ASSEMBLIES OF GOD THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

JESUS AS THE SON OF MAN AN ANALYSIS OF THE TITLE SON OF MAN

RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR. JAMES H. RAILEY, JR. FOR THE CLASS THE 531 SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY I

DEPARTMENT OF BIBLE AND THEOLOGY

BY MONTY GALLOWAY BOX NUMBER 131

SPRINGFIELD, MO NOVEMBER 30, 2001

2 The Son of Man sayings in the New Testament is one of the most heavily debated topics in Christian theology. These sayings occur over eighty times in the Gospels and in every instance they are by Jesus. The problem occurs with the connection between the humble death of Jesus and the exalted Son of Man Messiah figure in the prophets. 1 There are many explanations for the term and hypothesis on whom Jesus is referring to. Geza Vermes, a scholar on the Son of Man subject, denies that there ever was a Son of Man title in Judaism. 2 This lead some to believe that the Son of Man title was created by the early church and inserted in later editions of the Gospels. 3 Even after centuries of debate, there has been no real consensus of what Son of Man means. 4 The term Son of Man is used one hundred and eight times in the New Testament in eighty different occurrences in the Gospels, with almost every reference stated by Jesus. The Greek oJ ui°o\ß touv aÓnqrw¿pou has been debated as a Semitic idiom really referring to bar enash, ben adam, or haha gadra. There are three major divisions in dealing with these terms. The first is that when Jesus used the term Son of Man, He was referring to His humanity without a parent. Secondly, Jesus used the term to denote His connection with the Messiah figure depicted in Daniel 7. 5 Thirdly, Son of Man is seen to be a non-titular idiom by which a human could refer to himself in place of

1

A. J. B. Higgins, Jesus and the Son of Man (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1990), 13. 2 Barnabas Lindars, Jesus Son of Man (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1984), vii. 3 Gerhard’s Vos, The Self-Disclosure of Jesus, ed. Johannes G. Voss (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1953), 230. 4 Delbert Burkett, The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 5. 5 Ibid., 4.

3 the personal pronoun “I.”6 This is strengthened in the writings of Ezekiel wherein he is called the son of man. There are three divisions in dealing with Jesus using the term to refer to Himself. The present sayings, passion sayings, and future sayings are the customary classifications of these divisions. 7 The present sayings are those where Jesus refers to His present ministry. The passion sayings are those where Jesus speaks of His approaching death. The future sayings are those in which Jesus connects Himself with His future glory. However, many scholars have separated the first two groups from the third claming there is no relevance of the third group with the Hebrew idiom bar nasha. 8 These scholars have also separated the Gospel of John from the Synoptic Gospels in their research saying that Son of Man sayings in John’s Gospel means something more theological and eschatological. 9 Morna D. Hooker uses this same method of investigation with the Gospel of Mark an attempt to better understand the “messianic consciousness” of Jesus as the Son of Man. 10 I do not feel the need to separate the Gospels, it is helpful in research. There are many resources in which only one of the Synoptic Gospels is used and therefore sources containing all of the Gospels are scarce. In an attempt to better understand the cultural significance of the Son of Man, the debate turned to other examples in which the term is used. The most sited extra-Biblical

6

Stanley Horton, ed., Systematic Theology (Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1995), 301. 7 Lindars, vii. 8 Ibid., vii. 9 Francis J. Molo ney, The Johannine Son of Man (Roma: Las – Libreria Ateneo Salesiano, 1978), 2. 10 Morna Dorothy Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark: A Study of the Background of the term “Son of Man” and its use in St. Mark’s Gospel (London: S. P. C. K., 1967), 77.

