found in the larger con-
text, having just been used in an important discourse on the
"new manna" (v. 58).72 The ~vo(fo{:Vt-Iv' refers to the ascension
of Jesus after his resurrection, as an examination of the
) I
occurrences of o(V?'Vl:-HI in John indicates. John 20:17 is
particularly relevant, being the only place in the Gospel
where the word is used theologically but not in direct con-
nection with the Son of Man title.7) These post-resurrection
words of Jesus refer to his imminent ascension to heaven. The
meaning is probably the same here in In. 6:62, as will be seen
more clearly later.
) I
How does this ?(VcJ.follVl:-1V relate to the characteristicly
uohann i ne use of u~~vv
T ( ,., ? The two words clearly have similar
Dleanings: means "to ascend", and 0ro~v' refers to
 218

"lifting up". But the theological meaning which John puts

into his use ot these words sets them apart. Some commentators
have taken ~Vrlft'/VEI v to reter to the death of Jesus--that is,
of the start of his going fram earth to heaven.74 C. K. Barrett,
~ I
for example, though not taking ofVrJ..fo'IVl:,J1I' as referring primarily
to the death of Jesus, nevertheless takes it as meaning Jesus
~ A I'
will ascend through death: " • • • the ascending (oiV"'-rcllV"~'Y )

of the Son of Man means at on.. suttering and glory; he returns

where he waS before (cf. 1:1) by mount.1Dg upon the cross. ,,75
But the way in which 1Jvd.~ol.'VbIV is employed elsewhere does
not support this interpretation. "It never refers to the cru-
cifixion, but to the ascension."76 There is no suggestion of
suffering or shame associated with ~Vd..fa«( vbt\{: it connotes
unmixed blessing and glory in exaltation.
( r-
On the other hand, utpou{ is the Johannine word which
suggests glorification through suffering. This is obvious fram
In. 3:14 and particularly In. 12:32-34 tv. 33 leaves no doubt
that the word refers to Jesus' crucifixion). It ±s not just
that Jesus will be litted up to glory after being lifted up to
die. Rather the tvo "lifting up" are identified: Jesus'
glory is his death (cf. 3:14; 3:32ff.). This double meaning
( r
is clear enoueh in the Johannine usage of u'fouv. But it is
not to be found in his use ot =r:
~ I
and it is perhaps
a mistake to import this meaning to ~vJ..f~~w.'v from John'. use
( "... 2f there i s any tie between JOIvo(.(B allV6-IV
of U4JOLIV. I
and the
exaltation-crucifixion motit, it is through their proximity in
some contexts, n~t through any inherent meaning of ~V"'falrt/f:'y'. 77
John 6:62 is notably ditferent trom the previous two
logia employing the ascent-descent motif (1:51; 3:13), in that
 219
it reverses the order trom as.ent-descent to descent-ascent.
This may in fact be a developaent of the motif by the addition
or another ascent, so that what it really presents is ascent-
descent-ascent. John 1:$1 only suggest. the ascent and descent
of the Son of Man; it is In. 3:13 where this i. made explicit
and which is most clearly akin to 6:62. In In. 3:13 the as.ent
and descent theme of Proy. 30:4IDeut. 30:12 was employed. The
"ascent" .erely expressed the ielea that no one had gone up to
heaven to obtain supernatural, spiritual knowledge. The only
one who had this knowledge was the Son ot Man who "descendeer in
his incarnation.78 In In. 6:62, the pre-existence or the Son
or Man is i.plied in the To TTrcfTE-fov• 79 The descant is not
mentioned in 6:62, though it oocurs prior to this logion in
r::'8
6 :.:;1: 1'".) r .)1 ( ) ",) r-. I P
OUTCS E<rTlv 0 OI('TO~ 0 ff( rou oUfol..vo-v l<J.n~olS. robably
\ I
t h i s assertion by Jesus was the rn:'>"'1foSI /l0Y-0_S which ls referred
to in In. 6:60. Again "d.scent" reters to the incarnation.
J , 'J'
But tollowing this descent cames an "ascent,,:80 E"'-Y ovv
J{) _
l-~ WI "l,e
,.
,0
\
v
(
U I OV
\
IDU
I
:.t v&rlJilou
~
oIV~P"I.IVO
"
VT""
(I
01TOU
I)'
'lv -ro
\ I
TfPOT€ fOv;

It the .ention of the "descent" ot Jesus gave otrence to his

hearers, vha~ it they see htm "ascend" where he was berore?
The use ot JoJ.v,J.f.J..I'v£lV in rererring to the ascension
ot Jesu8 is in agreement vith the Synoptic tradition. Smalley
notes this:
But the concept ot exaltation in terms ot 'ascent', u8ing
the yerb ~o(Y~(301.:v€-IY , here as el.evhere in John i8 not
unlike the synoptic pre.entation or a8cension. This appears
to be the case in the post-resurrection announcement to
Mary Magdalene, .JAvrJ.(3ad~L.) ni)~ Tbv Tfd.1tPoA-,.,..N (xx.17); and
ve know that .)..J.VoI.(301.fVElv' was also a traditional 'ascension'
word among _he early Christians (ct. Mark i.10; Rom. x.6;
Eph. iv.8.10). Moreoyer, the saying ot vi.62 is addressed
signitioantly enough to the disciples (61); and a. in the
Synoptios it is to thea in particular that the risen Christ
appears before the ascension. In other words, despite the
 220

eschatological perspective ot the Fourth Gospel, John

still tinds a place tor an 'ascension' which is pegged
out in time, just aa he a180 tind. a place tor a tinal
resurrection and a last day (vi.39t., 44, ~). The theo-
10gie8.1 'comings and goings' ot the Gospel, however, are
more d1.stinctively John's way ot thinking about the sub-
je.c,totJ:ncarnation aI;ldexaltation, using the simple verb
01filyw (John vii.33; xiii.3; xvi.5; .!!.). It is quite
possible, then, that John has preserved here and also in
iii.13 a genuine saying about the ascendancy ot the Son
ot man Which has been reshaped bi
an earlier tradition
and not by his theology at all.8 .
That it should be said that the Son ot Man will ascend
(I '7, I
o IToU '1v TD TI f(JTe:foV is signiticant. It suggests at once the
pre-existence ot the Son of Man: he must have existed prior
to his descent in the incarBation in order tor him to ascend to
the place he was before the descent. 'lhe "place" to which he
will ascend is certainly heaven (trom which he came down, 6:32,
33,38,41,42,50,51,58), as 3:13 makes clear. "No one ever
went up into heaven except the one who came down fram heaven,
the Son of Man whose home is in heaven." (NEB) In In. 20:17 it
is "to his Father" that Jesus is to ascend (cf. 1:1, "the Word
was with God.").
Pre-existence is not an unknown theme tor the Son ot Man
in Jewish apocalyptic. In Dan. 7 the Son of Man is not said
explicitly to have been pre-existent, but some interpreters
have seen this idea in the passage. I Enoch is much more explicit ,
especially in I En. 48:2, 3, where there is no question that the
Son ot Man had a pre-mundane existence. Similarly IV Ezra 13:3
is clearly interpreted in 13: 26, 52, as referring to the Son ot
Man's pre-existence. But John does not make as much of this
attribute as these Jewish apocalyptic works do. For, though
rI /)' \ I
pre-existence is implied in the C>1TlJlJ ,?V TO l1fOT€fDV (6:62), it
is only implicit, being neither fully explicated nor given any
 221
real praminence.82 In tact John's Gospel makes very littleot
the Son of Manis pre-existence (though ct. the logos prologue).
In this respect the Johannine Son of Man agrees with the Synoptic_
where there is no undisputed logion connecting the Son of Man
with pre-exist.nce.83
A noteworthy similarity of In. 6:62 to 3:13 is in the
contrast between tJ1~ and 7TV&Cr-..I-
• John 3:13 is really the
cl i max (in the contrast of the J
~1TI
'~i
Y"~ w th the J-z.J
~ 7 oo fo(v 0
'"
v )

to the contrast ot flesh and spirit, introduced in In. 3:6 by

/ )1
way of explanation of the yeYGvv'If"-""voy o!Yw~v'. In the same way
In. 6:62 climaxes the discussion of offence taken at Jesus'
words in the preceding section of the chapter (the ultimate
offence occurring at his "ascent", v. 62). The discussion
goes back to the words ot Jesus that he who eats his flesh
and drinks his blood will have eternal life (6:50_ 51,54,
58). Jesus' words are spiritual and life-giving (v. 63), in
contrast to '\he flesh". The meaning here, as in 3:13, is that
the Son ot Man otfers spiritual words which, it heeded (if the
hearers "believe on the Son of Man, 3:13, 14, and "eat th.e flesh
of the Son of Man", 6:53, 54), will give eternal life, since the
spirit gives life (6:63a) and the words ot Jesus are "spirit"
(6:63b). This emphasis on the spiritual recalls In. 1:51 Where
the Son of Man maintains continuous contact with. heaven, indi_
cating the spiritual nature ot his ministry.
The contrast ot the ETlt T~t r~~84 with the €~ oUfa(v~,
as in In. 3:13, is emphasized in John 6. The Son ot Man has
came down fram heaven (where he will go again, 6:62), 6:32, 33,
38,41, Al. This co~ast was implied in In. 1:51, where the
ascent and descent of the angels ot God signified the continuous
 222
contact of the Son of Man with God, bridging the gap between
earth and heaven. The emphasis of 6:62, associating this
theme with the Son of Man, is on his bringing heavenly know-
ledge--the words of eternal 1ife~down to earth, to those who
will see and believe the "greater things" promised (1:51) at
the beginning of his ministry.
The phrase, "seeing the Son of Man ascending", is
reminiscent of the promise in In. 1:51 of "seeing greater
things", the angels of God ascending and descending on the
Son of Man.86 But more significantly it recalls the Synoptic
parousia predictions, particularly Mk. 14:62& "You will see
the Son of Man seated at the right hand of God and coming
with the clouds of heaven." (NEB) Is it possible that John
knew the same sort ot tradition as that Mk. 14:62 recalls,
speaking of"-s-eeirigthe Son of Man" in his tuture glory? As
Schnackenburg suggests,87 the Johannine -exaltation" may be
his equivalent ot the Synoptic "sitting at the right hand of
God". But John ditfers tram the Synoptics in that he applies
the "seeing" to the ascension of the Son ot Man (just as in
Acts 1:4ff, especially v. 11), whereas the Synoptics emphasize
the coming ag.ta in glory (parousia).
The structure of the logion is difficult to analyse.
Bernard89 calls it an Naposiopesis"--that is, a sentence whioh
omits the apodosis. What might have been expected was II
" ouv
"i'
~\ tfl " , (\ -
€:oJ..v
l)"€Wf'1l~ Tev UfOV' K,T.A., and the omission otTI is awkward.
The important question is how the sentence should b. oamp1eted.
Should it be understood that it the condition is tulfi1led
(seeing the Son ot Man ascending where he •• s beto.e) that the
ottence will be heightened (that is, this verse asks indirectly
 223
the question asked in Y. 67, Bultmann90) or that the
80

ortenc. will dis~ppear (so Bau.r91)1 C. K. Barr.tt rollows

Westcott92 in opting tor both meanings, since they are not
exclusive ot each other and .ach s....s to b.ar a part ot the
rull m.aning ot the verse. Barrett cGmbines the two vi.ws by
understanding th.m as rer.rring to Jesus' death: his ascension
will be by way ot the cross.
'l'hewhole proc.ss ot the return or Christ to the glory
or the Father, including as it did the crucitixion, was
both the supreme scandal, and the vindication or Christ
as the bread ot lite; and, at the same time, the proot
that eating his tlesh and drinking his blood was n.ither
murderous nor magical. 'l'hisallusion to the scandal ot
the cross also makes clear the nature ot the ottence
given by Jesus in the course ot his ministry.93
J ,
But in view ot the above discussion ot cXVd.f'" I vetV', John cannot
be thought to be speaking primarily ot the crucitixion in 6:62.
) I
In tact o(v"'~ai Ivcrl is never used ot the death ot Jesus. In
this context in particular any reterence or the ascent to Jesus'
Cl (j' , I
death is precluded by Dncu T)Y TO nfOTE-fov. Where the Son ot
Man was bet ore and where he will ascend again is not the cross
but heaven.
Perhaps it is possible to reconcile the tvo meanings
suggested by the aposiopesis94 by rememb.ring the Wwo groups
into which Jesus' heal'.rs tell. 'l'heunbelievers (v. 64, "there
are same ot you that believe not") and those who tinally rejected
Jesus (v. 66, "Many ot his disciples went back and walked no
more with him") would be completely scandalized(just as they
were by his descent, 6:38,41) by his ascension.95 Jesus'
disciples (6:68, 69), on the other hand, who might now find
his words "hard", would then (at his ascension) see that he
had not been speaking ot an~hropophagy. For them the ascension
will be a vindication ot Jesus' words. But there is also the
 224
suffering which will came to them as well. Schulz calls
attention to this: "Die Auffahrt des Menschensohnes in den
Himmel wird die JUnger allein aut der Erde zurucklassen, und
deutlich wird man an die Situation der Abschiedsreden erinnert,
!L_" '\ I
die angesichts des Weggangs Jesu fur die Junger durch I\1J1T'1 und
@A~~IS gek.nnzeichnet ist.,,96 But when he goes beyond this to
compare the tarewell speeches of Jesua (14:18f.; 16:16t.),
Schulz too easily substitues ascension :for parousia, :failing
to support his view that John has transferred these parousia
elements to an ascension logion. On the other hand, the com-
patibility of this "ascent" word with the other Johannine Son
of Man "ascant" sayings points to a cammon theme in John into
which this logion fits,97 perhaps rather than to the modification
of a p~evious parousia saying.
This interpretation clarifies just how this logion
fits into its context. Jesus' hearers have just confessed
that his words were 'if 1<." Y) f c!s. But Jesus says that if his
descent fram heaven and the act of taith response it requires
("eating the tlesh o:f the Son ot Manll, v. 53) were hard, those
who cannot believe this will be even more orrended at his ascen-
sion back to where he was before.98 Not all disbelieved, as
Peter's contession (6:68, 69) shows, and they will have their
questions of faith resolved at Jesus' ascension.
What further understanding of the Son or Man does John
give bisreaders in this logion? Both the heavenly and the
earthly aspects ot the Son or Man are present, both his divine
and his human side. The divine nature is clear rram the allu-
sion to this pre-existence ("where he was berore") and to his
return (ascension) to that place or pre-existence (heaven).99
 225
The human nature of the Son of Man is implied in the reference
to descent in incarnation: "I am the bread come down from
heaven" (6:41). Yet even in his incarnation the Son ot Man
is one with the Father: "For I am come down from heaven,
not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me"
(6: 38).
Besides the christology in this section, there is a
strong emphasis on soteriology. This is put most graphically
in another Son ot Man saying in this passage, v. 53: "unless
you eat the tlesh ot the Son of Man and drink his blood you
can have no life in you." The consequence of one's faith in
or rejection of the Son of Man is implied in 6:62. It the
descent of the Son ot Man was a stone of stumbling, his ascen-
sion will have an even greater effect on his hearers: same
will be utterly offended; other. will have their faith vindi-
cated or restor.d. The exaltation (ascenaion) of the Son of
t"\

Man will bring life to those who aee it (&~wf~r~,

cf. the
soteriology ot 3:14; cf. 5:40).100 This in turn is akin to
the suggestion ot a collective view of the Son of Man, "the
inclusive representative of true humanity". 101

Exalted and Glorified (=Crucified)

John 3:14
Here is another Joaannine Son of Man log ion which is
illustrated by an Q.T. event--in this case it is the account
of the brazen serpent, described in Numbers 21, made by Moses
and set up as a cure tor the plague of snake.. The Johannine
I og i on uses th e Q ••
T text merely as an illustration, 102 appar-
ently ~ith no concern to follow the text literally, since there
 226
is no parallel wording of John with either the MT, the LXX
'" 1 03 ), or the Targumim.
(possibly the source of John's <1'I1fE.IO\l
The points ot similarity between the O.T. event and the truths
John wishes his readers to know about the Son ot Man are tound
in the tact that the serpent was "litted up" and that considering
this (f'1ff:It:JV ("believing on it") meant lite. It was iJaportant
to introduce the O.T. illustration at this point because the
Son ot Manis being litted up, 0lfW~V.Ll, might have been taken
as equivalent to the ~Vrj_~aL(v E:I Y ot 3:13: the illustration ot
the serpent clearly show. that a wider .eaning is intended.104
John uae. Oo/v8v to d.scribe the erection of the serpent
on the pole as a symbol ot the Son ot Man in such a way that it
reters both to Jesus' crucifixion and to his exaltation:105 his
exaltation ia through his crucitixion. This word play is most
likely based on an Aramaic word which was capable ot both meanings.
. 106
In a ~ecent comprehensi •• aisc.ssion ot this question, Martin
McNamara summarizes the various views which have suggested three
ditterent Aramaic words 101 as the source of the Johannine 0'f w ~\lolL-
I
(JTau,wl9-:lv~(-dO~aL6~V~t word play.

Th. ~irst Aramaic wora, ~p-r or ~.,?;r~,vas

tirst suggested
by C. Lattey 08 in 1912, and later supported by E. A. Abbott.109
F. C. Burkitt,110 howeyer, telt that4f' was not a fitting
Semitic correspondent
(
to Ulfeuv
rt
, since 4~l" meant "to ere.t,
atake, tix, or hang" but "hardly ever" was it us•• ot "raising
to a higher level." lie auggested instead a" 1~ (Hebrew 0" 1if )
which means "to exalt" a. well as "to raise to a higher le.el.,,111
But as McNamara notes, there is no indication taat tI' , ~ meant
to die, so it could not be used in the kind ot pun which John
employs. The word which McNamara favors is r? u, which was
 227

suggested by C. C. Torrey.112 But Torrey gave the word (in

particular the reflective f(.{\n~) a meaning which was foreign
to the context of John. McNamara suggests the Ithpaal of ftO
was used to mean "to die", as Jastrow cites it. Though this
particular meaning might have been expected from the meaning
in Hebrew, it has been disputed.113 Now it is confirmed in
the Palestinian Targum1m: Numbers 11:26 and 21:1 (bis) in
Neophiti use it and the Fragment Targum has it in Deut. 32:1.
But 'thisword, f 7u, has as many drawbacks as McNamara finds
with 1?~: when used in the sense of "lift up", it usually
means "to suspend", as "to tuck up the trail of a garment",
or suspend in the sense of "dismissing SOMeone from office".114
When used of a person rising, it often means "to rise to go,
to remove oneself". (Ab. I, 16: Targum Y. Ex. 12:43; Keth. 106·).
The objection to ~r't as the D.•8is for John's pun ls
mainly that it means "to hang, to erect" rather than "to raise
to a new level". Were it t~ue that this precise nuance in
meaning is absent,·it could be asked whether such a fine dis-
tinction i8 valid. The pun could perhaps have been made just
the same.115 But it may not be that this nuance is lacking
from the word. The occurrences of 1tl' in biblical Hebrew
(Psa. 145:14; 146:8) both refer to the mercy of the Lord in
straightening (that is, raising: 145:14, ~lil,/; 146:8, ~r..1-)
those who are bowed down. Though it is true that in the strictest
sense of the word, 4t' reters here to making erect, the basic
meaning is still "to raise", even "to elevate", since implIed
is the idea that the erect position is more "exalted" than the
prostrate or bowed. Turning to biblical AramaiC, in Ezra 6:11
he who alters the decree of Darius is to be "lifted Up" and
fastened on a beam from his house.
228

Here ,f
execution by hanging, but it seemed necessary to make this
r is used of

clear by using 'X n n..n'1. The idea of raising up and lifting

'I. : :.
up is inseparable from the basic meaning of the word, but
1'16
the sense of "hanging to death" had to be indicated. G.
117
Kittel has discussed the relevant passages: 27' came to
be the special word for hanging, butl~f could bear this
meaning was "t'o hang
meaning as well, though its more coIlllfton
up, uplift, erect." In conclusion, there appears to be no
insuperable argument against I~" as the source of John I s
word playo118
Another important issue arises from the use of &€l in
this logion.119 The same terminology occurs in In. 12:34,
where again "the Son of Man must be lifted up" (cf. In. 8:28).
These logia are especially reminiscent of Mk. 8:31 (cf. Mk.
9:31 and 10:32f). The similarity ot these synoptic passion
predictions to In. 3:14. as noted by R. SChnackenburg,120
points to a definite relationship. Schnackenburg argues
convincingly that it is basically the Synoptic tradition,
modified to meet John's own purpose and meaning, which is
behind the Johannine Son of Man logia. He is at pains to
.how other traces of Syno,~lo tradition which John has modi-
fied, reinterpreted, and made part ot his OWn Gospel.121 It
John has done this in other areas, may he not haye done so
with the Son ot Man traditltm'" This view is confirmed by
various parallels ot Johannine sayings to Synoptic sayings, 122
as here in In. 3:14 where the passion predictions are reflected.
A. Mo Hunter suggests that Jno 3:14; 8:28; and 12:32, 34 corres~
pond to the three Synoptic predictions in Mk. 8:31; ~:31; and
 229
10:32f. Furthermore, since the Johannine forms are less
detailed than the SynoptiC, they are conceivably more anciento123
Along the same linea, M. Black has pointed out the
agreement of this "pre-Johannine" saying (3:14) with the
'\ t' "J i'I' cl
Synoptic saying in Ik. 24:7, ,011 UIOV TOU OIVCttWTT{J() OTt

&, ... tj'rc:J.uf~:lP;iv'Jt, and the "exaltation christology· ot Lk ,

24:26, which may indicate Luke and John depended on a common
tradition.124 The ambiguoua Aramaic expression behind this
tradition could in fact be dominical: it could certainly
explain how Mk. 9:31, which is clear .nough in Greek, might
have been misunderstood in Aramaic by those who heard it.
John solved the ambiguity ot the Aramaic by taking both
meanings, exaltation ~ crucitixiono125
Schnackenburg suggests that the O.T. background behind
the Johannine passion sayings is Isa. 53, the prophecy of the
Servant of the Lord. This O.T. testimonium may have been the
inspipation of John's exaltation-glorification ChristOlogy.126
What makes this suggestion extre.ely plau81ble is the fact that
the two prOJllinentJohannine con.epta, t5lf"wl91VaLt-So~J~VM.' are
used synonymously in Isa. 52:13: "Behold, myaervant shall
pro.per, he shall be lifted up, exalted to the heights." (NEB)
j c , (., \ (ll! ' r: ~ ~I
Ioou auv'1U"cl 0 1l~/S 1AOlJ) Kd..1 UtVw"'1<JeToL( {(ott 007c1.a'IT'1CTeToLl

<Tf oI 6-f~. Th. christological use of this testimonium. is quite

r\ \
early, for it appears in Phil. 2:9-11 (v. 9, d-I() /<rJ.i 0
(dJ'
lYC"~
o(t;T~v J-nf:.p6'fw(Jev-). But John's contribution beyond the earlier
christology was this, "da~ er die Stmtde der dBrb.'emung· am
Kreuz schon auch als die der .Verherrlichung· betrachtete (vglo
12, 32t. mit 32 34c J 13:31 t.; 17:11".)••127 But it is possible
that even this development was pre-Johannine, going back to
the amb1gUOWI Ar_ic 1ft.
 230

The Johannine crucirixion-exaltation-glorltication

concept then ia readily explainable in terma or its inapijation
in Iaa. 52:13, where the LXXusea c:fo~ Clc1'~(JtTd.t. and 1/('fW~~tld l ,

two ot the' ideaa, and ot the Aramaicpun on 1fr' whioh

supplies the third idea (J'Pw~V.Ll = aToIufw~Va.L )0 The Iaaianie
inspiration would be even more tirmly establ,lshed it the Hebrew
n·/l; '1:rt~ were translated b7 the Aramaic 1r t, laying the
roundation tor the Johannine do\1ble,usage (0'fW~V(H - (JT~Ufk)tshiVil.l)o

The Targumdoes not use 1r~(it u.ses D~" '"7) but this need not
rule out the possibility ~~'7' could have been used in a pre-
or non-Targulldetranslation. On the other hand, it is not
really neceasary to posit that (~.,.. was originally used in
Iaa. 52:13 at all, though ,tt: is a possibility. (Indeed it
is the lXX's use ot Jpl.V~Vd-.( -Jo~k~vo-<. which moat clearl,.
demonstrates John's use of Isa. 52:13J A tradition ~elating
I~'t to the crucitixion-exaltation ot Jesus could have been
circulated independently, and then haTe been connected to
Isa. 52:13 as a testimonium which gave O.T. author.it7 to the
paradoxical humiliation-exaltation of Jesus.
This exaltation christology (including the uniquely
Johannine identification of the crucifixion with the exaltation)
maywell have early roots. The use of V'%~1I in reference to
Christ is rather infrequent in the N.To, occurring, signifi-
cantlyenough, only in Phil. 2:9 (0Tl~v~o'w, the only occur-
rence in the N.T.) and Acts 2:33 and 5:31, where there is a
christoloS7 of exaltation.128 "'rhis suggest. that Isaiah 52:13
applied to the Son of Mancirculated as a testimonium indepen-
dently and bet ore the Fourth Evangelist adopted and possibly
adapted it.·' 29 The probRble source or John's identification
 231

of the crucifixion with the exaitation in the Aramaic 'I p'f

suggests as well an early origin in an Aramaic-speaking
milieu, probably in Palestine, prior to John.
This particular logion is worthy of notice for what
it reflects of Johannine theology. An explicitly soteriological
purpose for the Son of Manis exaltation-crucifixion is given

in Vo 1:5
(I
I y~
...
TlcJ.S
Cl)
0 rr ICTTE.U wv ev cJu''1 fA'~
j ("I Jf
(w,'"
'2 \ J I
cl.IIANIDV'
(
cf.
3:16ff.; 3:36). As the lifting up of the serpent pictured
the lifting up of the Son of Man, so the healing effect of
looking upon the serpent pictured the salvatory .rfect of
believing on the exalted-crucified Son of Man. "Those who
looked in faith upon the brasen serpent uplifted before them
were delivered fram death by poison; those who look in faith
upon the Crucified lirted up on the cross, shall be delivered
from the death of sin.~30 In this respect, John's thought
(which is even more explicit in 6:40; cf. Gal. 3:1) follows
more the line taken in old Jewish interpretations of the brazen
serpent than that taken in the later Ohristian interpretations.
',Barrett cites Barnabas 12:5-7; Justin~I Apol. 60: Trypho 94,
112; Tertullian Adv. Marc. III, 18, who treat the seDPent as a
tYpe of Christ, which is not John's intention.131) Wisdom
16:5-7 (NEB) says:
Even when fierce and rurious snakes attacked thy people
and the bites of writhing serpents were spreading death,
thy anger did not continue to the bitter end; their short
trouble was sent them as a lesson, and they were given a
symbol of salvation to remind them of the requirements or
thy law. '.For any man who turned towards it was saved, not
by the thing he looked upon but by thee, the eaviour of allo
Similarly in Rosh ha...rShanah
3:8:
But could the serpent slay or the serpent keep alive1--it
is, rather, to teach thee that such time as the Israelites
directed their thoughts on high and kept their hearts in
subjection to their Father in heaven, they were healed.
 232

nAs in the old Jewish interpretation the up1itted serpent drew

the hearts ot Israel to God tor their salvation, so the uplifted
Jesus drew men to himself and so gathered to God those whe were
his children (cf. 12: 32 J 11: 52). n1 32 If a dootrine of atone-
ment is not spelled out explicitly here, at least the ground-
work tor it is 1a·ld.
This aoterio1ogy is tuther elaborated by the Evangelist
in TV. 16-21. Verse 16 reiterates the purpose ot God's love in
2. \ j I 133
sending his unique aon: that men might have /WYlV ~ltAYlov, by
believing on him (possibly an allusion to the binding ot Isaac
in Gen. 22, thus equating the "giving" of the Son with his
being "lifted up.134).This sa1vatory purpose is contrasted
with judgment (condemnation), possibly .et against the back-
ground ot the Son of Man's tunction as judge in Jewish apoca-
lyptic (and ct. In. 5:27). ' The judgment is not tutur., but
has already come (vv. 1 8-1 9), inasmuch as tho.e who have nat
believed on God's San are judged already. In 3:36 wrath is
said to abide on those who do not believe in the Son. The
judgment is related to John's theme ot light (v. 19). This
light judges men's works by casting light on them and shOWing
them to be either good or evil and accordingly showing who has
believed on tho Son and who has not.
t ...,
It the "crucifixion" If' oov
altde ot the Johannine pun on (,.)
is soterio10gical, the "exaltation· side is chriatological.
By his use ot the O.T. event in Num. 21, John does not in·tend
135
the serpent to be a type ot Christ. Rather it ls the "lifting
up· which he has in mind.136 John's choice ot this event trom
the history ot Israel shows again what is recurrent in hia
presentation ot the Son ot Man--namely, that he is the New Israel~
 233
As God intervened to bring salvation in the old Israel, so
He has intervened again to bring salvation in the New Israel.
The corporate aspect of the new order (New Israel) cannot be
pressed in this context however. It is only Jesus as the
supreme representative of the New Order, who is to be lifted
up in crucifixion (and believed on tor eternal.-life).
But prominent as the litting up in crucifixion is,
there is another aspect of John's exaltation ch:hi8tology.
This is noted by Loisy:137
Cependant cette (0( el'Tatio~ n "puise pas tout le ·s.ns.
du text., et llauteur s'est abst.nu de determiner le
verbe par un complement circonstanciel, atin que la
pensee du lect.ur puiss. passer, de l'exaltation materi-
ell. sur 1. croix, a l'exaltation spirituelle dans la
gloire, la premiere 'tant la condition providentiell.
et aussi la figure de la secondeo
A similar statement is made by Schlatter:138 "Das glbt dem
c
Ulfl.A.~V(_( die positive Bedeutung der Jesus offenbarenden Ver-
herrlichung." Here is another Johannine paradox~ the Son
of Man must be both humiliated and exaltedo
The Evangelist
elaborates his christology in the fol-
lowing section, 3:16-21 •1 39 Bultmann says v. 16 answers the
question, posed b¥ Vo 15, why taith in the uplifted Son of
Man gives lifeo140 It is basically a ·sonship· christology
in this sectiono141 God gives his unique .!.2!l that the'Storld
might have eternal life, v. 16. Again in v. 17, God sends
his son, and in Vo 18, belief is necessary in God's unigue
~.142 John takes up this ·sonship· christology once more
in the last section ot this chapter, 3:31-36, after briefly
mentio~ again the contrast between the earthly and the
heavenly, recalling the ~Y~tol/VCI v- K<J..T1r1. /Vel v Son of Man
 234
christo10gyof 3:13. This time the Evangelist completes the
christo10gica1 picture by referring to God as the Father who
loves the ~ (v. 35; cf. v. 36, where ·Son" appe~rs again).
And, as so often i. the case, this christb10gy is closely
related to the soterio10gy,143 vo 36.

