Chapter 19
Jesus’ Sovereign Claim
This chapter was originally to be titled “Jesus’ Self-Awareness,” but I erased that. “Self-awareness” is too close to “self-assurance” or “self-importance,” and if we scarcely dare to say anything about the innermost thoughts of people around us we most certainly can say nothing about Jesus’ self-awareness and “inner life.” All that is open to a historical view is what emerges in Jesus’ speech and action as his “claim.”
Obviously we have spoken repeatedly about this claim in previous chapters; after all, it expresses itself in every one of Jesus’ deeds and words. But now it needs to be addressed again as a single topic. Why only now? Why only after an attempt to reconstruct the sequence of the Easter events? Simply because for Jesus’ disciples the appearances of the Risen One put everything in motion again. Only now did they begin to really understand. Only now could they see Jesus with complete clarity. That is by no means to say that in the time before his death he was a blank page that was only written on after and through Easter. No, everything was there before Easter. What Jesus wanted and what he was—all that was there to be heard and seen. But the disciples had not yet really grasped it.
The dialogues Jesus conducts with his disciples in John’s gospel, as he approaches death, reflect this “already” and “not yet” with the finest theological precision. The Holy Spirit whom the Father will send will indeed “teach everything” to the disciples, but that teaching consists precisely1 in “reminding” them of all Jesus had said (John 14:26). Thus after Easter nothing new is taught the disciples about the mystery of Jesus’ person. They do not receive any new revelations, as the later Gnostic gospels would say they did. It was simply that the full profundity of who Jesus was became clear to them.
So this chapter (together with chaps. 20 and 21) belongs at the end of the book, in the time after Easter, we might say. But the method remains the same. My principal questions will be historical: what claims to sovereignty are evident in Jesus’ words and actions?
Was Jesus a Prophet?
“Who do people say that I am?” Jesus, according to Mark 8:27, posed this question to his disciples one day: “Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way he asked them, ‘Who do people say that I am?’ And they answered him, ‘John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets’” (Mark 8:27-28). The disciples’ answer is as unclear as are the identifications of Jesus circulating among the people: apparently many suppose Jesus is John the Baptizer. Do they merely think Jesus has appeared in the power and spirit of the Baptizer, or do they believe he has returned in Jesus as Johannes redivivus (cf. Mark 6:14)?
The disciples list a second popular opinion, that Jesus is the prophet Elijah. Here things are clearer. It is said of Elijah in 2 Kings 2:1-18 that he did not die but was raptured to heaven by God. This led to the opinion that in the end time Elijah would come again and appear once more in Israel (Mal 3:23; Sir 48:10). So part of the people of God regarded Jesus as the prophet Elijah, sent by God to introduce the end-time events.
The third position is again unclear. Many said that Jesus was one of the prophets. That, similarly to the second position, could mean that Jesus is another prophet, such as Jeremiah (cf. Matt 16:14), who had been taken up to heaven and has now returned. But probably it simply means that many people thought Jesus was a prophet like those who had appeared in Israel in times past (cf. Mark 6:15).
We may suppose that Mark 8:28 is a fairly accurate reflection of the speculations about Jesus that were circulating in Israel, with all their vagueness and attempts to grope toward the reality of Jesus’ person. Many people must have thought and spoken in more or less these terms. There was also an opinion, appearing in the gospels and elsewhere,2 that Jesus was a great prophet. For example, the inhabitants of Nain say, “’A great prophet has risen among us!’ and ‘God has looked favorably on his people!’” (Luke 7:16), or John 7:40-41 reads, “Some in the crowd said, ‘This is really the prophet.’ Others said, ‘This is the Messiah.’ But some asked, ‘Surely the Messiah does not come from Galilee, does he?’” We can see from these texts how divided opinions were. In the mind of the Fourth Evangelist, certainly, one may indeed say of Jesus that he is “the” prophet, because that phrase refers to the end-time prophet per se, the one who, on the basis of Deuteronomy 18:18, was awaited by some groups of Jews.3
Jesus does not seem to have shared the evaluation of his person as that of a prophet, or a raptured and returned prophet, or “the” end-time prophet. We can see this clearly from the fact that after the disciples have listed the people’s opinions (Mark 8:28) he asks them, “But who do you say that I am?” (Mark 8:29). Jesus—at least in the narrative—expects a different answer, one not identical with what has been said before, and he receives that answer in Peter’s confession of him as Messiah.
