Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§16.3 How Did Jesus See His Own Role?
Other. The key text here is Luke 12.8, where a distinction between Jesus and the
Son of Man seems to be clearly implied. Such a distinction would not have been
introduced after Easter. On the contrary, it was Easter which convinced the first
Christians that the Son of Man to whom Jesus looked was none other than Jesus
himself. 121 So this eschatological reference must be primary, with the other Son
of Man sayings a reflection of this basic faith assertion as the first Christians
meditated on Jesus' mission and death.
This was the dominant view in the first two-thirds of the twentieth century,
when German scholarship still set the agenda for NT scholarship at large, 122 and
it retains strong support in German-speaking scholarship. 123
(3) A third option of looking for some accommodation between the first
two options has naturally attracted attention. In particular, coming more from the
side of the first option, it has been observed that 'son of man' has the connotation
of frailty and weakness. So Jesus could have been referring to himself in conscious
awareness of his weakness — 'son of man' denoting 'I as a man', with implications
of suffering and ignominy to follow. Add to this the tradition of the
suffering righteous, as in Wisdom, who nevertheless held out the hope of being
vindicated — a tradition which in fact includes Dan. 7.13-14! 124 And suddenly
we find that all components of the Son of Man Jesus tradition are present: Jesus
used the phrase precisely to indicate both his expectation of suffering and his
confidence in vindication. Here the Passion predictions come immediately to the
fore. 125 The line of interpretation proved very attractive to English-speaking
scholarship as the main alternative to the dominant German view. 126
121. The exegesis of Tödt, Son of Man 42, 55-60, and Hahn, Hoheitstitel 24-26, 32-42,
457-58 (Titles 22-23, 28-34) was particularly influential, but Bultmann had already made the
point (History 112).
122. See also Bornkamm, Jesus of Nazareth 176-77, 229-31; Fuller, Foundations 34-43,
122-25; Riches, Jesus 176-78; in modified form by A. Yarbro Collins, 'The Influence of Daniel
on the New Testament', in Collins, Daniel 90-112.
123. Merklein, Jesu Botschaft 155-65; Gnilka, Jesus 249-50, 258-62; Becker, Jesus 200-
201, 210-11; Vögtle, Gretchenfrage, regards Luke 12.8-9 as the key to clarifying the Son of
Man problem; Strecker, Theology 257-58; also Schillebeeckx, Jesus 459-72. But note
Bietenhard's robust response ('Der Menschensohn' 313-46); O. Hofius also vigorously disputes
that 'the Son of Man' was already a messianic title ('1st Jesus der Messias? Thesen', JBTh
8, Der Messias [1993] 103-29 [here 110-11, 113, 118-19); cf. also Hengel's criticism at this
point ('Jesus as Messianic Teacher' 105). 'The point of Luke 12.8-9 . . . lies not in the distinction
between Jesus and the coming Son of Man, but precisely in their belonging-togetherness
(Zusammengehörigkeit)' (Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie 1.122).
124. This line of interpretation is particularly associated with E. Schweizer, 'Der
Menschensohn (Zur eschatologischen Erwartung Jesu)', ZAW50 (1959) 185-209, reprinted in
Neotestamentica (Zürich: Zwingli, 1963) 56-84; also Erniedrigung 33-52 (= Lordship 44-45).
125. Mark 8.31 pars.; 9.31 pars.; 10.33-34 pars.; I delay discussion of them till §17.4c.
126.1. H. Marshall, 'The Synoptic Son of Man Sayings in Recent Discussion', NTS 12
735