Gospel, pp. 261–62.
64. See
Moloney,
Johannine, p. 102.
65. J. D. G. Dunn, ‘John VI – A Eucharistic Discourse?’, NTS 17 (1970–71), pp. 328–38; D. M. Swancutt, ‘Hungers Assuaged by the Bread from Heaven: “Eating Jesus” as Isaian Call to Belief: The Confl uence of Isaiah 55 and Psalm 78(77) in John 6.22-71’, in C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders (eds), Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel: Investigations and Prophets (SSEJC 5; JSNTSup 148; Sheffi eld: Sheffi eld Academic Press, 1997), pp. 218–51.
66. Schulz,
Untersuchungen, p. 118 n. 4; E. M. Sidebottom, ‘The Son of Man as Man in the Fourth Gospel’, ExpTim 68 (1957), pp. 231–35, 280–83.
118
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
9.35 into one of the Johannine Son of Man themes. Added to this, it is one of the most distinct of all the Son of Man sayings in all four of the Gospels because it is found in a statement of belief. Jesus asks the man born blind: ‘Do you believe in the Son of Man?’ Nowhere in the NT is o9 ui9oj tou= a0nqrw&pou found in a statement of belief. Not surprisingly, the textual tradition reveals a variant of o9 ui9oj tou= qeou=, but this variant makes the most sense as either a purposeful or accidental alignment with other Johannine statements about belief in the Son.67
The entire context of John 9 concerns the identity of Jesus, the one who gave sight to the man born blind. Although Jesus is never questioned, the blind man is interrogated about his new-found sight and specifi cally about the one who healed him. Since the man born blind moves from belief in Jesus as healer (9.11), to prophet (9.17), to one ‘from God’ (9.33), it is challenging to understand why Jesus would ask the man born blind to believe in the ‘human one’. The Pharisees and scribes on the other hand see Jesus as a mere man (9.24) and cast the healed man out for thinking that Jesus is from God (9.33; cf. 9.16). If the entire passage has this crescendo of meaning concerning Jesus’ identity as divine, how could the climax of the passage lead to a declaration of Jesus as the human one?68 Edwin Abbott’s defence of the humanity view for 9.35 captures the diffi culty of this argument: ‘The blind man, never having seen a man (or “son of man”) before, could not be familiar with the sight, and would therefore be free from that kind of “familiarity” which “breeds contempt” for what we often call “a mere man”.’69
The man born blind is either unaware of who the Son of Man is and wants to know his identity or the idiom is unclear to him.70 Jesus’ response implies that it is the identity of the Son of Man that the man seeks to know: ‘You have heard him and the one speaking with you is that one’ (e0kei/noj – 9.37; cf. 4.26).
At the same time, this does not rule out the possibility that the man has no knowledge of the content of o9 ui9oj tou= a0nqrw&pou; yet his interest continues to be in the identity of this fi gure.
67. B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2nd edn, 1994), p. 194.
68. Contra Pamment, ‘Son of Man’, pp. 63, 65; Ramos, ‘Hijo’, pp. 57, 90.
69. Abbott,
Son of Man, p. 538, n. 1. Casey ( Solution, p. 307), who elsewhere says that ‘Son of Man’ refers to Jesus as a human being (p. 281), appears to modify this view in 9.35 to say that
‘Son of Man’ indicates ‘the humanity of God incarnate who reveals himself through his sa/rc’.
70. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (Philadelphia: Westminster, 2nd edn, 1978), p. 364.
6. The Use of the Son of Man Idiom in the Gospel of John 119
Further, in Jn 9.39-41,71 Jesus says: ‘For judgement I have come into this world.’ The connection of the Son of Man to judgement is brought again to the forefront. Judgement, since we last saw it in 5.27, is here an unsurprising function of the Son of Man. His heavenly origin is highlighted again by mention of his ‘coming into this world’.72 This suggests movement from outside this world and into it – such as a descent from heaven (3.13; 6.32, 51, 53).
Thus, Jn 9.35 is an important Johannine Son of Man saying, which is too often neglected. The saying may suggest similarity with the ‘Son (of God)’ sayings because of the theme of belief, but this does mean that they are equivalent titles in John.
