Tag Archives: Son of Man

Matthew 25: 31-46 The Judgment of Wisdom

1 Reply
Separation of the Sheep and the Goats, 6th Century Mosaic. This file was donated to Wikimedia Commons as part of a project by the Metropolitan Museum of Art. See the Image and Data Resources Open Access Policy, CC0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60952241

Matthew 25: 31-46

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ 40 And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family,you did it to me.’ 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

This final parable in Matthew’s gospel builds upon the foundation laid by the previous five parables but also steps beyond them into cosmic setting of dividing the blessed ones of Father and the cursed ones. This final parable brings together imagery from across the gospel as well as several resonant images from the Hebrew Scriptures woven into a tightly woven tapestry. Like a tapestry, you can appreciate the pattern from an initial glance but when you look closely you can discern how the individual threads are brought together to form this final image. Unfortunately, I think this parable is sometimes treated like an ancient tapestry that seems out of place in the modern homes we’ve constructed and some would perhaps like to confine it to a museum as a witness to the artistic stylings of an ancient culture but for those with eyes to see and ears to hear it concludes the teaching of Matthew’s gospel and prepares us for the passion narrative which follows.

Matthew has, in the previous two parables, used imagery often associated with Israel’s relationship with their God: God as bridesmaid and God as ‘house master’ entrusting the stewardship of the household to slaves who wield great power on their master’s behalf. Now we are thrust into the cosmic sphere with the reintroduction of the title the Son of Man, in a way that closely links this title with Daniel’s introduction of this figure in Daniel 7:13-14:

As I watched the night visions, I saw one like a human being (Son of Man) coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him. To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed.

Throughout the gospel the Son of Man has been linked to suffering, but here we also see it linked to glory. The suffering and glory of the Son of Man are held together in the trial before Caiaphas the high priest when Jesus states, “Form now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (26:64) But for the moment the parable looks beyond the upcoming suffering to the time when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory and the peoples are gathered to him.

There are two possible readings of this parable which rotate on how one views the ones gathered and these littlest ones who their Lord is now seen through. One reading is that the Greek ethnos is translated simply as nations indicating all the nations (Jews and Gentiles) gathered before the Son of Man and sorted by how they respond to the ‘least of these.’ In this reading “the least of these who are members of my family” are the hungry, thirsty, strangers, naked, sick/weak, and prisoners of the world. The second reading translates ethnos as Gentiles understanding the ‘least of these who are members of my family” as the followers of Jesus who carry the message of Jesus to the nations. There are strengths to both readings and the text can encompass both meanings. However, most of what follows will focus on the second reading since it highlights a way of thinking about this parable less common in the church. The reading here will also move away from an individualistic way of thinking about this parable to a framework that fits within the Jewish communal ideas of righteousness and hospitality.

Although there are portions of the Hebrew Scriptures which talk about the care for those who are less fortunate in the sense of an individual’s action, like Proverbs 19:17[1]: “Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and will be repaid in kind.“ But the individual’s actions are a part of the community which seeks to live in the covenant they have received from their God as a witness to the world. When Isaiah challenged the community to care for the hungry, the homeless, the naked, and the afflicted he could use singular pronouns to talk about the improper collective actions of the community:

Is this not the fast I choose; to loose the bonds of injustice, to undo the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke: Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover them, and not to hide yourself from your own kin? Then your light shall break forth like the dawn, and your healing shall spring up quickly; your vindicator shall go before you, the glory of the LORD be your rear guard. Then you shall call, and the LORD will answer; you shall cry for help, and he will say, Here I am. If you remove the yoke from among you, the pointing of the finger, the speaking of evil, if you offer your food to the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted, then your light shall rise in the darkness and your gloom be like the noonday. Isaiah 58:6-10

Israel and the church were intended to be communities of righteousness that would be lights that would illuminate the nations. Part of this expectation includes hospitality, which these new disciples were to expect in the places they go to both in Israel (10:5-15 where they are to rely on the hospitality of the villages and towns they come to) but also in the future when they are sent to go into ‘all nations.’ Particularly in Western societies we tend to read the scriptures in terms of individual responsibility, but a community of hospitality and righteousness doesn’t allow a person to remain hungry, thirsty, naked, sick/weak, or in prison without receiving care. Mark Allan Powell, when discussing the parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke, highlights this in talking to American, Russian and finally Tanzanian students for their interpretation of the parable. American students tended to highlight the son’s actions which lost his inheritance, Russian students tended to highlight the famine which brought about hunger in the land, but for me the most insightful was the answer he received in Tanzania:

