Bulletin for Biblical Research (BBR) 1991
Bulletin for Biblical Research 1 (1991) 109-121
Luke 5:24
DARRELL L. BOCK
The Son of Man title is one of the most complex issues in New Testa-
ment studies.1 The issue has produced endless discussion in this cen-
tury.2 Among the key, recent studies is S. Kim, The Son of Man as Son
of God.3 We have some sympathy for his basic thesis which relates the
Son of Man to the exalted heavenly figure of Daniel 7, which takes
Daniel 7 to refer to an individual figure, and which argues that the
Son of Man title in Jesus' usage points to Jesus as Son of God who
builds the new people of God. However, we are not as confident that
it can be established that the title's usage in the NT always explicitly
pointed to this background.4 Such may be the case, but the NT and
1. Special thanks goes to participants in the post graduate seminar at the Univer-
sity of Tübingen, who responded to a draft of this article given on May 14, 1990. Partic-
ular thanks also goes to Otto Betz and E. Earle Ellis, whose comments were particularly
helpful. In addition, special appreciation must be expressed to I. Howard Marshall, who
read and carefully commented on the original draft of this article.
2. Colpe, TDNT 8:400-477, covers many of the issues, but he has but one of several
full studies. Among the key recent studies are Casey, The Son of Man: The Interpretation
and Influence of Daniel 7 (London: SPCK, 1979) and Caragounis, The Son of Man: Vision
and Interpretation Wissenshaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 38 (Tübin-
gen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1986). The most influential German study is Tödt, Der Menschensohn
in der synoptischen Überlieferung, 4th ed. (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn/Gütersloher Ver-
laghaus, 1979 ed. of 1959 work), whose work Kim in particular critiques. These works
have full bibliographies on the topic.
3. Kim, The Son of Man as Son of God (
1983 ed.). Of particular interest is his discussion on pp. 15-30, of the background of the
term in relation to apocalyptic imagery and Ezekiel 1.
4. One of the fundamental premises of this article is that one must distinguish be-
tween what Jesus may have known and how he presented his understanding to his au-
dience. We believe Kim is on the right track regarding the former question, but that the
second issue is not so clearly treated.
110 Bulletin for Biblical Research 1
extra-biblical evidence, as it stands currently, does not allow one to be
quite so confident of this conclusion. Even Kim has recognized his
hypothesis needs more work to become an established proposal. In the
meantime, we set out on a different trail. In short, we end up at the
same destination as Kim, but take a different road to get there. His
work appears to be part of the equation, but not all of it.
In Luke 5:24, Jesus heals a paralytic and relates that healing to his
authority as the "Son of Man." The wording of the verse, including
the unusual parenthetical break in the middle, is virtually identical in
all three gospels. The fact that all three gospels share the unusual con-
struction suggests a similar source. This verse marks the first use of
the title "Son of Man" by Luke. It parallels Mark 2:10, which is also
the first appearance of the title in that gospel. The Matthean parallel,
Matt 9:6, is the second appearance of the title in that gospel.5 Luke
uses this title 25 times in his gospel, but this text is unique in yet
another way. It is the only Son of Man saying in the gospels which is
bound immediately and directly to a miracle.6 As such, it is a crucial
text, not only because it appears early in Jesus' ministry, but also
because it links his teaching about himself to his work, showing the
connection between the two.
Now some background is needed to understand this title, this
text, and the discussion surrounding it. Seven points set the frame-
work for the discussion. On these items there is little debate, though
the issue of the "Son of Man" concept and its association to apocalyp-
tic images is opening up again.7
1) The phrase in a few Gospel passages is related to Dan 7:13-14
(Luke 21:27; 22:69) and in Hebrews is associated with Psalm 8 (Heb 2:6).
5. Matt 8:20 contains the first use of the title in Matthew.
6. Matt 12:32 is a Son of Man saying which discusses miracles in relation to the
Beelzebub controversy, while John 5:27 and 9:35 relate the Son of Man to miracles, either
by discussing Sabbath authority (John 5) or by raising the issue of the identity of the Son
of Man (John 9). The saying associated with Luke 5:24 is the only Son of Man saying that
comes in the midst of a healing itself.
7. This recent, new discussion on apocalyptic may eventually effect points 3-5 be-
low, especially point 5 about whether Jesus or the church is responsible for the use as a
title. Kim's work, The Son of Man as Son of God, 15-30, summarizes this recent discussion.
Defining terms is advisable. When we speak of the Son of Man concept, we speak about
the use of the image, "one like a Son of Man." When we speak of the Son of Man as a
title, we have in mind its use to describe a specific, eschatological figure, who can then
be spoken of as "The Son of Man." In particular, the Son of Man title as a NT phe-
nomena has messianic overtones, but this does not mean, as we shall see, that the phrase
when it was used in its original Aramaic setting had such overtones. The phrase in Ara-
maic may merely have presented an idiom, which could be related to the concept. More
on this distinction later.
BOCK: The Son of Man in Luke 5:24 111
2) The term comes from Aramaic and would have been used by
Jesus in an Aramaic form.8
3) The usage in Daniel is not technically speaking a title, but is a
description of a human figure who approaches God to receive domin-
ion. In other words, there is no reference to "the" Son of Man here;
only the imagery is present.9 It should not be ignored, however, that
the presence of this figure with this description makes the passage
capable of generating a title. Its later history in the NT, 1 Enoch, and
2 Esdras indicates this. The relevant passages appear in 1 Enoch 46:3-
7; 48:4-10; 62:3-9, 14; 63:11; 69:27-29, and 2 Esdras 13. The uses in
Enoch point to a revealer (46:3), a judge (62:1-5), a universal ruler
(62:12-13), an object of worship (69:29, 62:6-7), and an authority and
judge (48:5; 62:6, 9). The image is one of authority derived from
Daniel 7. It also is to be noted that the association of this figure with
coming on the clouds is an image suggesting divinity.10
4) There is currently no clear evidence that the term at the time of
Christ existed as a fixed, specific messianic title in Judaism.11 1 Enoch
46-48, 62-71 and 2 Esdras 13 are too late to be related to this period
with confidence, given that the specific chapters of Enoch are missing
in the
tied to such an early period. Some texts exist, which may eventually
challenge this conclusion, but they are too uncertain and fragmentary
at the moment to be considered as clear evidence.
5) Thus, the term as a specific messianic title probably emerged
either from Jesus or the early church. The presence of the title in the
8. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke I-IX (Anchor Bible 28; Garden City, NJ:
Doubleday & Co., 1981) 208-9.
9. The text simply describes "one like a son of man."
10. Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern (JSNTS 12; Sheffield:
Academic Press, 1987) 133-35. Kim, The Son of Man as Son of God, 17-19, though he
seems to overemphasize the divinity of the figure at the expense of the humanity in the
picture. The Daniel 7 imagery suggests deity; it does not declare it.
11. Kim, The Son of Man as Son of God, 19 and n. 25, mentions that a "heavenly," re-
demptive figure identified alternatively with Enoch, Abel, or Melchizedek may have ex-
isted in the ancient Jewish tradition. But he notes these claims are disputable, since the
clear examples are late. He also notes, pp. 20-22, that 4Qps DanAa (=4Q 243) may prove
this limitation incorrect, but it is too early to know what this text means, since all of it
has not been published, and it has many gaps. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke I-
IX, 209-10, argues that 1 Enoch may be relevant as a transitional move to an apocalyptic
individualized use, but he treats the point as too unclear to base much on it. Kim, 19,
n. 25, notes all undisputed examples from 1 Enoch and 2 Esdras are later than the Gos-
pels. For the sake of completeness, we list the rabbinic references to the Son of Man con-
cept: t. Sanh. 98a; Midrash Rabbah Number 13:14; Midrash Hag-gadol Gen 49:10;
Agadath Bereshith 14:3 and 23:1; p.t. Tannith 2:1; t. Hagiga 11, 1 (14a); t. Sanh. 98b; and
Tanhuma Toledot 20 (70b). The major passage in these texts is Dan 7:9-13, though Num
23:19, Zech 9, Ps 72:11, Dan 2:35, and 1 Chr 3:24 also each appear in one passage each.
112 Bulletin for Biblical Research 1
NT is almost always with a definite article suggesting a definite refer-
ence and a titular use for the NT texts.12
6) In this tradition, the key point of association, at least in the
synoptics, is Dan 7:13-14.
7) In the NT tradition, with the exception of Acts 7:56, the title is
found exclusively on Jesus' lips.
Now scholars will divide these passages into three distinct sys-
tems of classification. 1) Most will classify the synoptic uses as: present
ministry (or earthly ministry) Son of Man sayings (of which Luke 5:24
is one), suffering Son of Man sayings, and future return (or exaltation)
Son of Man sayings.13 The benefit of this system is that it relates the
sayings to various divisions of Jesus' career: earthly ministry, death,
and exaltation-return. The problem with this system is that some say-
ings refer to more than one period. For example, the concept of rejec-
tion can apply to both Jesus' earthly ministry and to his death.
2) Others will classify them as sayings with no reference to
Daniel, sayings with indirect reference to Daniel (allusions to
Daniel 7, something more than the mere title), or sayings that directly
refer to Daniel (citations of Daniel 7).14 Luke 5:24 would be disputed
whether it is a saying with no reference to Daniel or an indirect refer-
ence saying. The classification dispute with this system may turn on
whether one distinguishes Jesus' understanding of the title from how
he reveals it. The value of this system is that is shows the level of OT
use in the saying.
3) Still another simpler breakdown is two categories: Authority
Son of Man sayings and Rejection Son of Man sayings.15 In this sys-
tem, Luke 5:24 is an authority Son of Man saying. The benefit of this
twofold division is that the focus is on the biblical concept, not a mix
of time and function as appears in the first classification system. What
12. One exception to this is John 5:27. Rev 1:13 and 14:14 have the "like a son of man"
image. The title appears about 82 times in the gospels; BAGD p. 835, 2c; Bauer, Wörterbuch
zum Neuen Testament (6th ed.), col. 1665, 2c. Both these entries also have bibliography. On
the issue of the title in its original setting as a saying of Jesus, see note 7 above.
13. Caragounis notes that the title is used 69 times in the synoptics and twelve
times in John. He divides the uses as follows: Matthew--30 times with 7 tied to earthly
ministry, 10 to suffering and 13 to exaltation; Mark--14 times with 2 tied to earthly
ministry, 9 to suffering, and 3 to exaltation; Luke--25 times with 7 tied to earthly min-
istry, 8 to suffering, and 10 to exaltation. John's gospel does not fit this pattern so it is
broken down into three times ("lifted up"), 2 times ("glorified or exalted"), 2 times (go-
ing to heaven), 2 times (gives men life through his death), 1 time (ascending/descend-
ing), 1 time (object of saving faith), 1 time (authority).
14. So Vermes, Jesus the Jew (London: Collins, 1973) 178, who discusses both types
of classification and prefers the latter.
15. 0. Betz, Jesus und das Danielbuch: Band II Die Menschensohn Jesu und die
Zukunftserwartung des Paulus (Daniel 7,13-14), (Arbiten zum Neuen Testament und Judentum,
Band 6/11;
BOCK: The Son of Man in Luke 5:24 113
is lost is any attempt to focus on which phase or phases of Jesus' min-
istry are in view. Regardless of the classification system chosen, any
category by itself is not good enough by itself to become the basis of
decisions about authenticity, such as was done by earlier form critics.
Authenticity must be examined on a case by case basis.
