1

Jesus’portrait in the Gospel of Mark

reflected in two Christological titles: Son of Man and Son of God
Prof. Stelian Tofană
Babes-Bolyai University
Faculty of Orthodox Theology, Cluj-Napoca
Romanian

Preliminaries

In the biblical debates there are still much discussions about the extent to which the
Evangelist Mark has overlaid his portrait of Jesus with theological interpretation or spiritual
meanings. The result: No agreement has been reached among scholars generally so far. 1 But this
doesn’t mean that no portrait of Jesus can be drawn from the narrative description of the Gospel.
The question is: What Christological title is predominantly in the Gospel of Mark? At the
first view two main Christological titles dominate the Gospel: The Son of Man and the Son of
God.
On the other hand, the question whether and in what sense Jesus designated himself the
Son of Man is also one of the most discussed and contested problem among the New Testament
biblical scholars.2 H. Lietzmann, for instance, was one of the first biblical scholars who asserted
that Jesus didn’t consider himself the Son of Man.3
But since it was a term which Jesus so deliberately chose to use and has used so
frequently when addressing popular audiences, or his disciples or even enemies, it is essential to
enquire not only what it meant to Jesus himself, but also what it meant to his hearers. As for the
title the Son of God, the same question if Jesus considered himself the Son of God has no less
significance.
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to point out the view of our Lord, Jesus Christ,
which the Evangelist Mark presents in his Gospel.
The title that Jesus Christ claimed to himself most often was the "Son of Man" (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ
ἀνθρώπου). It introduces us, in fact, in the very message of the second Gospel.
The title "Son of Man" is, indeed, the defining theological component of the second
Gospel. But it isn’t unknown to the other Evangelists, as wel. All of them rekord the words in
which this title appears on the lips of Jesus.

1
Cf. GUTHRIE Donald, New Testament Introduction, Inter-Varsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois 1990,
55.
2
See CULLMANN Oscar, The Christology of the New Testament, The Westminster Press, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 1963, 152.
3
See the whole work, LIETZMANN Harald, Der Menschenson. Ein Beitrag zur neutestamentlichen
Theologie, 1896.
 2

Two main questions rise with regard to the meaning of the title “Son of Man”: on the one
hand, whether Jesus was referring to himself when he used it and, on the other hand, if he
granted to it a Messianic sense?
But the great significance of this designation is revealed by the fact that according to the
Gospels it is the only title that Jesus applied to himself.4 This is of a great significance taking into
account that the Gospel writers themselves didn’t use this title to express their own faith in
Jesus.5
What may be asserted, regardless of reflections on this messianic title, is certainly the fact
that Jesus never declared opened his messianic mission. Jesus never calls himself Messiah. On
the other hand, whatever the precise significance of this title, which has been widely debated, it
is obvious that it contains a clear reference to the true humanity of Jesus Christ.6

1. ”Son of Man” in the Old Testament

The title "Son of Man" is a translation of the Aramaic expression "Bar-Nasha" which
means "man", "any man".7 Consequently, “Bar-Nasha” should be translated in Greek simply
¥nqrwpoj. In this case, if the Aramaic meant no more than man in general, the phrase ”Bar-
Nasha” couldn’t have been used by Jesus Christ in the sens of a particular man, whether himself
or someone else.8 Therefore, it should be asked in what sense of contemporary Jewish usage
could Jesus have called himself “¥nqrwpoj” – man?
The title “Son of Man” can be encountered for the first time in Dan 7:13. The question is
whether the expression ”Son of Man” originally concerned the figure of an individual redeemer ?
In Daniel’s text the “Son of Man” is contrasted with four beasts, which according to the
following explanation, given even by the prophet, represent the four rulers of the four world
empires. The Prophet relates further: “I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the

4
Cf. CULLMANN Oscar, The Christology, 137.
5
See CULLMANN, The Christology, 137.
6
See a lot of opinions in much debates with regard to the meaning of this term: CULLMANN Oscar, The
Christology of the New Testament, 137-188; TOEDT H.E, Der Menschensohn in der synoptischen
Überlieferung, 1959; MARSHALL I. H., “The Synoptic Son of Man Sayings in Recent Discussion”, in:
New Testament Studies, 12, 1966, 327-351; IDEM, “The Son of Man in Contemporary Debate”, in: EQ 42,
1970, 67-87; MICHEL, Otto, “Der Menschensohn. Die Eschatologische Hinweisung. Die Apokalyptische
Aussage. Bemerkungen zum Menschensohn – Verständnis des Neuen Testaments”, in: ThZ 27, 1971, 81-
104; TEEPLE H. M., “The Origin of Son of Man Christology”, in: JBL 84, 1965, 213-250; WALKER O.,
”The Origin of the Son of man concept as Applied to Jesus”, in JBL 91, 1972, 482 ff.; HODGSON P.C.,
”The Son of Ma and the Problem of Historical Knowlwdge”, in JT 41, 1961, 91-108; SCHWEIZER E.,
”Der Menschensohn” in ZNW 50, 1959, 185-209; Idem, ”The Son of Man”, in JBL 79, 1960, 119-129.
7
See more details in this regard, COLPE Carsten, “ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου”, in Theologishes Wörterbuch
zum Neun Testament, Band VIII, Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln 1990, 404-408; GUTHRIE Donald, New Testament
Theology, Inter-Varsity Press, Illinois USA 1981, 272. R. Leivestad express the opinion that the title ”Son
of Man” is not a Jewish title. He regards this title as always a self-designation (Cf. LEIVESTAD R., ”Exit
the apocalyptic Son of Man”, in: NTS 22, 1975, 52-72).
8
See Guthrie D., New Testament Theology, 272.
 3

clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all
the people, nations, and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting
dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed. As for
me, Daniel, my spirit was distressed within me, and the visions in my mind kept alarming me. I
approached one of those who were standing by and began asking him the exact meaning of all
this. So he told me and made known to me the interpretation of these things: 'These great beasts,
which are four in number, are four kings who will arise from the earth.” (Dan 7:13-17).
In the following verse 18 the Prophet identifies the “Son of Man” as the “saints of the Most
High”: ”But the saints of the Highest One will receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom
forever, for all ages to come.” According to the Jewish cocept of representation, the
representative can be identified with the group he represents.9 The “Son of Man” is, therefore,
identified here with the “people of God” and understood as an individual figure.10
The phrase One like (ὡς) a Son of Man means that this person was already known (already
reveled) to Daniel. In Daniel’s vision, the phrase "Son of Man" has a completely different
connotation than "Son of Man" from the prophecies of Ezekiel. Here the figure (personage) is
very close to the Ancient of Days, who gives the final dominion over the whole earth; it is not
difficult to perceive that the Messianic prophecy refers to Jesus Christ, who will designate
himself "Son of Man". Generally, the Jews did not interpret this text in a messianic sense. 11
Analyzing this term, many scholars tried to find evidence of the background in three main
Jewish sources – Daniel 7, the Similitudes of Enoch and the Apocalypse of Ezra.12 It should be
noted that the title ”Son of Man” used many times in these sources, especially in the last two, is
not significant in relation to the Synoptic Gospels, especially to Mark. On the other hand, there is
no evidence that all these texts reflect the general interpretation at that time of Jesus and his
contemporaries. What is of some relevance in Daniel’s vision is the future coming on the clouds
and the fact that “saints” are first afflicted before being glorified, two motifs which occurs in the
Son of Man sayings in the Synoptic accounts.
Similarly the reference to the ”Son of Man” in Psalm 8:4-6 is parallel to ”simple man” and
is used to contrast man in his weakness with the power of God, who nevertheless has crowned
man with glory (see also Psalm 80:17-19).13

9
See more in this regard, CULLMANN, O., The Christology of the New Testament, 140 and 54 ff.
10
For more details with regard to the meaning of Dan 7,13-15 see, CULLMANN Oscar, The Christology of
the New Testament, 140-141.
11
A description of Daniel’s vision, see COLPE Carsten, “ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου”, in Theologishes
Wörterbuch zum Neun Testament, Band VIII, 422-425.
12
Cf. GUTHRIE Donald, New Testament Theology, 273.
13
Some exegetes think that Ps 80 was the background to the development of the ”Son of Man” concept
rather than Daniel 7. See SEITZ O. J. F., ”The Future Coming of the Son of Man: Three Midrashic
Formulations in the Gospel of Mark”, in: St Ev 6, 1973, 478 ff; DODD, C. H., According to the Scripture,
London 1952, 101 ff. D. Hill has another opinion insisting on the idea that Dan. 7 is more likely (Cf. HILL
D., ”Son of Man in Ps 80:17”, in: NovT 15, 1973, 261 ff.).
 4

Jesus Christ calls Himself as being the “Son of Man”, but perhaps not without a connection
with another group of four texts from the Old Testament, which speak about the “Ebed Yahweh”
or the Lord Servant (Isa 42:1-9; 49:1-6; 50:4-9; 52:13-53:12).
There are different opinions among specialists with regard to the meaning of this word
“Ebed-Yahweh”, until today. But one can be seen from the text that the title like Son of Man
“Bar-Nasha” has both an individual meaning and a collective one, namely it represents both the
people of Israel and a personality who posess a messianic rol. In fact, Isaiah speaks much in his
book (chap. 53), in a prophetic vision, about the sufferings of Jesus Christ. Isaiah repeatedly
insists on the substitutionary character of Jesus’ death, who gives his life for others, as a Servant
of the Lord.
These messianic conceptions mentioned above are completely different from those of the
Jews. They have never read and interpreted these texts which spoke of “Ebed-Yahweh” or of the
“Son of Man” with Messianic reference. But from the life of Jesus Christ and from His Gospel
one can clearly see that He was obviously identified both with “Bar-Nasha” and with “Ebed-
Yahweh”.

