104
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
reasons, the question of the relevance of the Johannine Son of Man sayings for understanding the historical use of the expression by Jesus still remains open, but we will leave aside that question for now and return to it after we have examined the Johannine use of the idiom o9 ui9oj tou= a0nqrw&pou.
I. The Johannine Son of Man debate(s)
Because most scholars have considered the Gospel of John to lack historical value, the study of the Johannine Son of Man has developed almost in isolation from studies of the Synoptic Son of Man.11 As recently as 40 years ago, scholars began their studies of the Johannine Son of Man with references to the scarcity of literature written on the topic as compared to the volumes written on the Synoptic Son of Man.12 The separation between the two scholarly discussions has resulted in the Johannine discussion being largely devoid of the questions about the Aramaic ())#$n()) rb and what the phrase may have meant to Jesus and his hearers. Rather, the Johannine debates primarily concern the possible origins of the idiom o9 ui9oj tou= a0nqrw&pou for the Evangelist and/or the Evangelist’s community, the meaning of the idiom within the context of the Gospel, and/or the understanding of the phrase for the Johannine community.13
There are essentially four broad understandings of the meaning of o9 ui9oj tou= a0nqrw&pou within the context the Gospel of John: (1) ‘Son of Man’ in John 11. See Note 1 for some exceptions.
12. R.
Schnackenburg,
The Gospel According to St. John (3 vols; Tunbridge Wells: Burns
& Oates, 1967), vol. 1, p. 529; S. S. Smalley, ‘The Johannine Son of Man Sayings’, NTS 15
(1969), pp. 278–301; B. Lindars, ‘The Son of Man in the Johannine Christology’, in B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley (eds), Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: Studies in Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), pp. 43–60; R. Maddox,
‘The Function of the Son of Man in the Gospel of John’, in R. Banks (ed.), Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), pp. 186–204; F. J. Moloney, The Johannine Son of Man (BSR, 14; Rome: LAS, 2nd edn, 1978), p. 1.
13. Some studies, however, have attempted to place the Johannine sayings within Synoptic Son of Man categories – earthly, suffering, and coming/glory/apocalyptic sayings. See C. Ham,
‘The Title “Son of Man” in the Gospel of John’, Stone-Campbell Journal 1 (1998), pp. 67–84.
6. The Use of the Son of Man Idiom in the Gospel of John 105
highlights the humanity of Jesus.14 (2) ‘Son of Man’ indicates that Jesus is a/
the divine-man.15 (3) ‘Son of Man’ is simply synonymous with ‘Son of God’.16
(4) ‘Son of Man’ indicates that Jesus is a heavenly or divine fi gure.17
Now, although scholars variously arrive at these four broad understandings of the Johannine meaning of ‘the Son of Man’, they often argue for a specifi c meaning on the basis of differing methodologies. Also, some scholars who hold to similar understandings of ‘the Son of Man’ may have different views of the origin of the idiom. For some, the methodology begins with an examination of possible origins of the idiom – Wisdom, Hermetic literature, Philo, the Old Testament in general, Daniel 7 more specifi cally, and apocalyptic literature – and then they apply that to the understanding of the Johannine use.18
Others focus primarily on the text of Gospel of John to discover the meaning.19
This is essentially the question of whether or not the expression o9 ui9oj tou=
a0nqrw&pou fi nds its meaning in its origin (diachrony) or in its use in its context 14. Moloney,
Johannine, p. 213; E. Ruckstuhl, ‘Die johanneische Menschensohnforschung 1957–1969’, in J. Pfammatter and F. Furger (eds), Theologische Berichte 1 (Zurich: Benziger, 1972), pp. 171–284; J. Coppens, ‘Le fils de l’homme dans l’évangile johannique’, ETL
52 (1976), pp. 28–81; C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953, 1968), pp. 43–44, 243; M. Pamment, ‘The Son of Man in the Fourth Gospel’, JTS 36 (1985), pp. 56–66; R. Rhea, The Johannine Son of Man (AThANT
76; Zürich: Theologischer, 1990), p. 70; F. F. Ramos, ‘El hijo del hombre en el cuarto evangelio’, Studium Legionense 40 (1999), pp. 45–92.
15. T. Preiss, ‘Le fils de l’homme dans le IVe Évangile’, ETR 28 (1953), pp. 7–61; E. Harris, Prologue and Gospel: The Theology of the Fourth Evangelist (JSNTSup, 107; Sheffi eld: Sheffi eld Academic Press, 1994), pp. 116–29.
