Category: “Who Is This Son of Man…?”

An exegetical study on the “Son of Man” sayings of Jesus in the Gospels, with a particular focus on their connection, within the Gospel Tradition, on the death and resurrection of Jesus.

“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…?”: Daniel 7:13-14 (Part 2)

In the first part of this study, examining the influence of Daniel 7:13f on the use of the expression “the son of man” in the Gospels, the literary context, background, and interpretation of that passage were surveyed briefly. It remains to consider the evidence regarding the extent of the possible influence. As we have discussed, there are certainly allusions to Dan 7:13f in the Synoptic “son of man” sayings in Mark 13:26 and 14:62 pars, but how does the usage in Dan 7:13 relate to the collection of “son of man” references as a whole?

There are a good number of scholars who view Dan 7:13f as the principal source of influence for the eschatological sayings, if not the entire Gospel usage. However, as support for this view, much depends on whether—or to what extent—Jews and early Christians, in the early-mid first century A.D., would have understood the expression “the son of man” (in Greek or in Aramaic) as a reference to the figure described in Dan 7:13-14. Based on the line of interpretation established by the analysis in Part 1, this means that the expression would refer to a heavenly being who would rule over the kingdom of God (and the “holy ones”) in the New Age. The eschatological setting and focus is clear enough in the context of Daniel, and it certainly seems to have prevailed for the interpretation and application of the passage in the Qumran Community as well (for the influence of Daniel 7 on the Qumran text 4Q246, see Part 1, and my earlier study on this passage). For the Qumran Community, as for early Christians, the eschatological outlook cannot be separated from their Messianic expectations. If “the son of man” is taken to refer to an eschatological figure, who will deliver God’s people (the “holy ones”) at the end-time and rule over the Kingdom of the New Age, then this corresponds quite closely to several of the Messianic figure-types attested among Israelites and Jews during the first centuries B.C./A.D.—including the royal/Davidic figure-type.

If Jesus, and/or the early Christians who made use of the expression “the son of man”, understood it fundamentally as a Messianic reference (or title), based on a Messianic interpretation of Daniel 7:13-14, then one must assume that many readers/hearers of the time would have been expected to understand it in much the same way. What evidence is there for such an understanding of the expression in the first century? It is actually very slight. In spite of the eschatological (and Messianic) significance of the book of Daniel for the Qumran Community, there is no indication that “(the) son of man” was ever used as a Messianic reference. As for other Jewish texts, written during the first centuries B.C./A.D., there are only two—the Similitudes of Enoch and 2/4 Esdras—which make use of the expression in such a way. For scholars who would argue that “the son of man” in the Gospels is likewise rooted in a Messianic/eschatological interpretation of Dan 7:13f, these two writings are essential.

The Similitudes of Enoch

The Similitudes (or Parables) of Enoch refer to chapters 37-71 of the book of 1 Enoch (Ethiopic Enoch). These chapters are not among the portions of 1 Enoch found in the Qumran caves, and scholars are in general agreement that they represent a distinct (and separate) work that was later included in the book of 1 Enoch. The date of the Similitudes, however, continues to be disputed. This is significant with regard to the use of the expression “the son of man”. If the Similitudes are to be utilized as evidence for a Messianic use of the expression “the son of man” at the time of Jesus (and/or among early Christians), then it is more meaningful if the Similitudes are dated to the early- or mid-first century (at the latest).

Most scholars today would date the Similitudes to the first-century A.D., though there is less agreement when attempts are made to narrow this window to a more a precise date. Nickelsburg, in his critical commentary (1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 37-82, Hermeneia [Fortress Press: 2011]), dates it to the late first-century (as does Bauckham, in his “Son of Man”, Volume 1: Early Jewish Literature [Eerdmans: 2023]); however, other commentators prefer an early first-century date. There has recently been a shift toward favoring an early date; this can be seen from the 2005 Enoch Seminar (in which the Similitudes were the focus, with essays published in Boccaccini, Enoch and Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables [Eerdmans: 2007]), and also, for example, in the Charlesworth-Bock collection of essays Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift (T&T Clark Jewish and Christian Texts Series, Bloomsbury: 2013).

Part of the difficulty with judging the relation of the expression “the son of man” to the Similitudes is the language (Ethiopic, Ge‘ez) of the work as it has come down to us. It is generally agreed that the Ethiopic is a translation of, most likely, an Aramaic original, possibly through an intermediary translation in Greek. As it happens, there are three Ethiopic expressions that generally correspond to Aramaic [a]vn[a] rb (or Hebrew <da[h] /b), and which probably represent translational variants of that underlying expression (cf. Bauckham, pp. 32-3):

    • walda sab’ (46:2, 3, 4; 48:2)
    • walda be’esi (62:5; 69:29 [bis]; 71:14)
    • walda ’egwala ’emaḥeyāw (62:7, 9, 14; 63:11; 69:26, 27; 70:1; 71:17).

Interestingly, in all but four of the sixteen occurrences, a demonstrative pronoun is used (viz., “that son of man”)—zekku (46:2; 48:2; 62:5, 9, 14; 63:11) or we’etu (69:26, 29 [bis]; 70:1; 71:17)—or, in one case, “this son of man” (zentu, 46:4); Bauckham, p. 33. The significance of this usage will be discussed (in Part 3); however, it strongly suggests that “son of man” is not being used as a title in the Similitudes—in contrast with the apparent titles “Righteous (One)” and “Elect/Chosen (One)”, cf. below.

The expression “son of man”, in the three Ethiopic variant forms noted above, occurs in two main portions of the Similitudes:

    • In chapters 46-48 (46:2-4; 48:2), part of the Second Parable (chaps. 45-57)
    • In chapters 62-63 and 69 (62:5, 7, 9, 14; 63:11; 69:26-27, 29), part of the Third Parable (chaps. 58-69)

There are also important occurrences in the closing section (epilogue), chaps. 70-71 (70:1; 71:14, 17). As the work progresses, it becomes clear that the “son of man” is to be identified with the heavenly figure otherwise called “(the) Elect/Chosen (One)” and “(the) Righteous (One)”. Those titles— “Righteous” (ṣādeq) and “Elect/Chosen” (—eruy)—connect the heavenly figure with the human people of God: the “righteous (one)s” and “elect/chosen (one)s”. This can be seen clearly in 38:1-2 (for the term “righteous”) and in 39:6ff (“elect/chosen”). The heavenly figure is the ruler and protector of the humans, in the eschatological context of the Judgment. The righteous/chosen ones are also referred to as “holy (one)s”, as in Daniel 7:18, 21-22, 25, 27. There is thus a clear parallel, and close relationship, between the heavenly figure and the community of the righteous/holy ones (on earth); cf. the parallel between the “one like a son of man” in Dan 7:13-14 and the “holy ones” in vv. 22-27.

