JESUS' PREFERRED SELF-DESIGNATION: THE SON OF MAN

by

Teemu Lehtonen, PhD

A research paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of "The Jesus of the Bible and Popular Culture"

DMIN 8213x5

Acadia Divinity College, D.Min. Program Wolfville, NS

2 August 2011 OUTLINE

Introduction......................................................................................................................... 3 Quests for the Historical Jesus............................................................................................ 4 Old Testament and Jewish Apocalyptic.............................................................................. 6 Jesus' Favorite Self-designation........................................................................................ 10 Later "Son of Man" Interpretation and Research.............................................................. 12 Exegesis of Mt.16:13b ...................................................................................................... 16 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 20 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 21

JESUS' PREFERRED SELF-DESIGNATION: THE SON OF MAN

By Teemu Lehtonen Total: 6540 words (incl. references)

Introduction
Jesus' preferred self-designation was "the Son of Man". This is sufficient reason to put some extra effort on the topic. In this paper, the focus will be on the theme "Jesus, the Son of Man" in general, and the discussion in Matthew 16:13-20 in particular.

The text (v. 13-16) reads like this:

13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, Who do people say the Son of Man is? 14 They answered, Some say you are John the Baptizer, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets. 15 He asked them, But who do you say I am? 16 Simon Peter answered, You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God! (Matthew 16:13-16, God's Word)

This is known as "Peter's Confession", and it is an old battlefield like visit to a museum of the US Civil War1. I chose this text because a long time ago I heard a sermon that suggested that Jesus was first polling the disciples about the popular opinion about the identity of the Son of Man (not himself directly), and then queried the disciples' opinion about himself. While there is a multitude of interesting themes in this passage, I was most puzzled with the discrepancy of this passage and parallels in Mark and Luke. In other synoptics Jesus was not discussing the identity of "the popular figure Son of Man", but only himself. Is this an older version of the discussion, which preserves more of the

M. J. Suggs, "Matthew 16:13-20." Interpretation 39, no. 3 (07/01, 1985): 291-5, 291.

4 original material? If so, was the flow of the discussion like that (Matt.16:13-16) because Jesus "the teacher" was facilitating a learning experience which would eventually lead to the disciple's realization of Jesus' true identity?

In this paper, the exegetical part will focus on Matthew 16:13b only, and the overall background study will be on the theme ("Jesus, the Son of Man") in general.

Quests for the Historical Jesus

We will start with the overview of "the historical Jesus" study. In general, it is not an appropriate topic for a historical study to assess whether the Son of Man in Dan.7:13-14 is the Christ indeed. However, we may engage in the study of historical Jesus' selfunderstanding, then apply this to our study question about our text (Matthew 16:13b), and then assess the significance of all this on our theology.

No doubt, Jesus is the central figure in Christianity. Christianity's claim of God's incarnation in Christ is the "scandal of particularity" that is against of the tide of modern liberalism or postmodern pluralism.2 Whenever we aim to create a common ground for all Christians to endorse, Jesus Christ is surely at the center of this enterprise. In theological hermeneutics, Hans Frei's famous classification of "types of theology" is based on two key features in a hermeneutical system: The relationship with philosophy, and the relationship with the literal (sensus literalis) Jesus.3

Since the beginning of the Enlightenment, there have been various quests for the historical Jesus.4 In a way, this started with Immanuel Kant's (1724 1804) moral theology, which took Jesus as a superior moral example and teacher, but not primarily
2

Alister McGrath, A Passion for Truth : The Intellectual Coherence of Evangelicalism (InterVarsity Press, 1996), 122. 3 Hans W. Frei et.al., Types of Christian Theology (Yale University Press, 1992), 2. 4 Summary based on: Jonathan Hill, The History of Christian Thought. 1st ed. (Oxford: Lion, 2003), 211270.

5 the blessed redeemer and risen one anymore. Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768 1834) constructed a new foundation for Christian theology as faith response to proclaimed Jesus, shifting the basis of theology (ontology) to the realm of human "feeling" and experience. Meanwhile, the first modern ("old liberal") quest for the historical Jesus was going on: Everything contrary to modern rationality had to be rejected. Jesus could not possibly be a pre-existent, incarnate God who worked miracles and rose from the grave. Fortunately, this first quest ended with Albert Schweitzer's (1875 1965) ruthless review of the wild Jesus-scholarship that had occurred in the previous century. A. Schweitzer replaced the pictures of the liberal Jesus with his definite portrait of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet.

The second quest was done according to faith-response ontology drawn by Schleiermacher and centered on the apocalyptic Jesus of A. Schweitzer. The central person in the second quest was Rudolf Bultmann (1884 1976), who aimed to create a demystified Jesus. In this quest, historical Jesus was rendered into the fog of mysterious history and replaced by kerygmatic Jesus: The message the early church proclaimed (kerygma) was the key to understanding the Bible and Christian faith. Accordingly, the witness we find in the Gospels was seen predominantly as a construct of the Christian community, but not the trustworthy account of the Galilean Jesus.