A still clearer answer to our question is the way Jesus estimates John the Baptizer, since for Jesus not even the Baptizer is simply a prophet. Jesus tells the crowd, regarding John:
What did you go out into the wilderness [to the Baptizer] to look at? A reed shaken by the wind? What then did you go out to see? Someone dressed in soft robes? Look, those who wear soft robes are in royal palaces. What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and [you have seen] more than a prophet. (Matt 11:7-9)
If even the Baptizer cannot be comprehended in the title “prophet” we may conclude that the same is certainly true of Jesus. And Jesus must have seen it the same way. The Baptizer spoke in his preaching of a Stronger One who would come after him: “I baptize you only with water, but the one who comes after me is stronger than I; I am not worthy to untie his sandals. He will baptize you with fire” (cf. Matt 3:11). That would have been more or less the original wording of the Baptizer’s saying about the “Stronger One.” Many interpreters ponder which of the exalted end-time figures in Judaism the Baptizer may have had in mind, but exegetically speaking that is impermissible. If the Baptizer does not use one of the existing titles of majesty (cf. also Luke 7:19) but only alludes to the one who is to come as the Stronger One—that is, he is unable to describe his mystery in a single concept—that must be respected and we should not attempt to correct it in hindsight.
We may suspect that since Jesus had probably spent a rather long time as a follower of the Baptizer he had at some point applied to himself the prediction of the Stronger One who was to come. And we may further suppose that he tended to avoid existing titles of majesty. As far as the mystery of his person was concerned, Jesus preferred to speak in veiled and indirect terms, just as the Baptizer had done in this regard.
At any rate, Jesus did not see himself as a prophet.4 This is abundantly clear from the beatitude he spoke over his disciples: “Blessed are the eyes that see what you see! For I tell you that many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it” (Luke 10:23-24). According to this saying, the turning of the age has already happened. Prophets and kings are contrasted to the disciples, the time of prophets and kings to the time of the reign of God. What previously was only longed for can now be seen. In light of these words it is out of the question that Jesus could have located himself within the time of the prophets or the phenotype of the prophet! This matches to the letter “something greater than Jonah is here… something greater than Solomon is here!” in Matthew 12:41-42.
In addition, the beatitude for the disciples just quoted makes it clear what reticence and veiled reference Jesus employed when speaking of the mystery of his own person. We will encounter this reticence again and again, also with regard to the question of whether Jesus saw himself as the Messiah. But first we need to mention another ground for concluding that Jesus could not have seen himself as a prophet. He had Scripture before his eyes. Like every pious Jew he recited a part of it every day. Every Sabbath he heard not only sections of the Torah but also readings from t
he prophets. Someone who constantly encounters Scripture in this way very quickly internalizes how the prophets speak. All the writing prophets in Israel point out persistently that “the word of the LORD” has come to them and is being communicated to Israel through them.5 It is not their own words they are handing on but the word spoken to them.
Jesus makes no such statements. We do not find a single passage in which he says anything like “The LORD has spoken,” or “the mouth of the LORD has spoken it,” or “hear the word of the LORD,” or “thus says the LORD.” In place of these “messenger formulae,” which repeatedly emphasize that the prophet is only a transmitter, Jesus created for himself his own opening formula, one so far not attested in the Judaism of the time: “Amen, I say to you.”6 In contrast to the “amen” that responds to someone else’s speech and affirms it, this “amen” begins sayings of Jesus and introduces them as words spoken on his own authority. The result is a dialectic that is hard to describe: on the one hand, Jesus speaks in his own name like a sovereign and on his own authority. On the other hand, he speaks out of the most extreme intimacy with God.
