Christian Fundamentalism touts belief in the second coming of Christ as one of five fundamentals of Christian faith. It is part of the Nicene Creed (4th century), which confesses that "Jesus Christ...is coming again with glory to judge living and dead." The earliest use of the expression "second coming of Christ" occurs in Justin Martyr (2nd century), Dialogue with Trypho 14, and the writer of Hebrews (9:28) also expects that "Christ...will appear a second time..."
The hope of a future coming of Christ is part of the earliest extant Christian text (1st Thessalonians 1:10; 3:13; 4:13-5:11), where the event is referred to as "his [God's] son from heaven," "the coming of the Lord Jesus," "the day of the Lord." There is also evidence that the earliest Christians prayed for his coming. Paul concludes a letter with what is thought to be a prayer of early Aramaic Christians: marana tha, "our Lord come" (1 Corinthians 16:22). The latest writing (ca 150) in the New Testament also warns that "the day of the Lord will come like a thief," and describes the event as "the coming of the day of God" (2nd Peter 3:9-13). Hence a future return of (the Lord Jesus) Christ is a belief shared by virtually all the early Christians.
It is questionable, however, whether the earliest gospel (Mark) shares the belief in a second coming of Christ. In Mark Jesus never says "I am coming again," or I will come a second time." Instead in the Gospel of Mark it appears that Jesus anticipated a future coming of "a son of man" (8:38-9:1, 13:24-27, 14:60-64). He speaks in these passages of the coming son of man in the third person as though he were someone other than himself. Other statements in Mark refer to the son of man as a contemporary figure who suffers, is betrayed, is killed, and rises from the dead (9:9. 12. 31; 10:33. 45; 14:21. 41). These events, identifying Jesus as the son of man, clearly reflect the faith of the early church (e.g., 1 Corinthians 15:1-5; Acts 2:22-24). The question is, however, did these sayings originate with Jesus, or are they faith statements of the church retrofitted into the career of Jesus to justify the church's belief that the coming son of man was Jesus? There exists no saying of Jesus in which he unambiguously promises to return sometime in the future.
Nevertheless, virtually all scholars accept that Jesus referred to himself as "son of man" (e.g., Mark 2:10.27- 28; Q, Luke 9:58 =Matt 8:20), but what does the expression mean? In what sense did he use it of himself? In my last blog I indicated its meaning (loosely construed) was something like "man of the people"—i.e., "a common human being," as the expression is used in Mark 3:28 ("sons of men"), meaning "human beings."
There are three different senses in which the term "son of man" is used in Hebrew Bible: Job 25:4-6 describes an insignificant human creature; Psalm 8:3-6 describes a human being a little lower than God; Daniel 7:13-14 describes an apocalyptic figure of the end time. The early church understood the term "son of man" (an Aramaic expression for "I") as a claim to be the apocalyptic figure of Daniel 7:13-14.
Mark 2:10 was rejected by the Jesus Seminar as a Christian formulation giving Jesus the present authority of the coming apocalyptic figure. They accepted Mark 2:27-28 as a genuine saying of Jesus. This saying is the only surviving son of man saying in the gospel of Mark that likely originated with Jesus. If the Sabbath was made for human beings (Mark 3:27), then a human being (i.e., the "son of man" in the sense of Job 25:4-6) rules over the Sabbath as he was ordained to rule over the earth (Gen 1:26-30; spoken to Adam). It is not a messianic claim, but rather a logical argument that dissolves Sabbath rules.
It seems probable to me that Jesus anticipated the imminent appearing of an apocalyptic figure other than himself (Mark 8:38-9:1; 13:24-27), and the early church identified this figure (i.e., the son of man from Daniel 7:13-14) as Jesus. How could such a thing happen? It likely occurred among his early followers under the influence of Judean messianic expectations and their reading of Hebrew Bible as a book of prophecy. Such a situation is actually depicted in John 2:13-22, where an incident in the Judean temple during the public career of Jesus (2:13-20) is understood differently after the death of Jesus by his followers; they came to the new understanding by reading Hebrew Bible like a book of prophecy (John 2:21-22).
In the synoptic tradition, however, there is no future coming of the Lord Jesus Christ—at least, not in so many words. The synoptic gospels describe a future coming of a "son of man." The early church in the main abandoned "son of man" language, and identified the resurrected Christ as the figure of a future apocalypse.