The third quest is different in nature. It started in the 1960's, the decade of pop-culture, progress and postmodernism. In this third quest the key features are such things as sensationalism, and hijacking "scholarship" for the cause. The most prominent representative of the third quest is the Jesus Seminar. They advocate minimalist philosophy in establishing the authenticity of Jesus' sayings, but on the other hand are non-critical in their use of late apocryphal and gnostic sources. Preference is given to views that are not compatible with the "Jesus, a Palestinian Jew" view, the traditionally found Jesus of the Gospels. For the Jesus Seminar, the old consensus about Jesus being an eschatological prophet has disappeared5, and new interpretations are abounding. Alan

Marcus J. Borg, A Renaissance in Jesus Studies (Theology Today - Vol 45, no.3 - October 1988), 287.

6 F. Segal says: "It is no longer fashionable among Jesus scholars to maintain that Jesus was a millenialist or an apocalyptic Jew."6

A serious theologian must deal with these quests, especially if one is engaged with a study related to the historical Jesus. While these quests have produced some oddities, modern scientific thinking has also nurtured competent and open-minded scholarship that is both critical and committed to Christian orthodoxy as a presupposition. For some, the quest for the historical Jesus is a pathway to faith that is rooted in historical evidence, as it should be.7

Why is the question about the historical Jesus so compelling? As said above, everything in Christianity is related to Jesus: Our epistemology (basis of our faith, revelation in God's activity and incarnation), God's true nature (theology proper, including the doctrine of the Trinity), theological anthropology (humanity of Jesus), Christology and soteriology in their entirety, ecclesiology (the Church as Jesus' community), and eschatology (message and significance of Jesus in the coming end of the age). No wonder then, in the first five hundred years of Christian thinking the key questions about Jesus were fiercely debated and then settled, and not really opened up until the modern era, the beginning of the quests.

Old Testament and Jewish Apocalyptic

In Old Testament, "son of man" is found in Psalms, Ezekiel and Daniel. In Psalms 8:4 and 144:3 "the son of man" refers to any human - lowly but created by God who cares for him. In Psalm 80:17, "son of man" refers to Israel, as a collective of God's chosen

6 7

Marcus J. Borg, Jesus at 2000 (Westview Press, 1997), 63. 1 Corinthians 15:12-15 (YLT) 12. And if Christ is preached, that out of the dead he hath risen, how say certain among you, that there is no rising again of dead persons? 13. and if there be no rising again of dead persons, neither hath Christ risen; 14. and if Christ hath not risen, then void is our preaching, and void also your faith, 15. and we also are found false witnesses of God, because we did testify of God that He raised up the Christ, whom He did not raise if then dead persons do not rise;

7 people.8 In Ezekiel's day the term "son of man" meant simply "a (child of) man" or "the man", a singular member of class "men". Maybe for that reason, in Ezekiel the title "son of man" refers to the prophet himself. The title appears only after the overwhelming vision of God, and in what follows the prophet - "son of man" - is a humble agent in God's mighty plan.9

In general, the most known image of the Son of man is found in Daniel 7:13-14. Here, in Daniel's apocalypse, the Son of man is a divine figure who receives all power and dominion when God finally intervenes in world affairs. In Daniel the Son of Man is not struggling one, but is glorious and triumphant.10 In summary, the Old Testament use of "Son of man" is as follows:11 In Psalm 8:4 it is used generically for man In Psalm 80:17 it is in the context of vineyard imagery and refers to the nation Israel In Ezekiel it is God's preferred way to address the prophet In Dan.7:13-14 the Son of man is divine, an apocalyptic figure.

In Essene texts the Son of man is not a prominent figure. In general, they refer to Messiah as "Messiah of Aaron and Israel" or the "branch of David".12 Qumran texts prefer "The Son of God" and "the Son of the Most High" when talking about the sonship of the Messiah.

In Jewish apocryphal literature there is one pre-Christian book that deserves special attention. The Book of Enoch (or 1 Enoch) is a collection of apocalyptic texts that were composed between 350 and 50 BC (roughly), and put in the name of the patriarch Enoch

Andrew Blackwood, The Other Son of Man: Ezekiel/Jesus (Baker Book House, 1966), 14. Some commentators point out that Jesus' use of the title was actually close to that of Ezekiel, especially when referred Class B or C sayings (see below). Blackwood, 12. 10 Ibid., 14. 11 The Expositor's Bible Commentary 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Zondervan, 1984), 210. 12 Craig Evans, Holman Quicksource Guide to the Dead Sea Scrolls (B&H Publishing Group, 2010), 255257.
9

8 (Gen.5:18-24).13 In this book the Son of Man is a central figure. He is both human and divine, and clearly parallels not only Daniel's image, but also the Gospel's portrait of Jesus, the Son of man. In The Book of Enoch use of the title "Son of man" is so impressive and frequent that one may ask if Jesus and contemporaries based their image of the Son of man on The Book of Enoch, not Daniel.14 In The Book of Enoch the portrait of the Son of man is as follows: 15