Jesus the Messiah?
In preaching to the crowds, did Jesus make a kind of self-presentation of himself as the Messiah? The answer is clearly no. Jesus proclaimed the beginning of the reign of God but not himself as Messiah. There are not even very many reactions from the people showing that Jesus was regarded as the Messiah. In Mark’s gospel, differently from that of Matthew,7 there is but a single text in which someone from the crowd addresses Jesus as Messiah. This is the healing of the blind Bartimaeus outside Jericho. When Bartimaeus hears that Jesus is passing by, he cries out, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” (Mark 10:47). That was a messianic confession, because the messiah could be called “Son of David.”8 The appeal shows that there were those in Israel, besides the ones who thought Jesus was a prophet or even a prophet redivivus, who conjectured that he was the expected messiah. According to the narrative, Jesus accepted the appellation and healed the blind man.
On the other hand, Jesus accepted Peter’s confession of him as Messiah, which he himself had provoked, but he immediately emphasized to his disciples that they should not talk about the messiah (Mark 8:27-30). Of course, at that time he was alone with his disciples. If we take the two texts together—the cry of the blind Bartimaeus, his healing, and the previous command to silence in Mark 8:27-30—we may conclude that Jesus did not simply regard the notion that he was the messiah as false, but he did not want it to be applied thoughtlessly and prematurely.
Bartimaeus’s cry then acts as a signal to readers of Mark’s gospel that the situation has changed. At any rate, Jesus, as he approached Jerusalem soon afterward, gave his entry into the city a messianic character. I have already spoken about this at length (chap. 15). Jesus also accepted the messianic acclamation of those accompanying him, but he interpreted his messianic character in terms of Zechariah 9:9.
The crucial and decisive scene takes place before the Sanhedrin. Here Jesus is asked by the high priest himself, the highest religious authority in Israel, if he is the Messiah, and he answers, “I am” (Mark 14:61-62). He refines this confession, however, by saying that he will come in majesty as the Son of Man, the Human One.
In recent exegesis, especially since Rudolf Bultmann, both Peter’s confession of Jesus as Messiah and Jesus’ affirmation before the Sanhedrin have been presented as fictive scenes. All the gospel texts in which a messianic statement appears are said to be post-Easter constructions. But here a critique of the critique is in order. It is quite correct that Jesus did not proclaim himself as Messiah when he appeared in Galilee. That he always treated the messianic title with reticence and the highest degree of caution is also correct. But that in no way excludes what then occurred in the acute situation in Jerusalem, for we cannot avoid the fact that, after his sentencing by Pilate, Jesus was mocked by Roman soldiers as “king of the Jews” (Mark 15:16-20) and then executed under a placard reading “King of the Jews” (Mark 15:26). That titulus must very certainly have had a starting point in the events themselves, before the Sanhedrin as well as before the Roman prefect. When Jesus was formally charged by Caiaphas to say whether he was the Messiah, he could not say, “No, I am not.” He could not do so even though he maintained a certain reserve toward the title. He could, however, give more precision to this title of majesty, and he did so.
What is the basis for Jesus’ careful treatment of the title “messiah”? As we have indicated earlier, there were special political reasons for such caution. In the ears of many Jews, but most especially in the ears of the Roman occupying power, the word “messiah” sounded like uproar and rebellion against Rome. That was one-sided, of course: Jewish ideas of the messiah were much richer and more nuanced. The Old Testament itself sometimes paints its “messianic” figures9 in quite different colors. But as disunified and multiple as the ideas of a messiah were, in Jesus’ time the word had become a dangerous irritant. Jesus could not desire that his gathering of Israel could be even distantly interpreted in the direction of Zealot uprisings. That would have falsified his whole message. Probably in that case Jesus’ effectiveness would have come to a quick and violent end, and it would already have happened in Galilee.