B. THE CURRENT DEBATE ABOUT THE PHRASE
"SON OF MAN" IN ARAMAIC
ting, the debate becomes very complex. The debate centers upon what
the Aramaic phrase meant in the first century, given that it was not
yet a formal title. The phrase "son of man" by itself, refers to a
human, just as the idiom "son of a carpenter" refers to a descendant of
a carpenter. Recently, the key participants in this aspect of the debate
have been Fitzmyer and Vermes.16 They both are agreed that the
phrase can have two senses. It can mean "someone" or it can mean
"man." The debate is whether the term can be another way to say "I,"
so that a speaker can indirectly refer to just himself, much like English
has the editorial "we."17 In other words, does the phrase mean
"people in general, so me included" or to "I and nobody else"? Ver-
mes argues that it can refer exclusively to an individual, while Fitz-
myer believes this additional meaning is not attested in material early
enough to support the presence of this sense in the first century.18 He
also argues most recently that it is possible a "circumlocution" use
exists in the gospels, as Vermes argues, but goes on to suggest that
this is the work of the evangelist which is a "coincidental creation."19
In other words, the use of the phrase as a narrow title referring exclu-
sively to Jesus is the work of the gospels, not Jesus. For Fitzmyer, if
Jesus used the phrase, he used it generically. Fitzmyer still thinks that
it is unlikely Jesus used the phrase just of himself. What is one to
make of this discussion and the debate that surrounds it? How is the
debate relevant (or irrelevant) to Luke 5:24?
16. Fitzmyer, A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (SBLMS 25;
MT: Scholars Press, 1979) 143-61 and his article, "Another View of the 'Son of Man' De-
bate," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 4 (1979) 58-68. Vermes has an article in
Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 3rd ed (
Press, 1967) 310-30; also has remarks in Jesus the Jew, 188-91.
17. They speak of a "circumlocution."
18. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke I–/X, 209-10, retreats slightly from his
earlier position which argued such attestation is entirely missing from the extra-biblical
texts. But he argues the evidence from Gen 4:14 Targum Neofiti I and Cairo Targum B is
too late to be relevant.
19. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke I–IX, 210.
114 Bulletin for Biblical Research 1
C. THE "SON OF MAN" IN LUKE 5:24
demean the value of the discussion about the force of the phrase in the
original Aramaic. We just think it is not as central an issue as many
make it. The value of the background is that it tells us more precisely
how Jesus' remark applied to himself. Clearly a circumlocution for "I"
(Vermes) is more direct than the reference to "someone" (Fitzmyer).
Our point is that the New Testament force works either way the term
was taken in its original setting, when it is placed in context with the
event. In other words, our aim is to show that the phrase works and
has an exclusive referent in Luke 5:24, even with an ambiguous force
of "someone." The context of Luke 5:24 makes it clear that in the origi-
nal setting either sense of the Aramaic, even the ambiguous sense,
would contain a veiled reference to Jesus. Either way, contextually,
the force of Jesus' use would point just to him. But to argue this point
requires the saying can be authentic, which needs defense.
Some argue Jesus may have used the phrase "son of man," but
question whether he used it of himself. For example, some, like Bult-
mann, see the term originally as a reference to all men and appeal to
Mark 2:27-28, or else, as Bultmann also argued, they see a reference
to another figure besides Jesus.20 Interestingly in Luke 5:24, Bultmann
appeals to the plural of the parallel in Matt 9:8, which reads e)do&casan
to&n qeo\n to\n do&nta e)cousi&an toiau&uthn toi=j a)nqrw&poij. He sees the Mat-
thean form as the earliest form of the tradition, where the church is
expressing her claim to be able to forgive sins. This ecclesiastical
authority was then rewritten in Mark 2:10 and Luke 5:24 into an
expression of Jesus' authority, using the circumlocution sense of Son
of Man as meaning "I." But there is a fundamental problem with this
approach to Matt 9:8 and its parallel, Luke 5:24. In fact, the problem
exists for all attempts to argue that Son of Man means "men" or is a
figure for someone other than Jesus. The problem has always been
that it cannot really explain the consistent tie of the term exclusively
to Jesus in the NT. The early church would not create such usage
about Jesus nor use the term of anyone else, because the early church
itself does not use this articular form of the title for Jesus in the epis-
tles or in Revelation, nor does the tradition apply the title to anyone
but Jesus.