E. Summary of the Son of Man sayings in John
Even though the sayings just discussed do not fi t within the common thematic categories, they add signifi cant insight into the characteristics of the Johannine Son of Man. The Son of Man in John is a heavenly, apocalyptic fi gure (1.51).
He has a role in the fi nal judgement, and ‘Son of Man’ appears distinct from
‘Son’ (5.27). Along with his role in judgement, the Son of Man acts in salvation giving himself as the life-giving food (6.27) and is a heavenly fi gure to be believed in (6.53; 9.35). All of these depictions raise questions about three of the four broad Christological understandings of ‘Son of Man’ in John’s Gospel and help to clarify the fourth.
IV. The Johannine Son of Man: humanity, divine-man,
Son of God or heavenly fi gure
So what does this examination reveal about the Son of Man sayings in the Gospel of John? How do the four broad Christological meanings hold up to scrutiny?
71. That Jesus is speaking here as the Son of Man is reasonably clear since he has just declared himself ‘Son of Man’ in whom to believe (9.37). The possible narrative break between vv. 38 and 39 is non-existent since the themes of light/dark, blindness/sight and sin are repetition of themes at the opening of the narrative in 9.1-5 and conclude Jesus’ discussion with the man born blind.
72. Collins and Collins, King and Messiah, p. 185.
120
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
A. Son of Man and Jesus’ humanity
Although the view that ‘the Son of Man’ indicates Jesus’ humanity is the most common understanding of the use of the idiom in John, the evidence of the sayings suggests that this is not its meaning. I contend that references to the Son of Man’s descent from heaven suggest that Jesus did not become the Son of Man at the incarnation, but rather existed as the Son of Man prior to his descent (3.13; 6.51-53). Similarly, the Son of Man’s ascent involves existence after the ascent, since the Son of Man will ascend to where he was before (6.62). Despite claims otherwise, I posit that the Son of Man’s descent implies pre-existence.
For someone to move from one location to another requires the existence of that person in the fi rst location prior to movement to the other.73 Further, considering the Johannine emphasis on belief in the Son of God (3:16), the invitation to believe in the Son of Man suggests that the expression ‘the Son of Man’ refers to a heavenly being (9.35). The man born blind has come to understand that Jesus is from God (9.33) while the Pharisees believe Jesus to be a mere man (9.17, 24). There seems to be no reason why Jesus would tell the man to believe in the ‘human one’ or his humanity if Jesus is already understood to be a man by his opponents who do not believe in him (9.24).
Another argument put forward by the humanity proponents is that the crucifi xion is a human event, and therefore, only a human could be crucifi ed.74
Although the lifting up and glorifi cation of the Son of Man include the crucifi xion, this does not mean that ‘the Son of Man’ expression designates Jesus’
humanity. The point of John (and the Synoptics for that matter) is that Jesus the Son of God and Son of Man was crucifi ed (cf. Mark 8.31; 9.31; 10.33; and pars.). The importance of the event is not that a human being died, but that the Son of Man and the Son of God could and did die.75
To be completely clear, this is not an argument against the humanity of Jesus in the Gospel of John. The Johannine Jesus is obviously human.76 The 73. Contra Moloney, Editor’s Note, in Brown, Introduction, p. 257, n. 87.
74. Moloney, ‘Revisited’, pp. 193, 201; Casey, Solution, p. 283.
75. See R. Bauckham, God Crucifi ed: Monotheism and Christology
in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). Cf. Justin, Dial., 31–32, where Trypho, according to Justin, expects the Son of Man to be the Danielic fi gure who will triumph and not suffer.
76. M.
M.
Thompson,
The Incarnate Word: Perspectives on Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993; orig. The Humanity of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel [Fortress Press: 1988]).
6. The Use of the Son of Man Idiom in the Gospel of John 121
Word became fl esh and dwelt among us (1.14). Jesus’ opponents refer to him as a1nqrwpoj (9.16, 24), and the crowd calls him the son of Joseph (6.42).