John 8:28
Once again the Son of Man is spoken of in terms of
~ lfOVV. Bernard, however, feels that in In. 8:28, II Lhp oVv'

must relate to the lifting up on the cross, and not to the

'lifting up. of the ascension, for the latter was not in any
sense ~he act of the Jews, as the Crucifixion was (cf. Acts
3:14).~44 Nevertheless it seems in keeping with John's over-
all understanding of 0'P0Gv' and it appears suitable to the
present context that both meanings of u~oCv are intended.145
The double meaning is particularly appropriate here, as Barrett
notes,146 in that the exaltation of Jesus will vindicate his
claim and the lifting up in crucifixion will prove how com-
pletely Jesus was obedient to the will of his Father who sent
him.147
/
The consequence of this lifting up is said to be TOT~

yV~(jt(JSt O'TI kr~ t1r-l.148 The )~rW e7f-l seems to begin an

unfinished clause, giving rise to the question whether a pre-
dicate:-shou1d be supp1ied.149 The more immediate context
would suggest that "Son of Man" fram the preceding clause
is the implied predicate: ~en you have lifted up the Son
of Man, then you will know that I am he (that is, I am the
Son of Man) 01 50 But the wider eontexa, the use of f r c::, e.t
fA l
in John 6 and in the whole Gospel, suggests that B2 predicate
 235

is to be supplied at all. Rather this is the absolute ·1 AM"

of divine proclamation. Ro Brown lists this as one of four
occurrences where it is clear that an absolute ~yt,;f-1ftl with
no predicate is used,151 tbPee of which occur in Jno 8 (vv. 24,
28, and 58; cfo 13:19). There is no doubt this absolute
meaning is intended in 8:58, suggesting this is the meaning
throughout the chaptero
;' I
Whichever view is taken (supplying a predicate to trW
e-(
)
i" or taking it as an absolute), the sentence has the style
of a divine proclamation.152 And the meanings of Son of Man
and I AM (as a divine appellative) are not necessarily mutually
exclusiveo The first react~ of Jesus' hearers (or John's
readers) to the "I am· might have been to add the Son of Man
as predicate, implied by the preceding clause. But charac-
teristic of Johannine sty,le (and of the "Son of Man" title
as wel1153) there ia a deeper meaning than the apparent oneo
ThOilewho reflect on this saying, those with eyes to see and
ears to hear, will recognize that while a great deal is to
be perceived of Jesus' person as Son of Man, • • • 0 it d.oes
not fit John's thought that the ulttmate insight into the
1 54 As Brown
exalted Jesus would be that he is Son of Man ...
points out, the climactic confession of Jesus in John's Gospel
is 20:28 where he is confessed to'be ·Lord and God". It is
fully in keeping with this final contession that the divine
~yw fl~l should be read in 8:28. 155 This possibility is even
) I .>

more likely if Braun Is .'uggestion is correct that Isa. 43:1 0

(which uses the divine ·1 am·) is reflected. here.156
There are more consequences to the lifting up of the
Son of Man than knowing who Jesus is. The Jtl governa not
 236
1 57
just the ~rw
) I J
G/fA-t but also the tollowing clauses f<oll
\).J
0I.1T'
"
ErdVTOV

tio c W
.) /
OU~EV~
)olAAol \ If'_' _
t(cl..C'"ws
) Cl
E<~I~ol
4
~f-V
I ( ,
f.to 7fc(T'1f
n \ \..n
TJUTJ..,I\cJ.)\W. Verses
26 and 28 are complementary in this respect: in Vo 26 Jesus
claims that he doea not !!1 anything ot himself; in v. 28 he
neither does nor says anything ot htmselt.158 Similar words
occur in 5:19, 30; 7:28; 12:49; and 14:10, and are reminiscent
ot what Moses sai4 regarding his work (Num. 16:28)0159 The
import ot the widespread use ot this expression for the Sonls
relation to the Father goes beyond the clear truth that no man
is able to do anything except by the p""er which God gives him.
The meaning here is protoundly theological, expressing as it
does the deep intimacy ot the Father and the Son, to -the pOint
that they are ot one will and that the words and deeds ot the
Son are always in accordance with the will of the Father who
sent him (3:17). Any ~~"VO'(c!. (10:18) the Son has is deri ...
ed
tram the Father. -Thus the Incarnate Son i8 represented as
continually .eeing on earth what the Father .is doing in heaven,
and as Himself doing the same thing.~60 What this particular
teaching expresses of the Father-Son relationship in John applies
equally ~ell to the Son ot Man. This i8 ot course relevant to
the logion under consideration: atter the litting up ot 'the
Son ot Man, it will be known that Jesus did nothing ot himselt.
The Son was obedient to~ the Father even to the point ot dying
on the cross (cto Phil. 2:8). This obedienca, clearly known
after the lifting up, was characteristic ot the whole ministry
ot the Son of Man. What this particular logion says about the
Son of Man was first said in Jno 1 :51, where tha permanent con-
tact between heaven and earth 1 61 established by the Son of Man
was tirst manifested. John 8:28 is a developmeAt ot this thought
 237
(of the communion with the Father. as A. Schlatter put it162)
in terms more explicit and more specifically applied to the
ministry of Jesus.
The tact that Jesus' hearers are divided into two
campa. his enemies and his triends.163 fits the judicial con-
text in which this logion is set. The Johannine motifs of
"witness" (r-d.rrUf'cL.( 8:13-18) and -judgment - I
(Kr'll-IS. v, 1Sf ••
26) are here.164 But the Son of Man is not primarily judge
here (as he is in In. 5:27; cf. 12:47);165 rather he is the
defendant. Jesus. hearers must pass 'ju4gment" on him with
regard to his claims which will be vindicated by his being
"lifted up". The traditional Jewish theme (seen in Dan. 7)
of honor through suffering. or in more judicial terms in this
context. of trial. judgment. and eclipse then vindication. is
clearly seen0166 It is in terms of this theme applied to the
Son of Man. rather than the apocalyptic. heavenly Son of Man
as judge. that this saying is to be understood. When the Son
of Man has been exalted in his crucifixion. then recognition
of the truth of Jesus' claims will foll"".
One may well ask how this lifting up is related to
the recognition of who Jesus is and how it vindicates his claimso
If the Jews did not acknowledge Jesus before his crucifixion.
how will they do so at~erwards? Bernard thinks that. when it
is too late. they will be convinced by the press~e of facts
(including the fall of Jerusalem) that what Jesus had said was
I , fL
true. He takes this as the meaning of ,<'Tf- yV'wu€-liC'e • regret
but not repentance, rather than the conviction of sin for not
believing Jesus (cf. 16:8. 9)0168 But if, as Braun says,169
knowing and believing are synonymous in John, this is impossible.
 238
What must also be taken into consideration are the statements
(7:34, 36, and 8:21, though these may be interpreted otherwise)
that when Jesus is gone, they (the Jews?) will seek him but
will not find him.170 Perhaps what is more in view in this
logion is that believers.will have their doubts cleared and
will understand after the crucifixion and exaltation, as they
had not understood before, Jesus' special relationship of inti-
( ..,
macy and obedience to God the Father (seen in the ~ouv of
crucifixion), as well as the fullest meaning of his being Son
of Man and the divine "I am" (seen in the t5l.jJo'J.; of exaltation).
The solution may then lie in part in the double meaning of 0fDGV.
The Son of Man is seen as lowly, humble, and obedient
to the will of God to the point of being lifted up in crucifixion
Th~s crucifixion is at once his humiliation and his glorification
It implies a certain hiddenness of his glory, so that the Jews
did not knOW' Jesus to be who he was, else they would not have
crucified him (I Cor. 2:8). b. noted before,171 the Son of Man
in John has many of the aspects of the Synoptic messianic secret.
The same seems to be true here: the real nature of who Jeaus
is will be hidden until after his lifting up, then the wecret
"Like l ""
lJ'¥OUV it Cthe Son of ManJ has a special
will be knOW'no

appropriateness here, if we are ~i8ht in seeing in it a refer-

ence both to the supernatural heavenly man, and to the real
human existence of Jesus.,,172 The human side of the Son of Man
would of course be obvious: the weakness and humiliation ot
the Son of Man were clearly seen in the J'Po~1I1 ot crucifixion.
But the secret to be known afterwards is that there is more to
come 0 .The Son ot Man will be lifted up in exaltation and glorY'
and his glorious nature as the Son ot God and Lord (In. 20:28)
 239
will be then known. It is to those "with eyes to see and
ears to hear" that the .fullness ot the meanings both in the
"li4'ti"
~ ng up and the o( v I(>S
t \. ~)
,QU Oi.vt.::Jfwnov
In I
will be known.
It is significant that there is a similar $uggestion o.f this
hiddenness to be revealed in Jn • 12:32tf., where the crowd
expresses its perplexity as to the identity of the Son ot
Man.173 This situation is also reminiscent ot that described
in Mk. 8:27-31: the common tolk are quite puzzl.d as to Jesus'
true identity, but the disciples who have added spiritual
insight (".ye. to s....) know that Jesus is the Christo174
Th.re are other conn.ctions with the Synoptic tradition.
The sam. situation pertains to In. 8:28 as to In. 3:14, where
a detinite re.flection ot (and relationship to) the Synoptic
passion pr.dictions was tound.175 Although the (apooalyptic)
$&1 do.s not occur in In. 8:28, as it does in 3:14~and 12:32-34,

the logion seems to ret16et the Synoptic pattern or passion

(I
predictions. The torce o.f the DT~V here implies a certainty
which may in tact be equivalent to the SE-f , though lacking the
theological connotations.
The content of the lO8ion, describing same consequence
of the passion, is similar to Mt. 17:9, tor example, where it
is said that only atter the ~esurrection·will the disciple.
be tree to tell ot the transfiguration (then the "seer.t"
can be proclaimed). This is the pattern also in Mk. 8:38:
at som. time lIubl!equent,to his coming in glory the Son ot
Man will be ashamed ot those who were ashamed or him.176 So
it is in In. 8: 28 that 8Ub.e~ to the litting up ot the
Son ot Man his hearero will know who he is and the truth of
what he said and did. Here in ~ohn the consequence of the
Son of Man's passion and exaltation is tied back to the
relationship of his hearers to Jesus before his crucifixion.
It is often observed that the Johannine Son of Man
sayings cannot be forced into the common groupings of the
Synoptic logia: earthly ministry, passion, and exaltation-
glorification of the Son of Man. This is clearly the case
with the saying under consideration, which Smalley says
belongs to all three groups.177 As he notes, the "defendant
to judge tt rOle178 of the Son of Man is present here and in-
volves at least the passion and future glory of the! Son of
Man, as well as his present ministry which is being called
into question. John's Son of Man is clearly ~elated to the
Synoptic, but is developed along obviously distinctive lines.

John 12:23

There are two Johannine logia which speak of the

glorification of the Son of Man, In. 12:23 and 13:31. The
,
whole pattern of thought which connects ~a~~ and
r
0
r,
0 \0S ,0 v,..
~vl9f w".ou is of crucial importance and should be carefully

examined.
Because of the significance of the appearance of
the Gentiles on the scene,179 this Son of Man saying is often
traced to the Jewish-Gentile conflicts of the early church in
180
the late first century. But there may be some old tradition
behind this passage, as the difficulties of the narrative
suggested to Brown,181 since an almost identical logion OCCurs
in Mk. 14:41.182 On the other hand, Johannine elements are
present. The Greeks asked to "see" Jesus. "See" in this
context probably means litovisit or meet", but it may carry
as well the Johannine sense of "believe in.,,183 This latter
sense is suggested by C. H. Dodd,184 Lagrange,185 and Moore.186
Though it is possible this sense is implied, it is not devel-
oped in the verses which follow.
The words attributed to Jesus in v. 23 begin with the
phrase
) \ '\
£A""U~VCL (Cl
'1 "'fot. The mention of "the hour" is typi-
cally Johannine.187 There is a definite progression of this
theme in John (as well as in the Synoptics to a lesser extent188).
Prior to In. 12:23 Jesus' hour had not yet come: in 2:4 there
is the hint that Jesus should manifest himself as the Messiah,
but the time for this has not yet come; in 7:30 and 8:20 the
Jews attempt to take Jesus, but again his time has not yet
,
come. (Notice also 7:6, 8, where Jesus I KeHrDS is not yet.)
But from 12:23 onwards the hour has come. In 12:23 it is the
hour for his glorification through his death (from which he
is tempted in 12: 27 to ask his Father to deliver him). In
13:31, 32, Jesus recognizes that the hour has come for his
departure from the earth to the Father. Several times in
chapter 16 Jesus speaks of the hour which is to come for
his disciples when they too will suffer (16:2, 4, 21, 25, 32).
. 189
The progression of this theme is noted by A. George, who
describes the meaning of the "hour" for John: "Clest llinstant
otii1 ach~ve sa mission terrestre (xvii.4, 6, 8), o~ i1 quitte
1es siens et vient ~ son P~re (xvii.11-13) dans 11acte sacri-
\\
ficie1 de sa mort (xviio19), ou il demande sa Gloire de Fils
Unique (xvii.1, 51)." George has noted the paradoxical
situation that, important to Johnls thought as the prayer:
of Jesus is at "this hour", John has given no clear indica-
tion of the setting (when and where) of this prayer. Only
the note in 18:1 suggests that it may have been on the way
to Gethsemane. The lack of any clear time indication, however,
fits John.'speculiar treatment of time and his notion of "this
hour" in particular. The prayer ofOhapter 17 seems to be
situated both in the present and in the future, both in time
and in eternity. George makes a comparison of this prayer with
the Synoptic accounts of Jesus' prayers and finds that John's
rather original conception of time stands out ,even more strik-
ingly,190 especially In. 12:23 and Jesus' recognition there
that his hour has come. "The Fourth Gospel is written through-
out, as Jesus Himself spoke, sub specie aeternitatis. He is
represented as knowing from the beginning the time and manner
and sequel of the end of His public ministry in the tlesh. ,,191
l)' c Cl
The phrase ~B&.Y' 'l IioJfJ.. is found in the Synoptics
t7~& JJ"
11 W(M' '
(Cl I
only in the betrayal scene: '1 v OU n1..t.J,JoToLt
o v~~s TOV ~ V(}f.:m~ 615 T~S X~"r~s. 'Twv :tfd..fTWAWv'(Mk. 14:41 ).
However "hour" is connected with the Son of Man in~: ~~~ Urt7s.
,
Y'Vf:a-fh..
cl
fTOlfA(H)
v
OTt n'f' Cl
Wf"t 00
) ('
ootc:~IT£-
.... t
0 VIOt
t \
TitO
J ~ I
Ci'I_,""'eV "
~~Tt4l,

(Mt. 24d+.4; Lk. 12:40). The difference between this hour of

the Son of Man and that in John is worth noticing. But the'
difference should not be exaggerated, for, though John has no
equivalent of the coming Son of Man sayings of Q, 'he does have
equivalents to the other Synoptic "hour" sayings. The Mark
 243

saying (13:11_; cf. Mt. 10:19) about the hour of the disciples I

persecution is echoed in In. 16: 2, 4. Some of the "hour"

sayings in John are "realized"--that is, they have come (cf.
4:6 is it really future? ; 5:25, ,.thehour now is").', There
are more future "hours" in the Synoptics: Mt. 24:36, 44, 50
(Lk. 12:40, 41)j 25:13; Lk. 12:12 (most of the remaining occur-
rences are simple time designations, though cf. Lk. 27:53).
But John does have the (apparently) future saying in 5:28
(and possibly 4:6).
It is not difficult to find the meaning of this "hour"
in John. ,It is the hour of the glorification of Jesus (12:23;
cf. 1 3:31 ) which is interpreted in 12:24 as the time for Jesus
to die. The solemnity of v , 23 ("the hour is come" is especi-
used 192 and v , 24 is very solemn,
ally solemn and is . '1'.ar.ely
"Verily, verily, I say to you"_) recalls a former Son of Man
saying with a similar solemn introduction--Jn. 1:51. Here
the approach of the Greeks led Jesus to say that his hour had
come:
"• • • the understanding that the first Gentiles have
come to Jesus explains his exalamation that the hour has co.me.,~93
I
The occurrence of ~o ~oL in this saying is most impor-
t
tant for this study. The significance of do~ ~- J'o ~oL1LV in the
Fourth Gospel is of course a study in itself. They are charac-
teristically JOhannin~9~ords and central to his thought patterns,
, 1 5
for John uses these words more than any other Gospel. 9 John
follows the LXX rather than the Greek usage of ~t~~
.196 The
word in non-biblical Greek shows its relation to do ~/ c.0 " "to
have an opinion of some one." Greek sources have no analogy
to the N.T. sense of "divine and heavenly radiance, loftiness
and majesty of God" or even "the being of God".197 In the
I

O.T. 11 J. D is used of t-he glory of God, as seen in natural

T

phenomena, such as a thunderstorm (Psa. 97 and psa• 29) and

the heavens (Psa. 19), or in supernatural manifestations of

the "ahekf.nah" (Ex. 24:15ff.; cf. Ex. 33:18-23).198 To give God

,. t x» T
is to recognize the import of his deity. "To an extra-
ordinary degree, however, the T j::l!>T of God is also a theme of

religious hope and an established part of eschatological ex-

pectation. ,,199

The LXXtranslates .,'Il..!)

T
180 times

J6,d.. a new significance by its use for , i:J? The Targums

have ~1 b'" "honor, worth" for"T 1:l!J but also advance beyond
'T fT: T
,
this to use ;;~ ~~~; (as LXX &:i~oL ~t1rIOO, e.g., Num, 12:8)
'"
to avoid anthropomorphisms (cf. Gen. 17:22; <x, 20:20; 24:10

Targum Onkelos). Targum Jonathan and the Targumim on the

Prophets go further still, using "If ~" =! 0/ 'fo~(Ex. 33: 22; cf.
Jarg. Jon. I), "the radiance of the shekinah of Yahweh", and

~:~~~
'lf~ Jl~"/~ ~~:, "the radiance of the shekinah of the
king of aeons" (Isa. 6:5 Targum Prophetsh 200
I
The N.T. follows this tradition, using $~..c. in the

Septuagintal manner (for the _visible glory of God) rather than

in the Greek manner. In the N.T. sb~olV S,&tw.t is not to add

something not already present but rather to acknowledge it.

The N.T. takes a decisive step in applying

this word to Christ,
201
a word which was used of God alone in the 0.T.
John is peculiar among N.T. authors in that he puts

both senses of the word (the Hebrew and the Greek) together
I
almost abruptly: (1) the visible S:o~Gl.. in the O.T•. sense of
 245
(

TI2:J; In. 12:41; cf. 12:16,23,28, and (2) the sense of

'T

human honor or glory given by men or by God, as in In. 12:43;

cf. 5:41, 44; 7:18; 8:50, 54. "In all attempts at translation
there is an almost intolerable ri~t of meanings which the author
obviously did not himself feel. His way of using the noun and
the verb stands closest to the Palestinian mode of speech which
is carried over into Greek linguistic form.,,202
John also uses the word of the earthly Jesus more fre-
quently than the Synoptists wh~. largely restrict its application
to the risen Lord: Matthew and Mark use it only of the parousia,
Luke uses it also with the birth and transfiguration. The glory
which John sees in the earthly Jesus is appropriate to his
reduced eschatology. In the human (as well as the divine)
I

Jesus, John sees the fulfilment; of the eschatological hope born

r , 203
in the O.T. expectation of '/.:lD.,..
'-
In John 12: 23f.the reduced eschatology of ~~oL is
evident, for the glorification of bhe ~on .'Of
Man is seen sup-
remely in the death of Jesus. There can be little doubt that
this is John's meaning. Verses 12:24f. give the parable of
the death of a seed of grain (cf. the uses of this parable in
the Synoptics, Mk. 4: 3-9, 26...
29, 31, 32; Mt. 13:24-30; and in
Paul, I Cor. 15: 31_38),204 which must surely apply not only
to Jesus I would be disciples (v, 26), but ~'lsoto Jesus him-
self, the Son of Man who must be lifted up (12:32-34). John IS

use of J'PLJ~v'tl.( to mean a-Tcl.Vrt.J~II6.l has already been estab-

lished, making it possib~e that the same association of 8o\I~-
~V'L{ (not dissimilar to VC.'f>tJ~VIL( ) with (fT6.t.JfwtJ.:;lItAl has
taken place.205 Although the assoc1ation of thp6'w and ~11J~
 206
is not without parallel, John gives it his own theological
development.207 It is probable that the starting pOint of
this development was Isa. 52:13 which connects J",w ~(J"~Toll

and 8o~«~p.{ae'~L. and continues to develop the application

of this theme to the Servant of the Lord in terms of suffering.
Similarly John may have had in mind Psalm 8, which speaks of
"the son of man" who, though dwarfed by God's creation, has
been crowned with glory and honor, or even more importantly
Psalm 80:14-18 which speaks of the "son of man" who endures
suffering (vv', 14-16). John's Son of Man acquires glory
through suffering, just as the prophet Isaiah suffered, com-
plaining "I have labored in vain, I have spent my strength
for nothing" (Isa. 49:4a), but was told by God, "You are my
servant, Israel, in wham I will be glorified" (Isa. 49:3).208
The context of this saying is important as well for
/.
the meaning of J'o~o(. It is preceded and followed by suggestions
of Jt~a(.. Jesus I triumphal entry into Jerusalem precedes it,
which entry was accompanied inLk. 19:38 with shouts from the
) \ I C') I C' B ,\ ) ) I
crowd of [,-,/lor '1 ~E-V"5 O€rXC~"S 0 I c:lct/l1E-vS €V OVCrJ.T( t(v (/N"
) .) " .J I , . C' ' ~ ) C I 209
"£:>1 OOfal.vL:J €Ir? V"'1 Kat
I ee 7d... Et{ V'f,cr,"'S. (It is surpriSing
that John, with his emphasis on "glory" should omit mention of
this acclamation, if he knew the Lukan tradition.) The logion
. I
in In. 12:23 is followed by the mention in 12:28 of ~O~aI-~W three
times. The fact that vv. 27, 28 contain the same ideas of "the
hour" and of "glory" lead Brown to suggest that at one time
122: 3, 27-2 8 were a un1·t210
•
There are some indications that this saying has primi-
tive, or at least Palestinian, origins. John1s use of crt~~has
been noted as most characteristically Palestinian, in that he
 247
uses bbth the O.T. sense of physical manifestations of Godts
glory and the Greek idea of opinion or honor.211 The former
is seen in this context in vv. 26, 28, 41; the latter is
seen in v. 43. Another Semitic feature is the love-hate con-
trast of v. 25.212 Though there are unmistakable JOhannine
elements here213 and the· equation of &~ota-~Vd.( and (JfdOfkl~IId..1
fits John's own theology, the latter is from very old tradition ,
for it occurs in the primitive kerygma (Acts. 3:13; cf. I Pet.
1 :11; and Lk. 24: 26 )•21.4
There is also the possible Aramaism in the use of ~V~
Cl
in v. 23. Burney suggested that the use oflV~is Semitic: it
is used as a temporal particle, which is (mis)translated from
the Aramaic ~ •215 Barrett, however, questions whether it is
Semitic, quoting Moulton, who attributes the usage to John's
v
pa~tiality for ~ and the flexibility of the use of ,V~
q
in
Koine.216 Nor is Burney's suggestion accepted by Bernard,
who rather compares 13:1; 16:2,32, where rv~ is used as in
12:23 with the coming of the "hour", and concludes it is pur-
posive.
When God's predestined hour has come, the purpose which
He has in view must follow. It has come in order that
this purpose may be fulfilled. The use orf'~ in sucn
passages is an illustration of that view of .the sequence
of events, which is constantly present to the mind of In.,
and which he does not hesitate to ascripe to Jesus Him-
self .217
u
Black explains it as "a possibly loose temporal use of I voL ",

comparable to "that" in English, with a temporal antecedent,

and not necessarily due to Aramaic influence. Thus in Jru..12:23
"••• there is no mystic telic force, but a simple ext:ens±on,
after a temporal antecedent, of normal usage. ,,218
 248

Elements of the Synoptic scene of Jesus' agony in

Gethsemane and of the transfiguration are blended in the

Johannine narrative. The precise way in which the Synoptic

and Johannine traditions are related is a oompLd.catredquestion

to which perhaps no satisfactory answer can be given at present. '

But the parallels in In. 12 to the Synoptic agony scene are

extensive. They are set out completely by R. 13r:ownin an essay

in which he attempts to give a solution to the problem of thet~

relationship.219 Scattered fragments in John parallel the Syn-
optic agony scene: (1) "the hour" (for Jesus I passion) occurs

mainly in Mk. 14:35 (cf. 14:41 and Mt. 26:45) but it occurs 12

times in John (4:21, 23; 5:25, 28; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:31;
16:25, 32; 17:1; cf. 2:4); (2) the "Rise, let .us go" occurs

in Mk. 14:42; Mt. 26:46 at the end of the agony scene, but in
John at the Last Supper scene (14:~1 );220 (3) the "drinking

of the cup" as a metaphor for the passion occurs in In. 18 :11

at the arrest of Jesus, but in the Synoptics it is placed in

Gethsemane, Mt. 26:42, 52. The parallels to the agony scene

are especially frequent in John 12.221 Brown lists four of

these:222 (1) "the hour", Mk. 14:35; Mt. 26:45, cf. In. 12:23
1"
=Mk.14:41; (2) "my soul is troubled" In. 12:27 (ToIfd.(lTJeIV),
223
cf. Mk. 14:34 (n~f~ftvnos) both reflecting psa. 42:5 (the LXX
uses both 1Te-r~~VllC~ and (6'VV)Ttk.f':'<ra-e:1vJ; (3) "save me from

this hour", In. 12:27; Mk. 14:35-36 (In. 12 and Hebrews 5:7 use
"save", while the Synop~1cs do notj; 224 notice also. In. 12:27,

"rather for this purpose I came", cf. Mk. 14:36, "not my will,
but yours ,,225; (4) the voice from the sky, In. 12: 29; cf. Lk.
226
22:43, angels in the garden. Brownls proposed solution is
that the Synoptics have gath~':into the prayer of the agony
scene various scatter,ed prayers227 from throughout Jesus'
life to fill in the prayer in the garden; in this respect
John is then closer to the original tradition. ' If he is right,
and Brown's solution requires a certain credibility of John's
narrative,228 Brown's conclusion provides an illustration of
the way in which the Fourth Gospel can at times be found to
be not only reliable tradition but also helpful in clarifying
problems in the Synoptics.
It has been suggested that John 12 shares elements of
the synoptic transfiguration account as well. The basis for
this comparison is mainly the mention of St~oL (er .J'~~d.a--~Y.ck(
in the O.T., where it was used to mean transfigured with' a
auper-nat uaa.L radiance, Ex. 34:9229) and the voice from heaven

(In. 12:28, 29; cf. Mt. 17:5; Mk. 9:7; Lk. 9:3423 °). But the
voice from heaven gives a very different message at the trans-
figuration. It see~s more likely that John's I\~~J is related
AL ru
)t
to the angel from heaven in Lk. 22 :43: wcp ....l de olV-r'(J
J ""
qlr~~ =s
..)1

) :J I" ~ I ..) ( 231

Clrr' OVfoA.'VOV E VI <rxvwv oI0'fOY. Barrett in fact suggests
that John's account is built on a reminiscence ot Lk. 22:43.232
As for the mention of S:~J..., John's way of using the word does
not fit the scene of heavenly radiance as in the Synoptic trans-
figuration. Rather it refers to Jesus' death, which is the only
transfiguration which John's Gospel has room for, and which is
the CUlmination of the G;r~
seen throughout Jesus' life.233
John has much to say about the Son of Man in this
passage. The Son of Man is (1) the universal Savior, as is
seen in the appearance of the Greeks to se~ Jesus, (2) the one
 250
who is to die, as the use of "the hour" in the teChnical sense
for Jesus' passion indicates, and (3) the glorious one, whose
glory is nevertheless not transcendent or eschatological but
immanent and present, seen in his life of humble service and
above all in his death (his sup~eme glory) for others. It is
particularly significant that the Son of Man suffers: :not only
in his death, but also in his life, as the glimpses in John of
the Gethsemane struggle may indicate.234 John's Son of Man is
not a heavenly man so transcendent that he is unable to feel
human weaknesses. He is the God-Man, whose incarnation is a
real one, subjecting him to all the pain of be.aring human sin.235
He suffers the agony of the Servant of God described (as ~ohn
knew) in the Psalms (42:5, 6; 55:4, 5) and the prophets, especi-
ally Isaiah's Servant song~3~2:13-53:12 which pr-ovided the O.T.
basis and authority for the belief that the son of Man's suffering
and death in fact constituted his glory and exaltation.

John 12: 32 ...

34

John 12:32-34 is the last of the three Johannine

10gia237 which connects the Son of Man with lifting up,
u(tpwfP.;vlLt. The U'ftfw is used in the characteristically
Johannine manner. (It occurs in John only 1n the Son of
Man 10gia--3 :14 (bis); 8 :~8; and 12: 32, 34-·a fact signifi-
cant in itselfJ( If there were ever any doubt that this lif-
ting up referred to the death of the Son of Man on the cross,
there is no question that this is the meaning here. (1) The
use of ~~ I~~ r~s makes more graphic the picture of lifting
up in crucifixion.238 (2) The comment of John in ~. 33 makes
 2S1

i~ clear that this is a reference to the crucifixion:

(3) The Jews interpret it as
crucifixion in v. 34, for they set it in opposition to "remain
forever", which death, but not ascension, would exclude.239
This last point may have been of real interest to some Jewish
circles during Jesus' lifetime, especially those Jews familiar
with I Enoch. R. Brown notes this, but thinks probably John
has more in mind the debates of the Jews against Jesus in the
last part of the first century.240 There is a similar debate
in Justin (Trypho, XXXII.1) of which John may be an earlier
formulation. The argument of Trypho against Jesus as the
Messiah (or as the Son of Man) was that he had not estab-
lished the messianic kingdom and eternal rule of which the
Q.T. speaks.241 Justin's reply uses the same themes as those
in In. 12:32-34--that is, the exaltation of Jesus, into the

Father's presence.
The phrase ::'1( r;Zs ttl's, as well as implying crucifixion,
points very decidedly to the exaltation to glory implied iD
( , 2~
lIyJ"w --ascension from the earth. F.-M. Braun suggests
that the phrase ~I< T,S ~s ("Ges tr.ois derniers mots ne sont
pas fortuits.") recalls the theme of opposition between the
earthly and the heavenly, that which is t.K i?s y~s and that
which is EJ Ie: ,oun=r
ve "243
v•
J
This theme is found with the
Son of Man in In. 1 :51; 3:113and 6:62.
It is the Fourth Evangelist in particular who has an eye
to.the 'two-level t character of this identity [the Son of
Man as humiliated, vindicated, heavenly man], earthly and
heavenly; for it is he who draws out for his readers so
clearly the conjunction between t~e_e two levels in the
person of the Son of Man himself.244
Furthermore, the appearance of &t~~
in this context brings out
the glorious aspect of the exaltation, (cf. vv. 23, 28).
c ,
Clearly U~DW has in this logion, as previously in John,

both the sense of lifting up in death and lifting up in

glory. 245,

The association of J~ w~v'~ and s~1i7'G'~vcH is

perhaps more explicit in this passage, In. 12:32-34, than

eLsewner-e. and apparently John is drawing on the associati on

of these words in Isa. 52:13:246 ,):rJo~ c1uVrlrtl oc.1Td.I"S "AOV)

J<A} 0'«PW~(f6T.t.( It~~ ~l~c1C--ro{_l cnr,/&fd..· The association

of these two words is not as widespread in the O.T. or Isaiah

as has sometimes been thought.247 In addition to the proximity

of the two words in Isa'. '5'2:13, there is the combination in

the Servant Song of the themes of suffering and of exaltation

and this is crucial to the discussion of the two meanings of

( ,
v~ow in John. It seems highly probable that this O.T. passage

has been a formulative influence on Johnls tradition of the

Son of Man.248
John draws out the soteriological implications of the

exaltation of the Son of Man. In In. 12:32, Jesus says that

if he is lifted up, he will draw all men to himself. He has

said before (6:65) and will say: again (12:44) that it is the
Father who draws men to himself.' John 1;2:32 is no contra-

diction to these statements, inasmuch as the work of the Son

is to do the will of the Father (4:34; cf. 5:19) and the

Father and the Son are one (17:21).

An important textual variant occurs in this connection. '

The usual reading taken in v.; 32 is 'TT~VT .. s !"\ Kla-w. 249 But
p66 and Sinaiticus, as well as ,',D, ' the Old Latin, and
 253
I C f
others, support the neuter 110NTaL e..A f('u lW, "1 will draw all

things to myself. ,,250 ' Bernard says that if this variant is

genuine, it " ••• would embrace the whole creation within

the circle of the attraction of Christ. ,,251 ,
He feels, however ,

that nivr«s has better support. Brown, following Blass-Debrunner1s

Grammar, notes that even if the neuter is accepted, it may be

used only as general masculine reference.252 Possibly the

variant has arisen from knowledge of the kind of cosmological

attributes of Jesus as are found in, e.g., Col. 1 :16, 17 (,~
/ J r- (
TToJ.lfToA.. ~v oI(.rfr,v
I
(fUve-<r"rt'J f(W).
q\
The word for "draw", et\ K~I V , occurred also in 6 :44,
which may depend on the LXXof Jer. 38:3 (MT 31 :3):253 €f~~v<r~

(JE; elS OfI<.TE:-rf~d-,254 "I have drawn you with kindness."

