This discussion has been transferred from here.
I was surprised that David Stern holds to the view – as a matter of biblical interpretation – that ‘Son of man’ and ‘Son of God’ are in effect antithetical ontological terms: Jesus as man and Jesus as God. Surely Daniel 7 is determinative for whatever theological significance ‘Son of man’ has: Jesus identifies himself with the figure who represents the oppressed saints of the Most High and receives the kingdom. ‘Son of God’, on the other, is a royal and messianic title but does not connote divinity. To quote N.T. Wright: ‘in the first century the regular Jewish meaning of this title had nothing to do with an incipient trinitarianism; it referred to the king as Israel’s representative. Israel was the son of YHWH: the king who would come to take her destiny upon himself would share this title’ (Jesus and the Victory of God, 485-486). I would have thought a Jewish scholar would have been more sensitive to these nuances – unless, of course, Wright has got it wrong!
Messianic Jewish outlook
From things I’ve read elsewhere on the site, I thought you’d enjoy it, so I’m glad to hear that you did. For me it encapsulates an understanding of the story that has become absolutely personal to me and my theology, while Stern’s commentary is my constant study companion. The story can be told without the Hebrew terms, of course, but that’s like picking the icing off the christmas cake and leaving it aside. They are designed to be taken together and better for it (though there are always those who disagree). Rediscovering the Hebrew / Jewish roots, not only the first century ones that so affected Jesus and the gospels, but the Patriarachal roots too, is a spiritual journey in itself of immense value — as long as it doesn’t become gimmicky.
Regarding your second point on biblical interpretation, good news. In a very open-source kind of way, I don’t think it’s a matter of Stern right, Wright wrong (sic) or any other combination. It might arguably be a case of “the School of Wright suggest…” or “the School of Stern suggests” a form of holding views in tension which Rabbinical Judaism is familiar with.
In fact, I think you will find that Stern is far from insensitive to the nuances you draw attention to; he’s simply come to a view that encompasses them, rather than ignores them - that isn’t obvious from the (creedal) story, but in his commentary on the terms he says this:
Son of Man One of the titles of the Messiah, based on Daniel 7.13-14, where the text has ‘bar-enosh’ (Aramaic). ‘Bar-enosh,’ like Hebrew ben-adam, can also mean “son of man,” “typical man,” “one schooled to be a man,” or simply “man.” Yeshua is all of these: the Messiah, a typical (ideal) man, one schooled both in heaven and on earth to be a man. Yeshua refers to himself frequently by this title, stressing his full identification with the human condition, as taught in Ro.5.12-21, 8.3-39; 1 C. 15.21-49; Pp 2.5-11; Heb 2.5-18, 4.15
Son of God This theologically important New Testament term can mean: (1) a godly person (without divine or supernatural overtones) (2) the special one sent by God; (3) the son of God in the flesh, as described Mt. 1-2 and Lk. 1-2 (4) a human whose presence on earth required a special creative act of God, hence either Adam or Yeshua, who is therefore called the “the second Adam” (Lk 3.338, Ro 5.12-21, 1 C 15) (5) the Yeshua who could in this earthly lifetime relate to God as his personal Father, calling him “Abba” and (6) the divine, eternally existent individual or Word who always has and always will be within the inner “structure” of Adonai and in that structure which is the one God, is in his essence the Son in both equal and subsidiary relationship with the Father (Jn 1.1-3, 14; 10.31; 14.9-10; Pp 2.5-11. The Tanakh says little about these things, yet is does offer strong hints at Isaiah 9.5-7, Micah 5.2, Psalm 2.7, Proverbs 30.4 and Daniel 7.13. In ancianet Jewish literature Enoch 105.2 and 4 Ezra 7.28-29, 13.32-52, 14.9 refer to the Messiah as the Son of God.
There we are then. (on a technical note, is there any way of indenting subtexts such as these citations?) would you agree that the theology of NTW which you quoted is contained within Sterns’ understanding of these antithetical terms?
I would be interested to understand the context of the citation you made of NT Wright, concerning “incipient trinitarianism,” — is he leading up to “no trinitarianism,” “trinitarianism, but not as we know it (Jim)” or “bold, powerful trinitarianism” or perhaps “subtle, powerful trinitarianism” — the latter being the position I would understand being closest to Stern (unless I’ve undrerstood the terms trinitarianism incorrectly…)
shalom! John
Son of man and Son of God again
John, the extra information is helpful. This is rather hurried response, really just to query some of the more detailed comments made by Stern about the use of these terms. I’m not sure how significant this all is – my guess is that it has to do with the whole process of reconnecting our somewhat abstracted, second-level theologies with the core biblical narrative. But it’s a complex process with plenty of room for error – particularly when you’re in a hurry!