Luke 5:24 is a good example of how the term works. The issue in
the passage is Jesus' authority. In fact, it is only his authority which is
the issue. Let us assume the most ambiguous Aramaic reference to a
20. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, rev. ed. (
Row, 1976 printing of 1963 ed.) 16, 84, 151-52, where he also discusses Luke 12:8-9 and
Mark 8:28. On Luke 5:24 and its parallels, 15-16.
Bock: The Son of Man in Luke 5:24 115
"human" ("someone") for Luke 5:24. Does this broad sense rule out an
exclusive self-reference to Jesus? Luke 5:24 reads i3na de\ ei)dhte o3ti o(
ui(o\j tou= a)nqrw&pou e)cousi&an e1xei e)pi\ th=j gh=j a)fie&nai a(marti&aj. The
phrase, with its original ambiguous Aramaic force, would translate
"so you might know that a man or someone21 (= NT The Son of Man)
has authority to forgive sins on earth." Even with the broad sense, in
this context the phrase would mean "so you might know this man has
authority to forgive sins"; since 1) it is a given in Judaism that all men
did not have this authority (in fact, only God does—Exod 34:6; Ps
103:12, Isa 1:18, 43:25; Jer 31:34), and 2) Jesus is the man who performs
the healing in question. The saying is to be applied only to him.
Now the Pharisees in the account get that point clearly (v 21) even
before the Son of Man declaration of v 24. Jesus' remark in v 24 only
underscores the point. The pursuit of the history of usage fails to deal
with issues raised by the passage itself, by assuming that the ambigu-
ous reference cannot fit and that the expression is ambiguous in the
reconstructed original form. But there is no problem nor is there
ambiguity.22 One other implication exists for the phrase in this origi-
nal context. The term is not clearly a messianic title in this context. It
is only a reference to a human, "someone," who also does something
unique.
It is time to consider objections to this approach to Luke 5:24. Now
it is interesting in the face of this debate about whether Son of Man
refers to one person (circumlocution) or to many (ambiguous), that
Matt 9:8, the parallel to Luke 5:24, places the crowd's response in very
general, ambiguous terms. There the crowd offers praise because God
had given such authority to men (toi=j a)nqrw&poij). Does this not indi-
cate a wider, original reference for the title (or better, in the original
context, the idiom)? Does not Matthew's usage show that the debate
about the Aramaic expression's force is a central question? The
answer is both yes and no. Yes, the reply does suggest the audience
heard a general reference. But, no, even in this context, it is the
uniqueness of Jesus' action that has drawn attention. The crowd is
amazed "men" have such authority, but it is Jesus who amazes them.
So the attention is really not on men, but on this man.
It is also important to note that terms can be gradually unveiled in
terms of the full force of their meaning. In other words, there can be a
21. Both italicized senses render the term Son of Man and represent the disputed
option.
22. Those who argue the title is inserted later or is a narrative comment from the
evangelist will not be addressed so clearly by this argument, but the handling of that
narrative issue awaits our discussion below. Against an addition of the title in the tradi-
tion is the fact the title is in all three renderings of this passage (Luke 5:24; Mark 2:10;
Matt 9:6).