Barrett255 compares the use of the piel of 2"") ~ which is not

used in Jer. 31:3 (Ml') whe~e there is rather !f'7~1<i?~ for

the conve~sion of proselytes. It is used, for example, in

Pirke Aboth 1 :12: "The natural desire of one who feels thus
[has love] toward his fellow man is to Ibring them nigh to

the Torah', for this means to make them sharers in the fuller

knowledge of God. ,,256 In the N.T. ~~ I('-1V occurs (besides

In. 6:44; 12:32) only in In.19:10 (tfhere Peter draws his sword);
21:6,11 (f'ishing nets are drawn ashore); and Acts 16:19 (Paul

and Silas are dragged befOl'"'ethe magistrates). The occurrenjes

of :)..t<:&-,v in the Greek sources {including the,(}ospel or Tho.mali,

p. Oxy. IV 654, 10 and 14 \ I

l'~rE'(
J 'I[ ote €II\
Crt
1<6VTE-S '7c f'LcJ..S
1"'1

[61s T~V f3c'-lTt'AE(c:tv , Oepke suggests257J, suggest the basic

meaning is to "tug" or "draw" and when used of' persons may mean

"compel" • The word occurs several times in the books of Maccabee~

 254
where it has a "strong political and military flavor. ,,258
It generally carries the idea of some resistance on the part
of that which is drawn, which may be involved in the meaning
in In. 6:44.259 This resistance is not in mind, however, in
Song of Solomon 1 :4 which speaks of being drawn in love, pos-
sibly in the same way Plato spoke of 'lr~r~/V /t'Q(} ~~ #::f:-IV .260
er
The most important ocourrance of E~~~'V for understanding the
Son of Man logion in In. 12:32-34 is In. 6:44. There what is
meant by God's drawing men to himself is explained in the
,
following verse (6:45): men are ~,r:.q-f(.TElI !k".&, "taught by
God" (a quotation of :tsa. 54:13), fulfilling the promise in
Jer. 31 :33 that Yahweh will write his law on the hearts of
his peoPle.261 John 6:65 is similar in meaning to 6:44: no
one can came to jesus unle~s it is granted him by the Father.
John 6:65 is in the context of another Son of Man logion, 6:62,
and may show that John 12:32-34 is not alone in associating
this theme with the Son of Man.
The foregoing discl,ussionilluminates much of John's
soteriology. The consequence of Jesus' the Son of Manis
being ~ifted up" is that men will be drawn to God--that is,
they will be instruoted by God (cf. 6:44, 45), in fulfilment
of Jeremiah's prophecy (31 :3, 33). For the rabbis, what made
men sharers in the knowledge of God was be'ing drawn near (i.e. ,
taught) the Torah; for John it is being drawn nea~ to Jesus.262
This explains why Jesus does not stop to talk to the Greeks:
it is by being lifted up that he d~aws all men to himself.263
Furthermore, it is quite fundamental to John's convictions
that approaoh to God is initiated by God and not by men.264
 This sovereign election of God is set forth in positive
terms in 6:37: "all that the Father gives Jesus come to
•
him." The "darker side" (as Bernard calls it) of predesti-
nation is found in the present context, particularly in 12:39,
which speaks of the Jews' blindness and hardness of heart in
terms of Isaiah's prophecy: "He' has blinded their eyes and
dulled their minds, lest theY' should see with their eyes, and
perceive with their minds, and turn to me to heal them." (NEB)
Cl
In the idea of b\ ~61V is the idea of resistance; man's resis-
tance must be overcame by God's drawing power. Oepke notes
that just as l.).I(&PI is used in the O.T. of a powerful force,
so for John the supernatural element cannot be left out.265
If Jesus then draws men to himself, he does so against their
resistance and by virtue of his supernatural drawing power.
It is appropriate therefore that the Son of Man ~itle should
be applied to JesuS in this context: he'.who is exalted through
suffering and death by this same lifting up exeryises a super-
natural influence over men's rebellious wills and thus draws
them to himself and to God. This complements 6:44, where the
Father draws men to the Son; here the Son draws men to the
266
Father through himself.
The explanation by the Evangelist in v. 33 that lifting
up refers to Jesus' death prevents drawing the conclusion that
267
only his glorious exaltation is meant (cf.,Lagrange ). He
uses the word cr'1t"-~rvw here (as in 18:32), a word which points
to something future which will come about in a rather veiled
manner.268 John 18:10 explains that Jesus' execution by cruci-
fixion at the hands of the Romans rather than by stoning at
 256

the hands of the Jews (cf. 8:59) was in fulfilment of this

word of Jesus. The sarne word is used in the prediction of
the death of Peter in In. 21:' 9. There may' also be an allusion
in In. 12:33 to In. 3:14 and the G'1'\~OV which Moses lifted up
in the same manner as the Son of Man will be lifted up.
26
The question from the crowd (12:34}, 9 putting
o( Xflrros1 in proximity to the Son of Man, raises the question
whether the titles are equivalent terms. If ~Messiah" is
understood as Jesus appears to have defined it (though Jesus
did not use the word "Messiah" here and prefers everywhere
to use "Son of Man"), then' Jesus' Son of Man may be said to
equal Jesus' "Messiah". But as the crowd defined "Messiah"
(i.e., in contemporary Jewish, Davidic messianic terms, with
definite political overtones), then Jesus' fiSon of Man" was
270
not the same as their "Messiah". Brown notes that in
John there are really two different messianic 'hopes; the
first is that of the Son of David to be born at Bethlehem
(7:42); 271 the second is that of a concealed, hidden Messiah,
similar to the expectations of the hidden Son of Man of Enoch
(cf. In. 7:27; 1 :26). These two expectations are brought
together in this verse in manner quite like the Synoptic logion
in the trial scene before Caiaphas, Mk. 14:62. There Oaiaphas
questioned Jesus in terms of the title "Messiah", but Jesus
answered with "Son of Man It (cf. als 0 Mk. 8: 31 ). This suggests
that in In. 12:32-34 it may have been Jesus who first made
this juxtaposition of "Messiah" and "Son of Man" (rather than
the crowd, which is merely repeating and questiondng what Jesus
had said). But JesUS has not used the title "Messiah". Why
 257
then did the crowd associate "Messiah" with "Son of Man"?
Either they determined at last that Jesus' use of "Son of
Man" was meant to be equivalent to (and to redefine) Messiah,
but now the mention of'c.tb.:!::s
approaching death of the Son of
Man causes them to doubt. Or possibly they realized Jesus
claimed to be the Christ, but the prediction of death makes
them question whether this is what he really claimed. In the
first case they doubt Jesus' meaning: by "Son of Man" does
he mean "Messiah"? In the seoond case they doubt his claim,
by Son of Man does he mean himself? The form of the question
I' '2 c \1' ('I :>
is the same as that in 7:36, TIS 6(JTIV OOTt9s o (larDS 0'/ Er1TEY'
<2
In neither place .is there an emphasis on the ov~OS , because
272
John does not use D~~OS with this kind of emphasis. So it
cannot be understood that the questionel'B are asking, "Who is
this Son of Man?" implying that they know of another. Rather,
probably the title is unfamiliar to the questioners (whether
so the Evangelist and his readers is another question27~'),
especially as they have heard it used by Jesus. In fact,
either way the question of v. 34 is understood, the Son of
Man title appears to have been strange (at least as Jesus

used it) to the crowd.

The hiddenness of the Son of Man in John tsr'seen clearly
in this logion. The crowd is obviously c<>nfused as to the iden-
tity of the Son of Man. This hiddennessis apparent also in
8:38, where it is after':.thelifting up of the Son of Man that
Jesus' identity will be clear. In 9:35 the healed blind man
does not know until told explicit~7 that Jesus is the Son of
Man. The similarity of this "hiddenness" of the Son of Man
 258
to the Markan messianic secret has been noted before.274
Smalley calls this John's version of the mes a Lanf,c secret
and says that "Jesus uses this deliberately ambiguous phrase
or title to unfold the mystery of his person. "275,
Another indication of some relationship between this
Son of Man saying and the Synoptic logia is in the apocalyptic
8~(
, suggesting a connection with the Synoptic passion pre-
dictions. This relationship was noted in In. 3:14 and the
point is reinforced by the second occurrence of this important
construction here.276 Bernard I s obaer-vatLon is again relevant
that even if it were thought necessary to dismiss the Synoptic
passion predictions and the &1 V~W~Vd..1 T~"v~ ~\I roO J<vf}/WrtI1J
)"
[ or E:fV'-~' v , 32 J as vaticinia ex eventu, the I
TfolVT"'Gl,S
Cl'
€/\
,
Kv o-W TTfC<i

€{Ad..IJTtv is in no way helped thereby or made less remarkable.277

But this saying (12:32-34), though clearly related to the
Synoptic passion predictions, cannot be said to fit into this
group only of Synoptic logia, for it speaks of the present life
and the future vindication of the Son of Man as well as his
sUffering.278 Again the three categories into wh1.oh the Synoptic
279
logia neatly fit tend to run together in John.
John 12:32-34 recalls the two previous Son of Man
"lifting up" sayings in John which shaw certain similarities
to it. In 3:14 there is (1) the same necessity of the Son of

Man's being lifted up, and (2) the same demand for a response.
The exalted Son of Man in 3:14 must be ftbeheld" as was Moses'
brazen serpent; the exalted Son of Man in 12:32ff will draw
men to himself. In 8:28 there is involved the same basic
280
question of messianic identity as in 12:32_34. This 'suggests
 259
a fundamental unity of thought of the Fourth Gospel on the
lifting up of the Son of Man.

John 13:31

This last of the twelve Johannine Son of Man logia

speaks of the glory of the Son of Man, recalling 12:23f. In
I.
both cases the Jo~~ of the Son of Man refers to the death of
Jesus.281 As this was made plain in 12:24 by the parable of
the grain of wheat illustrating the fruit of Jesus' death,
it is made clear in John 13 both by the preceding event, Judas I
betrayal, and by v. 33, where Jesus states explicitly to his
disciples that he is about to leave them.
This logion parallels an important Synoptic Son of
Man passion saying, Mk. 14:41. Both sayings are set in the
context of betrayal, the Synoptic version preceding Jesus'
arrest and the Johannine following Judas' departure to arrange
for the arrest. The v~v' of 13: 31 (which replaces and reinforces
'1'\ If:::...
the
) I' I
E.). "" () &!v
C
"
cl
Wj< of 12: 23) parallels the '1"l.,,~:v '1 t.Vr~ of
(~I
Mk.

14:41 •
) f
The vC" in 13:31 forms a paradox with the ~&o \oCa~
. 282
(v , 31) and So~c:1crc-l (v. 32). This paradox illustrates the
way in which these words are spoken sub specie aeternitati,. as
noted in 12:23.283
•
The use of the aorist thus need not indicate
284·
that this is a late composition, or that John as been careles,s
in his writing, thoughtlesslY putting an aorist where he should
have put a future. It is true enough that the glorification of
the Son of Man in Jesus' death was past to John. But it is true
as well that in a sense it was (and this must be how John thought
of it285) past to Jesus at this point. His death was still fut'U:le
 260

but its imminence and certainty were as real as if it had

286
already taken place. The process leading to Jesus' death

had irreversably begun, as Judas had now gone to finalize

arrangements for, Jesus' arrest. It is only after Judas :has
left on his treacherous mission that Jesus can say vG V
)
€~ o"\~o-~
I'
0
<. ev
V l05 -roc
,,) m
et VU'-f
I
IIJ,POU
.
K.7:111
\

The associations of this logion with a servant chris-

tology have been pOinted out by Smalley.e87 Th,e context is

one of service and of suffering. The 8. al Kov (rl., is seen in

the rite of footwashing (13:1-20). The suffering is clear in

the betrayal of Judas (13:?1-30) as well as in the glorification

of the Son of Man in his death. The latter especially recalls

Isa. 52:13 with its combination of vo/wlP?lVQ({ and SC~a1(t~\Ioll

and the later references in lea. 53 to suffering (which is

what J<f~~V~C SO~d..aiWlv~ mean in John). Smalley sees connee-,

tions with the suffering Son of Man figure in Daniel 7, I Enooh

(espeoially 51 :3), IV Ezra, and the suffering righteous man of
Wisdom 2:12_20.288 The oombination of these themes and the

So ItJ-l£lV
I
double meaning of (whioh he calls "kerygmatic")

means that, as observed in other Johannine Son of Man sayings,

this logion cannot conveniently be classified aocording to the

Synoptic categories, but it really fits all three groupa.289

~
In this ~ogion gc~~l{;J occurs f'or the second time :in

John with J ufJs "T()U ~Vl9fJllOt.l. As Oa.ird nates, it is not

enough to say that John is speaking of the cross when he USes

go~,fllJ.' The important question is what John wished to say

about the cross by his use of So~ ~lw.290
/"
The background of

this word (discussed in much the same terms by Caird and

 261

Kitte1291 ) includes the Hebrew 'tlti» which has inf1uenoed

T

the LXX and thus the N.T. Oaird olarifies this influenoe
in terms of the addition of an "objeotive" sense to the
usual Greek "subjeotive" sense, a oarry over of the double
, 292
sense of 1(2D into bib1ioa1 Greek. But of partiou1ar
T

importanoe for this logion is his discussion of the passives

here and the relationship of glory between the persons of
the trinity. He notes the three kinds of passives: true
passives (transitives), intransitive passives (more oommon
in the LXX, due to the inf1uenoe of Hebrew statives, than
in classioal Greek where, however, they are not rare), and
permissive or causative passives ("in which the action is .
done to the subjeot by another agent, but permitted or oaused
by the sub jeot"). 293 That In. 13: 31 a, "Now is the Son of Man
glori.fied", is a true passive is made clear by 13:32 ("God
will also glorify him in himself and glorify him at once.")
as well as by Jn~ 17:1 ("Father, glorify.your Son"). 294 But
13:31b, "God is glorified in him", presents more difficulty.
The second k&or~~ cannot have the same sense as the first,
where J'. • • the glorification of Jesus on the cross means
his endowment with a glory which, at least in his representa-
ti ve function as Son of Man, he hu, not up to that point pos-

sessed." This last meaning cannot apply t·oGod. In fact the

second Uol~ is found by Oaird to be adi:f:ferent kind of

passive: it is neither a true passive nor a causative passive295

but an intransitive passive, with
.
6V c(J~ in an "umnistakab~y
local" sense. The phrase may then be rendered: "God has
revealed his glory in him." Caird seeks further justi.fication
 262

of his interpretation of In. 13:31 in the consistency of

his understanding of the logion with the overall structure
of John's Gospel: In. 13:3t,a fits John 1-12 which demons-
trates the glory of God in the Incarnate Logos, while In. 13:31b
fits John 13-21 which speaks of the believer's entrance into
union with the Logos.296 His interpretation of 13: 31 is well
expressed in his translation of the logion: "Now the Son of
Man has been endowed with glory, and God has revealed his glory
in him."
Unfortunately Caird's exegesis does not cover the whole
logion, since the whole saying includes v. 32 as well. He
deals with only 13:31, breaking in mid-sentence. Schulz notes
that the structure of these two verses, set out clearly in
verse form,297 is quite striking in contrast to the preceding
Johannine Son of Man logia which he says are more prosaic. The
poetic rhythm of these lines recalls the prologue.298 He further
observes that Jesus is spoken of in the third person, that char-
acteristics of Johannine christological sayings are absent,
and that these lines on the exaltation motif are remarkably
compact and succinct. All of this leads Schulz to the conclu-
sion that 13:31,32 is from an old tradition of a "short hymn"
which John has used to introduce the farewell discourses.299
Schulz has probably exaggerated tlie distinction between
this and the other Johannine Son of Man sayings, for "Son of
Man" is by its very nature a "poetic" term.300 He is right
however about the striking rhythm of these verses and this
poetic structure of this passage means that vv. 31 and 32
should be taken together. If Uaird's understanding of v. 31
 263
can be accepted, what is the meaning or v. 321 Some decision
has to be made regarding the variant in v. 32a, (;j 6 ~6~
j('?'I:k"
tdO?,oI(tv'l €''I o<v71.tl.
)r'I
The manuscript evidence is about equally
divided. Barrett301 rejects the longer reading because it
adds nothing t~ the passage and the addition or it is explicable
by dittography (though the omission is explainable by haplog-
raphy). He thinks it better to omit the ruller reading, pro-
bably popularized by Origen, and to rollow "the majority or
earlier authorities and accept the short text." On the other
hand, several scholars prerer the longer reading. Bernard302
believes that its redundancy rits John's style and its omission
, 303 J .J ('I ~
could easily be due to homoioteleuton ( E-v' ci lITttJ ••• ell
QL &r~ ). Lagrange304 believes the weight or the authorities,
surricient ror rejecting the longer reading, is counterbalanced
by the other considerations, the possibility or homoioteleuton
and the redundancy which rits John's style.
Ir this longer reading is kept, it se.lIlsto'be a simple
repetition or v. 31b (with the same meaning as there) as a
J
basis ror the ruture glorification ot! v ; 32. The 6' does
not, according to Lagrange, 305 indicate a hypothetical condition.
Rather s'ince God has revealed his glory in him, he will glori~y
,him in himself, and will do so immediately. The future glori-
fication, to whatever it refers,306 follows on the glorification
already as certain as if it had taken place.
, I
The future go~.l(J"E;t may be taken as referring to the

glorification of Jesus in his resurrection, exaltation and

ultimately in his parousia.307 The passion, having been
initiated by Judas' departure to betray Jesus, is viewed as
 264

past (this is the significance of the aorist, ~&o~1tr~68)t

while the events to follow are s.tillviewed as future. Barrett
takes the lvJO~ as referring to God.309 On the opposite side
of the question, Bernard apparently feels it refers to
Christ:3'!O"Itis the "glorification" which succeeded it [the
Passion], God the Father glorifying Him in Himself, by taking
up the humanity of Christ into the Godhead, after the paSSion."
In a sense Jesus re-enters the eternal essence of God the
Father at his resurrection and ascens ion.311
\ , J ,/

On the last phrase, Kat( e-6 (9-(Js SD"}JcrCI 0«1.) Tb II there

is disagreement as well.
Bernard believes John has returned
to the thought of Jesus' impending death.312 Barrett, however ,
takes it as referring to Jesus' resurrection and the coming of
the Spirit to bring his continued presence to the disciples.313
What do John's readers learn about the Son of Man in
this passage? They see again, as in 12:23, that he is glori-
fied but that his glory is in his death. The Son of Man is
a lowly one, for he is betrayed (13:a1-30) and will soon have
to leave his disciples to die a lonely death ("where they
cannot come", 13:33). He will shortly be denied by Peter
(13: 36-38). His death w.ill consummabe the life of the lowly
Son of Man, whose earthly ministry has been characterized by
love ( kOlt9t1S ~ri n ')<rei. c5~) and service (he has just washed
the disciples' feet). The disciples are to emulate their
master and representative in this love and service, for the
Son of Man is their ~epresentative head in his life ot humble
service and in his death for others.
 265
Judge
John 5:27

The most striking feature of this logion is that Son

of Man is anarthrous, a fact which makes it unique am~Son
of Man logia in the Gospels (though cf. Heb. 2:6; Rev. 1 :13;

14:14).
The saying cames in the middle of a discourse on the
authority of the Son, following the dispute with the Jews
which arose out of Jesus' healing a sick man on the Sabbath
at the Sheep Gate. It is right for Jesus to heal on the
Sabbath because he does the work of the Father, who works
always (5:17). The Son does what the Father does (5:19).
The work of the Father and the Son involves primarily two
interrelated activities: raising the dead back to life
(5:21, 24,25, 28,29) and judging (5:22, 24, 27,29; "con-
demns"). As these two themes are developed in terms of the
work of'the Father which the Son does, there comes the sudden
change from § v~6~ (5:19bis, 20, 21, 22, 23bis [24 shifts
from ~ u~hs to r-e., t"()O], 26) to v~As &'vC9r,!nrfAJ. 314 The
reason for this unexpected change must surely be that John
saw a particular appropriateness of this christological title
to the two themes which run through this discours:e.315
The probable source for this unusual logion in In. 5:27
is the locus classicus of the Son of Man, Dan. 7:13. In the
\J('\ /, , .. 1"\

LXX the term is anarthrous: kelt ,~t)() ern ,wv vef>~Awv

...
't»u
>
ov r: ,.
VO U
C
W-S
C \
VI os
J"
ot YClr
W7f
I
0U
)1
17 f ~6- TO. Furthermore SchUlz
finds both elements of In. 5:27, 28 in Dan. 7 and 12.316 He
gives a brief tradit10nsgeschichtliche Analyse, suggesting
 266

that 5:30 is a revision of '5:19 and that the change from

Son, 5:26, to Son of Man, 5:27 ..29, to "I", 5:30, and the
distinctive Johannine motifs of ~fxt;Td...l t1S(~ ~v, ,DU TO ,

and r~ ~vf'l-~~f-"(O (5:28) show how the Evangelist has worked

his iaeas as well as traditional themes into his Gospel.317

Verse 27 he finds to be a compilation of motifs from Dan.

7:13, 14, demonstrating this by laying out the parallels in

the texts.
a) In. 5:27·a: 1(01.1
\ e'~ /JVtTld-.V
~}'J e- WICe:V clV'TW
) '" •••
, J tIlL .J l" .J ~ , ,
Dan. 7:14: ~"'( E-Sv-1. alur~ € ~ CC,)(TItL. t ••
(LXx)
7~~ul
1 -r
T
J.;1~
"
fl71
,,:
b) In.5 :27b: I" t,
VIOS:
.J '"
t1(VU'pW"TICv
,
",
t\, .1' .....
1
Dan. 713
: :.,. U I es ill v~tW'1fvv " , (LXX)
~1J)1;f 111
( " J T'" '::, -
Commonthemes include Ut C'S ot V~WT1W (anarthrous both in

In. 5:27b and Dan. 7:13, LXX), )~}&VIT"{'" (In. 5:27a and Dan.
7:14, LXX), and ~W~fN r~11n. 5:27a, Dan. 7:22, LXX),31.8 and

6Jt~ (Dan. 7:14, LXX), as well as the K(/fTI97T.,te;v (In.

\ I ~
5:27a) and TO t<f'y.-J.. ~l\!~v (Dan. 7:22, LXX)which Schulz

does not mention.319 John 5:28f. he finds to have been built

on Dan. 12:2.
\AL t> ') ,
a) Dan. 12: 2 f(G(~ 11DXft.(I( ,JJv
#<.wwo o,rrW1l ev T~ rr ~J.rE-1 T-lS
I C' \ .J 2" .J I' e \
~/S /",,'!V Se
rtds
~s !iy~crT~~tHITtL.f)
~1I6-1~
,
'~/A""'J
(H ~"
(' r' ) (I
eH o~ e:-IS O'elCT1r0f""V ~~I GlIIfX"V'IV'
, \
,,(,WlltO'!/)
J r
(11
)I
"'IWV/Oll",

b) In. 5: 28f.: r c «
I
"TIalv'TH
.J
c,,.
01 t!N T"(}'~
,
rV'1 r trl"
f

C
S
\'
J I
«1('U"'.j)~IV
I\~ I
TIll'
,..
<pCcJv'1
It

)
S

d.J-ro~ ~~ ""1TtJP~"f'"O"Tat', SI T.,( iir..tCI"IL ,.,tl'1.r;tlfT'6S ElS

6t"rJ.~~~1Y
l ,"
hlrt$, {r e-
1), 06 To(\ '141111.(.
"" It;'
T-7otVT&:S I
EiS } I
tJirtl.nd./tIV

1((' a-e.Vo>S ,
He accounts for the changes in the text as well: 7TiVT6S

for rroAAD} is a universalistic tendency, ~KDJ6~u~/V ttl~

rwV';''S ri,'Vro"v gives it 8. chris~oil:ogical interpretation, ~

~~Ill~ TTDI,{ (J'cet/'T6S and T~ tpatU-Ao! 7T\~fO(ff~ give the saying

a "paranetischer" accent, and the change from ~v{cr-r'1 f"-l to
 267

tK. T10rbJ~O\lTtI.."' •• '. if'S Jvia-rrA(rt.Y emphasizes the judgment

aspect of resurrection.320 Besides these motifs commonto

In. 5 and Dan. 7 and 12, noted by Schulz, there is in the

Johannine passage the Father-Son relati onship (which becomes

Son of Man at v. 27) which is si~ilar to (and may have deve-

loped from) the relationship of the Son of Man and the Ancient

of Days in Daniel 7. There is a similarity as well between

the "coming" of the Son of Man, Dan. 7:13, to receive ~~6cJcr(i-

and t( P I/'crI S , and the com.ing of Jesus, sent by the Father,

In. 5:30 (cf. especial11 9139: "For judgment I came into

the world") ..321

These two themes, which seem to be based on Dan. 7:13tf.

and 12:2, are worked together in the context of In. 5 in such

a way as to show they are more closely related to one another

(and to the Son of Man tradition) than might have appeared at

first sight. The act of granting life (or of not granting it')

is in a sense a judgment, so the two functions of the Son (,CiSr

322
S'on of Man) are not really unrelated. These two inter-

related themes each have two aspects, a preaent spiritual

aspect and a future eschatological aspect. This fact is seen

perhaps most clearly in v , 24: "In very truth, anyone who

gives heed to what I say and puts his trust in Him who sent

me has hold of eternal life, and does not com.. up for judg-

ment, but has already passed from death to life." (NEB)

Eternal life isa present possession of those ,who believe
,.
Jesus (note ..the present tense in v , 21 of ?"I C1T"'&l, prSs.9nt
~ ~ u \
of E-,f~ in v , 24, and the phrase in v. 25 'Ef(6;J.( l-f-< I(..{I

vuv k-"v ; cf. In. 17:1, 2: "Father, the hour has come.
 268

Glorify thy Son, that the Son may glorify thee. For thou hast
made him sovereign over all mankind, to give eternal life to
all wham thou hast given him." NEB}. Likewise judgment has
a present aspect (though it may be more difficult to see
clearly). Inasmuch as judgment is bound up with the giving
of life, when the latter is brought into the present, so is
the former. Further indication of this present aspect of
.)1' .
judgment cames in v ; 24 in the present tense of ~fXl::--roLl --
'he is not coming into judgment "--followed by the perfect of
F"TtA.. ft-f"
I .'
{(ftl emphasizing that judgment has already been passed
(cf. 9:39 which shows unambiguously the present aspect of judg-
ment which Jesus brings). This present aspect does not exclude
the future aspect, however. The future giv:blg, of life in
eschatological resurrection is seen in vv. 28, 29: it is
clear that a physical resurrection of bodies is meant, as the
phrase 7f':v-rf:5 Ct
C
GV Tfl,s fV"f f"("/S shows, and it is clear that
this is future because the phrase I<rA~ vuv ~tJTlV, cf. v, 25,
ls omitted after
lit{
~fXE:T~'.( wt«. The future eschatological
judgment is also clearly spoken of in these verses: E-fs ~V/a-TcfItlV

1<f(trf:W.5 .323 What is highly significant is that John has

found it suitable to introduce into this discussion "Son of
Man" as an appropriate title for Jesus in ·his work both as
life-giver and judge in the present and the future.324
There is a noticeable similarity betwee~the 7T:V-r,s.
here and the 1TDA~tJt of Mk.1 0:45. In both places the work
of the Son of Man has consequences tor a larg.egroup of his
followers. In Mlr. 10:45 the Son of Man, who is the Servant
of God of Isa. 52:13-53:12, gives his lite £or many; in In.
 269

5:27-29 he calls from their graves all the dead to resurrection

(of life or judgment). In In. 5:27-29 the connection with Dan.
12:2 is clear, but the Daniel passage may also stand behind
Mk. 10:45. H. L. Ginsberg has argued that Isa. 52:13-53:12,
which is the basis of Mk. 10:45b, has its earliest interpreta-
tion in Dan. 12, where the Servant is identified with the
maskilim of DanielfSday.325 While it is difficult to be
certain what part these O.T. texts have played in the history
of tradition, it seems fairly safe to say that both Isa. 53
and Dan. 12 as well as Dan. 7 provided the raw materials from
which the developing christology of primitive Christianity was
shaped. Daniel 7 supplied the tit.le Son of Man (with its:
potential for both individual and collective interpretation)
and the judgment theme, Dan. 12 supplied the resurrection
theme (with Hosea 6:2), and the Servant of Isaiah supplied
the content for a humble earthly ministry and atoning death

of the Son of Man.

The lack of the article with
C'\
vi e s «Vt.:frto'wrcfH}
J
in In.
.
5: 27 is a vexing problem -. A possible reason why Ut
C\ J
es Gl V' wnou
()
r I

is anarthrous may be that John wished to point his readers

to Dan. 7:13. He did this by ,the unusual anarthrous con-
struction326 and by the specific mention of judgm.ent and
Son of Man together (heightened by the cQ.usalrelationship:
\ ) ~ I J! fI: '- I' 1,,1"./ ",' {I ts,> I,. ,. ~ 32i',
t<d.l (3;"z0I..HFlo{V ecwKel olO'i';J "f,crl y nOt tslV) Oil Ui'«. £¥;J7\,l( ). f

Apparently John wished to make it clear to hiS readerS that

the Son of Man found elsewhere in his Gospel is the Seonor

Man of Dan. 7.
 270

Lagrange says the lack of the two articles with Son

of Man reduces the messianic character of the expression and
'emphasizes the human nature of the Son of Man.328 This is
so because judgment is the last act of the history of humanity
redeemed by Christ. It is to the one who died to save humanity
that judgment of those who reject him is given. This answers
the possible objection of sinners who might insist on judgment
by a man: God, being perfect, finds flaws even in angels; a
man would be more inclined to lenience (cf. Heb.4:15>.329
While Son of Man does suggest one who is human, it would be
wrong, however, to make the term "Son of Man " in this context
mean just "human", for it ip here with the role of juElge that
he assumes the traditional apocalyptic role and is thus "exalted
man".330 That the anarthrous Son of Man is not to be taken in
a lesser sense (as merely "human") than Son of Man with the
article is clear from the way it appears in Revelation (1:13;
14:14). In.both places the title is anarthrous, but the figure
there is anything but a mere human being. John's meaning then
in In. 5:27 is surely that the Son is given the role of judge
because he is the Son of Man of Dan. 7, to ~hom judgment (for
the saints of the Most High) is given.
Since the article is omitted from both the nomen regens
and the nomen rectum, it is possible to see a "strong Semitic
coloring" in this verse.331 Since this type of constructio;n
is very common in the LXX and again in N.T. quotations,3~2 it
is probably impossible to determine whether its occurrence here
is due directly to the influence of Hebrew (or Aramaic) .0r indir-
ectly to the Semitisms of the LXX (Septuagi~ms). In either
 271
case it seems safe to conolude that this is a Semitism, though
this observation must be qualified by the fact that in pure
c\ ) /I I
Greek tJlOS olVCLeW1fOv as a title would be anarthrous anyway
and the oommon N.T. use with the artioles is strange in the
first place.)3)
It may be usef.ul to compare the situation with another
ohristological title, [6J ufos (TDOJ ~ou , in the N.T. Here
the oocurrenoes with both nouns anarthrous are more numerous
(\ ) rol
than is the oase with U I oSO<Vv(WTfov, but still the anarthrous
construction oocurs less trequently.than the construction with
the article before one or the other of the nouns,))4 showing a
definite preference for the artiole with u~6S. aou as with ::,
U~6S ,oD /,.Jv'~fc1m.oJ. This faot, plus the Semitio elements in
In. 5 (apooalyptic motifs) sugges'b3the anarthrous usage is a
Semitism rather than a sudden return to pure Greek titular

usage.
If it is olear that one source of this Johannine logion
was the O.T., what is the relationship of the saying to the
Synoptic tradition? There is really no Synoptio logion olosely
parallel to In.5:27 and oertainly none with the title anarthrous
There are, however, several sayings in the Synoptios which,
like In. 5:27, appear to be based on Dan. 7:13, either taldng
up the judgment theme or emphasizing the olouds and g~ory in
order to speak of the parousia of the Son Df Man. Most impor-
tant of those synoptio sayings which have a judgment motif is
Mk. 8:)8 (and ~e Matthean parallel, 16:27, where the Son of
Man is about to oome in his Father's glory and to judge men
according to their deeds; also Mt. 19:28 and Lk. 21 :)6 with
 272
future judgment). The sayings which use the Dan. 7 motifs
to speak of the par-ousd.a. are Mk. 13: 26 and 14: 62 (which
probably also implies a judgment theme in view of its con-
text). There are no Synoptic parallels to the giving of
life to the dead, the closest idea being the predictions
of the rising again of the Son of Man (Mt. ~:9,31; Lk. 9:22).
Most of these Synoptic sayings refer to the future authority
of the Son of Man, but there are of course Synoptic parallels
to the kind of present authority of the Son of Man as seen in
In. 5 where he gives life to the dead and judges in the present.
Perhaps the most important parallels to this concept are Mk.
2:10 (:wherethe Son of Man has power to forgive sins while on
earth, implying a present judgment335) and 2:28 (where he has
lordship of the Sabbath). John, in keeping with his more
realized eschatologY, has a greater emphasis on this present
aspect of the Son of ManIs authority than the Synoptics,
though he does not neglect the future.
There are demonstrably Johannine features in this passage:

the €t
JI
~6Tot( 'tAr
(f
(KJ..I
\ r-:>
vuv' E~nv
)
is a favorite Johannine
c' c (,
motif, as is the 0 T1d-r~t and 0 UIOS theme. The Johannine
d~,V ~f1v is here (5:19, 24, 25). Also v. 28 has been said
to contain a high concentration of characteristics of John's
style: the {fK.~-r'" .;J t" • the TO:7". and the I"~ ~'1't'\~~t-r6. 336
Whether one can legitimately say !J~'TOS is a Johannine word may
\
be questioned however. It does occur frequently in the Fourth
Gospel (50 times in 94 pages of Greek text). But it has a
definite place in the synoptics, especially Luke, where it
occurs some 40 times in 121 pages of Greek text. (Of. 33 times
 273
in Matthew's 117 pages and 12 times in Mark's 81 pages.)
Nor is it certain that ~dUf:IW is Johannine. Its frequency
is greatest in Luke,' 13 times as opposed to 6 times in John,
7 times in Matthew, and 4 in Mark, 5 in Acts, and once each
in Galatians, II Thess., I John, and Jude. John uses it
differently from the synoptics where it occurs moat. 'often.337
In the Fourth Gospel it is not related to individual miracles
nor to the attitude of· Jesus I followers. It is instead "a
term for the impact made by the works of Jesus. ,,338 It is
used only three times with r" , twice
\
in John (3:7; 5:28)
'[)
and once in I John (3:13), so that f-tt..
\
&Vrtl(tTE- might be
thought peculiarly Johannine.
But these Johannine characteristics notwithstanding,
there are significant indications of pre-Johannine, primitive
tradition behind this logion. The apocalyptic, Danielic motifs
have been noticed already. In addition there is the possible
c • ) Jr\ I
significance of the lack ot the article with tJ( es a. V l>'f W7ToJ
as showing the ea~ly origin of the title (and ot this logion).
Schulz takes the lack of the article to indicate that U,c6S
.J /
d.VfJ..tWTft>J has not yet mature d itt
n 0 a echnical term--so this
logion is halfway between the old apocalyptic and the Christian
traditions.339 Likewise Schnackenburg takes the lack of the
article to indicate the derivation of the term from the early
tradtion.340 Bernard goes so far as to suggest that the term
is anarthrous here because the logion is based on Jesus' own
words.341
John's readers learn more about the Son of Man in In.
5:27. The Son of Man stands in the special relationShip to
 274
God of the Son to the Father, for it 1s in the context of
this relationship that John introduces Son of Man (5:26, 27).
He gives life to the dead and judges men both in the present
and in the future. And as the visionary figure of Dan. 7,
he embodies the ideal of man (as opposed to the inhuman beasts
of the vision)342 and stands in a representative relationship
to the saints of the Most High.

