Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

THE QUESTION OF JESUS' SELF-UNDERSTANDING §16.4
cance is that the Dan. 7.13 reference seems tobe primary and the Ps. 110.1 reference
to have been inserted into it. 181 For one thing, the Psalm reference has had
to be adapted to the syntax of the clause 'Son of Man coming on the clouds'. 182
And for another, the effect of the insertion is to postpone the 'coming on the
clouds' until after the enthronement; that is, the inserted allusion seems to turn
the coming from a coming to the Ancient of Days into a coming from the heavenly
throne room. 183 It is quite likely that Luke's version lacks (has omitted?) the
'coming on the clouds' for this reason, that is, to remove the resulting awkwardness;
by giving the Ps. 110.1 allusion primary weight, Luke leaves the Son of
Man seated in heaven (cf. Acts 7.56). 184 This suggests that the saying was not
first uttered/formed as a composite 185 but only became composite in the course
rence is as difficult to explain for Mark in the 60s as it is for Jesus in 30 (Dunn, 'Are You the
Messiah?' 15).
181. This weakens the often observed parallel provided by the Midrash on Ps. 2.7,
where in a sequence of testimonia Dan. 7.13-14 follows Ps. 110.1 in sequence (see, e.g.,
Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom 299-300). In any case, it hardly provides good evidence
that the two texts had already been associated in Jewish thinking prior to Jesus.
182.
Dan. 7.13
Behold one like a son of man
came (ercheto) on the clouds of
heaven
Mark 14.62
You will see the son of man seated
at the right hand of the Power and
coming (erchomenon) with the
clouds of heaven
Ps. 110.1
The Lord said to my lord, Sit
at mv right hand
183. That exaltation rather than return was envisaged has been strongly maintained by
T. F. Glasson, 'The Reply to Caiaphas (Mark xiv.62)', NTS 7 (1960-61) 88-93; also The Second
Advent: The Origin of the New Testament Doctrine (London: Epworth, 1945, 3 1963) 64-
65; similarly J. A. T. Robinson, Jesus and His Coming (London: SCM, 1957) ch. 2; Barrett,
Jesus 81-82. The argument has been influential. Hooker takes up from Glasson and suggests
that the sitting and coming should not be seen as chronologically sequential but as equally
expressive of a hope of vindication (Son of Man 166-71). Moule attempts to finesse the issue
by suggesting that 'The "coming" of the Son of Man, precisely because it is his coming to
God for vindication, is also his coming to earth in judgment and . . . for "visitation"' (Origin
18). Wright seems to want to include the destruction of the temple (AD 70) in the vindication
which Caiaphas will see (Jesus 525-26); and, confusingly, 'the "Son of Man" will come —
using the Roman armies — to crush rebel Jerusalem' (638). See also de Jonge, Early Christology
92-93.
184. Evans offers an alternative in arguing that if the throne was conceived as the chariot
throne (Ezekiel 1), then the 'coming' could indeed follow the 'sitting', since the chariot throne
was moving ('In What Sense?' 419-20; Davies and Allison, Matthew 3.530 also refer to LAE
22.3). In which case Luke's version presumably missed the allusion. However, Evans produces
no parallel to the idea of the chariot throne 'coming with the clouds'.
185. Pace Tödt, Son of Man 37-40; Lindars, Jesus Son of Man 110-12; Stuhlmacher,
'Messianische Gottesknecht' 147-50; Casey, Son of Man 178-83, does not consider this possibility
(though cf. Ezek. 1.4).
750