While allusions to Daniel 7 can be found throughout the Similitudes (cf. the Table in Casey, p. 107 for a list of 32 possible allusions), the specific use of Dan 7:13f is established in 46:1:

“There I saw one who had a head of days,
and his head was like white wool.
And with him was another, whose face was like the appearance of a man;
and his face was full of graciousness like one of the holy angels.”
(Nickelsburg/Hermeneia)

In v. 2, Enoch asks about who this person resembling a human being is, since the presence of a human in heaven is rather unexpected and unusual. Angels are typically described this way, and yet the emphasis throughout the Similitudes is on the human nature of this figure—he is not simply “like a son of man”(Dan 7:13), he is a “son of man”. The significance of this becomes clear in the conclusion (chaps. 70-71), cf. below. Here, Enoch asks “about that [zekku] son of man—who he was and whence he was (and) why he went with the Head of Days”. The answer comes in verse 3:

“This is the son of man who has righteousness,
and righteousness dwells with him,
and all the treasuries of what is hidden he will reveal;
For the Lord of Spirits has chosen him,
and his lot has prevailed through truth
in the presence of the Lord of Spirits forever.”
(Nickelsburg/Hermeneia)

Again, we see emphasized the fundamental characteristics of “righteousness” and of being “chosen” by God. Almost certainly, this terminology derives from the Deutero-Isaian usage, most notably in 42:1 (“Chosen [One]”) and 53:11 (“Righteous [One]”), by way of a well-established Messianic interpretation and application. Daniel 7:13-14 is applied in much the same way. Indeed, the role of this “son of man” in the end-time Judgment is clear from verse 4ff—it is a role that is emphasized even more strongly in chapters 62-63ff (note how 62:2ff alludes to Isaiah 11:2-4ff), being further summarized at the close of the Parables in 69:26-29.

While the punishment of the wicked (i.e., the nations) is given prominence, the role of the “son of man” as ruler/judge also entails the care and protection he provides for the righteous. We find this latter aspect expressed most clearly in chapter 48. This “son of man” (v. 2), the Righteous and Chosen One (see vv. 3-7ff), will protect and deliver the righteous in the time of the Judgment. Here, the “son of man” is also called “(the) Anointed (One)” (v. 10, cf. also 52:4), utilizing the familiar Messianic title—to designate the eschatological judge and ruler, though the Davidic aspect of this figure-type (cp. Psalms of Solomon 17) is downplayed, and scarcely even mentioned by the author.

In the Epilogue (chaps. 70-71), the exaltation of Enoch to heaven is narrated, being described briefly (at first) in 70:1-2, how he was “lifted up”, while he was still living, “into the presence of that [we’etu] son of man and into the presence of the Lord of Spirits”. Later on, at the very close of the work (71:13-17), it is revealed to Enoch that he, himself, is “that son of man” (v. 14, cf. also v. 17) and the Righteous/Chosen (One):

“You (are) that Son of Man who was born for righteousness,
and righteousness dwells on you,
and the righteousness of the Head of Days will not forsake you.”
(Nickelsburg/Hermeneia)

In Part 3 of this study, we shall explore further the interesting parallels between the Similitudes and the Gospel Tradition, regarding this use of the expression “son of man”, and also consider the extent to which the Similitudes (and/or the eschatological thought expressed in them) may have influenced the Gospel usage.

2/4 Esdras

The deutero-canonical work known as 2 (or 4) Esdras can be dated rather securely to the end of the first-century A.D. The core treatise (chaps. 3-14) is a Jewish work, often referred to as “4 Ezra”, probably originally composed in Hebrew (or Aramaic), but which has come down to us today in Latin (and other versions) presumably by way of an intermediary Greek translation. It is the eschatological visions in chapters 11-12 and 13 which are related to Daniel 7. The “Eagle” vision in chaps. 11-12 is explicitly, and consciously, presented as a further interpretation on the four-kingdoms vision in Daniel 7, expounded here in 12:10-39. It is quite clearly a Messianic interpretation (and application) of the vision (12:32ff).

Much the same applies to the vision in chapter 13, of a man who comes up from the sea, just as the beasts came up out of the sea in the Daniel 7 vision (vv. 2-8). In this regard, the Esdras vision represents a reworking of the earlier Daniel vision:

“And I looked, and behold, this wind made something like the figure of a man come up out of the sea. And I looked, and behold, that man flew with the clouds of heaven…” (13:3, Metzger/OTP)

Clearly, this alludes to Dan 7:13, and yet the author/seer has adapted it so that the “one like a son of man” comes up out of the sea, just like the beasts do; having risen from the sea, then he ascends on the clouds of heaven. In the remainder of the vision, the Daniel 7 scenario is supplemented by traditional eschatological references from Daniel 2 and Isa 11:2-4ff (see above), emphasizing this figure’s role in the end-time Judgment.

The interpretation of the vision comes in vv. 21-56; and, again, we see that the Scriptural traditions involved (including Dan 7:13-14) are given a Messianic interpretation (vv. 25ff), while the detail of the man’s coming up out of the sea is explained (rather unconvincingly) in vv. 51ff. There appears to be a certain disconnect between the vision and its interpretation, suggesting that they come from two distinct sources. In any event, the Messiah’s role in the Judgment is prominent—entailing a judgment upon all of the nations assembled together (vv. 37ff). The reference to the Messiah as God’s “son” (“my son”, vv. 33, 37, 52) is probably derived from a traditional Messianic interpretation of Psalm 2:7; indeed, there would seem to be allusions to Psalm 2 (par Isa 11:2-4) throughout the passage.

The use of Daniel 7:13-14 in 2/4 Esdras is quite similar, in a number of respects, to its use in the Similitudes of Enoch (see the discussion above). In each work, the Scripture has been given an eschatological and Messianic interpretation (and application), focusing on the end-time Judgment of the nations. The one “like a son of man” is explained as a Messianic figure, chosen by God, who is revealed at the end-time. His principal role is as the overseer of the Judgment—bringing punishment on the wicked (nations), but also protecting and delivering the righteous (people of God).

The distinctive element in the Similitudes is the identification of Enoch—an exalted human being (“son of man”)—with the heavenly/Messianic figure. Interestingly, while the motif of the “son of man” coming up from the sea (to heaven) in 2/4 Esdras 13 could be explained in a similar way—viz., as the exaltation of a human being—the interpretation in vv. 51ff does not follow this line at all, opting instead for a rather banal (and unconvincing) interpretation of the “sea” (v. 52). One suspects that the author/seer of the original vision (vv. 1-13) may have had something different in mind. In any case, the motif of a human being (“son of man”) exalted to heaven, so as to become “the/that son of man”, is obviously relevant to the Gospel Tradition, and to the early Christian understanding of the implications and consequences of Jesus’ exaltation. This will be discussed further in Part 3.

References above marked “Casey” are to Maurice Casey, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (SPCK: 1979).
Those marked “Bauckham” are to Richard Bauckham, “Son of Man”, Volume 1: Early Jewish Literature (Eerdmans: 2023).
Those marked “Nickelsburg” are to George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of Enoch Chapters 37-82, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 2012). “Nickelsburg/Hermeneia” marks the translation of the Similitudes in the Commentary.
“Metzger/OTP” refers to the translation of 2/4 Esdras (4 Ezra) by Bruce M. Metzger in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha [OTP], Volume 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, ed. by James H. Charlesworth, Anchor Bible Reference Library [ABRL] (Doubleday: 1983), pp. 517-60.

 

“Who Is This Son of Man…?”: Daniel 7:13-14 (Part 1)

The Influence of Daniel 7:13-14

When it comes to the use of the expression “the son of man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= qeou=) in the Gospels, perhaps no issue has been so vigorously debated among New Testament scholars as the influence of Daniel 7:13-14. The matter has been addressed at a number of points in these studies. There can be no doubt that there are allusions to Dan 7:13f in the sayings of Mark 13:26 and 14:62 pars (see the earlier study), but the extent to which the (Aramaic) use of the expression (in Daniel) influenced the Gospel Tradition in this regard continues to be much disputed. Some scholars believe that the entire Gospel usage of the expression is inspired by Dan 7:13f. More common is the view that the eschatological “son of man” sayings, as a whole, stem from that Scripture tradition—whether the appropriation is viewed as coming from Jesus himself (in authentic sayings), or as an interpretive creation by early Christians. Before proceeding with an analysis of the evidence for the influence of Dan 7:13f on the “son of man” sayings, it will be worth examining briefly the Scripture passage itself, in its literary context. (The following section is an adaptation of a supplemental study in the earlier series “Yeshua the Anointed”.)

