Tag: Sayings of Jesus

“God Sent Forth His Son…”: John 3:13-17ff (Part 1)

The Incarnation in the Gospel and Letters of John

Having examined all of the principal Pauline passages related to the idea of the incarnation and God’s “sending forth” of His Son (1 Tim 3:16 will be discussed in a supplemental note), we now turn our attention to the Johannine Wrirings (Gospel and Letters).

The Gospel of John

The primary Johannine passage—and the clearest presentation in the New Testament—attesting an incarnational Christology is the Prologue (1:1-18) of the Gospel. In this famous passage, Jesus Christ is identified with the pre-existent Word/Wisdom (Logos) of God (1:1-5, 9-12), much as in the Colossians ‘Christ-Hymn’ (1:15-20) discussed in the previous study. This tacit identification leads to the great declaration in v. 14:

“And the Word [lo/go$] became flesh [sa\rc ege/neto] and set up (his) tent among us; and we looked on his splendor [do/ca]—(the) splendor as of an only (Son) [monogenh/$] alongside (the) Father, full of favor and truth.”

This statement is further expounded in vv. 15-18, applying it more precisely to the life and ministry of Jesus Christ—an application which continues into the introductory episodes (vv. 19-50) of the Gospel narrative proper. In particular, Jesus’ public ministry is positioned in relation to the Son’s incarnation and pre-existence in v. 15 (echoed/repeated in v. 30), representing a uniquely Johannine theological development of a traditional saying by the Baptist (cf. Mark 1:7 par). Then, in vv. 16-18, God’s revelation in the person of Christ (His incarnate Son) is compared/contrasted with His earlier revelation to Moses—i.e., juxtaposing the first/original and new covenants.

I will be discussing 1:14 (and the Johannine Gospel Prologue) at a later point in these studies, in connection with the Johannine Letters (esp. 1 John) and the Christological controversy that appears at the center of those writings. Here, I wish to begin our examination of the Johannine evidence with the Gospel narrative proper, looking at the references mentioning or alluding to the incarnation of the Son. We start with chapter 3 and the Nicodemus Discourse (vv. 1-21).

John 3:13-17ff

All of the Johannine Discourses have an historical-traditional episode as their basis. In this instance, it is the encounter between Jesus and Nicodemus (vv. 1-8ff). However, Nicodemus effectively disappears midway through the discourse and is not mentioned again after verses 9-10. The sayings in verses 13-14f represent the transition point in the discourse, leading to the exposition by Jesus that follows in vv. 16-21. This is significant from the standpoint of the theological framework of the discourse, since it explains how being “born from above” and “born of the Spirit” (the dual-theme in vv. 1-8) are to be understood—viz., in terms of trusting in Jesus as the Son sent from heaven by God the Father (vv. 16-21). This Christological exposition also informs the “son of man” sayings in vv. 13-14 (as is clear from v. 15). The great declarations by Jesus in vv. 16-17 are justly famous, but they are preceded by the “son of man” sayings of vv. 13-14f (discussed in the earlier series “Who Is This Son of Man…?”), which help us to understand in greater detail the statement that God “sent forth His Son”.

Verse 13

“And no one has stepped up [a)nabe/bhken] into heaven, if not the (one hav)ing stepped down [kataba/$] out of heaven, the son of man.”

This statement by Jesus fits somewhat uneasily in the immediate context of vv. 9-12. Indeed, it is not entirely clear how it relates to the preceding vv. 11-12, and it certainly could have existed as a separate saying by Jesus (in some form). In the context of the Discourse, the statement affirms Jesus’ ability (and authority) to speak of “heavenly (thing)s” (e)poura/nia, lit. “[thing]s above the heaven[s]”)—such as the Divine/spiritual teaching in vv. 3-8, along with the exposition that follows in vv. 16-21. Only someone who comes from heaven is able to speak of heavenly things.

Verse 13 begins with the conjunction kai/, which could be translated conjunctively as “and”, or emphatically as “indeed”. In either case, the conjunction connects the saying with the prior vv. 11-12.

The saying itself uses the same verb pair as in 1:51: a)nabai/nw (“step up”, i.e., go/come up) and katabai/nw (“step down”, i.e., go/come down). The statement by Jesus in 1:51 is the first of the Johannine “son of man” sayings, and thus the usage of these verbs, which carry special theological significance in the Gospel of John, is most relevant to their occurrence here (see the summary note below). More to the point, they carry Christological importance. Though the immediate subject of the verbs in 1:51 is the angels (“Messengers of God”), the “son of man” (Jesus) is clearly the focus of that vision; and, indeed, throughout the remainder of the Gospel, these verbs are applied to the person of the Son (Jesus). This Johannine usage makes it absolutely clear, if there were any doubt, that the expression “the son of man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou) refers to Jesus, and is thus used here by Jesus as a self-reference.

There are three component-phrases to the saying here in v. 13, and we shall examine them each in turn.

(a) “no one has stepped up into heaven”

In a strictly literal sense, this would mean that no one (i.e., no human being) has ever gone up (ascended) into heaven. It is possible that the Gospel writer intends us to understand the statement in just this way; however, if so, then the author (and Jesus as the speaker) would be rejecting well-established traditions regarding figures such as Enoch (cf. Gen 5:24), Moses, and Elijah (2 Kings 2:1, 11f). It is, I think, better to view the verb a)nabai/nw here in its special (Johannine) Christological meaning. That is to say, no other person has ever “stepped up” to heaven, being exalted by God in the manner that Jesus was.

In the immediate context of vv. 11-12, the idea of someone ascending to heaven relates to that person’s ability/authority to speak of heavenly things (see above). A human being (such as Elijah) who went up to heaven could presumably speak, in a certain way, about “heavenly things”, but not in the manner of the Son (Jesus); on this point, see below.

(b) “if not the (one hav)ing stepped down out of heaven”

The compound negative particle ei) mh/ (“if not”) is conditional, and usually is meant in an exceptive sense (i.e., “except [for]”)—that is, no one has ever “stepped up” into heaven except for… . The only person who has ever “stepped up” into heaven is the person who has (first) “stepped down” from heaven. This person is designated by the substantive verbal noun (participle) kataba/$ with the definite article—o( kataba/$ (“the [one hav]ing stepped down”). Such use of the articular substantive participle is typical of Johannine style, and there are many examples occurring throughout the Gospel and Letters (too many to cite here). The syntax allows the author/speaker to express an essential or definitive characteristic of a person (or group). The qualifying prepositional expression “out of heaven” (e)k tou= ou)ranou=) fills out the characterizing phrase: “the (one hav)ing stepped down out of heaven”.

This is a vital element of the Johannine Christology—viz., declaring and affirming Jesus’ heavenly origin, and his identity as the Son sent (down) from heaven by God the Father. For more on this, see section (c) below.

A word should be said about the tenses of the two verbs. The verb a)nabai/nw is in the perfect tense, while the participle of katabai/nw is in the aorist tense; in English, both would essentially need to be translated “has stepped up/down”, but note the distinction (indicated by parentheses) in the translation above. If the author (and/or Jesus as the speaker) intends a meaningful distinction here between the two tenses, and it is not simply a stylistic difference, what would this be? The aorist is generally used as the past tense, typically referring to an event which took place at a specific point in the past. In this case, it would refer to the Son (Jesus) “stepping down” out of heaven at some point in the past—specifically, we may assume, from the Gospel standpoint, that this refers to the incarnation described in 1:14ff. Throughout the Gospel, Jesus is identified as the pre-existent Son (or Word [Logos], in the Prologue), who was sent to earth (from heaven) by God the Father. The “stepping down”, then, would refer to Jesus’ appearance on earth as a human being (see below).

The perfect tense of a)nabai/nw is more problematic. A perfect tense is typically used for a past action (or condition) the results/effects of which continue into the present. The sense may be that no one has ever (in the past) “stepped up” into heaven, a fact that continues to be true up to the present moment. This would give greater emphasis to the idea that Jesus (the present speaker) is the only one to do so.

(c) “the son of man”

Some manuscripts and versional (Syriac, Latin) witnesses include the qualifying phrase o( w&n e)n tw=| ou)ranw=| (“the [one] being in heaven”). The expression “the son of man” appears here so abruptly, without further explanation, that it would have been natural for scribes to add an explaining phrase such as this. On the other hand, copyists might just as well have deleted the phrase as being redundant or superfluous. The shorter reading is, I think, much to be preferred, though the matter is far from decisive; however, I would point out that the expression “in heaven” (with the preposition e)n) is not at all typical of Johannine usage, and occurs nowhere else in the Gospel (or Letters).

The expression “the son of man” is apposite to the phrase “the (one hav)ing stepped down out of heaven”, identifying the son of man (i.e., Jesus himself) as this person. That is, Jesus is the one who has “stepped down” out of heaven. In the context of the Johannine Christology, as noted above, the verb katabai/nw refers to Jesus’ heavenly origin, and to his identity as the Son sent (from heaven) by God the Father.

Does this usage imply that “the son of man” should here be understood as the title of a heavenly figure, with whom Jesus is identified? Many scholars believe so (or would assume so), and yet the evidence is highly questionable, when examined in detail. If it is intended as a title, then the heavenly figure called “the son of man” must refer to the one “like a son of man” in Daniel 7:13-14. As we have seen, at least two of the Synoptic sayings (Mark 13:26; 14:62 pars) allude to Dan 7:13f, and it is possible that other eschatological sayings assume the same traditional background. On this, see Part 4 of my earlier article on the “son of man” sayings in “Q”. The question of the influence of Dan 7:13f on the occurrences of the expression is discussed more extensively in a separate article in the series “Who Is This Son of Man…?”

Other commentators would emphasize the incarnation of the Son here, in the use of the expression “the son of man”. Since “son of man”, as a Semitic idiom, denotes a human being, it would be natural that it signify here the incarnation. Indeed, such an interpretation would very much fit the sense of the statement in v. 13: the Son “stepped down” from heaven to earth, and became a human being, viz., Jesus as “th(is) son of man”. Before giving further consideration to this point, let us continue with the second “son of man” saying (v. 14f).

Verses 14-15

“And, even as Moshe lifted high [u&ywsen] the snake in the desolate (land), so it is necessary (for) the son of man to be lifted high [u(ywqh=nai]” (v. 14)

This “son of man” saying follows upon the one in verse 13 (see above). While it is possible that these sayings once circulated separately, they are clearly connected here, being integral—indeed, central—to the Johannine Discourse of Jesus in chap. 3 (3:1-21). In this case, the initial conjunction (kai/), connecting verse 14 with v. 13, would seem to have a coordinating (and explicative) force (i.e., “and so…”).

The bonding motif, uniting the two sayings, is the idea of ascent. In verse 13 (as in 1:51, cf. the note below), the verb used is a)nabai/nw (“step up”), while here in v. 14 it is u(yo/w (“lift/raise high”). Both verbs are important Johannine keywords, used throughout the Gospel, with special theological (and Christological) meaning. In verse 13, the “stepping up” of the son of man (Jesus) is anticipated, and this is expressed with greater clarity in v. 14.

We may isolate two component clauses to the saying, reflecting two distinct lines of tradition:

    • Phrase 1: An illustrative comparison from Scripture, viz., a particular Moses tradition (Numbers 21:4-9, vv. 8-9)
    • Phrase 2: A “son of man” saying rooted in the Gospel Tradition, comparable to the three Passion-prediction sayings by Jesus (Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:33 pars)

Before turning to the Moses-tradition, let us consider the resemblance of v. 14b to the Synoptic Passion-predictions—all of which utilize the expression “the son of man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou) as a self-reference by Jesus. The first prediction, in particular, bears a close formal resemblance:

    • “it is necessary [dei=] (for) the son of man to suffer many (thing)s…” (Mk 8:31)
    • “it is necessary [dei=] (for) the son of man to be lifted up high” (v. 14b)

In the Synoptic saying, the chain of infinitives covers the full range of Jesus’ Passion—suffering, death, and resurrection. By contrast, here in John, a single infinitive (of the verb u(yo/w) suffices. The parallel suggests that the verb corresponds similarly to the range of Jesus’ Passion (entailing both his death and resurrection), though it is his impending death that would seem to be primarily in view (cf. below).

The illustration of the bronze snake, set up by Moses on a ‘pole’ (Num 21:8f), certainly is suggestive (visually) of Jesus being placed upon a stake. Thus, it would seem that the primary reference is to Jesus’ crucifixion; the other occurrences of the verb u(yo/w (8:28; 12:32, 34) would tend to confirm this (see esp. the comment in 12:33). However, the Hebrew word for the pole or staff, upon which the snake was set, is sn@, which specifically refers to a signal-flag or banner—viz., something placed up high (and waved) so that everyone can see it (and rally to it). This brings out additional associations for the symbolism. In the original Moses tradition, the snake served as signal-flag, so that, whenever a person was bitten by a snake, he/she could look to the elevated bronze snake, and thus be healed (lit. “live”). In verse 8, the verb ha*r* (“see”) is used, but in v. 9 it is the verb fb^n`, which can imply a more intense or careful looking (i.e., gazing at, contemplating).

Given the theological importance of the sight/seeing motif in the Gospel of John, it is no surprise that this aspect of the tradition is particularly brought out by the Gospel writer (and Jesus as the speaker). This becomes clear from the expository application that follows in verse 15:

“…(so) that every(one) trusting in him should hold (the) life of the Ages [i.e. eternal life].”

In the Johannine theological idiom, seeing means trusting in Jesus (as the Son of God)—see, in particular, this correlation in the chapter 9 narrative (esp. vv. 35-41). Thus, everyone “seeing” the raised snake corresponds to everyone “trusting in” Jesus.

What significance, if any, is there to the use of the expression “the son of man” here in v. 14, beyond its use as a self-reference by Jesus? If we limit our analysis to the parallel with the Synoptic Passion-prediction (Mk 8:31 par, see above), then there would seem to be a specific association between the expression and the suffering (and death) of Jesus. This, in turn, represents a natural extension of the poetic use of the expression in the Old Testament Scriptures, in which the limitation and weakness of the human condition—including its mortality—tends to be emphasized. Jesus identifies himself with these aspects of the human condition.

However, if we turn to the prior occurrences of the expression in the Gospel of John (1:51; 3:13) there would seem to be a rather different orientation and point of emphasis. A brief consideration of the “son of man” saying in 1:51 is warranted.

Summary Note on the Saying in 1:51

“Amen, amen, I declare [le/gw] to you, (that) you shall see [o&yesqe] the heaven(s) having opened up, and the Messengers of God stepping up [a)nabai/nonta$] and stepping down [katabai/nonta$] upon [e)pi/] the son of man.”

We can isolate four principal components of the saying in verse 51: (a) the orienting location of heaven, (b) the presence of the Messengers (angels) of God, (c) the ascent/descent motif (using the verbs a)nabai/nw and katabai/nw), and (d) the figure of the “son of man” (including the use of the preposition e)pi/). The first two naturally allude to the Divine/heavenly origin of Jesus—an important Johannine theological point that is made more explicit in 3:13-14ff (as also in the Gospel Prologue, cf. above). The last two components (c-d) are also present here in vv. 13-14f.

In 1:51, the related verbs a)nabai/nw (“step up”) and katabai/nw (“step down”) refer to the activity of the angels (taken from Gen 28:12). It also echoes use of katabai/nw for the descent of the Spirit (“stepping down”) upon Jesus at his baptism (vv. 32-33). However, throughout the remainder of the Gospel, the verbs a)nabai/nw and katabai/nw are applied to Jesus (the Son)—it is he who “stepped down” from heaven, for his mission on earth, and who, once it has been completed, will “step up” again, back to heaven. The activity of the angels thus serves as a type-pattern for the mission of Jesus himself.

The verb katabai/nw (“step down”) is used of the pre-existent Son’s coming down to earth (incarnate, as a human being), to fulfill his mission, the duty (e)ntolh/) which the Father gave him to complete. Conversely, the verb a)nabai/nw (“step up”) refers to the exaltation or “lifting up” of the Son (Jesus)—a process which includes his death, resurrection, and return to the Father. This same language will be discussed further, as it occurs in other “son of man” sayings in John.