But, at the same time, I contend that the idiom ‘the Son of Man’ is not used in John to emphasize Jesus’ humanity.77
B. ‘Son of Man’ and ‘Son of God’
The Gospel of John’s portrayal of the expressions ‘the Son of Man’ and ‘the Son of God’ raises questions about the relationship between them. These questions are non-existent in the Synoptic Gospels largely because of the comparative absence of ‘Son (of God)’ language, but in John we see overlap in context and sometimes meaning. The scholarly opinion about the relationship between the titles varies from synonymous meaning to stark contrast. Both extremes do not fi t the evidence from the Gospel. First, there are obvious distinctions between the use and meaning of ‘the Son of Man’ and ‘the Son (of God)’. In 5.27, the Son is able to execute judgement because he is ‘the Son of Man’. The authority to judge here is thus dependent upon Jesus’ being ‘the Son of Man’ and not on his status as ‘the Son’.78 Although Burkett claims: ‘The fundamental signifi -
cance of the title is thus relational: it expresses Jesus’ Sonship, his relation to the Father’,79 there is no clear indication of the fi lial relationship between Father and the Son of Man. Furthermore, the Son is sent by the Father into the world and the Son of Man descends, indicating that there are defi nite distinctions between the uses of the two titles.
Yet with all of these distinctions, overlap between the titles remains. They are not entirely distinct from one another. Belief in ‘Son’ and ‘Son of Man’
leads to eternal life (3.16; 9.35; cf. 3.15). Both titles are used in the context of glory and glorifi cation (12.23; 13.31-32; 17.1-5). And we fi nd in an ‘I’
statement of Jesus, themes more often connected with ‘Son (of God)’ sayings –
hearing the Father, being sent, doing the Father’s will – alongside the theme of judgement, which is considered a ‘Son of Man’ theme (Jn 5.30). This suggests that the titles cannot be entirely separated from one another.
The expressions have distinguishable meanings and each further expands 77. The view that ‘Son of Man’ highlights Jesus’ humanity and divinity simultaneously does not need a separate argument, since the above critique is relevant to this view as well.
78. Freed (‘Son of Man’, p. 404) fails to note this distinction.
79. Burkett,
Son of the Man, p. 171.
122
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
our understanding of John’s Gospel and the Johannine Jesus, but, at the same time, ‘the Son of Man’ and ‘the Son (of God)’ cannot be completely divorced from one another because they are attached to the same person.80 There is distinctiveness between the two, but there is overlap due to the similar referent.
Each expression, ‘the Son (of God)’ and ‘the Son of Man’, presents a distinct Christological understanding of the person of Jesus in the Gospel of John.
C. The Johannine Son of Man as a heavenly fi gure in Johannine
Christology
Rather than ‘the Son of Man’ highlighting the humanity of Jesus or being synonymous with ‘the Son (of God)’, the expression draws attention to the heavenly nature of Jesus. The heavenly connotation of the expression can be seen in the Son of Man’s appearance at the apocalyptic opening of heaven (1.51), his descent from and ascent to heaven (3.13; 6.62), and his coming into the world (9.35-41; cf. 12.32). Hints of the heavenly signifi cance of the Johannine Son of Man can also be seen in the contextual understanding of the
‘lifting up’ and glorifi cation sayings, since Jesus’ return to the Father appears to be included in the Son of Man’s lifting up and glorifi cation (3.14; 8.28; 12.34; 12.23; 13.31-32). For John, ‘“Son of Man” points to a fi gure whose true home is in heaven’.81
Regarding the signifi cance of ‘the Son of Man’ for Johannine Christology, scholars hold views at the two ends of the spectrum. Some see a Son of Man Christology as the central Christology of the Gospel,82 whereas others see no Christological meaning of the expression.83 It is by no means central to the gospel, as can be seen in its absence from important points in the narrative, such as Jesus’ dialogue with the Samaritan woman (John 4), his disputes with the
‘Jews’ in John 7 and 10, and in the raising of Lazarus (John 11). Interestingly, it is at these junctures that the title ‘Messiah’ or ‘Christ’ is used by Jesus or others. However, the most telling evidence against ‘the Son of Man’ being the 80. M. M. Pazdan, The Son of Man: A Metaphor for Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (Zacchaeus Studies: New Testament; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991), pp. 79–81.
81. Ashton,
Understanding, 337.
82. Higgins,
Jesus, p. 155.
83. Barrett,
Gospel, p. 73.
6. The Use of the Son of Man Idiom in the Gospel of John 123
central Christology of the Gospel of John is the fact that it is missing from the author’s statement about the reason for writing the Gospel in Jn 20.30-31.