Background and Interpretation of Daniel 7:13-14

Dan 7:13-14 holds a central place in chapter 7 of the book of Daniel (for the structure of the chapter, cf. below). It is part of the heavenly Throne-vision in vv. 9-12, similar to other such visions in the Old Testament and Jewish tradition—1 Kings 22:19ff; Isaiah 6; Ezekiel 1; 3:22-24; 10:1, cf. also 1 Enoch 14:18-23; 60:2; 90:20, etc (Collins, p. 300). The throne is said to have wheels, and thus is to be understood as a chariot-throne, which draws upon ancient Near Eastern mythic imagery, associated with heavenly/celestial phenomena—i.e. the fiery chariot of the sun, etc—and the divine powers which control them. For chariot imagery related to God and Heaven in the Old Testament, cf. 2 Kings 23:11; Psalm 68:17; 104:3; Isa 66:15; Jer 4:13; Ezek 1:15-21; 10:2. The idea of God’s chariot-throne would play an especially important role among the Jewish visionary mystics of the Merkabah/Hekhalot tradition.

Interestingly the text of verse 9 reads “the thrones [pl. /w`s*r=k*] were set [lit. thrown, i.e. into place]”, and there is some question as to the use of the plural here. It probably should be taken as indicative of the setting—the heavenly Council or Court. In ancient Near Eastern (Canaanite) tradition, the high deity °E~l (generally identified with YHWH in the Old Testament) presides over the Council of the gods; in the context of Israelite monotheism, the “gods” (°¢lîm/°§lœhîm) are created heavenly beings (i.e. Angels) who sit in the Council—Psalm 82:1; 89:7; Job 1:6, etc. For an elaborate description of the Angels surrounding the chariot-throne of God, cf. the so-called “Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice” (4Q400-407, 11Q17) from Qumran (discussed in an earlier study), esp. 4Q405 frags. 20, 23 (11Q17 cols. 7-10); and in early Christian tradition, note Matt 25:31, as well as the (Christian?) corollary of human beings on the thrones surrounding God/Christ (Matt 19:28; Rev 4:2ff; 20:4). Cf. Collins, p. 301.

On the throne is seated the /ym!oy qyT!u^ (±attîq yômîn), usually translated as “(the) Ancient of Days”, with the adjective qyT!u^ understood (on the basis of its cognates in Hebrew) as “advanced”, either in the sense of age or of prominence and wealth (majesty, etc). This image is likely drawn from the mythic-religious tradition of depicting the high God °E~l as an elderly patriarch (with long white/grey beard), though here it has been adapted to traditional Israelite visionary images of the glory of God (El / YHWH)—Exod 24:9-11; 1 Kings 22:19ff; Isa 6:1-5; Ezek 1. Verse 9b-10a vividly depicts the divine figure seated on his fiery chariot-throne, with countless multitudes (of heavenly beings) serving him. The vision scene in 1 Enoch 14:15-23 provides an interesting comparison.

From verses 11-12 it is clear that the Heavenly Council is also the Court, with God ruling as Judge (Psalm 82, etc). Judgment is brought against the Beasts of the earlier part of the vision (vv. 2-8, cf. below)—a sentence of death is pronounced and executed against one Beast (the fourth), while the others are stripped of their kingdoms but allowed to live for a time. It is in this context that verses 13-14 must be understood:

“and, see!—with the clouds of the Heaven(s), (one) like a son of man [vn`a$ rb^K=]…”

This figure comes near and approaches the “Ancient of Days”, and is given authority/rule (/f*l=v*), honor/glory (rq*y+), and (a) kingdom (Wkl=m^), so that “all the peoples, nations and tongues [i.e. languages] would serve him”. The question as to the identity of this “(one) like a son of man” has long vexed commentators, leading to a variety of interpretations, some more plausible than others. In terms of the original context of the vision in the book of Daniel, I would suggest three basic possibilities regarding this figure:

    1. Symbolic—he represents the Kingdom of God or the people of God (and their dominion)
    2. Real, but archetypal—i.e. he is the heavenly archetype of humankind (“son of man”), specifically the righteous/holy ones (people of God)
    3. Real, and personal—he is a real heavenly being, an Angel such as Michael who represents the people of God, supporting and protecting them, etc.

Sound arguments can be made for each of these:

1. The symbolic view is supported by the structure of the passage (chapter 7) itself, where the “(one) like a son of man”, and the kingdom he receives, is set parallel with the people of God (and they kingdom they receive), cf. below. Also, this figure resembling a human being is clearly meant as a contrast with the four “beasts” of vv. 2-8; since they are taken to represent four earthly kingdoms (in their savagery and violence), it is logical that the human being likewise represents the kingdom of the people of God.

2. The same parallelism could just as well be interpreted in an archetypal sense—that the heavenly “son of man” is the type/pattern for the righteous/holy ones on earth. This certainly seems to be the way that Daniel 7 was expounded and interpreted in the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71, see the discussion below), and also, to some extent, by the Qumran community (cf. below).

3. It is the third view, however, which seems best to fit the immediate context and thought-patterns in the book of Daniel. Angels are prominent in the second half of the book, and are generally depicted in human terms (Dan 8:15; 9:21; 10:5; 12:5-7; cf. also 3:25), as they often are elsewhere in the Old Testament (Gen 18:2; Josh 5:13; Judg 13:6, 8, 16; Ezek 8:2; 9-10; Zech 1:8; 2:5, cf. Collins, pp. 306-7). A specific identification with the chief Angel (Archangel) Michael is possible, given his comparable role and position in Dan 12:1 (cf. also 10:13, 21). The “(one) like a son of man” should probably be understood as a real heavenly being, at least similar to an (arch)Angel such as Michael. This does not eliminate the parallelism or corollary with the people of God, as is clear enough by the evidence from Qumran (on this, cf. below).

Before proceeding, it may be helpful to examine the structure of Daniel 7 in outline form:

    • V. 1: Narrative introduction/setting
    • Vv. 2-14: The Vision of the Four Beasts
      • The Four Beasts (vv. 2-8)
      • The Ancient of Days who presides in Judgment over the Beasts (vv. 9-12)
      • The Son of Man who receives the everlasting kingdom/dominion (vv. 13-14)
    • Vv. 15-27: The Interpretation of the Vision
      • Basic outline/explanation: Four Kingdoms (vv. 15-18)
      • The Kingdom of the Fourth Beast (vv. 19-25)
      • Judgment and the Kingdom of the People of God (vv. 26-27)
    • V. 28: Conclusion

Verses 13-14 and 26-27 are clearly parallel in several respects:

    • Judgment in the Heavenly Court (vv. 9-12, 26)
      • Kingdom taken away from the Beast(s)
    • Everlasting Kingdom/Dominion
      • Given to the “one like a son of man” (vv. 13-14)
      • Given to the “people of the Holy Ones of the Most High” (v. 27)

Interestingly, we find the same basic paradigm, it would seem, in the Pseudo-Daniel (Aramaic) text 4Q246 from Qumran, which was certainly influenced by Daniel 7.