2. Jesus – “Son of Man”

The expression „Son of Man” appears only in the Gospels and three times in the Book of
Acts.
In the Gospel of Mark the title „Son of Man” appears 14 times. 14 Its meaning, sketching the
portrait of Jesus, can be grouped into two categories:
- Texts speaking about the glory and the divine authority of the „Son of Man”
- Texts relating to the suffering and death of the ”Son of Man”. The kenotic meaning of
the title

a. „Son of Man” - glory and divine authority

In Mk 2:10-11 the Son of Man claims divine authority to forgive sins: „But in order that
you may know that the Son of Man (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) has authority (ἐξουσίαν ἔχει) on earth
(ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς) to forgive sins, He said to the paralytic: ‘Arise, and take up your bed, and go you
way into your house’” (parall. Mt 9,6; Lk 5,24).
What retains the attention in this text are the following:
- The title "Son of Man" first appears in the Gospel of Mark and Jesus Christ
identifies himself with this title.
- The "Son of Man" has power to forgive sins on the earth. So, the "Son of Man"
whom Jesus identifies himself with is God.

14
Cf. HENDRIKSEN W., Mark (New Testament Commentary), Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, Michigan
2007, 91):
- twice in the beginning (2:10,28)
- seven times in the middle (8:31.38; 9:9.12.31; 10:33.45)
- five times toward the end (13:26; 14.21.41 (twice); 14:61).
 5

- "Ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς" means something unlimited, for all people (cf Joh 17:2). In other
words, this means the universal aspect of the mission of the Son of Man.15
So, in Mk 2:10-11 the “Son of Man”, identified with the person of Jesus Christ, manifests
himself as God, who alone can forgive the sins of men.
In Mk 2:28 – the “Son of Man” claims authority to be the Lord of Sabbath: “Therefore
the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath”.
The claim of Jesus that the “Son of Man” has authority over the Sabbath certainly implies
more than that man can treat the Sabbath as he wishes. No man in general, but the “Son of Man”
in the person of Jesus has that power.16 Therefore, since it was God who instituted the Sabbath,
the claim of Jesus to be Lord of the Sabbath was another claim to exercise divine authority. 17 As
souverain Lord he has power and authority to lay down principles governing that day. So the
“Son of Man” is here identified with God, Lord (Souverain) over his creation.
In both cases mentioned above Jesus had to face criticism coming from the religious
leaders, who must have recognized that he was referring to himself in claiming such a kind of
authority.
In a parallel text of Matthew, where is about the question of Jesus, expressed in the
region of Caesarea Philippi, with regard to His identity reflected in the consciousness of his
countemporaries: "Who do people say the Son of Man is That? (Mat 16:13), Mark uses in the
question of Jesus the personal pronoun "I" and not the title "Son of Man": ”… by the way he
asked his disciples, saying unto them: Who do the people say that I am? (?” (Mk 8:27). The
difference in the texts is itself striking testimony that the title was understood by the Evangelist
Mark as relating to Jesus Christ himself.
Peter's response expresses the concept of the Disciples with regard to Jesus identity:
”Peter answered and said to Him, "You are the Christ" (Mk 8:29). From the parallel text of
Matthew we may learn that Jesus accepted the creed of the Disciples about His identity,
understanding Peter's answer as a revelation coming from the heavenly Father: ”Blessed are you,
Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in
heaven” (Mat 16:17).
Mark doesn’t record this revelation, but limited to mention the special command of Jesus
this truth not to be told to anyone: ”And He warned them to tell no one about Him” (Mk 8:30).
What we can remark from the text of Mark (8:27-29) is that the Son of Man is identified
by Christ Himself with the Messiah. The Son of Man appears, therefore, in the view of Mark, as
being the Saviour expected in the person of Jesus.
In other three texts, the Evangelist Mark portrays the Son of Man as being surrounded by
glory and coming on the clouds of heaven.

15
See MAIER Gerhard, Evanghelia după Marcu (Comentariu Biblic 3), Ed. ”Lumina lumii”, Oradea 2013,
79.
16
Cf. GUTHRIE D, New Testament Theology, 280.
17
See more details, CULLMANN Oscar, The Christology of the New Testament, 152.
 6

