Scholars have been discussing this for the better part of two centuries–and theologians before that–and nobody to this day really knows what Jesus meant when he used that term. Or even if he did use it, and if he did, in what context. The Old Testament isn’t a lot more clear in its use of the same term (utilizing the indefinite article), and scholars aren’t even 100% sure the two terms are related. Though they probably are. But maybe not. We don’t know.
Bart has decided that Jesus never thought of himself as The Son of Man, but he has not persuaded many other scholars of this.
Sometimes he persuades me–truthfully, I want to be persuaded, because it irritates me when people refer to themselves in the third person. (Unless it’s The Incredible Hulk. That is the only valid exception, and then Marvel Comics went and ruined it).
More seriously, I believe it because I must believe Jesus knew he wasn’t omniscient and all-powerful. Like John the Baptist, he was delivering a message of an impending transformation he was powerless to bring about, because he still woke up every day as just another schmo with feet of clay. “Why do you call me good? Only God is good.”
Where I disagree with Bart is when he says that Jesus believed the Son of Man would then place him on a throne to rule the Kingdom. I will never agree with that. It’s just not consistent with the person I see behind the gospels. Which doesn’t prove anything, and we’re back to square one.
Problem with Bart’s solution–why is an unearthly supernatural being–some kind of angel, we assume–called ‘The Son of Man’? Isaiah said he saw one ‘like’ a son of man–that is to say, human in appearance, which is consistent with what we’re told about angels when they appear to people. Maybe that’s what Jesus means, and we’re just supposed to assume he’s talking about whatever Isaiah was talking about (which would have nothing to do with what Jesus was talking about, but it’s not like Isaiah was around to complain about being misquoted).
In the gospels, Jesus can refer to himself as ‘The Son of God’ and ‘The Son of Man’ in the same passage. No question the gospel authors assumed Jesus was both. But they assumed a lot of things that clearly were not true. And none of them ever talked to Jesus about this (or anything else).
Thing is, Jesus really does seem to blur the lines between himself and the Son of Man–at times, he seems to be talking about someone else, and at times about himself. And while scholars will probably never stop arguing over exactly what he meant, there is a fairly strong consensus that there was a valid memory of Jesus blurring those lines. As if Jesus himself wasn’t quite sure where the line was.
Here’s a fragment of a germ of a badly-formed idea, that I feel certain somebody else has had before (because it’s impossible to say anything about Jesus somebody hasn’t said before).
I’m Irish American. My grandparents all came from there. But my parents and I were born here. So when I’m in America, I think of myself as Irish, refer to myself as Irish. But when I’m visiting family over there, I’m constantly reminded that I’m a Yank, and refer to myself as such. You tend to refer to yourself in terms of that which distinguishes you from those around you, and we all have multifarious identities.
Jesus didn’t believe in any virgin birth, but it seems undeniable he had come to think of himself as God’s adopted son, which in the parlance of that time was just as sacred and powerful a thing as being someone’s natural issue (more so, arguably). He was conceived as a human, came into the world as a human, and then became something more through God’s intervention, and through his own faith, imperfect though it was. So in the context of the world he’s in, he’s the Son of God, because that’s what distinguishes him from those around him.
But if he believed it was his destiny to be taken up into heaven (as happened with Elijah, with whom he is constantly compared), then what would distinguish him from most other celestial denizens? Exactly so. In the Roman world, everybody is a Roman–until he or she goes to Rome.
Is this what Isaiah meant? Hardly. Is this how Jesus might have reasoned it out? Possibly. Why not? I don’t know.
So he is the earthly Son of God now, but will be the heavenly Son of Man later. At which point God will send him to enact the Kingdom. But he will not rule it. He won’t even get to live there. He believes his disciples will do that. He will put them in charge, and return to the heavenly realm, where he will watch over them–as Moses never got to live in the Promised Land.
If he puts himself in charge, then he’s breaking his own stricture–“He who exalts himself shall be humbled.” He will humble himself, and be exalted in a different way–but will be, as he sees it, sacrificing his humanity–and all its attendant physical joys–for the sake of his fellow humans. So that they may have life, and have it more abundantly.
I don’t know this is true.
I know very well it’s not fact.
But it’s what I’d like to believe. So I will. For now.
Thoughts?
Bart understands ‘The Kingdom of God’ to be different than the current world.
For instance he thinks that in ‘The Kingdom of God’ there will be no physical death, and no sicknesses, and no tsunamis, etc, and revived corpses too
such a transformation of the current world into that kind of ‘Kingdom of God’ is clearly impossible by human effort independent of some supernatural component/agent (like a cosmic ‘Son of Man’).