This brings us to the specific use of the expression “the son of man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou). Though here the point can only be inferred, it is fair to assume that the expression is being used primarily as a self-reference by Jesus, much as it was used in many (if not all) of the Synoptic sayings (cf. the articles in the series “Who Is This Son of Man…?”). Conceivably, at the historical level, such a saying (without further context) could have been understood by Jesus’ hearers as referring to a figure separate from Jesus himself. To the extent that this might be true, the reference surely would be to the heavenly figure of Daniel 7:13-14 (cf. the article in the aforementioned series), such as it came to be interpreted and applied in an eschatological (and/or Messianic) context (as, e.g., in the Similitudes of Enoch [1 Enoch 37-71]). However, in the immediate context of the Gospel, the expression can only refer to the person of Jesus. Thus, Jesus would be promising his disciples a heavenly vision of himself (“the son of man”).

How should we understand this promise? The closest parallels in the Synoptic Gospels are the eschatological sayings in Mark 8:38 and 13:26 pars. In each of these sayings, the end-time appearance of the “son of man” involves the presence of angels. As he comes from heaven, the angels descend with him; cf. also Matt 13:41; 25:31. Similar as a vision of the son of man in heavenly splendor is Mark 14:62 par, though this particular saying seems to emphasize the exaltation of Jesus (after his death) rather more than his end-time return. Both Mark 13:26 and 14:62 use the verb o)pta/nomai for the seeing (gazing at) of this vision, just as here in verse 51. Thus, if a specific visionary event is intended by the saying, then it most likely refers to the end-time appearance of the son of man (i.e., return/parousia of Jesus), when he comes from heaven with the angels. A less likely interpretation is that it refers to the exalted status of Jesus (in heaven), akin to the vision experienced by Stephen in Acts 7:55-56. The ascent/descent of the angels could indicate activity, connected with the appearance of the son of man, such as we see described in Mk 13:27 par (cf. Matt 13:41ff).

However, I do not believe that a particular eschatological event is foremost in the Gospel writer’s mind. Rather, for the author, the language and imagery of the saying is emblematic of the Gospel portrait of Jesus as a whole. The promised vision encompasses the entire message of the Gospel, declaring Jesus’ identity as the Son who descends from heaven and then ascends back. It is an exalted, heavenly identity, one which is worthy of being described as surrounded by angels. The angel-motif alludes back to the Gen 28:12f tradition, as describing the formative revelation of God to Israel (Jacob). It also looks ahead to the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus (following his death), and to his future return in glory.

For more detail on this verse, see the article in the series “Who Is This Son of Man…?”, as well as in a pair of earlier notes and studies.

Building upon the Saying in 1:51

As we see in the first two “son of man” sayings in John [1:51 and 3:13], there are two key thematic motifs associated with the expression “the son of man”: (1) the heavenly origin of Jesus, and (2) the descent/ascent motif. The principal point in verse 13 is Jesus’ descent to earth from heaven; implicit in the saying is the expectation that, after his descent (stepping down) to earth, he will then ascend (stepping back up) to heaven.

It is in this regard that the verb u(yo/w (“lift up high”) can be understood as signifying something more than Jesus’ death on the cross. Indeed, while the Johannine understanding of Son’s exaltation may begin with his being ‘lifted up’ on the cross, it also includes his resurrection and ultimate return to the Father (in heaven). Jesus’ suffering and death begins a process of exaltation that reaches its climax with his return to heaven. We shall find this same Christological dynamic at work in the remaining “son of man” sayings as well.

Given the parallel between verse 14b and Mark 8:31 par (see above), it would be enough to explain Jesus’ use of the expression “the son of man” here on that basis. However, in light of the proximity to the saying in v. 13, we may fairly assume that the expression in verse 14 carries the same theological import as it does in v. 13 (and 1:51). In other words, Jesus’ identity as the “son of man” must be understood in terms of the distinctive Johannine theology. As we begin to expound this in the context of the descent/ascent motif, we can isolate two principal theological strands:

    • Descent: Jesus’ heavenly origin, and his incarnation on earth as a human being (“son of man”)
    • Ascent: A process of exaltation that begins with his death (i.e., suffering of the “son of man”), and culminates with his return to heaven.

Their significance within the Johannine theology is further expounded by the verses that follow in vv. 16-17ff, which we will examine in Part 2 of this study.

The association with Moses in v. 14

The association with Moses in verse 14 raises an interesting (possible) point of interpretation for verse 13. Indeed, it is possible that the Gospel writer (and Jesus as the speaker) intends a specific comparison, between Jesus and Moses, in v. 13. Central to this theory is the idea of Moses’ ascension, as it is found in Jewish tradition. When Jesus declares that “no one has stepped up into heaven”, he may have the ascension of Moses specifically in mind. For traditions regarding an ascent by Moses, see Meeks, pp. 104ff, 110-111, 192-5, 235-6 (cf. Moloney, p. 56f).

Such a comparison is made more plausible by the thematic relationship, between Jesus and Moses, that runs through much of the Gospel. This begins in the Prologue (1:14-18, esp. vv. 17-18), where the comparative superiority of Jesus is established. These verses draw upon various Moses/Exodus traditions, particularly the theophany (YHWH’s revelation to Moses) in chapters 33-34—and especially the notice in 33:23 (cf. Deut 4:12ff). The wording in v. 18 of the Prologue resembles that of 3:13:

    • “no one has seen God at any time”
    • “no one has stepped up into heaven”

If the phrase in 1:18 alludes to Moses (Exod 33:23), then it is plausible that the similar phrase in 3:13 does so as well (particularly given the reference to Moses in v. 14).

References above marked “Meeks” are to Wayne A. Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (Brill: 1967).
Those marked “Moloney” are to Francis J. Moloney SDB, The Johannine Son of Man, Second Edition (Wipf and Stock: 1978/2007).

 

Studies on the Spirit: The Spirit and the Death/Resurrection of Jesus (Study 4)

Study 4: The Spirit in the Ministry of Jesus

In our studies on the Holy Spirit in relation to the death and resurrection of Jesus, we have begun with the ministry of Jesus. This approach allows us to see how the Spirit-references during the period of Jesus’ ministry relate to the climactic moment of his death/resurrection. Our starting point for this examination was the Baptism tradition, since, in the Gospel narratives (both the Synoptics and John), the Baptism of Jesus marks the beginning of his public ministry.

In the studies thus far (1, 2, 3), we have looked closely at the role of the Spirit in the Baptism episode (Mark 1:8-11 par), noting that the primary significance of the Spirit’s descent upon Jesus is Messianic. The presence of the Spirit (v. 10), along with the declaration of the Divine voice from heaven (v. 11), establishes Jesus’ identity as the Anointed One (Messiah) of God, according to both the Prophetic and Royal/Davidic Messianic figure-types. The coming of the Spirit upon Jesus relates especially to the Prophetic figure-types, drawing upon the Isaian prophecies in 11:2ff, 42:1ff, and 61:1ff, but there are also important associations with the Royal/Davidic figure type, as we have discussed. The Divine voice from heaven seems to be quoting from both Isa 42:1 and Psalm 2:7.

During the Galilean period of Jesus’ ministry, however, it is his identity as the Messianic Prophet that is foremost in view. This is particularly so in the Synoptic Narrative, which is essentially divided into two halves: (i) the Galilean period, and (ii) the Jerusalem period. In the Galilean period, the focus is on Jesus as the Messianic Prophet, according to the figure-types of Moses, Elijah, and the Prophet/Servant of Isa 42:1ff, 61:1ff, etc. His identity as the Royal/Davidic Messiah is reserved for the Jerusalem Period; only Matthew’s narrative deviates slightly from the distinctive structure, while the Matthean and Lukan Infancy narratives, which emphasize Jesus as the Royal/Davidic Messiah, represent additions to the core Synoptic Tradition.

In the previous study (Study 3), we saw how the Lukan Gospel significantly developed these thematic associations, clearly interpreting the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus (at his Baptism) as a fulfillment of Isa 61:1ff (treated as a Messianic prophecy); cf. Luke 4:16-30. In this regard, the Lukan author brings out the role of the Spirit in a way that is only implied in the broader Synoptic Tradition—the Spirit guides and empowers Jesus in fulfilling his role as the Messiah. We examined how the Lukan additions to the tradition (Mk 1:12-13ff) in 4:1ff, 14ff, along with the positioning of the Nazareth episode (in which the Isa 61:1ff features) at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (cp. Mk 6:1-6a par), give special emphasis to Jesus’ Messianic identity as the Chosen One of God who is Anointed by the Spirit.

The Matthean Gospel does much the same thing, with the quotation of Isa 42:1-3, occurring at a comparable point partway through the Galilean Period narrative. This is especially significant because the Synoptic tradition that the quotation prefaces (12:17-21) is the ‘Beelzebul Episode’, which represents a key reference-point for the role of the Spirit in Jesus’ Messianic ministry.

As previously noted, there are actually quite few—surprisingly few—direct references to the Spirit in the Synoptic Gospels, apart from the introductory context of the Baptism scene (and, subsequently, the prefacing Infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke). The remaining Spirit-references can be grouped conveniently into two categories:

    1. Sayings of Jesus in connection with the ‘Beelzebul Episode’ and
    2. Sayings in which Jesus promises the coming of the Spirit to his disciples

Let us briefly examine each of these, in turn.

1. Spirit-references in the ‘Beelzebul Episode’

This episode is a key component of the Synoptic Tradition, being found in all three Synoptic Gospels. The Markan Gospel positions this episode relatively close to the beginning of the Galilean Period, following the initial accounts of healing miracles in 1:21-2:12 and the Sabbath controversy episodes in 2:18-3:6. Interspersed within these narratives is an account of the establishment of the core group of Jesus’ disciples (1:16-20, 29ff; 2:13-14ff; 3:13-19). Thus, the ‘Beelzebul episode’ (3:22-30) comes at a key (and climactic) point of the narrative, following an initial period of ministry-work by Jesus. People now are starting to react to the distinctive (Messianic) character of his ministry, and opposition to him begins to build.

The episode itself consists of a narrative introduction (vv. 22-23a), followed by a series of traditions: (a) the short parable-illustration(s) by Jesus in vv. 24-27, and (b) the saying on the “insult against the Holy Spirit” in vv. 28-29 (with an explanatory comment by the author in v. 30). The entire episode is framed by a further pair of traditions reflecting Jesus’ relationship with family relations and neighbors (vv. 20-21 and 31-35), establishing an important contrast between Jesus’ natural earthly family and his true (spiritual) family (i.e., his disciples/believers).

Underlying and running through all of these traditional elements is the question of Jesus’ Messianic identity—how it is manifested in his ministry (esp. the healing/exorcism miracles), and how people respond to it (i.e., whether [or not] they recognize him as the Spirit-empowered Messiah of God). And, indeed, it is the Spirit-empowered aspect of his ministry that is particularly being emphasized in the Beelzebul episode. The Jewish (religious) authorities and experts have been reacting in an increasingly negative and hostile way toward Jesus (and esp. to his healing miracles), and here, at the beginning of the episode, some of them openly attribute his miracle-working power to evil spirits or daimons (i.e., ‘demons’), rather than to the Spirit of God (v. 22). Both of the traditions that follow address this false attribution, as Jesus effectively makes the point that his miracles are not (and cannot be) brought about by the power of Satan (and the other evil spirits under his control). The Satan is here designated as “the chief (ruler) [a&rxwn] of the daimons”, and is identified by a traditional (and euphemistic) association with the ancient Canaanite deity Haddu/Hadad (i.e., ‘Baal’, called by the title ba±al-z§»ûl, “exalted lord”, or “lord of [the] exalted [place]”.

In the second tradition, the saying of vv. 28-29, Jesus implicitly states that his healing/exorcism miracles are done through the power of God’s holy Spirit. By attributing his miracles to evil/demonic spirits, rather than God’s own Spirit, Jesus’ opponents are committing a grave insult (blasfhmi/a, vb blasfhme/w) against the Spirit of God. The saying in vv. 28-29 warns people against this in the strongest possible terms, pointing out that, of all the “insults” and other sins that human beings (“sons of men”) might commit, such an “insult to the holy Spirit” will not (ever) be forgiven by God.

The Matthean and Lukan Gospels each include this episode, adapting and expanding it in various ways. Their expanded version includes so-called “Q” material (i.e., sayings and traditions present in both Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark). Let us first consider the Lukan version (11:14-23). The most notable difference is the setting: Luke has placed the episode entirely out of the Galilean period of Jesus’ ministry, including it instead as part of the lengthy Journey to Jerusalem (9:51-18:14ff; cp. Mark chap. 10). The Lukan author includes many different traditions—sayings, parables, and narrative episodes—in this central division, during which Jesus is presented as giving extensive teaching to his disciples, in preparation for what will take place in Jerusalem (viz., his suffering, death, and resurrection).

The material in chapters 11 and 12 has, as one of its key themes, the contrast between true and false disciples. This is presented in the context of controversies between Jesus and the hostile religious authorities (material that otherwise belongs properly to the Galilean period), as well as eschatological sayings by Jesus, warning of the coming distress (during which the disciples will experience suffering and persecution) and the end-time Judgment. These thematic points of emphasis make chapter 11 a suitable location for the Beelzebul episode, but it is also worth noting the immediate context of 11:1-13 (teaching on Prayer), with its climactic reference to the promise of the Spirit (v. 13, cf. also verse 2 [v.l.], and the earlier reference in 10:21). This particular Spirit-reference will be discussed briefly in section 2. below.

This Lukan version of the episode (like the Matthean) would seem to be derived primarily from a separate “Q” version, parallel to the Synoptic/Markan version. Matthew has blended the two versions together (cf. below), but this is less evident in Luke. The Lukan author has also given a distinctive shape to the “Q” content (vv. 15, 17, 18ab, 19-20, [21-22?], 23) with his own additions or other source material (vv. 14, 16, 18c, [21-22]); cf. Fitzmyer, p. 918. Most notable is the saying in verse 20, in which Jesus explicitly identifies God as the source of his healing power:

“But if (it is) by the finger of God (that) I cast out the daimons, then (surely) the kingdom of God has now come upon you!”

Interestingly this Lukan/Q version of the episode does not include the saying regarding the “insult to the holy Spirit” (Mk 3:28-29f, cf. above); there is a corresponding “Q” version of this saying which Luke includes a bit further on in the narrative (12:10), in the context of other “Son of Man” references (11:30; 12:8-9, 40), as well as the Spirit reference of v. 11 (cf. below).

This brings us to the Matthean version of the episode, which generally retains the Synoptic/Markan context, and portions of that parallel version, though presenting it around the mid-point of the Galilean Period. As noted above, it is immediately preceded by the quotation of Isa 42:1-3 (12:17ff), designating the healing/exorcism miracles of Jesus as a specific sign of his Messianic identity—viz., the Anointed Servant of God, upon whom the Spirit has come. Thus it is appropriate that the Spirit is given greater prominence in the Matthean version of the episode.

This can be seen, first, by the version of the “Q” saying corresponding to Lk 12:10 (cf. above), which has the expression “Spirit of God” instead of “finger of God”. Most likely, Luke contains the more original form of the “Q” saying; Matthew has presumably explained the idiom “finger of God” as a reference to God’s Spirit (in light of the context of Isa 42:1ff). In Scriptural tradition, miracles and wonders performed by God (YHWH) are usually referenced in terms of His “arm” or “hand”, but occasionally “finger” is also used (Exod 8:15[19]; cf. also Exod 31:18; Deut 9:10; Ps 8:4). In any case, it is made clear that Jesus’ miracles are the result of God’s Spirit at work in and upon him. This was already implied by Luke’s use of Isa 61:1ff (4:18-19ff [cf. vv. 1ff, 14]), in the context of the references to the miracles of Elijah/Elisha (vv. 25-27). Similarly, Isa 61:1ff is alluded to in 7:22, part of a “Q” pericope (7:18-35, par Matt 11:2-19) which confirms Jesus’ Messianic identity, his miracles being those performed by the Servant/Prophet who has been specially ‘Anointed’ by God’s Spirit.

Matthew includes the Synoptic saying (in a simpler form) regarding the “insult to the Spirit” (v. 31, Mk 3:28-29), but has joined to it the “Q” version (v. 32, Lk 12:10 [cf. above]) which is formulated as a “Son of Man” saying:

“whoever should say a word against the son of man, it will be put away [i.e., forgiven] for him; but whoever should say a word against the holy Spirit, it will not be put away [i.e. forgiven] for him—neither in this Age, nor in the (Age) coming!”