An important point lies in the way that heavenly and human beings are united in the term “holy ones” (Heb. <yvdwq, Aram. /yvydq). Although a few instances are uncertain or disputed, the majority of occurrences of the plural “holy ones” in the Old Testament would seem to refer to heavenly beings—Deut 33:2; Psalm 89:5, 7; Job 5:1; 15:15; Dan 4:17; Zech 14:5, and cf. also the LXX of Exod 15:11. The only clear instances where “holy ones” refer to human beings (on earth) are in Deut 33:3 (cf. the parallel with verse 2); Psalm 16:3; 34:10. Especially significant is the usage in the Qumran texts, which in many ways are close to the eschatological/apocalyptic imagery and thought-world of Daniel, and, indeed, were certainly influenced by the book. The Qumran Community saw itself as connected with the Angels—the holy/righteous ones on earth, corresponding to the Holy Ones in Heaven; this was a key aspect of their self-understanding, in particular, of their eschatological role and identity. Indeed, they referred to themselves as “congregation of the holy ones”, and in 1QM 10:10; 12:7; 1QH 11:11-12 we find the very expression (“people of the holy ones”) as in Dan 7:27; note also the variant formula “holy ones of the people” (1QM 6:6; 16:1). On the relation between the Community and the Angels, and their inter-connection, cf. especially in the War Scroll (1QM 12:7, etc), passages in the Rule documents (1QSa 2:8-9; 1QSb 3:25-26; 4:23-25), and in the Hymns (1QH 3:21-22; 4:24-25; 11:11-12). For these and other references, cf. Collins pp. 313-7.

In the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71), which may well be contemporary with Jesus and the earliest Gospel tradition (see Part 2 of this study), there is an equally clear, and (in some ways) even more precise correspondence between the holy/righteous ones on earth and in heaven—1 Enoch 39:5; 47:2; 51:4, etc. It is indicated that their true nature and position will be revealed at the end-time Judgment (1 En 38:4-5). The Son of Man is their ideal/archetypal heavenly representative (the Righteous One, the Elect One); in the concluding chapters 70-71, we see how Enoch himself, as the first human being to be raised to heavenly status, is identified with this Son of Man, apparently merging/assimilating with him in some way.

What of the traditional interpretation of the “one like a son of man” with the Messiah in Jewish thought? Apart from the possible example of 4Q246 from Qumran, this association does not seem to have been clearly formed until the 1st century A.D. In the Similitudes of Enoch, the Son of Man figure, certainly inspired by Daniel 7, is specifically called “(the) Anointed One” (1 En 48:10; 52:4); cf. also the context in 2/4 Esdras 13 (late 1st-century A.D.). The Messianic interpretation came to be the dominant view in Rabbinic literature (b. Sanh. 89a; Num. Rabbah 13:14, et al); even the plural “thrones” in Dan 7:9 could be understood in this light (one throne for God, one for the Messiah), as traditionally expressed by R. Akiba (b. Chag. 14a; b. Sanh. 38b).

In the second part of this study, we shall examine in more detail the possibility that the expression “the son of man” could, at the time of Jesus, have been understood as a Messianic reference, and might have been applied to a Messianic figure (such as Jesus) as a shorthand title, referring specifically to the heavenly figure (“one like a son of man”) in Dan 7:13f

References marked “Collins” above are to John J. Collins’ commentary on Daniel in the Hermeneia series (Fortress Press: 1993), esp. pages 299-323.

“Who Is This Son of Man…?”: Hebrews 2:6

Hebrews 2:6

The final New Testament “son of man” reference (in Hebrews 2:6) is perhaps the most interesting, in that it returns to the original meaning (and background) of the Semitic idiom that underlies the Greek expression (o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou). As we saw in the previous study, three of the four occurrences of the expression (Rev 1:13 [in connection with v. 7]; 14:14; Acts 7:56) outside of the Gospels are still basically dependent upon the Gospel Tradition (spec. the sayings in Mark 13:26; 14:62 par). The occurrence here in Hebrews 2:6 is not directly influenced by that usage; and yet, a strong argument can still be made that the author still has the Tradition in view.

The author of Hebrews draws extensively upon the Scriptures, and quotes from them frequently. Indeed, the entire line of theological (and Christological) argument in Hebrews is expressed in terms of Old Testament tradition. It is thus no surprise that the “son of man” reference occurs in a quotation from Scripture (Psalm 8:5-7 [4-6]), in vv. 5-8ff. Psalm 8 (see my earlier study) is a hymn of praise to YHWH, possessing a relatively straightforward structure: an opening strophe (praising YHWH), followed by a cosmological section dealing with the created order (in two parts), closing with a refrain that repeats the first line of the hymn. It may be outlined as follows:

    • A strophe, or trope, praising YHWH the Creator—v. 2-3a [1-2a]
    • Cosmological section: YHWH in relation to the created order—vv. 3b-9 [2b-8]
      • The dominion of Humankind over Creation vv. 6-9 [5-8]
    • Closing refrain praising YHWH—v. 10 [9]

The lines quoted in Heb 2:6-8 are from the two parallel units, dealing with the dominion of YHWH and humankind, respectively, over creation. Here is how I have translated vv. 3b-5 [2b-4]:

“You established a strong(hold) in response to your hostile (foe)s,
to put an end to (every) enemy and avenging (one),
for I see your heavens, (thing)s made (by) your fingers—
moon and stars which you set firmly there—
(but) what (is) man(kind) that you would remember him,
and (the) son of man, that you would attend to him?”

There are three couplets in this stanza, and each couplet represents a distinct aspect of Creation (cf. the exegesis in my earlier study). The third couplet is the first portion of the Psalm cited by the author of Hebrews. The LXX is a relatively faithful translation of the Hebrew text, and it is followed precisely in Heb 2:6:

ti/ e)stin a&nqrwpo$ o%ti mimnh|/skh| au)tou=
h* ui(o\$ a)nqrw/pou o%ti e)piske/pth| au)to/n;
“What is man, that you would remember him,
or (the) son of man, that you would look upon him?”

Thematically, in the Psalm, the creation of humankind (cf. Gen 1:26ff) is in focus. I understand the question as contrastive—(but then,) what is man…?—the contrast being between the immensity of the heavens and the apparent smallness and insignificance of humankind. If the ancient Israelites could sense this clearly, how much more so we today, whose conception of the universe is so much vaster in scope? The parallelism in this couplet is precise, using the synonymous words vona& (“[hu]man[kind]”) and <d*a* (“man”). The expression “son of man” (<d*a* /B#, Aramaic vn`a& rB^) is simply another way of referring to humankind, frequently used in poetry, and often meant to contrast human beings with God, i.e. in their mortality. For more on this aspect of the expression, see the Introduction to this series.

In the Genesis 1 account, the creation of humankind represents the climax of God’s work, also implied here, and the reference to it serves as a fitting transition to the second section of the Psalm, which deals with the role of human beings in the created order. In particular, as noted above, verses 6-9 [5-8] describe the dominion of humankind over creation, just as vv. 3b-5 describe YHWH’s dominion—human beings functioning in a parallel manner, as God’s representatives on earth. Christians today might be uncomfortable with this notion of human beings exercising dominion over the earth, but it is very much part of the ancient Israelite and Old Testament worldview, and is expressed quite clearly in the Genesis Creation account (1:26-30). Psalm 8 draws from precisely the same traditional thought (if not the actual Genesis 1 text), and vv. 6-9 here virtually restate Gen 1:26-30. Here are the four couplets (8 lines):

“And (yet) you made him lacking (only) a little from (the) Mighty Ones,
and you encircled him with weight and honor;
you made him rule among [i.e. over] (the thing)s made (by) your hands,
(indeed) you set all (of it) under his feet—
sheep and cattle, all of them, and even (all) beasts of the field,
(the) chirpers {birds} of the heavens and swarmers {fish} of (the) sea,
(yes, everything) passing over (the) paths of the seas!”