4 resource is the Similitudes of Enoch. 11 This resource is valuable evidence that there was an understanding for the Son of Man to be the Messiah, ruler, judge and deliverer of the righteous. 12 This is crucial to defend the belief that the title of Son of Man indeed did exist in Jewish culture. 13 This goes against the research of Geza Vermes in which Lindars quotes in his research. 14 The other main reference to the Son of Man is Daniel 7:13-14. In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. (NIV) The connection here is often made between Jesus and the Messianic figure who is “one like a son of man…” Later passages called “parousia,” defined by Geerhardus Vos as the Son of Man conducting judgment at His second coming, connect with Daniel 7 in the mentioning of the clouds of Heaven. 15 However, many scholars reject the messianic interpretation of Daniel 7 and 1 Enoch. They reasoned that rabbis’ interpretation of the Daniel figure was not a son of man, but rather a “Man of the Clouds.”16 One the other hand, many other scholars believe that the Son of Man as a Messianic figure is a valid point. Clearly the lines have been draw in this area of the Son of Man debate.

11

Higgins, 15. Ibid., 15. 13 Ibid., 15. 14 Lindars, vii. 15 Vos, 232. 16 Chrys C. Caragounis, The Son of Man: Vision and Interpretation (Tubingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1986), 17. 12

5 H. Lietzmann, another scholar, concluded that son of man was a Hellenistic, theological, technical term, which might have been formed in traditional Jewish circles. 17 In some Hellenistic literature of Gnostic thought, the son of man is connected with mankind as a whole 18 or symbolizing the people of God. 19 However, the oldest interpretation held by Hellenistic Judaism is the Son of Man as the Messiah. 20 The Gnostic son of man paints a very different picture than what is held by other Jewish literature. Much of the early Gnostic literature makes references to the god Anthropos (Greek for man), which is seen as an aeon partnering with Ecclesia (Greek for church). These gods are said to be descendants of Logos (Greek for word) and Zoe (Greek for life). It is derived from Genesis 1:26 where God says “let us make man in our image.” The Gnostic philosopher concluded that if God made us in His image, then God must be in some sense a man. 21 Here the followers of Colorbasus see the savior as the son of man as the son of the god Anthropos, and therefore he calls himself son of man. 22 From this comes the philosophy that the son of man is a son of the son of man. This is where the thought that when Jesus refers to the Son of Man, He is actually referring to one to come. 23 Many scholars and researchers reject this view and fall in line with one of thoughts mentioned above.

17

Caragounis, 17. Vos, 229. 19 Lindars, 3. 20 Caragounis, 43. 21 Burkett, 6. 22 Frederick Houk Borsch, The Christian and Gnostic Son of Man (Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson Inc., 1970), 59. 23 Burkett, 123. 18

6 The association between the Messiah and the suffering Son of Man is also hard to make. Without a doubt the Son of Man is connected to pain and suffering, but the Messiah figure in Daniel 7:14 is “given authority, glory and sovereign power.” This conflicts with the Messiah figure that Jesus draws when He connects “sovereign power” and “servant-Messiah” character in Isaiah 53. 24 Geerhardus Vos draws the conclusion that it is not because Jesus is the Son of Man that He must suffer, but because He is the Son of Man He is destined to suffer. 25 Likewise Marinus de Jonge sees Jesus as redefining the role of Messiah from what the Jewish community expected to the Servant of the Lord that he connects to His use of the term Son of Man. 26 Included on this side is M. D. Hooker. He sees the Son of Man as not one who will come, but one who is presently obedient, faithful and therefore suffering. 27 This redefining of Messiah is also contrasted by the sayings of Jesus involving both the Son of Man and Son of God. Attention must be paid here to make sure that there is no separation between the Divinity and the Humanity of Jesus. Also, there can be no separation between the Son of Man and the debasement and shame that He endures. 28 The researchers who do this usua lly interpret Son of Man as just man. 29 However, notice must be given to the definite article in the phrase (oJ ui°o\ß). This denotes that Jesus is the Son of Man not just a son of man. 30 This points to Jesus as a unique person. There

24

Marinus de Jonge, Jesus, The Servant-Messiah (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1991), 51. 25 Vos, 236. 26 de Jonge, 51. 27 Hooker, 72. 28 Vos, 237. 29 Lindars, 7. 30 Burkett, 17., Italics mine.