1. He is, in some sense, divine. 2. He is a heavenly being, living with "the Lord of Spirits" (as God is frequently called in Enoch), and with the elect righteous. 3. He is more than a deified man, in that he has always lived on the heavenly plane. 4. Though divine, he is in human form. 5. In some sense he is related to creative power. He was before the world was made, and he will ultimately be Lord over all that is created. 6. In some way he is connected with paradise. 7. His name implies that he is the ideal pattern for human conduct. 8. He lives now with the elect righteous in heaven. 9. In some sense the righteous dead are identified with him. 10. He is wise and understanding. 11. He will re-establish the original perfection of the creation. (In the [etic] language of theology, he is an eschatological figure.) 12. He will be victor in the final struggle against Satan and the evil powers. 13. He is now hidden with the Lord of Spirits. When revealed, he will be seated on his, or God's, throne of glory. 14. He will come with the clouds.
Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison, and John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus in Context (Princeton University Press, 2006), 87. 14 Blackwood, 15-17. According to Blackwood, study of The Book of Enoch suggests that the concept of Son of Man was developed already before the time of the Maccabees, in conjunction with vivid and otherworldly eschatology. 15 Sigmund Mowinckel, He that Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism (Eerdmans, 2005), 346-450. Summary by Blackwood, 16-17. Also briefly in Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels (Eerdmans, 2009), 201.
13

9 15. He is in some way connected with the resurrection. 16. He will judge the world.

In addition to what has been described above, there was a lot of other Jewish eschatological and apocalyptic imagery "floating around" in Jesus' time, but the most important literal work in Jesus' time was The Book of Enoch. Other apocryphal books in the first century A.D. and later were The Ezra Apocalypse and The Baruch Apocalypse, but they emerged in literal form only after the time of Jesus.16

The Son of Man was not the primary messianic figure in Jesus' time, if understood messianically at all. Mainly because of Enoch (and Daniel, of course), the image of apocalyptic Son of Man was somewhat well known to the Jews. In addition to this, the usage of "son of man" (in Aramaic) referring to a person was natural in Jesus' time. Nonetheless, because the learned Jews associated "the Son of man" with "the Son of God", Jesus favorite self-designation lead eventually to his trial and crucifixion.

The increased interest to the Son of man was aroused after Jesus adopted the title for himself and started his ministry. Apparently, the most obvious reason for Jesus to adopt this term was to protect the secret of the Kingdom17 and delay the conflict with the authorities18. He also gradually revealed his identity as "the Son of man" who is "the Son of God". E. Schweizer concludes that "Jesus deliberately employs this ambiguous title to suggest, although not explicitly to define, his divinely-sent mission to proclaim the presence of the Kingdom and to indicate the relationship of his earthly life and death to its coming."19

The nature of apocrypha was explained as "'midrashic' reflections on Daniel 7 where the language of Daniel (=Scripture) was applied to a variety of figures . . . This midrashic activity of Jewish scribes was paralleled be early Christian authors who turned to Scripture in their missionary and apologetic proclamation"; John R. Donahue, "Recent Studies on the Origin of 'Son of Man' in the Gospels." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48, no. 3 (07/01, 1986), 494-495. 17 Eduard Schweizer, "The Son of Man." Journal of Biblical Literature 79, no. 2 (Jun., 1960), 124. 18 Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels (Eerdmans, 2009), 201. 19 Peter C. Hodgson, "The Son of Man and the Problem of Historical Knowledge." The Journal of Religion 41, no. 2 (Apr., 1961), 101. Hodginson summarizes Schweizer's position on the Son of Man the Kingdom of God -relationship.

16

10

Jesus' Favorite Self-designation

What do we know about Jesus of Nazareth? He was an ordinary Palestinian Jew in a rural and insignificant area, was connected with the movement of John the Baptist, did miraculous things, practiced a profession of teaching with greatest success ever, gathered a following that turned the world upside down, was executed as a criminal with a weak case against him, his tomb was found empty, and his followers were convinced he was risen from the dead. This is the Jesus historians know. They also know that "the Son of Man" was Jesus' preferred self-designation; most of New Testament scholars agree with this.

More precisely, contemporary scholars agree that the title "Son of Man" is ascribed to Jesus in all strata of the Gospel tradition (Mark, Q, Matthew's and Luke's special material, John),20 and it is used exclusively as Jesus' self-designation. Ladd points out three distinctive features in the use of the title in the Gospels: First, The Son of Man was Jesus' favorite way to designate himself, and he used the title quite freely. Second, the title was never used by anyone else to designate Jesus. Third, there is no evidence in Acts or the epistles that the early Church called Jesus the Son of man.21 Keener confirms: "if any title of Jesus is authentic, this one is."22

Jesus used the title because it conveyed the meaning and emphasis that Jesus wanted it to do. It was not a random pick, but it was not loaded with definite meaning, either. Interestingly, where Jesus admits his messiahship, he affirms that he is the Messiah, but in the Son of man sense.23 "Jesus made no overt claim to be Messiah, yet he did not reject messiahship when it was attributed to him; and before the Sanhedrin, when
20 21

Levine et. al., 91. George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament. Rev ed. (Eerdmans, 1993), 144. Ladd discusses on the Jn.12:34 and Acts 7:56 that seem to be in conflict with the three points. 22 Keener, 202. 23 C. C. McCown, "Jesus, Son of Man: A Survey of Recent Discussion." The Journal of Religion 28, no. 1 (Jan., 1948), 11. "In view of all the data, it seems reasonable to suppose he eventually chose the term 'Son of Man', instead of "Messiah". Ibid., 12.