The lines in bold indicate the portions cited in Heb 2:7-8a.

The first couplet (v. 6 [5]) corresponds with the idea expressed in Gen 1:26-27, of humankind being made in the image/likeness of God (cf. also Gen 3:22). This continues the contrast set up by the question in v. 5 [4]—in spite of the apparent insignificance of human beings within the scope of Creation, YHWH made them lacking only a little (fu^m=) from the “mighty (one)s” (<yh!ýa$, °§lœhîm), referring to divine beings generally. It is not entirely clear how far Israelite monotheism had developed by the time Psalms such as this were composed. Later Israelite and Jewish tradition would relegate all such “divine” beings to the status of God’s Messengers (Angels), and such a view, though not nearly so sharply defined, may already be present here. However, it would be inappropriate to translate <yh!ýa$ here as “Angels” (in spite of the LXX, see below).

Again, the author of Hebrews follows the LXX precisely:

h)la/ttwsa$ au)to\n braxu/ ti par’ a)gge/lou$
do/ch| kai\ timh=| e)stefa/wsa$ au)to/n
*         *         *         *         *         *          *
pa/nta u(pe/taca$ u(poka/tw tw=n podw=n au)tou=
“You made him (only) somewhat less, short alongside (the) Messengers,
and (then) crowned him with esteem and honor;
*         *         *         *         *         *          *
you put all (thing)s in order underneath his feet.”

What is particularly interesting is the way that the author of Hebrews gives to these lines a decidedly Christological interpretation and application. This is wholly in keeping with the author’s use of Scripture throughout the work. The citation of vv. 6[5] & 7[6]b in 2:7-8a clearly relates those two couplets to the exaltation of Christ. Following his death and resurrection, Jesus was exalted to a Divine/heavenly position at the “right hand” of God—a motif which was derived specifically from Psalm 110:1, and used in the “son of man” saying of Mark 14:62 par (cf. Acts 7:55-56). Jesus’ identification as both the Messiah and the Son of God was defined primarily in terms of this exaltation. The royal (Messianic) aspect is certainly present in Ps 8:6[5], especially in the Greek version, with the use of the verb stefano/w (“[to] crown”, from the noun ste/fano$, “wreath, crown”). As for the Divine aspect, it is implied by the comparison to the “Mighty (One)s” (“Messengers”, i.e., Angels, in the Greek). The reference to putting “all things under his feet” would seem to entail both aspects, and also finds its traditional echo in Psalm 110:1.

And yet, through the passage, the author of Hebrews has Jesus’ death primarily in view. This is established only by the interpretation of the Psalm verses that the author gives in verse 9:

“But (as) the one having been made less, (for a) short (time), compared with (the) Messengers, we see Yeshua, through the suffering and the death (he endured), having been crowned (now) with splendor and honor, so that, by (the) favor of God, he might taste death over [i.e. on behalf of] every (one).”

This explains how Jesus could be “less than” the Angels, when his superiority over them had been stated and expounded all throughout chapter 1. A belief in what we would call the incarnation of the Son is clearly implied in Hebrews (note the pre-existence aspect in 1:1-3ff), though this Christological doctrine is outlined less precisely than we find in the Gospel of John (1:14ff, etc). It was as a human being that the Son, though greater than the Angels, was made less than them “for a short time” (note how the Greek braxu/ ti is understood in this temporal sense). The “short time” of his human existence, came to an end with his death; and yet, the author of Hebrew also seems to apply the exaltation of Christ here specifically to his humanity.

The Psalm allows for both aspects—suffering/death and exaltation—to be applied to the Son (Christ) as a human being. This is captured by the expression “son of man” (<d*a*-/B#), paired as it is with vona$ (“[hu]mankind”). In classic theology, these two aspects are referred to as the two “states of Christ” —humiliation (suffering/death) and exaltation.

In our study on the Synoptic sayings, we saw how the expression “the son of man” related to both aspects: the suffering/death of Jesus primarily in the Passion predictions (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33 par), and his exaltation primarily through the saying in Mark 14:62 (and, secondarily, implied in the other eschatological sayings, beginning with Mk 13:26 par). The Johannine sayings combine these aspects in a rather different way, through the distinctive theological vocabulary—esp. the use of the verbs a)nabai/nw (“step up”), u(yo/w (“lift high”), doca/zw (“give honor [to]”); in the Johannine theology, the exaltation of Jesus entails a process that begins with his suffering and death.

Ultimately, however, it is the humanity of Jesus that is principally in view here in chapter 2. In the Gospel Tradition, Jesus, through his use of the expression “the son of man”, is identifying himself with the human condition (including its mortality). This is central to the message of Hebrews here as well, and it informs the author’s use of the expression “son of man” (by way of the Psalm). The point is made abundantly clear in verses 9-10, beginning with the statement: “so that…he might taste death over [i.e. on behalf of] every (one)”.

The Pauline emphasis, on our participation (as believers) in Jesus’ death, is here reversed—viz., the focus is on Jesus’ sharing in our experience of death. As a human being (“son of man”), Jesus experienced the same kind of suffering and death that is common to all human beings. The result of this participation, by Jesus in the human condition is further elucidated in verse 10:

“It was suitable for Him—for [dia/] whom and through [dia/] whom all (thing)s (come to be)—(in hav)ing led many sons into splendor [do/ca], to make complete through sufferings the chief leader of their salvation.”

It is through the sacrificial death (and resurrection) of His Son that God leads (vb a&gw) “many sons” (i.e., believers) into honor/splendor. As part of this process, the Son himself is “made complete” (vb teleio/w) through the sufferings he experienced. The Son is called the “chief leader” (a)rxhgo/$) of our salvation, implying that he is the one, working at God’s behest, who leads us to salvation. This can be understood in the sense that he leads the way for us, through his death and resurrection. Our future resurrection to glory is patterned after Jesus’ own, and is made possible by our participation in his resurrection.

At least as important is the recognition that we all—Jesus and we as believers—alike are God’s offspring, His sons. Thus, in leading us to salvation, the Son (Jesus) understands his kinship to us, and the importance of our being brought to the same honor/splendor which he possesses alongside God the Father. For an exposition of this theme in vv. 11-18, see my earlier study on this passage.

The Son was able to vanquish the power of death by experiencing death himself, by fully possessing the flesh and blood of human beings (and thus the mortality of the human condition, cf. above). This thematic emphasis on freeing human beings from the power of death—Death personified as an enslaving tyrant (and identified with the Devil)—very much resembles Paul’s emphasis (esp. in Romans, cf. chapters 5-7). Even the use of the verb katarge/w (“make [to be] without work [i.e. stop working]”), in v. 14, is thoroughly Pauline—this is one of just two NT occurrences [27] outside of the Pauline corpus (assuming Hebrews was not written by Paul). The apparent Pauline language continues in verse 15:

“…and (that) he might bring them forth (to a) different (place), those who, in fear of death, through all (the time) of their living were (be)ing held in slavery.”