This “Q” version of the saying has proven somewhat difficult for commentators and theologians. Why should an insult, etc, against Christ (“the Son of Man”) be forgiven, while the same against the Holy Spirit will not be? I have discussed the matter at length in earlier studies, including (most recently) in an article as part of a series on the “Son of Man” sayings (“Who Is This Son of Man…?”). I believe that the distinction being made is between an ad hominem attack on Jesus the man (“son of man”) and an attack on the Divine Spirit that is present within him and which empowers him. This is certainly the context of the Beelzebul episode, which the Markan author makes clear in the closing comment of 3:30. Such an attack on God’s Spirit is fundamentally blasphemous, but, in the case of Jesus Christ, it also indicates an effective denial of his identity as the Spirit-endued Messiah of God.

2. Sayings in which Jesus promises the coming of the Spirit to his disciples

In the Markan Gospel, there is really only one other reference to the Spirit. It occurs within the Eschatological Discourse of chapter 13. In Jesus’ description of the coming (end-time) period of distress (qli/yi$, v. 19), he includes a section (vv. 9-13) dealing with how this distress will affect his disciples (i.e., believers). He foretells that many of his disciples will be arrested and brought to trial; at such time, when the disciples will have the opportunity to speak in their defense, as as a witness to the Gospel of Christ, it is indicated that they will speak under the prophetic inspiration of the Holy Spirit (v. 11). This is effectively a Synoptic reference to the promise of the Spirit, implying that the Spirit, after Jesus’ death and departure (i.e., resurrection/exaltation), will be given to believers.

Naturally enough, this theme is more prominent in the Gospel of Luke, where it specifically foreshadows the fulfillment of Jesus’ words narrated in the book of Acts—as the early believers repeatedly are portrayed as speaking under inspiration when interrogated or brought to trial. Luke essentially has two versions of the tradition we see in Mk 13:11. The first occurs in 12:11, immediately following the “Q” saying on the “insult to the Holy Spirit” (v. 10, cf. above). The sayings were likely joined together by way of thematic ‘catchword-bonding’, on the basis of the common Spirit-reference. Interestingly, at the corresponding place in the Eschatological Discourse (21:14-15), there is no direct reference to the Spirit; instead, Jesus indicates that he himself will give the disciples the words to speak: “…for I will give to you a mouth and wisdom” (v. 15).

There are interesting implications here for the relationship of Jesus to the Spirit in a post-resurrection context. Jesus could be seen as functioning in the role of the Spirit (or as the Spirit); alternately the emphasis may be on his giving the Spirit to the disciples (“I will give to you…”). This will be discussed further as we continue through our studies.

In Matthew’s Gospel, the saying corresponding with Luke 12:11 also occurs outside of the Eschatological Discourse (cf. Mk 13:11), and at an earlier point in the narrative (10:20). Indeed, much of what corresponds to Mk 13:9-11 has been transferred to this location, in an expanded form (vv. 17-22), presented as part of Jesus’ instruction to his disciples for the mission on which he sends them, during the time of his ministry (chap. 10; cf. Mark 6:7-13).

This association helps to explain the basic nature of the Spirit-reference, in spite of its varying narrative locations within the Tradition. The disciples’ mission, both during the Galilean period of Jesus’ ministry and after his death and resurrection (i.e., the early Christian mission), is fundamentally characterized as a natural extension and continuation of Jesus’ own Spirit-empowered Messianic ministry. This is clearly implied in the core traditions of Mk 3:13-15 par and 6:7-13 par (cf. also Luke 10:1-12). The disciples are authorized (by Jesus) to perform the same works of ministry—(a) proclamation of the good news and (b) performing healing/exorcism miracles. They are clearly empowered to do so, presumably with the same power (of God’s Spirit) that is present in and upon Jesus. For the apostolic early Christian mission (especially as recorded in the Lukan book of Acts), there can be no doubt that believers are guided and empowered by the Spirit.

Thus, if we are to summarize the main references to the Spirit in the Synoptic Gospels, the following points can be made:

    • The Spirit is introduced in the Baptism scene, where it is depicted as coming upon Jesus, as a sign of his Messianic identity—specifically as the Anointed Servant of God prophesied by Isa 42:1ff and 61:1ff (cf. also 11:2ff).
    • The Spirit guides and empowers Jesus throughout the time of his ministry, especially during the Galilean period where the focus is on his identity as the Messianic Prophet. In particular, the abiding presence of God’s Spirit is the source of his ability to work healing miracles (as in the manner of Elijah, but also the Servant/Prophet figure of Isa 61:1ff).
    • This same Spirit empowers the disciples of Jesus to perform the same works of ministry—preaching the Gospel and performing healing miracles—as a continuation of Jesus’ own inspired Messianic ministry. The Spirit will be given to the disciples (believers) by Jesus (cf. Lk 21:15), after his death and resurrection. It may be inferred that the same occurred during the initial mission described in Mk 6:7-13 par (cf. also Lk 10:1-12), even though there is no specific reference to the disciples receiving the Spirit on these occasions.

Thus, the main purpose and goal of the Spirit’s work is that of the early Christian mission, viewed as an extension and continuation of Jesus’ own (Messianic) ministry. It is the Lukan Gospel that brings out this thematic emphasis most clearly and fully, largely in anticipation of the mission narratives that follow in the corresponding book of Acts.

In some ways, the section on prayer in 11:1-13 is central to the Gospel narrative as a whole. It is noteworthy that this passage is essentially framed by references or allusions to the Spirit—first, in the petition for the coming of God’s Kingdom (v. 2), and second, by the climactic reference in verse 13, suggesting that the coming of the Spirit represents the ultimate goal and purpose of the disciples’ prayer. The Lukan Gospel understands God’s Kingdom (and its coming) primarily in terms of the early Christian mission—defined two-fold as: (a) the proclamation of the Gospel, and (b) the coming of the Spirit upon believers; cf. Acts 1:6-8. In this regard, the sub-singular variant reading (mss 162 700 and in two [or three] Church Fathers) attested for the Kingdom petition in the Lukan Lord’s Prayer (11:2) is quite appropriate, as we read (with some variation):

“May your holy Spirit come upon us and cleanse us”

This, in turn, alludes back to the prophecy by John the Baptist at the beginning of the Gospel narrative, with its implicit promise (by way of foreshadowing) that Jesus the Messiah, after his death and resurrection, would “…dunk [i.e., baptize] you with the holy Spirit!” (Mk 1:8 par).

In the next study, we will turn our attention to the Gospel of John, looking at some key references to the Spirit, with specific attention being given to the uniquely Johannine theological adaptation of the Gospel Tradition. In so doing, we will begin focusing our attention more closely upon the relationship of the Spirit to the death and resurrection of Jesus, which is the main subject of these studies.

References above marked “Fitzmyer” are to Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV), Anchor Bible [AB], Vol. 28A (1985).

Notes on Prayer: Thy Kingdom Come (John 3:3, 5)

“May your Kingdom come!”
e)lqe/tw h( basilei/a sou

The remaining Kingdom-references to be considered are those in the Johannine writings—which include, as a climax to this series, the references in the Book of Revelation. We begin with the Gospel of John.

The Kingdom in the Gospel of John

Throughout the Johannine Gospel, there are a considerable number of references to the kingship of Jesus—that is, kingship in a traditional Messianic sense, identifying Jesus with the Davidic royal Messiah (cf. Parts 6–8 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”). In this regard, the Johannine Tradition is simply following the broader Gospel Tradition; however, in certain respects, the specific idea of Jesus as king is given a distinct emphasis in the Gospel of John. This applies not only to the use of the word basileu/$ (“king”), but also to the title Xristo/$ (“Anointed [One]”, i.e., Messiah). For instance, the noun basileu/$ occurs 16 times in John, and every one of these refers to Jesus as king; by comparison, there are only 6 such instances in the Gospel of Mark (all in the Passion narrative), and 5 in Luke.

Similarly, John records a larger number of instances where Jesus is specifically (or effectively) identified by the title Xristo/$ (o( xristo/$, “the Anointed [One]”)—1:17, 20, 25, 41; 3:28; 4:25, 29; 7:26-27, 31, 41-42; 9:22; 10:24; 11:27; 12:34; 20:31. In some of these references, it is possible that the title is being used to identify Jesus with a Messianic Prophet (cf. the context of 1:25; 4:25ff; 7:41 [v. 40], and the juxtaposition of 6:15 [“king”] with v. 14 [“prophet”]). It has even been argued that the title Xristo/$ in the Johannine Tradition purposely blends together King and Prophet figure-types, centered primarily on the figure of Moses (cf. 1:17; 3:14; 5:45-46; 6:32; 9:28-29); for an excellent treatment of this subject, see the now-classic study by Wayne Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (Brill: 1967 [reprinted by Wipf&Stock: 2017]). While the Johannine view of Jesus as the royal Messiah may, indeed, be influenced by Moses traditions, other passages suggest that the Gospel of John is following the broader early Christian Tradition of identifying Jesus as the Davidic Messiah (7:41-42). In any case, Jesus is clearly identified by the traditional royal designations “King of Israel” (1:49; 12:13, cf. also 12:15) and “King of the Jews” (18:33, 39; 19:3, 19, 21; cf. also 19:12, 14-15).

At the same time, there can be little doubt that the title Xristo/$ and the use of the term basileu/$ have also been shaped by the distinctive Johannine theology (and Christology), whereby Jesus is not only regarded as the Messiah, but also the (pre-existent) Son of God—i.e., the Son sent to earth from heaven by God the Father. The titles “Anointed One” (Xristo/$) and “Son of God” are held together in the Johannine confession (11:27; 20:31)—Jesus is the Anointed One, but also the Son sent from heaven by the Father. The use of the word basileu/$, and the idea of Jesus’ kingship, must be understood in the light of this Johannine theology. In contrast to the popular expectation of the Messiah, defined largely in socio-political terms (6:15; 19:12ff, and cf. the context of 12:13ff), the true nature of Jesus’ kingship is altogether different. For more on this, see upcoming the discussion on 18:36-37 (next week’s study).

In the Gospel of John, Jesus makes very little mention of the Kingdom of God; this is in contrast to the Synoptic Gospels, where the Kingdom features prominently, holding a central place in his teaching. Indeed, Jesus refers to the Kingdom in only two passages. The noun basilei/a (“kingdom”) occurs just five times in John (compared with 20 in Mark, 46 in Luke, and 55 in Matthew)—twice in 3:3, 5 and three times in 18:36.

John 3:3, 5

In the opening portion (vv. 3-8) of the Nicodemus Discourse of chapter 3 (vv. 1-21), Jesus twice refers to the “Kingdom of God” (h( basilei/a tou= qeou=), the only occurrences of this expression in the entire Gospel. It occurs in parallel sayings by Jesus, each of which begin with the solemn asseveration formula: “Amen, amen, I say/declare to you…”:

    • “…if one does not come to be (born) from above [a&nwqen], he is not able to see the kingdom of God” (v. 3)
    • “…if one does not come to be (born) out of water and (the) Spirit, he is not able to come into the kingdom of God” (v. 5)

The declarations have an identical formulation; there is thus a clear paradigmatic relationship between the points of difference. First, to be born “from above” (a&nwqen) is related to being born “out of water and the Spirit”. Elsewhere, the Johannine writings refer to believers in Christ as ones “having come to be (born) [vb genna/w] of God”; here, the Spirit of God is the source of the believer’s birth, which is quite appropriate, since God Himself is Spirit (4:24). With regard to the pairing of water and the Spirit, the majority of commentators take this as a reference to baptism, or to water as a symbol of the Spirit. However, as I have discussed in prior notes, I believe that the emphasis is on a contrast between water and the Spirit—part of the wider Jesus-John thematic contrast that runs throughout chapters 1-3. John baptizes with water, while Jesus baptizes with the Spirit (1:26, 33). There is a similar contrast here in 3:3-8, between an ordinary human birth out of water (i.e., the mother’s womb, v. 4), and birth out of the Spirit. This is parallel to the contrast between flesh and Spirit in verse 6. In addition to an ordinary physical/biological birth (i.e., of water/flesh), a human being must also be born “of the Spirit” (= “from above”).

There is also a relationship between the verbs used in verse 3 and 5, respectively. In verse 3, the result of being born “from above” (= of the Spirit) is that one is able “to see” (i)dei=n) the Kingdom of God. In verse 5, the result is that one is able “to come into” (ei)selqei=n) the Kingdom of God. The latter, using the verb ei)se/rxomai (or e&rxomai + ei)$, “come into”), is the traditional idiom of entering the Kingdom that we have encountered in prior studies (on the Kingdom-references in the Gospel Tradition, in particular). Only the person who has trusted in Jesus, having come to be born of God (i.e., of the Spirit), as His offspring (te/kna, cf. 1:12-13, etc), is able to enter the Kingdom. This entails more than simply a prerequisite of trust in Jesus; it also emphasizes the spiritual nature of the Kingdom of God. This is confirmed by the earlier saying in verse 3: unless one is born of the Spirit (i.e., “from above”), one is not able even to see the Kingdom of God.

This last point requires further comment, particularly with regard to the motif of sight/seeing within the Johannine theology. Throughout the Gospel Discourses, this thematic motif of sight/seeing occurs repeatedly—most notably in chapter 9, where the physical sight (and blindness) featuring in the traditional narrative (vv. 1-7) serves as a sign for the deeper motif of spiritual sight (and blindness) in the closing section (vv. 35-41). True sight refers to trust in Jesus, recognizing (i.e., seeing and knowing) that he is the Son sent from heaven by God the Father; similarly, blindness, in its true sense, means a failure/refusal to trust in Jesus.

When we, as believers, “see” the Kingdom of God (3:3), we are recognizing Jesus’ identity as the Son of God—and acknowledging his heavenly origin, from alongside the Father, in His heavenly Kingdom. The exposition by Jesus, in the remainder of the Discourse (vv. 10-21), deals with this Christology, as the sayings of vv. 3, 5ff are expounded further, more fulling in terms of the Johannine theology.

In the next study, we will explore second Kingdom-passage in the Gospel of John: the dialogue between Jesus and Pilate in 18:33-19:11, with the key Kingdom statements in 18:36-37.

Notes on Prayer: Thy Kingdom Come (Matthew 21-23)

“May your Kingdom come!”
e)lqe/tw h( basilei/a sou

In our studies on the Gospel context of the Kingdom-petition of the Lord’s Prayer, we are in the process of examining the sayings and parables in Matthew 18-25. In the previous study, we saw how the Kingdom-references in chap. 20 provide an important thematic transition into chapters 21-25 (i.e., the Jerusalem Period of Jesus’ ministry), culminating with the Passion Narrative (chaps. 26-27). In the Synoptic Tradition, the Kingdom sayings and parables of the Jerusalem Period are part of a thematic emphasis on Jesus as the royal/Davidic Messiah—a theme that takes center stage with the Triumphal Entry scene (Mk 11:1-11; par Matt 21:1-11), being prefaced by the use of the title “son of David” in the episode just prior (20:31-32 par). Following Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, this thematic nexus is developed in the subsequent chapters, leading up to the start of the Passion Narrative proper. In the Markan narrative, this material occurs in chapters 11-12; the corresponding material in Matthew is found in chaps. 21-23. As is typically the case, the Matthean Gospel writer works from the Synoptic/Markan narrative, adapting and developing the traditional material in distinctive ways. This is also true with regard to the Kingdom-references.

These Kingdom-references were already analyzed in earlier studies (within this series) during Holy Week. Here, I wish to survey the passages again, with a more focused examination on the Matthean development of the Kingdom-theme.

Matthew 21-23

If the Triumphal Entry scene (21:1-11) establishes Jesus’ identity as the Davidic Messiah (“son of David”, 20:31-32; 21:9), the significance and consequences of this identification are expounded in the episodes that follow.