Will there be a second coming of Christ as the early Christians expected, and modern Christians believe? It depends. I regard the belief that Jesus is coming again as a "faith fact." That is to say, it is a fact if you believe it to be so—nevertheless one should always remember that believing a thing to be so does not make it so.
Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University
Marion Soards, "Parousia," 646-47 in Mercer Dictionary of the Bible (1990).
21 comments:
Hi Charlie,
What a treasure trove of information you've given us.
May I ask for a clarification before commenting further: you wrote, "Mark 2:10 was rejected by the Jesus Seminar...they also rejected Mark 2:28."
'Rejected' I take to mean not an authentic saying of the historical Jesus. 2:10 reads, "...on earth the son of Adam has authority to forgive sins...," and 2:28 reads, "...the son of Adam lords it even over the Sabbath day."
I looked at The Five Gospels, and there verse 28, along with verse 27 is coded pink, meaning a probable authentic saying, and reads, 27 "The Sabbath day was created for Adam and Eve, not Adam and Even for the Sabbath day. 28 So the son of Adam lord's it even over the Sabbath day." (SV)
The interpretation for vs. 28, and therefore a pink vote, seems to be, "So human beings are free to determine how to use the Sabbath."
I hope that I have not misrepresented anything!
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
I don't think that you generally agree with my assumption that virtually all of the New Testament was written under the influence of Paul's theology but if you will indulge me a bit: Paul's assumption that there were "ages" of history and that the time of the law ended with the time of Christ and that the end of the world as we know it was nearing an end was likely read back into the gospels, at least in a shadowy way (John is rather more apologetic about how long it is taking for this age to come to an end). The same way that 20th century evangelicals thought that the Holocaust and the recreation of the state of Israel heralded the end of time, late first century Jews and followers of the Jesus movement would have been tempted to see the Roman's ethnic cleaning of the Jews and the destruction of the Temple as signs that the end was near.
It was not a good conclusion but it was an understandable one. Now, in the modern era, falling back on such theistic views would be, in my opinion, completely senseless. Jesus died in the first century and is not coming back, short of some sort of realized zombie apocalypse (let me tip my hat to our impending Halloween observance).
An end of the age is possible, of course, through nuclear war, pollution, or a stray comet that might collide with our planet, but in a supernatural theistic way, such as God getting tired of hearing about Donald Trump and Ben Carson and just deciding to blow up the whole planet…. no, there is no reason to believe that such an emotionally unstable (or perfectly sane) supernatural theistic God exists.
Roger Ray
Community Christian Church
Mea culpa!
You are correct Gene. I just goofed that one. Thanks for setting my readers straight. The Jesus Seminar did indeed accept Mark 2:27-28 as a saying that originated with the historical Jesus.
Charlie
Hi Charlie, please comment on the following lines of analysis, as you may have time.
1. My next concern is about the form and translation of the phrase son-of-man. I count twelve times that it occurs in Mark (2:10, 28; 8:31, 38; 9:9; 9:31; 10:33; 10:45; 13:26; 14:21 [twice], 41, 62). Each time it takes the same form in Greek: definite article-noun-definite article-noun, for example, o-uios-tou-anthropou, very literally the-son-of-the-man. Translations make it obvious that there are various ways to go about the task: “the son of Adam” (SV), “the Human One” (SV: Complete Gospels), “the Son of Man” (NRSV, NIV, NEB).
You mentioned Mark 3:28 where we find the plural sons-of-men, or in Greek, tois uiois twn anthropwn, or very literally the-sons-of-the-men. The translators suggest: “humankind“ (SV, SV: Complete Gospels), “people” (NRSV), “men” (NIV, NEB).
I notice that all the translations ignore the second article as a grammatical indicator which is unnecessary in English, and so we have “the sons of men” or “the son of man.” It’s pretty easy to see how the plural could be understood as “people” or “humankind.” But we also know that anthropos doesn’t have to be in plural form to be understood as “humanity or humankind.” We see that clearly in its singular form in Mark 2:27.
I suggest that the combination of a definite article and examples like 2:27 turn the weight for translation to something like “the son of humanity” or “the son of humankind.” This seems to be much like the form of a title which we see in the capital letters chosen by most of the translations.
I take this to be evidence that “the son of humanity” is a title of power given by Mark (and other NT writers) to a Jesus who, in their eyes, on earth had the power to forgive sins (2:10), to correct Sabbath observances (2:28) and teach servant hood (10:45), to foresee his crucifixion and rising (8:31, 38; 9:9, 31; 10:33), and to predict his own coming again (8:38, 13:26, 14:62) to gather the elect.
2. Now where did Mark get the idea for this title? (1)Perhaps Jesus referred to himself with a phase such as “this son of humanity” and (2) the early studiers of scripture saw the resurrected Jesus in Daniel’s references to “one like a son of man” before whom all nations bow. Of course, (3) we are told that Jbap looked for one to come; (4) perhaps Jesus took over that viewpoint, and (5) then resurrection theology gave the role of the one to come to Jesus. Perhaps all these possibilities are relevant.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Good afternoon Roger,
There is no denying Paul's influence on the New Testament and later Christianity, but there is no unambiguous evidence of his influence on the gospels. Another problem is that the Gospel of John seems to reflect a realized eschatology--for the most part. Except for one recurring phrase in John 6 (verses 39, 40, 44, 54), the tendency is to transfer those events associated with the end-time into the present (cf.5:21-29, and 11:24-26). One outlier is John 12:48.
Cordially,
Charlie
Good afternoon Gene,
Here are a few comments, as you requested, but nothing earth shaking I am afraid.
1. The translation of son of man: My own translation of the expression has grown on me: "man of the people."
2. Sons of men also appears in Eph 3:5.
3. That it is a title of power given by Mark: OK except in those cases where it is the Aramaic expression for "I" or "person," as Jesus apparently used it of himself.
4. Where did Mark get the idea for the title of power? From the tradition that Jesus used it of himself and Mark understood it in terms of Daniel 7:13-14.
Cordially,
Charlie
Thanks for the observations, Charlie.
I've often thought that the following conditions are probable.
1. Jesus never used the phrase "son of man" of himself. In every NT instance, it is a title. Do you know of an instance that it's clear the phrase is not a title? The JS did rate one saying pink about the son of man being homeless (Matt 8:19b, Luke 9:57), but where is the actual evidence that Jesus was in that position?
2. The title son of man, as applied to Jesus, originated with those who were under the influence of the disciples of John the Baptist who were converted to the Jesus following. John and his followers were the group that expected one to come. This probably happened very early on, the son of man attribution being spurred on by the resurrection belief.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Good morning Charlie!
Did the word (and concept of) "Messiah" originate with the early Judeans? Is there any way to know how or why they attached their religious practice so strongly to the idea of needing a "savior?" (Even today, the term "messianic complex" is used to describe someone wanting to be perceived as a savior of humankind.) It sounds like there is little evidence to support any claim that Jesus viewed himself as savior, but what I hear you saying is that the concept of "messiah" and "savior" were perhaps familiar to him and he used those terms as a result of cultural influence, as is the belief in some sort of second coming.
My question is- why did the Messiah concept ever originate to begin with? Maybe that is unanswerable.
Cheers from St. Louis, Elizabeth
Hi Gene,
Just a few comments. Do you regard the three uses of the term in Hebrew Bible as a title? They of course preceded Mark and show that Mark, Q, or Thomas did not invent the expression as a "title," althought for the most part in Mark it is a messianic title. But there are three independent texts (Mark 2:28; Q {Mt 18:19 = Luke 9:57]; and Thomas 86) where it is not a messianic title. The Q saying confirms the itinerant status. Although it was typical of wandering Cynic teachers, It was also true of the ancient artisan class (to which Jesus belonged) who had to follow the job wherever it led.
Cordially,
Charlie
Continuing thanks for your responses, Charlie. To comment on your inquiries and clarify.
1. Two of the OT references, I think, are descriptions of us normal human beings, but Daniel describes a transcendent personage who is judge of nations, similar to the future judge of JBap and to the future son of man in the gospels.
2. Regarding the "independent" three son of man texts: (a) the Jesus Seminar's 5G indicates that the Coptic is a plural phrase (so I don't think it could refer to Jesus) in Thomas 86. (b) The homeless itinerant argument for Luke 9:57 seems weak to me. In Mark Jesus has a house and explains many of his key insights to the disciples in a house. He returns to a house after being on mission. He tells his followers, when on mission, to rely on the generosity of other homes. On the other hand, I guess Jesus could have used a metaphor, "My life is like being unaccepted." (c) Mark 2:10 views one now sitting by God who formerly walked the earth and forgave sins. To me that colors all subsequent references, including 2:28 which also, of course, uses the not unambiguous term "lord" to describe the son of man.