11 accused of claiming messiahship, he assented, but gave his own definition to the term. He was the heavenly Messiah of the Son of Man sort."24

A study of Jesus as the Son of man must deal with the bulk of evidence in the Gospels. The title Son of Man occurs 68 times in the Synoptic gospels, and 40 different times when parallels are eliminated. The occurrences can be grouped into three categories with some overlap. This grouping has served as a framework for studies of Jesus, as presented below; this scheme has been accepted and applied widely among the New Testament scholars. 25 The grouping is as follows:

Group A: In this category, the exaltation of the Son of Man is affirmed, or his coming on the clouds of heaven is predicted. This category can be named the "heavenly Son of Man sayings". There are 19 (Knox) or 16 (E. Schweizer) occurrences in this group.

Group B: This category, the "suffering Son of Man sayings", has to do with the suffering of Jesus, especially with his trial and execution. There are 10 (Knox) or 11 (Schweizer) occurrences in this group.

Group C: This category is not so easily distinguishable, and it can be named it accordingly: "The remaining Son of Man sayings", but might be better named as "the earthly Son of Man sayings"26. There are 11 (Knox) or 13 (Schweizer) occurrences in this group.

The parallel occurrences of the sayings are unimportant, because there is almost no variation in the parallel double or triple appearances of a saying.27 There are only two exceptions, the other being our text, att.16:13b.

24 25

Ladd, 141. Hodgson, 91-92; Ladd, 147, 155; Don Jackson, "A Survey of the 1967-1981 Study of the Son of Man." Restoration Quarterly 28, no. 2 (1986), 68; The Expositor's Bible Commentary 8, 209; etc. 26 Hodgson, 92. 27 Ibid.

12

Later "Son of Man" Interpretation and Research

The post-resurrection Church did not use the title "Son of man" in their Christology. Rahner confirms: "The title played no further part in the Christ-theology of the early church".28 The most probable reason is the fact that the title had its appropriate part in pre-resurrection discourse, but no more. The Son of man image referred to Jesus' earthly walk (class C), suffering (class B) and parousia (class A); there simply was no logical use for the title after the resurrection and before parousia. In the meantime, the most appropriate title for Jesus was "the Lord".29 However, because "the Son of Man" -Christ was all the very early Church had, it surely affected the later formation of the doctrine of the Christ: He was both the suffering servant and will be the divine judge who will come again. "The secret of the Kingdom" had revealed, and there was no need to use this ambiguous title anymore. Jesus was and is the Son of God, the Lord.

Arthur J. Ferch summarizes the history of Christian interpretations of the Son of man before the modern era.30 In his summary we will find that there has been extensive agreement from Justin Martyr (ca. 100-165) to Newton (1642-1727), Lowth (1660-1732) and Michaelis (1680-1764): The Son of man in Daniel is Jesus, and the text informs us about His second coming.31 (In Jewish thinking the Son of Man of Dan.7:13-14 was also identified with the Messiah until the 19th century, but after that popularity of the collective interpretation32 became increasingly popular in Jewish thinking. This title has

Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler, Theological Dictionary [Kleines theologisches Wrterbuch.] (Herder and Herder, 1965), 441; Jackson, 72. 29 Ladd, 374. 30 Arthur J. Ferch, The Son of Man in Daniel 7. Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series. (Andrews University Press, 1983; 1979). Ferch concentrates in the figure in Dan.7:13, not Jesus' selfunderstanding. 31 Ferch, 4-9. 32 In general, the collective interpretation ("Son of Man" image equals "the people of Israel") seems to be in conflict with both the traditional view and Jesus' self-understanding as expressed in the Gospels. In spite of that, this view has been present in Christian theology also.

28

13 never been, however, the chief messianic title in Judaism, unlike "Messiah" or "Son of David".33)

The research activity on "the Son of man" increased in due course: A great volume of works was published during 1890-1910, W. Wrede's The Messianic Secret and A. Schweizer's The Mystery of the Kingdom in the same day in 1901. Publications on the topic before the 1950's34 incorporated subject matters and themes like the Iranian (etc.) influence through The Book of Enoch35, criticism on Jesus' earthly self-designations (classes B and C, see above)36, criticism of Jesus' apocalyptic self-designations (class A)37, the view of Jesus as a prophet of social Gospel so the Son of Man Christology was incorporated in the Gospels by the church because of it's resurrection faith38, the community concept arising from the corporate reading39 of Dan.7:13-14, and effect of the "realized eschatology" on the topic40. McCown ends his summary by concluding that the chief causes for the difference of opinion were theological, psychological ("sane person Jesus couldn't possibly say this"), and historical presuppositions or assumptions.41

A quarter of century later (1974), G. E. Ladd summarizes the discussion on Jesus' Son of man sayings and their interpretation in five distinct types as follows:42 1) The conservative wing of scholarship accept all three types of sayings (class A, B and C) as authentic (but not necessarily all particular sayings), they came from Jesus and represented his own mind;