16. E. D. Freed, ‘The Son of Man in the Fourth Gospel’, JBL 86 (1967), pp. 402–409; S. Kim, The ‘Son of Man’ as the Son of God (WUNT 30; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983); Burkett, Son of the Man, passim; R. E. Brown, An Introduction to the Gospel of John (F. J. Moloney, ed.; New York: Doubleday, 2003).
17. S.
Schulz,
Untersuchungen zur Menschensohn-Christologie im Johannesevan-gelium.
Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Methodengeschichte der Auslegung des 4. Evangeliums (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1957); Maddox, ‘Function’, pp. 186–204; J. Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), pp. 337–73; J. Painter, ‘The Enigmatic Johannine Son of Man’, in F. Van Segbroeck, C. M. Tuckett, G. Van Belle and J. Verheyden (eds), Four Gospels 1992. Festschrift Frans Neirynck (BETL, 100; 3 vols.; Louvain: Peeters, 1992), pp. 1869–87; M. Sasse, Der Menschensohn im Evangelium nach Johannes (TANZ, 35; Tübingen, Basel: Francke, 2000); B. E. Reynolds, The Apocalyptic Son of Man in the Gospel of John (WUNT II, 249; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008).
18. Burkett,
Son of the Man, pp. 73–75, 77.
19. Moloney,
Johannine Son of Man, p. 22.
106
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
(synchrony).20 I believe that the origin of the expression can shed a benefi cial light on the questions of meaning, and I have sought to show this elsewhere.21
However, explorations of the origin of ‘the Son of Man’ do not automatically solve the problems, since disagreements over the meaning of possible background material (e.g. Daniel 7: a collective or heavenly messianic fi gure?) can and do affect scholarly understandings of ‘the Son of Man’ in John.22 Because the topic of this paper is on the use of the idiom in the Gospel of John, the issue of origin will be left unaddressed, although, again, I do think it is important.
Instead, our task here will be to discern the meaning of o9 ui9oj tou= a0nqrw&pou based on its use in the Gospel of John and then to compare that meaning with the portrait of ‘the Son of Man’ in the Synoptic Gospels.
II. The Johannine Son of Man sayings: three signifi cant themes As we approach the sayings, emphasis must be placed on all 13 sayings and not only on a select few.23 In discussion of the Johannine Son of Man sayings (1.51; 3.13, 14; 5.27; 6.27, 53, 62; 8.28; 9.35; 12.23, 34 [2×]; 13.31), attention is often directed to aspects and themes that are distinctive to John – the ascent/
descent of the Son of Man, his lifting up and his glorifi cation. In a similar manner, we will begin with these three themes, but then also move to address the other sayings.
A. The ascent and descent of the Son of Man (3.13; 6.62)
The Son of Man’s ascent and descent have been understood to be the key to understanding the Johannine portrait of this fi gure.24 This view arises most likely because of the uniqueness of this theme for John. At the same time, the 20. See F. J. Moloney, ‘The Johannine Son of Man Revisited’, in G. Van Belle, J. G. van der Watt and P. Maritz (eds), Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by the Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar (BETL, 184; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2005), pp. 177–202 (182–85).
21. Reynolds,
Apocalyptic Son of Man, esp. pp. 215–28.
22. Cf.
Ashton,
Understanding, pp. 337–73; and Lindars, Jesus, pp. 145–57.
23. This is a
weakness of Rhea, Johannine Son of Man; and Sasse, Menschensohn. See F. J. Moloney, ‘A Johannine Son of Man Discussion?’ Salesianum 39 (1977), pp. 93–102.
24. Burkett,
Son of the Man, p. 76; W. A. Meeks, ‘The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism’, JBL 91 (1972), pp. 44–72.
6. The Use of the Son of Man Idiom in the Gospel of John 107
ascent/descent language appears only in 1.51; 3.13; and 6.62.25 But 1.51 refers to the movement of angels and not the Son of Man, and in 6.62, only ‘ascent’
is mentioned (no ‘descent’). Further, 6.62 is a hypothetical (‘if’) statement. So, although the theme of the Son of Man’s ascent and descent is unique to John, it must be kept in perspective.
Yet, the ascent/descent sayings pose a diffi culty for the view that ‘the Son of Man’ is an indication of Jesus’ humanity. John 3.13 (especially) and 6.62 are commonly used as evidence that ‘the Son of Man’ is a heavenly fi gure and/or similar to ‘Son of God’.26 Jn 3.13 states: ‘No one is able to ascend to heaven, except the one who descended, the Son of Man’. In the narrative context, Jesus is replying to Nicodemus, and by this statement he clearly indicates that the Son of Man descended from heaven. Jesus is explaining to Nicodemus that he can reveal heavenly things (3.12) because he has come from heaven.