This begins with the brief episode in 21:14-16, immediately following Jesus’ ‘cleansing’ of the Temple (vv. 12-13). It has a general parallel with Luke 19:39-40, and thus could be considered as part of the “Q” material, though the differences in detail are significant. The points in common are: (a) negative reaction to the crowd’s acclaim of Jesus (as the Davidic Messiah) by certain religious leaders/authorities who are present (v. 15); and (b) a saying by Jesus in response (v. 16). The saying in the Lukan episode (19:40) is entirely different. Another key difference is that the Lukan episode is appended to the main Entry scene (19:28-38), so that the religious leaders (“some of the Pharisees”) are reacting to the crowd’s exclamations in that scene. The Matthean version, by contrast, is separated from the Entry scene by the Temple-cleansing episode; this has the important literary (and dramatic) effect of repeating the crowd’s exclamation. An added detail, which emphasizes the thrust of the exclamation, making it more vivid, is that the exclamation is echoed by children:

“the chief sacred-officials and the writers [i.e. scribes], seeing…the children th(at where) crying out in the sacred (place) and saying ‘Hôšî±â-nâ° to the son of David!’, were (greatly) pained (by this)” (v. 15)

While all four Gospel versions of the crowd’s exclamation emphasize Jesus’ identity as the Davidic Messiah (while also quoting from Psalm 118:25-26), only Matthew’s version uses the title “son of David”. These two details—(i) the repetition of the exclamation by children and (ii) the use of the title “son of David” —both serve to integrate the episode with the Gospel’s earlier Kingdom-references. As mentioned above, the title was used in 20:31-32, but it is also noteworthy that Matthew is the only Gospel that presents the title in the earlier material (set during the Galilean period)—at 9:27; 12:23; 15:22, and also in the Infancy narrative (1:20), and at the very beginning of the Gospel (1:1). Thus Matthew departs noticeably from the Synoptic Tradition in this regard, with the title “son of David”, as a key expression of Jesus’ Messianic identity, being a distinctive Matthean feature.

As for the detail of the children, this ties back to the important Kingdom sayings and illustrations in 18:1-4ff and 19:13-14. As discussed in the prior study on these references, the sayings represent key aspects of Jesus’ teaching on discipleship, as well as on what it means to belong to the Kingdom. This material is traditional, but the Matthean author has incorporated it in a way that brings out certain themes and points of emphasis. The episode in 21:14-16 only further emphasizes the illustrative role of little children as representing the trust and devotion of those who belong to the Kingdom (as true disciples of Jesus).

The Kingdom is further illustrated by a sequence of three parables: (1) vv. 28-32, (2) vv. 33-44, and (3) 22:1-14. Each of these provides another instance of Matthean development of the traditional narrative.

First, the parable in 21:28-32 represents a Matthean expansion of the Synoptic episode of vv. 23-27 (Mk 11:27-33 par). The parable itself is unique to Matthew (“M” material), and it serves to illustrate the attitude and character of the religious leaders who questioned Jesus’ authority. However, in the Matthean thematic (and theological) context, it also illustrates what it means to belong to the Kingdom of God, acting in such a way as to be worthy of entering/inheriting the Kingdom. This is summarized by the key, climactic question Jesus poses in v. 31:

“Who of the two (sons) did the will of the father?”

The idea of doing the will of the Father (who is in heaven) is fundamental to Jesus’ Kingdom teaching (cf. 12:50, in the context of the chap. 13 parables), especially as it is presented in the Sermon on the Mount. It is central to the Lord’s Prayer itself (6:10), and also in the climactic teaching of 7:21ff. It thus comes as no surprise that the motif of “entering” into the Kingdom occurs here in the application of the parable (v. 31b-32). The one who responds (with trust) to Jesus’ teaching and preaching, just like those who responded to the similar proclamation by John the Baptist (compare 4:17 with 3:2), with a willingness to turn and become a disciple, will be able to enter the Kingdom.

The parable in vv. 33-44 is part of the Synoptic Tradition (= Mk 12:1-12 par), however only the Matthean version includes a reference to the Kingdom (v. 43). Admittedly, there is an implicit reference, in the Synoptic parable (and application) itself, to Jesus’ identity as the Davidic Messiah—viz., the royal heir to the Father’s Kingdom; the citation of Psalm 118:22[f] strengthens the connection. And yet, it is significant that Matthew’s Gospel makes the association explicit, building upon the thematic motif (from earlier in the Gospel), regarding who it is that truly belongs to the Kingdom—i.e., who are the true “sons of the Kingdom”. In this regard, the judgment declaration in v. 43 is similar to that of 8:12: those who should have belonged to the Kingdom (“sons of the Kingdom”)—namely, the Israelite/Jewish people—will not necessarily inherit (or enter) the Kingdom; instead, only the disciples of Jesus (whether Jewish or non-Jewish) will inherit the Kingdom. It is they who are the true “sons of the Kingdom” (13:38).

Finally, the parable in 22:1-14 is (presumably) derived from the “Q” Tradition, being found also in the Gospel of Luke. However, the Lukan Gospel has this parable in a very different location (14:16-24) and narrative context. In the Matthean context, it serves to expound the Kingdom teachings given by Jesus during the Jerusalem Period. In particular, it builds upon the declaration in 21:43 (see above) and the previous parable. In this regard, it also functions as a further elucidation of the illustration in 8:11-12—with the fundamental Kingdom-teaching being reiterated: namely, that it is only the disciples of Jesus (believers in Christ) who will enter and inherit the Kingdom. The parable in chap. 22 illustrates in greater and more vivid detail the principle expressed in 8:11f—viz., that those who belong to the Kingdom will come from many different places and nations, and will not at all be limited to the people/nation of Israel.

In the remainder of chapter 22, there are two more episodes that deal with the theme of the Kingdom of God, and of Jesus’ identity as the royal Messiah (“son of David”). Both of these—(i) the discussion about paying the Roman census-tax (vv. 15-22) and (ii) the question posed around the title “son of David” and the interpretation of Psalm 110:1 (vv. 41-45)—are part of the Synoptic narrative, and are included by the Matthean Gospel writer with very little development. They do, however, certainly add to the author’s overall treatment and development of the Kingdom-theme in these chapters.

The last reference to be mentioned here is the judgment-declaration in 23:13. This is part of the famous series of Woes against the “Scribes and Pharisees” in chapter 23. The Lukan Gospel has a similar, but much simpler and shorter, series of Woes in 11:42-52. Thus, the Matthean Woes should probably be seen as rooted in the “Q” Tradition; however, as in the case of the Sermon on the Mount (compared with the much shorter Lukan ‘Sermon on the Plain’), the Matthean author has greatly expanded this material, either from a parallel line of tradition, or through the inclusion of thematically relevant/similar sayings. As far as the location of this passage, within the Matthean narrative, the Gospel writer appears to have set it in place of the comparable Synoptic tradition of Mark 12:38-40ff par. It is yet another example of how the Matthean author has significantly developed and expanded the Synoptic narrative.

At the start of this expanded set of Woes, is the Kingdom-saying in verse 13:

“…you close (off) the kingdom of the heavens (right) in front of men!—for you do not go in (yourselves), nor do you allow th(ose) coming in to go in.”

The prominent position of this declaration, at the beginning of the set of Woes, illustrates again the importance of the Kingdom-theme in the Matthean Gospel. It is a message that informs the entire passage, emphasizing that the Jewish religious leaders, no matter how learned and devout they may seem to be, will not enter the Kingdom of heaven unless they “do the will of the Father” (cf. on 21:31ff above). The Woes vividly describe all they ways that they are not doing God’s will.

Bringing chapters 21-23 to a close is the climactic announcement of the coming judgment on Jerusalem (vv. 37-39). This is apparently another “Q” tradition (cf. Lk 13:34-35, also 19:41-44), and serves as a suitable transition into the ‘Eschatological Discourse’ of chaps. 24-25. However, in this Matthean context, it also complements the earlier Triumphal Entry scene, repeating the quotation from Psalm 118:26 (v. 39b; cf. 21:9b). These two allusions to Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem as the Messianic King frame and encompass all of the Kingdom-sayings and parables in chaps. 21-23. The announcement of judgment also relates to the message in these Kingdom-passages, which, as we have seen, repeatedly stresses (in various ways) that only those who accept Jesus as the Messiah, following him as faithful disciples, will inherit the heavenly Kingdom. For all others, the great Judgment awaits. Even those Israelites and Jews who should have inherited the Kingdom (based on their covenant-heritage), but who do not accept/follow Jesus, will be cast out at the Judgment, and will experience only desolation in the end.

Many modern readers will doubtless find this message of judgment to be most difficult, even troubling, in its religious implications. The thrust of Jesus’ teaching, however, particularly as it is formulated in chaps. 21-23 of the Gospel of Matthew, cannot be ignored. The more problematic and offensive aspects, from a modern theological (and multi-cultural) standpoint, should not be swept aside; rather, they should be grappled with, in as honest and objective manner as possible. I am laying the groundwork for such a detailed study in my regular/recurring series “The People of God”, which will eventually explore the Scriptural heritage of Israel (as God’s people), in light of the new religious identity of early Christians.

In next week’s Notes on Prayer study, we will explore the final Kingdom-passages in the Gospel of Matthew, the great parables (in chap. 25) that comprise the expanded section of the Matthean version of the Eschatological Discourse (chaps. 24-25)

Notes on Prayer: Thy Kingdom Come (Matthew 18)

“May your Kingdom come!”
e)lqe/tw h( basilei/a sou

In re-setting this series on the Kingdom-petition of the Lord’s Prayer, I wish to present, in summary form, some comments on the Matthean Kingdom-parables in chaps. 18-25. These parables follow the important parables of chapter 13 (discussed in the previous study). Though this block of parables is rooted in the Synoptic Tradition (Mark 4:1-34 par), the Matthean Gospel writer has expanded upon it, developing the material in light of the Kingdom-themes presented earlier in the Gospel (most notably, in the Sermon on the Mount). The Kingdom-petition of the Lord’s Prayer (in Matthew) must be understood in the comprehensive context of all these references. In particular, the lengthier parables in chapters 18-25 all elucidate key aspects of the Kingdom-concept within the Matthean theology.

We may isolate a number of distinct tradition-blocks, throughout chapters 18-25, in which the Kingdom-themes are developed. All of these involve parables or similar illustrations—some of which are unique to the Gospel of Matthew, while others represent adaptations of parable-traditions found in the Gospel of Mark and/or Luke.

Matthew 18

Chapter 18 is one of the extended blocks of teachings/sayings of Jesus that have been arranged, in the Matthean Gospel, in the manner of a discourse, or sermon. The Sermon on the Mount (chaps. 5-7) is, of course, the most famous and prominent of the Matthean Discourses, but there are numerous other smaller Discourses. Most of these represent, to some extent, a development (and expansion) of the existing Synoptic Tradition (i.e., chap. 13 from Mark 4:1-34 par, or chaps. 24-25 from Mark 13 par) or “Q” material (cp. chapters 5-7 with Luke 6:20-49). In the case of chapter 18, the Discourse is rooted in the Synoptic Tradition (Mark 9:33-37, 42-48), but more in terms of the narrative framework than the overall content of the teaching.

The Discourse contains two parables, the first of which (vv. 12-14) resembles the famous Lukan parable of the ‘Lost Sheep’ (15:4-7), and so could conceivably be considered as belonging to the “Q” material; the second parable (vv. 23-35) is unique to the Matthean Gospel (i.e., “M” material). Both parables illustrate different Kingdom themes; indeed, the entire Discourse is framed as a discourse on the Kingdom. We see this from the narrative introduction in verse 1:

“In that hour, the learners [i.e. disciples] came toward Yeshua, saying: ‘Who, then, is greatest in the kingdom of the heavens?'”

While this verse is derived from the root Synoptic Tradition (Mark 9:33-34; cf. Luke 9:46; cp. 22:24), the mention of “the kingdom of the heavens” (= “kingdom of God” in the Tradition) would seem to be a Matthean addition. As noted above, it serves the broader Kingdom-theme of the Discourse; the question now involves who is greatest (mei/zwn) in the Kingdom. In answering the question (vv. 2-4), Jesus uses young children as an illustration, making two points: (1) people cannot enter the Kingdom unless they “become as little children” (v. 3); and (2) the greatest in the Kingdom is the one who lowers (vb tapeino/w) him/herself “as a little child” (v. 4). These clearly represent two stages: (i) entering the Kingdom, and (ii) gaining status (‘greatness’) in the Kingdom.

The traditional idiom of entering the Kingdom (of God) frames the Kingdom-teaching in the Sermon on the Mount (5:20; 7:21; cf. also 7:13); by those teachings, Jesus makes clear that “entering” the Kingdom means doing the will of God (“my Father in the heavens”). For the disciple of Jesus, this means, specifically, following/obeying the teaching of Jesus—such as we find in the Sermon on the Mount (and here in chap. 18). The dual-action of “turn [vb stre/fw] and become as a child” suggests repentance (meta/noia, lit. change of mind[set], vb metanoe/w, cf. the fundamental Kingdom-declaration of 4:17 [3:2]), but also the willingness to turn and follow Jesus (viz., as a faithful disciple).

If the faithful disciple of Jesus will ultimately enter the Kingdom, the “greatness” of the disciple in the Kingdom depends on his/her willingness to “lower” (i.e., humble) him/herself, becoming like a little child—in the sense of being the weakest and least prominent one in society. In Mark 9:35, the emphasis is on lowering oneself in terms of providing service to others (viz., like a young servant); this emphasis is not made explicit here in vv. 2-4, but a comparable saying is found in 20:26-28. The same idea is generalized in Luke 9:48b.

The sayings that follow in vv. 5-6 are derived from the Synoptic Tradition (Mk 9:37, 42). In the context of the Kingdom-theme of the Discourse, we may see these as expressing the following points:

    • The one who belongs to the Kingdom will “receive” another (even the ‘littlest child’) who belongs to the Kingdom—that is, who is a disciple of Jesus (“in my name”). This could be seen as a seminal form of the Johannine doctrine of the ‘love command’ —viz., the duty of demonstrating selfless love to other believers. The servant/service emphasis (cf. above) is certainly implied.
    • The true disciple will not cause another person (even a little child) to sin, but will (instead) be an example toward righteousness (cf. 5:19-20)

The teaching regarding sin/temptation in vv. 7-9 derives from Mk 9:43-48, with the two traditions (viz., vv. 5-6 and 7-9) having been originally joined together through thematic “catchword” bonding.

The next three units of the Matthean Discourse (vv. 10-14, 15-20, 21-35) all develop the principles illustrated in vv. 1-6ff. In summary form, these focus on how disciples of Jesus relate to one another, particularly with regard to sin—viz., the erring/failing of disciples. While the “kingdom of the heavens” is specifically mentioned only in the third unit (v. 23), the idea/theme is present throughout, by the use of the key-phrase “in (the) heavens” (or “in heaven”), vv. 10, 14, 18-19.

The ‘Lost Sheep’ parable (vv. 12-14, par Luke 15:4-7) is introduced by a statement (v. 10) that positions the parable within the context of the Discourse (vv. 2-6). While the parable may have originally had, as its focus, the action of God (and/or Christ, “the son of man”, [v. 11] cf. Lk 19:10; Mk 10:45) in rescuing/saving a person who has gone astray, the Discourse context here suggests that it is the faithful disciple who should act in this way, following the example of Jesus himself. The disciple will act to rescue another (perhaps weaker) disciple who has gone astray (i.e., sinned/erred). The reference to “the heavens” in v. 10 implies that even the littlest (i.e., weakest) disciple belongs to the kingdom of the heavens.

The sin-motif is developed in a somewhat different way in vv. 15-20, dealing with the situation of a disciple (“brother”) who sins/errs against another disciple. A community-setting is implied in this teaching; indeed, the repair of the broken relation (between believers) is to be realized within the community. The community of believers has the authority to deal with sin in this way, effectively removing it, or (alternately) by confirming the guilt of the disciple who refuses to see the broken relationship repaired. The clear parallel between v. 18 and 16:19 indicates that both verses refer to the community (rather than a specific individual/leader). Any gathering of true/faithful disciples of Jesus (“in my name”), even if only two or three are involved, represents an authoritative community of disciples (vv. 19-20). The authority comes from heaven, from the fact that true disciples belong to the kingdom of heaven.

The issue of forgiving the sin of a fellow disciple is dealt with even more forcefully by the parable in vv. 23-35, which is introduced by the short exchange between Peter and Jesus in vv. 21-22. That exchange likely represents a distinct tradition (“M” material), which may not have originally been connected with the parable (another “M” tradition) that follows. The two traditions are rightly joined together on a thematic basis.

On the surface, it might seem that the teaching in v. 22 contradicts the prior teaching in vv. 15-17. However, the hypothetical situation posed in v. 21 almost certainly refers to sinning on different occasions, rather than sinning repeatedly with regard to the same occasion. In any case, Jesus makes clear that the disciple’s willingness to forgive (vb a)fi/hmi), to “put away” the sin done against you, must be broad and comprehensive. The implicit point of the parable is that the sin which the disciple had done against God was greater than any sin that one disciple might do against another. If God was willing to forgive the greater sin (against Him), then we should be willing to forgive the lesser sins (against us).