7 are also other variations along this theme including: the pre-eminent man, the ideal man, and the man who is the goal of human history. 31 As the first two variations on the unique person theme link Jesus to a special person, of which He most certainly is, the third connects Jesus to what humans are to strive to become. Jesus is the goal of human history, man at his best, or the representative man. 32 Lindars believes that the references of ben adam, translated Son of Man, means that Jesus is the representative of the people to whom he was sent. These correspond to the passages in Ezekiel. 33 However, only one of the researched scholars picks up on the representative man argument. Burkett seems to say that Jesus had Psalms 8:4 in mind when He called Himself Son of Man. 34 Many scholars see this being associated with Jesus humanity. Several scholars believe that Jesus only uses the title Son of Man to connect Him with His humanity. While the connection by these scholars is still made to Daniel 7, the designation of Son of Man is used to imply “obscurity, homelessness, rejection, humility, service, suffering and ultimately death.”35 In many of these instances, Son of Man replaces the personal pronoun “I”, as David R. Nichols addresses. 36 There seems to be more implied here. Jesus, speaking in the third person, is motivated by humility. 37 Whereas the association of Jesus with the figure “like a man” in Daniel 7 would also

31

Higgins, 16. Burkett, 17. 33 Lindars, 3. 34 Burkett, 36. 35 de Jonge, 54. 36 Horton, 301. 37 Lindars, 231. 32

8 denote His humanness. 38 As Lindars says the “paradox serves the double purpose of provoking attention and of conveying emphasis.”39 Other scholars have raised the question as to why Jesus would emphasize His humanity, when people would already be convinced that Jesus is human? This question leads many scholars to believe that Jesus did not actually use the term Son of Man Himself, but others used the term of Him. There has also been much debate whether or not Jesus actually used the term Son of Man. One reason for this debate is the uneven distribution of the term in the Scriptures. 40 As stated above, the title Son of Man occurs mostly in the Gospels, with all but one occurrence coming from Jesus. The fact that the followers of Jesus do not use this term leads some to question its validation. 41 The lack of occurrences in the writings of Paul and other New Testament authors led some scholars to divide the title Son of Man into different categories. These four categories are: only the non-apocalyptic sayings are authentic, only the apocalyptic sayings are authentic, all sayings are authentic, and none of the sayings are authentic. 42 To some researchers, only the non-apocalyptic sayings are authentic because of the references of Jesus to the clouds when He uses the phrase Son of Man. They believe that Jesus saw Himself as the Davidic Messiah in Daniel 7 description as a returning ruler and judge. These same scholars believe that the disciples created the eschatological sayings about Jesus using Son of Man only after Jesus’ death and resurrection, while Jesus used the term to point to His lowliness. Other scholars maintain that Jesus used 38

Ibid., 233. Ibid., 238. 40 Vos, 230. 41 Douglas R. A. Hare, The Son of Man Tradition (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1990), 2. 42 Burkett, 44. 39

9 Son of Man in connection with the Ezekiel passages to denote Jesus’ lowly, rejected state; God nevertheless exalts this humiliated man.

43

However, Higgins calls this an

“impossible view” stating that the Ezekiel passages cannot explain the need for Jesus to be a suffering servant with the connection of Jesus’ dignity as the Son of Man Daniel figure. 44 Here Vos maintains the use of Son of Man as a generic term, and the possible editorial insertion of the term. 45 The scholars that point to only apocalyptic sayings as authentic base their argument on Son of Man being drawn from Jewish apocalyptic material, saying that the earthly Son of Man figure could have only been developed after the original meaning of the title was forgotten. 46 These scholars also point back to the Daniel 7 passage maintaining that any references to the earthly Son of Man area late Hellenistic additions to the texts. For Bultmann and Wellhausen, earthly ministry Son of Man references originally referred to humans in general and the only true statements are associated with the Son of Man to come. 47 Closer study reveals the circular reasoning here and the textual criticism involved with the school of Wellhausen and Bultmann. There are also those who believe that both the apocalyptic and non-apocalyptic sayings are authentic. These scholars point to the proleptic or hidden Son of Man stating that Jesus was not referring to what He was at the time, but what He was to become in the future. Since Jesus already functioned in this capacity, He spoke of Himself