At any rate, I tend to see a fairly straight line from John's prediction of a future judge, Jesus' exposure to that point of view, some of John's followers becoming Jesus followers, awareness of the unjust death of Jesus, belief in the resurrection, attribution of the Daniel figure to Jesus to make things right in the future.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Hi Gene,
A few thoughts: The sayings in Q and Thomas (son of man in Thomas 86 is a singular usage, not plural) clearly reference Job 25:4-6. If Jesus used that as a reference point, it simply could not be a messianic title (unless you wanted to link it up with Isaiah 53 in some way, which early Christians did apply to Jesus). I find these three independent texts (Mark, Q, and Thomas) sufficient reason to regard the son of man sayings as originating with Jesus, and because of the nature of the saying I do not take it for a messianic title. Lord in Mark 2:28 is not a messianic use of kurios, which can mean simply "sir." Here it seems to mean something master (such as it appears in Luke 16:8).
The house in Mark is a literary strategy invented by Mark and should not be seen as a historical datum.
Cordially,
Charlie
Hi Elizabeth,
Your final question is too complicated and extensive to admit of a simple answer. See the discussion by de Jonge "Messiah" in the Anchor Bible Dictionary vol. 4:777-78 that will give you a historical overview of messianic expectations in Israel and the New Testament (NT).
The terms messiah and savior are never found in the NT as a self description by Jesus. They are always on the lips of others. One time Jesus accepts the description messiah used by the high priest (Mark 14:62), and on another occasion he admonishes the disciples to silence when Peter confesses him to be the Christ.
(Mark 8:29-30). The term savior is never used in Mark and Matthew.
Cordially,
Charlie
Great discussion, Charlie. I know that continued pursuit of technical questions might be boring to readers, and that you yourself might feel that we have reached the point of diminishing returns. So I certainly understand if you would choose not to continue to respond to my on-going concerns.
I looked at Goodacre’s Thomas and the Gospels (2012), and he too notes that son of man in Thomas 86 is singular. Unlike the Jesus Seminar, however, his overall view is that Thomas is dependent upon the gospels. I’m under the impression that you view Thomas as independent of the gospels?
Could you further explain your comment that Luke 9:58//Matt 8:20 “clearly references” Job 25:4-6? I looked at a few interlinear translations, and the son of man phrase is found in 25:6 and appears in poetic parallelism where God views a “mortal as a worm” and “the son of a human as a grub.” The passage is a description of humans as a group. On the other hand, L/M have Jesus referencing himself, and he does not make a claim of worthlessness before God, but describes himself as homeless. The saying occurs in the context of followers who are considering a serious commitment. Jesus responds to them that he can offer them no permanence and any such commitment requires breaking the most basic ties with their families.
More questions:
Why is it that lack of permanent home would be considered more authentic than breaking ties with family?
Might the saying have originally been a pious popularism?
I agree that the use of a “house” is a literary element in Mark, but would he have set his story up that way, used that strategy, if the tradition had come to him clearly showing that Jesus was basically an itinerant?
If original to Jesus, could the saying have been hyperbole to drive home the point of the demands of personal sacrifice?
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Hi Gene,
I set forth my reasons that Thomas is literarily independent of the canonical gospels in my Thomas book pp.14-16. I understand Jesus' use of "son of man" to be a claim that he is a human being and not a mythological figure or even an exceptional human being. He is a man of the people--one of us no better no worse. And I think that early Christians identified the future coming son of man as Jesus.
Cordially,
Charlie
Hi Charlie,
I wish I had a copy of your book on Thomas.
Since it offers such a different perspective than the discussion to date, I wanted to mention deceased Westar fellow Walter Wink's book, The Human Being: Jesus and the Enigma of the Son of the Man. This book is influenced by the theory of the unconscious of Jungian psychology, as well as Jewish Merkabah (throne chariot) mysticism. It is Wink's position (p. 19-34) that Jesus self-identified with son of man understood literally as "the son of the Man" or "son of the Human," the divine-human figure in the "throne chariot" vision of Ezekiel 1-2. Wink reminds us that "son of" is a semitic idiom that means membership in a class: for example: "a son of the quiver" is an arrow, "a son of the herd" is a calf (Lam 3:13, Gen 18:7). Derivatively, the son of the Man is a bridge between God and humans. Perhaps it is also relevant that the text of Ezekiel is immersed in son of man phrasing as Ezekiel himself over 80 times is identified as "son of man" (small letter m) carrying out the assignments of The Man to his people. These few abbreviated remarks cannot possibly do justice to Wink's presentation, but perhaps they will wet appetites.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Charlie,
To answer the initial question, Christ will come again, but not in the form of a mythological figure flying in on the clouds of glory to collect his own. The modern mind can only accept this ancient image as a metaphor for the human longing for Justice. The longing for justice never stops, so Christ is always expected to come. Each time goodness prevails over evil Christ has come.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Hi Gene,
I don't understand what you are saying here. I don't quite know how it is that goodness prevailing over evil anywhere in the world is a parousia of Christ. Your language is mystical like Matt18:20 and 1 Corinthians 5:1-5. At the very least it is a confession. I think that you are attempting a reinterpretation of the mythological expectation of Christ returning physically to earth and are offering a mythical explanation in the way it is stated. Can you spell it out in terms of human existence?