Ferch, 9-12. Among the Jewish writers the first collective interpretation of the Son of Man is from Abraham ibn Ezra (ca. 1092-1167); the first "pagan" collective interpretation was philosopher Porphyry (ca. 232-303). Ibid. 12-20. 34 McCown: 1948. 35 Rudolf Otto's work, in McCown, 1. 36 Rudolf Bultmann and his following accepted "class A sayings" (the divine Son of Man) as authentic, but suggested Jesus was referring to someone else than himself; in McCown; Donahue; Ladd; etc. 37 McCown, 5. Jesus' self-identification with the apocalyptic figure is not authentic; he is an earthly Son of Man only. 38 Ibid., 6. Examples: S. J. Case, F. C. Grant. 39 Ibid., 8. Examples: C. J. Cadoux, J. W. Bowman, T. W. Manson; "the remnant", "holy community" etc. 40 Ibid., 7; Examples: C. H. Dodd's contribution. 41 Ibid., 10. McCown adds that truthful ideas may arise outside of the Hebrew background (God's revelation to gentile world, cf. Iranian influence in Enoch), and ideas evolve in time (the concept and understanding of the Son of Man between Daniel and the early church). Ibid., 11. 42 Ladd, 149-150.

33

14 2) The position of A. Schweitzer, supported by J. Jeremias, that only eschatological sayings (class A) are authentic, and Jesus himself expected to be the heavenly Son of man at the end of the age; 3) The view of Bultmann, and followed by many, that only apocalyptic (class A) sayings are authentic, but Jesus was referring to another apocalyptic figure who will judge people at the end of the age on the basis of their relationship to Jesus; 4) The radical view that rejects all the sayings (classes A, B and C) as authentic, and attributes them to the Christian community; 5) The position of a few scholars, primarily E. Schweitzer and M. Black, who argue for earthly Jesus sayings (class C), but are skeptical about the authenticity of the other groups.

Scholar's dogmatic considerations and their view of the nature of history decides what one thinks may be true and authentic in the Gospels, closes Ladd.43 As a conclusion, Ladd cites Hodkinson: "The decisive issue at stake in the Son of Man problem is not the authenticity of one group of sayings against the others, but the question of the nature of history."44 Commenting on recent (sic) studies on the origin of "Son of man" in the Gospels45, John R. Donahue points out that, on a literary basis, the existence of any pre-Christian expectation of an apocalyptic Son of man who was a messianic figure has been questioned. Similarly, the published fragments of 1 Enoch from Qumran missed the very parts (caps. 37-71, The Similitudes of Enoch) where the Son of man appears in a sense similar to the apocalyptic sayings in the New Testament; there has been a lively debate on the dating of these chapters and whether they could in any sense be invoked as background to the "Son of man" in the New Testament.46 The third major debate has been around the Semitic use of the phrase; whether the Aramaic word for "son of man" (bar enasa) can be used in the generic sense (a circumlocution) of "a human being", or as a
43 44

Ladd, 150. Hodginson, 103. 45 Donahue, 485. 46 Ibid., 485-486. Most scholars seem to end up dating 1 Enoch to first century A.D; Jackson, 74. The Expositor's Bible Commentary 8, 210.

15 substitute for the indefinite pronoun, like "anyone" or "someone". "the use or nonuse of Son of man as a circumlocution for the personal pronoun has bearing on the difficult question of the entry of the phrase into the Synoptic tradition".47 However, Donahue concludes that apocalyptic should be read as "persecution literature" anyway; it gives hope for suffering people and draws a promise of vindication at the end of the age. Even Dan.7:13-14 may be read against Maccabean martyrdom, and this fits perfectly with the Son of man appearances in Acts 7:56 (Stephen's martyrdom) and Rev.1:13 (Christ who suffered, was exalted, and will come again). "Both of these passages manifest a similar symbolic power and social function of the Danielic Son of man."48 Don Jackson points out in his excellent summary49 that 1967 stands out as watershed year in late Son of man research: there were six fairly extensive and scholarly works published on the topic. However, after 1967 there were no major new original approaches to the subject matter. The conservatives continued to find their key to the Son of man in the New Testament from the combination of Daniel's (and Enoch's) divine figure and Isaiah's suffering Servant; a concept that did not exist before Jesus. The other camp (Hooker, Perrin) proposed an early Christian pesher-type tradition, related to OT images as a rationale for redaction of Jesus' sayings towards the Son of man Christology50 yet another radical idea that does not sound too convincing. For getting deeper into the issue, one has to turn to the Scriptures.

47 48

Donahue, 487. Ibid., 497-498. 49 Jackson, 70. 50 Jackson, 72, 76.

16

Exegesis of Mt.16:13b
As stated in the Introduction, the goal of this exegetical part51 is to answer two study questions: 1. Why does Matthew use "the Son of man", when Mark and Luke don't? 2. What is the significance of this?

While answering these, the overall message of the text will be studied, and some exegetical questions will be addressed and answered. Nonetheless, the main focus is in Matthew 16:13b.