The first text follows immediately after the first prediction of passion: “For whoever is
ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also
be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels." (Mk 8:38);
Jesus clearly proclaims here his great Return, the “Son of Man” being understood as been
Jesus Himself (cf Mk 2:10.28; 8:31). The Angels are the messengers of God, because Jesus will
return as divine Judge of the whole world (cf. Mk 13:27; Mat 25:31; 2 Thess 1:7).
Interpreting Mk 8:38, W. Hendriksen states: ”... at his second coming the Father will
impart his own glory to him and will give to him his own angels to function as his brilliant
retinue”.18 W. Hendriksen thinks that “Christ’s self-designation ‘Son of Man’ derived here from
Dan 7:13-14”.19
The second text is included in a so-called eschatological Discourse: “And then they will see
the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory” (Mk 13:26).
In this text Jesus also identifies Himself with the “Son of Man”, seen in glory. The
heavenly light will pass through all the darkness of the world. Three concepts describe the glory
of the Son of Man’s coming: clouds as a sign of the divine presence (cf. Mk 9:7; Exod 13:21;
16:10; 19:9.16; 34:5; 40:34; Ps 104:3; Dan 7:13), and than power and glory. Gerhad Maier
believes that this coming of the “Son of Man” means the goal of the entire Eschatological
Discourse (Mk 13).20
The third text contains the testimony of Jesus pronounced before the high priest: “Again
the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the
Blessed One?" And Jesus said: I am! (Mk 14:61). After this confession, in which Jesus
categorically states that He is the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One, adds a prophecy: ”... and
you shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of Power, and coming in the clouds of
heaven” (Mk 14:62).
It is high likely that the last two testimonies of Jesus were alluding to Daniel 7:13 about the
“Son of Man”, who will come on the clouds of heaven, and are connected with the saying from
Psalm 110:1 about the Lord who sits at the right hand of God. Therefore, in the so-called
"Christology of Jesus' 21 one can encounter two biblical central concepts: "Son of Man” and
"Lord ".
The essential function of the coming Son of Man on the clouds of heaven (like in the
Jewish texts and especially in the Ethiopic Enoch)22 is that of judgment. In the important passage
about the last judgment of the “sheep and goats” (Mt 25:31-46) the judgment is indubitable
achieved by the Son of Man. In Mk 8:38 he has the same function namely that of being both
judge and witness against those who have been ashamed of him.

18
Cf. HENDRIKSEN William, Mark, 333.
19
See HENDRIKSEN William, Mark, 332.
20
See MAIER G., Evanghelia după Marcu, 497.
21
The term belongs to Gerhard Maier (See MAIER G., Evanghelia după Marcu, 561).
22
See CULLMANN Oscar, The Christology of the New Testament, 157.
 7

Therefore, the transference of judgment to Jesus (which in the New Testament is often
ascribed to God himself) is directly connected with the Son of Man concept. But this title
“Judge” represents only one aspect of the Son of Man idea comparable with other titles which
are ascribed to him.
The way Jesus adopted and transformed this idea about the judgment demonstrates that
there is newness in His conception about the “Son of Man”. Emerged as a man among men and
thereby assuming the role of “Ebed Yahweh” (Isa 53), He is in the same time also the “Son of
Man” who must judge the world. Therefore, the idea about judgement is getting a new and
profound perspective, although the eschatological framework is preserved. On the one hand, the
judgment is closely linked to the redemptive work of the Servant of God; on the other hand, the
verdict that will be pronounced by the Son of Man is based on people's attitudes towards their
fellows, with which Jesus, as the Son of Man, shall be identified.
The text speaking about the universal judgment (cf. Mat 25:31ff) points out in an
impressive manner just this idea: ”Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these
brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me” (Mat 25:40).
The alternative between the individual and collective significance of the “Son of Man” has
disappeared. This is the place where the idea of the ”Son of Man – Judge” acquires all its depth
in the sense that who will judge is Jesus, being in the same time ”Incarnated” (human flesh),
Suffering Servant of God in our place and the "future Man". The link between the "future Man"
who dominates Eschatology, and the "Incarnated Man” is here as close as possible.

b. “Son of Man” - The kenotic meaning of the title

Another theme which stands out in relation to the theological relevance of the saying “Son
of Man” is the humiliation of the earthly life of him.
Following Peter’s confession at Caesarea Philippi, Jesus began to predict his death and
resurrection: “And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be
rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days
rise again (Mk 8:31). Matthew is more direct and refers to Jesus, rather than to the Son of Man
(Mt 16:21).
What one can observe here is the connection that Mark makes between the heavenly
glorious "Son of Man", as Lord and Judge (Mk 14:62), and the earthly "Son of Man", one of
suffering (Mk 8:31). Mark describes the messianic work of the "Son of Man" in a paradoxically
way: through Passion to ascension; through suffering to glory (cf. Joh 3: 13-16).
After this defeatist prediction Jesus again refers to the Son of Man’s rising from the dead:
“And as they were coming down from the mountain, He gave them orders not to relate to anyone
what they had seen, until the Son of Man should rise from the dead” (Mk 9:9).23 In Mk 10:31 the
phrasing clearly identifies Jesus – “we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man will be
delivered”.