The whole matter of forgiveness in this parable is framed as being characteristic of the Kingdom of God/heaven (v. 23). Indeed, the entirety of the chapter 18 Discourse addresses how members of the Kingdom—fellow disciples/believers—are to relate and deal with one another. It is important that the relational bond between Kingdom-members be maintained; and, since sin disrupts that relationship, and may (temporarily) break the bond, forgiveness becomes a vital aspect of life among those who belong to the Kingdom.

“Who Is This Son of Man…?”: Conclusion

Conclusion

We have now reached the end of this series on the New Testament use of the expression “the son of man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou). The series was introduced during Holy Week this spring, and has continued throughout the summer. It is now time to draw the most pertinent conclusions, based on our studies.

To begin with, I should point out again the two main explanations, offered by scholars, for the origin of the expression “the son of man” in the Gospel Tradition. One explanation is that the expression is primarily derived from its use in Daniel 7:13, where the heavenly figure of the vision is described as “(one) like a son of man” (Aramaic vn`a$ rb^K=). The New Testament occurrences of the expression “(the) son of man” thus serve as a shorthand reference for the figure in the Daniel 7 vision. Such a derivation would be particularly plausible if the New Testament usage represented a Christological construction by early believers, rather than authentic usage by Jesus himself. Early Christians, following a Messianic interpretation of Dan 7:13-14, would have identified Jesus with that heavenly figure, and used it of him throughout the Gospel Tradition, particularly in reference to the end-time appearance (return) of Jesus from heaven. However, some scholars see no reason why Jesus could not have made such an association himself, identifying himself with the Messianic “son of man”, much as we see in the case of Enoch in the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71). On the Similitudes, and their possible influence on the Gospel Tradition, see the recent study.

The second explanation points to the ordinary use of the Aramaic (and/or Hebrew) expression as a means of self-reference. On the presumption that Jesus (and many of the earliest Christians) did most of the teaching and preaching in Aramaic, the expression would have been [a]vn[a] rb, as in Dan 7:13. In Aramaic, as in Hebrew (<da[h] /b), the expression simply means “a human being”, or, generically, “a person”; even in Dan 7:13, “(one) like a son of man”, means nothing more than that the heavenly figure resembles a human being (cp. 1 Enoch 46:1). An author/speaker can use the expression “(the) son of man” in a self-referential way, by applying the generic usage (viz., ‘a person’) to one’s own situation or circumstances. We see this even in English, when one says, proverbially, “a man…” or “a person…”, even though the speaker is actually referring to him/herself; the German use of “man” provides an even closer parallel. For more on this usage, see the discussion in the Introduction.

In my view, the evidence far favors this second explanation. As was discussed and demonstrated throughout our studies (especially those on the Synoptic sayings), Jesus seems to be using the expression “the son of man” primarily as a self-reference. In most of the sayings, there would be relatively little difference in meaning if Jesus had used the first person “I/me” instead of the third person “the son of man”. That the first and third person is virtually interchangeable in this regard, can be seen by the variant formulations in Matt 5:11/Lk 6:22, Mk 8:29/Matt 16:13, and elsewhere.

The Synoptic sayings in Mark 2:10, 28 [study] would seem to be particularly instructive, as regards Jesus’ use of the expression. In each of these sayings, “the son of man” fundamentally means “a human being”, according to the ordinary Semitic usage (see above). However, Jesus is also, quite clearly, referring to himself, specifically—viz., as the one who has authority on earth to forgive sins, and as the person who is truly “Lord” of the Sabbath. Both aspects of meaning are captured if one treats the definite article in the expression essentially like a demonstrative: “th(is) son of man”, i.e., this human being, this person—namely, Jesus himself. Moreover, in nearly every other saying, the meaning is likewise clarified and enhanced when the expression is translated similarly as “th(is) son of man”.

Beyond its use by Jesus as a self-reference, the expression also takes advantage of a key connotation, derived from occurrences of the expression in Old Testament and Jewish (poetic) tradition. As discussed in the Introduction, “(the) son of man” (Heb <d*a*-/B#), in parallel with “man” (<d*a*, vona$, vya!, or rb#G#), in poetic and wisdom texts, tends to emphasize the weakness and limitation of the human condition (including human mortality)—in contrast to the Divine. Throughout the Gospel sayings, in different ways, Jesus is identifying himself with the human condition (cf. Matt 8:20; 11:19). This is particularly true with regard to the Passion references (Mark 8:31/9:31/10:33 par; 10:45; also 14:21, 41 par [study]), where the expression “the son of man” is specifically associated with Jesus’ suffering and death. The same is true for a number of the Johannine sayings (see below).

At the same time, the sayings in Mark 13:26; 14:62 par [study] do allude to Daniel 7:13f (cf. above); this may reflect a fortuitous circumstantial correspondence. Jesus was already disposed to use the expression “the son of man” as a self-reference (i.e., “this son of man”, this person), but, as it happens, the same (Aramaic) expression was also used in Daniel 7:13f in reference to a heavenly figure—one who would play a key eschatological role, in connection with the Judgment and the coming New Age for God’s people. Given the Messianic interpretation of Daniel 7 that was in existence during the first century (as attested by the Similitudes of Enoch and 2/4 Esdras [chaps. 11-13], see the recent study; cf. also the Qumran text 4Q246), the expression also, in this context, could carry a Messianic significance (see the figure-types discussed in Parts 6-8 and 10 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”). To the extent that Jesus would have had his own resurrection (and exaltation) in mind (cf. the Passion predictions), he could have identified himself with the exalted (heavenly) figure in Dan 7:13-14. This would be the explanation for commentators who regard the saying in Mark 14:62 par as authentic. There can be little doubt that it is Jesus’ exaltation (following his death and resurrection) that is primarily in view in this saying, as is particularly clear from the Lukan form (22:69) of the saying, and its fulfillment in Acts 7:55-56 [study]. Only secondarily, it would seem, was the Dan 7:13f tradition applied to the return of the exalted Jesus to earth (from heaven); cf. below on Mk 13:26 par and the eschatological sayings as a whole.

The Johannine Usage

The “son of man” sayings in the Gospel of John generally follow the usage of the expression in the Synoptics; however, there also a number of distinctly Johannine theological (and Christological) associations which were noted and examined (in our studies on these sayings). Essentially, the Johannine use of the expression may be summarized as follows: it refers to the earthly life and ministry of the incarnate Son. Three aspects, in particular, are emphasized in the Johannine sayings:

    • The heavenly origin of Jesus, whereby the Son “stepped down” (vb katabai/nw) to earth, from heaven, in the person of Jesus (viz., the incarnation, 1:14ff, etc)—cf. the sayings in 3:13; 6:62, and the context of 6:27.
    • Upon the completion of his earthly mission, the Son “steps (back) up” (vb a)nabai/nw) to heaven; this fundamentally refers to the exaltation of the incarnate Son (Jesus), a process that begins with his suffering/death, and concludes with his departure back to the Father. In addition to the verb a)nabai/nw, the key verbs u(yo/w (“raise/lift high”) and doca/zw (“[give] honor”) are used for the Son’s exaltation. Cf. the sayings in 3:14; 6:62; 8:28; 12:23; 13:31.
    • It is, in particular, the incarnate Son’s death that is in view, and which marks the end of his earthly mission and the beginning of his exaltation. The Passion context of 12:23 and 13:31 is clear, and is certainly key to the sayings in 3:14 and 8:28 (cf. 12:32-34). Moreover, the significance of Jesus’ death, in terms of his human “flesh”, is central to the saying in 6:53, which comes at the climax of the chap. 6 Bread of Life Discourse (vv. 51-58).

Mention should also be made of the saying in 5:27 [study], which appears to be in line with the Synoptic eschatological sayings (cf. below) by emphasizing the role of the “son of man” in the end-time Judgment (with possible allusions to Dan 7:13f). However, the entire eschatological theme of the Judgment has been given a radical re-interpretation in the Johannine Gospel. The end-time Judgment effectively takes place in the present, based on how one responds to the (Gospel) message regarding who Jesus is. The one who trusts in Jesus (as the Son sent from heaven by the Father) is saved (even now) from the Judgment, while those who fail/refuse to trust are already judged. This helps to explain the use of the expression in the confessional context of 9:35 [study]. As a fundamental confessional point, Jesus is the incarnate Son, the Son in human flesh (i.e., “the Son of man”).

The Expression “the Son of man” and Orthodox Christology

As should be clear, the Johannine usage of the expression is more or less in accordance with orthodox Christology. By using the expression, the Johannine Jesus identifies himself as the pre-existent Son of God, who has come to earth (born) in human flesh (doctrine of the Incarnation). It would be natural for orthodox Christians to approach the Synoptic “son of man” sayings in much the same light. According to such an interpretative approach, in all of the sayings—even those which otherwise refer to Jesus’ earthly life and human weakness/suffering—Jesus is referring to himself as the incarnate Son. This means that he is effectively identifying himself with a Divine/heavenly figure such as the “son of man” in Daniel 7:13f (see above). Jesus is not simply identified with this figure by way of his resurrection/exaltation (cf. above on Mark 14:62 par), but as the pre-existent Son.

The problem with reading the Synoptic sayings through this lens is that a pre-existence Christology is virtually absent from the Synoptic Gospels, in marked contrast with the Gospel of John where it is prominent (as also in Hebrews, 1:2-4ff, etc; cf. the study on 2:6). In working with the Synoptic Gospels, one should take care to study them on their own terms, focusing first (and foremost) on how the original authors (and their communities) understood and dealt with the Gospel Tradition. And, from this standpoint, the Synoptics are fundamentally rooted in an exaltation Christology—whereby the Sonship of Jesus is defined primarily in terms of his resurrection and exaltation (to the right-hand of God in heaven). The Lukan treatment of this theme, in association with the expression “the son of man”, blending together the Messianic Dan 7:13-14 and Psalm 110:1 traditions, is particularly noteworthy (cf. again the study on Acts 7:55-56).

The Eschatological “Son of Man” Sayings

Of all the Synoptic “son of man” sayings, it is the eschatological sayings—those which either refer to Jesus’ end-time return or to his role (as “the son of man”) in the Judgment—which are most problematic, especially if one wishes to consider them as authentic sayings by Jesus. It is worth summarizing the main lines of interpretation available to commentators when dealing with these eschatological sayings:

    • The eschatological sayings are not authentic, but are creations by the early Christian Community, reflecting their belief in the exalted Jesus’ end-time return (and role in the Judgment). According to this line of interpretation, it is much easier to explain the expression “the son of man” in these sayings (beginning with Mark 13:26 par) as being derived from Daniel 7:13f.
    • The eschatological sayings are authentic sayings by Jesus, but, in using the expression “the son of man”, Jesus is not referring to himself, but to a separate figure (usually assumed to be the heavenly/Messianic figure of Dan 7:13f) who will appear at the time of Judgment.
    • The sayings are authentic, and Jesus is referring to himself—viz., his own return (following his exaltation) and role in the end-time Judgment.
    • The sayings are authentic, but their application to the future return (parousia) of the exalted Jesus represents a secondary development by early Christians.

In my view, only the last two lines of interpretation are tenable options. The problem with the third option, treating all of the eschatological “son of man” sayings as authentic without qualification, is that, by all accounts, such sayings would have been largely unintelligible to the original hearers. If, in Mark 8:38 or 13:26 (pars), for example, Jesus was originally referring to his return to earth from heaven (after his death and resurrection), what sense would this have made to his disciples at the time? Indeed, the saying in Mk 8:38 occurs just moments after Jesus introduced the idea of his impending death (and resurrection) to his disciples for the first time; so how could they have understood any reference to his return?

Perhaps the easiest solution to this problem would be to locate most, if not all, of the eschatological sayings, to a time after Jesus’ resurrection, rather than in their current Gospel locations (prior to the resurrection). Another option would be the fourth line of interpretation outlined above—namely, that the eschatological sayings originally referred to Jesus’ exaltation, and only secondarily were adapted and set in the context of the exalted Jesus’ return to earth. In the case of Mark 13:26 par, this would be possible if the Eschatological Discourse is viewed as a literary arrangement of eschatological material; taken out of this context, the saying would essentially match that of Mk 14:62 par, where it could be understood strictly in terms of Jesus’ exaltation (as in the Lukan version of this saying, 22:69; Acts 7:55-56). Sayings such as Luke 9:26 par could be similarly explained. However, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the use of the expression in Luke 12:40 and 17:22, 24, 26, 30 (pars) requires a reference to the parousia (second coming) of Jesus, at the time of the Judgment.

There remains no entirely satisfactory solution to the inherent difficulties surrounding these eschatological “son of man” sayings, especially for those who would otherwise affirm the authenticity of the sayings. They all make perfect sense for early Christians, after the resurrection (and departure/ascension) had taken place, but would surely have been confusing (if not unintelligible) for people prior to Jesus’ own death and resurrection. The reaction by Jesus’ hearers in John 12:34 perhaps leaves open the possibility that people could have initially understood the expression “the son of man”, in the eschatological sayings, as referring to someone other than Jesus. Only after Jesus’ death and resurrection, did the disciples fully understand that, in these sayings, “the son of man” really did refer to Jesus himself—to the impending end-time appearance of their exalted Lord.

Final Comments

Perhaps the most striking feature of the expression “the son of man” is the utter lack of its use by early Christians. Outside of the Gospel Tradition, it scarcely occurs at all in the New Testament. Indeed, as discussed in the recent study, even the occurrences in Acts 7:56 and Rev 1:13 [cf. verse 7]; 14:14 are essentially dependent upon the Gospel Tradition (Mk 13:26; 14:62 par). All of this argues strongly against the theory that “the son of man” represents a Messianic (and Christological) title, under which influence early Christians shaped the “son of man” sayings. If it really were a Christological title, one would expect to find some use of it in the New Testament writings (it is completely absent, for example, from Paul’s letters).

Given this evidence, the Gospel Tradition ought to be taken at face value: the “son of man” sayings represent a distinctive and authentic usage of the expression by Jesus himself. Most likely, the expression in Aramaic, [a]vn[a] rB, was translated into Greek (quite literally) as o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou. The definite article could be indicative of the emphatic state in Aramaic (av*n`[a$] rB^), or it might simply indicate that early Christians recognized that the expression was being used to refer to a specific, definite individual—namely, Jesus himself. Possibly, there were some who, hearing this usage, found it ambiguous or confusing (cf. John 12:34); however, on the whole, it would seem that early Christians, from the beginning, understood it clearly as a manner of self-reference by Jesus.

By way of summary, the following points can be made regarding the expression “the son of man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou) in the Gospels:

    • It is used primarily as a self-reference by Jesus
    • Jesus refers to himself as a very particular human being (“th[is] son of man”)
    • By using this expression, Jesus is identifying himself with the human condition, especially in regard to its weakness, suffering, and mortality (viz., the Passion of Jesus)
    • This can be understood in the deeper theological sense of the incarnation of the Son (of God) in the person of Jesus; this is particularly emphasized in the Gospel of John, according to the Johannine theology.
    • If the human condition involves suffering (and death), it also holds the promise of exaltation (cf. the use of Psalm 8:4ff in Heb 2:6-8); in association with the use of the expression in Dan 7:13f, it was also used in connection with the exaltation of Jesus (to heaven) after his death (cf. the parallel with Enoch’s exaltation [as the “son of man”] in 1 Enoch 70-71).
    • From his exalted position in heaven, Jesus further fulfills this role of the heavenly figure in Dan 7:13-14, through his expected return to earth (from heaven) at the time of the eschatological Judgment. This represents, in large part, a thematic development of the “son of man” tradition by early Christians (cf. Rev 1:7; cp. Mk 13:26 par), but it can still be maintained as an aspect of Jesus’ own usage of the expression (cf. the discussion above).

The expression “the son of man” is not a Messianic title per se; however, in light of a Messianic interpretation of Dan 7:13-14, it did come to take on a certain Messianic significance—as we see in the Similitudes of Enoch and 2/4 Esdras. In point of fact, the expression does not function as a title at all—neither the Aramaic (in Dan 7:13), nor the Greek version in the Gospels (in spite of its formal similarity to “the Son of God” [o( ui(o\$ tou= qeou=]), nor the (Ethiopic) formulations in the Similitudes.