116 Bulletin for Biblical Research 1
difference between what Jesus understood a term to mean and how
he went about revealing that understanding. We believe that is the
case with Jesus' use of the term/idiom "Son of Man," as evidenced by
its usage in Luke 5:24 (and parallels). Jesus' action and saying is a
conundrum, like those which he often offers his audiences.23 It is the
second such conundrum in this passage. The first was the "which is
easier" remark in v 23. On the level of speaking, it is easier to declare
sins to be forgiven than to provide the empirical reality of healing
someone. One thing is seen and evident; the other is not. But the
remark is really ironic, since it is actually harder to possess the author-
ity to forgive sins. So Jesus' Son of Man saying in v 24 is the second
"riddle" of the passage. He says, assuming the ambiguous use, "Know
someone has this authority." But the paradox and irony is that generic
man does not have this authority, as the Pharisees had already noted!
So the question for the crowd is how can Jesus have such authority?
The passage, even if the Son of Man reference were originally ambig-
uous, still raises the question of who this special man is. What Jesus
will eventually make clear by his usage of the term later in his minis-
try is that the indirect reference to himself as "Son of Man," even in a
sense as ambiguous as "a man," or "someone," is really an allusion to
the authoritative figure of Daniel 7 (Luke 21:27; 22:69 and parr.). In
Luke 5:24 all Jesus may have done is introduce the phrase and the
concept without elaboration. Jesus then simply displays his authority
to support his point that at least one human has such authority. To
understand the phrase's force all one really needs is the event and the
saying with its idiom, not its specific background.
Now if Kim is right about establishing a background for the clear
presence of an apocalyptic Son of Man image, then our position
becomes unlikely, or better, unnecessary. He argues that the text has
three elements in it that point to Daniel 7. 1) Jesus claims authority
from Dan 7:13-14. 2) He is the eschatological judge. 3) Jesus sees him-
self as "Son of Man who, by giving of himself as the atoning, covenant-
establishing sacrifice to sinners, is to make them God's eschatological
people whose sins are atoned for."24 These points may well summa-
rize how Jesus saw the Son of Man, but they are not transparent from
the account of Luke 5 alone. Daniel 7 does not refer explicitly to the
authority to forgive sins, nor is it clear that Jesus' action in Luke 5 is
that of an eschatological judge, neither is there any atonement ima-
gery in the passage. Once one has put the "Son of Man" references of
the synoptics together, then one can speak of these associations, but
these conclusions are not explicit in this text when it is considered by
23. One thinks of the Psalm 110 conundrum as another example (Luke 20:41-44).
24. Kim, The Son of Man as Son of God, 96.
BOCK: The Son of Man in Luke 5:24 117
itself. Kim's position can only work in Luke 5:24 if the idiom is
enough by itself to evoke the Daniel 7 association. But given that
such background is currently uncertain, our point is that Jesus may
well have gradually revealed how he saw this image in categories his
audience could eventually grasp, since they may not have been
experts in apocalyptic imagery.25 One must distinguish between
what Jesus may have understood and how he revealed that under-
standing. Jesus starts out throwing the idiom around and attaching
his work to it, until its importance requires an explanation, which is
supplied eventually in terms of Daniel 7 and its heavenly, authorita-
tive emphasis.
What does this discussion mean for Luke 5:24? Jesus, in using the
term initially, is suggesting that he is a man through whom God is
now working in relation to sin. But this is a unique man, who has a cer-
tain unique authority. It is to be noted that in Judaism the rabbis
never associated any man with the authority to forgive sins. The only
currently extant Jewish text, which possibly makes an association
between a man and the forgiveness of sins is from
Prayer of Nabonidus (4QprNab 1:4). Here a Jewish exorcist is said to
have "pardoned my [Nabonidus'] sins." But this text's translation is
disputed; and the text is fragmentary.26 Regardless of the dispute
over
very rare for Jewish circles, if not unprecedented. It was a view that
25. Our reaction to the position of Caragounis, The Son of Man: Vision and Interpre-
tation, 188, differs little from our reaction to Kim. He argues that the terms authority,
Son of Man, and the fact that these actions occur on earth allude to Daniel 7. He argues
that the idea that a man is present is totally absent. We are less confident that the hu-
manity of the figure should be deemphasized, though the implications of the connection
(and of the Pharisees' charge) are also present.