Savior
John ,6:27, 53
John 6:27 and 6:53 are really related sayings and go
together as the introduction to (v.27) and the cUlmination
of (v. 53) the Bread of Life discourse. However, John 6:53
may be a more highly developed saying ~ot just in the present
argument in John 6 but possibly also in the history of tradi-

tion) •
The Bread of Life discourse has been occasioned by ,the
feeding of the five thousand.343 The crowd has failed to see
the significance of this "sign". They want the temporal
blessing of bread which Jesus has given them and are not con-
cerned to seek the abiding, eternal "bread" which Jesus as
the Son of Man will give them and of which the material bread
was the !'sign". In the opening section of the explanation of'
this sign (In. 6:22-33) the Son of Man title is used and sev-
eral O.T.themes are introduced.
The major theme in John 6 is, of course, the Bread of
Life. Several terms are used, "food" (which perishes or abiQ.es,
v , 27) , ''manna''(vv. 31, 49 )or "bread' (come down) from-heaven"
 275
.,
~vv. 31, 32, 41, 50, 58), "bread of God" (v, 33), "bread of
life" (vv, 35, 48), "living bread come down from heaven" tv. 51)
But all these terms mean essentially the same thing: spiritual
food or that which nourishes a man's spirit as bread nourishes
his body. "Food" snd "bread" are the terms most relevant to
the setting, in which Jesus has just given physical food tas
a sign that he can also give spiritual food)., "Manna" is
brought in as the relevant O.T. equivalent (from Ex. 16) and
has importance because of its place in contemporary messianic
expectations.344 There is evidence345 of Jewish expectations
of the restoration of the manna (and a second exodus), some-
times associated with' the Passover celebration (at which time
it was thought the Messiah would appear). To what extent th~s
evidence (from later Jewish writings) represents the signifi-
cance of the manna theme in Jesusl day ft ls difficult to say,
but this expectation (of feeding again on the manna) is seen
in the Sibylline Oracles.346 At any rate the request of the
crowd that Jesus validate his claims by a sign like that Moses
gave in the manna (vv. 30, 31) seems to indicate they knew SOme-
thing like the later Jewish expectation of the restoration of

the manna.
The primary O.T. text behind this manna motif is Ex. 16.
But there is no direct literary dependence (at least in terms
of verbal coincidence). The manna account has merely provided
the basis of the manna expectation. However, the Jews qu~te
the O.T. in v. 31 and here one may look for a verbal dependence
on an O.T. text. No one verse seems to fit this quotation
exactly, either because it is an inaccurate quotation or because
 276

it is a conflated one. Two verses from Ex. 16 together

supply the main elements of the quotation, though neither
separately has them all.
Ex. 16:4 (LXX) ,. ,~~BcJ 6yW ~w 0f'iv ;!r'DIJS tIC 7"00 ()Vfd'tlDO, H'

Ex. 16:15(LXX) IOSTU. ~ dr' "1"c>s,l J~ ~Jwt<.fv

•• f(.jf't's dk';'" od.lH'iv,
1 L.
Jn.: 6 3
~
,
01 71'" -rep ~s
r
rrlA.wv TD
{:.! "AI
f"

L
\
r-r-
6-(l>o( rDV
...
1)1
~v T'" ~ '/Atc.W
J',11
w L:_ ~
I'
,

t",
((

I' n at [puS
Ga-r,v ye-rrtJ(-f~~""v, ,",(TOV 61( TeV olJfg(V'~ ~"'I(t:" a((}rois 'I.c'r{:;v,

But perhaps it is Psa. 78:24 which is being referred to.

\ ,I ~, ,. >Ie
({aU ef,k'1N ~V'T"";S r':": 1~rt:'lv )~I
\.J.I
"'(rw
,
DVfti..VIJO
1'1
G-olN!f:W
J
Ofv--rOts.

The quotation in John may be closest to Psa. 78:24, so that

verse .cannot be ruled out as the basis of the quotation,
though a conflation of Ex. 16:4 and Ex. 16:15 could equally
well lie behind the Johannine passage. In the latter case
(. t'\
the main change would be from the vtA'V of Ex. 16:15 to the
«ttrols of In. 6:31•347 What is 'clear is that the O.T. story
of the miraculous supply of manna is being used to say some-
thing new and highly original about the Son of Man. This
something new is summarized in v. 32, the (secondary at least,
if not primary348) meaning of which is that the manna Rhses
gave was not true bread from heaven, but the Son of Man will
give the true bread from heaven.
The second important theme occurring in this passage
is the New Moses or New Prophet expectation.349 This motif
is of course related to the manna theme as well. It lies
perhaps below the surfaoe at the beginning of the passage,
but it is brought out explicitly in In. 6:32. That the crowQ
was asking Jesus to justify his claims and to fit their under-
standing of the role of the Second Moses {whose advent t~y
 277

were awaiting) is clear from In. 6:14.350 Jesus' provision

of bread in feeding the five thousand clearly had aroused
hopes among the people that he Was indeed Moses redivivus
who had come to restore the manna to them.3~ Did Jesus
himself intend to fill this role? From v. 32 it would seem
he did not. This verse is discussed at length by Barrett,
who notes the several ways in which the verse may be taken
and concludes that, because of the emphatic position of ov
f\1wU«'II"S, the primary meaning of the verse is, "It was not
Moses who gave you the bread from heaven (but God).,,352 In
this case the )
DV
IIA
"lWV~~£
II
stands i n opposition to In. 6:14,
indicating Jesus did not wish to be thought of as the Second
Moses. Lagrange353 was of the opinion that the primary 0Pposi-'
tion in 6:32 is between the old bread and the new, spiritual
bread, with only a secondary opposition between Moses and the
Father (insofar as the manna came indirectly from the Father
through Moses the mediator, whereas the true bread comes
directly from the Father). Jesus I more usual role as "Son"
is brought out by his use of the term "my Father" in 6:32.
But whether a sonship clmistology or a "New Moses" christology
is more basic to the traditional form of this account, the
passage as it'now stands (with the multipli'cation of bread
recalling the manna account354) portrays 'Jesus the Son of Man
as the greater than Moses (cf. Hebrew~) and in fact identifies
him (implicitly)'with God the Father: it was God who gave the
old manna, it is Jesus who gives the new.
Woven into this passage are other O.T. allusions as
well. There are in fact direct quotations from the O.T. in
 278

both v. 31 and v. 45. Probably the quotation in v. 3~ is

Psa. 78:24, though the wording does not fit exaotly. Brown
lists other possible passages (Ex. 16:4, Ex. 16:15, and Wisdom
16:20),355 but it seems probable (see the above discussion)
that v. 31 is a loose quotation of Psa. 78:24. This text may
at first seem anrmaua.l, testimonium to be used with the Son of
Man, but insofar as it speaks of the giving of the manna it
is equally appropriate as Ex. 16. In fact, Psa~ 78:24 has
the merit of omitting any reference to Moses, making it per-
fectly clear that it was "the Lord" who rained manna from
heaven, and it is with Him rather than with Moses (or a Second
Moses) that the Son of Man is to be identified.
The second O.T. quotation, in v. 45, is from Isa. 54:13.
But this O.T. is not really used as a testimonium. Nevertheless
its O.T. context of victory and the promise of God's deliver-
ance after suffering (the suffering Servant Song precedes this
verse from Isaiah, 52:13-53:12) may well have been carried into
In. 6. Following the sacrificial implications (developed
later in the'chapter, vv , 51, 53ff.) of the Son of Man as
"the bread of life", there comes the promise of eternal life
(v. 47) for all who believe on Jesus. After suffering there
will be salvation. To what extent John wished to develop
these implications of the 0.T. text it is difficult to say.
It may be he has simply given a scriptural explanation why
some believed Jesus' claims while others did not.
The Son of Man logion itself has a rich O.T. background.
Several O.T. passages come to mind as the possible basis of

In. 6:27c,
 279

(especially vv. 7ff.) speaks of the messianic coronation356

(the Messiah's being ,isealed"). Psa~ 40:7, 8 speaks of the
results of this sealing in the Messiah's obedience to the
Father. But chiefly Isa. 61:1 -3 (quoted in Lk. 4:18, 19 at
the beginning of JeSUSl preaching ministry) speaks of this
sealing of the Son of Man for his appointed ministry: "The
spirit of the Lord God is upon me because the Lord has anointed
me; he has sent me to bring good news • • • " (NEB). As the
"root of Jesse" he comes with wisdom and understanding (Isa.
11:1-3; 42:1) of which the "bread" in In. 6maybe a figure.
The first part of the Son of Man logion takes up the
manna-bread of life theme. Many O.T. passages lay the foun-
dation for the sort of spiritualization of the manna which. is
found in this verse. As far back as Deut. 8:3357 there was
the contrast between physical and spiritual food, the latter
being "the words of God". This idea of God's words being

food is fairly widespread. The balance of clauses may indi-

358 "Thou gavest thy good spirit to
cate this in Neh. 9:20:
instruct them; thy manna thou didst not withhold from them,
and thou gavest them water to quench their thirst" (NEB).
In the wisdom literature it is wisdom which is the spiritual
food. Proverbs 2:6 says, "for the Lord giveth wisdom, out
of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding." Wisdom
16:20 reads, '.'Youfed your people with the nourishment of
angels, and you sent them from heaven bread that took no labo:r."
Similarly Wisdom 16:26 has, "That your sons whom you loved
might learn, 0 Lord, that it is not the various kinds of fruit
that nourish man, bu~ it is your word that preserves those who
 280

believe in you." And Sirach24:21 reads, "He who eats of

me [Wisdom] will hunger still; he who drinks of me will
thirst for more ••,359 Philo allegorized manna to refer to
Wisdom.360 In the prophet.s as well there is preparation
for this spiritual interpretation. Isaiah 49:10 may have
had a place in this tradition, as well as Jer. 15:16, -rhy
words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto
me the joy and rejoicing of my heart." Perhaps most sigrd-
ficant in this emerging imagery is Isa. 55, which in thought
is very close to the way the spiritual bread is spoken of in

In. 6.361
As has been seen before in the study of Son of Man
logia, John·makes full use of a rich Q.T. background. It
is easy to read too much of the Q.T. into these logia because
so much of what John says about the Son of Man assumes the Q.T.
and because John perhaps intends his readers to read in much
of this Q.T. background. However that may be, it is reasonably
certain that the Q.T. and later Jewish tradition did present
an emerging theme of the ideal manna (with the related Second
Moses expectation) of which Jesus· (as John presents him) made
use. But Jesus advanced significantly upon this Q.T. pre-
paration when he applied it to himself and his ministry.362
Peder BOrgen,363 attempting to explain the structure
of John 6, suggests that John is following the pattern of
Palestinian midrash. The pattern is (1) O.T. quotation,
(2} interpretation, (3) objection(s) against this interpre-
tation, (4) repetition of the interpretation, (5) answer to
objection(s) and solution to the problem. Borgen finds this
 281

pattern in ,Mekilta on Ex. 16:15 and Philo, Deter. 47,18.

While In. 6 fits this pattern reasonably well, one may ask
whether this is sufficient evidence to establish a midrashic
pattern. It may be rathEr that John has merely used his tech-
niques of misunderstanding and' of emphasis by repe,tition with-
out following strictly any formal pattern.364
The relation of this narrative-discourse to the Synoptic
parallels is interesting. The parallel of sequence between
John and Mark is especially noteworthy. (t), Mk. 8:14-21

notes that Jesus ,gave instructions at the time of the multi-

plication of the bread (first account in Mk.); John gives a
discourse which constitutes such instruction. (2) In both
places the crowd asked Jesus for a sign to verify his works
(Mk. 8:11, 12, after the second multipli,caiJ.ion
account; In.
6:30). {3} There is the failure to understand the signifi-
cance of the bread multiplication (Mk. 8 :14-21; cf. In. 6:26 ,
32, 33). (4) Bread is used figurative;ty (Mk. 7:27-28; 8:14,
15 "loaves"; In. 6:27, 32). {5} The meaning of bread is mis-
understood (Mk. 8:16, 17ff.; cf. Mt. 16:5-12; In. 6:32, 52ff.).
All of these parallels plus the almost verbal parallels between
In. 6:27 and Lk. 12:29 suggest that, as Brown concludes,365
John has made considerable use of traditional material.366
If there are synoptic parallels t'o the larger structure
of this chapter, the same can be said of the logion itself.
The work of the Son of Man in giving the true bread is, in
effect, a mini~try of service, as in Mk. 10:45. The fact
that the bread which he gives is the "true bread" shows the
spiritual significance of his work and this has Synoptic
 282
parallels.367 Since having this "true bread" given by the
Son of Man means having eternal life and not having it means
not having eternal life, the Son of Man in effect is judging
(cf. Mt. 16:27;1 9:28; Mk. 14: 62) • There are Synoptic parallels
to the idea of the Son of Man's being "sealed" or certified
by the Fat~er, inasmuch as he will have a place at the right
hand of power~ Mk. ·14:62 (Mt. 26:64; Lk. 22:69), where he will
sit, and he will come in the clouds with great glory (Mt. 24:30;
25:31; Mk. 8:38; 13:26; Lk. 21 :27). In spite of the relatively
few verbal contacts between the Johannine and the Synoptic
logia, the parallel attributes and associated ideas justify
the conclusion that the Son of Man of whom John writes is not
so very different from that of the Synoptic writers.
In addition to the O.T. and Synoptic elements present
in this passage there are several characteristically Johannine
elements present. The contrast in v. 27 between perishable
food and that which lasueternally, though not exclusively
Johannine (cf. Lk. 12:29; Isa.~5; !l!l.), was also used in
chapter 4.368 A Johannine idiom occurs in s , 29 where T"C,r!
is followed by a rY~
of explanation.369 Braun lists eight
Johannine characteristics peculiar to the Fourth Gospel of
which three occur in this passage.370 There is the uniquely
Johannine double lI,...~v in 6:26, 32. Schulz sees further
Johannine style pecul±arities in 6:27c.371 Thus it is obVious
that the Evangelist has workeid over and shaped the material.
But inasmuch as a pre-Johannine tradition is clearly present
as well (as has been seen above), there is justification for
the conclusion which Smalley reaches: "The Johannine flavour
 283

of verses 27 and 53, particularly marked in the use of the

\ J I
term 1w"lv (at I WV/ tJv) does not by itself demonstrate their
inauthenticity, especially since they are already congruent
with a Son of Man tradition beyond the Fourth Gospel. "373
What are John's readers to learn about the Son of
Man from these,}Qgia.'/ This ,Son of Man, upon whom the angels
ascend and descend (1:51) and who himself has come down from
heaven (3:13) and will ascend again (6:62) after his lifting
up in crucifixion (3:14, 8:28), fills the role of the expected
Second Moses in the provision of the "true bread" (6:27, 32,
33).374 And he is himself the "true bread" as well as the
giver of the bread (6:33,,35).375 But inasmuch as it was
not really Moses but God who gave the manna (6:32), this Son
of Man who gives the "true bread" (even the miraculous manna
was not "true" or "eternal" bread, 6:32) should be identified
with God the Father (1) rather than Moses.376

John 9:35

The question of the breaking of 'the Sabbath, though

important in this account, is really less important here than
in similar synoptic stories (Mk. 2:23-28; 3:1-6; Lk. 13:10-17)
or than in John 5. The more central question for this account
is the christological one. "Here we pass from the arguments
of Jesus' ministry to the apologetic of Church and Synagogue
in the era of spreading Christianity, and the evangelist shows
us the prolongation into his awn time of the debate over Jesus
that had already begun to rage when Jesus was alive."377
 284
There may be a baptismal lesson taught by the story.
Raymond Brown attempts to show that this was the intention
of the writer, citing first the early ecclesiastical use of
In. 9 in catechetical instruction and examination as well as
in baptismal rites. The view that it was John's intention
to give a baptismal lesson is largely based on the importance
of the washing in water at Siloam for effecting the healing
miracle.378 Further support is found in John's concern tiO
note that the man was bo.rnb11nd and perhaps born in sin.
Healing removes the man's blindness which he had from.birth;
washing (i.e., baptism) removes his sin which he had from
birth.379 Restoration of sight to the blind as a symbol
for Christian baptism is found in other N.T. authors as well
(Heb. 6:4; 10:32), thus further establishing the pOint.3SO
Does this narrative embody a core pericope that- is
genuine--or has the account been cre~ted for polemic reasons?
Perhaps the use of mud to an6irtt;:.the
blind man's eyes is a
genuine, historical recollection, but it does serve the pur-
pose in the account both of providing for the anointing and
of necessitating the washing at Siloam (with its possible
baptismal overtones381). Also of little real importance is
the question of the disciples in v. 2. It acts only as an
introduction to the story and is not further developed. This
is no certain indication of its antiquity however. On the

other hand the lack of (fabricated) descriptions and the

brevity of the account of the miracle itselt(vv. 6, 7} suggest
that the core pericope may be trlditional. Other indications
of the primitiveness of the story are the use of spittle (also
 285
found in the Synoptics, Mk. 8:22-26), the knowledge of the
pool of Siloam, and the elaboration of Sabbath regulations.382
Perhaps one should not dismiss this account too quickly as
being of no historical value. While there are enough indica-
tions of the vested interest of John and his readers to warrant
due care in handling the material, there are also enough indi-
cations of old tradition to serve warning against dismissi'ng

the account.
, I .)
The question of the blind man in v. 36, Ke(, -r,s 6(fT'V;

KUfI l G , may be taken in two ways: (1) what does this term
Son of Ma~3mean? or (2) where is the one who bears this title?
Lagrange384 and Bernard385 both believe Son of Man was not a
commonly known title for the Messiah and this man's incom:pre_
hension (as well as that of Jesus' questioners in In. 12:34)
are taken as proof of this fact. But as more recent commenta_
tors point out,386 Jesus' reply to the blind man suggests the
meaning of his question was the second sense. The man recog-
nized Son of Man as a title (though whether a familiar, mes-
sianic title may be yet another question), but he was unsure
to whom this title belonged. Also the way in which John
represents the progression of the blind man's fa.ith in Jesus
suggests that Son of Man in v. 35 is intended as the culmin-
387
ation of this development. But the association of the Son
of Man with the traditional motif of judgment may indicate a
primitive vorlage on which John has built this account. John
may have received a traditional saying in which Son of Man
occurred as a first person circumlocution and have used it
388
here to make his theological (christologlcal) point.
 286
John's development of the judgment motif and his use
of it in In. 9 deserve closer examination. The approach of
a day of judgment is a constant presupposition in John: judg-
ment is given the Son (5:22, 27) who has come to earth to save ,
not judge (3:17; 8:15; 12:47) but who cannot avoid judgment
(8:16).389 Judgment on believers (3:18, 19) and the world
(12:31 ) and its rulers (12:31; 16:11 ) has alre.ady taken place.
This judgment took place when the Son of Man resolved to give
himself a sacrifice and God promised to glorify him (12:27-31).
The distinctive feature of Jn's thinking on judgment,
even by comparison with Paul, is to be found in this
emphasis on the fact that on both sides judgment is
already present. • • • Before the revelation of God
in His Son, which has supratemporal validity, the dis-
tinction between future and present fades. The eternal
is present in time.390
How then does John use this judgment motif with the
Son of Man? Since judgment is a traditional motif of the
Son of Man (Dan. 7:13) and John uses the motif, one might
expect that, if John preserves any early Son of Man tradition,

he would connect Son of Man and this judgment theme. Certainly

9,391
judgment and Son of Man appear to be connected in In.
for it is by his confession of Jesus as Son of Man that the
blind man who nOW sees (both physically and spiritually)
leads Jesus to introduce the judgment motif. Those who see
physically are judged spiritually blind because they cannot
see who Jesus is (the Son of Man), while the man once blind
is judged to see spiritually as well as physically, since he
has confessed his belief in Jesus.
Another Johannine theme in this context, associated
with both the judgment theme and the Son of Man, is the theme
 287

of light (and the related theme of "seeing"). Just as in

In. 9 judgment by the Son of Man means the giving of sight
to the blind (and the withholding of spiritual sight), so
in In 3 judgment (j:19) means the coming of light (which is
the Son or the Son of Man, 3:13, 14) into the world. And
it is Jesus (the Son of Man) who is the light of the world
(9:5; cf. 3:19).392 John uses ~~ in a definitely christo-
logical sense (see especially 1 :4, 5, 7, 8, 9; 8:12; 9:5;
12:35, 36, 46), so it is not strange to see him connecting
it with his Son of Man christology. It is interesting to
make the comparison between the light mou!f in John and its
treatment in Rabbinic writings where it is often a title for
God , . In B.e'midbar Rabba, eha.p, 15, "the Israelites said to
God, 0 Lord of the Universe, thou commandest us to light
lamps to thee, yet thou ar'b'the light of the world. ,,393 It
is used as a title for the "Messiah·M in the O.T. (Isa. 49:6;
60:1) and in Yalkut Reubeni on Gen. 1:4 where "the light of
the Messiah" is spoken of and God tells Satan that the light
under the throne of glory is reserved for Messiah.394 Now
for John the "light'" which was with God (and was God) has
come to earth as the fWS roCl f{io-r19u in the person of the

Son of Man.
The healing miracle itself has no O.T. background, as
Brown points out,395 but the prophets did foresee that when
the Messiah came the spiritually blind would have their eyes
opened (Is. 29:18; 35:5; 42:7). John's central christological
concern with the Son of Man as judge doubtless has its roots
in Dan. 7:13, though little direct evidence can be found of
 288

his use of Dan. 7 to construct this narrative. The light

theme which he associated with the judgment and with the
Son of Man (9:5) may have come from Isa. 49:6~396 If the
O.T. inspiration for this motif did come from lsa. 49, this
is further evidence of the importance of the Serv.ant Songs
in early christology. ·One would also have the interesting
christol:ogieal connections in John of Son of Man = <pws rof)
I
K"O""foV = i71i]1 1"2&. Finally there is in vv , 29-33 the theme
of a man ilalr tk....u 397 who is greater than Moses (recalling
In. 6:32ff.) who does something no man has ever done (v. 32).
What evidence is there for John's having made Use of
the Synoptic traditions? Brown's discussion of this problem
is useful.398 Having set out all the Synoptic accounts of
blind men being healed, he finds only three relatively insig-
nificant details in these accounts which are similar to details
of In. 9: (1) the blind man sat and begged (of. Bartimaeus,
Mk. 10:46-52; Lk. 18:35-43; Mt. 20:29-34, two blind men),
(2) the use of spittle (cf. healing in stages at Bethsaida,
Mk. 8:22-26; cf. Mt. 25:30), (3) at Jerusalem. (SUl'I:IlIla.ry,
Mt.
21 :24). Brown notiaes thatt-he most distinctive features of
John's account are absent. from the Synoptic stories:399 blind
from birth, use of mud, washing at Siloam, questioning ab0Ut
the miracle, interview with the parents. Notioing the indi-
cations in the account of the primitive character of the story,
Brown concludes that this is an early healing story p»e8e~ved
only by John.400 Similarly Bultmann believes the miracle story
and its discussion are drawn from a sou:rce (as is the story ~'o:f'
 289

chap. 5), which he calls a (1~ f-~,,( -9uelle. The Evangelist

has enlarged upon this tradition and added his own under-
standing.401 Because of the resemblances of Jesus' wprds
in In. 9:2-4 to Synoptic sayings,402 Brown nevertheless feels
compelled to suggest that John may have found his under-
at'a nding of this independently received story through the
traditional (i.e., Synoptic) sayings of Jesus.403
There is a striking similarity between this Johannine
Son of Man logion and that in In. 12:32-34. In both there
is (1) a question as to the person of the Son of Man, (2) the
use of the light and judgment themes (12:35, 36; 12:31), and
the use of Isa. 6 (quoted in 12:40 and alluded to in 9:39).404
But while In. 12:32f. emphasizes mainly the humiliated Son of
Man to be exalted in crucifixion, in In. 9:35 the Son of'Man
is Giver of Sight and Savior (Judge) in whom faith is required~5

Daniel 7. the Son of Man and. the Son (of God)

Looking again at In. 5: 27, the only anarthrous Son'Lof

Man saying in the Gospels, it will be recalled that the basis
of this logion is Dan. 7:13.406 There may also be ~ clue in
this saying as to the foundation of John's Son of Man christo-
logy and possibly more-broadly to his christology in general.
In particular, the fact that in In. 5:26 (so,close to the Son
of Man logion in 5:27) and indeed throughout the whole context
(5:19, 25, 26) John's important christological title "Son"
is predominant, raises the question whether John's "Son" dhris-
tology is related to his "Son of Man" ChristologYJ407 and since
John's "Son of Man" christology is related to that of the
 ~90

Synoptics,408 is it possible there is a common or parallel

tradition whiCh goes back to Jesus himself? A close study
of some key passages in which "Son" and "Son of Man" occur
together shows (as will be seen) that the motifs associat~d
with these titles in these passages are often traceable to
Dan. 7, in association with such other Q.T. testimonia as
Lsa, 53, Paa, 8, and later Dan. 12:2: (supplying the resur-
rection theme).
In In. 5:26, 27 "Son of Man" appears to be interjected
into a "Son" discourse and to bear no real relation to the
context. But closer examination shows this is not the case.
The "Son of Man" title is applied to the "Son" as justification
for his being given the function of judge: the Son is given
power to judge because he is Son of Man. Judging is clearly
a Son or Man motir (Dan. 7; Mt. 16:27; cr. Mk. 8:38; 14:62).
Yet throughout this "Son" passage judging is said to be a
function of the "Son". Then at 5:'27 the reader is told why
the Son can take this function: because he is the Son of
Man. "Son of Man" is introduced then to underline the Sonl's
authority, in this case his authority to judge. The Johannine
"Son" .christology, at least at this point in respect of the
Son's judging function, is thus built on the Son of Man tradi-
tion coming from Dan. 7.409
But there are other parallels to Dan. 7 in this passage.
The relationship between the Son and the Father is very
similar to that between the Son of Man and the Ancient of
Days in Daniel 7. In Dan. 7:13 the Son of Man comes with
the clouds of heaven to the Ancient of Days and is presented
 291
before him. To this Son of Man is given dominion, glory
and a kingdom (7:14). Two characteristics of the relation-
ship between the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man appear
,
here which are also found in the Johannine Son's relation-
ship to the Father: (1) the Son of Man is in a position
of submission or subjection to the Ancient of Days, just as
John's Son is in submission to the Father, and (2) the Son
of Man derives his authority from the Ancient of Days (Dan.
7:13,14, 22), just as the Father grants authority to the
Son (In. 5:26, 27, 30). The relationship of the Son of Man
to the Ancient of Days is then one of Bubjection and depen-
dence for his authority.
Another parallel is in the commission of the Son of
Man (= saints of the Most High) and the commission of the Son.
In Dan. 7 the Son of Man is commissioned to have dominion and
kingdom as well as judgment. In a similar way in John's Gospel
the Son is conscious that he has been commissioned or sent by
the Father (in this context, 5:24, 30). In Dan. 7 the thought of
the Son of Man being sent may be inferred from the fact that
the Son of Man comes to receive from the Ancient of Days his
commission to rule, to judge, and to be served by all peoples.
The Son in J.Ghn'sGospel is sent by the Father just as the
Son of Man is commissioned by the Ancient of Days.41 0
There is a further similarity in the exercise of author-
ity by the Son and the Son of Man. Though it is a derived
or given authority which the Son possesses by virtue of his
relationship to the Father, yet he does exercise this authority
 292

in and of himself (In. 5:22, 23, 24, 27, 30, 36). The Son
has authority just as the Son of Man has dominion, glory,
and a kingdom that all peoples should serve him (Dan. 7:13,
14, 22, 27). The Johannine Son exercises authority because
he is the Son of Man of Dan. 7 (In. 5:27).
A final parallel is to be found in the resurrection
theme. John 5:28, 29 proclaims that those who hear the
voice of the Son-Son of Man will be resurrected. This
resurrection theme is probably built on Dan. 12:2, as Schulz
maintains,411 The passage in Dan. 12 speaks of the people
of God (12:1, Your [i.e., God1s] people), perhaps identified
with the saints of the Most High (Dan. 7:22), represented by
the Son of Man. In this way connection between the Son of
Man and the resurrection theme then appears in In. 5:28,29.
It is the voice of the Son of Man which will raise the dead
(In. 5:28, 29) because he is the representative of the saints
of God (Dan. 7:13, 21f., 25, 27) whose deliverance will signal
the last resurrec~on (Dan. 12:1, 2).
The point of the preceding discussion is to show that,
in addition to the close association which John makes of Son
and Son of Man in 5:26, 27, there are even more connections
between the two titles, as seen in the use of primarily "Son
of Man" motifs derived from Dan. 7 (and 12)412 with th~ title
"Son"•
One may now examine other Son of Man passages to see
whether they in fact contain the same association of Son with'
Son of Man and the compilation of Son of Man motifs from Dan.
7. The motifs to be noted (in addition to other motifs of
 293

importance which may occur) are:

(1) The Father-Son relationship paralleling the Ancient
of Days-Son of Man relationship, which is one of
subjection, the SQn of Man deriving his authority
from the Ancient of Days.
(2) The commission of the Son (his being "sent ").
(3) The exercise of authority by the Son.
(4) The function of judgment by the Son.
(5) The resurrection motif (Dan. 7 and 12).
In In. 3, where two Son of Man logia occur in juxta-
position (vv. 13, 14), a similar association of the Son arid
the Son of Man titles occurs as in In. 5:26,27. John 3:13,
14 speak of the Son of Man, but immediately following on this
1
the title "Son" is used (3:16, 17, 18 only Son of God ).4 3
Not only are the two titles placed in close position, but
also the traditional Son of Man motifs are connected with the
"Son". The basic judgment motif (4) is ascribed to the Son
,.. /
(3:17, 18, 19 k.f'vw, ~rl<rlS ). It is true that it was not
for Kfr"IS that the Son came, but ICf'~'S is the inevitable
result of men's failure to believe in the Son of God. Thus
the important Son of Man function of judgment is attributed
to the Son and the two titles "Son" and "Son of Man" are
associated with each other as in In. 5:27.
Other Son of Man motifs may be seen in In. 3 as well.
The Father-Son relationship (1) is perhaps seen in the ascent-
descent of the Son of Man in 3:13, which may recall the pre-
sentation of the Son of Man before the Ancient of Days in
Dan. 7:13. But whether this is so or not, there is certainly
a relationship between the Father and Son in In. 3:16ff.
 294
parallel to that between the Ancient of Days and the Son of
Man in Dan. 7.
Another motif of which one must take account in con-
sidering the association of the Son of Man and Son titles
is the suffering (~) of the Son of Man and his bringing sal-
vation to many as a result. The suffering and its salvatory
effects are both ascribed to the Son of Man (suffering in the
lhpwto.;VlI.l, 3:14; salvation, 3:15) and to the Son (suffering
is implied in "gave", 3:16; salvation, 3:16,17).
John's primary O.T. text for the suffering Son of Man
is Isa. 52:13 (see In. 3:14, 8:28; 12:32-34). Is it possible
he saw this motif also in Dan. 7, associating the sufferings
of the Servant and the "wearing out of the saints of the Most
High" (syrnbolizedby the Son of Man), Dan. 7:21, 251 One who
could see a reference to Christ in Moses' brazen serpent or
Jacob's ladder could surely see the sufferings of the Son of
Man (with the aid of Isa. 52:13 and possibly Lk. 19:10; Mk.
10:45 or similar traditions) in Dan. 7:25.414
Though the emphasis of Jri.3 is on the suffering of
the Son (of Man) and the resultant salvation or judgment of
men according to their response, the Son-Son of Man's authority
(3) is seen as well in In. 3:11,12. The Son of Man speaks
with authority of heavenly things because he alone has ascended
and descended (3:13). The introduction of the:,',Son
of Man title
may have been to emphasize the authority of him who ascended.
The paradox is that he who speaks with this unique authority
is the one who will suffer. (The nature of his suffering is
also unique and is thus, perhaps, authoritative suffering.)
 295
There is no evidence of a resurrection motif (5) in
chapter 3 which would resemble the raising up of the righteous
in In. 5:28ff. The only raising in chapter 3 is the lifting
up of the Son of Man in crucifixion.
To summarize, there are connected with the Son title
in In. 3, many of the same Son of Man motifs seen in In. 5:27
and its context. These Son of Man motifs more likely come
from Dan. 7 than from either Num. 21 or Isa. 52:13 (the Q.T.
texts underlying the logia), which really only add the suffering-
salvation motif or elaborate it. It seems that, though used
to emphasize the authority of him who alone could speak of
heavenly things, the Son of Man title {Las carried t.othe con-
text several Son of Man motifs which are now ascribed to the
Son, while the Son of Man is treated in a novel way by inter-
preting it in terms of the servant passage.415
Another passage worth examin,.ng in this light is 8::21-30,
the context of the Son of Man logion in 8:28. As in 3:13,14,
the basic underlying Q.T. passage is Isa. 52:13, which has
( £tI"
pr-ovf.dedthe tJ~WlV>\VGll formula. But there is widespread occur-
rence in the context of the traditional Danielic Son of Man
motifs. In addition to the suffering-salvation motif (6),
there is the keynote of authority (3) which the Son of Man
exercises throughout this passage: the Son speaks with divine
authority (8:24, 26) as he spoke with authority in 3:13, and
men will be saved or lost (8:24) on the basis of t,heir response
to these .authoritative words. In the broader context the Son
has the authorlity to make men free (8:32, 36). This authority
comes from his relationship to the Father (as the Son of Man's
comes from his relationship to the Ancient of Days): "I do
 296
nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father
taught me" (8:28). Similarly he speaks of what he has seen
with the Father (8:38), and he speaks to his hearers about
the Father (8:27). Because of his relation to the Father,
he can claim that he who knows him knows the Father (8:19).
The motif of commission can be found as well, being
tied in with the authority of the divine messenger who has
authority because he is sent from God. "He who sent me is
true, and I declare to the world what I have heard from
him." (8:26) He has God's approval (as in 6:27 God has set
his seal upon him): "And he who sent me is with me; he has
not left me alone, for I always do what is pleasing to him."
(8:29; cf. 8:1 6, 1 8 )
But most striking is the occurrence of the foundational
Danielic Son of Man motif of Judgment. Even here where the
Son of Man is paradoxically speaking with authority while
foreseeing his suffering and death, he is the judge as well.
"I have much to say about you and much to judge; but he who
sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard
from him. ,r (8:26) "Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is
true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent
me." (8:16) Significantly it is not the "Son of Man" title
which is used with this theme but the "Son" title. Again one
is met with the important fact that, though there is a prepo~~
derance of traditional Son of Man motifs, these are not used
with the Son of Man title at all, but are found rather'with
the Son title; and that conversely Son of Man is not used with
the traditional Son of Man motifs.
 297
In summary, In. 8:28 and its context, like 3:13, 14
c
and context, have Isa. 52:13 behind the ·vo/w(9.tlV«A. motif, and
this is basic. But paradoxically (and this in typically
Johannine fashion) the emphasis of the context is on the
authority of the Son-Son of Man. Daniel 7 and its picture
of the connnie sLon of the Son of'Man may well be the source
of the associated concepts found here. It is evidently possible
for the Evap.~elist to place Son of Man and Son in close associ-
ation and to transfer Son of'Man ideas to the Son because he
sees the two as very closely related titles. The work which
the Son does in obedience to the Father is done because he is
the Son of Man.
In the context (12:20-50) of'two more Son of Man logia
(12:23, 34) the same basic Son of'Man leading ideas recur. The
relationship betwen the Fath~and the Son (1), parallel to the
Ancient of Days and the Son of'Man, comes out in 12:26: "If
anyone serves the Son (of Man), the Father will honour him. It
It is the same in 12:27, 28, where the Son's submission to the
Father is more vividly portrayed, as well as in 12:49, 50,
which has similarities to the references to the Son's authority
as derived from the Father (to speak as he learned from the
Father) in 5:19, 20. Again one reads of the commission (2)
of the Son-Son of Man; when he is tempted to avoid the cross
he is reminded that " • • • for this purpose I have come to
this hour" (12:27). Later, belief' in Jesus is said to be
tantamount to belief in him who commissioned and sent him as
a light (12:44-46). The Son of'Man exercises authority (3)
in drawing all men to himself' (12:32), and here as in 8:28 is
 298

the paradox of the humiliation and authority of the Son of

Man. There is the authoritative call to discipleship in
12: 26: "If anyone serves me, he must follow me" (cf. In.

Perhaps most significant is the prominence in this

passage of the fundamental Danie1ic Son of Man motif of judg-
ment (4): 'tN ow is the judgment of this wor Ld , now shall the

ruler of this world be cast out" (12:31 ). Although it is s.e.id

that the Son's purpose in coming was not to judge (12:47), yet
judgment has come as a result of his coming (12:31) and the
Son's word will be the criterion for this final judgment {12:48,.
These Danie1ic Son of Man motifs (especially judgment)
stand out more in the light of the essential theme of this
passage--the humiliation and suffering of the Son (of Man),
a theme not taken from Daniel at all but rather from Isa.
52:13ff. The Son of Man is to be lifted up in death on the
cross (12:31, 32) for the benefit of many (as in Isa. 53:10-12),
In.12;24. It was for this purpose (to bring salvation) that
the Son of Man came into the world {12:27, 47).416 But it is
significant that, even with these references to humiliation
and death (based on Isa. 52:13ff.), the Danielic motifs of
the exalted, authoritative Son of Man are still in evidence.
This paradox is most dramatic in 12: 32: "And I, when I am
lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." Here
is a reference to Jesus' death (cf. 12:33) directly connected
with an authoritative statement, "I will draw all men to
myself." It must be that both these themes (suffering and
 299

authority) are deeply embedded in the tradition, and though

superficially they appear contradictory, they were thought
by the Evangelist to be an essential part of Jesus' own words
concerning himself.
The final passage to be examined is In. 6, where three
Son of Man logia appear (6:27, 53, 62). Since 6:25-71 is a
eucharistic discourse growing out of the feeding of the five
thousand (6:1-14), it may be treated as a unit in itself. In
this context, which many believe to be to a iarge extent John's
own statement of his sacramental theology, one nonetheless
finds the same Danielic Son of Man motifs as were seen in
other passages. There is the relationship (1) between the
Father and the Son (AnC,ient of Days and Son of"Man) best
expressed in 6:57 (cf. 6:32, 33): "I live because of the
Father." Here appear both aspects of submission (6:38, 39)
and derived authority (6:37, 39, 40). The Son has been sent
or commissioned (2) by his Father (6:29, 33, 44, 46, 57).
Especially 6:33 ("The bread of God is that which comes doWn
from"heaven") seems to be parallel to Dan. 7:13, as does also
6:27 ("Son of l1an ••• for on him has God the Fataer [:: Ancient
of Days] set his seal"). The picture is exactly that of Dan.
7:13 where the Son of Man is presented before the Ancient of
Days 41 7
0 The auth<r ity (3) of the Son of Man permeates this
passage. The words spoken by Jesus are authoritative words,
belief in which brings life (6:47), for his words are spirit
and life (6:63), though unbelief finds them "hard" (6:60).
Jesus makes many authoritative claims as well: to bring true
manna (6:27> and in fact to be that true mmnahimself (6:35,41,
 300
48, 50,51,53). He claims authority to raise men up at the
last day (6:40, 44, 54), thus introducing the resurrection
motif (5) as well. Although an explicit reference to judg-
ment is missing, it certainly is implied in the granting of
life to some but not to others (6:35,44,47,51,53,54,56),
and especially in the statement that he who does not partake
of the flesh of the Son of Man has no life in him (6:53).
Finally, refe~ences to the suffering for salvation (6) by the
Son of Man (based on Isa. 52:13; cf. Dan. 7:21, 25) are not
lacking. Suffering is implied in such statements as 6:51,
"I am the ;civingbread which came down from.he.aven; if anyone
eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which
I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh" (cf.6:53,
54). The salvatory effects of this suffering are seen in the
demands for belief in 'the Son of Man (6:29, 35, 36, 37, 40,
44, 47, 64) and the subsequent impartation of ~ife to those
who do believe (6:33,40,47,50,51,54, 57). So even this
passage, with its profound theological perspective, echoes
the Danielic Son of Man tradition.
For the sake of completeness the two remaining Johan-
nine sayings should be examined briefly. In In. 1 :51, the
motifs from Daniel are conspicuously absent. There is, however ,
the implied identification of the Son (of God) with the Son
of·Man, as has been seen in the other passages (especially
In. 5). And there may be in the picture of the continuing
fellowship of the Son of Man with the Father (seen in the
ascending-descending of the angels) a parallel to the relation-
ship between the Son of Man and the Ancient'of Days. But In.
 301

1 :51 is built on Gen. 28, not on Dan. 7.

In In. 9:35 there is no parallel to the Ancient
of Days-Son of Man relationship. The main Danielic Son

of Man motifs are present nonetheless. The commission (2)

of the Son of Man appears (In. 9:33, "a man from God"·, 9:39
"I came into the world"). The authority (3) of the Son of
Man is shown by his authoritative declaration of guilt (9:41).
Judgment (4) is explicitly mentioned as the purpose of the
Son of Man's coming (9:39). Belief in the Son of Man (6)
is called for (9:35, 36, 38) leading to salvation (9:39,
the blind seeing). There is no reference to the resurrection.
From the pr-ece.d Lng discussion two important aspects of
Johannine christological thought stand out. (1) The "Son"
title is linked with the "Son of Man" title. In what way
they are related is not spelled out by the Evangelist, but
he feels free to apply Son of Man motifs readily to the Son,
while developing the Son of Man in what appears at times to
be a novel way (as, e.g., in In. 1: 51, where there are no
parallels in Daniel or the Synoptics). This observation
leads to the question whether the "Son" titJ.e, though built
on the "Son of Man", has bended to supplant "Son of Man".
Is this in fact part of a movement away from the ,Son of Man
title (if not from the essential ideas in the concept) in
18
the early church's christology?4
(2) John makes consistent use of motifs from Dan. 7,
the basic, foundational C.T.,passage. It may in fact be true
that these motifs appear elsewhere, but sinc:e John points
clearly to Dan. 7 (especially In. 5:27) it is most natural
 302

to look to Daniel as the source of these ideas. Daniel 7

would have been readily at hand for the author of the Fourth
Gospel, whereas the accessibility of other possibly contem-
porary Son of Man traditions is less certain. Daniel 7 pro-
vides the simplest explanation and an adequate background to
understand the'Johannine Son of Man. Thus Daniel 7, the prin-
cipal O~T. Son of Man testimonium, has significantly influen-
ced the "Son" concept in John's christology as well.
 NOTES

1Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John, I, pp. 88-

91; S. Schulz, Untersuch en zur Menshensohn-Christolo ie im
Johannesevangelium, p. 9. Schulz bel eves pp. 99- 0 John
uses thIs logIon to give a more realized eschatology than is
found in the traditional Synoptic parousia predictions (Mk. 14-62;
13:26; Lk. 17:22; ete.).
One ot the most recent discussions whether this is
Johannine or not tencludes that it is John's addition (Robert
T. Fortna, The Gospe 1 of Signs, pp. 228fr. l.
2W. Bauer, Handbuch aum N. T.: Johannesevan elium, p. 26,
notes that the 'dVoi. V~ v' -K....TJ..{3oJ_.'V~1
~oll I v comes from Gen. :1 2;
similarly R. Schnackenburg, Herder Commentary on John, in loc.·
C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 156:- ~ ,
Brown, John, following Bernard (I.C.C., ~oT. I, pp. 70, 71),
notes t~the connection has been ~ade since Augustine but
perhaps not before. Few would question the allusion, though
see W. Michaelis, "Johannes 1 t 51, Gn. 28, 12 und das Menschen-
sohn-Problem", T. L. 85 (1960), $61-78. Cf. also Higgins, Son
of Man, pp. 159-61, who 4t'll~8tlons that a midrashio interpretation
of Gen. 28:12 has influenced In. 1:51. .
3c• F. Burney, The Aramaic ori~in of the Fourth GOs*el
pp. 115,116, argues that 3n. 1:51 use the Hebrew text wit \h
and substituted Jesus (as Jaoob) tor the ladder.
4ct• Gen. R. 68:18, where R. Hiyya takes it of the ladder,
but R. Yannai takes it of Jacob.
5The objection (Brown, John, I, pp. 90f.) which says it
was Nathaniel who was the new Jacob (the true Israelite, v. 41)
is not valid since a strict parallel of Nathaniel to Jacob is
not maintained. Nathaniel serves to remind Jesus of the Jacob
story which he then applies to himselfo
6Por Jacob the ladder meant contact with heaven, a
revelation ot God, but only a mamentary one. For Jesus it
was eternal, continuing, not a temporary event, but an expression
of his relation to God the Father throughout his ministry.
1Cf• Isa. 64:1; Malachi 3:10 and the motif of "windows
in heaven" (also II Kings 1:2, 19; Gen. 7:11); van Unnik, BZNW 30.
8W• H. Cadman, The Open Heaven (ed. by G. B. Caird;
Oxford: Blackwell, 1969), p. 26, s~s the open heaven means
"God revealed". Cf. Barrett, John, p. 155, on Mk. 1:10 8S

303
 .» \ -' fZ \
parallel and the similar idea in Isa. 64:1, E:"" v 01vl)l '7 {t~ -r ov
oup~vcv
» r • The heavens are opened like " windows" both for
judgment (Gen. 7:11) and for blessing (I! Kings 7:2, 19: Mal.
3:10) •
See the discussion below on the heavenly image
(heavenly man) interpretation of this logion, whioh is based
largely on Ezek. 1.
98ee the discussions of Odeberg, Bu1tmann, and Lightfoot.
10Barrett, Jo~ p , 156.
11Cf• Strack-Bil1erbeck, Kommentar, in 10c.: R. Jochan
ben Zakkai alights fram his donkey as a sign-Of respect when
R. Eleazer ben Arakh expounds the Ezekiel vision. During the
exposition fire falla from heaven encircling the trees of the
field and a song ot praise is sung in the words of Psa. 148:7ff.
Then an angel speaks from the fire to say, this was how the
chariot vision took place. The account given by R. Johoshua is
in terms ot a bridal procession, which ascends Mt. Sinai to a
heavenly bridal ~ ••s'",
1 2Gilles Quispe1, "Nathanael und der Menschensohn (Joh
1.51 )", Z.N.W. 47 (1956), 281 ..84, notes the a1l•• ion to Isa. 6;1
in In. 12:41: as Isaiah saw the glory of God, not God himself,
on the throne, so John substituted Christ, who is seen in the
heavenly throne room.
13Gen• R. 68:18: R. Hi"a takes ;:L of the ladder, but
R. Yannai of Jacob. It is only the substitution of Jacob for
the ladder, not the idea, of a heavenly image, which is used.
This substitution of the Son of Man for the ladder is based on
the Hebrew text rather than the LXX, as noted above, though
this does not necessarily mean John himself used the Hebrew
(so Barrett, ~, p. 156).
14aarrett, Jo~, p. 156, cautions against making too
much of these rabbinrc-interpretations. Though it is possible
this rabbinic material reflects earlier tradition, it is not
certain. The s~e applies to the rabbinic interpretation of
Jacob as the ladder, though the heavenly image interpretation
seems more to refleot later thought (Gnostic or semi-gnostic).
1 ~or can any support be found in the Targumim which
say God;s shekinah was on the ladder.
16Lightfoot, John.,p , 99, takes this as a des~riptton
of the coming mdnistry In which the diSCiples will witness the
unbroken communion ot Jesus with the Father.
17See Augustinels interpretation of the ladder as
typifying Christ, who is both in heaven and on earth (ct. Bernard
John, I, pp. 71, 72). Philo's interpretation of the laaGer '
as-the air, the abode of bodiless soula (Som. I, 133-5) or aa
the soul (146) is irrelevant and should not be used to indicate
the A6~os (Barrett,~, p. 156). Ct. Bauer, Johannesevangelium
p. 26. E. M. Sidebottom, "The Son of Man as Man in the Fourth '
 305
Gospel", 1b1.:.. 68 (1957), pp. 231-5, 280-3, suggest s (p, 231, n , 1 )
Philo makes his logos the place where heaven and earth are one
whereas John does this with Son of Man: "The Son of Man is th~
point of union between heaven and earth (In. 1 :51); He is the
gate of heaven of Jacob I s vision (cf. 10: 7)."
18 Gen. R. 68:18.

19Cf., e.g., Arndt-Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon.

20This is true as well if the interpretation of E. C.
Hoskyns (The Fourth Gospel; 2 vols., ed. by F. N.Davey; London:
Faber & Faber, 1939), vol. I, p , 189, is accepted, that Jesus
is the place of revelation, the place over which heaven opens
(Mt. 3:16; Rev. 19:11), the gate of heaven (Gen. 28:10-17;
Bethel--the house of God)--that is, the place of the stone in
the Jacob story is taken over by Jesus (p. 110). The logion
is thus a ftromise of insight to the disciples. So also J.
Jeremias, 'Die Berufung des Nathaniel", Angelos 8 (1928),25;
and 1. Fritsch, " ••• videbitis ••• angelos Dei ascenderrtaa
et descendentes super Filium hominis" (Io. 1: 51 ), Verbum Domini
37 (1959), 3-11. This view has been taken lately by R. Schnacken-
burg, John, I, in loc.; Brown, John, I, p. 91, besides saying
the Son of Man establishes contacr-between heaven and earth,
would add that he is the locus of divine glory.
21Cf• W. Bauer, Johannesevangelium, in loc.; but see
Hoskyns, in loco See the recent discussion Of Wayne Meeks,
"The Man froiii'1leaven
in Johannine Sectarianism," J.B. L. 91
(1972), 44-72•
22Quispel, "Menschensohn", p. 283. 23Brown,.:!2hll,I, p.89,
24Ibid., I, p. 91: John says the angels are on the Son
of Man, not on Nathaniel (yet cf. p. 90).
25Bernard, John, I, p. 69, rules this out, sayin~ it
is Nathaniel who is typifying Jacob.
26It seems more likely that there has been this shift
from Nathaniel to Jesus, Son of Man, than that Son of Man should
be understood corporately to includes Nathaniel. There is no
indication, in Brown's opinion (John, I, p. 90), that in John's
Gospel the Son of Man is corporate.
27Bultmann, Johannes, p.p. 74f:..; cf. In. 8:16; 29; 10:30;16:,;
28As does, e.g., Cadman, who says (The Open Heaven, p. 30)
that. descent means his origin was in God ana ascent means his
coming under the guidance of the spirit to the knowledge of that
origin and its implication for mankind.
Bernard, John, I, p. 69, attempts a detailed corres-
pondence of the prom1se to Nathaniel and Jacob's vision.
. 29Richard N. Longenecker, The Christologx of Earl! Jewish
Christianity (London: S.C.M., 1970), p. 61. He notes th s motif
was prominent in second and third century Jewish Christianity. It
is found prominently in the N.T. in the canonical Jewish Christian
materials (p. 62); in Paul there is a suggestion of pre-Pauline
tradition.
 306
30Thus the attempt to find suggestions of pre-existence
in the account is needless. Nevertheless the suggestion of R.
Schnack.nburg, that the order shows that the standpoint is from
earth, is worth noting. See Longenecker, Christology, pp. 58-
62, for further discussion of this mottf in the N.T.
31As Bultmann (John, p. 75) suggests; note the "pro-
fusion" of christologicar-titles for Jesus in this chapter:
Lamb of God (v. 36), M.ssiah (v. 41), Ki~ of Israel (v. 49),
Son of God (v. 49), and Son of Man (v. 51). Meeks, "Man from
Heaven", p. 51, suggests that the prophecy of greater things in
this context introduces the title Ion of Man, " • • • thus com-
pleting the series of titles whose announcement is evidently one
of the major functions of the whole section vss. 29-51."
32Bultmann, John, p. 76. Bultmann suggests that Son of
Man is being used in-a-wnew" sense; may it not rather be in an
"old" sense, aa Jesus himself was believed to have used it~
33arown,~, I, p. 91; cf. ft. H. Lightfoot, St. Johnts
Gospel, p. 99; Bernard,~, I, 1a12!.
34sarrett, ~, p. 156. 35Ibid., p. 155.
36Bultmann, ~, .!!!~.
31A. Loisy, Le Quatrieme Evangile, .!!!. ~.
38Schnack8nburg, ~, I, pp. 318-21.
39Quispel. "Henschensohn", 283~.
40Barrett, John, p. 156. 41~ •• p. 61.
42Stephen Smalley, "The Johannine Son of Man Sayings",
N.T.S. 15 (1968-69). 218-301; the quotation is from p. 288.
43ft• J. McKelvey, The New Temple: the Church in the
New Testaaent (Oxford: unIversity Press, 1969), p. 77.
44Ibid.; cf. Appendix A, PP. 188-92.
45aurney, Aramaic Origin, p. 115.
46But Schnackenburg, John, I, p. 533. has this to say:
"We find ourselves unable to admIt a corporate sense for "San
of Man" in 1:51. The role of the eschatological revealer is
much rather an exclusive one, even when he acts as leader and
saviour of the new "Iarael"".
47W• F. Howard. The Fourth Gospel in Recent CritiCism
and Interpretation, p. 235. See In. 4:22; 1:45, 49; 5:46r.;
6:14; etc.
48c• H. Dodd, The Int.rpr~tAtion of the Fourth Gospel,
p. 246.
 307

49M._J• Lagrange, Jean, p. 52, says: "On a dit tr~s

bien que « Fils de l'homme» n'a pas une importance speciale
dans le quatrieme evangil.; si donc Jean emploi ce term treize
fois, c 'est qu.',ilentend bien garder Ie contact avec la tradition
des synoptiques; et si dans onze cas c'est iesus lui-m8me qui
prend ce titre, c'est une preuve que telle etait bien la tradi-
tion, 'cho fid~le du fait." .
50Smalley, "Johannine Son of Man", p. 288.
51"There is a curiously close connection throughout
the gospel between this title and the descent/ascent language."
W. Meeks, "Man fram Heaven", p. 52; cf. E. M. Sidebottom, "The
Ascent and Descent of the Son of Man in the Gospel of John",
A. T. R. 2 (1957 ), 115- 22.
52But if the allusion to Prove 30:4 is e.tablish.d, it
should be noted that John ia not working trom the LXX. The
verbs have different tenses fram the LXX. But more Significantly
the word tor spirit is different--the LXX has ~~V6foAOS. , whereas
John is playing on the double meaning ot "y~~. Here he is
possibly working fram the Hebrew 1]'1'1 which likewise had the
double meaning and was capable of this word play.
53It occurs nowhere else in the N.T.; cf. Bernard, John,
I, p. 111. Descent is used of Ohrist in Eph. 4:9,10 and I Thess.
4:16, but not in the sense of incarnation.
54sarrett, ~, pp. 177-8.
55Lagrange, Saint Jean, !a ~.; Bernard, John, I, p. 111.
56C• H. Toy, Proverbs (I.C.O.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1899) , p , 521 ..

Hasting. Enclclopedia of
p. 151.

60As Brown suggests (John, I, p. 132), notin~ the "strange

'imelesanes. or indifrerenne to:normal t~e aequanoefi in John
which he tries to reckon with (and cr. In. 4:38). But Bernard
John, I, p. 111, says there is no reference to the ascension i~
this passage (cf. 6:62; 20:17).
61Bernard, Jobn, I, p. 112. There is no reason the
phrase ahoull have b8eii omitted if in the original: (1) the
pre-existence doctrine 1s no different from the prologue, and
(2) it doea not add anything, but makes the argument more difti.
cult to tollow. If kept, the phrase .eans the Son of Man had a
 308
timeless existence in heaven while yet on earth--which suggests
later developments.
62Barrett, John, p. 17 8 •
-
63Longenecker, ChristoloSl, p. 59: the first half of
the motif underlies the prologue of John's Gospel, speaking
as it does ot pre-existence, divinity, and incarnation.
Theo Preiss, Le Fils de l'Hamme: Etudes Theologiques
et Religieuses, Vol. 28 (1953), No. 1, p. 12, takes it Jesus
himself speake ,of his pre-existence in In. 3:11-13 and con-
nects it with the logos doctrine.
64preiss, ~., p. 7, fee!.s that the statelllentof
Bousset (in KyrioS Jesus) that all of John's twelve uses of
Son of Man are in the sense of Jewish apocalyptic, is "abusive".
Preiss doubts this, since Son of Man appears only in Jesus-
mouth and other titles do not appear in the words of Jesus.
"Comme dans l.s Synoptiques il est bien plus simple et plus
immediat d'admettre qulil reproduit une tradition archalque
a
qui a surv8'cu travers la terminologie essenti.llement chris-
tOlogigue de 1tEglise du milieu johannique et de Jean luI-mime."
65Bernard, John, I, p. 112; the exclusive c;laim of the
Son ot Man may be a-potemic against those in apocalyptic or
merkabah circles to have speCial revelations because they had
ascended to heaven (see Odeberg, Fourth Gos~el, pp. 72, 89).
Sidebottom, "Ascent and Descent , pp. 119-2 , does not see a
polemic.
66An anti-Jewish polemic, most clearly detectable tirst
in In. 3:11, is continued in the logion at 3:13 and later in
3:31-36 (see preceding note).
67Bernard, ~, I, p. 112.
68Martin McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian
Tar~um to the Pentateuch (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, .
196 ), pp. 74-5.
69Ibid., p. 76.
70That John may have had this Targumic understanding
ot Moses in mind is further suggested by his explicit mention
ot Moses in the following verses (3:14t.), ..
71The combining here of the Prove 30:4 ascent-descent
motif with the (not unrelated) Deut." 30:12 new Moses reference
is paralleled in the way John combines in chapter 6 the new
manna motif with the new pro~het (Deut. 18:18) motif and with
the descent (incarnation) as well.
72Smalley, "Johannine Son of Man", p. 294: the "ascent"
of the Son of Man balances the "descent" of the bread of God
(6:33, 38).
73Barrett, John, p. 250.
 309
74 H. A. W. Meyer, Johannesevangelium, .1a.!2£..; E. A.
Abbott, Diatesserica VII, 2211b.
75Barrett, John, p. 250.
76Bernard, John, I, p. 217. C~. P. Beeckmann,
L'EvY;Sile selon Saint Jean (Bruges: ~ditions Ch. Beyaert,
1951 , p. 158: "Jesus faIt manifestement allusion a
son
Ascension et non pas, comae on l'a dit partois, a son cruci-
tiement."

sst:
77Through the association of these ideas in context,
not through the meaning of as such, there is ~round
for Smlllley's view ("Johannin Son of Man", p. 294): The
'ascent' of the Son of Man in John vi.62 im.plies, as we might
expect, his vindicated exaltation after death (as in iii.13,
which also cannot refer to glory without suffering)." The
Jewish theology of Buffering and vindication is relevant to
this association of ideas. It appears that this theology has
been made a part at the very meaning of John's J~oGv (to be
lifted up =to be exalted and to be crucifiedi).
78Meeks, "Man from Heaven", p. 58, concludes that
" ••• wherever the motif occurs, it is in a context where
the primary point ot the story is the inability of men ot
"this world", pre-eminently "the Jews", to understand and
accept Jesus;" and later" ••• in every instance the motif
points to contrast, foreignness, divisions, judgment."
79Barrett, 5
John, p. 21.
80Braun, Jean le Th'olosien, p. 149: "Sa venue en
ca monde est une 1'(w..T.{_~,*ns ~ui sera suivie d 'une ~v': f<>lif"1 S
(111.13; ct. VI.62), •••
81Smalley, "Johannine Son of Man", p. 294.
82This fact (that pre-existence is only implicit and
undeveloped) renders improbable the view ot Schulz (Untersuch-
unfen, p. 118) that the evangelist has applied apocalyptic
mo ifs to the earthly Jesus: it John took his themes tor the
Son ot Man primarily tram these sources which developed the
theme much more tully, why has John lett the theme undeveloped?
83See the discussion by T&it, Smoptic Tradition, pp. 2~
84see G. H. P. Thompson, "The Son of Man--Some Further
ConSiderations", J. T. S. n. s. 12, pp. 203-6, who discusses
tnl '11"1\ Y-,J5 in Mk. 2:1opar. and concludes it implies a fami-
liarity ot the Jews with a heavenly Son of Man, in contrast to
which Jesus claims authority on earth.
85Another theme closely tied with the Son ot Man in
In. 3:13 and 6:62 is that of ~UIJ,r oI{~dO.s. The result of
believing on the Son of Man wlio brings spiritual knowledge
(3:13) is eternal lite; or put another way, the result of
eating the tlesh and drinking the blood of the Son ot Man
 31 0

(6:53), the Bread ot Lite who descended from heaven (6:38, 50,
51,58) and will ascend there again (6:62), is the experience
or lire given by the spirit (6:63).
86Smalley, "Johannine Son ot Man", p. 288, notes that
1:51 contains a parallel prediction to the prediction of the
ascension in 6:62 and 14:12, if ORe understanmSon or Man as at
the top or the ladder and not as the ladder. Even it this inter-
pretation of In. 1:51 is not taken, a connection between 1 :51
and 6:62 remains, however, in that the establishment or a con-
nection between heaven and earth--the eternal and the histori-
cal--spoken ot in 1 :51 is confirmed when the Sondt Man ascends
where he was betore (6:62) to sit at the right hand of God
(Mk. 14:62) and intercedes tor the "Son ot Man" people of God
on earth.
87 et. Schnackenburg, JohaJ1n,.ffv.angelium,I, p , 417:
"Ebenso li:i~tsich nicht bezweii'eln, da~ der joh. Gedanke der
"Erh\)hung" das syn. "Sitzen zur Rechten Gottes" (vgl. Mk 10, 37
par; 14, 62par; Mt 25,31; Apg. 2, 33f.; 5, 31; 7, 55t.) auf-
nimmt, abe~icht als zwe1ten, auf die "Erniedrigung" am Kreuze
folgenden Akt versteht, vielmehr schon die Kreuzigung selbst
als "Erh&hung" begr81ft (3,14; 8, 28; 12, 32 34)."
88It is significant that this logion speaks of "seeing"
the Son ot Man ascending. The word used here is f!kw f6' w (a
Johannine word according to Smalley, "Johannine Son of Man",
p , 294), "to look at, behold, be a spectator" (Arndt-Gingrich,
Greek-Entlish Lexicon, p. 360). The emphasis is more on the
"spectat ngii than on the physical seeing (ct. filt1Tw ,eTTT,,{vo"'_a..1
and see the discussion ot th.se in In. 1:51). Michaelis observes
(" OPaL",'),
(' m ~ , (311£:-71
(: i~CV'
\ r ....', 01TToI.vO~tA.f,
.J / £L r
<.n~ Ofvt.cL.( , tJtvJf'~c..JI
1 "i n mn't.Tm
.LoUl'~"

V, pp. 315-382, especially 361-4 on "Johannine seeing") that

"{%wpe-rv does not here denote sense perception or eyewitness,
but a spiritual perception ot the, oftense which necessarily
gives rise to debate and decision (the decision of faith)."
Michaelis bases this view on an understanding ot ~ Yd-fol." Y!S-I V as
reterring to "ascent" by way ot the cross, something perceived
not seen.
89Bernard, John, I, p. 216.