The text of the passage goes like this (parallel texts in Mk.8:27-30 and Lk.9:18-20):

Matthew 16:13-20 and parallels (A Synopsis of the Four Gospels, MUP 1981)

Specific references to all ideas in this section will not be given, for what is written below is a genuine summary of what was digested during the study, especially from the commentaries (see Bibliography Commentaries).

51

17

Matt.16:13a: Jesus and the disciples retreated to the area of Caesarea Philippi (only Mt. and Mk.). The reason for this was most likely the hectic period of ministry that they had had previously. Caesarea Philippi was more Gentile than Jewish, so at last they could have some rest, prayer included (see Luke). Also, they had a chance to reflect on the decisive issue: The identity of Jesus. Along the way, the crowd and individuals had inquired about Jesus' authority and power. The tentative answer had been "the Messiah?", but Jesus had not revealed directly his identity to anyone, but kept referring to himself ambiguously as "the Son of man".

Matt.16:13b-16: Now Jesus was ready to tackle this politically hot issue with his nearest followers. First he queried the popular opinion of his identity. The disciples told Jesus, that people think he might be John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah (in Mt.), or some other ancient prophet. When Jesus asks their own opinion, Peter is the first to express their verdict: Jesus is the Messiah (Mt., Lk., Mk.), the Son of God (not Mk.).

Matt.16:20: Jesus had not revealed this to the people before for a reason, and even now he warns them not to tell this messianic secret to anyone.

In Matthew, the account is more extensive than in parallel texts, and therefore it contains more material also. The Matthean version incorporates sayings and themes such as: The title "the Son of the Living God" after "the Christ" in Peter's confession Blessing to "Peter Bar-Jona" Material about the revelation Peter received from "the Father in the heavens" The prediction of and promises for the Church that Jesus will build in the future A saying about "the gates of Hades" The keys of the Kingdom, the authority of binding and loosing

The critical study has pointed out issues that may suggest later additions, as follows: An anachronism in the saying about the Church

18 A bundle of three Christological titles: "the Son of man", "the Christ", and "the Son of the Living God" A "post-resurrection like" Hades-theme Emphasis in Peter's future role as the visible head of the Church; The keys of the Kingdom and the "binding and loosing" theme

The rationale to read the passage as Jesus' authentic saying, and not Matthean (or "Msource") or later early church addition, has been addressed as follows: The original conversation took place in Aramaic. Jesus could not have used the word ekklesia (gr.), but the similar word for "community" in Aramaic; Jesus was actively gathering a following, anyway. The later writing (or translation) in Greek was naturally using ekklesia, as it was the typical expression for Christian community later. It is possible that Matthew had theological reasons to bundle these Christological titles together, especially in this passage where Jesus was active in confirming his identity as the Messiah. However, it is also possible that this was exactly the way the original dialogue took place, even though Mark and Luke are more brief in their narrative. The "gates of Hades", "rock" and "will build my church" figures of speech were inspired by the Greco-Roman environment (cf. Hades) they were visiting an area with temples and fortresses built of massive cut stones. Peter was already one of the "inner-circle" disciples of the twelve, and later definitely a leader of the early Church, also confirmed by the apostle Paul by his words and action. Also, the Aramaic "Simon Bar-Jona" suggests that Matthew can be the most original account of the synoptics.

Dealing with these issues above would require another study, so we will focus on the study question next: Why does Matthew have "the Son of man" in Jesus' opening question? Of the all commentators studied, Gundry was the only one who preferred reading where Jesus surveys people's opinions on the Son of man, a popular figure in

19 apocalyptic imagery.52 All other commentators agree that the title "Son of man" was meant to be a circumlocution for "I, Jesus", or plainly consistent with Jesus' use of the title that he used for denoting himself. This is in line with other Gospels and also parallels the subsequent question in v. 15. Moreover, this reading is even more plausible when taken into account that numerous text variants have the reading "I (me), the Son of man"53. This was a typical way for Jesus to talk about himself, and even typical in the Aramaic use of language.

Thus, Mark and Luke who omit the title are basically writing the same thing, only more plainly. Maybe they did not want to confuse their gentile readers with the ambiguous but virtually redundant (here) title, especially in this essential passage. By omitting the title they do convey the point of this dialogue, but at the same time they lose something original that Matthew preserves.

With the hypothesis that "Matthew has the most authentic saying in 16:13b" in mind, we will gain insights and may draft propositions like the following:

1. The claims for authenticity and the best originality of the Matthean account of "Peter's confession" (but not necessarily of the extra material) will gain weight. 2. If Jesus used the title in the original "Peter's confession" dialogue, it sheds light on parallels in the later verses ("the Son of man" "the Son of the Living God" "Simon, Bar-Jona"), and might also substantiate authenticity of the extra material in the narrative. 3. Jesus was not polling about opinions on the Son of man's identity. The "Son of man" figure was not that popular, and maybe there was not any widespread public opinion about the figure; the Son of man was a familiar image to religious leaders. In Jesus' time, Jesus was probably the best know candidate for "the Son of man", at least in his followers' thinking.

Hagner points out Gundry's position as an odd representative of this reading; Word Biblical Commentary, 467.
53

52

Ibid., 463.

