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.
Finally, there is a third modification, and an especially important one: it is ordained of the Human One in Daniel 7 that “all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him,” as it says at the end of the vision. But Jesus says of himself, “The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). On this point Jesus has again surpassed the historical projection of Daniel 7. Jesus’ rule is based on his service, his surrender even to death. So Jesus altered the statements made in Daniel 7, but those very changes—palpable especially in the motif of service—show that in speaking of the “Son of Man” he is referring directly to Daniel 7. For what one changes is already presupposed, and evidently the very symbol of the “Son of Man” was a welcome expression for what he had to say about himself. Why?
The concept of “Son of Man/Human One” could not be politically misinterpreted like that of “messiah.” It was not meant to arouse passions.
Already in Daniel 7 this concept was associated with a majesty equal to that of the hoped-for messianic king if not even surpassing it: “His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away” (Dan 7:14).
With this concept Jesus could simultaneously express his lowliness, his humility, for the Human One in Daniel 7 is also the end of all societies based on self-exaltation and violence. And a rule that abandons violence can only rely on God; it is helplessly delivered over to the powers and rulers of history. Thus the symbol of the “Son of Man/Human One” allows the linking of statements of majesty and those of lowliness.
In Daniel 7 the Human One is Israel’s representative. He embodies the “people of the holy ones of the Most High” (Dan 7:27). This reference to Israel touches on something that is essential about Jesus. His purpose was to gather the eschatological Israel, something that had already begun with him and his group of disciples.
But what is crucial is that what Jesus says about himself thus remains coded. Talk of the Son of Man preserves his reticence. It remains enigmatic to a certain extent, and thus it provokes its hearers, who must ask themselves who this Son of Man really is. We have already noted Jesus’ restraint in speaking of himself in a number of places.
In this connection we should look especially at the double saying in Luke 12:8-9 about confessing Jesus. Those who now, in the present, confess Jesus publicly will also be publicly acknowledged by Jesus at the final judgment. But here it seems that Jesus and the Son of Man are separate:
“And I tell you, everyone who acknowledges me before others, the Son of Man also will acknowledge before the angels of God.”
“but whoever denies me before others will be denied before the angels of God.” (Luke 12:8-9)
This double saying even today plays a central role in the endless and confusing debates over the “Son of Man.” Rudolf Bultmann and others have concluded from Luke 12:8-9 that Jesus saw the Son of Man as a heavenly figure distinct from himself.15 But that would be a deceptive conclusion. The shift from first to third person is by no means an indicator of a change in the figures but is part of the style of reticent, enigmatic speech. It was long the custom for an author, in beginning a book, not to say “I” but instead “the author.” The direct use of “I” was considered impolite. In fact there are things that are better said in “he/she” style than in “I” style. We can see this exact usage in Paul when he writes in 2 Corinthians 12:1-5:
It is necessary to boast; nothing is to be gained by it, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. I know a person in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows. And I know that such a person—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know; God knows—was caught up into Paradise and heard things that are not to be told, that no mortal is permitted to repeat. On behalf of such a one I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weakness.
Paul here shifts twice between “I” and “he,” and then speaks in “I” form again. In that form he speaks of his “weakness.” In the “he” form he talks of things one prefers to keep back, things one cannot talk about in the same way as everyday, visible matters. He does not want to boast.
Thus there are situations in which tact and a sense of style demand that one speak in “he/she” style. Jesus betrays this very tact, discretion, and sense of style when he speaks of the Son of Man and thus of himself in the third person. It is superfluous to suppose he is speaking of two different figures.
With this note on Rudolf Bultmann I have taken a tiny step into the simply endless history of scholarly discussion about the “Son of Man/Human One.” But I do not want to continue the discussion in this form here. My position on the titles of majesty such as “prophet,” “messiah,” and “Son of Man/Human One” should have become clear by now, and nothing more is necessary for this book, because in the end the question of Jesus’ claim to majesty need not be made dependent on whether Jesus used those titles or not. Much more important is the claim that emanates indirectly from Jesus’ words and actions. I will now speak of this hidden and yet unmistakable and immense claim as a whole.
The Time Fulfilled
Eschatology speaks of the last things, of the hour toward which everything is moving, and thus also of the hour in which everything will be fulfilled and reveal its ultimate meaning. This utmost, ultimate hour includes judgment, because the confusions of history must be cleared up. All injustice must be uncovered, all evil revealed, and all guilt transformed. Jesus often spoke of judgment—not only the judgment to come, but also the judgment already in the making (see chap. 10). But more frequently and more fundamentally, he said that now all the time of Israel’s waiting and longing was being fulfilled and as overflowing salvation (chap. 14). Jesus’ appearance is shot through with the assurance that the promised time of salvation, of liberation, of fulfillment of the promises given by God is dawning. Let me quote once more the blessing of the eyewitnesses, which is so important: “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 // Matt 13:16-17). In both Luke (10:23) and Matthew (13:10) this word is explicitly addressed to the disciples. Those called blessed are the disciples because they hear most directly what Jesus says and see what is happening in him.