'Who do you, Matthew, say the Son of Man is?' Son of Man and conflict in the First Gospel.

摘要

This dissertation analyzes the Matthean “Son of Man” sayings, paying particularudattention to their function in the development of conflict and in the anticipation ofudconflict resolution. The major premise is that the Son of Man is described in Mt asudbeing at the center of the formative conflict that both forced the split betweenud“this generation” of unbelieving Jews and the Matthean community and initiatedudthe community’s Gentile-inclusive mission. According to Matthew, the Son of Manudis not engaged in aimless conflict; he confronts and destroys his enemies for theudsake of promoting his universal reign and establishing his Church, i.e., the “sons ofudthe kingdom” (13.38), among the nations (cf. OG Dan 7.14; 24.14; 28.18-20). It is hisudauthority over the kingdom of God, given subsequent to and consequent to theudjudgment of God against “this generation” in 70 CE, that enables the global missionudof the disciples, provides the raison d’être for their mission, and assures the Christianudcommunity that the Son of Man will return at the eschaton to bring a final endudto conflict. A corollary question that will be investigated is what Jesus’ idiomaticudself-designation meant to Matthew and his community.udThe first chapter observes that despite the enormous literary footprint ofudthe “Son of Man” debate, their is a notable lack of adequate studies concerning theudMatthean “Son of Man” concept. What literature exists is surveyed, commonudtrends in the debate are analyzed, and a statement of the thesis is provided.udBased on the successes and failures of previous studies, it is suggested in theudsecond chapter that the most promising method by which to examine theudMatthean “Son of Man” concept is composition-critical and narrative-sensitive.udThis provides a rational for examining the Matthean “Son of Man” sayings in relationudto the gospel’s structure and plot, both of which are shown to have beenudshaped by the theme of conflict. Finally, interpretive issues such as synoptic relationships,udcomposition date, authorship, provenance, and the status of Matthew’sudcommunity are discussed.udChapters Three and Four examine the “Son of Man” sayings in Matthewud8-13 and 16-26 respectively to determine how each saying contributes to theudevolving Matthean “Son of Man” concept and the unfolding conflict between Jesusudand his “sons” and Satan and his “sons” (cf. 13.37-39). It is shown that the “Son ofudMan” sayings are not a heterogeneous mixture of “earthly,” “suffering,” and “future”udstatements that simply concern the life and ministry of Jesus. Mattheanudredaction has woven the “Son of Man” sayings into a grand tapestry of meaning,udsewn into the conflict that precipitated the split of the Matthean community fromud“this wicked and adulterous generation.” It is shown that the advancement of conflictudis matched by the resolution of conflict. This resolution occurs in two stages.udAccording to Matthew, God began to resolve the conflict with “this generation” inud70 CE, whence he destroyed Jerusalem and bestowed upon the Son of Man universaluddominion and an everlasting kingdom. The Son of Man’s empowerment enablesudhim to preside over the Eschatological Assize, consequently fulfilling the predictionsudof end-times reprisal given to “this generation” (cf. 11.20-24; 12.39-42) andudbringing a permanent end to conflict.udChapter Five examines the allusion to Old Greek Dan 7.13-14 in 28.18-20 andudits connection to the commissioning of the disciples. It is suggested that “all authorityudin heaven and on earth” is not obtained through a supposed proleptic experienceudof the Parousia in Jesus’ resurrection or death, or simply by means of his son-shipudto the Father. Rather, the Son of Man’s universal sovereignty, by which theudMatthean community is empowered to “make disciples of all nations,” was receivedudfrom the Ancient of Days after the Temple’s ruination in 70 CE. That is, theudexaltation of the Son of Man, which is physically signaled by the destruction ofudHerod’s Temple, initiated and provided justification for the Matthean community’sudschism from “this generation” and their mission to the Gentiles. Additionally, theuddivine empowerment of the Son of Man grounded the community’s eschatologicaludhope for conflict resolution. This chapter ends with a discussion of how this theoryudimpacts one’s understanding of Matthean christology, missiology, and salvation-history.udThe final chapter summarizes the preceding evidence, details the contributionsudof this dissertation, and concludes that for Matthew “Son of Man” is moreudthan a mere signal word for speech about Jesus’ death, resurrection, and exaltation.ud“Son of Man” is a self-designation employed by Jesus that Matthew has interpretedudas a title referring to Jesus’ office as the exalted human-like figure of Old GreekudDan 7. Like the enigmatic “man” of Daniel’s night-vision, the Son of Man is the representativeudof the elect who remains with his community “until the end of the age”ud(28.20).