23
Similar predictions are made in similar terms and are registered by Mark: 9:12; 9:31; 10:33.
 8

D. Guthrie thinks that the fact “the passion is never predicted without a corresponding
prediction of resurrection paves the way for the sayings about the Son of Man in glory.” 24 This
expresses a permanent interdependence (relation) between suffering and glory in the ministry of
Jesus Christ.
In addition to these predictions of the passion and death, there is one declaration recorded
by Mark in which Jesus uses the title “Son of Man” in order to express the significance of his
death, namely “as a ransom for many”: “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but
to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many" (Mk 10:45) (parall. Mt 20:28). This means that
a redemptive meaning was attached to the figure of the Son of Man in the mind of Jesus. This is
one of the most important statements of Jesus about the meaning of the messianic work of the
"Son of Man". Talking now about his status as Servant and not as Lord, it is clear that he refers
to Isaiah 53, where the meaning of the title ”Ebed Yahweh" takes Messianic overtones. The "Son
of Man" sacrifices his life for many.
G. Maier thinks that in Mk 10:45 (cf Mt 20:28) are to encounter not only two messianic
directions, namely, that of “Ebed Yahweh” (cf.Isa 53) and that of "Son of Man" seen in glory
(cf.Dan 7), but another one too, that refers to the sacrifice of the great Day of Atonement,
specific for the Old Testament, when the scapegoat was taking up the sins of people and led them
into the desert, leaving them there (cf. Lev 16: 20-22; Isa 53:4.6.711.12). So, the notion of
redemption implies the idea that Jesus suffered in our place, paying also the ransom amount that
was paid for the release of captives (cf. Lev 25:48ff). He identified this price with the blood of
his own life sacrifice.25 Therefore, for the Evangelist Mark the "Son of Man" becomes the
"scapegoat" of the world history taking over him the guilt of the sins of all mankind.
The expression ”a ransom for many” is high likely an echo of Isa 53:11 where the idea of
substitution predominates (See Isa 53: 4-6.8.12). 26 ”A ransom fo many” and not ”for all” implies
surely the faith in Christ. Only those are benefiting from Christ’s sacrifice who believe in him. 27
This means that not Mark has uploaded the title "Son of Man" with a soteriologic-theological
segnificance, but it was Jesus who identified Himself with the "Son of Man" having a saving
role.
Mark has two other Son of Man passion sayings predicting the betrayal and expressing woe
to the betrayer: “For the Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by
whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been
born" (Mk 14:21; 14:41).
It is clear that Jesus refers to Himself in this text. The expression “the Son of Man is to go”
has, like in the Gospel of John (7:33; 13:3.33.36; 14:4 ff; 16:5.10.17), a double meaning:
- to go to death
24
Cf. GUTHRIE D., New Testament Theology, 278.
25
See MAIER G., Evanghelia după Marcu, 394-395. The conception of Christ’s death and suffering on the
cross as the price that was paid, may also be found in 1 Pt 1;18-19; 1 Cor 6:20; Gal 3:13; 4:5; 1 Tim 2:5-
6; Apoc 5:6.12; 13:8; 14:3-4.
26
See HENDRIKSEN W.,. Mark, 415.
27
Who these many are, is clear from passages as Isa 53:8. Matt 1:21; Joh 10:11; 17:9; Acts 20:28; Rom
8:32-35; Eph 5:25.
 9

- to go to Father
From Mk 14:21 becomes obviously clear that Jesus understood his whole Suffering in the
light of Scripture, namely in the light of the divine plan of salvation: ”just as it is written of
Him” (cf Lk 24:26).28
But this plan of salvation doesn’t cancel the responsibility and the guilt of Judas. Jesus is
explicit in this regard: ”but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! The phrase "It
would have been good for That Man if He had not been born" (Mk 14:21) refers certainly to a
harsh judgment of God being pronunced against those who betrayed His Son (see Matt 18:6; Lk
17:2).29
Therefore, the Gospel of Mark uses the image of the Son of Man from Jesus’sayings
having both a divine meaning, in the sense that “Jesus - the Son of Man” is manifested as God
and a human meaning, in the sense that “Jesus - Ebed Yahweh” is the one who is suffering for
human being.
So, taking into account the meaning of the title present in the Gospel of Mark, and also by
the other two Synoptics, we have to differentiate between two categories of Jesus’ sayings with
regard to the title “Son of Man”:
- Those in which he uses the title with reference to the eschatological work that he is
going to fulfil in the future
- Those in which he applies it to his earthly mission.30
It seems reasonable to suppose that Jesus identified himself inwardly with the idea of the
suffering Servant as long as He was aware that his spiritual mission could be accomplished only
through suffering and death.
Therefore, every sense of salvation finds its expression in the two most important
Christological titles: the “Son of Man” and “Ebed Yahweh”.

3. Jesus - “Son of God”

The Gospel of Mark describes Jesus in its opening words by means of this title ”Son of
God”. D. Guthrie thinks ”it must be assumed that it has some defining influence over the
subsequent narrative, especially as the title occurs four times elsewhere in the Gospel. It is
evident that this view of Christ is not developed in a doctrinal sense, but that is worked out in His
divine activity”.31
As in the case of the title ”Son of Man” the question whether Jesus thought of himself as
Son of God is no of a less importance. This will be the main purpose of the following analysis of
some evidence from the Gospel of Mark.