Nevertheless, although it may not be the central emphasis of the Gospel, ‘the Son of Man’ still plays an important part in Johannine Christology. Together with ‘Son of God’, ‘Messiah’, the ‘I Am’ sayings, the theme of Jesus’ kingship, etc., ‘the Son of Man’ adds to the overall depiction of the Johannine Jesus. The expression makes a distinctive contribution to John’s Christological portrait of Jesus. For example, in John ‘the Son of Man’ draws attention to Jesus’ ability to judge, his role in salvation, and his similarity with the Father in these actions.
The expression also highlights the reason he can reveal heavenly mysteries, namely because he has descended from heaven, and clarifi es that Jesus’ death is the beginning of his exaltation and glorifi cation. Borrowing a term from M.-É. Boismard, the titles of Jesus in John’s Gospel form ‘un bouquet’ of titles.84 ‘The Son of Man’ is not the dominant fl ower of the bouquet, but neither is it an insignifi cant fl ower, nor the same as any another fl ower. ‘The Son of Man’, along with the other titles, adds to the Christological presentation of Jesus and further enhances the Gospel’s depiction of his identity.
V. The Son of Man in John and the Synoptic Gospels
The relationship between the Johannine Son of Man and ‘the Son of Man’ in the Synoptic Gospels requires assessment, not least because all four Gospels use the term to refer to Jesus. Moreover, in each Gospel, Jesus uses the idiom to speak of himself solely, and he is the only one to use the idiom (apart from the repetition of his words by the angels in Lk. 24.7 and the crowd in Jn 12.34).
But do each of the Gospels use the term in the same way? Various opinions have been given on this; however, the majority see John as interpreting (or shall we say ‘theologizing’) ‘the Son of Man’ on the basis of the Synoptic portrayal(s).
Markus Sasse has listed 11 differences between the Son of Man in John and the Synoptics.85 A few such as Robert Maddox see closer similarity between 84. M.-É. Boismard and A. Lamouille, L’Évangile de Jean. Synopse des quatre évangiles (Paris: Cerf, 3rd edn, 1977), p. 99.
85. Sasse,
Menschensohn, pp. 243–45. Although Sasse lists 11 differences, some of these are opposite sides of the same coin.
124
‘Who is this Son of Man?’
the descriptions.86 Obvious differences exist between the four Gospels, but is John closer to the Synoptics tha
n most think?
For those familiar with the Synoptic use of ‘the Son of Man’, some of the differences with the Gospel of John are stark. First, the Johannine Son of Man ascends and descends, while the Son of Man in Matthew, Mark and Luke does not engage in this movement. Second, there is no indication of a future coming ( parousia) of the Son of Man in John, but in the Synoptic Gospels, the Son of Man is present on earth and will also come in the future with the clouds (Mk 13.26; 14.62; Mt. 24.30; 26.64; Lk. 21.27; 22.69?).87 Consistent with the more realized eschatology of John, the Johannine Son of Man is presented as acting, judging and saving in the present. Third, the Son of Man’s connection to the crucifi xion is understood as part of a larger exaltation theme in John, whereas in the Synoptics this connection is spoken of in the language of suffering. For example, ‘It is necessary for the Son of Man to suffer and to be persecuted by the elders and the high priests and the scribes . . .’. (Mk 8.31).
Fourth, and related to the three previous differences, the Johannine Son of Man is glorifi ed on earth (12.23; 13.31; cf. 12.28). In the Synoptics, glory is solely related to the Son of Man at the time of his future appearance with the clouds of heaven and the angels of God (Mk 13.62; Mt. 24.30; 25.31; Lk. 21.27). Fifth, the Son of Man in John is overtly depicted as having an active role in salvation.
He is the one who gives the food that remains to eternal life (6.27), and those who believe have life in him (3.14-15). In the Synoptic Gospels, the Son of Man’s role in salvation is not as clear. The nearest references are to the Son of Man giving his life as a ransom for many (Mk 10.45; Mt. 20.28) and his coming to seek and to save the lost (Lk. 19.10). Sixth, the Johannine Son of Man is one who is to be believed in. Belief in the Son of Man is absent in the Synoptics.88
Now while there are these obvious differences, there are some startling similarities that often go unnoticed or are considered unimportant due to the differences mentioned above. First, although the language surrounding Jesus’
Who Is This Son of Man Page 18
