On Tuesday I began looking at Mark 13 as a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem. Yesterday we considered the objection about the cosmic imagery. Today we’ll look at the son of man imagery that comes immediately after it.
Throughout Mark’s Gospel, we have been told that Jesus is the Human One, the Son of Man. As Son of Man, Jesus has the authority to act in the name of God, and to free others to do the same. As the Human One, Jesus has a vocation to die–this is what it means for him to be the Messiah. The Son of Man / Human One title holds together Jesus as suffering king. That’s what we have seen so far in Mark: as Human One Jesus is the one given authority to speak and reign for God, though his path to coronation runs the paradoxical road of the cross.
In Mark 13 and 14 we see why “son of man” is the appropriate title for someone so entrusted with divine authority. To be “son of man” is to fill the role of the “son of man” in Daniel 7. These passages both clearly allude to this OT predecessor. Jesus is going to play the role of Israel in coming into the presence of the Most High and being given authority over the nations of the earth.
“Are you the messiah, the son of the Blessed?” asks the high priest at Jesus’ trial. “I am,” affirms Jesus, “and you will see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the Power and coming on the heavenly clouds” (Mark 14:60-61). The allusion to Daniel makes the same argument as the original story: the son of man is enthroned by God at God’s right hand. Jesus is the Messiah, the King, the one who rules at God’s right hand.
Interestingly, both Mark 13 and Mark 14 say that Jesus’ coming on the clouds will be seen. In Mark 13, “they” will see the son of man in splendor and glory; i.e., enthroned as king, as son of God. In Mark 14, this is turned into the second person plural, “You (leaders of Jerusalem) will see the son of man seated at God’s right hand, and coming on the heavenly clouds.”
When will they see this? They didn’t live to see Jesus coming back down from heaven to earth. Mark knew that already, and if such was the point of the saying Mark probably would have changed it so that he wouldn’t be putting something patently falsifiable into Jesus’ mouth.
Maybe what they see is one piece of the evidence that Jesus has been carried on the clouds into the presence of the Father and enthroned at God’s right hand.
Perhaps N.T. Wright is correct, then. Perhaps the destruction of Jerusalem is proof positive of the enthronement of the Messiah–a Messiah who prophesied the temple’s destruction, the son who would be killed only to have the Father destroy the vineyard workers, a king whose death was attended by the sun being darkened.
But in case you’re wondering: No. N. T. Wright isn’t the first person to suggest that Mark 13 is about the destruction of Jerusalem. The first-century interpreter of Mark whom we refer to as “Luke” was way ahead of him.
Remember that “abomination of desolation” thing that Mark draws his readers’ attention to (let the reader understand)? Here’s how Luke renders that verse: “When you see Jerusalem encircled by armies, then know that its desolation has drawn near. Then let those in Judea flee to the mountains…” Perhaps that’s a good bit of perspective as we step into tomorrow’s post.
If we run with Mark 13 as an extended prophetic description of the destruction of the Temple and/or Jerusalem, what does that get us?
After reading your post I was on fence about whether you believe Mark 13 to be prophetic of the temple destruction in AD 70 or eschatological times. Luke was not the only one to see it this way. Virtually the entire early Church acknowledged the fall of the temple as the enthronement of Christ. Also, jumping from Luke to Tom Wright leaves out the fact that the Catholic church has been teaching this for almost 2000 years. I just recently began following you on Twitter, always find your writing insightful, and was just curious what your belief is on this subject.
Daniel,
Maybe I missed your earlier blog posts about Son of Man for Jesus as the human one in Mark. Not that I necessarily disagree, but could you offer a (very brief?) rundown of why you think this is part of the significance in Mark for Jesus being the Son of Man?
I ask because, from the standpoint of roughly contemporary Jewish writings that talk about the “Son of Man,” the notion of that term connoting or supporting or emphasizing itself the designee as “the human one” would be quite distinctive or, at least, not obvious. This does not mean that such a use of it (in Mark, for example) is inherently implausible, just that it represents a fairly striking innovation or difference in comparison with other contemporary positions about the “Son of Man” that are also clearly playing with the figure from Dan 7.
For example, both the Parables of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71) and 4 Ezra represent a figure in terms of (among other things) the one like a son of man from Daniel 7. Both those writings, however, demonstrably refer to an angelic heavenly figure of some sort (though this gets complicated with 1En 70-71). That angelic figure is most certainly a decisive or representative figure for the God of Israel’s people or righteous-who-will-be-rescued, but the point remains that he is such a figure with precisely an angelic valence. Also, as you know, I follow most scholars of Jewish Apocalypses and take the one like a Son of Man in Daniel 7 (read in its historical context) to be an angelic representative over Israel — so not a human figure, certainly not the God-Man (e.g., Jesus), and not primarily Israel or the righteous. Again, the angelic figure represents them and is over them such that his exaltation and vindication means their exaltation and vindication, but this logically works in the text precisely not by the one like a son of man being Israel.
I bring this up not to throw a wrench in your argument, but again, as seemingly relevant discursive context for what you say about Son of Man as the human one in Mark — to point up how it would be quite interesting to see (even briefly) how and why you make the associations you do with Mark’s use of Son of Man for Jesus the Messiah as the Human One.
Stephen, this is a good question, and one that I hope to continue sharpening my answer to as we roll along.
Son of Man in Mark has three basic contexts: (1) Jesus’ authority to act on God’s behalf (including going against the Law); (2) Jesus’ suffering; and (3) Jesus’ enthronement, with direct allusion to Daniel.
The reason I don’t think that the Jewish angelic typology works for Mark is that such a figure would demand a sort of incarnate heavenly being that does not seem to otherwise be on Mark’s radar screen. The Son of Man has to face rejection, suffering, and death. You could argue that Mark has a sort of incarnational Christology that makes sense of that, but I don’t see Mark pointing us in that direction.
There is also the line of questioning that comes at Jesus’ trial. “Are you the Messiah, the son of the blessed?” The affirmative answer is given by reference to Daniel 7: “You will see the son of man seated…” I see this as an indication that the sort of claim Jesus makes when he claims authority as “son of man” is the authority of Messiah (= son of God). Again, you could argue that Mark has an incarnational Christology that enables “son of Man” to be equated with “messiah,” but I don’t see Mark leading in that direction. Instead, it seems that Mark is arguing that Jesus is the human who represents God’s reign to the world, i.e., the Christ, and that somehow the significance of “son of man” is found in that title rather than vice versa.
Then there is the issue of “son of man” as an Aramaic expression that simply means, “human.” That might be significant.
As you know, I agree with most biblical scholars that Daniel 7 is talking about Israel rather than Israel’s angel. I do think it’s a significant transformation of Daniel for Mark to assign that title to Jesus himself, and apparently for Jesus to have so spoken, but it’s a transformation that makes sense within the world of Israel’s royal theology in which the king epitomizes and represents Israel before God. I.e., I see Mark elevating Daniel 7 in the way that I think your understanding of Daniel 7 requires Mark to be lowering it. That, or you’ve unlocked the riddle to a high Christology in Mark.
I am reviewing a book on my blog (see here) and in the second part of the review which I will hopefully publish Saturday, I will be discussing the Olivet Discourse and the ‘failed’ prediction of Mark 9.1/Matt 16.28/Luke 9.27. I hold to a preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse by seeing it fulfilled in the events of AD 70.
Nice. Be sure to post a link to part 2 here when the post goes up!
If “Son of Man” is credibly rendered “the Human One,” is “Son of God” (Mk. 1:1) credibly rendered “the Divine One”?
John, that smiley face saved you from The Wrath.
I was hoping it would.