Returning to the expression “(the) son of man”, the occurrence of it in Hebrews is particularly instructive, for several reasons. First, in spite of the profound (and developed) Christological orientation of the work, there is not the slightest suggestion that “the son of man” is meant as anything like a Christological title. While rooted in the Gospel tradition, the author does not even go so far as the “son of man” sayings in the Gospels, but associates it with Jesus only in the most general way, through the use of Psalm 8:5-7 [4-6]. Here, the expression means simply “a human being”; yet, even so, the author would seem to be aware of how Jesus used the expression, within the Gospel Tradition. Certainly, the associations with Jesus’ sacrificial death (via the Passion predictions, etc), and also with his exaltation after his death (Mk 14:62 par, etc) are firmly in view. Beyond this, one may note a similarity with the Johannine sayings, in the author’s implicit interpretation of the expression as a reference to the incarnation of the Son of God.

“Who Is This Son of Man…?”: Acts 7:56; Rev 1:13; 14:14

The Expression “the son of man” in the Remainder of the New Testament

The expression “the son of man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou) occurs just four times outside of the Gospels (compared with 82 in the Gospels). As we shall see, three of these four would seem to be influenced by the Gospel Tradition (esp. the sayings in Mark 13:26; 14:62 par), and can be considered as an extension of the use of this expression in the Tradition. This means that the expression is virtually exclusive to the Gospel Tradition, where it is almost always found on the lips of Jesus. There is little indication that the expression played any role among early Christians as a Messianic or Christological title (it is completely absent from Paul’s letters, for example). Indeed, it appears to have relatively little importance within early Christian theology. This seems to have been the case even in the Johannine churches, in spite of the fact that the expression carries distinctive Christological significance in the Gospel of John (cf. the conclusion to our studies on the Johannine sayings). The expression does not occur at all in 1 John, even though the incarnation (viz., the Son as a human being, “the Son of man”) was, by all accounts, at the heart of the Christological controversy addressed in this treatise (see esp. 4:2 [par 2 Jn 7]).

Broadly speaking, one may consider the Book of Revelation as a Johannine work, produced within the network of Johannine churches. Though it is very different in language, style, and theological emphasis, from either the Gospel or Letters, there are enough common features and points of similarity to suggest a shared cultural milieu and environment. The center of the Johannine Community has often been located in Asia Minor (the region around Ephesus); if this identification is correct, it would correspond to the provenance (and audience) of the Book of Revelation (1:4, 11; chaps. 2 and 3).

Revelation 1:13

The expression “the son of man” occurs twice in the Book of Revelation. The first occurrence is at the beginning of the work, in the first vision (1:9-20). In the description by the author/seer of the divine/heavenly being who speaks to him (“and I turned about to see the voice that spoke with me”, v. 12a), we read:

“…I saw seven golden lamp(stand)s, and, in the midst of the lamp(stand)s, (one) like a son of man [o%moion ui(o\n a)nqrw/pou]” (12b-13a)

It is noteworthy that, even though this figure is clearly to be identified as the exalted Jesus (v. 18, etc), the expression “(the) son of man” is decidedly not used as a title (nor is it in 14:14, see below). This accords with the Gospel usage, as a whole, in light of the Old Testament background of the expression—viz., “son of man” simply means a human being.

Yet this is certainly not an ordinary human being; rather it is the exalted Jesus, who was raised from the dead, and then elevated to a divine/heavenly position at the “right hand” of God (cf. below on Acts 7:55-56). In verse 13, this exalted personage is referenced in the manner of the heavenly figure of Daniel 7:13: “(one) like a son of man” (Aramaic vn`a$ rb^K=). In Greek [LXX & Theod], this is translated w($ ui(o\$ a)nqrw/pou (“[one] as a son of man”); the rendering here in the Book of Revelation, using the adjective o%moio$ (“like, resembling”), is a bit more precise. It makes clear that this heavenly figure resembles a human being (“son of man”). For more on the description in vv. 12-16, cf. my earlier note.

This allusion to Daniel 7:13 is all the more significant given the earlier reference to this passage in verse 7:

“See, he comes with the clouds!—and every eye shall gaze (openly on) him, even the ones who stabbed him, and all the offshoots [i.e. tribes/clans] of the earth shall beat (themselves) over him.”

The phrase “he comes with the clouds” (e&rxetai meta\ tw=n nefelw=n) alludes to the descriptive wording in Dan 7:13: “with (the) clouds of the heavens, (one) like a son of man was coming…” The peculiar Aramaic periphrastic verbal expression “was coming” (hw`h& ht@a*) is translated in the LXX by an imperfect form of the verb e&rxomai (“come”), h&rxeto (“was coming”)—suggesting a regular or continual action. Here in Rev 1:7, a present tense form is used (e&rxetai, “he comes”), implying an impending action (in the present). Our author also follows the Theodotion version, by rendering the preposition <u! (“with”) by the corresponding meta/ (“with”); the LXX has e)pi/ (“upon”), which is also used in 14:14 (cf. below).

It is all but certain that the author of the book of Revelation did not draw upon Dan 7:13f independently; rather, he inherited it from the Gospel Tradition. In particular, there are two Synoptic “son of man” sayings by Jesus (Mk 13:26; 14:62 par) which clearly refer to Dan 7:13f. Some scholars would see Dan 7:13f as the inspiration for all of the “son of man” sayings (or, at least all of the eschatological sayings). I will discuss the possible influence of the Daniel passage in a supplemental study. For now, I will limit any possible influence on the Book of Revelation to the Synoptic sayings in Mk 13:26 and 14:62 (discussed in an earlier study). Of these two sayings, the one in Mk 13:26 (part of the ‘Eschatological Discourse’ of chap. 13) is more straightforward in contextual meaning, but also more difficult when judged at the historical level. In context, it clearly refers to the ‘second’ coming (parousia) of Jesus—viz., the end-time appearance of the exalted Jesus, which will usher in the Judgment.

It is this same eschatological orientation which informs the allusions to Dan 7:13 here in Rev 1:7 and 13. The author/seer is unquestionably referring to the end-time appearance (on earth) of the exalted Jesus. Dependence upon the Gospel Tradition in this regard would seem to be confirmed by the fact that both Rev 1:7 and the Matthean version of the Mk 13:26 saying (Matt 24:30) have a combined allusion to Dan 7:13 and Zech 12:10. The quotation of Zech 12:10 in John 19:37, in reference to the crucifixion (‘stabbing/piercing’) of Jesus, allows us to conclude that the book of Revelation likely inherited this dual-reference through the Johannine line of Tradition.

The application of Dan 7:13f to the end-time return (second coming) of Jesus departs from the natural sense of the passage, and reflects an early Christian re-interpretation of the Scripture. In the original Daniel passage, the “one like a son of man” approaches God the Father (the ‘Ancient of Days’) in heaven. This would more naturally apply to the post-resurrection exaltation of Jesus, rather than his subsequent return to earth. Indeed, the use of Dan 7:13f in Mark 14:62 par would seem to have Jesus’ exaltation (to the right hand of God in heaven) as the saying’s primary point of reference. For more on this, see the discussion of Acts 7:55-56 below.

