Beyond the expression “the son of
man,” the epiphenomenon of Christ’s second coming, namely his “coming with the
clouds of heaven,” is an allusion to Dan 7:13. More importantly, it bears some
interesting superhuman connotations that once again resemble the messianic
discourse of Second Temple Judaism. In light of similar passages from writings
grouped together in the Hebrew Bible, the coming with clouds suggests a divine
epiphany of no one else but the one God of Israel. Within the Hebrew Bible, it
is mostly God himself whose coming or presence is accompanied by clouds: This
applies for instance to the cloud during the Exodus (Exod 14:20), to Solomon’s
dedication of the temple (1 Kgs 8:10f.), to prophetic oracles (Isa 19:1), and
also to Ezekiel’s vision of God’s throne (Ezek 1:4). All in all, coming with
clouds seems to be a standard repertoire of theophanies for the biblical
literature. By using this expression, Mark 14:62 also presents Christ as a
heavenly and divine being. Additionally, this presentation of Christ with
epiphanic traits is an already known phenomenon for the reader of the Gospel
(see Mark 4:35-41; 6:45-52; 9:2-10).
The notion of an eschatological
figure of salvation who comes down from heaven is not seldom within the
different early Jewish messianic texts. For instance, it is testified with
particular emphasis within the fifth book of the Sibyllines, which was probably
composed between the first and second Jewish revolt. At four instances, in Sib.
Or. 5.108f., 155-161, 256-259, 414-425, a messianic figure is introduced into
the scene by coming from the heavenly sphere. Even more relevant for Mark 14:62
is the presence of a similar motif in 4 Ezra. Within the sixth vision, the
coming of the messiah is described with language that is reminiscent of
biblical theophanies. Beyond the motion of wind and fire, there is again the
idea that the messiah will come with the clouds of heaven (4 Ezra 13:3). (Ruben
A. Būhner, Messianic High Christology: New Testament Variants of Second
Temple Judaism [Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2021], 73-74)
Son
of the Blessed One and the Charge of Blasphemy
It should have become clear that
Jesus’ answer entails very different kinds of superhuman attribute that are
connected to him and his role as messiah: he is depicted as a heavenly being
and as sitting on a heavenly throne at the right hand of God, and finally, his
coming to earth is presented with typical signs of a theophany. But does the
high priests’ question and his reply with the charge of blasphemy against Jesus
bear a similar conception? Some scholars argue that the second part of the high
priests’ question “Are you the messiah, the son of the Blessed One”? is meant
in a restrictive sense. That is to say, the second part of the question
qualifies the first in the sense: “Are you the particular type of messiah that
is also the son of God?” Although such a restrictive use is at least
grammatically possible, it seems to me rather unlikely at the historical level:
it presupposes fixed “types” of messianic expectations that never existed a separate
categories (for the same reason, it is also doubtful that Jesus’ answer was
meant to correct the high priests’ question, as was often assumed by earlier
scholars). However, at the narrative level of Mark, it becomes more likely that
the high priests’ question already implies a claim that some kind of divine
messiah.
Additionally, the high priest’s
reply with the charge of blasphemy seems to fit the superhuman claims in Jesus’
answer. Although some scholars interpret the charge of blasphemy as referring
only to Jesus’ claim of being the messiah, such an understanding is impossible for
two reasons. First, at least on historical grounds, the claim of being a
messiah would not have been any basis for a death sentence according to Jewish
law. Second, and more important, such an understanding ignores the context
within the whole Gospel of Mark, since in Mark 2:7 the charge of blasphemy is
clearly connected to the claim of divinity and not just to messiahship.
Therefore, also in Mark 14, it is most likely that the charge of blasphemy is
indeed referring to Jesus’ claims of divinity (or, in the words of Evans: “In
the eyes of the high priest and those who agreed with him, Jesus committed
blasphemy when he claimed a heavenly identity. He claimed to be the ‘son of God’
in the highest sense, whereby he might even sit upon God’s throne itself’
[Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20 [Word Biblical Commentary, 2001], 456]). Thus,
not only Jesus’ answer but also the high priest’s reply with the charge of
blasphemy against Jesus, and maybe even the high priest’s initial question, are
consistent in portraying Jesus as a figure with superhuman characteristics or
at least with claims to such. (Ibid., 74-75)