Yet the expression, as it occurs in the Gospels, is fundamentally Christological. As a self-reference by Jesus, it refers to the person of Jesus Christ—Jesus, the Messiah and Son of God. Moreover, in the Gospel of John, is serves unquestionably to answer the fundamental question of who Jesus is—namely, the incarnate Son of God, who came to earth from heaven, born in human flesh, in the person of Jesus. A true trust in Jesus thus means a trust in Jesus as the “Son of man” (Jn 9:35). The terminology of Johannine essential predication is used both to pose the essential question—

“Who [ti$] | is [e)stin] | this son of man?” (12:34)

and to answer it:

“…(Jesus) | is [e)stin] | (the) son of man.” (5:27)

 

 

“Who Is This Son of Man…?”: Daniel 7:13-14 (Part 3)

In Part 2 of this study, we explored the use of Daniel 7:13-14 in two Jewish writings from the first century A.D.: the Similitudes (or Parables) of Enoch, and 2/4 Esdras (also known as 4 Ezra). The time-frame and eschatological orientation of these works is significant in relation to the Gospel Tradition—particularly with regard to the expression “(the) son of man”. Actually, this expression does not occur in 2/4 Esdras; however, the vision in chapter 13 clearly alludes to the “(one) like a son of man” in Dan 7:13f. There are similar allusions in the Similitudes of Enoch, along with specific (and repeated) use of the expression “son of man”, in three different Ethiopic (Ge‘ez) formulations. The Similitudes offer a much more robust work for comparison with the Gospel Tradition; and, since the treatment of Dan 7:13f in 2/4 Esdras is generally comparable to that in the Similitudes, we can use the Similitudes as the basis for consideration of the Dan 7:13f tradition in first-century Judaism.

The Similitudes of Enoch and the Gospel Tradition

There are actually a number of significant (and meaningful) parallels between the use of the expression “son of man” in the Similitudes and the expression, as applied to Jesus, in the Gospel Tradition. The following three points may be noted for comparison:

    1. Daniel 7:13-14 is given an eschatological and Messianic interpretation, with the “(one) like a son of man” being understood as a Messianic figure. The specific title “(the) Anointed (One)” is applied to this figure.
    2. This figure is referred to by several Messianic titles, derived from Scriptural tradition (interpreted in a Messianic way), most notably: “the Righteous (One)” (e.g., Isa 53:11), and “the Elect/Chosen (One)” (Isa 42:1).
    3. Ultimately, this figure is identified with an exalted human being (“son of man”), a man who was exalted to a divine/heavenly position and status—namely, Enoch.

Let us briefly discuss each of these points.

1. Apart from the fact that the title “Anointed (One)” is used at 48:10 and 52:4, the general Messianic character of the “son of man” in the Similitudes is clear from his role in the end-time Judgment (cf. the discussion and references in Part 2)—acting as God’s representative in judging the nations, bringing punishment upon the wicked. At the same time, this figure functions as leader/ruler and protector of the righteous (the people of God). These are eschatological roles associated with several different Messianic figure-types, including the royal/Davidic type. The royal character of the “son of man” in the Similitudes is generally clear, even though specific references to his kingship tend to be avoided; for the author, it would seem that ultimately Kingship belongs to God, with the “son of man” as His subordinate ruler (and representative). The Davidic aspect of the royal figure-type is more or less absent from the Similitudes; this is a key point of difference with the Gospel Tradition, where Jesus’ specific identity as the Davidic Messiah (“son of David”) is very much emphasized (cf. Parts 6–8 of the series “Yeshua the Anointed”).

2. The Messianic titles “Righteous (One)” and “Elect/Chosen (One)” are applied to the “son of man” in the Similitudes (38:2; 39:6; 40:5; 45:3-4; 49:2, 4; 51:3, 5; 52:6, 9; 53:6; 55:4; 61:5, 8, 10; 62:1) and also to Jesus in the Gospels and early Christian tradition. For the title “(the) Righteous (One)” ([o(] di/kaio$), see Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1 Jn 2:1; cf. also 1 Jn 2:29; 3:7; Matt 27:19; 2 Tim 4:8. The title “Elect/Chosen (One)” ([o(] e)klekto/$) occurs in Luke 23:35 and John 1:34 v.l., with an equivalent title using the verbal noun (perfect participle) e)klelegme/no$ in Luke 9:35; cf. also 1 Peter 2:4, 6 (citing Isa 28:16). There is a clear correspondence between “the Righteous (One)” in heaven and the community of the “righteous (one)s” on earth; similarly, the title “Elect/Chosen (One)” relates to the righteous people as “elect/chosen (one)s”. A similar correspondence is found in the New Testament, with believers in Christ referred to as “righteous (one)s” and “elect/chosen (one)s” (for the latter, cf. Mark 13:20ff; Lk 18:7; Rom 8:33; Col 3:12; 1 Pet 1:1, etc). The righteous are also referred to as “(the) holy (one)s” in the Similitudes, even as they are in Daniel 7 (vv. 18, 21-22, 25, 27). The parallelism in Daniel 7 suggests that the title “Holy (One)” could be applied to the heavenly figure (“[one] like a son of man”), even though that title is not actually used. Nor is it used of the Messianic figure in the Similitudes; however, it is a title applied to Jesus the Messiah in the New Testament (Mark 1:24 par; John 6:69; Acts 2:27 [13:35]; 3:14; 1 Jn 2:20; cf. also Lk 1:35; Acts 4:27, 30; Rev 3:7 [cf. 6:10; 16:5]). Believers, of course, are regularly referred to as “holy (one)s” (i.e., ‘saints’).

3. Surely the most distinctive parallel between the Similitudes and the Gospel Tradition is that the heavenly “son of man” (from Dan 7:13-14) is identified with an exalted human being—Enoch (70:1; 71:14, 17) and Jesus, respectively. In this regard, it would seem that the author of the Similitudes (at least, the person who made this identification) understood the expression “son of man” in the concrete sense of a human being. That is to say, this figure is not simply “like a son of man” (Dan 7:13); rather, he is a “son of man” (human being). He is an exalted human being, raised to become “that son of man” seen in the heavenly visions (46:1ff). It seems likely that the original application of the Dan 7:13-14 tradition to the person of Jesus was also focused on his exaltation to heaven. This, certainly, is the emphasis in the Mark 14:62 par saying—particularly in the Lukan version of the saying (22:69, see the recent study on Acts 7:55-56). The use of Dan 7:13f in the context of Jesus’ subsequent return to earth (Mark 13:26 par) probably represents a secondary application, even though it came to be the primary association for early Christians by the end of the first century (see the prior study dealing with Revelation 1:7; 14:14). It is from Jesus’ exalted position in heaven (primary point of reference) that he will return to earth (secondary reference), as he ushers in the end-time Judgment.

The Enoch/Jesus parallel is striking indeed, especially when one combines all three points of comparison outlined above. Is it possible that this treatment of Enoch as the “son of man” in the Similitudes could have influenced the Gospel Tradition—and even Jesus’ own use of the expression “the son of man”? Many New Testament scholars would answer in the affirmative. A dating of the Similitudes in the early first century makes such a line of influence at least conceivable. Even if Jesus and/or the early Christians did not know or make use of the Similitudes directly, it is possible that the tradition(s) regarding Enoch’s exaltation (to become the “son of man” figure of Dan 7:13-14) could have been in circulation during the first century, to be utilized as a traditional type-pattern applied to Jesus.

Personally, I can find no clear evidence for any such influence, apart from the general (though definite) parallels cited above. It may well be that the parallelism is coincidental, reflecting (at best) certain basic currents in Jewish eschatology and Messianic thought, as they relate to the interpretation of Daniel 7:13-14. Once the possibility, that the heavenly “(one) like a son of man” referred to an exalted human being, was established, there were only a few candidates available for such an identification. Clearly, Enoch was one of these, based on the tradition(s) regarding his exaltation to heaven (cf. Gen 5:24); Moses and Elijah are two others. The exaltation of Jesus naturally would lend itself to a similar identification. The idea of his exaltation, however, is not rooted in Scriptural tradition, but in the immediate historical tradition of his resurrection (and ascension to heaven). According to the early exaltation-Christology, the Divine/heavenly status and position of Jesus—his Messiahship and Divine Sonship—was understood primarily in terms of his resurrection and exaltation to heaven (at God’s right hand): cf. the emphasis especially in the early kerygma (Gospel proclamation), [Mark 16:19]; Acts 2:33-34; 5:31; 7:55-56 [Mk 14:62 par]; Rom 1:3-4; 8:34; Heb 1:3; 10:12; 1 Pet 3:22, etc. The place of the expression “(the) son of man” in the subsequent pre-existence Christology is less clear; it definitely played a role in the Johannine Christology (at least, in the Gospel). Some of the broader implications, in relation to orthodox Christology, will be discussed in the Conclusion to this series.

It is in the kerygma—the early Gospel preaching, as presented in the first half of the book of Acts—that the combination of elements found in the Similitudes is most clearly present: (1) Jesus as the Messiah, (2) the theme of his exaltation to heaven, and (3) the titles “Righteous (One)”, “Holy (One)”, and “Elect/Chosen (One)”; cf. the references above. In addition, the identification of Jesus with the “son of man” of Dan 7:13f is found in the context of the Acts sermon-speeches (7:55-56), where the emphasis is unquestionably on the exaltation of Jesus to heaven, echoing the Lukan version (22:69) of the “son of man” saying in Mk 14:62 par.

Another interesting parallel involves the use of the demonstrative pronoun in the Similitudes—viz., “that son of man”, utilizing the Ge‘ez demonstratives zekku (46:2; 48:2; 62:5, 9, 14; 63:11) and we’etu (69:26, 29; 70:1; 71:17)—and, in one case, “this son of man” (zentu, 46:4). In my studies on the Synoptic “son of man” sayings, I argued that translating the definite article (in the Greek “the son of man” [o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou]) effectively as a demonstrative, i.e., “th(is) son of man”, makes excellent sense for the use of the expression throughout the Tradition. Since, in the Gospels, Jesus is primarily using the expression as a self-reference, it becomes a way of referring to himself as ‘this particular person’. The demonstratives in the Similitudes have a different point of reference: they point back to the figure resembling a human being, whom Enoch sees in heaven in the vision (46:1ff)—that particular “son of man”. Still, one may note the general similarity of usage, whereby the expression “son of man” is used to refer to a specific, particular human being.

There is a further interesting use of the demonstrative pronoun—both ou!to$ (“this”) and e)kei=no$ (“that”)—in the New Testament, as a distinctive way of referring to Jesus. We see it, for example, at a number of points in the early Gospel preaching recorded in the book of Acts: 2:23, 32, 36; 4:11; 6:14; 17:3—where the usage is “this (one)” or “this Yeshua”. It is also part of the Johannine style, with the demonstratives frequently used in reference to Jesus—note, in particular, the use of e)kei=no$ (“that [one]”) in 1 John: 2:6; 3:3, 5, 7, 16; 4:17. The demonstrative pronoun often functions as the Divine subject within the Johannine essential predication: Divine subject | verb of being | predicate noun/phrase. Such statements provide essential information about Jesus (the Son)— “that/this (one) is …”. In terms of such essential predication, one may note the identification-statement made in John 5:27 (cf. the earlier study): “he is [e)stin] (the) son of man”. One is reminded again of the closing portion of the Similitudes (cf. Part 2), where Enoch also is identified as the “son of man”: “You (are) that son of man, who was born for righteousness…” (71:14).

Concluding Note on the Influence of Dan 7:13-14

There is no doubt that the sayings in Mark 13:26 and 14:62 pars allude to Daniel 7:13f. It remains highly debatable, however, whether (or to what extent) the same tradition informs the wider Gospel usage of the expression “the son of man”. Given the allusion in Mark 13:26 par, where the reference (in the Gospel context) is clearly to the return of the exalted Jesus to earth at the time of the Judgment, it might seem natural to assume that the expression in sayings such as Mark 8:38; Matt 13:41; 16:27-28; 24:27, 30, 37, 39 [pars], 44; Luke 18:8 would also have Dan 7:13f in mind. However, in none of those sayings is there any wording or terminology that might indicate a conscious reference or allusion to Daniel 7:13-14—apart from the expression “son of man” itself. If the Daniel 7 tradition has influenced these eschatological sayings, it did so only in a most subtle or generalized way.

This raises the question again as to the authenticity of the eschatological sayings. For commentators who would maintain that they are not authentic sayings by Jesus, it is entirely plausible that early Christians fashioned the sayings, in light of the tradition in Mark 13:26 par, identifying Jesus—in his end-time return—with the heavenly “son of man” figure in Daniel 7 (cf. Revelation 1:7; 14:14). However, if the eschatological sayings (any or all of them) are considered authentic sayings by Jesus, then the influence of Daniel 7, in my view, become less likely. Throughout the Gospels, Jesus makes use of the expression “the son of man” primarily as a self-reference; there being no definite or obvious allusions to Daniel 7 in the eschatological sayings (apart from Mk 13:26 par), it is fair to assume that the same usage applies. Jesus is referring to his own end-time role (in relation to the Judgment, etc). Some commentators have theorized that Jesus originally used the expression, in the eschatological sayings, in reference to a heavenly figure separate from himself; if so, then an allusion to Daniel 7 becomes more plausible. But, as previously discussed, such a theory is highly speculative, with little hard evidence to support it. The eschatological sayings remain problematic, when considered as authentic sayings by Jesus; this is a matter which will be discussed again in the Conclusion to this series.

I am forced to reject the line of interpretation which explains the Gospel usage of the expression (by Jesus), as a whole, as influenced by Daniel 7:13f. Admittedly, when the “son of man” sayings are considered from the standpoint of orthodox Christology, such an interpretation becomes more favorable. If one examines the sayings under the assumption of a pre-existence Christology, then the Gospel sayings—even those such as Mark 2:10, 28 par; 10:45—could be explained in terms of the incarnation of a heavenly “son of man” figure (viz., the pre-existent Christ). Yet I find no evidence, whatsoever, that such a pre-existence Christology informs any of the Synoptic sayings. The situation is rather different for the Johannine sayings, where the expression unquestionably does refer to the incarnation of the (pre-existent) Son. Yet, as we have seen, the Johannine sayings show virtually no evidence of influence from the Dan 7:13f tradition—with the possible exception of the saying in 5:27 (cf. the earlier study on this verse).

“Who Is This Son of Man…?”: Johannine Sayings (Conclusion)

The Johannine sayings: Conclusion

Having now studied all of the “son of man” sayings and references in the Gospel of John, it will be worth summarizing the results of this analysis.

The first point is that the Johannine Gospel tends to follow the wider Gospel Tradition with regard to Jesus’ use of the expression “the son of man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou). A comparison of the Johannine references with the Synoptic reveals two broad similarities: (1) the expression is used principally as a self-reference by Jesus, and (2) it particularly used in reference to Jesus’ Passion—his suffering and death.

However, as is typically the case, the Gospel of John gives to the Tradition a distinctive theological (and Christological) emphasis. I believe it is possible to summarize this distinctive Johannine usage by way of several key points. As a preliminary note, the literary context of the references—their place within the Johannine Discourses—must be stressed. Nearly all of the “son of man” sayings occur in the framework of these characteristic Discourses, in which traditional material is shaped and adapted to form powerful expressions of Johannine theology. The expositions by Jesus, within the Discourses, utilize Johannine language, style, and points of emphasis throughout.

What are the key points of the Johannine theology that may be derived from, or related to, the “son of man” references? I would highlight four:

1. The heavenly origin of the Son (Jesus). We see this emphasized strongly in 3:13 and 6:62, as well as the overall context of 6:27 (and v. 53, see vv. 33, 38, 41-42, 50-51, 58). The key Johannine verb used to express this is katabai/nw (“step down”). The Son (Jesus) has “stepped down” (i.e., come down) from heaven. This is a distinctly Johannine point of emphasis, one that it is virtually absent from the Synoptic Tradition. There are other important occurrences of the verb in 1:32-33 and 1:51 (see below).