On the other hand if Jesus did not understand the Kingdom of God with those kinds of elements [lets say he saw the Kingdom of God somewhat like jeremiah saw the new covenant see Jer 31:31], then it is at least conceivable, that such a ‘Kingdom of God’ could be inaugurated by a person able to elucidate the true nature of God and His Will, maybe Jesus or maybe another human person.
tompicard said
Bart understands ‘The Kingdom of God’ to be different than the current world.For instance he thinks that in ‘The Kingdom of God’ there will be no physical death, and no sicknesses, and no tsunamis, etc, and revived corpses too
such a transformation of the current world into that kind of ‘Kingdom of God’ is clearly impossible by human effort independent of some supernatural component/agent (like a cosmic ‘Son of Man’).
On the other hand if Jesus did not understand the Kingdom of God with those kinds of elements [lets say he saw the Kingdom of God somewhat like jeremiah saw the new covenant see Jer 31:31], then it is at least conceivable, that such a ‘Kingdom of God’ could be inaugurated by a person able to elucidate the true nature of God and His Will, maybe Jesus or maybe another human person.
Bart has admitted to some uncertainty as to what Jesus believed the Kingdom will be like. And it’s far from clear to me that Jesus himself felt any great certainty about the specifics. Visions are not blueprints.
My understanding of Bart’s writing on this subject is that the Kingdom is on earth. The Son of Man will come to transform the world, do away with all earthly kingdoms, and separate the sheep from the goats (the latter of which will be destroyed in Gehenna).
A fully human person could not do this. Bart believes the Son of Man is a reference to an angelic being, empowered by God to do what would otherwise be impossible. I agree, but still think it’s possible Jesus believed he could be transformed into that being. I am very far from certain about this, and really, there can be no certainty. Scholars simply don’t agree, because the evidence for any POV is pretty shaky. But that Jesus believed the Kingdom was going to be on earth, and that it was coming soon–that, to me, seems incontrovertible. It is not a reference to the Afterlife, and I’m looking forward to Bart’s next book, which will go into a great deal more detail on this subject.
a supernatural ‘Kingdom of God’ is consistent with a supernatural ‘Son of Man’; I would say even necessitates it
But I dont believe that a supernatural ‘Kingdom of God’ is what what Jesus was teaching. Reread the Sermon on the Mount, and let me know if there is anything there out of this world, requiring the COSMIC ‘son of man’.
The sheep / goats pericope has a clear moral message, Jesus intended to convey. obviously allegorical, and even if Jesus did forseee some kind of judge, but that could be part of the metaphor too, there is no reason to force/expect that judge to be superhuman – imo . ( dont get too hooked on people being thrown in Gehenna – it is likely just an apocalyptic scare tactic )
And I am now reading Crossan’s The Historical Jesus, The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant . and am now at the part where he cross references all the ‘Son of Man’ references.
Of course it is a valuable book but harder to read than Ehrman’s ( I mean Ehrman’s popular books).
not confident I can do a good summary, but maybe I can try if you give me a few days to get thru it a few times
‘Supernatural’ covers a lot of ground. I mean, when Jesus is shown healing someone, or casting out a demon, that’s supernatural, no matter how the gospel author explains it (in reality, there are more mundane explanations for faith healings and exorcisms).
As I interpret it, Jesus didn’t believe he had any power himself, but that his faith, combined with that of the people he was trying to help, was capable of harnessing God’s power to good effect–maybe being God’s adopted son gives him an edge, but anyone can harness the same power (like the man the disciples are angry at for healing people in Jesus’ name, even though he’s not one of them).
So maybe he just thinks the Kingdom is the same thing, but on a global scale–it’s the world being healed. Part of the healing process is casting out the diseased part of humanity, the goats. They can’t be healed, because they have no faith in anything but their own greed and malice. And I wish that didn’t resonate so deeply with me these days. 🙁
I would like to believe we can fix things without the supernatural, since I don’t really believe that exists (God may be there, but God helps those who help themselves). Jesus wanted a quick fix. He didn’t want us to spend centuries, millennia, figuring it out. People were suffering right then and there, and I think it was hard for him to accept that it would go on indefinitely. His religious beliefs told him a transformation was possible, and he decided he would somehow be part of bringing it about. But in the process, he came up with ideas that are still valid–and he did believe that the Kingdom could only come if enough people were ready for it, which is why he was trying to reach as many as possible in the short time he had. His vision was flawed, but it was also deeply transformational, in ways he couldn’t have imagined.