The boy was in a far country. Immigrants often lose their money. They don’t know how things work—they might spend all their money when they shouldn’t because they don’t know about the famines that come. People think they are fools just because they don’t know how to live in that country. But the Bible commands us to care for the stranger and the alien in our midst. It is a lack of hospitality not to do so. This story, the Tanzanians told me, is less about personal repentance than it is about society. Specifically, it is about the kingdom of God. (Powell 2007, 27)emphasis mine

As we saw in Matthew 10:5-15, the judgment on communities that do not receive these disciples coming to them as strangers will receive a harsher judgment than Sodom and Gomorrah who failed to show hospitality to the divine visitors who entered their community.

In this cosmic parable where the Son of Man assumes his glory before all the peoples, nations and languages and some find themselves on the right[2] and others on the left judged for the way they received this unexpected divine visitation in the presence of these ‘little ones of God’s family.’ The attentive listener may hear the way Matthew has once again has pointed to the unique ways that ‘God is with us’ in these little faith ones sent out into the world needing care, welcome and compassion. It also creates a link between the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount and the two texts help interpret one another: perhaps the poor in spirit who are blessed or those who hunger and thirst for righteousness are found among those who are hungry, thirsty, strangers, naked, sick/weak, and imprisoned. The peoples of the world are blessed for how they receive these strangers and aliens in their midst. Are they the kind of society where their needs will be met or are they the type of society that hides themselves from their own kin?

The ‘blessed ones’ inherit the kingdom which was prepared for them from the ‘foundation of the cosmos.’ In hospitality they gave food to those hungering, drink to the thirst, gathered together[3] with the strangers, clothed the naked, visited the weak/sick,[4] and ‘came towards’ the ones in prison. On the one hand a community which does this towards the ‘little ones of God’s family’ probably practices this hospitality towards any strangers who find themselves in their midst, but probably in this parable they are blessed for the way they show hospitality for the least of God’s family[5] and by their actions show their righteousness. In contrast, the unrighteous do not practice this hospitality towards the strangers in their midst and find themselves left outside the kingdom of heaven. These ‘cursed ones’ have chosen the way of the devil and his angels and find themselves outside God’s promised ‘age of life’ enduring the ‘age of punishment’ or ‘age of fire.’[6]

Matthew’s gospel has continually pondered what the Jewish covenantal idea of righteousness looks like in practice for this community of Christ followers. Often this is framed in the wise/foolish framework of wisdom literature where the wise can take part in the celebration, or the master’s joy, or the kingdom prepared from the beginning of the cosmos while the foolish find themselves outside where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Righteousness does not look like individual piety, and there are those who may call on the name of the Lord, and who have heard the words of the Lord, but have not built their lives upon those words. This community of little ones go out as strangers among the nations expecting to see signs of the kingdom of God among those who welcome them, but conversely the nations are blessed or cursed based on the way they receive these humble messengers. Ultimately, any judgment remains in the hands of the Son of Man or God and not the disciples, the most they can do is shake the dust off their sandals. Just as the ‘housemaster’ continued to send slaves to his vineyard looking for the harvest from his vines, so the Son of Man continues to send slaves to the nations looking for the fruit of hospitality.

[1] See also Tobit 4:16 and Sirach 7:32-35

[2] Most translations smooth this out to be the right hand, but hand is not present in the Greek and it merely indicates the right side.

[3] This is the Greek sunegago (where the word synagogue comes from) which means to gather together with.

[4] Greek astheneo which can mean weak or sick, may be due to disease, age, or injury.

[5] Literally: ‘the least of my brothers’

[6] Most translations render the Greek aion (eon) as eternal, but as throughout this translation I’ve attempted to avoid these terms which carry a lot of baggage in Christian thought. Matthew has a conception of righteousness and condemnation for wickedness which is never fully developed. For a fuller discussion see Gehenna, Tartaros, Sheol, Hades, and Hell

Matthew 17: 22-23 The Way of the Cross part 2

2 Replies

Domine, quo Vadis? by Annibale Carracci, 1062

Matthew 17: 22-23

22 As they were gathering in Galilee, Jesus said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into human hands, 23 and they will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised.” And they were greatly distressed.