2. The Son has come down to earth, having been sent (from heaven) by God the Father. This is a second, related aspect of the verb katabai/nw (“step down”), in its special Johannine usage. This helps to explain why the expression “the son of man” is associated with the idea of Jesus’ heavenly origin. The Son was sent to earth by God the Father, coming in the form of a human being (“son of man”). This brings us to the third point:

3. The incarnation of the Son in the person of Jesus. The expression “the Son” (o( ui(o/$) emphasizes Jesus’ relationship (as the Son of God) to God the Father; but when the focus is specifically on his incarnation and earthly life/mission, the expression “the son of man” is often utilized. Jesus is not simply “the Son” —he is the incarnate Son, “the Son of man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou). The key Johannine reference to the incarnation is 1:14ff, in the Gospel Prologue, but it also features prominently in the Bread of Life Discourse of chapter 6—and, particularly, the “son of man” reference in 6:53 with its use of the term “flesh” (sa/rc). In the Gospel of John, the noun sa/rc is used for humankind generally (17:2, cf. also 8:15), but specifically in reference to the birth of a human being (1:13; 3:6). The context of 1:13 strongly suggests that sa/rc in 1:14 alludes to the Son’s birth as a human being. If this is so, then the references in 6:51-58 (once in each of vv. 51-56) refer primarily to his death as a human being. In this regard, the use of the expression “the son of man” in v. 53 is of particular significance (see the earlier study on this verse).

Elsewhere in the Gospel, there are allusions to the incarnation in the use of the common verb e&rxomai—in reference to the Son’s coming to earth as a human being. The verb alludes both to Jesus’ actual birth, and to his public ministry—cf. 1:9, 11, 15, 30; 3:19, 31; 8:14; 9:39; 10:10; 12:46f; 18:37. Of special importance is the phrase “(hav)ing come in (the) flesh [e)n sarki/]” in 1 Jn 4:2 (par 2 Jn 7), as the idea (and fact) of the Son’s incarnation (in the person of Jesus) seems to have been central to the controversy (involving the “antichrist” opponents) addressed in 1-2 John. Indeed, First John opens (1:1-3) by emphasizing the concrete reality (as ‘flesh’ that can be seen and touched, etc) of the Son’s manifestation in the person of Jesus; this is done in a way that consciously draws upon the Gospel Prologue.

4. The earthly mission of the Son, which is completed at his death, and by which the Son is exalted. As noted above, the Johannine “son of man” sayings, like those in the Synoptic Gospels, are particularly associated with the Passion (suffering and death) of Jesus. The sayings that speak of the “son of man” being “lifted up high” (vb u(yo/w)—3:14, 8:28, and 12:23 (in connection with v. 32)—have a place in the Gospel of John similar to the three Passion-predictions (Mk 8:31; 9:31; 10:33 par) in the Synoptic Tradition. In particular, the wording of 3:14 (cf. 12:34), with its use of the idiom “it is necessary [dei=] (for) the son of man to be…” very much resembles that of Mk 8:31 par. The mission of the incarnate Son—and, especially, its completion (19:30) with the death of Jesus—is fundamental to the “son of man” sayings in 3:14 (cf. verses 15-16ff), and those in the Bread of Life Discourse (6:27, 53 [cf. also 62]); however, it is at the end of Jesus’ public ministry (12:23ff), and the beginning of his Passion (cf. 13:31, in context), that the completion of his mission is particularly being emphasized. The emphasis clearly anticipates Jesus’ impending death.

The death of Jesus, marking the completion of the Son’s mission (for which he was sent to earth by the Father), also marks the beginning of his exaltation. In the Synoptics (and the wider early Christian Tradition), Jesus’ exaltation refers primarily to events following the resurrection, when he is raised to a heavenly position and status at the “right hand” of God (Mk 14:62 par; Acts 2:33-34; 5:31; 7:55-56; Rom 8:34; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3, 13, etc). However, in the Gospel of John, this idea of ‘exaltation’ is extended to encompass the Son’s death, resurrection, and departure (back to the Father). It begins with Jesus’ death, and ends with his return to the Father. The Gospel of John utilizes three different verbs to express this comprehensive idea of exaltation, and all three are associated with the expression “the son of man”:

    • a)nabai/nw (“step up”, par. with katabai/nw [cf. above])—1:51; 3:13; 6:62
    • u(yo/w (“lift high”)—3:14; 8:28; 12:32 (cf. also v. 34)
    • doca/zw (“give/show honor”)—12:23; 13:31
The saying in 1:51 as a comprehensive depiction of the Son’s earthly mission

The first “son of man” saying in the Gospel (1:51) is positioned at the very beginning of the incarnate Son’s public ministry (viz., his earthly mission). As such, it is best explained as a visionary scene meant to depict, in a comprehensive way, the Son’s mission on earth—a mission that will be narrated throughout the remainder of the Gospel. In particular, the incarnate Son (“the Son of man”) is positioned between (in the middle of) the descent-ascent motifs expressed by the verbs katabai/nw (“step down”) and a)nabai/nw (“step up”). As noted above (and throughout these studies), this twin motif (and the verbs used to express it) refers, respectively, to: (i) the Son’s descent to earth (from heaven) at the beginning of his earthly life/ministry, and (ii) his exaltation (and departure back to heaven) at the end of it. The expression “the son of man” in 1:51 is a way of referring to the incarnate Son (in the person of Jesus), and this Christological usage informs all the other occurrences of the expression in the Gospel of John.

A final note—on the expression “the man” in Jn 19:5

There has been some thought, among New Testament scholars, that the expression “the man” (o( a&nqrwpo$) in 19:5 may be intended (by the Gospel writer) as a Messianic (Christological) title, or that it could even function as a shorthand for “the Son of man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou). The matter has been discussed, for example, by Moloney (pp. 202-7), and more briefly, e.g., by Brown (pp. 875-6). The best argument in favor of a Messianic allusion is the similarity in wording to the declaration in Zech 6:12, “See, a man…” (vya! hN@h!, LXX i)dou\ a)nh/r), where the “man” is clearly identified, in a quasi-Messianic context, as the sprouting bud/branch (jm^x#) alluded to in Jer 23:5; 33:15ff (and earlier in Zech 3:8), referring to the promise of a coming ruler from the line of David who will rule during the New Age of a restored Israel.

To be sure, Jesus’ identity as the royal/Davidic Messiah (“King of the Yehudeans”) is central to the scene of his interrogation before Pilate. This is clear enough from the context of the brief episode in the Synoptics (Mark 15:1-5 par), as well as its development in the scenes that follow (vv. 16-19, 26, 32). All of these elements are firmly rooted in the historical tradition, which the Johannine Gospel has inherited. Moreover, the Gospel writer certainly does emphasize Jesus’ Messianic identity (1:20ff, 41; 4:25, 29; 7:26-27, 41-42; 9:22; 10:24; 12:34; cf. the confessional statements in 11:27; 17:3; 20:31)—and, in particular, his identity as the royal/Davidic Messiah (1:49; 7:42; 12:13-15)—even if the deeper theological identification of Jesus as the Son (of God) has greater prominence. Throughout the scene with Pilate—which is much larger and more developed that in the Synoptics—the question of whether Jesus is a king (and what sort he is) dominates. Indeed, there are 15 occurrences of either the noun basileu/$ (“king”) or basilei/a (“kingdom”) throughout chapters 18-19—far more frequent than in the Synoptics.

Thus, it is possible that the Gospel writer might have Pilate unwittingly declare Jesus’ Messianic identity (as the Davidic King). It is even conceivable that an allusion to his deeper Christological identity as the incarnate Son (“the Son of man”) is present as well. This would be in keeping with the Gospel’s use of irony, in which people who encounter Jesus, in the midst of their misunderstanding, make Christological statements without realizing it. The most notable example is the unwitting prophecy by Caiaphas (11:51-52); quite possibly, the Gospel writer is doing something similar with Pilate in 19:5.

However, I do not think that this is a correct interpretation of 19:5 in context. It is important to realize the role Pilate plays in the theological framework of the Johannine Gospel. Pilate represents “the world” (o( ko/smo$) and the darkness that dominates it. With the onset of Jesus’ Passion, it seems that “this world”, in its hostility and opposition to God, is exercising dominion. Jesus’ announcement in 14:30 should be compared with Luke 22:53 par. Yet, although “this world” and its ruler seem to be dominating events, they do not actually have any power or authority over the Son (14:30; 16:33). Indeed, it is the Passion of Jesus that results in the judgment of the world (and its ruler). When Jesus speaks of “the ruler [a)rxw/n] of this world” (12:31; 14:30; 16:11), he is referring principally to the Satan/Devil (“the Evil [one]”, 17:5; 1 Jn 2:13-14; 3:12; 5:18-19), but what he says could apply just as well to human rulers such as Pilate. Jesus’ declaration that the world’s evil Ruler “holds nothing on me” matches his climactic statement to Pilate in 19:11 (“you do not hold authority [e)cousi/a] against me”).

I take Pilate’s announcement in 19:5 to be the very opposite of a Christological statement; if it is an unwitting declaration at all (see above), it is unwittingly anti-Christ. He declares that Jesus is a man (“the man”, o( a&nqrwpo$), even a good/noble/innocent man, while being completely oblivious to the fact that Jesus is “the Son of man” (that is, the incarnate Son of God). As Pilate belongs to “this world”, he cannot possibly understand that Jesus (and his kingdom) are not of this world (18:36-37), but instead has a heavenly origin (as the Son). To be sure, in its Semitic derivation, the expressions “(the) man” (<d*a*) and “(the) son of man” (<d*a*–/B#) are synonymous—they both denote a human being. And, as we have seen, the origins and background of Jesus’ usage of the expression “the son of man” reflects this. Yet the Gospel of John gives to the expression a deeper and more profound Christological significance than even anything we find in the Synoptics: it signifies Jesus as the incarnate Son of God, sent to earth from heaven by God the Father. The Son’s mission culminates with his human death, and, paradoxically, it is at the very moment of human weakness and limitation (mortality) that the Son is exalted.

References above marked “Moloney” are to Francis J. Moloney SDB, The Johannine Son of Man, Second Edition (Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1978/2007).
Those marked “Brown” are to Raymond E. Brown, S.S., The Gospel According to John (XIII-XXI), Anchor Bible [AB] Vol. 29A (1970).

 

“Who Is This Son of Man…?”: Johannine Sayings (Jn 12:34)

John 12:34

The final Johannine “son of man” reference to be examined is in 12:34, which happens to be part of the same Discourse (vv. 20-36) in which the saying of v. 23 occurs (see the previous study). It is worth noting again the three-part structure of this Discourse (following the narrative introduction, vv. 20-22):

    • Unit 1 (vv. 23-26):
      • Saying by Jesus (v. 23)
      • Exposition (v. 24-26)
    • Unit 2 (vv. 27-30)
      • Saying by Jesus (vv. 27-28)
      • Response (v. 29)
      • Exposition (v. 30)
    • Unit 3 (vv. 31-36a)

According to the type-pattern of the Johannine Discourses, the audience’s response to Jesus’ saying reflects a lack of understanding (or misunderstanding) regarding the true meaning of his words. For the saying of the final Discourse-unit (vv. 31-32, discussed in the previous study), the response comes in verse 34. The hearers are responding principally to the statement in v. 32, and the response is preceded by a comment by the Gospel writer (v. 33):

“And I, if I should be lifted high out of the earth, I will drag all (people) toward myself.”
Now he said this, signaling by what sort of death he was about to die.

The Gospel writer makes clear that the saying in v. 32 refers to Jesus’ impending death, by crucifixion—being ‘lifted up’ on the cross. The audience’s response comes in v. 34; however, it becomes apparent that, within the literary context of the Discourse, the people are responding, not only to the saying in v. 32, but also to the earlier “son of man” saying in v. 23. It should be remembered that the saying in v. 23 is the central/principal saying for the Discourse. Before proceeding to the response, here are the sayings in vv. 23 and 32, placed together:

“The hour has come that the son of man should be given honor [vb doca/zw].”
“And I, if I should be lifted high [vb u(yo/w] out of the earth, I will drag all (people) toward myself.”

Now let us consider the response to these sayings, in v. 34:

Then the throng gave forth (a response) to him: “We (have) heard, out of the Law, that the Anointed (One) remains [me/nei] into the Age; so, how can you say that ‘it is necessary (for) the son of man to be lifted high’? Who is this ‘the son of man’?”

Interestingly, the wording that the people cite actually comes from the earlier “son of man” saying in 3:14 (on which, see the earlier study):

“…so it is necessary [dei=] (for) the son of man to be lifted high [u(ywqh=nai]”

From a literary standpoint, the response here relates to three distinct “son of man” sayings—3:14, 8:28, and 12:23+32—all being quite similar and related in meaning. In each of these, the verb u(yo/w (“raise/lift high”) is applied to “the son of man”. In the Johannine Gospel context, it is clear that these sayings refer to the exaltation of the incarnate Son (Jesus), a process that begins with his death. But how does the Gospel writer present Jesus’ original hearers as understanding the matter?

To begin with, the audience makes mention of “the Anointed (One)” (that is, the Messiah), even though no such reference was made by Jesus in the Discourse. This has led some commentators to assume that, at least on the historical level, the crowd understood the expression “the son of man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= qeou=) as a Messianic title—a way of referring to the (Davidic) Messiah. Thus, when Jesus says that “the son of man” must be “lifted up” (so as to depart from earth), he is saying that the Messiah must depart. While this does, I think, accurately bring out the fundamental difficulty the people have with Jesus’ words, it is doubtful that “the son of man” should be regarded here as a Messianic title per se. Nothing in the Gospel would suggest this, nor is it readily apparent from any of the Synoptic sayings that were examined in the earlier studies. The only real evidence supporting the idea that, in the early-mid first century A.D., the Davidic Messiah might be referred to as “the son of man” (drawing upon the use of the expression in Daniel 7:13f), comes from the work known as the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71). These references will be discussed in the upcoming supplemental article dealing with the background and influence of Daniel 7:13-14.

A better explanation is at hand, based on the literary context of the Discourse—namely, the connection with the historical tradition (of Jesus’ Triumphal Entry) narrated in vv. 12-19. There, crowds acclaimed Jesus as the royal/Davidic Messiah (“the one coming”, “the king of Israel”, v. 13), and it would seem that “the Greeks” who wished to meet with Jesus (vv. 20-22) were also motivated by this possibility—viz., that Jesus might, indeed, be the expected Messiah. What seems to have troubled or confused the hearers is the idea that Jesus would soon be departing from the earth. How could he be the Messiah, ushering in the New Age, if he was about to depart (before all of this happens)? While the audience of the Gospel would recognize a reference to Jesus’ death in the use of the verb u(yo/w (and the verb doca/zw), it is not at all clear that Jesus’ hearers (at the historical level) would have made such a connection. They might have understood it more in terms of an exaltation (to heaven), though the motifs of suffering and or death/dying are clearly present in the Discourse (vv. 24-25, 27), and, from the juxtaposition of vv. 23-24, one could well infer that Jesus was announcing his coming death.

In any case, the people’s response indicates, quite clearly, their expectation that the Messiah would “remain into the Age” —that is, would remain on earth throughout the coming New Age.

The Scripture (“we have heard out of [i.e. from] the Law…”) being referred to here would seem to be Psalm 89:37[36], which, in the Greek version (LXX) reads: “His [i.e. David’s] seed remains into the Age” (to\ spe/rma au)tou= ei)$ to\n ai)w=na menei=). For a more detailed discussion, see the article by W. C. van Unnik, “The Quotation from the Old Testament in John 12,34” (Novum Testamentum 3 [1959], pp. 174-9); cf. also Moloney, pp. 182-3.

If Jesus is the Messiah, how could he “be lifted up”, so as to die/depart from earth, before the New Age is ushered in? This is the essence of their question: “how can you say [pw=$ le/gei$ su/] that ‘it is necessary (for) the son of man to be lifted high’?”. The people seem to understand that Jesus is speaking of himself when he is using the expression “the son of man”; in any case, within the framework of the Discourse, this would be clear from the parallel between v. 23 and 31. In verse 23, the expression “the son of man” is used, while in v. 31, Jesus speaks in the first person (“and I, if I should be lifted high…”). Thus, Jesus is saying that he must depart.