Keep meaning to read Crossan.
regarding Dr Crossan’s take on Jesus and the phrase ‘son of man’
he distinguises
A. apocalyptic and
B. non-apocalyptic uses of this phrase
Dr Crossan sees Jesus using the term ‘son of man’ but mostly as meaning ‘everyone’ or ‘anyone’. So he thinks Jesus did use ‘son of man’ as circumlocution in some sense but not exactly as equating it to “I”. [as “I” am included when i talk about everyone/anyone]
I believe Dr Ehrman thinks Jesus never used ‘son of man’ in this way
the apocalyptic reference are more complicated – he counts 18 what he calls ‘complexes’ (motifs) from the new testament where we see references to an apocalyptic ‘son of man’ and of those only 6 are independently attested – he doesn’t investigate the other 12 (which include the sheep/goats example)
And as a conclusion he doesn’t see the historical Jesus actually using ‘son of man’ in this way – this is again different than Dr Ehrman’s position
as an example one of the apocalyptic ‘complexes’ he investigates is
son of man/Jesus coming on clouds/being seen and he sees 5 independent examples
1. I Thess 4:13-18 “The Lord will descend from heaven … we who are alive shall be caught up in the clouds”
2. Mark 13:24-27 (and Lk and Matthew) “they will see The Son of Man coming in the clouds . . ”
3. Didache 16:6-8 “the Lord shall come and all his saints with him, then shall the world see the Lord coming on the clouds of Heaven”
4. John 19:34-37 “They shall look on him whom they have pierced”
5. Rev 1:7, 14:14 “coming in the clouds and every eye shall see him . . .and seated on the cloud one like a son of man”
FWIW: Crossan thinks Paul and probably all the other above authors do interpret Jesus as titular “Son of Man” but that concept wasn’t from Jesus himself and originated after Easter. Seems like Crossan believes that if Jesus himself used the ‘son of man’ in a apocalyptic sense, we would see it more consistently rather than some to Jesus return some to ‘son of man’ appearance
Likewise in the other 5 apocalyptic complexes Crossan investigates, he sees more inconsistent references sometimes to Jesus and sometimes to ‘son of man’ which he takes to mean the equating of Jesus to son of man came post Jesus’ death
please read Crossan books yourself because I may not be presenting his work/thought well
I am quite certain we have all his books upstairs, at my place of business. Hopefully not too heavy, since I read on the go most of the time.
Have you ever played around with an idea in your head for years, and it changed as you did?
Works the same way with everyone, I’d assume. We’re all sons of men. Except for the daughters.
So leaving aside that some of these statements about the Son of Man aren’t from him, the statements he did make might have varied as time went on. Even legitimate preserved sayings are still just snapshots. People contradict themselves all the time (Or is that just me? I’m sure it’s just me. No, it’s everyone. With some exceptions.)
Early Christianity played around quite a lot with the notion that while Jesus was surely special, the same potential for godlike power lurks inside everyone. That the line between God and humanity isn’t all that sharply drawn. And it wasn’t just gnostics, though they are better known for it.
These days, Marianne Williamson is known for it, which lends it a certain disreputable air, but the gnostics are hardly to blame for her. 😉
A very great deal of the case for Jesus as an apocalypticist hangs on whether or not one “type” of the “son of man” sayings of Jesus in the Gospels refer to someone other than himself who will overturn the current world order and somehow preside over a final judgement regarding who may dwell in the Kingdom of God. I think most scholars agree that there are several “types” of “son of man” sayings in the Gospels, some of which use the expression as a generic reference to “human beings” (“the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath, therefore the son of man is lord of the sabbath”), some of which have Jesus referring to himself as the “son of man” (“the son of man has nowhere to lay his head”) and some of which associate the “son of man” with an immanent apocalyptic event (“whoever is ashamed of me in this evil and corrupt age, of him will the son of man be ashamed when he comes with the heavenly angels”). The issue of Jesus as an apocalpyticist revolves significantly around whether the last “type” of sayings are uttered by Jesus as referring to himself (this becomes progressively the view of orthodox Christians who interpret the sayings as referring to the second coming) or whether they are uttered by Jesus as a reference to an angelic figure distinct from himself. I have recently ordered a book recommended to me by Maurice Casey called “The Solution to the Son of Man Problem,” but have not found the time to read it yet; this book apparently makes the case that the last “type” of “son of man” sayings should not be read as referring to a distinct apocalyptic figure. I have read some other books (Allison, Sanders, Ehrman) who make the case for the apocalyptic reading. I am more persuaded by the apocalyptic reading at the moment, and I suspect that Sanders is right in not only in focusing on the textual issue but the larger context of why Jesus would have been executed, and what was the teaching of Jesus’ immediate predecessors and then followers in deciding the question. But I do think it is an especially complex and difficult matter to have a lot of historical certainty about. The only thing that does seem certain, according to the gospels, is that Jesus made frequent use of “son of man” vocabulary, and we have to make some sense out of it to understand him as a historical figure. The literature that uses the expression most frequently both in the century and a half before Jesus (Daniel) and the century after him (Enoch, IV Ezra) seems to most often use it in apocalyptic senses, and so if Jesus used the expression, especially in association with the “kingdom of God,” in a way that was not apocalyptic, it would have been perhaps exceptional.
