Mark’s Son of Man and Paul’s Second of Adam
In: Horizons in Biblical TheologySearch for other papers by J. R. Daniel Kirk in
Current site
Google Scholar
Both Mark’s son of man Christology and Paul’s second Adam Christology depict Jesus functioning as an idealized human figure. In each, a core component is Jesus’ obedience in going to death on a cross. This, in turn, is a representative obedience that leads to the conquest of hostile powers. Jesus’ death, moreover, becomes a model for the life of his followers within both models. These Christologies also encompass Jesus’ resurrection and heavenly enthronement at God’s right hand, and both interpret this as entailing a restoration of humanity’s primeval vocation to rule the world on God’s behalf. Finally, participation of Jesus’ followers in his eschatological glory underscores that for both Mark and Paul these are high, human Christologies.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
1
Oscar Cullman, The Christology of the New Testament (rev. ed.; trans. S. C. Guthrie and C. A. M. Hall; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959), 166-81, connects these two concepts, but leans too heavily on a notion of “atonement” that appears somewhat artificial as an interpretation of both the Gospel of Mark and Paul’s letters.
-
2
Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (trans. K. Grobel; Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007), 1:30. Bultmann’s taxonomy continues to prove serviceable, as can be seen, e.g., in Leslie W. Walck, “The Son of Man in the Parables of Enoch and the Gospels,” in Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man: Revisiting the Book of Parables (ed. G. Boccaccini; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 299-337.
-
5
Werner G. Kümmel, “Jesus der Menschensohn?” SbWGF 20 (1984):147-88, rightly comments that interpreting this verse as a reference to humanity in general leads to “exegetischer Gewaltsamkeit” (168).
-
6
Simon Gathercole, “The Son of Man in Mark’s Gospel,” ExpT 115 (2004): 366-72, also argues for this unity and for a common reference to Dan 7, which I will advocate below.
-
8
Norman Perrin, A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 104-21, suggests on the basis of redaction criticism that the passion-resurrection narratives and the authority sayings from ch. 2 all come from Mark’s hand as a way of correcting possible misapprehensions of Jesus’ Son of God status, and integrating suffering into both Jesus’ and the disciples’ calling.
-
11
Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, Mark’s Jesus: Characterization as Narrative Christology (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2009), 203.
-
14
Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels: The Story of The Jewish Christ (New York: New Press, 2012), 31-70. This book, written for a more popular audience, builds on the interpretation of Dan 7 that Boyarin lays out with greater scholarly nuance in, “Daniel 7, Intertextuality, and the History of Israel’s Cult,” htr 105 (2012): 139-62.
-
18
Simon Gathercole, “The Son of Man in Mark’s Gospel,” ExpT 115 (2004): 366-72; here, p. 369.
-
21
E.g., Maurice Casey, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God: The Origins and Development of New Testament Christology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 49; idem., The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem (lnts 343; New York: T & T Clark; 2007), 121-25.
-
25
Schaberg, “Daniel 7, 12,” 210. It seems that Gathercole, “Son of Man,” 370, has independently arrived at similar conclusions.
-
35
Collins and Collins, King and Messiah, 78. John Collins is a proponent of the humanlike figure of Dan 7 representing the archangel Michael, and also affirms that the “people of the saints of the most high,” who receive the kingdom in 7:27, is Israel or faithful Israel.
-
38
See Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary (Herm; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 204-5.
-
41
Ibid., 48.
-
42
Ibid., 57-59.
-
43
Ibid., 59. The parallel is closer to the vision of 1 Enoch, however, where judgment is more directly in view (1 En. 45:2-3; 61:8; 62:3-12); see Adams, “Coming Son of Man,” 44-45.
-
46
Ibid., 59-60.
-
47
Ibid., 49.
-
48
Ibid., 60.
-
49
Ibid., 40-47.
-
55
Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007), 115, though I might quibble with the notion of “incarnation” in Paul.
-
56
Fee, Pauline Christology, 116; 567-68; Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 567-68.
-
57
Cf. N. T. Wright, Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 27.
-
59
Ibid., 574, who also notes that the two Psalms are used in close conjunction in Eph 1:20-22.
-
64
Scroggs, Last Adam, 95-100; cf. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 599-600.
-
67
Cf. Perkins, “Adam and Christ,” 143; Brendan Byrne, “Adam, Christ, and the Law,” in Celebrating Paul: Festschrift in Honor of Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, O.P., and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, s.j. (cbqms 48; ed. P. Spitaler; Washington, d.c.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2011), 210-32; here, 213-14.
-
68
Otfried Hofius, “The Adam-Christ Antithesis and the Law,” in Paul and the Mosaic Law (ed. J. D. G. Dunn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 165-205; here, 180.
-
70
So also Hofius, 179; Byrne, “Adam, Christ, and the Law,” 219.
-
75
Ibid., 221.
-
76
See J. R. Daniel Kirk, Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 108-120.
-
77
Ibid., 120-21.
-
78
Morna D. Hooker, From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 32.
-
80
Cf. Kirk, Unlocking Romans 138-52; idem., “Appointed Son(s): An Exegetical Note on Romans 1:4 and 8:29” bbr 14 (2004): 241-42.
-
84
James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 115. Other advocates of a high human Christology include Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Christological Anthropology in Phil., ii, 6-11,” rb 83 (1976): 25-50; on equality and form of God, see pp. 37-42.
-
85
Dunn, Christology in the Making, 115-16. In Murphy-O’Connor’s study, the conclusion is analogous: “The message of the hymn is that Christ was a man who nonetheless differed from other men,” 43.
-
87
Dunn, Christology in the Making, 117; Wright, Climax of the Covenant, 58.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 360 | 56 | 2 |
| Full Text Views | 228 | 5 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 116 | 14 | 0 |
Mark’s Son of Man and Paul’s Second of Adam
In: Horizons in Biblical TheologySearch for other papers by J. R. Daniel Kirk in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Both Mark’s son of man Christology and Paul’s second Adam Christology depict Jesus functioning as an idealized human figure. In each, a core component is Jesus’ obedience in going to death on a cross. This, in turn, is a representative obedience that leads to the conquest of hostile powers. Jesus’ death, moreover, becomes a model for the life of his followers within both models. These Christologies also encompass Jesus’ resurrection and heavenly enthronement at God’s right hand, and both interpret this as entailing a restoration of humanity’s primeval vocation to rule the world on God’s behalf. Finally, participation of Jesus’ followers in his eschatological glory underscores that for both Mark and Paul these are high, human Christologies.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 360 | 56 | 2 |
| Full Text Views | 228 | 5 | 0 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 116 | 14 | 0 |