43

Ibid., 44. Higgins, 16. 45 Vos, 230. 46 Burkett, 45. 47 Ibid., 45. 44

10 proleptically. 48 Sjoberg makes the reference to 1 Enoch in how the Son of Man figure is pre-existent but remains concealed in Heaven until he is revealed. 49 While others combine the views of the apocalyptic Son of Man and the suffering servant idea already mentioned above. 50 There are four theories as for why of the sayings being authentic. First, the absence of Son of Man from any of Paul’s writings and other epistles lead some to believe that term was not used by Jesus, but rather an editorial insertion by the early church and the apostles. 51 Then the scholars point the multiple references of Jesus to Himself in the third person saying that any person to do so would imply an “unsound mind.” Thirdly, the historical considerations pointing to the apostles themselves is the next theory given as a reason. The apostles believed that Jesus was the Messiah and this term replaced Son of Man in later writings. 52 Lastly, the critical analysis of the Gospel traditions came from scholars who grouped the sayings together. These scholars maintain that the Son of Man saying could not have come from Jesus since they depict someone who expected divine glorification while pointing to the Scriptures as this not being characteristic of Jesus. 53 It is seen here as well that there is not a steadfast answer to the “problem.” There is no agreement in what is meant by Son of Man. Scholars and researchers have all debated and drawn their own conclusions to the term’s possibility. There have been connections made to Jewish antecedents, extra-Biblical texts, Gnostic philosophy, 48

Vos, 232. Burkett, 46. 50 Burkett, 47. 51 Vos, 230. 52 Higgins, 18. 53 Burkett, 53. 49

11 Hellenistic traditions and Palestinian conceptions. Furthermore, critical analysis and circular reasoning clouded the debate even more leaving this student to question if all are really missing the entire point. On the other side of the debate David R. Nichols has a more practical approach. He says, “Jesus seemed to choose this title to conceal what needed to be concealed and make known what needed to be made known.”54 This is exactly the purpose of the use of the term Son of Man by Jesus. The term revealed enough to the people of the time in order for them to understand what Jesus was claiming. At the same time, Son of Man concealed who Jesus really was to fulfill God’s purpose. Son of Man is the perfect term for Jesus. Not only does Jesus connect Himself to humanity, but also to His divine nature. Jesus does not refer to someone to come, but refers to His ministry on Earth and to come. Son of Man became synonymous with Messiah in early church history, which explains the absence in other texts. However strong the dissolution of the 19th and 20th centuries’ consensus, the fact remains that Jesus is Son of God and Son of Man. This theological point is still being debated, and will most likely not be solved in our lifetime. Ultimately, faith leads to the revelation of Jesus as the Messianic Son of Man.

54

Horton, 303.

12 WORKS CITED Borsch, Frederick Houk. The Christian and Gnostic Son of Man.Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson Inc., 1970. Burkett, Delbert. The Son of Man Debate: A History and Evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Caragounis, Chrys C. The Son of Man: Vision and Interpretation. Tubingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1986. de Jonge, Marinus. Jesus, The Servant-Messiah. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1991. Hare, Douglas R. A. The Son of Man Tradition. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1990. Higgins, A. J. B. Jesus and the Son of Man. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1964. Hooker, Morna Dorothy. The Son of Man in Mark: a study of the background of the term “Son of Man” and its use in St. Mark’s Gospel. London: S. P. C. K., 1967. Horton, Stanley M, ed., Systematic Theology: A Pentecostal Perspective. Revised ed. Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1995. Lindars, Barnabas. Jesus Son of Man. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984. Moloney, Francis J. The Johannine Son of Man. Roma (Italy): Las – Libreria Ateneo Salesiano, 1978. Vos, Geerhardus. The Self-Disclosure of Jesus. Edited by Johannes G. Vos. Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1953.