90Bultmann, Job., p. 341; so also Schulz, Untersuchungen,

p. 117. Bultmann says: "Dann wird--so ist ottenbar zu verst.hen--
das Argernis erst recht grop seinl"
91Bauer, Johann. s, p. 1 01; cf. how Lagrange, Jean,
p. 187, attempts to reconcile this view with the presence ot
o~v rather than ~A~~ in v. 62.
92Barrett, John, p. 250; Westcott, ~, p. 109.
93Barrett, ~, p. 250.
94Ibid.: "It is impossible to say why John has left
his sentence-rncomplete. The hypothesis is attractive that he
did so in order to leave room for the twofold interpretation
which he seems to have intended; but this could have been done
equally well if he had written xr 01)\1 t:d. y • • • • "
 311

95Unbelievers would not, of course, see his ascension,

but, inasmuch as "ascension" refers to the Son of Man's vindi-
cation, it is the complete vindication of the Son of Man and
of his words, just now found to be so scandalous, which will
be even more scandalous to the unbelieving.
96schulz, Untersuchungen, p. 117.
97Whether this saying is John's own composition (as
Schulz says, Untersuchungen, p. 118)or not cannot be determined
now.
98See note 95.
99Barrett, John, p , 251, noting the use of '~voJ.~aI./V&"'/
and K"'_T"'~o({vtlv' as well as J~oDv with John's Scm ot Man,
says: "These observations, particularly relevant in the present
context, strongly reinforce the view that tor John Son of Man
means the heavenly Man who descends to the work of salvation
and ascends to glory (and finally judgement)."
100Smalley, "Johannine Son of Man", p. 294.
101Dodd, Interpretation ot the Fourth Gospel, p. 247.
Cf. Smalley, "Johannine Son ot ManR, p. 294, who rinds this
collective, "adamic" interpretation of the Son of Man in
essential conformity with Daniel 7, I Enoch, and Psalm 8-Hebrews 20

10~estcott, ~, po 53, notes that" 0 0 0 similar

figurative references to the issue of the Lord's work in
His Death are found in the Synoptic record: Matto 9:14tt.;
1 0:38; Mark 8:34; Luke 14: 27 0 ..

103To Fo Glasson, Moses in the Fourth Gospel (London:

SCM Press, 1963), po 36, notes that In John often Ho •• it
is the Hebrew Bible which leads us to essential links and
connexionso" He suggests turther (Po 38) that John intends
the cross to be the greatest ~~f~lev of all.
The MT uses n ...U)
104nodd, Interpretation, po 376.
the LXX has ~~"'I'\("GV,
Samaritan Targum has
and the Targumim
n'flu) ).
us. n 'n/u) (Onkelos;
,

10SHo Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel, P. 111, argues that

John Is apparentl,. intentional omissIon of (f"'1 tA-E-Ic-J or D.~ from
Num. 21:9 indicates that the primary meaning of 0~W~V~l is
not (YT",u fIN&-;;. V""-"L •. But this perhaps makes too much of the
omission; In. 12:33 makes it clear enough that tf~w~V""l a
(rTdUpW~Vl1-l 0 The omission may be due to, it anything, the
fact that the brazen serpent became an idol and thus a scandal
in later Jewish history (cf. II Kings 18:4).
Higgins, Son of Man, PP. 161,163, teels that the ~~
ot the Synoptic passion tradItion shows that here o~~uv means
crucifixion.
106Martin McNamara, Palestin1an Targum., PP. 145 ..9.
 31 2

107Meeks, "Man from Heaven", p. 62, believes the pun

is equally as possible in Greek as in the Semitic languages.
though he admits to finding no sources antedating John which
use it. The Greek evidence he does cite (n. 63) shows the
use of a variety of verbs, not just u~ouv •
108R,s.R. 3 (1912), pp. 587f.; and J.T,S. 20 (1919),
p. 335.
109E• A. Abbott, Diatesserica VII, 2988 (23)a.
11 OJ. T. S. 20 (1919), pp. 336-338. McNamara agrees
that lp't- does not equal ufoVII in the sense of "lift up."
111So also Bonsirven, Biblica )0, P. 430 (~{Jl.n~)o
112J•B•L• 51 (1932), 320-2.
113tevy does not mention it and Jastrowts citation
is doubtful.
114Jastrow, Dictionar
See Zebo 18b; Gett. 52b; Eru • ~os'
in ~o; Levy, III, p. 537.

115An exact meaning may not be required for the pun,

116A close parallel to the Johannine use of J~CUII is
found in Gen. 40:13, 19 (which uses ~'(£)J with <..pin in v. 19;
the Targum uses l.:J"Tinv , 13 and vis: ~in v. 19); noted by
Smalley, "Johannine Son of Man", p. 295.
117G• Kittel, "t)" J>:,?~~ = ~'Pw(9,:Jv~( :: gekreuzigt weraen",
Z.N.W. 35 (1936), pp. 282-5.
118Schlatterls objection (Der Evangelist Johannes, p. 96)
is mainly geographical: .."Ob dieses 0 WW~~.(t von q 11?T~ft ::
erhoht werden, das 1m nordlichen Syriach tur die Kreugizung
ublich war, abhangig war, bleibt ungewi /:l , da nicht teststeht,
ob dieser Sprachgebrauch auch 1m Jerusalem befestigt war." But
this objection seems to require a provenance tor John which is
not certainly established.
119Higgins, Son ot Man, pp. 161-3; the use of ~E7 in
the Synoptic passion sayings confirms the meaning of 0'J)OVY in
John as meaning crucifixion.
. 120Schnackenburg, JOhanneSeva~lium, pp , 411 tf.
Cont~ast what is said by P. Gardner- th, Saint John and
the S:vn2itic Gospels (Cambridge: University fress, 1938),
p. 18:The dIscourse to Nicodemus and the meditation thereon
have so little in cammon with anything contained in the Synoptic
Gospels that they hardly bear on the subject which we are dis-
cussing. "
121SchnaCkenburg, Johannesevangelium, Po 419, notes in
particular the messianic announcement of John the Baptist that
one greater than h~self was to come.
 123A. M. Hunter, Agcording to John, p. 92; R. Brawn,
John, I, p. 1460 Brownfeels John has been influenced by
the Servant of the Lord concept more than by the Synopticso
124alack, ·'Son of Man' Passion Sayings", p. 7.
125Ibid.
126SchnaCkenburg,Johannesev8.wl1um, I, p , 418; Dodd,
Interpretation, pp. 376f.
127SchnaCkenburg,JohannesevaMellum, p. 418.
128E• Lohmeyer,!lEio. Jesus (Heidelburg: Carl Winter,
1961), po 48, n.1; he notes as well the Odes ot Solomon41:12
where he who is humiliated will be justly exalted. In all the
remaining occurrences in the N.T. (except possibly Mt. 11:23,
the pronouncement ot judgment on Capernaumtor rejecting Christ:
"Andas for you, Capernaum,will you be exalted to the skies?
No, brought downto the depths.· NEB)exaltation and lwlines8
are spoken ot together (Mt. 23:12; Lk. 1 :52; 10:15: 14:11 :
18:14; Acts 13:17, Israel raised up trom bondage in Egypt; II
Cor. 11:7; James 4:10; I Peter 5:6). The cloaeness of these
two ideas is 'thu8 carried one step further when the humiliation
and exaltation ot Christ are identified as one act.
129Black, "'Son of Man' Passion Sayings·, p. 7.
/ 130sernardJ John, I, pp. "2-3. Ct. Loisy, le Suatrieme
Evangile (Paris, 1921), p. 166.
131Barrett, John. p. 178; 8illlilarly Braun, Jean le
Th'ologien. III, po ,~.
132sarrett, John, p. 178, ct. G. Ziegner, -Weisheltbuch
und Johannesevangellum·, Biblica 38 (1957), 396--418, 39 (1958),
37-60, whomake. an interestingcCBIlparative stud,..
133Howard,Fourth Gospel, p. '238: "'rhe paradox which
runs through the Gospet Is that lite comes only through death
(xii.24f. )." '\. .J /

Barrett, John, p. 179, suggests that :;7''''''' WIf/fJs"

<=>(1 in
John retaina some o71'ts original •• chatological connections,
but that it is also a present gift ot God: in this re,pect it
may be the Johannine equivalent to the Kingdomot God in the
aJ'lloptics. Similarly Schlatter, Johannes, p. 95, an4 Bultmann,
Johann.sevangelium, p. 109, n. 2.
 314
136 Barrett, John, p. 1 7.8

1 37 Loisy, Le Quatrieme Evansile, p, 166, er , Braun,

Jean le Theologien, III, p, 113,
138schlatter, Johannes, p, 96.
139Ro H, Lightfoot, St', John's Gospel, p , 118, regards
this section as the evangelist's elaboration of the conversation
between Jesus and Nicodemus.
140Bultmann, Johannesevangelium, p, 110.
141 E, D. Freed, "The Son of Mill in the Fourth Gospel,"
J, B, L, 86 (1967), pp. 402-9, suggests that Son of Man is just
a variant on "Son" in this passage (p, 404) and indeed that the
Son of Man has no independent significance in John at allo While
it is true that John uses the two christological terms ("Son"
and -Son of Man") closely here (see the Appended Note at the
end of this chapter), a subtle,difference in meaning is discern-
ible, The fact that A study of the Son of Man in John (as that
of Schnackenburg, Johannesevangelium, I, Exkurs 5) finds a con-
sistent and.intelligible concept in John argues in favor of its
having a special meaning rather than its being a stylistic vari-
ationo As noted by Smalley, "Johannine Son of Man", po 281, n. 1,
Freed's approach is purely literaryo
142The emphasis on the uniqueness of the Son implies a
criticism of Nicodemus' suggestion that Jesus was just another
teacher from God in the series of men sent fram God; rather
Jesus is one of a kind, God's Unique Son (Hoskyns, The Fourth
Gospel, I, p. 220).
143I.,agrangeIS suggestion (Jean, P. 81 ~ that John chose
0~Ov not because the exaltation of Jesus followed the passion
but because the cross is already for Jesus an exaltation, is
relevant in that it points up the joining of soteriology (the
cross) with christology (the exaltation),
144aernard, John, II, po 303. Wikenhauser is in agree-
ment with Bernard, whereas Zahn, JOhanneseva~elium, in loco,
and Torrey, Gospels, take it~ only of exaltat ono Seefurther
on the double meaning of J~cvv Chro Eo Luthardt, DaB ~ohanneiBc"
Evan elium nach seiner Ei entfimlichkeit eschildert un erkl~rt
NU.rnberg: , p , 70; J, .. Belser, as EvaTie um es
0

Johannes ubersetzt und erklart (Freiburg: 1905~ G. H. C.

MacGregor, John, in loc.; Eo von Dobschutz, "Zum charakter
des 40 Evangelium""; Z':ii.W.28 (1929), 161 -77, see p , 162~ B.
W. Bacon, The Fourth Gos el in ResearCh and Debate (London:
1910), po ;. auer, ~r er uc , po ,. chweizer,
"DaB johannische Zeugnis yam Herrenmahl 't, Evangelische Theologie
12 (1953), 341-63 (po 357); Bultmann, Johannesevangelium, 1n ~o
145Schlatter, Johannes, p. 144, makes the point that the
higher meaning is seen not la the cross but through the cross.
 146 Barrett, ~, p. 284.
147s• Schulz, untersuch~mpo 118, no 8, takes the
double meaning of ~.pou" , especally the reference to Jesus t
crucifixion, as evidence that the Evangelist has formulated
the logion. This he seeks to confirm by comparison with Jno
12:23. But Schulz's argument is inadequate and unconvincing.
The Aramaic origin of the pun on J Ij.'flUIi
is against its hav.~ been
invented by John. The very fact that it occurs on the lips of
Jesus need not rule out a prophecy of his death either (see
Jeremias, "T1"6..lS ee-ou ", p. 713)0
148Braun, Jean Ie Theologien, III, p. 177, notes how
this prediction of beiief (which It is since know and believe
are equivalent in John) is in contrast to v. 24.
149Brown, John, I, po 350, says it is with typical
Johannine misunderstanding that the Jews (v. 25) seek a pre-
dicate to the "I am"o
150Bernard, ~, II, p. 303.
151Br~n,.:!2!m, I, po 348; cf. his Appendix IV, pp.o533tf'.
152Bernard, ~, II, p. 303.
153Smalley, "Johannine Son of Man", p. 295: "As often
in the tradition of the Evangelists, the title Son of Man is
used to point those with eyes to see to the real nature of
Jesus (e.g., Mark vii.27-31 paro; cfo John xii.34); and this
is intensified by the use of YVW(f"E-'j(9-e 0" In view of this,
he regards it erroneous to argue for the Johannine ~r~~:~l a.
secondar1 (a. does Higgin8, :Hls.torialtlof the Fourth Gospel,
PPo 73f.)o
154arown, ~, I, 348 (italics added).
155Ibid.; Braun, Jean Ie Th.ologien, III, p. 178, agreeso
156Braun, Jean le Th'ologien, III, PP. 177-8.
1 57lagrange, !!!.!.!!, p , 239.
15Berown, John, I, p. 348. He (with Bernard, John, II,
p. 303) notes tha~natius writes (Magn. 7:2) in(' \ terms reminis-
cent of this verse: 0.t ",_uf'oS.
~" )/
C(VCU
-
rou Tfcj.TfvS
'-'
OV<3€cV
.) .-
ETT~I'1<r(:-V.

159Noted by Bernard, John, I, P. 238. 160Ibido

161 H. Strathlllann,Johannea, P. 14.8, aeems to think John
is correcting the cry of dereliction (Mk. 15:34; Mt. 27:46)
which was out of ke!ping with the Johann1ne "Christusbild"o
Barrett, John, p. 2~, on the other hand, thinks it unlikely
that John-rscorrecting or consciously contradicting Mko 15:340
 316

162Schlatter, Johannes, po 144.

163Lagrange, Jean, po 239, thinks the "you" reters to
the Jews who, after IIn'ing up Jesus on the cross (which is a
glorious elevation tor him and the signal ot his return on
high, 3:14), will comprehend that Jesus was who he claimed
and that he was sent to save them (ct. v. 24). They will
understand this when they have been annihilated as a people
and dispersed among the Gentiles, who are eager to believe
in Jesus. (Lagrange tollowsCyril ot AlexanqriaJ Similarly
Schlatter, Johannas. p. 144, and Strathmann, Johannes, p. 1480
Cfo B~rett, John, p. 284, who says John is addressing
his reaaa~so Braun, Jean Ie Th'olo,ien, III, p. 178, says that
this prophecy of insight Into Jesus true nature is not intended
by the Evangelist (who shows the unbelief of the Jews, and the
judgment on them, 9:39-41; 12:LO) to apply to all. Some of
those who hear will believe, but the others will seek him when
it is too late and they will not find him (7:34, 36; 8:21; cfo
12:35>.
16~oted by Smalley, "Johannine Son of Man", p. 295, who
{probably mistakenly) says that ~}o,-,d~ is here also.
165Contra Schulz, Untersuchuns9n.
166Moule, ~ram Defendant to Judge", PP. 40-53.
167cf. Schulz, Untersuchuns!)p. 118.
16Bsernard, ~, II, ~. 303.
169Braun, Jean le Th'ologien, III, p , 177. _.
170Ibid
1 71 Schnackenburg, Johannes.vangelimn, Exkurs 5, pp. 411 -320
172Barrett, John, p. 284.
173Smalley, "Johannine Son of Man Sayings", Po.295.
1 74cf• the paralle 1 in Mt. 1 6:1 3, which has "Son of Man".
175schnaokenburg, Johannesevangelimn, Exkurs 5g PP. 411ff.
176Smalley, "Johannine Son of Man", po 295, asks: "Could
there even be in this saying a reflection ot the apparent dis-
tinction drawn between Jesus and the Son of Man in Mark viii.38
paro, but now including the solution to the riddle of the Son
of Manis identity?"
177Ibid•

178Moule, ~rom Defendant to Judge", pp. 40-53. Notice

the similarity of this situation to that in Mk. 14, actually in
a court, which gives rise to Mko 14:62: "You will see the Son
of Man seated at the right hand of God and coming with the clouds
of heaven." (NEB) Cf. Schlatter, Johannes, po 1450
 179W• Grossouw, "La glorification du Christ", in
LIEvangile de Jean, by M.-E. Bo~smard et al. (Recherches
Bibliques, III; Louvain: Desclee de Brouwer, 1958), p. 136,
says it is not fortuit ou s that these GI'eeks come to Philip •.
180Barrett, ~, p. 351, may imply this when he says
the Greeks speak as representatives of the Gentile church to
which John and his readers belong.
181 Brown, John, I, 470. If John used a narrative
source, as has been-iUggested recently most forcefully by
R. T. Fortna, The GOS el of Signs (CambridFe: University
1
Press, 1970), this br ef incident with the Greeks may have
been drawn from such a source (see also Bultmann, Johannes-
evangelium, pp. 321f. ).
For an interesting, if highly speculative, attempt
to find "historical probabilities" behind the "symbolism" of
this passage, see W. E. Moore, "Sir, We Would See Jesus--Was
This an Occasion of temptation?" S.J.T. 20 ('967),75-93.
Moore is dependent on an article by H. Preisker ("Zum Charakter
des Johannesevangelium", in Luther, Kant~ Schleiermacher in ihrer
Bedeutung fur den Protestantismus, 379-9 ) in which Preisker
finds three Johannine passages parallel to the Synoptic tradi-
tion but with their "mythical setting" replaced by an "histori-
cal setting".
182Smalley, "Johannine Son of Man", p , 296.
183Arndt-Gingrich, Lexicon, "if..{cv", #6, p. 220; cf.
Brown, ~, I, p. 466.
184Dodd, Interpretation, p , 371, n , 1: it is a "side
glance at the Iseeing· which is a vision of God and eternal
life (cf. 6:40, though the verb is different)."
185Lagrange, Jean, pp. 328-9.
186Moore, "Sir, We Would See Jesus", p. 80.
187 Smalley, "Johannine Son of Man", p , 296.
188Ibid.; Dodd, Interpretation, pp. 371-2;notice Mt.
26:18 and Mk. 14:41, the llour approaclies (but is not yet),
then the hour has came. Earlier, in Mt. 26:18 pribr to the
Last Supper, the phrase appeared, /(.I'f'S OIJ r
"qrrJ's )f.4'71v'.
189 A. George, "«LIHeure)'>de Jean XVII,r, R.B. 61 (1954),
392-7.
4
190 Ibid., p. 39.

191 Bernard, John, II, p , 432.

 318

192Ibid., pp. 432-3. Bernard notes that possibly

excepting here in 12:23 the phrase "the hour has come" is
used only of the hour immediately preceding the betrayal
of Jesus. The phrase is not used lightly, and it means more
than just "the time is near." The verb is always first,
making the phrase "strikingly and aust&rely impressive and
final. "
193Brown, John, I, p. 466; Bernard; ~, II, pp. 429ff.;
Barrett, ~, p. 350.
1945malley, "Johannine Son of Man", p. 296.

195 ..86~occurs 7 times in Matthew (excluding 6:13,

an appendage to the Lord IS Prayer), 3 times in Mark, and 13
times in Luke (including 2 times in Q and 2 times in all 3
Synoptics). But it occurs 18 times in John (which has 94
pages of Greek text in comparison to Luke1s 121). Ao~:"~...:J
occurs 4 times in Matthew, once in Mark and 9 times in Luke
(including once in all three Synoptics); cf. 22 times in John
(inc 1uding di sputed reading in 13: 32a ) •
196G• Kittel and G. van Rad, "Jot:~", "Sot..", etc.,
Tf:D•N•T• II, pp. 232-53; see p. 247; cf. Caird, "The Glory
o God in the Fourth Gospel", N.T.S. 15 (1968-69), p. 267.

197Kittel, "So~.t..", p. 237.

198vanRad, "st~.L", p. 239.
199Kittel, "~{\.a_", p. 241. 200Ibid., p. 245.

-
201Ibid., p. 248.

202Ibid., p. 248; he notes the parallel cited by A.

Schlatter, jOhinnesevangelium, pp. 192f., 219, 247.

203Kittel, "g:~~",p. 241•

204Barrett, John, p. 352. See Brown, John, I,;pp.
472-3, who questions Loisyts suggestion (Le 9u~me Evangile,
p. 371) that John borrowed from Paul; he favors the suggestion
that Paul drew from oral tradition of Jesus t parables; cf.
D. M. Stanley, C.B.S. ?3 (1961) ~ 26';39, and Macgregor, G. H. C.
(The Gospel of John (Moffatt Commentaries; New York: Doubleday,
19E9j), p. 264. W. GrossoUW, "La Glorification du Christ",
p. 136, takes the glorification to refer to Jesus' death by
which God glorifies his name. Kittel, "Jlt\cJ.", p. 249, considers
the cross the turning point and the entry into S'i~. The
emphasis of dying wheat producing fruit (12:23f.) is Johannine.
What Jesus does in his death is the' process by which God brings
glory in him. "It is an acknowledgement of the divine
and it carries with it certainty of participation
~b'L...
in the same
$6~j..: 6 ~os 6o~~(f6-{ ..(¢r-ev tJt ;..."r~ (vs. 3_2). In this sense
to have regard to the passion is to see SJ\I... even in the earthly
life of Jesus."
 205Macgregor, John, p. 264, points out that Jesus does
receive glory in the coming of the Greeks, but his glory ~
seen more profoundly in the cross.
206Barrett, ~, p. 352.
207Smalley, "Johannine Son of Man", p. 295.
208E• M. Sidebottom, "Son of Man as Man in the Fourth
Gospel", E.T. 68 (1956-57), 231-5, 280-3. He suggests (P. 234)
the importance of Isa. 49:3 in understanding John's Son ofl~an.
/ 209Noted by Brown, JohR,. J, f·.
467. Luke •s J'~~..t.. EV'
0UJIG'"Tot.s is a variation
'-r on Mark's ( 1:10; cf. Mt. 21 :9)
neT_v., .... E:(
T .. ~ ..
-rtJlS
C
V'i',(J",OIS.

210Brown, John,I; p. 470. 211Kittel, «ss:», po 248.

212Brown, John, I, P. 467; er , Deut. 21 :15; Mt. 6:24;
Lk. 14:26.
213For ex~le, the equation of J 't' w~ VJ-i and ~Tttl/fW~VrJ-f
and the use of the hour" theme.
214Smalley, "Johannine Son of Man", p. 296.
215C. Po Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth
Gospel, pp. 75f.; cf. Smalley, -3ohann1ne Son of Man-, p. 296.
216Barrett, John, p. 342; could this partiality be
Semitic?
217Bernard, John, II, P. 433
218Black, Aramaic Approach. P. 79.
219R• Brown, "John and the Synoptic Gospels: A Com-
parison", Essay XI, pp. 192-8 (deals with this passage) in
New Testament Essay! (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1965).
220The parallel goes further in the statement of the
7TtA.r ....~' Jo ~t at hand (ibid., PP. 1.96'!'7).
. 221Barrett, John, p. 354,gLves the best suggestion why
John put his "agony scene" here. It was not that John thought
this struggle of Jesus would be out of place in chapter 17 J
rather John is summarizing Jesusl ministry as one of lowly
service and death. John shows "God's strength made perfect
in weakness", combining the humiliation and the glory of the
earthly Jesus seen supremely in the cross.
222Brown, John. I, pp. 470-1.
223cr• also E. C. Hoskyns, The FourthGO~el. ·1, Pp.
496-7, who says In. 12:27-36 does not just echo. 14:33 but
 320
refers even more directly to the agony of the Servant of God
described in Psa , 42:5, 6; 55:4, 5 (LXX; ct. Lam. 2:11). "The
overcoming of this trembling in the face of death is set in
the context of complete surrender to and obedience of the will
of the Father."
He points out as well that "In these. two verses
(vv. 25, 26), the author reproduces and, to some extent (see
Lagrange), clarifies for his readers the teaching of Jesus
scattered about in all the various strata of the Synoptic
tradition--in Mark (Mark viii.35-8; ix.35, x.42-5); in Q
(Mt. x.39; Lk. xvii.33); in special Matthew (Matt. xxv.31-36);
in special Luke (Luke xiv. 25-35; containing the word hate;
xvii.7-10; xxii.24-34). ----
224srown, John, I, P. 467.
225Brown, "John and the Synoptic Gospels", p. 196.
226Brown, ~, I, P. 471 •
227cf• Bernard, John, II, p. 436, who suggests there
were recurring crises ot-spIritual decision in Jesus' life.
228Some would question this: cf. Bultmann, Johannes-
evan~elium. p. 327, n. 7;Historl ot the Synoptic Tradition.
p, 2 7.
229Dodd, Interpretation. P. 207, n. 2.
23Ow. Grossouw, ·La Glorification du Christ·, p. 136.
231Bernard, John, II, p. 439. simply notes L~. 22:43
but does not feel it really corresponds to John's voice fram
heaven.
232Barrett, John, p. 355; cf. also Brown, John, I,
p. 471, who calls the comparison "very tenuous".
233Dodd, Interpretation. P. 207, n. 2. If then John
has no place for a transfiguration, it is needless (trom the
Johannine point of view) to discuss the transfiguration a8
an "eschatological anticipation· (Kittel, "6-6\,,-", p. 249).
Or if John's equivalent "transfiguration" is the glory ot
God seen in Jesus' death, this is a reduced eschatology which
needs no anticipation. Cf. E. LohmeyerJ ~ie Yerklarung Jesu
nach dem Mar kusevange Ii urn·, ,. N•w. 21 (1 922 ) PP. 183ft".,
wh~re he analyzes the. transt guration as an 'eschatological
theoph~y" and gives a Hellenistic interpretation to the escha-
tological $~"z"_'
234Sidebottom, "Son of Man as Man in the Fourth Gospel",
p. 283.
235Ibid.; he quotes Sidney Cave, Doctrine ot the Person
 321

of Christ, p. 61: "It is a misrepresentation of the facts to

describe this Gospel"s portrait of Jesus as a mere Christophany.
Faithfully this Gospel narrates His human weakness, His weari-
ness at the well, His sorrow and vexation at Lazarus' death,
and His thirst upon the cross. Nor is it true to say that the
evangelist depicts Jesus as immune from inner conflict, praying
only for didactic purposes, Himself immune fr~ human need. His
deep emotion at the visit of the Greeks is an indication of the
strain with which He accepted the burden of the eross. His soul
was troubled, and it was by prayer that He gained the calm cour-
age needed to endure the cross and so to consummate His work and
do the Father's will (12:23-27). Much as in this Gospel His
power is emphasized, it is not independent power. The signs He
works are those in answer to His prayers to God (e.g., 11 :41).
or HUJself, He can do nothing; His works are those which the
Father gave Him to do (5:19, 36).
236HoskynS, The Fourth Gospel, I, p. 496.
237It is not really an exception to the observation
that only Jesus uses the title Son of Man in the Gospels,
since the crowd is simply quoting words of Jesus which they
had not understood.
238Barrett, John, p. 356, says the phrase underlines
both the ideas of de~on the cross and of ascension. The
reference to the glorious exaltation is established by the
frequent mention in the context (12: 23, 28) of st~ oL.

239There are actually two contradictions in this verse:

lifting up (in crucifixion) 1s opposed to remain~ng forever,
and Son of Man (apparently) is opposed to 6 'rnos.
240Brown, John, I, 479.
241/E'_J<.
(DO vJp..otJ is taken by Barrett, John, p. 356,
in its widest usage to mean the O.T. Scriptures. Barrett
thinks that it is the cammon tradition of the glorious Messiah
rather than any particular OoT. passage which the crowd has
in mind, since no OoT. passage is mentioned (yet cf. Psao 110:4;
Isa. 9:6).
242Barrett, ~, po 356.
243F._M. Braun, Jean le Th~ologien, III, po 175: "La
cr.ucifixion et la glorification
qu1elles paraissent se confondre.
d:
J4smni:1touchent de si pr~s

244Smalley, -Johannine Son of Man", po 299.

245Braun, Jean Ie Th'olitien, III, P. 175: ''Quand bien
m~me e11e pr'figurerait l'exalt~ion glorieuse h laquelle les
fid~les auront part, Ie sens litt6ral pr'sente avant tout J~sus
elev~ sur la Croix.
 322

24630 Barrett, John, Po 356.

247M• Black, -rhe ISon of Man' Passion Sayings in the
Gospel Tradition", Z.N.W. 60 (1969), p. 6.
248See espeoially Black, ibid.; cf. Moule, "The Influence.
of Circumstanoes on the Use of Christologioal Terms", J.T.S., n.s.
10 (1959), 247-63, and idem, "From Defendant to Judge·', PPo40-53;
Dodd, Interpretation. PP. 242ff.; Brown, John, PPo 146; Barrett,
-
John, in loo.; A. M. Hunter, John, in loc,
249The United Bible Societ:h~s r edition put.s this reading
in the text but gives it a low rating for certainty (D).
250The same reading reversed, ~>.I<S crW .TT{ I/T«-, is supported
by D, Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, et alo
251 Bernard, John, II, P. 442.

252Blass-Debrunner, Grammar, S 138; Brown, John, I, po 468.

253Bernard, John, I, P. 204; Brown, John, I, p , 271 ;
Barrett, John. p. 245.
254Against the contention of some commentators that the
LXX mistranslates the MT, Brown (John, I, P. 271 ) cites A.
Feuillet, L!.t.. 1..2 (1962), pPo.122-4.

255Barrett, ~, p. 245; cf. Brawn, John, I, p. 271.

256Quoted by Brawn, .:!2!!!l, I, P. 271.

257 Hugo Oepke, "$}..Kw", T .DitN. T. II, PP. 503-4; also

noted by Barrett, John, P. 245.
2581 Mace. 10:82, e.g., reads, "At that point (when
the enemy cavalry was weary) Simon led out [ft~,,\Jd{\fJ his troops
and joined battle with the enem~ Ii~lanx, naw that the cavalry
was exhausted." (NEB).
259Bernard, John, I, Po 204.
260Resp., V, 458d, noted by Oepke, "~tf,\) ", p. 503.
261Brown, John, I, P. 277. 262Ibid., p. 271.
263Barrett, John, p. 356.
264Bernard, John, I, p. 204. Cf. In. 4:23 (the Father
seeks genuine worshippers); 6:44 (no one can come unless the
Father draws him); and 3:27.
265 Oep ke , "f/,"
t-I' ~ W , P. 503 •
 323

266Brownls comments (John. I, p. 277) are relevant:

"This internal moving of the heart by the Father will enable
them to believe in the Son and thus possess eternal life."
Gf. Bernard, John, II, P. 442; and Lagrange, Jean, P. 335:
"C'est donc bien sa mort, et la pens~e de cette mort, qui
ne cessera d1exercer une attraction puissante sur les hommes
pour les seuver, les conduire oh sera le vainqueur."
c .....267Lagrange, Jean, p. 335: "On aurait pu croire que
par u~oov J~sus n1entendait que son exaltation glorieuse;
aussi ll$vangeliste a-t-il soin de dire que ce terme devait
slentendre d~ la morte de la crOix; cf. xviii.32."