28
William Hendriksen writes: ”…his death does not mean the triumph of his enemies but rather the
realization of God’s gracious, sovereign and ever victorious plan” (Cf. HENDRIKSEN W., Mark, 571).
29
See MAIER Gerhard, Evanghelia după Marcu, 528.
30
See CULLMANN Oscar, The Christology of the New Testament, 155.
31
Cf. GUTHRIE D., New Testament Introduction, 55-56.
 10

It should be noted from the very beginning that the general understanding of God as
Father implies the divine sonship of Jesus. In the synoptic Gospels Jesus spoke of God in a lot of
occasions as ”the Father”, ”my Father”, ”my heavenly Father etc. It is about fifty-one times in
all.32 But in all these occurances there is a distinction between God as father of Jesus and God as
Father of the disciples or of the people. This dictinction becomes more evident in the Gospel of
John (20:17).
Mark's Gospel begins with the statement that Jesus Christ is the Son of God: ”The
beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ 33)” (Mk
1:1).
Not only is this title applied to Jesus again and again in the Gospel of Mark (see 1:11;
3:11; 5:7; 9:7; 14:61-62; 15.39), but it is also in harmony with the fact that throughout his Gospel
Mark is constantly ascribing divine qualities and activities to Jesus, showing that the author
regards the Saviour as being indeed the Son of God in the full trinitarian sense.34
So, for Mark, the Gospel brought by Jesus Christ doesn’t belong only to the incarnated
man Jesus, but also to the Son of God. Thus, the Evangelist gives divine authority to his writing
even from the first verse. Although verse 1 (Mk 1:1) consists only of a few words, it may
constitute a true Prologue of the Gospel in which is proclaimed the divinity of Jesus.
In the event of Jesus’ Baptism, the Heavenly Father bears witness of him, calling him
"His beloved Son": ”And a voice came out of the heavens: "You are My beloved Son, in whom I
am well-pleased" (Mk 1:11).
Now the Father is not adopting Jesus as his Son, but proclaiming that He is and always
has been His Son. This heavenly and divine proclamation, combining a messianic Psalm (2:7)
with the first Song of the Suffering Servant of the Lord (Isa 42:1), reveals who Jesus is.
Thus Jesus’ Baptism anticipates his Transfiguration and Resurection, the dawning of the new
creation. 35
In the event of Transfiguration, Jesus is also testified by the same voice of the heavenly
Father as being His „beloved Son”: ”Then a cloud formed, overshadowing them, and a voice
came out of the cloud, ‘"This is My beloved Son, listen to Him!’" (Mk 9:7). Here, on the Mount
of Transfiguration (9:2-13) the heavenly Father responds by imparting to his Son glory and
honor. He did this, as Mark states, by:
- Enveloping his body with heavenly brilliance
- Sending him two heavenly messengers, Elijah and Moses, speaking with him about his
coming sufferings
32
Cf. GUTHRIE D., New Testament Theology, 304. Matthew includes more insistances of this usage than
the other synoptics, Mark and Luke.
33
Indeed the title "υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ" does not appear in the important Codex Sinaiticus and in other
manuscripts of lesser significance, but appears in Codex Vaticanus (B), in Codex Bezae (D) and in other
important manuscripts. So a translation without that title would not be complete (See HENDRIKSEN W.,
Mark, 33).
34
Cf. HENDRIKSEN W., Mark, 33-34
35
See, The Orthodox Study Bible, Nashville, Tennessee 1993, 86.
 11

- Proclaiming in the hearing of his three disciples, Peter, James and John, “This is my
Son, my Beloved” and giving in the same moment the command: “Listen to him”!
It seems that the obedience command comes verbatim from Deuteronomy 18:15. If the
voice of the heavenly Father cites this text, then it calls the attention to the fact that Jesus is the
second Moses, proclaiming another law, namely the law of His Gospel, that of the supreme love.
Through these two events, Baptism and Transfiguration, the Evangelist Mark, like the
other two Synoptics, proclaims the divinity of Jesus, but not from external witnesses, but just
from the inside of the Holy Trinity: the Sonship of Jesus is proclaimed even by the voice of the
heavenly Father. Although the speaker is not named, from the very phraseology ”My Son”, ”The
Beloved” is not difficult to identify the voice as being, of course, that of the Father.
William Hendriksen referring to the content of this proclamation during the Baptism and
Transfiguration makes a genuine theological Excursus with regard to the relations between the
Persons of the Holy Trinity. Here is what he states: ”Moreover, not only in his official Messianic
capacity but also as Son by eternal generation, the One who fully shares the divine essence
together with the Father and the Spirit, is he the Father’s Beloved (cf. Joh 1:14; 3:16; 10:17;
17;23). No higher love is possible than the love which Father cherishes toward his Son.
According to the verbal adjective ἀγαπητός - Beloved (Mk 9:7) here used, this love is deep-
seated, thorough-going, as great as it is the heart of God itself. It is also as intelligent and
purposeful as is the mind of God. It is tender, vast, infinite!” 36
In the original text, the phrase “ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός” (Mar 9:7) is so contructed that
with the repetition of the article equal emphasis is placed on both the noun “Son” and the
adjective “Beloved”. In fact, the addition of the adjective after the noun, with repetition of the
article, forms in the Gospel of Mark a kind of Christological climax.
In Mk 3:11 Jesus’ status as Son of God is confessed even by the devils. They recognize
him as such: ”And whenever the unclean spirits beheld Him, they would fall down before Him
and cry out, saying, ‘You are the Son of God!’".
But Jesus forbids them to confess Him, because he doesn’t want to be proclaimed as God
by the devil, but only by people who are aware of their conviction. Moreover, Jesus doesn’t want
to be recognized by the people as being Messiah before of the end of His messianic work. This
prohibition of Jesus to be confessed as Messiah before the fulfilment of his mission is recognized
in the biblical Theology under the title of the so-called "Messianic Secret" 37 specific to the
Gospel of Mark.
In a similar context, we encounter another confession of the Sonship of Jesus coming also
from a possessed man. Reached the country of Gadarenes, Jesus encountered a man possessed by
an unclean spirit. Seeing Jesus from a distance, the man ran up and bowed down before Him; and