26. See the discussion in Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings of Qumran (Glouster,
MA: Peter Smith, 1973) 322, esp. n. 3, where he defends a translation like the one cited,
and compare to the translation of the text as noted in K. Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom
Toten Meer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck Ruprecht, 1984) 223-24. Beyer actually prints out
the Aramaic text, the key phrase of which is in rzg hl qk# y)+xw. The problem is that some
terms before the key phrase need to be supplied. Dupont-Sommer translates the full dis-
puted text of 4QprNab 1:3b-4 as "[of the sons of men. But I prayed to the Most High
God] and an exorcist forgave my sins." Beyer translates the key line as "Aber derjenige,
[welcher] bestimmt hat [meinen Lohn] und meine Strafe, sparte sich einen Wahrsager
auf, und zwar was es ein Jude." Beyer's translation is similar to Milik's, who discussed
the text and included a picture of it in "Prière de Nabonide," RB 63 (1956) 407-11 and
415. Milik's translation reads "[But when I had confessed my sins] and faults, (God)
granted me a diviner." Dupont-Sommer's footnote discusses and disputes this transla-
tion. The text, if read with Dupont-Sommer's translation, is not a self-claim by a healer,
but is a description by the king of what the exorcist did. If this sense applies, it may be
that the text simply means that because the king was healed, sins were forgiven. None-
theless, the text has several breaks, uses a rare and disputed term rzg, and requires that
some terms in the context be supplied. Thus certainty as to its force is not possible.
118 Bulletin for Biblical Research 1
certainly did not reside in what became normative in Judaism, as the
Jewish leaders' own reaction in the gospels shows. The remark is sur-
prising and thus is intended to point to his uniqueness.
Now the general force of Jesus' remark still leads to the frequent
force of Jesus' use of the title elsewhere, which often suggests Jesus'
authority. These thoughts draw on the picture of the Danielic "son of
man" receiving dominion from the Ancient of Days.27 This connection
is important, since it also indicates that when the gospel tradition takes
this general Aramaic phrase that refers to "a man" and renders it in
Greek as a specific title, it is being faithful to the semantic force of the
usage in the context of the portrayed event, because the activity of this
man shows him to be unique. The gospels have not imported to the
term more ideas than its original usage had, for it always described the
unique position Jesus occupies. Its meaning was always suggested not
just by the term itself but by the event which expounded its meaning.
It is the failure to see a connection between event and usage that has
tripped up some into long excursions of background which really are
not central to the issue of authenticity.28 So the rendering of the idiom
as a title in the NT, even if the original phrase involved the use of a
mere ambiguous idiom, still renders its real force.
Two other possibilities about the verse's authenticity need attention.
1) Some argue that what is present here is a "suture" verse to bring
together two different accounts and traditions, namely a miracle story
with a pronouncement.29 However, the idea of a suture verse is to be
rejected, because the verse's themes of authority, sin, and forgiveness
are so intertwined in the account that to view them in this manner does
27. For a defense of the general authenticity of sayings in each of the sayings
groups of present ministry, suffering, and future return sayings,
Synoptic Son of Man Sayings in Recent Discussion," NTS 12 (1965-1966) 327-51. Also
R. Maddox, "The Function of the Son of Man according to the Synoptic Gospels," NTS
15 (1968-1969) 45-74, stresses the picture of Jesus as Judge as a result of the connection
to Daniel 7, as does Kim, The Son of Man as Son of God, 89-93. Kim also argues the title
eventually is tied into the designation of Jesus as Son of God. For Luke and the Son of
Man, see Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Lk 1,1-9,50) (EKK III/1;
Verlag, 1989) 249, n. 31 and Schneider, "Der Menschensohn in der lukanischen Christol-
ogie," in his Lukas, Theologe der Heilsgeschichte (Bonner biblische Beiträge 59; Königsten:
Verlag Peter Hanstein, 1985) 98-113; originally in Jesus und der Menschensohn: Fesschrift
für A. Vögtle, ed. by Pesch and Schnackenburg (Freiburg: Herder, 1975) 267-82.