But the reasons for Jesus’ reticence lay deeper: apparently the concept of a messiah was as inadequate as that of an eschatological prophet for explaining his mission, his claim, and his mystery—not only the mystery of his majesty but also that of his humility. So he preferred to speak indirectly of what was now happening before the eyes of all: “the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them. And blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me” (Matt 11:5-6). That is thoroughly “messianic,” and there can be no question that the designation “messianic,” or as we may say, the Savior-figure of the Messiah, covers much of what Jesus was. Otherwise the early church would not have called him the “Christ” (“Anointed One”) and so rapidly and earnestly that “Christ” became his proper name. We must even say that if Jesus had not made himself known as Messiah, at the latest before the Sanhedrin, the development of the early church’s Christology would be beyond all understanding. And yet we cannot overlook the fact that here, as elsewhere, Jesus showed reserve and restraint, and that restraint is to be respected in raising historical questions and must not be swept aside.
Jesus, the “Son of Man”
It is quite different with regard to the concept of the “Son of Man” or “Human One.” It is striking that in this case Jesus did use the title. The evidence is completely clear: the title “Son of Man” appears in the New Testament almost exclusively in the gospels,10 and there only on the lips of Jesus.11 But it is also important that it is found in every level of tradition: in the Sayings Source, in Mark, in Matthew, in Luke, in the Gospel of John, and even in the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas (logion 86).12 If the church had first begun giving Jesus the exalted title “Son of Man” after Easter we would find a completely different picture within the New Testament. Apparently the earliest church was still aware that this was a usage particular to Jesus that had to be left with him and could not be freely thrown around, for example, in christological confessional statements.13 Conclusion: Jesus used the title “Son of Man” as a self-designation in the presence of his disciples and then publicly as well.
This was, of course, also connected with the fact that “Son of Man” was enigmatic or coded speech. That was already the case in Daniel 7, where the great powers of history were presented as beasts, with a human being (= Son of Man or Human One) as their counter. As we have already seen (chap. 3), this “human being” is there a symbol of the ultimate human society God is creating in Israel and, through Israel, in the world.
In the apocalyptic secret literature of early Judaism, the Human One in Daniel 7 was regarded as a majestic figure who would hold judgment in God’s name at the end of time and establish salvatio
n and justice. This is attested by the imagery in Ethiopian Enoch (1 En. 37-–71) and 4 Ezra.14 But the latter was created only after the destruction of Jerusalem, and there is dispute about when the image discourses in 1 Enoch were written. They come either from the first century before or the first century after Christ. It is also possible, however, that these image discourses have a history of redaction behind them, one that extended over a considerable period of time.
Even if these image discourses already existed in Jesus’ time there remains the question whether Jesus knew them or not. It is much more plausible that he drew the symbol of the Human One/Son of Man not from some esoteric sources but from Sacred Scripture itself, for it is certain that Jesus had access to the picture of history in Daniel 7; its whole force was familiar to him. When he spoke of the coming of the reign of God, the interpretation of history in Daniel 7 was part of it. Nevertheless, Jesus modified it at the same time. What was different with Jesus?
First of all, there was the time scheme! In Daniel 7 the five empires or five societies succeed one another: first Babylon, then the Medes, then the Persians, then the Seleucids—and only when the rule of all the world empires has expired does the true kingship, the true basileia, the true society of God come to pass. Only then begins the rule of the Human One who is so deeply connected to the reign of God. For Jesus, in contrast, the reign of God is already beginning, in the midst of this history, in the midst of the still ongoing power of the world empires, represented at that time in the brutal and violent rule of the Roman Empire.
And there was still more in the scheme of Daniel 7 that changed for Jesus: the new society of the reign of God not only begins in the midst of the still existing epoch of the world empires; it is indissolubly linked to a single one. While the Human One in Daniel 7 was still a collective person, Jesus now speaks of himself as the Son of Man. “Son of Man/Human One” is thus no longer a mere symbol of the true eschatological Israel; at the same time it is a mysterious name for Jesus himself. He is the Son of Man; he embodies in himself the new society of the eschatological Israel.
Jesus of Nazareth Page 41