As I see it, Jesus was talking about an impending apocalyptic event, to occur in the near future, and this holds true whether he thought of himself as the Son of Man or not. The question is how he viewed himself, not whether he believed the Kingdom was imminent. I think it’s pretty clear he did, but the gospels are increasingly ambivalent about this, because the more time elapsed, the more clear it became that his prophetic statements could not be literally true, and therefore some alternate meaning to them had to be substituted.
It’s never that hard to put alternate meanings on the statements of a visionary, who doesn’t speak in concrete literal terms. There’s always going to be some ambiguity there, some degree of slipperiness, because he (or she) isn’t always sure of precisely what the visions mean. This is not to say Jesus was some head in the clouds dreamer. I think he had a very strong pragmatic sense of what people were like, and his goal was to find some solution to the problem of sin and death, and the ever-perpetuating cycle of human misery, which is largely self-inflicted (I don’t know if he thought natural catastrophes would cease to happen in the Kingdom, and possible he had relatively little experience with those in his short lifetime).
His solution was two-fold. The people who are able to overcome their sinful natures will behave as if the Kingdom is already here, in spite of the sacrifices and risks this entails–to prove their worth. Then God will send the Son of Man to institute a new world where you can live that way without being taken advantage of by those who refuse to change their ways. Those people will be removed from the equation permanently.
It’s no more impractical than Plato’s solution (and in some ways, much more perceptive). And for those who actually see the truth behind it, I think it works–after a fashion. The problem is that the goats are still here. The Son of Man is no more real than the Philosopher King. Though there have been no lack of aspirants to the latter title, and that has not always gone as planned either.
** you do not have permission to see this link **, I would go so far as to say that the apocalyptic reading of Jesus has so much explanatory power that if Jesus was not an apocalypticist then we can say virtually nothing about him. Even a non-apocalypticist like Crossan admits the apocalyptic view is very early and he is forced to develop highly speculative lines of textual transmission to find his “wisdom sage”.
My hypothesis is that non-apocalyptic views of Jesus are anachronistic attempts to project modern concerns onto Jesus and his ministry as a way to connect with him, to make him relevant. The apocalyptic Jesus is a strange and weird figure viewed from modern times. And here we have a paradox. The more we learn about the historical Jesus, the better we place him in his own time, the more it distances us from him. In a very real sense, to know him is to lose him.
Strange and weird figures aren’t relevant to modern times? What newspapers are you reading? Oh right, nobody reads newspapers anymore.
I absolutely believe he was an apocalypticist, I absolutely do not believe he was God, and I find him more relevant than anyone else in history.
But of course, I’m fairly strange and weird myself. It’s a big club. That just by posting here, you are a defacto member of. Sorry to tell you.
I don’t know why Crossan rejects Jesus being an apocalypticist, because I haven’t read him. But I do know the reason most reject it is that they don’t want him to have been wrong. He wasn’t wrong about everything, you know. He was far more thoughtful and insightful than you want to give him credit for being. But he needed an answer to the problem, and this was it–this was the shortcut. He was no more wrong than Plato–or Marx. Or really, anyone who says “I have the answer to all our problems and this is how it happens!”
Men prophesize. God laughs.
I don’t believe Jesus said he would rule the world. Bart is in the minority among scholars in believing this (as he has said more than once), but in any event it’s not a settled point (neither is Jesus being illiterate, and your social snobbery is duly noted). He may have told his disciples they would have some symbolic position of authority, but of course the Kingdom would be under divine authority, and no human kingship would really matter. He was talking about the end of all temporal authority. Not a coup. In a world where everyone is good, there would be no need for human authority figures at all.
You find this to be the rantings of a madman–but you have no problem with Plato saying a Philosopher King will institute a global authority under the leadership of an elitist oligarchy, that will forcibly separate children from their parents to educate them properly, and bring about an everlasting Golden Age?
And I think I mentioned Marx as well. Was he a madman? Ehhhh……
You are reading your modern attitudes back into the past, when everybody believed in the supernatural, even educated Roman pagans.
You still don’t understand how the study of history works.
You’re using it as an expression of your personal resentment towards religion. That’s bad history. It’s no different from people using history to justify their religious beliefs. It’s precisely the same thing.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert