THE SON OF MAN IN MATTHEW: A TITLE OF HUMANITY, SUFFERING, AND GLORY

Why did Jesus call Himself the ‘Son of Man’ more than any other title?  Of all the titles Jesus used to refer to Himself, none is more frequent—or more enigmatic—than the Son of Man. While others called Him "Messiah" or "Son of God," Jesus alone consistently referred to Himself as the Son of Man—nearly 80 times in the Gospel Accounts. For some, this title seems straightforward, but for others, this title and assumptions around it can foster confusion. What does it mean? Was Jesus making a deeper theological claim? The answer lies in the Old Testament background, Second Temple Jewish expectations, and how Jesus redefined the title in light of His mission.

In this article, we will explore:

• The Old Testament meaning of "Son of Man" and its connection to Daniel’s prophecy in Daniel 7.

• How Jewish thought during the Second Temple period shaped expectations about the Messiah and this figure referenced in Daniel 7.

• Why Jesus used this title more than any other—and how He utilized it in light of His mission.

• Each occurence categorized for contextual clarity.

• What it means for us as those Jesus, the Son of Man, came to save.

By the end, we’ll see how Jesus' claim to be the Son of Man was far more than a statement of human identity—it was a declaration of divine kingship, one that ultimately led to His trial and crucifixion.

Disclaimer: This article primarily focuses on Matthew’s account. While other Gospel accounts will be referenced, this is not intended to be an exhaustive study of every occurrence of the phrase "Son of Man" in the New Testament. However, my hope is that by examining this phrase within Matthew’s Gospel, you will gain a broader understanding and be better equipped to study its significance throughout Scripture.

THE OLD TESTAMENT BACKGROUND

In referencing “Son of Man”, the New Testament writers wrote their account in Greek (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου).[1] And of course, they are recording what Jesus, a Galilean, would have spoken in his native tongue, Aramaic, based on a phrase that finds its origin in the Hebrew Old Testament. So helping understand this linguistic, cultural, and historical context can help us have a better grip on the application of this phrase.

The phrase Son of Man ( אָדָ םבֵּן; ben adam in Hebrew)[2] occurs frequently in the Old Testament, often meaning "human being.". For example, if one were to say, “Paul Delgado is a son of man (literally Son of Adam)” This statement would be essentially true because I, Paul Delgado, am a member of the human family, a descendant of Adam. In Psalm 8:4, David marvels: “What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that You care for him?”. Here, David, in it’s initial context, uses Son of Man as a poetic way of emphasizing humanity’s insignificance compared to God. While the Septuagint adds the definite article (υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου), this still doesn't carry the Messianic significance seen in later texts like Daniel 7, where the phrase refers to a specific, divine, apocalyptic figure. Similarly, in Ezekiel, God addresses the prophet as “son of man” over 90 times, emphasizing his mortality in contrast to the divine.[3] Of course, keep in mind, when the inspired writer of Hebrews quotes Psalm 8:4 in reference to Jesus (Heb. 2:6-8), the phrase takes on a more specific focus, highlighting Jesus as the fulfillment of the human role described in Psalm 8, crowned with glory and honor as the perfect representative of humanity. While Hebrews 2 applies Psalm 8 to Jesus, our focus here is on its original context—where 'Son of Man' emphasizes human frailty rather than a specific Messianic figure. That broader theme of humanity’s role in God’s creation lays the foundation for its later fulfillment in Christ. We’re primarily discussing Jesus’ usage of Son of Man in Matthew, not the Hebrew’s writers quotation of Psalm 8. However, It is important to note that these usages are not in contradiction of one another and are both highlighting different layers that make up the same discussion of Christ’s Divinity.

When we move further through the Old Testament from Psalms and Ezekiel, in the book of Daniel, there is a dramatic shift in how this phrase is being used. It evolves from the imediate, general usages for human fraility in Psalm 8 and Ezekiel, revealing something that Jesus’ usage of Son of Man emphasizes. Keep in mind the context of the book of Daniel. The people are in captivity and if God’s people ever questioned how they could have faith in the midst of dark times and the feeling of defeat, Daniel answers this question through narrative and prophetic visions. In the Narrative, Daniel shows hope in his example of how to live as a child of God in the midst of captivity. Daniel and his friends may have been given Babylonian names, Babylonian jobs, spoken the Babylonian language, but in their hearts and their manner of living they were always devoted to the one true God. Daniel motivated his readers by not only his manner of faith to endure, but also by the prophecies he provides of an everlasting Kingdom ruled by the messianic Son of Man (Daniel 2.44; 7.13-27), the very embodiment of Deity (Dan. 7.9-10), which when connecting with the rest of the prophetic messages and the covenant promises God made to the patriarchs and Eve, this person is the same being that humanity has been waiting for since the fall. And when the mission of this kingdom has been fulfilled, there will come a day when all those who have ever lived since the beginning shall be judged according to whether their name is in the book of life (Dan. 12.1-4). At the center of it all is the work of this Son of Man, the long-awaited fulfillment of God's redemptive plan. Daniel writes,

“I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him.” (Dan 7:13-14).[4]

In Psalm 8 and in Ezekiel, both written in the Hebrew language, the general usage of “son of man” can simply mean “a human being”, just like the word “Messiah”, simply means “anointed one”, being a general reference to any one of Israel’s kings (ex. 1 Sam 21:6)[5]. But when talking about “The Messiah” or “One like the Son of Man” (Dan 7.14) There is a specificity that cannot be taken lightly. Who Daniel is writing about is no ordinary human. [6] Daniel 7 marks a turning point in the meaning of 'Son of Man.' No longer just a reference to human frailty, here it describes a divine figure who reigns over all nations and receives worship. Consider the description again and it’s significance. This Son of Man:

• He comes with the clouds—a sign of divine presence in the Old Testament (Exodus 34:5; Isaiah 19:1).

• He receives an everlasting dominion—unlike earthly kingdoms (represented by the beasts in Daniel’s vision) which rise and fall. This has been a consistent theme all throughout the Old Testament of the Messiah.

• He Is “worshiped” by all nations (pelach in Aramaic, a term used for divine service).

Since Daniel 7:13-14 was written in Aramaic, the phrase bar enash ("son of man") would have been immediately recognizable to Jesus' Aramaic-speaking audience as a reference to Daniel’s divine figure rather than the more generic ben adam found in Psalm 8:4 and other Hebrew texts.

This distinction is crucial:

• In Hebrew scripture, ben adam often emphasizes human frailty (Psalm 8:4, Ezekiel).

• In Aramaic (Daniel 7:13-14), bar enash[7] refers to a heavenly figure receiving divine authority from the Ancient of Days.

• Since Jesus, a Galilean and 1st Century Jew, spoke Aramaic, His self-designation as "Son of Man" (Bar Nasha) would have naturally echoed the Aramaic context of Daniel 7’s Sovereign Divine individual described as “Son of Man” more than the general Hebrew usage in the Psalms and Ezekiel.

This also explains why His audience reacted so strongly—especially at His trial in Matthew 26:64, when He explicitly applies Daniel 7's "Son of Man" language to Himself.

This individual in Daniel is depicted as one who looks like a man, who is human, rather than a beast, in contrast to what Daniel discusses earlier in this passage. The four beasts, in Daniel’s vision, emerge from the depths of the Sea, showing they are purely earthly, temporary. But the Son of Man, though taking on temporal human flesh, comes with the clouds of heaven (I.E. from God). God (The Ancient of Days) Gives this man dominion over all nations, glory, and an eternal kingdom (cf. Daniel 2:44; Ps 2:8)[8] So given the linguistic and cultural context, Jesus' references to the Son of Man would have aligned more closely with Daniel 7’s apocalyptic figure than with the generic Hebrew phrase for humanity. 

INTERTESTAMENTAL WRITINGS AND THE "SON OF MAN"

“When Jesus called Himself ‘Son of Man,’ though it is a partial reference to his humanity, He wasn’t just saying, ‘Hey, I’m a regular guy.’ He was pointing back to something powerful in the Old Testament. But how would his audience have heard it? The question lies in how Second Temple Judaism In the 1st century understood Daniel 7’s "Son of Man" and how Jesus redefined it.

The period between the Old and New Testaments, often called the Intertestamental Period, saw the development of various Jewish writings that expanded on Old Testament themes. Though not considered inspired by the Jews nor early Christianity, some of these writings provide insight into how Jewish communities may have thought about figures like the "Son of Man." As scholar, Christopher Wright, notes:

“It is true that there are some theologically aberrant notions in the Apocrypha, yet in many ways, this collection of writings tries to develop parts of the OT in ways that may serve as helpful background to the NT.”[9]

Despite this rich literary background, most scholars agree that "Son of Man" was not a widespread Messianic title in Jewish thought during this period. References to the "Son of Man" in Second Temple literature are limited, though some apocalyptic texts do contain relevant discussions.[10]

One such text is the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71), written in the late 1st century BC (somewhere within the century before Jesus' birth). These chapters describe a pre-existent, heavenly figure called the "Son of Man"—one who is the Chosen One, enthroned beside God, and the executor of divine judgment. While 1 Enoch was never considered inspired or part of the Jewish or Christian canon, it provides a glimpse into the diverse Messianic expectations circulating at the time.  

JEWISH EXPECTATIONS BY THE FIRST CENTURY

It’s crucial to remember that Jewish thought in the Intertestamental and Second Temple periods was not monolithic. While there were common beliefs, there was also significant diversity regarding the identity and role of the Messiah. Obviously they all couldn’t be right, but, nonetheless the diversity of thoughts around Judaism existed. Consider, for example, the Pharisees and Sadducees, who disagreed on major theological points such as the Resurrection of the dead (Pharisees affirmed it, Sadducees denied it) and The existence of angels and spirits (Pharisees accepted, Sadducees rejected).

Likewise, expectations surrounding Messianic figures varied widely. Jesus was not the first person claimed to be the Messiah—several military leaders before Him either claimed or were believed to be the Messiah:

• Judas Maccabeus (d. 160 BC): Leader of the Maccabean Revolt who some Jews saw him as potential Messiah because he restored Jewish Independence (164 BC) but he died in battle and never fulfilled the expected messianic prophecies.[11]

• Simon of Perea (4 BC): A Former slave of Herod the Great who led a rebellion after Herod’s death (When Jesus was still a child; Matthew 2). His revolt was crushed by trhe Romans and he was executed.[12]

• Athronges (4 BC-2AD): A shepherd who claimed to be the Messiah after Herod’s death who led a rebellion with his brothers, acting as a king-like figure. Of course His movement was suppressed by the Romans. [13]

By the time Jesus arrived, the Jewish people had already seen multiple failed Messianic movements. These experiences shaped their expectations, leading many to anticipate a Messiah who would be a political or military liberator rather than a suffering servant. Unlike these failed Messianic claimants who led revolts and sought political restoration, Jesus redefined kingship (Messiahship) through suffering, servanthood, and divine authority rather than military power. This subverted nearly every expectation that had been shaped by Jewish history.

Most Jewish people in the first century were looking for a Messiah—a term that carried the connotation of a powerful, kingly deliverer. However, they were not widely expecting a "Son of Man" figure in the way Jesus used it. As we discussed earlier, some apocalyptic writings hinted at a heavenly, pre-existent Son of Man, but this was not a commonly accepted or dominant view of the Messiah.

Thus, Jesus' self-identification as the Son of Man from Daniel 7 would have been striking. He claimed divine authority, not just to rule, but to judge the world and establish God's eternal kingdom—a role that far surpassed the expectations of a mere political liberator. Given this rich Old Testament and intertestamental background, Jesus’ choice to call Himself 'Son of Man' takes on profound significance. But how did He use this title in ways that both aligned with and subverted Jewish expectations?

JESUS’ USE OF THE "SON OF MAN" TITLE IN MATTHEW

Having established the rich backdrop of the Old Testament and Jewish expectations, we now turn to how Jesus reinterprets the 'Son of Man' title in light of His mission on earth. One of the most distinctive aspects of Jesus' teaching is His repeated use of the title "Son of Man." As stated earlier, it wasn’t a widely discussed theme and the Jews focused more on the other titles of the Messianic figure of the Old Testament, so why would Jesus use it? He applies this title to Himself more frequently than any other, prompting curiosity from those around Him. In John 12:34, the crowd asks: “Who is this Son of Man?"

This question underscores how Jesus' self-identification did not align with the common expectations of the Messiah. Unlike more familiar Messianic titles such as "Son of David" or "Messiah", the title "Son of Man" was more ambiguous, allowing Jesus to shape its meaning according to His mission. Jesus' use of "Son of Man" is deeply rooted in the Old Testament, particularly Daniel 7:13-14, rather than in later Jewish apocalyptic writings such as The Similitudes of Enoch. While 1 Enoch describes a pre-existent, divine figure known as the "Son of Man," Jesus’ references align more with Daniel’s vision of a divine figure who receives dominion from the Ancient of Days (God).

The people of Jesus’ time expected a military leader who would overthrow Roman rule. Because of this, Jesus deliberately used the "Son of Man" title as a way to bypass the misunderstandings that came with other, more politically charged Messianic titles. It’s a lot like how there are so many different names we in the Churches of Christ in the US could go by that would be biblical, but we use the Churches of Christ, because not only is it biblical, but it doesn’t have much of the denominational baggage or confusion as other names might have unfortunately.  Likewise, “Son of Man” is firmly rooted in Scripture, has less baggage tied to it, and still remains faithful to the underlying mission and message of God. The expectation of a political Messiah, which was prevalent at the time, made the title “Messiah” dangerous. Jesus avoids this by choosing an alternative way of revealing His identity that was both indirect and full of meaning.[14]

This is why, when people asked Jesus about the Messiah (Christ), He often responded by speaking of the Son of Man, subtly shifting their expectations from a political liberator to a divine, redemptive figure.

THREE WAYS JESUS REDEFINES AUTHORITY WITH THE "SON OF MAN" TITLE

It is crucial not to reduce the "Son of Man" title to a single meaning. Like many of Jesus' titles, it carries multiple layers of significance throughout the Gospels. In Matthew, Jesus uses "Son of Man" in three primary ways.  First, It highlights his humanity and humility in his earthly ministry. At times, Jesus uses "Son of Man" to emphasize His identification with humanity.  Just as this article discussed earlier, the phrase “Son of Man” does evoke the image of “human being”. Jesus, by taking this title, is identifying himself as the ultimate human—one who fully embodies what humanity was meant to be. Adam was created in God’s image to rule and reflect His glory (Genesis 1:26-28), but he failed. Jesus, as the true Son of Man, lived in perfect obedience to God, demonstrating what it means to be truly human.  This is seen in Matthew 8:20, "The Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head." Here, Jesus highlights His humility, humanity, and rejection from the world. Unlike the animals of the earth, He has no place of His own, underscoring the cost of true discipleship. However, this also echoes the eschatological reality of the Son of Man’s kingdom: though He lacks a place now, He will one day reign in glory (Matthew 25:31-34). In this way, the phrase not only highlights His earthly suffering but also points forward to His ultimate role as the judge and ruler of God’s eternal kingdom.

Rather than portraying the "Son of Man" as a figure of immediate divine power, He first presents Himself as a servant who shares in the struggles of human existence (Heb 2:11; 4:12). The difference lies in how lived out that existence. Whereas Adam, the first man, sinned and fell, Jesus, the Son of Man and the better Adam (Rom 5:12-21) lived in perfect submission to the Father (Jn 8:29). He resisted temptation (Matt 4:1-11), perfectly loved others (Jn 15:13), and always sought the will of God above his own (Lk 22:42). He fulfills the vocation that humanity was given but failed to live up to. Colossians 1:15 describes Jesus as "the image of the invisible God." While all humans bear God's image (Gen 1:26), that image was marred by sin (Gen 3). Jesus, as the true Son of Man, reveals what humanity should look like when fully aligned with God's will. By following Him, we are reborn into a new humanity, the Church (2 Cor 5:17) being renewed into that same image (Col 3:10, Rom 8:29).

Secondly, The “Son of Man” name reveals his Suffering and Servanthood. Jesus also applies the "Son of Man" title to His suffering and sacrificial role, a concept that many Jews in His day did not associate with the Messiah. Matthew explicitly connects Jesus to Isaiah’s Servant in Matthew 8:17, quoting Isaiah 53:4: "He took our illnesses and bore our diseases." This is significant because just a few verses later in Matthew 8:20, Jesus, as the Son of Man, declares, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." This shows that suffering is a mark of his entire earthly life—He takes on human frailty, rejection, and hardship, just as the Suffering Servant does. However, just as Paul states in Philippians, his servanthood/suffering wasn’t just in his life, but “even death on a cross” (Phil 2:8). In Matthew 17:22-23, He prophesies:"The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and he will be raised on the third day." Similarly, in Matthew 20:28, He declares: "The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." Here, Jesus subverts Messianic expectations—instead of leading a military revolt, the Son of Man’s mission is one of suffering, self-sacrifice, and redemption. However, suffering is not the end of the story.

 That leads into the third way Jesus redefines “authority” with the “Son of Man”. It powerfully showcases his Divine Power and Glory. In the climax of Jesus’ trial, He reveals the full significance of the "Son of Man" title. Standing before the High Priest Caiaphas, Jesus declares in Matthew 26:64: "From now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." This statement is a direct reference to Daniel 7:13-14, where the Son of Man comes with the clouds of heaven, receives an eternal kingdom, and judges the nations. By using this language, Jesus is making a bold claim to divine authority—not just as a human Messiah, but as the one who will rule alongside the Ancient of Days (God Himself). The High Priest immediately recognizes the significance of this claim. In response, he tears his robes and accuses Jesus of blasphemy (Matthew 26:65). The Jewish leaders understood exactly what He was saying: He was not just a prophet or teacher—He was claiming divine authority. Earlier in Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus had already linked the Son of Man with divine judgment. In Matthew 25:31-46, He describes the final judgment scene, where 'the Son of Man comes in His glory' and sits on His throne to separate the righteous from the wicked. This passage unmistakably aligns with Daniel 7:13-14, where the Son of Man receives an everlasting dominion and judges the nations. Thus, in Matthew’s Gospel, the Son of Man is not just a suffering servant but also the authoritative King and final judge of all humanity."

Paradoxically, though he’s standing on trial and will go to the cross, this moment of "defeat" was Jesus’ enthronement. The cross, which seemed like humiliation, became His true coronation. This reaction confirms that Jesus was not merely claiming to be a king—He was identifying Himself as the divine Son of Man who would judge the world.

THE OCCURENCES OF “SON OF MAN” THROUGHOUT MATTHEW

Having explored the meaning and significance of the Son of Man title, it’s helpful to examine how Jesus Himself used it throughout the Gospel of Matthew. Below is a categorized list of the occurrences, highlighting the different contexts in which Jesus applies this title to Himself. By grouping these references, we can better understand the various dimensions of His identity and mission—His authority, suffering, resurrection, and future glory.

HUMILITY AND SUFFERING

• Matthew 8:20 – “And Jesus said to him, ‘Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.’”

AUTHORITY TO FORGIVE SIN

• Matthew 9:6 – “But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he then said to the paralytic, ‘Rise, pick up your bed and go home.’”

PERSECUTION AND EVANGELISM

• Matthew 10:23 – “When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”

ACCUSATIONS OF HIS NATURE AND REPUTATION

• Matthew 11:19 – “The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds.”

LORD OF THE SABBATH

• Matthew 12:8 – “For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

PARABLES AND THEIR MEANING

• Matthew 13:37 – “He answered, ‘The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man.’”

FINAL JUDGEMENT

• Matthew 13:41 – “The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all lawbreakers.”

TRUE IDENTITY AND REVELATION

• Matthew 16:13 – “Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, ‘Who do people say that the Son of Man is?’”

• Matthew 16:20 – “Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Son of Man.”

PREDICTING HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION

• Matthew 16:27 – “For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.”

• Matthew 16:28 – “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

• Matthew 17:9 – “And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, ‘Tell no one the vision, until the Son of Man is raised from the dead.’”

• Matthew 17:12 – “But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands.”

• Matthew 17:22–23 – “As they were gathering in Galilee, Jesus said to them, ‘The Son of Man is about to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and he will be raised on the third day.’ And they were greatly distressed.”

MISSION AND PURPOSE

• Matthew 18:11 – “For the Son of Man came to save the lost.”

THE SON OF MAN’S RETURN IN GLORY

• Matthew 19:28 – “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.’”

• Matthew 24:27 – “For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.”

• Matthew 24:30 – “Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”

• Matthew 24:37 – “For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.”

• Matthew 24:39 – “And they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.”

• Matthew 25:31 – “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.”

HIS BETRAYAL, SUFFERING, AND DEATH

• Matthew 20:18 – “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death.”

  Matthew 26:2 – “You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified.”

• Matthew 26:24 – “The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”

• Matthew 26:45 – “Then he came to the disciples and said to them, ‘Sleep and take your rest later on. See, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.’”

A DECLARATION OF HIS DIVINITY

• Mathew 26:64 – “Jesus said to him, ‘You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.’”

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR US TODAY

Understanding Jesus as the Son of Man is not just a theological concept—it has profound implications for our daily lives. This title reveals two vital truths about Jesus that should shape how we relate to Him and how we live as His followers.

1. Jesus Shares in Our Humanity

When Jesus calls Himself the Son of Man, He is declaring that He fully identifies with us. He is not a distant, detached deity who remains far removed from our struggles. Instead, He stepped into our world, experiencing life as we do—its joys, sorrows, pains, and trials.

• He knows suffering – Jesus experienced hunger, exhaustion, grief, rejection, and even death. When we feel overwhelmed or abandoned, we can take comfort in the fact that He understands. (Hebrews 4:15)

• He knows temptation – Though He never sinned, He was tempted in every way as we are. This means He not only sympathizes with our weaknesses but also provides strength to overcome them. (Matthew 4:1-11)

• He knows what it means to trust God fully – As the perfect human, Jesus demonstrated what it means to live in full dependence on the Father. He shows us how to pray, how to love, how to serve, and how to endure hardships with faith.

Because Jesus is the Son of Man, we can come to Him with confidence, knowing that He understands us. He has walked the same path and stands ready to help us walk it too.

2. Jesus Reigns with Divine Authority

The title Son of Man is not only about Jesus’ identification with us—it is also a declaration of His divine kingship. In Daniel 7:13-14, the Son of Man is given dominion, glory, and an everlasting kingdom. When Jesus used this title for Himself, He was pointing to His ultimate authority and rule.