36
Cf. HENDRIKSEN W., Mark, 44.
37
A helpful collection of essayes representing the spectrum of inquiry, see C.M. TUCKETT, ed., The
Messianic Secret, Philadelphia: Fortress 1983. See also, AUNE D.E., “The Problem of the Messianic
Secret, in: Nov T 11, 1969, 1-31; WREDE William, The Messianic Secret, trans. J.C.G. Greig, Cambridge:
J. Clarke, 1971.
 12

crying out with a loud voice, he said: “What do I have to do with You, Jesus, Son of the Most
High God? I implore You by God, do not torment me!" (Mk 5:7).
The behavior of this demoniac is very similar to the one described in Mk 1:23-24. In both
cases, as a climax of action, appears the confession of Christ’s deity, and the fear of the demons
that even now Jesus might have in mind to them. What one may retain from the "confession of
demons" it is the accuracy of the proclamation of Jesus’divinity. They call Jesus ”Son of the
Most High God”, nothing less! And Jesus was and is exactly that. 38
The record of the possessed’ gesture to throw in front of Jesus clearly shows the intention
of the Evangelist to emphasize the divinity of Jesus and His authority over the forces of devil.
The devil remains subject to God. He is not above God.
Mk 14: 61-62 doesn’t refer only to the title "Son of Man", but also to Jesus status as Son
of God. The question of the High Priest didn’t point out only Jesus Messiahship, but he had also
in view the divine origin of Jesus, namely, whether is He Messiah and the Son of God? Here is
his question: ”Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, ‘Are You the
Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?’" (Mk 14:61).
The phrase "The Blessed One" is a typical Hebrew transcription for God (cf. Matt 26:63).
Jesus does not hesitate to answer the question and say clearly: "ἐγώ εἰμι - I am!" (Mk 14:62). His
statement contains an affirmative answer with regard to the fact that he has considered himself to
be both Messiah and Son of God. The testimonies of the Father, pronounced by the Baptism and
Transfiguration, regarding the status of Jesus to be His beloved Son, couldn’t be denied. So,
Mark makes a double portrait to Jesus with regard to His divinity: Messiah (Christ) and Son of
God.
The last witness regarding the status of Jesus, to be the Son of God, belongs to one of a
pagan Roman soldiers, charged with the execution of Jesus. Seeing what’s happened by Jesus’
death, he exclaimed: "And when the centurion, who was standing right in front of Him, saw the
way He breathed His last, he said, ‘Truly this man was the Son of God!’" (Mk 15:39).
According to Mark's Gospel it was the divine voice that proclaimed Jesus as being the
"Son of God" (1:11). The same voice was heard again on the Mount of Transfiguration (9:7). Its
message was confirmed by Jesus during his Trial (cf. 14: 61ff). The same witness is now
expressed by a pagan in the moment of Jesus' death. It is really interesting how a pagan
testimony about Jesus - Son of God – finds its place in Mark's Gospel along with the testimony
of the Heavenly Father! Where will he have known this expression "Son of God" from? Or
whom would he have heard it from? We do not know. It may be possible he had a heavenly
revelation in that moment !? In fact, the detail given only by Mark, that the centurion stood
before Jesus (15:39 - ”the centurion, who was standing right in front of Him - ἐξ ἐναντίας
αὐτοῦ”), near the cross, can not be neglected in this regard.39

38
See more details, HENDRIKSEN W., Mark, 191.
39
Gerhard Maier ask himself if Mark wouldn’t subsequently have personally spoken with that officer,
from whom he could have got such an accurate information (Mk 3:39 p.m.)? (See MAIER, G., Evanghelia
după Marcu, 599). Of course, it is high unlikely that this would have happened.
 13