Revelation 14:14

Both aspects of the Dan 7:13f reference—exalted position in heaven and end-time appearance (at the Judgment)—as applied to Jesus, would seem to be present in the second occurrence of the expression, in 14:14. Unquestionably, vv. 14-20 provides a short but vivid (and intense) vision of the end-time Judgment, corresponding generally to the climactic section of the Eschatological Discourse (Mark 13:24-27 par). In both uses of the Gospel Tradition, the exalted Jesus is identified with the Danielic “one like a son of man”, coming in the clouds. Here is how the introduction to the vision of 14:14-20 reads:

“And I saw, and see—a white cloud! And upon the cloud was sitting (one) like a son of man [o%moion ui(o\n a)nqrw/pou], holding upon his head a golden wreath, and in his hand (was) a sharp plucking-tool.” (v. 14)

The time of harvest (reaping, qerismo/$) was a natural image for symbolizing the end of the current Age (and the end-time Judgment). It occurs a number of times in the teaching of Jesus and elsewhere in the New Testament—Matt 3:12 par; 13:30, 41-43 [cp Mk 13:27 par]; cf. also Mk 4:29; Matt 9:37-38 par; Jn 4:35; James 3:18. This eschatological harvest-imagery is largely derived from the motif as it occurs in the Prophets (e.g., Isa 24:13; Jer 50:16; 51:33); here the reference is principally to Joel 3:13ff (cf. also Isa 5:7). For more on vv. 14-20, see my earlier note.

Acts 7:56

If the references in Rev 1:7, 13 and 14:14 refer primarily to the eschatological tradition in Mark 13:26 par, the “son of man” reference in Acts 7:55 clearly refers to the tradition in Mk 14:62 par. Indeed, the author of Luke-Acts is drawing an intentional parallel between Jesus’ saying (Lk 22:69, during his interrogation before the Sanhedrin) and the visionary utterance of Stephen (Acts 7:55-56, also in the context of a Sanhedrin interrogation, 6:12-7:1ff). It is worth comparing these specifically; first, let us consider the Lukan version of the “son of man” saying:

“But from now (on), the son of man shall be sitting at the right (hand) of the power of God” (Lk 22:69)

There are several key differences between this Lukan version and the core Synoptic Tradition (Mk 14:62 par). Most notably, the Lukan version has essentially removed (or does not include) any detail that could be taken as a reference to the end-time return of the exalted Jesus. There is no mention of people (spec. members of the Sanhedrin) seeing the “son of man”; likewise, there is no mention of his “coming” (vb e&rxomai). The Lukan author has clearly shaped the tradition so that it refers only to the exaltation of Jesus (after his death and resurrection). The eschatological aspect of the second coming (Mk 13:26, par Lk 21:27) is retained by the Gospel writer, but only in the context of the Eschatological Discourse.

In the framework of Luke-Acts, the saying in Lk 22:69 functions strictly as a prophecy of Jesus’ exaltation, the fulfillment of which is confirmed by the vision in Acts 7:55f. Jesus has been raised and has ascended to heaven (1:9-11), and the first missionary preachers have declared that he is now at the “right hand” of God in heaven (2:33-34; 5:31), but Stephen’s vision provides eye-witness testimony in confirmation of this fact. The vision comes in 7:55:

“…full of the holy Spirit, (hav)ing stretched (to look) into the heaven, he saw (the) splendor [do/ca] of God, and Yeshua standing at (the) right (hand) of God”

There is actually no particular allusion here to Dan 7:13f; rather, it is Psalm 110:1 (cf. my earlier study on this reference), understood among early Christians as a prophecy of Jesus’ exaltation (cf. Acts 2:34-35; Heb 1:13), that is primarily in view. The reference to Dan 7:13f comes with the use of the expression “the son of man” in the utterance by Stephen, in v. 56:

“and he said: ‘See! I am looking at the heavens opened throughout, and (at) the son of man standing at (the) right (hand) of God!”

It is from this exalted position (alluded to in Rev 14:14, see above), that Jesus will return to earth (cf. Acts 1:11), to gather up the righteous (believers), and to usher in the Judgment (10:42; 17:31). In this regard, both the book of Acts and the book of Revelation, are closely following the Gospel Tradition. The “son of man” sayings in Mk 13:26 and 14:62 par are a key part of this Tradition and contain cornerstone teachings for the early Christian eschatology. It is one of the few aspects of Jesus’ use of the expression that was retained by first-century Christians (outside of the Gospels), largely because of the eschatological importance of Daniel 7:13 (and the book of Daniel as a whole).

“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.

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

John 12:23 & 13:31

This study deals with the final (climactic) “son of man” sayings by Jesus in the Gospel of John. These sayings are parallel, and closely related:

“The hour has come that the son of man should be given honor”
e)lh/luqen h( w%ra i%na docasqh=| o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou
(12:23)
“Now is the son of man given honor…”
nu=n e)doca/sqh o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou
(13:31)

Let us consider the literary context of the first saying. It occurs in the final Discourse of the first division of the Gospel (chapters 2-12), covering the period of Jesus’ public ministry. This Discourse (12:20-36) is based on the preceding narrative of vv. 1-19, and the historical traditions contained therein. In this regard, the chap. 12 Discourse resembles those of chaps. 5 and 6, each of which is prefaced by an extensive historical tradition, resembling episodes found in the Synoptic Gospels. In this instance, the traditions contained in vv. 1-8ff and 12-15ff have parallels in Mark 14:1-9 par and 11:1-10 par, respectively. The main difference is that, in the Synoptics, these two episodes occur at the beginning of the second half of the Gospel (the Jerusalem Period), while in John they occur at the end of the first half (the Public Ministry Period).

The main components of the narrative (in vv. 1-19) which relate to the Discourse are: (i) the Passover setting (v. 1), (ii) the allusions to Jesus’ upcoming death (vv. 7, 9-10), and (iii) the crowds that went out to meet Jesus (vv. 12ff, 17-19). The first and third of these, in particular, inform the narrative introduction to the Discourse (vv. 20-22). The “Greeks” refer to Greek-speaking Jews from the Hellenistic (Greco-Roman) nations and territories who were in Jerusalem for the celebration of Passover.

Or, alternatively, the reference may be to ethnic non-Jews (Gentiles) who have adopted a Jewish religious identity (i.e., proselytes or ‘godfearers’). The use of the same term e%llhn (plur. “Greeks”) in 7:35 would tend to favor this interpretation, which is also preferred by the majority of commentators (cf., Brown, p. 466; von Wahlde, p. 544). In either case, the principal symbolic allusion is to the advent of the early Christian mission into the Jewish Diaspora and the Greco-Roman world.

Like the people who came out to meet Jesus upon his entry, these foreign Jews (or proselytes) also desire to meet him. This is expressed in Johannine theological terminology, using the idiom of seeing Jesus: “We wish to see [i)dei=n] Yeshua” (v. 21). It also involves some typical Johannine wordplay—specifically the dual-meaning of the sight-motif, discussed in the previous study (on 9:35). On the surface, the group’s request refers to ordinary physical sight, lit. to see Jesus with their eyes; however, at the deeper (theological) level of the Discourses, “seeing” refers to trust in Jesus as the Son of God. The interest expressed by these Greek-speaking (Hellenistic) Jews thus alludes to such foreign Jews (and Greeks) as might come to trust in Jesus—anticipating the early Christian mission into the surrounding nations (cp. the symbolism of the cosmopolitan festal setting in Acts 2).

Every Johannine Discourse begins with a principal saying by Jesus; in this case, it is the “son of man” saying in verse 23:

“The hour has come that the son of man should be given honor.”
e)lh/luqen h( w%ra i%na docasqh=| o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou

In the Discourses, the principal saying is followed by a sequence, with some variation (including repetition of the pattern), consisting of: (1) a response by Jesus’ hearers, demonstrating a lack of understanding; and (2) an exposition by Jesus, in which he explains further the true meaning of his words. The chapter 12 Discourse, like the more expansive chap. 6 (Bread of Life) Discourse, may be divided into three discourse-units:

    • 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)

Each unit builds upon the one prior, further elucidating it. The chief exposition of the initial saying (v. 23) is in verse 24, clearly relating the “son of man” saying to the impending death of Jesus:

“Amen, amen, I say to you (that), if the kernel of the grain should not, (hav)ing fallen into the earth, die off, (then) it remains alone; but if it should die off, (then) it bears much fruit.”