Son of man:
Apart from the allusion to Daniel 7 (and perhaps Ezekiel), the phrase ‘son of man’ could be used by any male Jew as a form of self-reference. The question then would be: Would a male Jew use this form of expression in order to stress ‘his full identification with the human condition’? If you are going to make this sort of claim, you have to be able to show how the term would have been understood in this way by Jesus’ hearers – without reading the meaning back into it from the perspective of a later Christian theology.
Son of God:
Mary is told by the angel, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God’ (Luke 1:35 – I think this is the only occurrence of the term in these chapters). The context strongly suggests that Jesus is presented here as a royal messianic figure: the ‘Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever’ (32-33). Where does the idea come from that the title means specifically ‘son of God in the flesh’? I am not arguing against the incarnation but I would take issue with what seems to me an over-interpretation (a hyper-egesis?) of the term.
The only one of these passages that speaks of Jesus as ‘Son’ is 1 Corinthians 15:28, which ironically speaks of the subordination of the Son to God. There is certainly no suggestion that ‘son of God’ denotes a person who has been uniquely ‘created’. We may think on other grounds that Jesus’ presence on earth required a ‘special creative act’, but is that what the particular title ‘Son of God’ signifies?
The metaphor of sonship does not appear in the Philippians passage. Stern is on stronger ground with the passages from John, but I still think (pedant that I am) that there is a danger of reading too much into the expression. Jesus may be both ‘Son of God’ and ‘Word of God’, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the two terms are semantically equivalent or are interchangeable. ‘Son’ is a very relational term in John’s Gospel and certainly suggests a high degree of intimacy: but again there are dangers in carelessly jumping from, say, a relational or functional unity/equality to an ontological or metaphysical unity/equality.
By the way, <blockquote> </blockquote> will create an indented paragraph as in this post.
Son of man and Son of God (continued)
Son of Man
The following justification could be added from Stern’s commentary, on the general use of “Son of:”
Thus, by calling himself “Son of man,” a title, you agree with Stern, any Jew could use about himself, the above use of “Son of” is implied. What would be read into the final element of the phrase i.e. “man,” other than “humanity” is certainly something that could be investigated further, but Stern’s assertion seems a reasonable starting point (an eisegesis, rather than a hyper-eisegesis?)
Son of God To take a number of points in turn: firstly, (A) w.r.t. your comment
Stern’s JNT translation of Lk 1.32 also refers to Son of God
Stern may also be referring to the geneology of Lk 2 which begins “Yeshua… it was supposed that he was the son of the Yosef, who was of Eli, of Mattat, of Levi…. (right down to )… of God” (v.38)
Interestingly, that geneology is immediately preceded by the immersion of Yeshua story when “heaven was opened; the Holy Spirit came down on him in physical form like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, whom I love; I am well pleased with you” (Lk 3.22 echoed in Lk 9.35, Mt 17.5 and 2 Pt 1.17-18) Also note Mt 27
(B) Stern’s citing of Lk 3 and Ro 5 was in relation to the Second Adam, which I believe he sees as a further justification of Yeshus’s being “in the flesh.” He’s placed the two antithetical terms together again, in effect, which was what originally caught your attention, but I’m still not certain what you see as the hyper-eisegesis. Is it the terminology or the concept? Similarly, your final point on equality / unity, in response to Stern’s “structural” statement, needs clarification, particularly your use of ‘ontological / metaphysical,’ if I am to understand you properly.
(C) there is no question we are referring to those “other grounds” for the “special creative act.” It is a reference to the Lk 1.35 act with regard to Mary which results in her impregnation. In no way does it imply that the person of the Son of God was a person who was created!
Finally then, acknowledging you were in a rush, but when you have more of a moment, I would appreciate your response regarding NTWrights context of “insipient trinitarianism” and, I presume related, where you’re heading with your reasoning. You’ve said it’s not to question the incarnation, but you hint at a thesis against which you are measuring Stern’s statements on “Son of God, Son of Man.”
shalom! John