Saturday, December 18, 2021

Ruben A. Būhner on the High Christology of Mark 14

  

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)