20 4. Jesus was an insightful educator, but here he was not using a teaching trick to facilitate a student-centered learning experience. He was talking plainly about his identity in a situation where the disciples were already conscious of about his probable messiahship. 5. The theological significance of the Matthean dialogue is in Jesus' initiative to reveal his "Son of man" identity to the closest ones, but still hide it from the wider public. He gave his disciples an explicit confirmation of his messiahship. From then on, the disciples knew that the Son of man and the Messiah were the same person: Their teacher and leader, Jesus of Nazareth.

Conclusion
Studying the topic in general and Mt.16:13b in particular opens up our understanding of Jesus' self-designation, an overall trajectory of Jesus' life, and the nature of the Gospels' narrative. The identity of Jesus was a key topic then, as it still is (see "quests" above)! As a matter of fact, because his identity as the Messiah of Israel was eventually exposed, he was executed as a blasphemer and a threat to the political status quo. For Jesus the best choice was to remain the mystic "the Son of man" as long as possible, because of "the crowd management challenge" they faced everywhere. In a due course, it was necessary for his mission to ride on the donkey to the Jerusalem as the Son of David, the Messiah. Until that moment, the Biblical figure of the Son of man was an excellent faade for Jesus: It revealed and concealed at the same time.

In a private conversation, when it was the time to face the facts, Jesus confirmed his identity; the Son of man they knew, Jesus of Nazareth, is the Messiah. Daniel 7:13-14 got its explanation; the Son of man was more than a prophet (like Ezekiel), and the Messiah had also his earthly faces like they had sung in their Psalms for centuries.

21

Bibliography

Commentaries
The Expositor's Bible Commentary 8, (Matthew, Mark, Luke). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publ. House, 1984. Davies, William David and Dale C. Allison. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988. France, R. T. The Gospel According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Eemans ed. Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, Mich: InterVarsity Press; Eerdmans, 1985. Gundry, Robert Horton. Matthew : A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1982. Hagner, Donald Alfred. Word Biblical Commentary: Matthew. 14-28. Dallas, Tex.: Word Books, 1995.. Dallas, Tex.: Word Books, 1995. Hill, David. The Gospel of Matthew. New Century Bible. London: Oliphants, 1972. Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Matthew [Evangelium nach Matthus.]. Atlanta: J. Knox Press, 1975.

Journal articles
Adams, Edward. "The Coming of the Son of Man in Mark's Gospel." Tyndale Bulletin 56, no. 2 (01/01, 2005): 39-61. Beale, G. K. The use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984. Beasley-Murray, George. "Resurrection and Parousia of the Son of Man." Tyndale Bulletin 42, no. 2 (11/01, 1991): 296-309. Caragounis, Chrys C. "Kingdom of God, Son of Man and Jesus' Self-Understanding, 2 Pts." Tyndale Bulletin 40, no. 2 (11/01, 1989): 223-38.

22
. "Kingdom of God, Son of Man and Jesus' Self-Understanding, 2 Pts." Tyndale Bulletin 40, no. 1 (05/01, 1989): 3-23. Casey, Maurice. "Method in our Madness, and Madness in their Methods : Some Approaches to the Son of Man Problem in Recent Scholarship." Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 42 (06/01, 1991): 17-43. . "The Corporate Interpretation of 'One Like a Son of Man' (Dan. VII 13) at the Time of Jesus." Novum Testamentum 18, no. 3 (Jul., 1976): pp. 167-180. Collins, Adela Yarbro. "The Origin of the Designation of Jesus as "Son of Man"." The Harvard Theological Review 80, no. 4 (Oct., 1987): pp. 391-407. Collins, John J. "The Son of Man and the Saints of the most High in the Book of Daniel." Journal of Biblical Literature 93, no. 1 (Mar., 1974): pp. 50-66. Donahue, John R. "Recent Studies on the Origin of "Son of Man" in the Gospels." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48, no. 3 (07/01, 1986): 484-98. Gathercole, Simon J. "The Critical and Dogmatic Agenda of Albert Schweitzer's the Quest of the Historical Jesus." Tyndale Bulletin 51, no. 2 (01/01, 2000): 261-83. Hodgson, Peter C. "The Son of Man and the Problem of Historical Knowledge." The Journal of Religion 41, no. 2 (Apr., 1961): pp. 91-108. Ingolfsland, D. "The Historical Jesus According to John Dominic Crossan's First Strata Sources: A Critical Comment." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 45 (2002): 405-14. Jackson, Don. "A Survey of the 1967-1981 Study of the Son of Man." Restoration Quarterly 28, no. 2 (1986): 67-78. Lemche, Niels Peter. "He that Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism." SJOT 19, no. 1 (01/01, 2005): 148-9. Luz, Ulrich. "The Son of Man in Matthew : Heavenly Judge Or Human Christ." Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 48 (12/01, 1992): 3-21. Malbon, Elizabeth Struthers. "Narrative Christology and the Son of Man: What the Markan Jesus Says Instead." Biblical Interpretation 11, no. 3-4 (01/01, 2003): 373-85. McCown, C. C. "Jesus, Son of Man: A Survey of Recent Discussion." The Journal of Religion 28, no. 1 (Jan., 1948): pp. 1-12. Morgenstern, Julian. "The "Son of Man" of Daniel 7:13 f.: A New Interpretation." Journal of Biblical Literature 80, no. 1 (Mar., 1961): pp. 65-77. Muilenburg, James. "The Son of Man in Daniel and the Ethiopic Apocalypse of Enoch." Journal of Biblical Literature 79, no. 3 (Sep., 1960): pp. 197-209.