28. If, of course, Vermes is right that the term did mean "I and no other," then the
claim is more direct and the meaning is transparent. Matthew 9 suggests either that this
is not the force or that the crowd misunderstood the claim. Either option is possible in
Matthew 9.
29. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 14-16. He is followed by Tödt.
Bock: The Son of Man in Luke 5:24 119
not disentangle the account; rather it leaves a gaping hole in the story.30
Here it appears the verse is a victim of the insistence that a mixing of
forms is not possible in the early tradition. But pronouncement and
miracle have to go together for this miracle to be elevated beyond a
"silent" act. Mark 2:5 and its parallels, including Luke 5:20-21, already
make forgiveness of sins central in the passage. Jesus' exposition is cen-
tral to his earlier remarks and merely makes sense of the action. The
omission of the remark, despite its syntactical awkwardness, leaves the
account vague and incomplete. Without such pronouncements, it
would not be clear what Jesus intended by his actions.
2) Others suggest that Mark has inserted an editorial remark here
which Jesus did not utter.31 This latter view argues that Mark in a
parenthesis is giving the significance of this event to his readers. This
view sees the i#na with a quasi-imperative force. It is different from the
"suture" view in that it sees Mark speaking directly to his readers
rather than the evangelist speaking through Jesus' remark.
This last approach on the surface is quite possible.32 One reason
the suggestion exists is because of the otherwise unprecedented tie
between the Son of Man and forgiveness of sins. This association is
viewed by some as so unlikely in this early ministry setting that it
must be a later, accurate reflection of Mark on the true significance of
the event. The second reason is the verse's awkward syntax.
But as good as the reasons are, they are not persuasive. The theo-
logical argument fails, since if Jesus had a sense of his unique calling
and authority, like that expressed through Isaiah 61 in Luke 4 or
through the baptismal vision of Luke 3:22, then such an association,
though unique, becomes just as possible here for Jesus as anywhere in
his ministry. Once Jesus defined his mission in terms of preaching for-
giveness by the call of God and in terms of Isaiah's hope, such associ-
ations become available for him. His miraculous work only confirms
the connection. Another important point to be made is that in Judaism
a sinner is not supposed to receive healing from God, and certainly
not through one making false claims.33 The healing serves to under-
line the claim. The two events are inseparable.
30. Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark (London: SPCK, 1967) 86.
31. Cranfield, Mark, The
University Press, 1959) 100-101; W. Lane, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, 96-98,
agrees with Cranfield. So Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke 1—IX, 579; Boobyer,
"Mark II, 10a and the Healing of the Paralytic," Harvard Theological Review 47 (1954)
115-20; Ceroke, "Is Mk 2, 10 a Saying of Jesus," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 22 (1960) 369-
90. Of course, what is true of Mark is also true of the parallels in Matthew and Luke.
32. Mark 13:14b is a syntactical parallel; Fitzmyer, 579.
33. t. Nedarim 41a. The presupposition here is that God shows His healing mercy
only to the righteous. A sinner can count on nothing from God. Neither will God work
through one who makes false claims.
120 Bulletin for Biblical Research 1
An appeal to a syntactical, editorial approach also does not work.
Such an editorial aside seems to have been poorly marked out for the
reader.34 It seems unlikely that only the reader's perception is in view
and that Mark intended to suggest the original audience of the heal-
ing did not receive this expositional remark. Its presence fits the set-
ting of a controversy, which dominates the passage.35
E. SUMMARY
man called by God to exercise authority over sin. The authority, how-
ever, is one unique to Jesus and as such, upon reflection, means the
representative is unique. In fact, if the healing evidences the verbal
claim, then divine prerogative is exercised uniquely by a man. Jesus'
innovations with the Son of Man concept as they emerge from Luke
5:24 would be: 1) the claim to be able to i