Matthew, like Mark, loves patterns of threes which is a frequently seen characteristic of literature written for to be heard primarily rather than read. This is the second and shortest of the three predictions of the passion in the gospel and they all either precede misunderstandings by the disciples about what it means to be followers of Jesus. In the first prediction Peter will rebuke Jesus and need to be told what discipleship will mean (16: 21-28), in this prediction there is an intermediary scene before the disciples ask who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven (18:1-5) and the final prediction will be followed by the mother of James and John asking for places of honor in the kingdom (20: 17-28). The disciples show some understanding of this brief statement as they gather in Galilee, but until the resurrection they will continue to perceive only a portion of Jesus’ identity and path.

There is no location for the impending betrayal of ‘the Son of Man into the hands of men’[1] unlike the previous prediction where Jerusalem is both their destination and where Jesus will encounter suffering. This statement of Jesus’ death in heard by the disciples and they understand that Jesus’ use of the title Son of Man is a reference to himself and they grasp enough to be greatly distressed about his upcoming betrayal and death. They are unable to understand his message about the resurrection. Even Peter, James and John who heard that the Son of Man was to suffer while coming down the mountain, even after experiencing the transfiguration of Jesus and the overwhelming presence of God on the mountain, share with the rest of the disciples the inability to consider the resurrection after three days as a possibility. Those hearing this narration are being prepared to make sense of the upcoming crucifixion and resurrection and this foreshadowing helps upcoming generations of disciples to make sense of the seeming senselessness of the cross and to anticipate the amazement of the resurrection.

[1] The Greek word anthropos lies behind the Man in Son of Man and human in human hands. The NRSV is correct in the translation of the term as Son of Man and humanity but it misses the world play between the two terms in Greek and how the betrayal of the ‘son of humanity’ is accomplished by ‘human hands.’

Matthew 16: 21-28 The Way of the Cross Part 1

3 Replies

Domine, quo Vadis? by Annibale Carracci, 1062

Matthew 16: 21-28

21 From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and undergo great suffering at the hands of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. 22 And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you.” 23 But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.”

24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25 For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit them if they gain the whole world but forfeit their life? Or what will they give in return for their life? 27 “For the Son of Man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done. 28 Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Titles in Matthew’s gospel, while important and demonstrating some understanding of who Jesus is, can only take us so far. In the previous section we have the titles Son of Man, Messiah/Christ and son of the living God all applied to Jesus, as well as the prophetic identity assigned to Jesus by the crowds. But these titles only have meaning in the context of how Jesus will inhabit these titles: Jesus will be prophetic but is not limited to how John, Jeremiah or Elijah enacted that identity; Jesus will be Messiah/Christ/King but not in the way that Peter or many others expect; and Matthew continues to hint that the title Son of God and Son of Man reflect more than just one divinely appointed. People of great faith, like the Canaanite woman or the centurion may have unique insights into what Jesus’ presence means for their situation, but for those called to be disciples one can only understand Jesus’ identity in relation to his teaching and actions as they continue to follow his path.

The focus now turns to Jerusalem. Although the next couple chapters involve actions and teaching in Galilee, it becomes a farewell tour of places and locations where much of the ministry of Jesus has occurred, because now for the first time Jesus indicates Jerusalem as the final destination of his ministry. Peter has just declared that Jesus is the Messiah, and it is natural that the Messiah of the Jewish people should go to Jerusalem and take up the seat once occupied by David. Yet, Jesus does not describe the journey to Jerusalem as a coronation but rather a road of great suffering and death. This first of three predictions of Jesus’ suffering and death in Jerusalem drastically changes the triumphal scene of Peter’s confession. Even though we hear Jesus’ state he will rise after three days it isn’t surprising that this is not understood by his disciples any better than the sign of Jonah was understood by the Pharisees and Sadducees.

M. Eugene Boring insightfully recognized that Peter’s action of taking Jesus aside and rebuking him could be read as Peter misunderstanding what Messiahship meant to Jesus, personal love for the person of Jesus and wanting to spare him from suffering or both. (NIB VIII: 349) What Peter intends as a blessing, the Greek ileos is better translated ‘God be merciful’ rather than ‘God forbid’, asking God not to bring this suffering upon Jesus becomes instead a stumbling block. Words of mercy intended to protect God’s anointed instead become words of temptation to pull the chosen one from what is necessary. Peter may misunderstand, but his words evoke compassion for Jesus.

Yet, even these words of blessing can become twisted to attempt to alter the way that Jesus embodies the identity of Messiah and Son of God and to become a stumbling block (scandalon). The title of Satan returns us to the temptation of Christ in Matthew 4: 1-11, where the devil attempts to test Jesus’ identity as Son of God. The devil’s temptations to avoid suffering, to give a sign and to take up worldly power all seem at odds with this necessary path to Jerusalem where the only sign is the sign of Jonah and suffering will come from those who wield religious and political power. Satan as a title for the devil originates with ‘the satan’ which is used as a title in Job 1-2 for ‘the accuser.’ Now Peter, albeit unintentionally, occupies the role of accusing Jesus of misunderstanding his place. Now Jesus turns to Peter to correct him.

There is a contrast between Jesus’ dismissal of the devil in 4:10 and his words to Peter in 16:23. In both cases Jesus tells the tempting one to go away (hupage) but here Jesus adds a location “behind me.”  Peter is called to occupy the position of following Jesus as one who learns rather than being dismissed like the devil or left behind like Pharisees and Sadducees. Peter will have to learn that his understanding of divine and human things are incorrect and that God’s way will be learned by following this Messiah who moves towards the suffering and death rather than towards human conceptions of power and glory.

Jesus’ words to his followers about denying themselves, taking up their cross and following were challenging to his initial followers but perhaps even more so in our culture that avoids suffering at all costs. Leszak Kolakowsky’s description of our culture as “a culture of analgesics” where we are “entertaining ourselves to death” by our endless distractions (Case-Winters, 2015, p. 211) rings true. The modern world presents many ways to numb and distract ourselves away from our callings and to present us with alternatives to a life that is difficult but ultimately worth dedicating ourselves to. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s words in a Detroit speech in 1963 that, “I submit to you that if a man hasn’t discovered something that he will die for, he isn’t fit to live” resonates with this calling of the men and women who follow the path of Jesus to be willing to take up their own crosses, deny the distractions and stumbling blocks and well meaning friends who try to change their paths and to place their life in the service of something worth living and dying for.

In a culture of revenge, where violence is repaid with more violence, Jesus calls his disciples to a way of life that ‘turns the other cheek and loves one’s enemies.’ We, like Peter and the rest of the disciples, are called into a discipleship which walks the path that Jesus walks. The crosses we bear may be different, the suffering we endure may be unique to our position and our time, but we do this as part of a community of people who desire to follow Jesus. There may be times where those who are among us, often for well intentioned reasons, place a stumbling block before us or who point us to the myriad of distractions and numbing agents that are a part of our culture. There may be times where the tempter attempts to turn us away from the path that leads to the cross.  The word the NRSV translates as life is psuche which is normally rendered ‘soul.’ The Hebrew people didn’t have a concept of a ‘detachable’ soul which goes into the afterlife, but the ‘soul’ was the very essence of what one’s life. The concept of selling one’s ‘soul’ in Hebrew would be to betray the life one is called to live instead of being a transaction where one damned one’s immortal life.

Ultimately there is a hope beyond the present that this life of discipleship yearns towards, some experience of the kingdom of heaven’s infiltration into the earth. Jesus’ words about the coming of God to reward those who choose this life of denial to find their lives embodies a hope for God’s action to overturn the injustice of the world. In Jűrgen Moltmann’s memorable phrase, “A theology of the cross without the resurrection is hell itself.” (Moltmann, 1981, pp. 41-42) This path of suffering without hope would merely be some masochistic philosophy and this suffering should produce not only a hope, but in Paul’s words a ‘hope that does not disappoint us.’ (Romans 5:6) The path which involves taking up ones cross involves a hope that the follower will share in the glory of the Son of Man coming in his glory. How Jesus’ early disciples heard the promise that some of those standing there would not taste death before Jesus came in his kingdom could relate to the Transfiguration, paradoxically the cross, or the resurrection, but as those who still attempt to follow the path of the crucified Lord we also hope in our own way to experience both moments of insight into the glory of God and some future realization of the kingdom of heaven.

The Son of David, Son of God, and Son of Man Titles in Matthew’s Gospel

9 Replies

Stained Glass window at the Melkite Catholic Annunciation Cathedral in Roslindale, MA depicting Christ the King with the regalia of a Byzantine Emperor

The gospels use several titles when talking about Jesus. When looking at Matthew’s gospel the particular title that is used may give important clues about the disposition of characters in the story in relation to Jesus, but since so many of these titles are deployed in chapters eight and nine it may be helpful to examine each one in a little more detail.

The ‘Son of’ titles: Son of David, Son of God, Son of Man

Son of David or relation to David:

When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever…But I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever. (2 Samuel 7: 12-13, 15-16)

A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. (Isaiah 11: 1)

The land, the temple and the Davidic line of kings were significant pillars of Judaic identity for centuries. The destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon in the years around 586 BCE brings an end to the reign of Davidic kings over Judah, but one of the hopes is that in the post-exilic years there will be a reestablishment of the line of Davidic kings and with that reestablishment will be a return to the ‘golden era’ of the Hebrew people. After Babylon the land of Israel is, with the short exception of the time after the Maccabean revolt, ruled by a foreign empire either directly or through vassal kings. The Son of David title in relation to this existing hope is the desire for a King of the Jews that will be God’s anointed one that will bring the people back to their glory days when they were not ruled over by Rome or the Herodian kings. In this way the title is close to the Christ/Messiah title.

Matthew spends longer on the genealogy of Jesus than on narrating the birth of Jesus, and one of the primary linkages in the genealogy is to David. From the first verse we learn that Jesus is the Son of David, the Son of Abraham and David stands at the transition from one set of fourteen generations to the next. The lineage of David is also highlighted both at the end of the genealogy in verse 17 and in the address to Joseph, Son of David in the birth narrative in verse 20. While the continuity with the person and story of David in important to Matthew, the Son of David title is never used by Jesus to refer to himself and the only time Jesus mentions David he implies or states that we are seeing one who is greater than David. In Matthew 12: 3, when responding to the Pharisees complaint about Jesus’ disciples plucking grain on Sabbath, Jesus replies to the Pharisees complaint, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry?” and he proceeds to imply that he is greater than David, greater than the temple and, using his chosen title states that, “the Son of Man is lord of the sabbath.” Additionally in conflict with the Pharisees in Matthew 22:41-45 when Jesus asks, “What do you think of the Messiah, whose Son is he?” the Pharisees’ response is “the Son of David” but then Jesus quotes Psalm 110:1 and again states that David calls the Messiah (and by implication himself) Lord.

Several of the uses of Son of David are related to requests for healing, which is surprising because David is not thought of as a healer (with the possible exception of playing the harp to calm the evil spirits in Saul). In the closely related stories of the two blind men in Matthew 9:27 and the two blind men in Matthew 20: 30 the request for healing comes in the identical form, “Have mercy on us, Son of David.” Similarly, the Canaanite woman asking for the demon to be cast out of her daughter in Matthew 15:22 asks, “Have mercy on me, Son of David.” The combined usage of this title with both the blind and an outsider paradoxically imply that the blind and the outsider perceive what others do not. The crowds will initially ask “Can this be the Son of David?” in Matthew 12: 23, which will bring about another conflict with the Pharisees where Jesus will again claim the title Son of Man and link his healings and work to the Spirit and the Kingdom of God. Finally, in Matthew 21:9 and 21: 15 the crowds will shout, “Hosanna to the Son of David.”

While Jesus will almost always use the Son of Man title (see below) to refer to himself, the linkage with David and the hope of a renewal of the Davidic line is present in Matthew. Jesus’ actions also enhance the linkage with David as we will see when we look at the ‘triumphal entry’ into Jerusalem in Matthew 21: 1-11. Matthew regularly taps into the prophetic hope surrounding the reestablishment of a Davidic king who will be the awaited messiah. Yet Matthew, along with the rest of the New Testament, attempts to deploy a wide range of titles and narratives to describe the central importance that Jesus of Nazareth will occupy in the hope and faith of the disciples who make up Matthew’s community.

Son of Man (Son of Humanity)

As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being (Son of Man—this is a place where the NRSV’s desire for inclusivity unfortunately obscures the textual linkage) coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him. To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed. Daniel 7: 13-14

The Son of Man, or one like a human being as the NRSV renders this figure, appropriates the connection between the Davidic king and God and places it within a cosmic context. Daniel, where this title emerges from, is probably one of the later books of the Hebrew scriptures but it operates in a world where God reveals how God is active in the midst of the rise and fall of empires and kings. The worldview of Daniel, sometimes called an apocalyptic worldview, believes that the God of Israel is ultimately in control in the world and the God will judge the nations and restore the faithful ones to their proper place once God acts in judgment toward the nations. In place of the domination of the nations the cosmic Son of Man assumes a dominion that will not end. Although there is a strong resonance with the Son of Man and the Son of David, the Son of David is closely linked to Israel while the Son of Man’s dominion is over all peoples, nations and languages.

Among the ‘Son of’ titles Jesus, in Matthew, uses the Son of Man exclusively in referring to himself. The Son of Man title is often used to refer to both the suffering of the Son of Man and the authority or glory of the Son of Man while other times it simply seems to be a self-reference to Jesus as he describes either what it means to follow him or how he is received. The title Son of Man is first used in Matthew 8:20 when a scribe approaches Jesus as a ‘Teacher’ and offers to follow him wherever he goes. Here Jesus describes the manner of his life, and by implication the life of those who would follow him wherever he goes by stating, “The Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” Similarly, Jesus uses the title for description of how he is received in Matthew 11: 19, “the Son of Man cam eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton, and a drunkard, and a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ And finally, in Matthew 20: 28, “The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Finally, when Jesus asks his disciples about how he is perceived he uses this title again, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” (Matthew 16: 13) but then immediately follows that question with asking his disciples “But who do you say that I am?”

Most of the usages of the Son of Man title are explicitly tied to either Jesus’ authority or his suffering. Many of the texts of suffering are explicitly tied to the handing over of Jesus to those with religious and political authority and his crucifixion (Matthew 12: 40; 17:12, 17:22, 20: 18, 20:28, 26:2, 26:24, 26:45) repeatedly tying Jesus’ embodiment of this title with suffering, crucifixion and death. Yet suffering and glorification are linked in this title both in terms of resurrection (17:9) in manners that have a strong resonance with Daniel’s vision of the Son of Man receiving authority and coming on the clouds of heaven (Matthew 19: 28, 24: 27-44, 25: 31-46, and in response to the accusation of being the Messiah the Son of God in Matthew 26: 64). But it can also be used in more mundane ways to justify the authority Jesus exercises to forgive sins (9:6) or to have greater authority than his opponents concerns about Sabbath regulations (12:8). The Son of Man title is closely tied to the authority, suffering, resurrection, glorification and self-identification of Jesus. Matthew, with seeing Jesus’ authority extending beyond Israel to include all the nations, probably hears in this title a more universal claim to authority and power than the Son of David title carries.

Son of God

I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, “You are my son; today I have begotten you.” Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.” Psalm 2: 7-8

Most modern readers assume that the Son of God title automatically assumes divinity, but in the ancient world being called a son of a god was associated with being king. Caesar Augustus, emperor of Rome at the birth of Christ was often referred to on inscriptions and coins as ‘the son of the divine Julius’ (Julius Caesar being afforded divinity upon his death) but this practice also has strong ties in the Hebrew Scriptures, especially in the language of the book of Psalms. As one whose authority was derivative from the LORD the God of Israel, and one who reigned on God’s behalf the anointed king could be referred to, as in Psalm 2 above, as the son.

In Matthew this title probably has the most surprising application. On the one hand it is implied twice from the voice from heaven of a cloud where the implied speaker is God (Matthew 3:17, 17:5) declaring Jesus as the Son, the beloved. On the other hand it is most frequently found in the mouth of forces in resistance to Jesus: the devil in the temptation (Matthew 4: 1-11), 2 demon possessed men (8:29), the high priest at Jesus’ trial (26: 63) and mockers at the cross (27: 30-34).  Yet, it can also be found on the mouth of Jesus’ disciples in general (14:33) and Peter specifically in his answer to the question “But who do you say I am” when he responds, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” (16:13) In Peter’s answer we see Messiah (anointed king) and Son of the living God tied together. While the Son of God title in both Jewish and empire context are linked closely to the authority of a king, Matthew is probably hinting with both the title from the voice from heaven and its ironic usage by both the devil and demoniacs that something greater is at play. This is also alluded to in Matthew 14:33 when the disciples not only declare Jesus the Son of God but also worship him.

The three ‘Son of’ titles overlap in their understanding of the kingly role of Jesus. Jesus at a minimum in Matthew is linked to the hope for a Davidic king and to God’s action to act on behalf of God’s people and to reign over the nations. The titles in their usage are also tied to the title of Jesus as Christ/Messiah and his proclamation of the kingdom of heaven/God. In Matthew, Jesus intentionally uses the Son of Man title for self-reference with its more universal application than the Son of David or Son of God titles. Yet, all three titles link Jesus to the hope for a divinely anointed leader who would rescue the people and through the narrative of Matthew we see how Jesus both accepts and changes the expectations for these hopes.

Matthew 9: 1-8 What Sort of Man is This Part 3

2 Replies

Christ Healing a Paralytic, Mosaic from the Cycle of the Life of Christ, Chora Church, Constantinople (1310-20)

Matthew 9: 1-8

Parallels Mark 2: 1-12; Luke 5: 17-26

1 And after getting into a boat he crossed the sea and came to his own town.

2 And just then some people were carrying a paralyzed man lying on a bed. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.” 3 Then some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.” 4 But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? 5 For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up and walk’? 6 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” — he then said to the paralytic — “Stand up, take your bed and go to your home.” 7 And he stood up and went to his home. 8 When the crowds saw it, they were filled with awe, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to human beings.

In this final miraculous story of this set of three which have all pointed to the authority Jesus bears and opened windows into who Jesus is in Matthew’s gospel we hear for a second time in this section of Matthew the use of the title the Son of Man. The differences in the way Matthew narrates this story from Mark and Luke probably are elements that may add details to the story (like the house being so full that the friends of the paralyzed man have to dig through the roof) but for all the gospels the central issue of this narrative is the authority that the Son of Man has and how to answer the charge of blasphemy that Jesus and his disciples will encounter.

We are returned to Capernaum which acts as a base of operations for Jesus’ ministry in Galilee and while the return connects us to the previous two stories where Jesus crossed to the other side of the sea, the return voyage is merely noted as we transition back to Jesus’ hometown. Unlike Mark and Luke we are not told that we are in a home and therefore there is no need for the friends of the paralytic find a way through the crowd at the home, climb up on the roof and open the roof to lower their friend. The story could take place in a home or in an outdoor location, but instead of the actions of the friends demonstrating their faith Jesus sees their faith. The faith may include the faith of the paralytic man or it may just be the faith of his friends, but this faith is enough for Jesus to see and speak.

Faith in Matthew’s gospel involves trusting that Jesus can do what is being hoped for, and here the faith can come from those other than the one being healed. I’ve been asked if it is possible to believe for someone else, and in the way the church has traditionally understood belief in terms of cognitive assent to doctrines my answer would be no, but in the way the New Testament discuss faith I think we need to say yes. Here, and in several places in Matthew’s gospel (ex. Matthew 8: 5-13, Matthew 9: 18-26, Matthew 15: 21-28) the trust of another in Jesus’ ability to bring about the healing they desire works on behalf of another person.

Jesus’ initial response to observing the faith of the friends and the paralytic man is to declare forgiveness on the man’s sins. While the declaration of forgiveness may seem strange to those of us who live in a world where injury and sickness are rarely viewed as dependent on the moral character of the ill or injured one, in the ancient world sin and sickness were often viewed as connected. Skin diseases or bleeding made one unclean and untouchable, blindness may be viewed as caused by either the individual’s or the parent’s sinfulness, and even injury or disability was viewed as either an action by a demonic threat or of divine judgment. These views are not limited to Judaism, but were common among cultures and in some strange forms persist even today when those who are sick or injured are viewed as lazy, gluttonous, or have done something morally deviant to incur their disease (Think for example of the way people think about diabetes or in the past the way HIV/AIDS was viewed). Matthew’s placement of this story as the climax of a series of stories where Jesus has demonstrated his authority over the elements, over the demonic prepares us for the declaration that he is one with the ability to forgive sins.