-
268Ibid•

269Bultmann, JOhanneseva~elium, p. 269, joins 12:34

to 8:28 (which has no s~t howeve~. J.-G. Gourbillon, "La
parabole du serpent d'airain", R.B. 51 (1942), pp. 213-26,
suggests 3:13 is the antecedent of 12: 34 and even tries to
fit 3:14-21 between 12:31 and 12:32, since the light-darkness
motif or 12:35,36 would follow quite well on 3:19-21 and the
judgment theme of 3 :17-19 would go with 12:31. Then 3:14
would be followed smoothly by 12:32. Cf. Brown, John, I, p.478.
270Brown, John, I, PPo 53, 478.
271Brown thinks this e~ectation, brought out by the
crowd in 1'2:34 using the title Messiah", reinforces the view
that the triumphal entry into Jerusalem should be interpreted
as a nationalistic messianic gesture.
272Bernard, John, II, po 443.
273Barrett, John, po 357, says it cannot be inferred
that the Son of Man was obscure to John. Neither does John
shed light on contemporary Jewish usage of the title as this
was not his intention.
274see, e.g., Sjoberg, Der verborgene Menschensohn
in den Evangelien, ppo 1,40, 46f.
275Smalley, "Johannine Son of ~n", po 299.
276See, thg .., Ro Schnackenburg, Johannesevangelium,
pp. 41ff., and ihe discussion above of In. 3:140
277Bernard, John, II, P. 442.
278Smalley, "Johannine Son of Man", p. 297.
279Ibid., p. 298.
280Brown, John, I, pp, 478-9.
 281The suggestion of J. N. D. Sanders and B. A. Mastin,
The Gospel Accordi~ to St. John (Ha~per's Commentaries; New
York: Harper,' 96 , in 10c., that in 13:31 glorification
refers to the feet washing, cannot be accepted except in the
sense that the footwashing rite symbolized Jesus' lowly ser-
vice which was consummated in his death. John1s primary refer-
ence must be to Jesus' death.
282So Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes, p. 402.
283Bernard, John, II, p. 432, and Bultmann, Johannes,
po 402; contrast v. 33 where J,sus speaks (according to Bultmann)
sub specie haminis, T6t(.V,'~) ~Tl 1"llCr~Y f~' c.vf'Wv ~tf'l\o

284ApparentlY this ls how Barrett takes it; ~, p. 375.

1"1. 285Th1s is probably indicated by the introduction OTe
o6v ~~'lJ t9l.v.
286Cf.§ 333 of Blass-Debrunner, Grammar (P. 171), on
the gnomic and fut~istic aorist: "An act whic~ is valid for
all time can be expressed by the aorist, ••• because (origin-
ally at least) the author had a specific case in mind in which
the act had been realized." The specific act here is the depar-
ture of Judas to betray Jesus and bring about his glorification
by death. Or the aorist could be taken as an ingressive (incep-
tive) aorist, i 331, the betrayal by Judas being the act which
begins the process of Jesusl glorification.
287Smalley, "Johannine Son of Man", p. 297. 288Ibid•
289This further suggests to Smalley a possible early
authentic tradition.
290Caird, "The Glory of God in the Fourth Gospe 1", p. 266.
291see G. Kittel and. G. van Rad, "~~~....
", etc., in T,D.N.T.
II, pp. 232-53; cf, Caird, "The Glory of God in tne-Fourth
Gospel1', p. 267.
292Caird, "The Glory of God in the Fourth Gospel",
pp. 267-8.

"
-
293Ibid., pp. 268-9.
294Ibid., p , 2690 Caird IS discussion of this verse (17:1)
is worth noting. The difficulty is why Jesus should ask the
Father for glory, when John presents the Logos as always having
shared the glory of God (17:5) now revealed in the earthly life
of Jesus (In. 1:14; 2:11, etc.). Caird concludes that Jesus
canpot be prayiag for glory for himself. ~he only possibility
is that he prays as the Son of Man, as the inolusive representative
one (xvii.~-2)." (p. 270)
 295Caird, "The Glory ot God in the Fourth GOs~el,.
pp.270-1. Both the true passive, which he renders, thro~h
him God is held in honor" by men, and the causative passive,
rendered, ·God has won honor for himself in him," would appear
to carry the meaning that at the pOint of Jesus' death men were
holding God in high esteem (true passive) or that God has won
their acknowledgement of his supreme me:je8ty. Neither of these
fit John's teaching, for at the point when they crucified Jesus
men were far from esteeming God or acknowledging his glory.
296Ibid., pp. 271-3. The last part of his article (PP.
273-7) is concerned with the presentation of evidence from the
LXX that his interpretation of $o~J.1e:,y' in 13:31 is a possible
meaning for this verb.
2978ee Schulz, Untersuchungen,
298Ibid., p. 120. 299Ibid., P. 121.
300Black, "The 'Son of Man' in the Old Biblical Liter-
ature f1, p. 11.
301 Barrett, John, p. 'J76.
302Bernard, John. II, p. 525.
303Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes, p. 401, n. 4,
suggests homoioteleuton.
304Lagrange, Jean, po 3650 305Ibid., po 366.
306It could refer either to Jesus' impending passion,
to his exaltation after his death, or to a more distant glori-
fication at his parousia.
307Barrett, John, p. 376.
308Barrett IS suggestion (ibid,..
~ is that John has slipped
out of the setting of his narrative and into his own viewpoint.
309Barrett, John, po 37~; see Lagra~e, Jean, p. 366,
on arguments for preferring ~~,~ over €d.(}'Tt;,J •
310Bernard, John, II, p. 525; Lagrange, ·Jean po 366.
The idea is the same as in 17:5; he notes (as does tQ.grange,
Jean, p. 366) as well Acts 3:13; cf. also Barrett, John, P. 3750
311Barrett, John, p. 376. 312
Bernard, John, II, P. 525.
313Barrett, John, po 376.
314Brown notes (John, I, p. 220) that John's Father-Son
terminology is missing fram 26-30, except for v. 26; this is
one of the differences he notices in the two forms of the discourse
 326

which he finds in this section.

It is true that there is a notable shift from the
third person Father-Son statements in 19 ....
23 to the first per-
son of v. 24. But this need not be thought unnatural or con-
trived. It seems this is the way a speaker might move from
the general to the particular, the third person to the first.
Nevertheless this shift could be, as Bultmann suggests (Das
Ev~elium des Johannes~ Po 193), the result of the combination
ofwo sources or of JOhnis own exegesis of a tradit:l.'onalsaying. '
315If this is so, it means that the argument of Freed
that Son of Man has no independent significance in John's Gospel
is in error (cf. E. D. Freed, -rhe Son of Man in the Fourth
Gospel", J B.L. 86 (1967), pp. 402-9). While it is true that
christologlcal titles in John are often interchangeable, they
are not identical; each has a distinctive idea attached to it,
even if in the main it resembles other titles.
316Schulz, Untersuchungen, pp. 111-40
317~., pp 0 1 09-111 • 318Not noted by Schulz.
319SchulZ, Untersuchungen. Pp. 111f. 320Ibid., p.1130
I 3~See Strack-Billerbeck, K~entar, II, p. 466, where
kftriS ~'k"-(OL = rJJ L9~o/~ Dt. 1T8; Targum Onkelos J.!)i05~-=J J';r.
322Mac.gl'egor, John. p. 179. Of. also Schulz, Unter-
suchungen. p. 1130
323It is interesting that Kp(ftlS is for John a synol"1ytn
for condemnation, since only the unjust are resurrected to judg-
ment (v.29) and those who believe on Jesus will not came to
judgment (v. 24). '
324of• Barrett, John, P. 219, who says there is no
reason for regarding vv. 28r. as an addition to an original
Johannine discourse unless one',finds it impossible John should
have thought of judgment and resurrection as both pt'esent and
future. These temporal aspects are one of the reasons Brown
(John, I, p. 220) divides the discourse into two forms.
325Ginsber~, "The Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering
Servant", pp. 400-4. '
326Bart'ett, John, po 218, suggests John maybe returning
to" the wot'ding of Dan. 7:13; Brown, John, I, p. 220, also feels
Dan. 7:13 is reflected here.
327The mention of Son of Man and judgment should call to
the mind of any biblically educated reader. Dan. 7. As for the
anarthrous construction, this is one of only tour times it occurs
in the N.T., and significantly all four plaoes have a decidedly
O.To basis. Hebrew 2:6 quotes Psa. 8:5 (which is anarthrous in
 327

the LXX; the MT has D7 X TJ.). Revelation 14:14 is clearly

built on Dan. 7:13 and probably Rev. 1 :13 is as well.
328M._J. Lagrange, Jean, p. 148; cf. Macgregor, John,
p. 179, who distinguishes between this anarthrous Son of Man
and the articular Son of Man.
329Lagrange, Jean, p. 148. He rejects the explanation
of Cyril that Jesus received power and life because he did mot
have them, since he was a man.
330Barrett, John, P. 218; he thinks the title is used
here "qualitatively" (see Moulton's Grammar, II, P. 441 ).
331Blass-Debrunner, Grammar, ~259, especially (3).
332Ibid•

333Ibid., ~25g~ PP. 131f. This may nullify the view

of Barrett,~, p. ~8, following Schlatter, Johannes. p. 152,
that the articles were unnecessary because it was clear in the
context that this Son of Man is unique. But one might point to
other passages where the uniqueness of the Son of Man is equally
clear but where the articles are used nonetheless (cf. e.g.,
Mk. 2:10, 28; the wh9~e group ot Parous!a sayings in fact).
The noun ,1¥6fW'Res is used with the article to mean
(1 ) "the known, particular, previously mentioned man" or (2)
man as a class. The omission of the article ocours when an
unknown individual is introduoed (but not in a generic sense).
More generally, however, the omission of the article with a
noun occurs sometimes as a survival of an earlier anarthrous
usage, especially in formulae, set phrases, titles, aalutations,
in definitions, lists, closely related pairs of substantives,
and in generiC usage. Further exoeptions are Semitisms, Blass-
Bebrunner, Grammar, '252.
334with no artiole .U~BS ~o0 ooours in In. 10:36; 19:7;
l1t. 14:33; 27:43, 54; Lk. 1 -35; Mk. 1:1 ('t); and Rom. 1 :4.
o utes ~cv (b &p..nt'\T&'.s ) oocurs in Mt. 2:15; 3:17' 17:5; ,
Mk. 1:11; 9:7; Lk. 3:22; 9:35; II Pet. 1:17. 6 l.lst;. Q(u-ro'3 is
found in Rom. 1 :3, 9; 5:10; 8:3, 29, 32 (1.&')'0'"' ); I Cor. 1 :9;
Gal. 1 :16; 4:6; I Thes. 1:10; I In. 1 :3, 7; 3:23; 4:9, 10, 5:9,
10, 11, 20. Again vlc~s.,-o& t%,,~ is found in Mt. ·4:3 6· 8:29;
27:40; Mk. 5:7; Lk. 4:3, 9; 8:28; In. 3:18; 9:35 (mg. ~; -(0:36.
The article occurs with both nouns about 27 timeso This totals
then 9 (l?ossibly 1 0, Mk. 1 :1) anarthrous usages and 66 (67, In.
9:35 mg.) with at least one article.
335Macgregor, John, ~ loc.; cf. O. Ho Dodd, "Same
Johannine 'Herrnworte' with Par'iIIels in the Synoptic Gospels It.
N,T·.S.2 (1955-56), 78-81.

. 336schulz, untersuch~en, pp. 109-110, follOWing Eugen

Ruckstuhl, Die literarische ~nheit des Johannesevangelium,
 328
.If If
Studia Friburgensia, nos. 3 (1951), who lists &t)(f-T.{( t;,Jfd. and
~ou~o as JOhannine words, and Bultmann, Johannes, PP. 10'\=-2,
196, 1 99, on fA~ (9-oLV t47
~T(-;- •

337Georg Bertram, "&.0,...1., t9w~:"?c.J, f)tiV~{'T I es ,

~ur-d..n-~", in T.D.N.T. III, PP. 37-40 •
.338~., P. 40. 339SChulz, Untersuchungen, PP. 112f.
340Schnackenburg, John, I, Excursus V, "The Son of Man
in John", PP 529-42.
II

341Bernard, ~, I, p. 244.
342SchU1Z, Untersuchungen, P. 111.
3438ee Lagrange, Jean, Po 1 69, who shows the difference
between John and the SynoPtICs in what they make of the bread
of life discourse~
344Th~S also maY· explain why the messianism here is a
Moses rather thana David type (cf. Glasson, Moses ·in the Fourth
Gospel, p. 24).
345Brown John, I, P. 265; cf. J. B. Lightfoot, Biblical
Essals, PP. 24, 15'1; Glasson, Moses in the Fourth Gospel,pp.
45~4 ; A. F'euillet, Johannine stuaies, PP. 53, 54.
346Dodd, Interpretation~ P. 335; so also Strack-Biller-
beck, KommentarL. in loc., and Sohlatter, Johannes, in loc., who
shows the closeness of language to Rabbinic Hebrew.
347Barrett, John, in loc., takes it as a free quotation
of Ex. 16:15, whereas Lagranget Jean, in loc., believes the
primary reference is to Psa. 7~:~4.
348Barrett, ~, P. 240.
349Glassor_;,Moses in the Fourth GOs~el~ PP. 20 ...
6, and
Jeremias on "Mw\JollS" in 1:.
b.N.T. IV, Pp. 85~-7, demonstrate
the Moses-Christ paralleiism, both in Rabbinic sources (where
their late date is a problem, but it is thought the late
writings reflect much earlier popular expectations) and in
Christian sources. So also J. B. Lightfoot, Biblioal Essa;{s,
P. 151. .
350Glasson, Moses in the Fourth Gospel, Po 24.
351Barrett, ~, P. 240, notes the interesting Jewish
reference to the law as bread (cited by Strack-Billerbeck,
Kommentar, II, pp. 483f ..), but. this is probably not what was
in mind here. Dodd, Interpretation, P. 335, says, ~e may
therefore take it that the Jews are here represented as demanding
 329

that Jesus shall establish His messianic pretensions by the

well-recognized token of restoring the gift of manna, the 'bread
from heaven', assuming that this is what He meant by ~f(ja-Ic
r- ~
E-V" 0 11 0- cl..
_, J'""'1 v _,/
£" .5 WVJ tn/ •
0( I
" .;)
352Barrett, .:I.2h!l, p , 240; Bernard, John I, p. 195;
interestingly eriough, Dodd (Interpretation, p , 82) says nothing
about this seemingly anti-Mosaic polemic, confining his inter-
pretation of 6:32 to the antithesis between the "bread of Moses"
and the "real bread".
353Lagrange, ~, p. 32.
354HOSkyns, The Fourth Gospel, I, p. 314.
355Brown, ~, I, p. 262; cf. Barrett, l£hll, p. 240,
who is followed by A. Feuillet, Johannine Studies, p. 53.
356Though Lagrange, ~, p. 173, takes the sealing,
stnce it is aorist, to refer~to the power of working miracles:
"a cause de l'aoriste (~t1cp('-y,tr6-v), on l'entendra surtout du
pouvoir aceor-dede faire les miracles."
357Cf• A. Feuillet, Johannine Studies, pp. 56-8, who
notes Jesus is following a tradition which goes back as far
as the O. T. (Deut. 8:2, 3) in making the manna a symbol of a
higher gift and of a celestial food. He notes Wisdom 16:26.
358Brown, ~, I, p. 266.
359Ibid.; Brown takes this as having the same meaning
as In. 6:3~. Corpus Hermeticum, Tract VII, 1a, which speaks
of bein~ drunk with ignorance (of God).
360Ibid. Quotations of Provo 2:6 and Jer. 15:16 are A. V.
361Bernard, ~, I, p. 191; Brown, John, I, p. 273.
362Brown, ~, I, p. 266. Some recent interpreters
have seen in the structure of this narrative the question and
answer pattern of the Jewish Passover Haggadah (thus providing
another Passover motif). The questions of the Jews to Jesus ..
are supposed to parallel the questions asked by the four children
during the course of the Passover ritual (see B. Gartner, John 6
and the Jewish Passover in Coniectanea Neotestamentica XVII.
[Lund: Gleerup, 1959]; and the different analysis by D. Daube,
The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, pp. 36-51, 158-69, who
does not, however, apply this to In. 6; cf. also E. J. Kilmartin
"Llturgical Influence on John 6", C.B.S. 22 (1960), 183-91). '
Brown notes the shortcomings (artificiality and omission of some
questions in In. 6 in order to make it fit the liturgy) of
this thesis. (Though it may not be possible to accept Gartner's
thesis that the Haggadah has provided the structural basis of In.
 330

6, he may well be right in his suggestion that it provides the

background to In. 6 in the early Christian Passover celebrations
(and hence the appropriateness of John's reference to Ex. 16).),
Brown suggests rather (l2hll, I, p. 267) that the question-answer
pattern is a Johannine technique of misunderstanding by Jesus'
hearers (which is paralleled in In. 1-1-).
363peder Borgen, "Observations on the Midrashic Character
of In. 6"~ Z.N.W. 54 (1963), 32-40; cf. p. 39, where he concludes
that the E:.Y~ li1/4' in 6: 35, 41, 48,51, is a midrashic formula by
which words from the O. T. quotations are identified with Jesus.
On the midrashic method, see also Peder Borgen, Bread from Heaven
(N. T. Supplements, X; Leiden: Brill, 1965), pp. 59-86.
364Brown, l2hll, I, p. 267.
365Ibid., p. 263: "These parallels lead us to suggest
that while the Bread of Life Discourse, as it now stands, reflects
the organizing genius of the four·th evangelist (much as the Sermon
on the Mount reflects the genius of the first evangelist), never-
theless it is composed of elements of traditional material."
See Dodd's comparison (Interpretation, p. 448) of the
sequence on a more general basis.
366Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, I, p. 315, suggests the
background is not so different from the Markan and Matthean
narratives of the Last Supper. It is John alone (p. 316), however,
who draws some significance theologically from the Jewish Passover
for understanding Jesus' words about flesh and blood, whereas the
Synoptics actually only mention the Passover in the Passion nar-
rative in order to give the historical setting. It is startling
to find the conclusion of Fortna, The Gospel of Signs, pp. 69-70,
that "it is likely that In's tradition goes back to a pre-Markan
version of the story." A similar viewpoint is expressed by Gartner,
John 6 and the Jewish Passover, pp. 8-9, 11: ''In returns most
closely to that ori§inai grouping of material which can also be
traced behind Mark.
367In Mk. 2:10 he forgives sin and in Mk. 2:28 he is
Lord of the Sabbath; in Mt. 13:37 he sows the seed of the word
which grows and bears fruit.

368Bro~n, ~, ,I, p •.261, and Appendix I (pp. 510-2),

discusses r-6VcSl v, the 'fa:ror1te Johannine verb", Which has the
basic meaning in John (as 1n the O. T. and the rest of the N. T.)
of permanence; but it is more complicated by its association
with John's theology of immanence (the mutual indwelling of
Father, Son, and believer); cf. the Pauline "in Christ" formula.

369Barrett, John, p. 239; cf. Braun, Jean le Theologien,

I, p , 410.
 331

Cl 370Braun, Jean le Th'ologien,

I, p. 402;, epexe~etic
I vat (6:28, 30?, 39, 40), (6:29), and E.K (used
TTlrTE:.&w l!1~ 71\1oL
in 6:31,32 of the bread from heaven and 6:33 of him who came
down from heaven).
371SChulZ, Untersuchungen, p. 115 (and n.3).
372Cf• Schulz, Untersuchungen, p. 115, who finds a pre-
Johannine tradition in In. 6:27.
373Smalley, "Johannine Son of Man", PP. 293-4.
374whether this "true bread" really symbolizes the Torah
or New Torah is another subject. Cf. Dodd, Interpretation,
p. 336, who thinks this symbolism may be behina' In. 6.
375Dodd, Interpretation, p. 337: "But for the att,nt!ve
reader the phrase CS f<p..TtL(AoilvlitN recalls at once tf ~K '"TN ()V('OCl/07.J
/(rJ-, ...p.,as. of iii.13, and it would be equally possible to construe
it atter the same manner, substantivally, in the sense ,.The bread
of God is He who descends from heaven and gives life to the
worldl--and this, as we 1mow from iii.13, is the Son of Man,
the only one who has in his own right passage both ways across
the frontiers of ,col ~vw and T'l N,[TW. In verse 35 the ambiguity
is cleared up. Jesus expressly claims to be fU..-rd.f3od vWV'
~ TOO 06frJ..VoV, and, therefore, Himself the Bread of Life."
376The christology of this log ion is then the srume in
essence as that in In. 17:21, 22.
377Brown, John, I, p. 379. It is relevant here to
note John's use of ~1101f\)V"YkJYO-S which is perhaps a late word.
It is not found in the LXX or in secular writers and is in
fact exclusive to John (7:131 ; 12:42; 16:2) in the N.T. (though
cf. Lk. 6:22 for the same idea). It is the sort of word coined
for use in the Jewish community (Moulton-Milligan, Thevocabu~
of the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963 t-epr1nt ;
p , 70) •. cr.Ai'nat-Glngrich, Lexicon. p , 100; Strack-B1l1erbeck,
Kommentar IV, pp. 293-333; Brown (John, I, P. 380) finds it
almost unbelievabJ.e "that formal excommunication against a follower
of Jesus came about. But is John really using the word strictly
in the sense of formal excommunication?
378Contrast chapter 5 and the healing of the paralyptic
without the use of water. John 9 shows "the healing power of
wa~er" (Brown, John, I, p. 381). The importance of the washing
is emphasized, Brown feels, by John's care to interpret Siloam
as "sent" and in this way to connect Jesus with the water. Jesus
too was sent by the Father (In. 3:17, 34; 5:36, 38) and Jesus
becomes in In. 7:37, 38, the new source of Life-giving water,
replacing Siloam as the pool for the Tabernacle ceremony.
/ 379Brown, John, I, p. 381; cf. Loisy, Le ~uatrieme
Evangile, p. 317.
 332
380 Brawn, John, I, pp. 3 81 -2. Note how he associates
in In. 9 even the Pauline idea of baptism into Jesusl death
(Ram. 7:3), p. 382.

-
381 Ibid., p , 380.
382Ibid. ,po 379.· He notes (P. 381) that the te·ndency
later was t~ell on the marvellous aspect of miracles, whereas
here this aspect is kept to the barest minimum.
383There is little need to discuss the variant T~V u~ ov'
TOU (k,.,vwhichsame MSS (AKLXA8~etc.) have instead of rov' ufo\'
TOO at v(Jf,{mO\,/, Commentators are unanimous in preferring ~ "~elm-oV
(see Bernard, John, II, p. 338; Barrett, John. p. 302; Brown,
John, I, p. 37~ultmann, Johannes, p. 257, n. 1; Lagrange,
Jean, p. 269; Dodd, InterpretatIon, p. 241; et al.), and this
reading is given the highest degree of certainty by the editors
of the United Bible Societies Greek text. As is usually said,
it is difficult to see why t1&{J would be changed to &vf)f~oV ,
but the reverse is understandable (as a higher, more fitting
title, so Lagrange; or tor confessional purposes, so Brown).
Lagrange feels the external witness for ~ is too Egyptian".
Smalley, "Johannine Son of Man·, p. 296, likewise accounts for
the variant as confessional.
384Lagrange, Jean. p. 269.
385Bernard, ~. II, p. 3~8,.and I, p. cxxx.
386Barrett, John. p. 302; but he notes 12:34 as possibly
indicating otherwise. See also Loisy, Le Quatri~me Eva~ile,
in loc., and Brown, John. I, p. 375, who thinks the mean ng is
(2) and finds the question strange since the blind man knows
Jesus is a prophet (9:1'7)with unique power (9:32) which comes
from God (9:33). Cf. Bultmann,Johannes, p. 257.
387But per-haps it is possible to understand the man IS
question as, "what does Son of Man mean?" and Jesus' reply
both tells the man (indirectly) who holds the title and defines
it in terms of what Jesus had done for the man personally.
388ThOugh John is rather Ob~iouSly teaching a christo-
logical lesson here, there are indications he is using pre-
Johannine traditional material which he has preserved to do
so: (1) the ancient first per-son circumlocution is traditional,
and (2) the association with the traditional judgment motif,
cf. Dan. 7:13; Mk. 14:62, etc.
389F• Buchsel, "t<.r("wH, etc. inT.D.N.,!,. III, p. 938.
390Ibid., p. 939. He shows (n. 69) how both present
and future are to be found in John and the future is not just
an accommodation to popular conception (taking issue with Bauer
 333
on In. 3:18). John's present idea is built on his future.
"The early Christian idea of the last judgment and of resur-
rection on the last day are the basis on which John builds
his own distinctive doctrine that the last judgment and the
resurrection have occurred already."
3~But contrast Smalley, -Johannine Son of Man-, p.
296: " ••• the theme of judgment which follows closely (39)
is not really connected." On the other side see Brown, John,
I, p. 375, who thinks the appearance of the judgment theme, a
frequent setting for Son of Man, is the reason for the title
occurring here.
392See also In. 1 :4; 8:12; 12:46; and cf. Mt. 5:12.
393Midrash on Numbers, T.ranslation under Editorship of
H. Freedman and Maurice Simon (Numbers translated by Judah J•.
Slotki; London: Soncino Press, 1939; 2 vols.), Vol. II, p. 645,
on Num. 15:5.
394Cited in The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (London:
Bagster & Sons, n.d.), on In. 9:5 •.
395Brown, John, I, P. 378.
396Isa• 60:1 or a similar passage could have been in
mind.
397It is impossible to discuss here the intere~ng
and important themes of Jesus the man (vv. 4,12,25,27,31,
35, 46) and of Jesus' origin (especIally v. 27), taken up by
John in chapter 7 (cf. ale09:29; 19:9; see Meeks, "Man from
Heaven", p. 60). It is certainly possible John's Son of Man
ch~istology has been influential in the shaping of this nar-
rative as well.
398Brown, ~, I, pp. 378-9.
399Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gos~el
(Cambridge: University Press, 1963), P. 181, says John s
account has no resemblance to anything in the Synoptic tradi-
tion, though he shows (p. 182) that it nevertheless follows
the fundamental pattern of healing stories in the Synoptics.
400Brown, John, I, p. 379; Dodd, Historical Tradition,
pp. 181-8.
401Bultmann, Johannes. p. 250. Bultmann credits the
Evangelist with vv ; 4-5, 22-23, 29f., and 39-41. His redactor
has also interposed vv. 16f. and 35-38.
402Dodd, Historiaal Tradition,. PP. 185-88.
403Brown, ~, I, p. 379. 404Barrett, John, P. 302.
 334

405This use of believe with Son of Man is unique in

John (see Barrett, John, p. 302). It was a very personal
demand made on the blind man, as seen by the emphatic you--
do you believe on the Son of Man?
406There is both a verbal parallel (anarthrous v«(~s
-&Y$.C~oV) and the parallel motif of judgment.
407 Of. Schnackenburg, John, I, p. 534: ,r...
apart
from the Son of Man logia themselves, there seems to be no
ground for assuming that the concept of Son of Man has greatly
influenced the Fourth Gospel."
408Ibid., pp. 535-8.
409The phrase in In. 5:27 is t<C(CTIV T10(~V ; in Dan. 7:22
it is -ra
,ce{~41- g~w~e-v «(9. text)/r;;v l<p(IT'" gcfwK'e: (Dtext) and
in 7:26 T~ f(rll~r'OV ~tL,(f9.IIre: (Stext)/ 'lc t(f(~lS f(G(e,~~,,,,,
(ctext).
410A parallel idea is to be found in Psa. 8:4, 5,
another Son of Man testimonium.
411SChulZ, Untersuchungen, pp. 113f.
412As justification for looking to the O.T. to find
the origin of these motifs In. 5:39 could be cited: "It is
the scriptures which bear witness to me." In this context
which elaborates the Son's derived authority, the witness to
this whole concept is said to be the O.T. This, taken with
In. :$:27 pointing clearly to Daniel, should indicate the O.T.
as a primary source of John's christological themes.
413It is possible that 3:13, 14 are traditional material
(especially as they contain the Son of Man title), whereas vv.
16-21 are John's elaboration of a possibly dominical word. It
would then not be surprising that it is in this latter that
.Son" and other christological titles occur.
414See W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London:
S.P.C.K., 1955), p. 280; Dodd, According to the scri~tures,
po 117; E. Best, Temftation and Passion, pp. 163f.;. F. D.
Moule, Theology 69, 74.
415This may indicate a long standing association of
Son of Man with the Servant of the Lord.
416 John 12:27, 28, having the hint Df suffering coupled
with the reference to glorification may be the bridge to 13:31 ,
where glorification is the main motif. But even in In. 13:31
this glorification must be tied to sutfering since it follows
Judas t departure to betray Jesus and is followed by a refer-
ence to Jesus' going away (in death). Bub. even back in In.
 335
12:32 there is the strange union of suffering (lifting up)
with authority, which may parallel this union of suffering
and glorification.
417Cfo .John 8:29.
418Cf• Ro No Longenecker, Christology of Early Jewish
Christianity, pp. 91-3.
 CONCLUSION

Having examined the O.To Son of Man texts and having

observed something of the way in which these (and additional
OoTo testimonia) have been used in the shaping of the N.To
Son of Man logia, bne has been able to draw certain conclusionso
The most outstanding conclusion is perhaps the least remarkable--
namely that Dano 7 remains the fundamental Son of Man text,
supplying nearly all the important ideas relative to the Son
of Man in the NoT. Of course the corporate ideas of Psao 8
(Son of Man • all mankind) and Psa. 80 (Son of Man = Israel)
are still to be found--the Son of Man in Dan. 7 itself is cor-
porate insofar as he is a symbol for Israel--but the potential
for individualization of the Son of Man, later fully developed
im I Enoch and IV Ezra, suits it to the application to Jesus
who as the Son of Man par excellence embodies all the ideals
of the O.T. Son of Man.
The other important conclusion fram the survey of the
OoTo material is that Ezekiel is important, but not in the
way in which it has been traditionally thought (by G. So Duncan,
for example). The term of address for the prophet, "son of man",
is of minimal importanceo Of far more significance is what
happens in Ezek. 1-3 and 8-10, where, in the prophet's vision
of God as he is being commissioned to his prophetic ministry,
he sees God in human form upon a throne. But these visions
tn Ezekiel are only part of a developing tradition in the OoT.,

336
 337

which reaches its apex in Dan. 7,where it converges with the

Son ot Man tradition to picture the apotheosis ot Israel, and
in I Enoch where the "human form" has become virtually a second
deity. The wealth ot raw materials this tradition provides tor
the building of N.T. christology is evidento
A survey of the somewhat rare occurrences of the Son
ot Man outside the Gospels justified the viewpoint that, although
there was certainly a familiarity with the Son of Man christo-
logy, there was no creative use ot it, suggesting that perhaps
more credit for the erection ot the large editice ot Son ot
Man christolo8Y in the Gospels should go to Jesuso
In the Synoptic Gospels the close dependence on Daniel
7 ot the future Son ot Man sayings is notableo The basic
thought ot the vindication ot the Son ot Man, whether in terms
of resurpection, exaltation, or parousia, goes back to Jesus
himselto The present sayings present a ditterent picture.
Sayings like Mk. 2:10, Mk. 2:28, Mto 13:37, Mt-,1Il' 16:13, and
Lk. 19:10 do dwell on the special authority ot the Son ot Man
in his mission on earth, thus retaining an emphasis on the
extraordinary (it not aupernatural) nature ot the Son ot Man.
But a second important group ot present sayings, in the "Q"
tradition, expand the meaning ot the Son ot Man to inClude
another aide of his nature: he is the lowly, rejected one--
homeless and slandered, recalling the lowly Son of Man ot
Psa. S. In this way, these sayings prepare tor the suttering
sayings--that group where it is most evident that a syntheais
ot the Son ot Man and the Suttering Servant ot Isaiah has been
madeo The basis tor this link (clear.at in Mk. 10:45) .as the
 338

sutfering of the Son of Man in Dan. 1. Most of these sutfering

sayings occur in the Markan tradition and use Isa. 53 (though
Psa. 118:22 may be reflected in Mk. 9:12; 8:31). There are
arguably old elements in all of these say1ng~" .ven the non-
Markan saying Lk. 24:1, though found in a post-resurrection
setting, retains traditional language and a non-Beptuagintal
interpretation of Hosea 6:2 applied to the resurrection, thus
pointing to its ancient roots.
It is in the Pourth Gospel that the most novel use is
made of theQ.To in application to the Son of Man tradition.
Such he~etotore unknown testimonia as Gen. 28:12 (Jacobls
ladder) and Num. 21 (the brazen serpent) are now applied to
the Son of Man in order to demonstrate how he in his life and
ministry embodies the great events of Israel's history and
is thus to be thought of as the New Israel. Traditional motifs
(though not preViou8ly applied to the Son of Man) such a8
ascending/descending and the new manna are now understood to
be further confirmation that the Son of Man is the bearer of
heavenly knowledge, the bringer of life, the savior. A novel
approach to the Son of Man as the Servant i8 seen in the pecu-
( "
liarly Johannine use of u 'fcuv' to refer at once to the cruci-
fixion and the exaltation of the Son of Man--a brilliant piece
. of realized (or "inaugurated-) eschatology, made possible by
the use of Isa. 52:13 and the Aramaic crl?~f1. Yet in the midst
of all this new insight and novel app~oach to the Son of Man,
one is called back to the most fundamental O.To text of all,
Dan. 1, when in In. 5:21 it is said that the Son of Man is
 339
"judge"o Thus John's highly original treatment of the Son
of Man is basically in harmony with the traditional Son of
Man and at many points shows hiB identity with the Son of