For Eugen Ruckstuhl and Francis Moloney who claim that ‘the Son of Man’
designates the incarnate Jesus, his descent from heaven is problematical.27
They claim that the Son of Man’s descent has nothing to do with his heavenly origin or pre-existence. Moloney states: ‘Jn 3:13 is not about pre-existence or post-existence’.28 For him, the descent is a ‘literary topos’ that suggests Jesus’
uniqueness. But the Son of Man’s descent from heaven seems to imply his prior existence before the incarnation, just as the ascent suggests the existence of the Son of Man after Jesus’ earthly life.29 It is not ‘too much’ to speak of the Son of Man’s ‘movement’.30 In my view, movement (including ascent and descent) requires a person or object to be in existence both before and after the movement. Moloney is correct that the intent of 3.13 is to direct attention to the Son of Man’s unique authority to reveal heavenly things (cf. 3.12). The Son of Man does have this authority because he is unique from other revealers, but 25. The
words
a)nabai/nw and katabai/nw are also common words in John in relation to Jesus’ travel (2.12, 13; 4.47, 49, 51; 5.1, 7; 6.16; 7.8, 10, 18; 10.1; 11.55; 12.20; 21.11).
26. Ashton,
Understanding, pp. 348–56; Sasse, Menschensohn, pp. 182–230.
27. Ruckstuhl, ‘Menschensohnforschung’, p. 276; Moloney, Johannine, p. 213. See also Coppens, ‘Fils de l’homme’, p. 67.
28. Moloney, ‘Revisited’, p. 192. Casey ( Solution, p. 276) refers to this as Moloney’s
‘terrible tangles’.
29. A. Y. Collins and J. J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), p. 183.
30. Contra Moloney, Editor’s Note, in Brown, Introduction, p. 257 n. 87.
108
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
the Son of Man’s uniqueness in revealing heavenly mysteries exists because he is from heaven and has descended from there.
Jn 6.61-62 draws even more attention to the Son of Man’s heavenly origin.
Jesus asks his disciples: tou=to u9ma=j skadali/zei; e0an ou]n qewrh=te ton ui9on tou= a0nqrw&pou a0nabai/nonta o3pou h]n to pro/teron; Jesus’ question raises another: is an actual ascent intended here or is it only hypothetical? Moloney thinks that the ascent is hypothetical, which is noticeable in his explanation of Jesus’ statement which lacks the verb ‘to see’: ‘[Jesus] asks them if they would like “the Son of Man” to ascend “to where he was before (pro/teron)”. For the Fourth Evangelist, there is no reason for Jesus to ascend, as other revealers have claimed as having done.’31 But, contrary to what Moloney argues, what is actually hypothetical is not the ascent but the seeing of the ascent. Jesus seems to be saying: ‘If you have diffi culty with eating fl esh and drinking blood, what will you do if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before?’
The hypothetical aspect of the question is not about the ascent, but what the disciples will do if they see it. And even if the ascent was hypothetical, Jesus says that the Son of Man would ascend to where he was before. The use of pro/teron implies the Son of Man’s pre-existence in heaven, and the ‘ascent’
itself, whether hypothetical or not, also suggests the post-existence of the Son of Man in heaven.32
B. The lifting up of the Son of Man (3.14; 8.28; 12.34 [12.32])
Another distinctive feature of the Johannine Son of Man is the use of the verb u9yo/w with this fi gure,33 and the meaning of the lifting up of the Son of Man depends on one’s understanding of this verb. The word has the literal sense of lifting something up, but in the LXX the metaphorical meaning ‘to exalt’ is more common. The Gospel of John is known for its use of words with double meaning, and u9yo/w is no exception. The fi rst use of the verb in 3.14 makes this double meaning clear. Jesus says to Nicodemus: ‘Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness so must the Son of Man be lifted up.’ Moses did 31. Moloney, ‘Revisited’, p. 195.
32. Painter, ‘Enigmatic’, p. 1883; H. Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel (Chicago: Argonaut, 1968; repr. Uppsala, 1929), p. 264.
33. Most scholars understand Isa. 52.13 to be in the background of the Johannine usage of the term, especially with the combined use of doca/zw in Isa. 52.13 and in the Gospel.