I think that the Evangelist Mark not coincidentally put the last testimony related to the
quality of Jesus to be the Son of God in the mouth of a pagan. He wanted to universalise the
message of salvation brought by Jesus who died on the Cross, other than an ordinary man, in
front of a pagan. In fact, St.Teofilact commenting on this verse (15:39), states: "See here a
reversed situation: Jews kill and Gentile confesses!"40
The centurion must have heard how the Jewish leaders, speaking among themselves, had
scoffed Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God. Had he also, perhaps, heard how Pilate had examined
Jesus with respect to this very point (Joh 19:7 ff), asks himself W. Hendriksen, of course, not
without any sense? 41 But besides all these reflections, the centurion had seen and must have felt
how nature reacted to the death of Jesus: the earthquake, the splitting of the roks and the opening
of the tombs (cf. Mat 27:51-52.54). What is not sure is the fact whether in that time the
centurion’s knowledge of Christ had advanced to that point where he might confess Jesus to be
in a unique sense “the Son of God”?42
So, Mark depicts Jesus’portrait by means of two Christological titles: "Son of Man" and
"Son of God". Their meaning interpenetrates each other. Jesus identifies himself with the Son of
Man, who is the Messiah, the Saviour, and this Saviour is none other than the "incarnated Son of
God." The Marcan portrait of Jesus is, therefore, given by what Jesus considered who He is: Son
of Man suffering and saving, in the same time, and Son of God being testified by the heavenly
Father and recognized as such by an earthly man.
But, devoting a greater proportion of space to the passion narrative than any other
Gospels, I agree with Donald Guthrie that Mark describes a Christ who had come to suffer and to
save as ”Son of Man” and ”Incarnated Son of God”.43

4. Conclusions

a. Jesus expressed through the title "Son of Man" His conviction (consciousnes) of having
to fulfil the work of the Heavenly Man in two ways: on the one hand, in glory at the end of time,
as expected some Jewish circles; on the other hand, in the humiliation of his Incarnation among a
sinful humanity, a thought foreign to all previous conceptions about the Son of Man.
b. Both Daniel 7 and Isaiah 53 were the main pre-Christian passages which furnish a clue
to the meaning of the phrase Son of Man on the lips of Jesus. D. Guthrie thinks that since Daniel
7 and Isaiah 53 have been later interpreted in a messianic way it is not improbable that Jesus
used them with some understanding of his messianic office. Moreover, as long as Daniel 7 links
40
Cf. Sf. TEOFILACT, Tâlcuirea Sfintei Evanghelii de la Marcu, 191.
41
See HENDRIKSEN, W., Mark, 666.
42
The Evangelist Luke affirms that the centurion “glorified God and said ‘Certainly, this was a righteous
man’” (Lk 23:47). There is here no contradiction between Mark and Luke. The centurion may very well
have said both. Rudolf Pesch thinks that the ”Der Centurio spricht von Jesus angemessen wie von einem
Fremden: Dieser Mensch - ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος (Mk 15:39)”. See, PESCH Rudolf, Das Markusevangelium
(8,27-16,20), (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neun Testament), 2. Teil, Freiburg – Basel –
Wien 1977, 500.
43
See Guthrie D., New Testament Introduction, 57.
 14

suffering and glory, it is highly probable that Jesus had the combination in mind in his own use
of the title.44 Jesus certainly conceived of himself as possessing authority. This is seen both in his
earthly ministry and in his heavenly status.
c. In this context, it should be noted that using the title “Son of Man” Jesus Christ has
expressed a part of his messianic consciousness at all times. It is for this reason that its meaning
for him is so important in defining the Christology of the New Testament especially of that of the
Gospels.45
d. There are also no reasons for supposing that Jesus was thinking of an apocalyptic Son of
Man distinct from himself who would later justify his mission.
e. Donald Guthrie is correct by affirming that Jesus used the Son of Man title, not so much
for the benefit of his hearers as to combine in his own mind several strands which made his
mission unique.46 Jesus was in fact reinterpreting the concept of Messiah until his own disciples
would identify the Son of Man with Jesus the Messiah.47
f. Personally I think the title Son of Man was associated by Jesus especially with that of
Redeemer, designating the saving work which He had done.
g. As for the title Son of God’, as is applied to Jesus, it expresses the historical and
qualitative uniqueness of his relation to his heavenly Father.
h. Jesus’ consciousness of being the Son of God, like that of being the Son of Man, refer
both to his Person and to his messianic work: his work of salvation and revelation shows that the
Father and his Son are one.

44
Cf. GUTHRIE D., New Testament Theology, 279. A similar viewpoint, see LONGENECKER R. N., The
Christology of Early Jewish Christianity, London 1970, 91.
45
See, GUTHRIE D., New Testament Theology, 277.
46
Cf. GUTHRIE D., New Testament Theology, 282. Leon MORRIS in his work The Lord from Heaven,
London 1974, 28, gives four reasons why Jesus adopted the term Son of Man:
1. Because of its rarity and non-nationalistic associations
2. Because it had overtones of divinity
3. Because of its social implications
4. Because of its undertones of humanity.
47
See, GUTHRIE D., New Testament Theology, 282.