Man of the SynOpticBo So it is that even as tm Evangelists

are led by the Spirit into all truth. their feet were planted
firmly on the original 80i1 of the earliest Son of Man traditiono
 EXCURSUS: A DISCUSSION OF GUNTER REIM'S
STUDIID1 ZUM ALTTESTAMENTLICHEN HINTER-
GRUND DES JOHANNESEVANGELIUMS

This monograph is a significant contribution to the

study of John's use of the O.T. as well as to the larger
question of the formation of the Fourth Gospel (see the section
5, pp. 217ff., and especially the Appendix, "Gedanken zur Kom-
position des Johannesevangeliums auf Grund der Untersuchungen
zum alttestamentlichen Hintergrund des Johannesevangeliums",
pp. 233-46). It is important for being the first work to go
into the influence of the O.T. in John beyond the actual cita-
tions. But a. discussion of these broader questions would lead
too far afield and cannot be undertaken here. The present con-
cern is only with Reim's treatment of the O.T. influence on
John's christology (his section 6, "Die alttestamentliche Grund-
lage der eigenstandigen Christologie des Johannesevangeliums",
pp. 247ff.) and in particular the JOhannine Son of Man. By
and large his work confirms the conclusions of the present study
with respect to the importance of the O.T. influence in general
a~d the specific passages (testimonia) in particular.
In his treatment of the Johannine Son of Man Relm begins
with a comparison of Dan. 7:10, 13f., in which he sees four
elements, only two of which appear in John--judgment in In.
5:27 and ascent in In. 3:13 (pp. 252-6). Since the other two

340
 341
elements are missing, these ideas must have come to John
through the tradition, not from Dan. 7 directly. From these
two traditional Son of Man themes John broadened the concept
by the association of the Son of Man with the wider ideas of
the manna and the eucharist.
(1) The judgment of the Son of Man in In. 5:27-9.
The background of this saying is Dan. 7:10, 13f., and Dan.
12:2. The eschatology of In. 5:28f. is strange to the Evangelist,
coming from the source, which also supplied the anarthrous Son
of Man. Since the Son of Man = Judge tradition is also found
in the Synoptics and in In. 5:35 there is more Synoptic material,
Reim concludes that John has also taken In. 5:27 from the Synop-
tics.
(2) The coming of the Son of Man in John. Suggestions
of this traditional Son of Man theme occur in In. 3:1), 14;
6:62; 8:28; 12:23, 34; 13:31, where the association of glory,
exaltation and crucifixion is seen. Five of these logia (3:14;
8:28; 12;23, 34; 13:31) reflect the Isaianic Servant passages,
especially Isa. 52:13, yet it is not the Servant title but Son
of Man which is found in these logia, leading Reim to conelude
that these sayings are the product of John's theology, not the
Son of Man tradition which delivered to John only the two tradi-
tional Son of Man ideas of judgment (In. 5:27, coming by way of
the Synoptic tradition) and ascent (In. 3:13a, coming by way of
the verbal tradition). To the Evangelist is due the tendency
to ascribe to Jesus the Son of Man title as well as the emphasis
on the necessity of his being "lilted up". The similarity of
this '!liftingup" to the glorification-exaltation of the Deutero-
 342

Isaianic Servant means that Jesus was called "Servant" and that
now "Son of Man" has replaced the servant title. The ascent of
the Son of Man was already developing in the tradition before
John, as shown by the verbal tradition he received (3n. 3:13a).
3ut in the Fourth Gospel the development continues as the tradi-
tional view of the Son of Man is broadened by the association
with the giving of manna and with the eucharist (In. 6). Corol-
laries of the ascent-descent of the Son of Man are that he
must have been in heaven before and that he possesses heavenly
wisdom (In. 3:12) in which faith must be expressed. Further
developments are the identification of the Son of Man with the
food he brings (In. 6:27, 35) and the life-giving quality of
this food (In. 6:27, 32). The descent of this bread is seen
as the fulfilment of Isa. 54:13. The katabasis of In. 3:13-15
is not of gnostic origin (as Schulz says; Reim, p. 255, n. 6)
but is related to the wisdom tradition which John knew (cf.
Wisdom 9:9f.).
In the Johannine Son of Man logia Reim has observed
several possible O.T. allusions which are worth noting. In
In. 1 :51 he sees in the ascending and descending angels an
allusion to the thousand thousands of Dan. 7:10., He criticizes
Michaelis I contention (!.:.h. 8 (1960), pp 0 561 es, ') that Jno 1: 51
is built on the Synoptic tradition and his objection to Geno
28:12 as the primary O.T. allusion, giving additional grounds
for seeing the Jacob story as behind In. 1: 51 (PP. 102-4). In
In. 6 he sees the descent of the bread from heaven, the bringing
 343

to men of heavenly wisdom, as a fulfilment of Isa. 54:13:

"All your sons shall be taught by the Lord." In In. 8:28
there may be an allusion to Ex. 4:12 (pp. 106,125) in addition
to the primary "lifting up" motif from Tsa, 52:13 (and possibly
Isao 43:10; 52:6; p. 172). The Son of Man who calls for faith
in himself in In. 9:35 has opened the eyes of the blind man,
as the Servant of the Lord is said to do in Isa. 42:6, 7 (p. 180).
Finally Reim shows the importance of Isa. 49:3 (as well as
Isa. 52:13) in the formation of In. 13:31 (p.173).
Another important contribution which Reim makes is to
draw attention to the influence of the Wisdom tradition. The
Wisdom tradition is seen in the background of In. 1: 51 (p, 100,
n. 4) which is based primarily on the rabbinical traditional
interpretation of Gen. 28:12. But the Wisdom tradition is more
important for the understanding of In. 3:14 (cf. p. 153 on the
development of this logion). The importance of the serpent
account in Num. 21 in the Wisdom tradition is clear from its
use in Wisdom 16:5-8,10-13. Helm discusses (pp. 197ff.) the
relation of In. 3 :14'to Wisdom 16 and shows how John differs
from the latter. He concludes (p. 198) that, though it cannot
be said that John is dependent on the book of Wisdom in his
use of the serpent story, yet the Evangelist by his use of
this episode shOWS his knowledge of the Wisdom tradition. Simi-
larly In. 6:30ff. (the "new" manna) shows a knowledge of the
Wisdom tradition but is not dependent on the book of Wisdom

(pp.199-200).
 344
There is good reason to be grateful for the valuable
cont:ribution Reim makes to the understanding of the make-cup of
the Fourth Gospelo One can only wish he had given recognition
to more of the indications (Semitisms, use of traditional motifs,
contacts with Synoptic tradition, etc.) of the primitive origin
of various aspects of the Johannine presentation of the Son of
Man. He has thus perhaps attributed to the work of the Evangelist
material which may in fact be traditional or even authentic.
 A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

(No attempt is made to list every work utilized in

this study or even all those referred to in the text. The
following are the principal works to which frequent refer-
ence is made.)

Balz, Ho Ro Hethodische Probleme der rieutestamentlichen

Christologie. Wissenschaftliche Monographie zum
Alten und Neuen Testamenten No. 250 Neukirchen-Vluyn,
Netherlands: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967.
Barrett, C. Ko "The Background of Mark 10:450" New Testament
Essays. Edited by A. Jo B. Higgins. Manchester: Univer-
sity Press, 1959.
• The Gospel According to St. John. London: S.P.C.K.,
---' 19670
Bauer, W~ltero Das Johannes-Evangelium. Handbuch zum Neuen
Testament 6. Tfibingen: Mohr, 1933.
Beasley-Murray, G. Ro A Commentary on Mark Thirteen. London:
Macmillan, 1954.
Bernard, J. H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Gospel According to St. John. Edited by A. H. McNeileo
2 vols. f.c.c. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928.
Best, Ernest. The Temptation and Passion: the Markan Soteri-
ology. S.N.T.S. Monograph No. 2. Cambridge: Univer-
sity Press, 1965.
Black, Matthew. Apocalypsis Henochi Graece. Vol. III of
Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece. Edited by
A.-M. Denis and M. de Jonge. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 19700
• An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. 3d edo
----- Oxford: Clarenaon Press, 1967.
• "The Eschatology of the ,Similitudes of Enoch." J.T.S.,
-- nos. 3 (1952), 1-10 ..
The Scrolls and Christian Origins. Edinburgh: Thomas
-----·Nelson & Sons, Ltd., 1961.
• "Servant of the Lord and Son of Man." S.J.T. 6 (1953),
--1-11.
• "The 'Son of Man' Passion Sayings in the Gospel
---'Tradition." Z.N.W. 60 (1969),1-8.

34S
 346

Black, Matthew. "The Son of Man Problem in Recent Research

and Debate." B.J.R.L. 45 (1963), 305-18.
• "Unsolved New Testament Problems: The rSon of Man'
--- in the Old Biblical Literature." !.:.:L. 60 (1949), 11 -150
• "Unsolved New Testament Problems: The 'Son of Man'
--- in the Teaching of Jesuso"
-
E.T. 60 (1949), 32-6.
Borgen, Peder. "Observations on the Midrashic Character of
In. 6." Z.N.W. 54 (1963), 32-40.
Bornkamm, GUnter; Barth, Oerhard; and Held, Heinz Joachim.
Tradition and InterEretation in Matthew. Translated
by Percy Scott. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963.
Borsch, F. Ho "Mark XIV.62 and I Enoch LXII.5. " N.T.S. 14
(1967-68), 565-67.
____ a The Son of Man in Myth and History. London: S.C.M.
Press, 1967.
Bousset, w. Kyrios Cbristos. Gottingen: Vanderhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1 913, , 921 0
Bowman, J. "The Background of the Term 'Son of Man I. " E.T,
59 (1948), 283-8.
Braun, F.-M. Jean le Theologien. I. Jean le Theologien et
son Evangile dans ilEglise Ancienne. II. Les grandes
traditions dilsra~lo III. Sa th~ologie: Le mlst~re
de 3~sus-Christ. Paris: Gabalda, 1959, 1964, ~966.
Brown, Raymond. The Gospel According to John. Vols. 29 and
29A of The Anchor Bible. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday
. & Co., Inc., 1 966, 19700
___ a "John and the Synoptic Gospels: A Comparison," Essay
XI in New Testament Essays. London: Geoffrey Chapman,
1965.
Bruce, F. Fo Biblical Exegesis in the Qumran Texts. London:
Tyndale Press, 1960.
Old Testament Themes •
•
in the Qumran Texts.

Bultmann, Rudolph. Das Evangelium des Johannes, Rev. ed.

Gottingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 19590
_____ a The Histor 0 tic Tradition, Translated by
03 Marsh. lackwell,. 2 ed , , 1968, correct ec
____ a The Theology of the New Testament. Translated by Ko
Grobel. 2 vols. London: S.C.M. Press, 1952.
Burney, C. F. The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1922.
Caird, G. B. "The Glory of God in the Fourth Gospelo" N.T.S.
15 (1968-69), 265-77.
 347

Caird, G. B. The Gospel of st. Luke. Baltimore: penguin

Books, 1964.
Campbell, J. Y. "The Origin and Meaning of the Term Son of
Man." J.T.S, 48 (1957), 145-55.
Charles, R. H, The Apocrtpha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old
Testament in English, 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1913.
• The Book of Enocho New ed. Oxford: Clarendon
--- Press, ,9'2.
t C, " 1
f~ I
Colpe, C. "0 o ic s Tou rJ.V W1TOo.'
,
T.D.N.T. vei , 8
0

Conzelmann, Hans. The Theology of St. Luke. Translated by

Geoffrey Buswell. London: Faber& Faber, 1960.
Coppens, J. "Le messianisme sapiential et les origines
litteraires du Fils de l'horrnnedanielique." Wisdom
in Israel and in the Ancient Near East. (H. H. Rowley
Festschrift) gdited by M. Noth and D. Winton Thomas,
SUpplements to ~ III (1955).
Cranfield, C. E. B. The Gospel According to St. Marko The
Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary. General editor
C. F. D. Moule. Cambridge: University Press, 1959.
Creed, J. M. The Gospel According to st. Luke. London:
Macmillan, 1930,

--- .. "The Heavenly Man." J.T.S.26 (192$),113-36.

Cullmann, O. The Christology of the New Testament. Trans-
lated by Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles A. Mo Hall.
Revo edo London: SoC.M. Press, 1959.
Dalman, G. H. The Words of Jesus Considered in the
Post-Biblical Jewish Writin s and the Aramaic
Translated Y ,M. Kayo d nburg :
Danielou, Jean. "La Session a la Droite du Pareo'l
Evangelica. Edited by Ko Aland, F. L. Cross,
Texte und Untersuchungen 73. (1959),
Daube, David. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaismo
London: university of London, Athlone Press, 1956.
Dibelius, Mo From Tradition to Gospel. Translated by B.
Lee Woolf. New York: Scribners, 1965.
Dodd, c. Ho According to the Scriptures. London: Nisbet,
1952.
o The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospelo Cambridgei
----- University Press, 1968.

--- • The Parables of the Kingdom. London: Nisbet, 1956.

• "Some Johannine 'Herrnworte' with Parallels in the
-- SynoptiC Gospels." N.T.S. 2 (1955-56), 75-86.
Duncan, G. S. Jesus, Son of Man. London: Nisbet, 1947.
 348

Easton, B. S. The Gospel According to St. Luke: A Critical

and Exegetical Commentary. New York: Scribners, 1926.
Ellis, E. E. The Gospel of Lukeo London: Nelson, 1966.
Feuillet, A. "Le Fils de l'homme de Daniel et la tradition
biblique." ReB. 60 (19.53),170-202, 321-46.
• Johannine Studies. Translated by Thomas E. Crane,
----- New York: Alba House, 1964.
Filson, F. A Commentary on the Gospel Accord~ng to Matthew.
London: A. & C. Black, 1960.
Fortna, R. T. The Gospel of Signs. S.N.T.S. Monograph No.11.
Cambridge: University Press, 1970.
France, R. T. Jesus and the Old Testament. London: Tyndale,
1971 •
Freed, E. D. "The Son of Man in the Fourth Gospel." J.B.L.
86 (1967), 402-9.
Fridricl'lsen,A. "Le peche contre le Saint-Esprit," R.H.P .R.
~ (1923), 367-.
Fuller, R. H. The Foundations of New Testament Christology.
London: Lutterworth, 1965.
• The Hission and Achievement of Jesus. Studies in
-----Biblical Theology No. 12, London: S.C.M. Press, 19.54.
Gardner-Smith, P. Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels.
Cambridge: University Press, 193~
Ginsberg, H. L. "The Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering
Servant." VoTe 3 (19.53),400-4.
in the Fourth Gospel. London: S.C.M.

----, Caiaphas (Mark xiv.62)." N.T.S. 7

2e ed., entierement refondue.

• The Life of Jesus. Translated by Olive Wyon. London:

----- G. Allen & Unwin, 1933.
Gourbillon, J.-G. "La parabole du serpent d 'airain." R.B • .51
(1942),213-26 ..
Haenchen, Ernst. Der Weg Jesu: Eine Erklarung des Markus-
Evangeliums und der kanonischen Paralleln. Berlin:
Topelmann, 1 966 ..
Hahn, Ferdinand. Christologische Hoheitstitel: ihre Geschichte
im frUben Christentum. GBttingen: Vanderhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1963.
 349

Harnmerton-Kelly, R. G. Pre-Existence, Wisdom, and 'the Son

of Man: A Study or the !dea of Yre-Existence in the
New Testament. S.N.T.S. Monograph No. 21. Cambridge:
University Press, 1973.
Harnack, Adolph von. New Testament Studies. II. The Sa!lngs
of Jesus, the Second Source of st. Matthew and St. uke.
Translated by Rev. J. R. Wilkinson. London: Williams
& Norgate, 1908.
Higgins, A. J. B."Is the Son of Man Problem Insoluble?"
Neotestamentica et Semitica. (Matthe'tvBlack F.:esX!phrift)
Edited by E. Earle Ellis and Max Wilcox. Editiburgh: '.
___ T. & T. Clark, 1969.
, Jesus and the Son of Man. London: Lutterworth,1964.
o "Son of Man Forschuns Since 'The Teaching of Jesus t. "
----- New Testament Essays. Edited by A. Jo B. Higgins.
Manchester: UnIversity Press, 1959.
• "The Words of Jesus According to St. John." B.J.R.L.
-- 49 (1966-67), 363-86.
Hindley, J. C. "Towards a Date for the Similitudes of Enoch. "
N.T.S. 14 (1967-68), 551-65.
Hooker, Morna D. "Christology and Methodology." N.T.S. 17
(1970-71 ), 480-7.
o Jesus and the Servant: the Influence of the Servant
----- Conoept of Deutero-Isaiah in the New Testament. London:
___ S.P.C.K., 1959.
, The Son of Man in Mark. London: s. P • C • K., 1 967 •
Hoskyns, E. C, The Fourth Gospel. Edited by F. N. Davey.
2 vols. London: Faber & Faber, 1939.
Howard, W. F. The Fourth Gos el in Reoent Criticism and Inter-
pretation. Revised by C. K. Barrett. th ed. rev.
London: Epworth Press, 1961.
Hultgren Arland J. t'TheFormation of the Sabbath Pericope
in'Mark 2:23-28." J.B.L. 91 (1972), 38-43.
Hunter, A. M. The Gospel Acoording to John. Cambridge:
University Press, 1965.
• The Work and Words of Jesus. London: S.C.M. Press,
--1950.
Ingelaere, J.-C. "La «parabole» du jugement dernier." R.H.P .R.
50 (1970), 23-60.
Jeremias, Joachim. "AM~. " T.D.N.T. Vol.. I.
• "Erloser und Erlosung im Spatjudentum und Urchristendem."
-- Deutsch Theolosie 2 (1929), 1 06-19.
o The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. Translated by Norman
----- Perrin from the German 3d ed •. New York: Scribners, 1966.
• The Parables of Jesus. Translated by S. H. Hooke.
----- New York: Scribners, '955.
 350

Jeremias, Joachim; and Zimmerli, w. The Servant of God.

Rev , ad, London: SoC .M. Press, 1965. Now published
as "1Tct7s ~ouo't TiD.N.T. Vol. V.
Jeremias, Joachim. Unknown SaYings of Jesus. Translated by
R. Ho Fuller. LOndon: s.p.c.k., '957.
Kittel, Go -= 0-o/W~V'.(l
't~r'i?7{)f = gekreuzigt werdeno" Z.N.W.
35 (1936), 282-50
Klostermann, Ericho Das Lukasevangeliumo Handbuch zum Neuen
Testamento Tubingen: Mohr, 19'9 (1929).
• Das Markusevangeliumo Handbuch zum Neuen Testamento
--- Tubingen: Mohr, 19a6.
• Das Matthausevangelium. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament.
--- Tubingen: Mohr, 1909.
Kraeling, C. H. Anthropos and Son of Man. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1927.
KUmmel, W. G. Promise and Fulfilment: the Eschatological
Message of Jesuso Studies in Biblical Theology No. 23.
Translated by Dorothea Mo Bartono London: S.C.M. Press,
1957.
Lagrange, M.-Jo Evangile selon Saint Jean. 8e edo Paris:
Gabalda, 19480
,
o Evangile selon Saint Marc. Paris: Librairie Lecoffre,
--1966.
Lampe, G. W. H. "Luke." Peake's Commentary on the Bible.
Rev6 ed. Edited by M. Black and H. H. Rowleyo London:
Th~as Nelson & Sons, Ltd., 1962.
Leaney, A. F. C. A Commentar on the Gos el Accordin to St.
Luke. Black s New Testament Commentar es. London: A.
& Co Black, 1958.
lietzmann, Ho Der Menschensohn. Ein Beitrag zur neutestament_
lichen Theologie. Frieburg and Leipzig, 1896.
Berlin:

•
N.T.S.18
243-670
Lightfoot, R. H. St. John's Gospel: A Commentar~. Edited by
C. F. Evans. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 19S=.
Lindars, Barnabas. New Testament Apologetic. London: S.C.M.
Press, 1961.
Linton 00 "The Trial of Jesus and the Interpretation of
Psalm 110." N.T.S. 7 (1960-61), 258-62.
Lohmeyer, Ernsto Das Evangelium des Markus. Kritisch-
Exegetischer Kommentar Uber das Neue Testamento
Gottingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957.
 351

Lohmeyer, Ernst. Das Evangelium des Matthaus. Kritisch-

Exegetischer Kommentar fiberdas Neue Testament.
Gottingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958.
• Gottesknecht und Davidsohn. Forschungen zur Religion
----- und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, n. f.
Hft. 43. G5ttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1953.
• Kyrios Jesus: Eine untersuchung zu Phil. 2:5-11.
----- Heidelberg: Carl Winter-Universitatsverlag, 1961.
• "Der Verklarung Jesu nach dem Markusevangelium."
--Z.N.W.21 (1922),185-215.
Lohse, Eduard. Martyrer und Gottesknecht: Untersuchungen
zur urchristiiClien verkdndigung vom SUbntod Jesu Christl
2 Auflage. Gotting_en:
,
Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963. •
Loisy, Alfred. LIEvangile selon Luc. Paris: Nourry, 1924.
_____ • LIEvangile selon Marc. Paris: Nourry, 1912.
_____ • Le Quatrieme Evangile. 2e ed. Paris: Nourry, 1921.
Longenecker, R. N. The Christology of Early Jewish Christianit~.
Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series No. 17.
London: S.C.M. Press, 1970.
McCown, C. C. "Jesus, Son of Man: A Survey of Recent Dis-
cussion." Journal of Religion 18 (1948), 1 -12.
McNeile, Alan. The Gospel According to St. Matthew. London:
Macmillan, 1961.
Manson, T. W. "Mark 2:27f." Coniectanea Neotestamentica XI
in honorem Antonii Fridrichsen. Lund: Gleerup, 1947.
• "The Son of Man in Daniel, Enoch, and the Gospels."
-- B.J.R.L. 32 (1950), 171-95.
• Studies in the Gospels and Epistles. Edited by M.
----- Black. Manchester: University Press, 1962.
• The Teaching of Jesus. 2d ed. Cambridge: University
---- Press, 1935.
Manson, William. Jesus the Messiah. London: Hodder &
Stoughton, 1943.
Marshall, I. H. "The Synoptic Son of Man Sayings." N.T.S.
12 (1965-66), 327-51.
Meeks, Wayne. "The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism."
J.B.L. 91 (1972), 44-72.
Messel Nils. Der Menschensohn in den Bilderreden des Henoch.
B.Z.A.W. 35. Giessen: A. Topelmann, 1922.
Michaelis, W. "Johannes 1, 51, Gn. 28, 12 und das Menschens ohn-,
Problem." Theologische Literaturzeitung 85 (1960), 561-78.
Milik J. T. "Probl~mes de la Litt~rature H~nochique a. la
'lumiere des Fragments Arameens de Qumran." Harvard
Theological Review 64 (1971), 333-78.
 352

Moore, W. E. "Sir, We Would See Jesus--Was This an Occasion

of Temptation?" S.J.T. 20 (1967), 75-93.
Moule, C. F. D. "From Defendant to Judge--And Deliverer: An
Enquiry into the Use and Limitations of the Theme of
Vindication in the New Testament." S.N.T.S. Bulletin
III (1952), 40-53.
• "The Influence of Circumstances on the Use of Christo-
--- logical Terms." J.T.S., n s, 10 (1959), 247-63.
s

• The Phenomenon of the New Testament. Studies in

---- Biblical Theology, Second Series No. 1. London: S.C.M.
Press, 1967.
Mowinckel, S. He That Cometh. Translated by G. W. Anderson.
New York: Abingdon Press, 1954.
Muller, K. "Menschensohn und Messias: Religionsgeschichtliche
Voruberlegungen zum Menschensohnproblem in den synoptis-
chen Evangelien." Biblische Zeitschrift, n ,f. 16 (1972),
161 -87.
Neufeld, Vernon H. The Earliest Christian Confessions. Vol. 5
of New Testament Tools and Studies. Edited by Bruce M.
Metzger. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1963.
Nineham, D. E. The Gospel of St. Mark. The Pelican Gospel
Commentaries. Middlesex: Pelican Books, 1964.
Odeberg, Hugo. The Fourth Gospel. Interpreted in Its Relation
to Contemporaneous Religious Currents in Palestine and
the Hellenistic Oriental World. 1929.
O'Neill, J. C. "The Silence of Jesus." N.T.S. 15 (1968-69),
153-67 •
Otto, R. The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man. Translated
from the rev. German edt by FloYd V. Filson and Bertram
Lee Woolf. New and rev. ed , London r . Lutterworth Press ,
1943.
Parker, Pierson. "The Meaning of 'Son of Man'." J.B.L. 60
(1941 ), 151-7.
P ercy, E • Die Botschaft Jesu. Lund: Gleerup,1953.
Perrin, Norman. "Creative Use of the Son of Man Traditions
by Mark." U.S.S.R. 23 (1967-68), 357-65.
"Mark XIV. 62: The End Product of a Christian Pesher
--' Tradition?" N.T. S. 12 (1965-66), 1 50-55.
• Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus. New York: Harper
---- & RoW, 1967.
Plummer, A. The Gospel According to St, Luke. I.C.C. 5th edt
Edinburgh: T, & T. Clark, 1922.
Preisker H. "Zum Charakter des Johannesevangelium." Luther
, K~t Schleiermacher in ihrere Bedeutung fUr den Prates:
tant!smus. Forschungen und Abhandlungen Georg Wabbermin
dargebracht (1939), 379-93.
 353

preiss, Theo. Le Fils de l'homme. Montpellier, 1951.

• "Le Fils de l'homme." Etudes theologiques et religi-
--- euses, Vol. 28 (1.953).
Quispel, Gilles. "Nabhane L und der Menschensohn (Joh. 1.51)."
Z.N.W. 47 (1956), 281-4.
Rawlinson, A. E. J. St. Mark. With Introduction, Commentary,
and Additional Notes. London: Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1925.
Reim, GUnter. Studien zum Alttestamentlichen Hintergrund des
Johannesevangeliums. S.N.T.S. Monograph No. 22. Cam-
brIdge: University Press, 1973.
Robinson, J. A. T. "Expository Problems: The Second Coming--
Mark xiv.62." E.T. 67 (1955-56), 336-40.
• Jesus and His Coming: The Emergence of a Doctrine.
----- New York: Abingdon Press, 1958.
Schlatter, Adolph von. Der Evangelist Johannes. wie er sprict,
denkt, und glaubt. Ein Kommentar zum vierten Evangelium.
Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1960.
• Der Evangelist Matthaus. Seine Sprache, seine Ziel,
----- seine SelbStaendigkeit: ein Kommentar zum ersten Evan-
gelium. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1960.
• Das Evangelium des Lukas. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag,
--193'.
• Markus: der Evangelist fur die Griechen. Stuttgart:
----- Calwer Verlag, 1935.
Schnackenburg, Rudolph. The ~ospel According to St. John.
Introduction and Commentary on Chapters 1-4. Vol. I.
Translated by Kevin Smith. London: Search Press, 1968.
• "Der Menschensohn Im Johannesevangelium. II N.T. S. 11
-- (1964-65), 123-37.
Schulz Siegfried. Untersuchun en zur Menschensohn-Christolo ie
im Johannesevangelium. Gottingen: anderhoec &
Ruprecht, 1 957.
Schweizer, E. "Der- Menschensohn." Z.N.W. 50 (1959.),185-209.
Scott, R. B. Y. "Behold, He Cometh with Clouds." N.T.S. 5
(1958-59),127-32•
Sidebottom, E. M. "The Ascent and Descent of the Son of Man
in the Gospel of John." Anglican Theological Review 2
(1957), 115-22.
Sjoberg, E. Der Menschensohn im Athiopischen Henochbuch.
Lund: Gleerup, 1946.
• Der Verborgene Menschensohn in den Evangelien. Lund:
----- Gleerup, 1955.
Smalley, Stephen. "T-heJohannine Son of Man Saying s," N-~T•S.
15 (1968-69), 278-301.
 354

Stendahl, K. "Matthew. " Peake Is Commentary on the Bible.

Rev. ed. Edited by M. Black and H. H. Rowley. London:
Thomas Nelson & Sons, Ltd., 1962.
Stonehouse, N. B. The Witness of Luke to Christ. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953.
• The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ. Phila-
----- delphia: The Presbyterian Guardian, 1944.
Stott, Wilfrid. "ISon of Manl--A Title of Abasement." E.T.
83 (1971-72), 278-81. -
Strack, H. L., and Billerbeck, P. Kommentar zum Neuen Testa-
ment aus Talmud und Midrasch. 5 vols. Mtinchen: C. H.
Becksche (Oskar Beck), 1922-28.
Swete, H. B. The Gospel According to St. Mark. 2d ed.
London: Macmillan, 1908.
Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel According to St. Mark. 2d ed.
London: Macmillan, 1966.

--- • The Names of Jesus. London: Macmillan, 1953.

--- • New Testament Essays. London: Epworth Press, 1970.

• "The ISon of Man' Sayings Relating to the Parousia."
--
-E.T. 58 (1947), 12-15.
Teeple, H. M. "The Origin of the Son of Man Christology."
J.B.L. 84 (1955), 213-50.
Thompson, G. H. P. "The Son of Man--Some FUrther Consider-
. ations." J.T.S., n s s, 12 (1961), 203-9.
Thusing, W. Die Erh~hung und Verherrlichung Jesu im Johannes-
~vangelium. Neutestamentliche Abhandlung ~ Bd. 1/2 Hft.
Mftnster,qestfalen: Aschendorff, 1960.
Todt, H. E. The Son of Man in the S 0 tic Tradition. Trans-
lated by orothea M. Barton from the d German ed., 1963.
London: S.C.M. Press, 1965. .
Trocme Etienne. La Formation de I ':Evangileselon Marc. Etudes
dlHistoire et de philosophie religieuses, No. 57. Paris:
Presses universitaires de France, 1963.
Vermes Geza. "The Use of tVJ 'l'J. /~l.J)l ii in Jewish Aramaic."
Appendix E,of Matthew Blackls Aramaic Approach to the
Gospels and Acts. 3d ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.
Vielhauer, P. "Gottesreich und Menschensohn in der VerkUndigung
Jesu." Festschrift fUr Giinther Dehn. Edited by'W. Schnee-
melcher. Neukirchen: Verlag der Buchhandlung des
Erziehungsvereins Neukirchen Kreismoers, 1957.:
___ • "JesuS und derMenschensohn." Z.T.K. 60 (1963),133-77.
Vogtle, Anton. "Der-Spruch vom Jonaszeichen." Synoptischen
studien. (Alfred Wikenhauser Festschrift) Mnnchen·
Karl Zrnk Verlag, 1953. •
 355

Volz, P. Die Eschatolo ie der ·udischen Gemeinde im neutesta-

mentlichen Ze~talter. Tftbingen: Mohr, 93.
Walker, William O. "The Origin of the Son of Man Concept as
Applied to Jesus." J .B.L. 91 (1972), 482-90.
Wellhausen, Julius. Das Evangelium Marci. 2 Auflage. Berlin:
G. Reimer, 1909.
Westcott, B. F. The Gospel According to st. John. London:
J• Murray, 1908.
Wink, Walter, John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition.
S.N.T.S. Monograph No.7. Cambridge: University
Press I 1968.
Woude, A. S. van der. f~er messianischen Vorstellung der
Gemeinde von QumrAn." Israel Exploration Journal 9
(1959),99-109.
Zimmerli, Walter. Ezekiel,1Teilband (EzekieI1-24). Band
XIII~ in Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament. Edited
by M. Notihand Hans Walter Wolff. Neukirchen Vluyn,
Netherlands: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969.