The implication is that the death of Jesus will have a life-producing, fructifying effect, as he becomes the source of new life, just like the seed-kernel of grain that is put into the ground (death/burial motif). This natural agricultural image is fully in keeping with the known parables and illustrations of Jesus. However, it is noteworthy that, elsewhere in the Gospel of John, the fruit-bearing motif is applied to the ministry activity of Jesus’ disciples (believers)—see the context of 4:36, and throughout the Vine-illustration of chap. 15 (vv. 2, 4-5, 8, 16). The same application is made here, with the sayings on discipleship that follow in vv. 25-26. The use of the Johannine key-verb me/nw (“remain, abide”), in v. 24, is significant in this regard. The seed that does not ‘die off’, by going into the ground, remains [me/nei] alone. Normally, in the Johannine writings, this verb is used of the union of believers with the Son (Jesus); here, however, the opposite is indicated—the seed is not united, but remains separated (cp. the verb in 9:41). One should compare the agricultural imagery in the Vine-illustration, where the verb me/nw occurs 11 times. The contrast is between the branch/tendril that is united with (“remains in”) the vine-stock (of the Son), and the one that is not (i.e., “does not remain”).

The implication is that the believer who “remains” in the Son (Jesus) receives and participates in the life-giving power of the Son’s death. The discipleship sayings in vv. 25-26 are traditional, but, in context, they must be understood in light of this Johannine theology. The saying of v. 26, in particular, has been shaped in the Johannine theological idiom. When it comes to the true disciple (that is, the true believer), the one who would serve Jesus and follow him (26a), the promise is given that:

“…where I am [ei)mi e)gw/], there also my servant shall be [e&stai]”

This use of the verb of being, with echoes of Johannine essential predication (esp. the “I am” statements by Jesus), suggests the theme of the believer’s union with the Son of God (and, through the Son, with God the Father). The “where…there” (o%pou…e)kei=) framework (“where I am…there also…”) is used by Jesus a number of times in the Last Discourse (cf. 13:33, 36; 14:3-4; 17:24). The final statement in v. 26 brings the discipleship sayings back in alignment with the “son of man” saying in v. 23:

“if any(one) would serve me, the Father will honor [timh/sei] him”

Just as the Son is honored by the Father, so the one who trusts in the Son (and follows him) will also be honored. The verbs used may be different (doca/zw vs. tima/w), but the thought and meaning is very close.

In light of this initial exposition, how shall we understand the use of the expression “the son of man” (o( ui(o\$ tou= a)nqrw/pou) in v. 23? Like the Passion-predictions in the Synoptic Gospels, the expression is specifically used in the context of Jesus’ impending death. As we discussed, two aspects of the expression’s meaning are relevant in connection with Jesus’ Passion: (i) the expression as a self-reference by Jesus, and (ii) the poetic tradition whereby the expression tends to signify the weakness and limitation (including the mortality) of the human condition. Jesus is specifically identifying himself with the human condition, in this regard.

The Johannine use of the expression, however, as we have seen, is somewhat different, even when used in the context of Jesus’ death. The theological matrix involves the descent/ascent motif, utilizing the verbs katabai/nw (“step down”) and a)nabai/nw (“step up”)—cf. 1:51; 3:13; 6:62. The Son “steps down” from heaven, having been sent to earth by the Father; this entails the incarnation of the Son (1:14), in the person of Jesus. Having completed his mission (culminating in his sacrificial death), the Son then “steps (back) up” to heaven. This latter aspect is also expressed by the verb u(yo/w (“lift up high”)—3:14; 8:28. Within this theological framework, the use of the expression “the Son of man” signifies the incarnate Son, at the junction-point (viz., his earthly mission/ministry) between descent and ascent (cf. the visionary scene in 1:51). The Son possesses the life-giving power, given to him by the Father (cf. the context of 5:27), and this power is given by the Son to those who believe (6:27, 53); it is, in particular, the Son’s death which makes this life available to believers, communicated through the Spirit (cf. 19:30).

When we turn to the second Discourse-unit (vv. 27-30), we find a clearer foreshadowing of the Son’s impending Passion (suffering and death). The temporal particle (nu=n, “now”), which begins the saying in vv. 27-28, refers back to “the hour” in v. 23—viz., the time of Jesus’ Passion is now (it is “this hour”). The wording in the saying is similar to that spoken by Jesus in the garden scene of the Synoptic Passion narrative (Mark 14:34-36, 41 par); there is no comparable scene in the Johannine narrative, but a reference to it may have been ‘transferred’ here by the Gospel writer. From a Johannine theological standpoint, the saying makes clear that this moment of suffering/death is the reason for the Son having come into the world (“…through this [i.e. for this purpose] I came unto this hour”).

Another point of contact with the saying in v. 23 is the use of the verb doca/zw, as Jesus asks: “Father, give honor (to) [do/cason] your name”. The implication is that, by honoring the Son, the Father gives honor to His own name. There is a distinctive name-theology in the Gospel of John, and it relates to the Johannine Christology—that is, Jesus’ identity as the Son of God, sent by God the Father (as His representative). The Son came to earth in the Father’s name (5:43; cf. 12:13), acts in the Father’s name (10:25), and, through his mission, makes the Father’s name known to people (believers) in the world (17:6, 11-12, 26). Thus, when the Son’s mission is complete, and the Father honors him, He gives honor to His own name as well. In verse 28b, the Father responds to Jesus’ request: “I (have) honored (it), and I will honor (it) again!” The verb in the aorist (past) tense is best understood, in a comprehensive sense, as the effect of the Son’s public ministry, prior to his death (cf. 1:14; 2:11; 8:50, 54). This may be represented, specifically, by the Lazarus episode, which both manifested the do/ca of God (11:4, 40), and also foreshadowed Jesus’ own death and resurrection.

The response/exposition portion of this Discourse-unit is rather brief. The people hear the voice of God the Father speaking (v. 28b), but mistake it for the sound of thunder (v. 29), alluding to the theophany at Sinai (Exod 19:19ff). This is typical of the audience’s response, in the Discourses, as reflecting misunderstanding (and/or a lack of understanding). In some ways, this particular response is the ultimate example of their misunderstanding: they did not realize that it was God speaking. The same unawareness can be applied to Jesus’ identity—viz., they did not understand that he is the Son of God, speaking the words of God, and with the authority of God. Those who mistook the voice for that of an angel (Messenger) similarly have misunderstood the situation.

Jesus’ exposition (v. 30) is extremely brief, and functions primarily as a point of transition into the next Discourse-unit (with the saying in vv. 31-32). It expresses the fundamental idea that the manifestation of God (the Father) in the person of Jesus (the Son) is for the benefit of those who will trust in him; the thought is stated more clearly in 11:42, where Jesus’ audible prayer to the Father is “…for the throng standing round about, (so) that they might trust that you [i.e. the Father] (have) sent me forth”.

In the next part of this study, we will examine the final (third) Discourse-unit (vv. 31-36), and will also consider the “son of man” saying in v. 23 in light of the saying in 13:31.

References above marked “Brown” are to Raymond E. Brown, S.S., The Gospel According to John I-XII, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 29 (1966).
Those marked “von Wahlde” are to Urban C. von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John. Volume 2: Commentary on the Gospel of John, Eerdmans Critical Commentary (2010).