When a person can be labeled as a sinner the community is not responsible for their care, they can be left as an outsider. Forgiveness makes a way for inclusion. Like Job’s friends, religious people can sometimes spend time justifying why a person is dealing with an illness or injury, why they are disabled and while religion does help provide order for people’s lives it can also be used to exclude those who do not fit within the framework that they have established. Job’s friends needed to explain why Job’s suffering was Job’s fault and often it is easier to blame those who are needing assistance than engage the uncomfortable reality that sometimes people suffer and there is no apparent reason. On the other hand there are times where one’s actions do cause pain for oneself or others: one is intoxicated and causes an accident, one is injured while doing something unethical. We don’t know why the man in this story is paralyzed: was he injured while working, was he a revolutionary or a bandit who was injured, we can speculate and create a story behind this story but ultimately whatever the cause his friends trusted that Jesus could provide the answer and Jesus forgives whatever the believed or real cause of his paralysis was.

The reaction of the scribes which is not spoken publicly but only saying among (literally in) themselves and yet Jesus chooses to address this unspoken, or softly spoken deliberations. Unlike the friends of the paralytic who trust that Jesus is able to do what they desire for their friend, the scribes do not believe that Jesus is able to do what he says and that is the evil in their hearts. Jesus commands the paralytic to ‘rise up’ (again the Greek word egeipoo which is frequently used in this section and for Jesus at the resurrection) and take his bed and go home. His command and the paralytics response to the command, which demonstrates the authority Jesus had over the disability of the paralytic, demonstrates to the crowd the authority that has been given to human beings by God (not just Jesus in particular). On the one hand the Son of Man’s authority is implied in the narrative to be granted to the sons of humanity.

The title Son of Man is used in Matthew for the second time (Initially in Matthew 8:20). The title originates in the book of Daniel in a vision of judgment. This is one of the times where the desire for inclusive language in the NRSV obscures the linkage between texts. As the book of Daniel relays the vision:

I saw one like a human being (Aramaic is one like the son of man) coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him. To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations and languages should serve him. His dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed.  Daniel 7: 13-14

The Son of Man is often discussed as an apocalyptic title in writing about the New Testament, but since the word apocalyptic carries a lot of baggage for many Christians that may not be appropriate to the way that scripture actually is used in books like Daniel or Revelation and certainly not in terms of Jesus. In the literature around the time of Jesus we do see a hope for God’s intervention in the world through a representative of God. Much like the earlier Jewish hope where the Davidic king would be the means through which God would provide security and blessings for God’s people, now this ‘heavenly figure’ becomes the one through which the dominion, glory and kingship of the kingdom of heaven is exercised. The term is used frequently in the gospels and with Son of God and Son of David become ways of referring to Jesus. The intentional use of the title Son of Man in relation to the authority to forgive sins links Jesus to operating with the authority of God.

The Son of Man has appeared in two sections related to the scribes at this point in the narrative and it is worth watching as we continue to journey through Matthew when this title continues to be used instead of another title. Matthew is very concerned with demonstrating that who Jesus is and what Jesus does is in accordance with the scriptures and yet the scribes, those with the ability to read and interpret the scriptures seem resistant to Jesus’ authority. Perhaps the introduction of the Son of Man whose authority comes directly from God and doesn’t need to be mediated through scripture is one of the reasons that it is introduced in relationship with the scribes. Jesus as we encounter him in Matthew makes some astounding claims of authority and interprets scripture at times in ways that are either blasphemous or awe inspiring. Perhaps the demons in the previous story may see who Jesus is because the threat he poses to them and their dominion, for them Jesus is an undeniable threat to their power and authority and denies them the ability to continue their oppression. The people in Gadarene and the scribes may see the acts Jesus does, but they are unwilling or unable to grant him the authority he claims. Where the evil that lies in their hearts originates (and the heart is the organ of decision not emotion in scriptures) that stands in contrast to the faith of the centurion and the friends of the paralytic but for the followers of Jesus he is one with authority from God, for the crowds he is one who embodies the authority God is granting to the sons and daughters of humanity, but we will continue to see conflict with those who will be unwilling or unable to see who Jesus is through the actions he does and the words he says.