Nevertheless, it is possible that Jesus’ distinctive use of the expression did seem unusual or somewhat confusing to his original hearers. Hellenistic Greek-speakers, in particular, doubtless would have found the Semitic idiom quite strange. In this instance, the people may have wondered if they had misunderstood his use of the expression. Surely he cannot be saying that he, the Messiah, will depart; so, perhaps he is speaking of someone else when he says “the son of man will be lifted up”. This is expressed by the climactic question, which I have also adopted as the title for this series: “Who is this son of man?” (ti/$ e)stin ou!to$ o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou;). A more precise translation might be: “Who is this ‘the son of man’?” —i.e., “Who are you referring to when you say ‘the son of man’?”

The question is the closest the Gospel comes to saying explicitly that Jesus is “the son of man”. Indeed, the question generally follows the pattern of Johannine essential predication. The components of these simple predicative statements are all here: (i) Divine subject, (ii) verb of being, and (iii) predicate noun/phrase:

“Who [ti$] | is [e)stin] | the son of man?”

It can also be formulated according to the demonstrative pronoun ou!to$ (“this”): “Who | is | this…?” The question itself captures the essence of the Gospel—the message regarding who Jesus is. The answer: Jesus is this “Son of man” —that is, he is the incarnate Son of God, sent from heaven (by God the Father).

What of the exposition by Jesus that follows here in vv. 35-36? How does it address the crowd’s response (and their lack of understanding)? As is typically the case in the Discourses, Jesus does not answer their question(s) directly. Rather, his initial answer is by way of illustration:

“(For only) a little time yet is the light with [e)n] you.”

He is effectively telling them: “Yes, it is true that I am soon to depart, and will only be with you a very short time”. Jesus expounds the point in greater detail for his disciples throughout the Last Discourse (13:31-16:33).

As to his identity as the Messiah, and the popular expectation that the Messiah remains here on earth “into the Age”, Jesus, in an allusive and roundabout way, offers a radical re-interpretation of this expectation. For, though he is indeed the Messiah, he is also something more— namely, the “Son of man”, the incarnate Son of God. And, as the incarnate Son, he manifests God the Father (viz., the true Light, cf. 1 Jn 1:5; cp. Rev 21:23-24; 22:5) to people on earth. Yet, this mission on earth only lasts a short time, and it is completed with his death (cf. 19:30). The importance of the mission, and of the Son’s incarnate presence, is here emphasized:

“You must walk about as you hold the light (with you), (so) that the darkness should not take you down—indeed, the (one) walking about in the darkness has not seen where he leads (himself).” (v. 35)

The prominence of the light-darkness dualism in the Johannine writings hardly needs to be stressed; it is established at the very beginning of both the Gospel (1:4-9) and First John (1:5ff). Moreover, Jesus’ identification with the Divine Light is clear throughout—cf. 3:19-21; 8:12; 9:5ff; 11:9-10; 1 Jn 2:8-10. It is not surprising that this would be re-iterated, as a primary theme, here at the close of the first half of the Gospel. Ultimately, Jesus makes clear that the traditional (ethical-religious) metaphor of “walking about” in the light (cf. 1 Jn 1:7) refers here to trusting in him (as the incarnate Son of God). The Discourse concludes with this exhortation:

“As you hold the light, you must trust in the light, (so) that you might come to be sons of (the) light.” (v. 36)

The reference is to believers as the offspring of God (“sons of the Light”, cf. Lk 16:8; 1 Thess 5:5; Eph 5:8); this is a regular theme throughout the Johannine writings, though the expression ui(oi\ qeou= (“sons of God”) is never used, but always te/kna qeou= (“offspring [i.e. children] of God”). Through trust in Jesus (the Son), believers come to be (born as) God’s children. The same light-darkness theme frames the conclusion of the first division of the Gospel (vv. 46-50):

“I have come into the world (as) light, (so) that every(one) trusting in me should not remain [mei/nh|] in the darkness!” (v. 46)

The use of the verb me/nw (“remain, abide”) in this verse alludes back to the same verb in v. 34 (see also v. 24). It is a prominent Johannine keyword, and it virtually always carries a special theological significance. Jesus, the Messiah and incarnate Son of God, does not remain on earth forever (or even into the New Age); rather, it is with God the Father, in union with Him, that he remains. This is so for believers as well. We come into union with God through our trust in Jesus; the union with the Father is realized through union with the Son, and the union with the Son is realized through the Spirit. Like the believer, Son’s “remaining” is spiritual, and does not belong to “this world”.

In the next study, we will bring our analysis of the Johannine sayings to a close, highlighting and summarizing the salient points.

References above (and throughout this series) marked “Moloney” are to Francis J. Moloney SDB, The Johannine Son of Man, Second Edition (Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1978/2007).

“Who Is This Son of Man…?”: Johannine Sayings (Jn 12:23; 13:31, cont.)

John 12:23 & 13:31 (continued)

In the first part of this study, we examined the saying in 12:23 in its literary context—the chapter 12 Discourse of vv. 20-36. In particular, a detailed analysis of the first two Discourse-units (vv. 23-26 & 27-30) was presented. Now we turn to the third (and final) Discourse-unit (vv. 31-36).

The initial saying by Jesus contains two main statements, in verse 31 and 32, respectively. The first statement itself has two related announcements, each beginning with the temporal particle nu=n (“Now…”):

    • “Now [nu=n] is (the) judgment of this world”
    • “Now [nu=n] the chief [a&rxwn] of this world will be cast out”

The saying in the second Discourse-unit (v. 27) also begins with the particle nu=n. This parallelism ties the moment of (eschatological) judgment with the onset of Jesus’ Passion (cf. the discussion on vv. 27-30 in the first part of this study). That is to say, it is with the suffering and death of Jesus that the judgment announced here in v. 31 takes place. Among early Christians, and as reflected in the Gospel Tradition, the Passion of Christ was understood in eschatological terms; but, within the Gospel of John, this has been filtered through the distinctive Johannine eschatology. The Johannine eschatology is rooted in its Christology, and is especially distinguished by its ‘realized’ aspect. End-time events, such as the resurrection and the Last Judgment, are realized already in the present moment, as human beings are confronted with the message of who Jesus is (the Son sent from heaven) and what he has done (the mission for which he was sent). The Son’s mission culminates with Jesus’ death.

The first declaration in v. 31 is a straightforward announcement of the end-time Judgment: “Now is (the) judgment [kri/si$] of this world”. The expression “this world”, utilizing the demonstrative pronoun, is part of the Johannine theological vocabulary—and, in particular, the important theological use of the noun ko/smo$ (“world-order, world”). The expression is not limited to the Johannine writings, as Paul also uses it (and in a similar manner) on a number of occasions—1 Cor 3:19; 5:10; 7:31; 2 Cor 4:4; Rom 12:2; cf. also Eph 2:2. It brings out the negative aspects of the term “world”, emphasizing the wicked/sinful tendencies of human beings (on earth), especially during the end-time period of distress. The expression “this age [ai)w/n]” is virtually synonymous with “this world” in the Pauline writings (1 Cor 1:20; 2:6, 8; 3:18; also Eph 1:21); the usage is traditional, with a decidedly eschatological emphasis, contrasting the current Age, which is coming to an end (1 Cor 2:6; 7:31; cp. 1 Jn 2:17), with the Age to Come.

The negative significance of the word ko/smo$ is even more prominent in the Johannine writings, as we have discussed previously, on a number of occasions. The judgment of the world, at the end-time, is a fundamental tenet of Jewish and early Christian belief (e.g., Acts 17:31; Rom 3:6), etc; but, again, this theme has special theological (and Christological) significance in the Gospel of John. In early Christian thought, the exalted Jesus will play a central role in the Judgment—ushering it in and overseeing it (as God the Father’s representative). Yet, in Johannine thought, the moment of the Judgment has shifted—from the future to the present—and it is realized in the present (cf. above) based on whether or not a person trusts in Jesus as the Son of God. A trust in the purpose of the Son’s mission—and, specifically, of his sacrificial death—is integral to this faith.

The key references dealing with the judgment of the world in the Gospel are: 3:19, 9:39, here in 12:31, and 16:8, 11. In 9:39, Jesus declares that he came into the world for the purpose of judgment (“unto/for judgment [ei)$ kri/ma]”), even though elsewhere he specifically states that he did not come to judge the world (12:47; cf. 8:15f). This apparent contradiction can be explained by Jesus’ words in 12:48, which also relate to the statement in 3:19. It is a person’s failure/refusal to trust in Jesus that ultimately functions as the judge for that person, and brings the judgment.

Those who do not trust in Jesus belong to the world (o( ko/smo$), this world—the current age of sin and wickedness that is fundamentally opposed to God—and they are judged along with the world as a whole. The Son (Jesus) does not belong to this world (8:23; 18:36, etc), nor do those who trust in him, even though they/we may happen to be living in the midst of the world at present (see esp. 15:18-19; 16:33; 17:5-18; 1 Jn 4:4-5, 17; 5:4-5). This principle underlies the teaching by Jesus in 12:25 (see the prior discussion), in its Johannine context.

A central feature of the judgment of “this world” is the judgment of its ruler (or “chief”, a&rxwn), v. 31b. The expression “the chief of this world” occurs twice more in the Johannine Passion narrative, in the great Last Discourse (14:30; 16:11). In 14:30, Jesus announces that “the chief of this world comes [i.e. is coming]”, alluding to the time of darkness and evil that will seem to prevail during his suffering and death (cp. Luke 22:53). However, the apparent dominion of “this world” (and its ruler) during this time is only illusory; the “chief of this world” has no real power over the Son, as is clear from Jesus’ statement “and he holds nothing on me”. Though the expression “the chief of this world” refers principally to the Satan/Devil (“the Evil [one]”, cf. 17:15; 1 Jn 2:13-14; 5:18-19), Jesus’ words apply equally to human rulers such as Pilate (18:36; 19:11). Even before Jesus’ actual death, with the onset of his Passion, the world and its ruler have already been judged. This is expressed by the use of the perfect tense in the climactic statements of 16:11 and 33:

    • “the chief of this world has been judged [ke/kritai]” (v. 11)
    • “…I have been victorious [neni/khka] (over) the world!” (v. 33)

If the statement(s) in 12:31 reflect the negative side of the Judgment—that is, the judgment upon the wickedness (unbelief) of the world—verse 32 gives us the positive aspect:

“And I, if I should be lifted high [u(ywqw=] out of the earth, I will drag all (people) toward myself.”

This is a fundamental declaration of the Son’s exaltation—a dynamic that begins with his death upon the cross. We have seen how a similar reference to Jesus’ death is central to several of the earlier “son of man” sayings—3:14 [study] and 8:28 [study]. It may be worth citing these again here, for comparison:

    • “And, just as Moshe lifted high the snake in the desolate (land), so it is necessary for the son of man to be lifted high [u(ywqh=nai].” (3:14)
    • “when you would lift high [u(yw/shte] the son of man, then you will know that I am…” (8:28)

The same verb (u(yo/w, “lift/raise high”) is used, referring specifically to Jesus’ death on the cross, as an essential part of his exaltation. It is one of two principal verbs used to express this, the other being doca/zw (“give/show honor”), which was used in the “son of man” saying of 12:23 (the central saying of this Discourse, cf. part 1). In context, the verbs are clearly parallel, and largely synonymous—they both express the idea of the Son’s exaltation, which commences with his suffering and death. The Gospel writer uses doca/zw, for this same purpose, in the explanatory comments of 7:39 and 12:16. Other important references occur in the Discourse/narrative settings of 8:54 and 11:4, but these are prefatory, anticipating the usage in 12:23 and 13:31 (see below).

Jesus’ statement that he, when he is “lifted high”, will “drag all (people)” to himself, refers, in a comprehensive manner, to all those who will trust in him; in the Johannine idiom, this can be expressed in terms of “coming to[ward]” the Son (3:20-21; 5:40; 6:37, etc). The use of the verb e(lku/w (“drag, draw”) here has a deterministic implication, which can be seen more clearly by the parallel in 6:44: “No one is able to come toward me, if the Father, the (One hav)ing sent me, does not drag him (there)”. Believers are “dragged” toward the Son, so as to trust in him. In 6:44, it is the Father who does the dragging, while here in 12:32 it is the Son himself who does it. In any case, the statement refers to believers coming to trust in Jesus; once he has been exalted, then all believers everywhere—all those throughout the world—will eventually trust in him.

Following the saying(s) in vv. 31-32, the response of Jesus’ hearers, reflecting their lack of understanding, comes in vv. 33-34. Because of the importance of these verses in connection with the expression “the son of man”, I am devoting a separate study to them. There, verses 35-36, the exposition by Jesus that concludes the Discourse, will also be discussed.

John 13:31

I wish to bring this current study to a close by considering the keystone saying of v. 23 in its relation to the parallel saying in 13:31. First, let us look at these side by side:

    • “The hour has come that the son of man should be given honor [docasqh=|]” (12:23)
    • “Now the son of man is given honor [e)doca/sqh]…” (13:31)

The sayings are quite similar, even though their literary context is quite different. The saying in 12:23, as discussed, represents the central saying of the final Discourse of the first half of the Gospel (the Public Ministry Period); the saying in 13:31, on the other hand, marks the beginning of the great Last Discourse (13:31-16:33) that effectively opens the second half of the Gospel (the Passion Narrative). The Last Discourse is introduced by the narrative of 13:1-30, the Johannine version of the Last Supper scene. The theme of Jesus’ exaltation (death, resurrection, departure to heaven) is established at the very beginning of the narrative (v. 1), utilizing the same motif of the “hour” (w%ra) that features in 12:23.

The dividing line between the Last Supper narrative and the Last Discourse is the departure of Judas (v. 30). With Judas no longer present (note the opening words of v. 31), Jesus is able to give the necessary instruction to his circle of close/true disciples (true believers). The “son of man” saying in verse 31 begins this instruction, in which Jesus prepares his disciples for his impending exaltation/departure. In 12:23, he states that “the hour has come” for the Son to be honored (by the Father), indicating that his exaltation is about to take place. Now, here in 13:31, the exaltation has, in fact, taken place, as indicated by the aorist indicative form of the verb doca/zw (e)doca/sqh); this can be understood in terms of Jesus’ Passion having begun. The saying is introduced by same temporal particle (nu=n, “now…”) as the sayings in 12:27, 31 (see above). It makes clear that the Son’s exaltation has now begun.

There is another important parallel with that earlier passage in the wording of vv. 31-32, which seems to echo 12:28—and the Father’s response (from heaven) to the Son’s request:

    • Son: “Father, give honor (to) your name”
    • Father: “Indeed, I (have) honored (it), and will honor (it) again”

This key principle—that the Father is exalted/honored by the Son’s exaltation—is also expressed here in 13:31-32:

“Now the son of man is given honor, and God is honored in him;
(and) if God is honored in him, (then) He also will honor him in Him, and straightaway will honor him!”

There is a certain textual difficulty in v. 32, as the words in gray (above) are absent from a number of key witnesses (Ë66 a* B C* D L W X P f1 al). While this would normally be a strong indicator that the clause is not original, it is actually easier to explain its deletion (by copyists) rather than its addition. The redundantly repetitive nature of the longer text doubtless would have prompted more than one copyists to delete/omit the offending portion. However, I believe that the longer text is original (and correct), and that it is meant to express the vital principal of reciprocity (as a sign of unity), between Father and Son. Note the chiastic parallelism:

    • The Son is given honor
      • the Father is honored in him
      • the Son will be honored in Him
    • The Father will honor him

The two inner clauses express the idea of unity (and reciprocity), through the shared prepositional expression e)n au)tw=| (“in him”). The extreme awkwardness of the second of these clauses (“God will honor him in Him”) is due to the fact that, as a theological point, God the Father is exclusively the actor, the one who “gives honor”.

The themes of unity and reciprocal relationship, between Father and Son, are extensively developed throughout the Last Discourse (and the Discourse-Prayer of chapter 17). Increasingly, the disciples (believers) are included within this dynamic of unity and reciprocity, with the Spirit (cf. the Paraclete sayings) representing the binding power/presence through which the union is realized. Another theme developed throughout chapters 14-17 is that of honor/exaltation, expressed by the verb doca/zw (and noun do/ca); and, again, the honor shown to the Son is extended to believers as well. Though the vocabulary occurs in 14:13; 15:8; 16:14, it features most prominently throughout chapter 17 (vv. 1, 4-5, 10, 22, 24).

The announcement in 13:31f opens the door for Jesus to give all this instruction to his true disciples (believers). His Passion (suffering and death), marks the completion of the incarnate Son’s earthly mission (cf. 19:30). All teaching that will follow for believers will come through the Spirit.