23
Reynolds, Benjamin E. "The "One Like a Son of Man" According to the Old Greek of Daniel 7,13-14." Biblica 89, no. 1 (01/01, 2008): 70-80. Sanford, A. M. "Did Jesus Call Himself the Son of Man? another Point of View." The Journal of Religion 3, no. 3 (May, 1923): pp. 308-313. Silberman, Lou H. "Apocalyptic Revisited : Reflections on the Thought of Albert Schweitzer." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 44, no. 3 (09/01, 1976): 489-501. Suggs, M. J. "Matthew 16:13-20." Interpretation 39, no. 3 (07/01, 1985): 291-5. Teeple, Howard M. "The Origin of the Son of Man Christology." Journal of Biblical Literature 84, no. 3 (Sep., 1965): pp. 213-250. Tuckett, C. M. "The Expression 'Son of Man' and the Development of Christology: A History of Interpretation." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 72, no. 3 (07/01, 2010): 606-7. . "The Present Son of Man." Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 14 (02/01, 1982): 58-81. Schweizer, Eduard. "The Son of Man." Journal of Biblical Literature 79, no. 2 (Jun., 1960): pp. 119-129. Vaage, Leif E. "The Son of Man Sayings in Q : Stratigraphical Location and Significance." Semeia, no. 55 (01/01, 1991): 103-29. Walker, Wm O.,Jr. "The Origin of the Son of Man Concept as Applied to Jesus." Journal of Biblical Literature 91, no. 4 (Dec., 1972): pp. 482-490.

Books
Blackwood, Andrew Watterson. The Other Son of Man: EzekielJesus. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1966. Borg, Marcus J., Oregon State University., and Trinity Institute. "Jesus at 2000" Westview Press, 1997. Crossan, John Dominic. The Essential Jesus: Original Sayings and Earliest Images. 1st ed. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994. Evans, Craig A. Holman Quicksource Guide to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Nashville, Tenn.: B & H Publishing Group, 2010. . Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006.

24
Evans, Craig A., N. T. Wright, and Troy A. Miller. Jesus, the Final Days: What really Happened. 1st ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009. Ferch, Arthur J. The Son of Man in Daniel 7. Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1983; 1979. Frei, Hans W., George Hunsinger, and William C. Placher. Types of Christian Theology. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992. Grenz, Stanley. Renewing the Center : Evangelical Theology in a Post-Theological Era. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2000. Hill, Jonathan. The History of Christian Thought. 1st ed. Oxford: Lion, 2003. Keener, Craig S. The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 2009. . A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1999. Koester, Helmut. Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development. London; Philadelphia: SCM Press; Trinity Press International, 1990. Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Rev ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993. Levine, Amy-Jill, Dale C. Allison, and John Dominic Crossan. The Historical Jesus in Context. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006. McGrath, Alister E. A Passion for Truth : The Intellectual Coherence of Evangelicalism. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996. Mowinckel, Sigmund,. He that Cometh : The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2005. Rahner, Karl and Herbert Vorgrimler. Theological Dictionary [Kleines theologisches Wrterbuch.]. New York: Herder and Herder, 1965.

Bibles
Orchard, Bernard. A Synopsis of the Four Gospels: In Greek : Arranged According to the TwoGospel Hypothesis. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983. Tyndale House Publishers. Holy Bible: New Living Translation. 2nd ed. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, 2004.

25
World Publishing Company. God's Word : Today's Bible Translation that Says what it Means. Grand Rapids, Mich.: World Pub., 1995.

Electronic Bibles: The Holy Bible: Greek New Testament (Scrivener 1894) WORDsearch CROSS e-book. Greek New Testament Received Text (1550 Stephanus) WORDsearch CROSS e-book. Greek New Testanment (Tischendorf) WORDsearch CROSS e-book. The New Testament in the Original Greek London: Macmillan and Co., 1895. WORDsearch CROSS e-book. Hooke, S. H., trans. Bible in Basic English London: Cambridge University Press, 1965. WORDsearch CROSS e-book. Holy Bible: King James Version WORDsearch CROSS e-book. Young, Robert, trans. Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible Edinburgh: George Adam Young & Co., 1898. WORDsearch CROSS e-book.

Electronic resources
"The Book of Enoch - Heaven Net " http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/thebookofenoch.htm (accessed 8/17/2011, 2011). "The Book of Enoch Index " http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/ (accessed 8/17/2011, 2011). "Jesus Seminar - New World Encyclopedia " http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Jesus_Seminar (accessed 8/16/2011, 2011). "Theology Today - Vol 45, no.3 - October 1988 - ARTICLE - A Renaissance in Jesus Studies " http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/oct1988/v45-3-article2.htm#13 (accessed 8/16/2011, 2011). Wikipedia contributors. "Genesis Apocryphon " Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 2011). . "Jesus Seminar " Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 2011).