6. The Use of the Son of Man Idiom in the Gospel of John 109
not exalt the bronze serpent (unlike some later Israelites – 2 Kgs 18.4), but rather he placed it on a pole (Num. 21.9; cf. Wis. 16.7; Barn. 12.10). This gives the impression that the Son of Man is physically lifted up, i.e., on the cross, although this meaning is not obvious at this point in the Gospel, except to someone familiar with the crucifi xion.
However, 8.28 and 12.32, 34 suggest that physical elevation is not the only meaning of u9yo/w in John. In 8.28, which is the only active use of the verb, Jesus tells ‘the Jews’: ‘When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I Am . . .’ Since ‘the Jews’ are the subject of the verb u9yo/w, the physical lifting up on the cross appears to be the meaning again, but the knowledge that the Jews are said to gain cannot be seen to have come to them at the crucifi xion – ‘you will know that I Am’. 0Egw_ ei0mi should be understood here and in 8.24 as a referent to the divine name.34 Jesus has just used the phrase previously in 8.24: ‘If you do not believe that I Am, you will die in your sins.’ The parallel between believing and knowing, added with the idea of dying in one’s sins (8.24), suggests that this knowledge of Jesus as ‘I Am’
has salvifi c implications (cf. Isa. 43.10).35 However, such a change of heart by Jesus’ opponents is not apparent in the actions of the 0Ioudai/oi at the cross. And in comparison, the disciples do not seem to believe or know at the crucifi xion.
Their belief does not begin until after the resurrection (20.8; cf. 2.19; 12.16).
Therefore, this suggests that the metaphorical lifting up (i.e. exaltation) of the Son of Man stretches beyond the single event of the cross, while at the same time the literal meaning includes it.36
Jn 12.32, 34 also point in this metaphorical/exaltation direction. ‘If I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people to myself’; ‘We have heard in the law that the Christ remains forever. How do you say that it is necessary for the Son of Man to be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?’ Jesus says that the lifting up will bring about the drawing of all to himself. The events of the crucifi xion do not indicate this drawing at the cross. Furthermore, the crowd’s response 34. C.
H.
Williams,
I am He: The Interpretation of ‘Anî Hû’ in Jewish and Early Christian Literature (WUNT II, 113; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), pp. 266–75.
35. See
Schnackenburg,
Gospel, 2.202–3.
36. R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (AB, 29 & 29A; 2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1966–70), p. 146; J. Blank, Krisis. Untersuchungen zur johanneischen Christologie und Eschatologie (Freiburg im Breisgau: Lambertus, 1964), p. 84.
110
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
in 12.34 does not suggest that they equated ‘lifting up’ with crucifi xion. At the least, they sensed a contrast between ‘lifting up’ and ‘remaining forever’. They appear to equate ‘the Son of Man’ and ‘Messiah’ to some extent, while treating
‘lifting up’ and ‘remaining’ as opposite actions.37 This suggests that ‘lifting up’
in 12.34 refers to some sort of departure which may or may not include death.
The following verses 12.35-36 further add to this idea of departure with Jesus’
statement that he will only be with them for a little while. The phrase ‘little while’ (mikro/n) is used throughout the farewell discourse to indicate the time until Jesus’ departure (13.33; 14.19; 16.16-18). Further, in 12.32 Jesus speaks of being lifted up ‘from the earth’. This could be a reference to the physical lifting up on the cross, but as George Beasley-Murray, states the meaning appears to point beyond merely being lifted up six feet off the ground.38 In sum, for John, the lifting up is not specifi cally the crucifi xion, but it includes it. Lifting up occurs through the crucifi xion, but it is not completed until after his resurrection.39 There is a physical and metaphorical meaning of u9yo/w, but, in John, the metaphorical meaning is stronger.
C. The glorifi cation of the Son of Man (12.23; 13.31-32)
Along with the ascent/descent and lifting up themes, another important Johannine Son of Man theme is the glorifi cation of the Son of Man. The fi rst mention of the Son of Man’s glorifi cation comes in Jn 12.23 after the Greeks request to see Jesus (12.21). Jesus says: ‘The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorifi ed.’ His statement points to the close relationship between the Son of Man’s glorifi cation and the hour of this event. Jesus’ hour has been fore-shadowed numerous times previously in the Gospel (2.4; 7.30; 8.20). The hour can be understood as a direct reference to the crucifi xion, especially considering Jesus’ statements about the kernel of wheat dying in 12.24 and Jesus’ troubled 37. C. C. Caragounis, The Son of Man: Vision and Interpretation (WUNT, 38; Mohr Siebeck, 1986), p. 183; Hare, Son of Man, p. 108; Burkett, Son of the Man, p. 167.
Who Is This Son of Man Page 16