Cordially,
Charlie
Hi Charlie,
Sorry to be so obtuse. The early Christians literally expected a second coming which would right all things wrong. Such a literal mythological event is not possible to the modern rational mind. It is possible for the modern mind to see the vision as a 1st century metaphor or symbol of the human desire for a changed world. The human longing for a changed world takes the form of the son of Man who comes....etc. The human longing for change is always there but the conception of the mechanism for change has changed. The mechanism is no longer the son of Man, or Christ, or Lord Jesus, or the descending New Jerusalem, which has always seemed to be coming but never arrives. The mechanism now seems to be comprehensive human energy. So the longing remains unchanged across millennia, but the mechanism for accomplishing the goal has changed. Comprehensive human energy seems to have replaced coming son of Man energy, but it also remains influenced by Jesus pre- and post- resurrection energy. So if, in the course of my human existence, I manage to love my enemy, that manifestation of energy is an example of Jesus come again.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa
Hi Gene,
Thank you that helps me a lot. I do have one question about your last sentence. Why do acts of justice (or goodness or good prevailing over evil) have to be interpreted as an instance of Christ (or Jesus) coming again? That it is Jesus seems to be an interpretation of an act of justice or good over evil that you gloss from your own religious experience and name as an appearance of Jesus. Why could it not just as well be the Budda or Abraham Lincoln or Hilie Selassie (he comes again in the belief of a cargo cult) that is evidenced in these acts?
That is to say: Does Jesus really do anything in this explanation or is it only associated with Jesus because of your belief that Jesus wanted Justice or goodness in the social order?
Thanks for pushing me on this.
Charlie
Hi Charlie,
It’s a good thing, I think, to engage in these stimulus/response exercises.
One could say that every human being has a legacy of influence. The weak way of stating this is that each person has a legacy of memories which influences others. The strong way of saying it is that each person leaves an energy imprint that influences others.
There seem to be primary creators of energy. Christians have always held, perhaps mostly due to a resurrection belief, that Jesus left the strongest energy imprint. Others would choose Buddha for that honor, or Muhammad, or Confucius, or Krishna, or Moses, and so forth. And then there are personages like MLKJr or Gandhi who leave powerful energy imprints but who themselves would credit one or more of the primary energy creators.
Now, if Gene Stecher’s dad said to him as a boy, ‘Son, I hope you never smoke or drink,’ each day that hope was fulfilled one could say that his father, even though deceased, came again to him. But perhaps that initial hope was reinforced many times over by many other folks, as well, all of which could be given credit for coming again in Gene’s life.
So I have described ’coming again’ generically, and I doubt that there is much disagreement. In the generic sense described there can’t be much doubt that everyone from Jesus to Gene’s dad, at varying levels of strength, comes again as a matter of personal influence. But even from this generic perspective one could make a judgment that a single figure, such as Jesus, has made the strongest energy imprint; then one would try to live under the influence of that imprint.
Now Christians believe, IN ADDITION, that Jesus comes again as a survivor of death, that he remains personally present in his energy imprint, making it even more powerful. That cannot, of course, be shown to be true by any rational means, but many individuals hold it to be true on the basis of their own religious experience and beliefs.
Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
I relate to what Gene is saying about comprehensive human energy... For those who call themselves Christians, loving one's enemy is a manifestation of Christ consciousness. I don't know what other teachers/messengers said about loving one's enemy... But were a Buddhist to do that, he or she would claim it to be a manifestation of the Budda consciousness. Same for the Krishna consciousness, etc. The belief in an actual physical second coming of Christ or anyone else seems like an outdated idea that has outlived its
usefulness. I hear more and more people speaking of what Gene is talking about, and I find it very intriguing. Something to ponder anyway.
Happy early Veterans Day, Elizabeth
Post a Comment