• Jesus is not just a good teacher or moral example – He is the King of Kings, the One before whom all nations will bow. (Philippians 2:9-11)

• His rule is eternal and unstoppable – No earthly kingdom, power, or ideology will outlast His reign. His kingdom is forever. (Revelation 11:15)

• He will return in glory – The Son of Man came once in humility to suffer and save, but He will come again in power to judge and restore all things. (Matthew 26:64)

In a world that often elevates carnal power and self-sufficiency, Jesus' identification as the 'Son of Man' calls us to rethink what it means to be truly human and what true glory really is. His willingness to suffer and serve shows that true greatness in God’s kingdom is not about dominance, but humility and sacrifice—qualities that challenge our own pursuits today. Jesus, as the Son of Man, shows us that true humanity is found in obedience to God and in service to others. This not only gives us a new model of life but calls us to a transformed relationship with God and each other. In Him, we see the fulfillment of God's original purpose for humanity—a redeemed humanity that is more than mere survival, but a reflection of God's glory. Because Jesus is the Son of Man, we are called not just to admire Him, but to submit to Him as our King. His reign is not just future—it begins now in the hearts and lives of those who follow Him.

Understanding Jesus as the Son of Man deepens our appreciation of His mission. He fully embraced humanity to redeem us, suffered to fulfill His role as the Servant, and will return in glory as King and Judge. This title is not just theological—it calls us to recognize who He is and respond in faith and obedience.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. Barbara Aland et al., 28th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), Matt 8:20.

[2] James Strong, The New Strong's Concise Dictionary of Bible Words (United States: Thomas Nelson Incorporated, 2000), s.v. “בֵּן (Ben) H1121”; “אָדָם (Adam) H120.”

[3] Christopher J.H. Wright notes that this expression frequently appears in the Old Testament to highlight human frailty in contrast to God’s power (Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament, 2nd edition, 2014).

[4] The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Daniel 7:13-14.

[5] David, in speaking to his men, refers to King Saul as “YHWH’s Anointed One (Messiah; i.e. King).

[6] Daniel L. Akin, Exalting Jesus in Daniel (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2017), 90.

[7]  Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Updated and expanded by John R. Kohlenberger III. "Bar" (H1247), "Enash" (H120). Dallas: Baker Book House, 1990.

[8]  Whitworth, Michael. The Derision of Heaven: A Guide to Daniel. Grand Rapids, MI: Start2Finish Books, 2013.

[9] Wright, Christopher J.H. Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014.

[10] Bauckham, Richard. Son of Man: Volume 1: Early Jewish Literature. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, [2023].

[11] 1 Maccabees 3–9, in The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha, ed. Michael Coogan (Oxford University Press, 2010). 

[12]  Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 17.273-277, trans. William Whiston (1737).

[13] Josephus, Jewish War 2.60-65, trans. William Whiston (1737).

[14] Wright, N.T. Jesus and the Victory of God. London: SPCK, 1996. 283

The Logical Fallacy of Negating Baptism with Belief Passages

Abstract: This article examines the argument that using belief passages in Scripture to negate the necessity of baptism constitutes a logical fallacy. By exploring the concepts of cherry-picking evidence, contextual misinterpretation, and the inconsistency inherent in such arguments, we establish the importance of recognizing the interconnectedness of belief, repentance, confession, baptism, and a life of faith in the New Testament understanding of salvation.

Introduction

The relationship between belief and baptism has been a focal point in theological discourse regarding the nature of salvation. Some proponents of a belief-centric view assert that passages emphasizing belief negate the need for baptism. This selective approach to Scripture can be identified as a logical fallacy, particularly the fallacy of cherry-picking. Such reasoning undermines the coherence of the New Testament and presents challenges to a holistic understanding of salvation.

This article is not attempting to cover every argument and discussion on baptism. Those are addressed and will be addressed in other writings. The sole aim of this article is to address the use of New Testament passages that reference explicitly belief’s role in salvation with the assumption that those passages negate any other passages that correlate baptism to salvation. As though they somehow “trump” any reference to baptism in the New Testament. This article attempts to show that this assumption is a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy, and shows a misunderstanding of a complete, holistic interpretation of the continuity of the New Testament.

1. Understanding Logical Fallacies

A logical fallacy[1] is defined as an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. In this context, the fallacy arises when belief passages are invoked to dismiss or diminish the importance of baptism passages, thereby leading to contradictory conclusions within the biblical narrative. The specific fallacy often encountered here is a hasty generalization, where a conclusion is drawn based on insufficient or selective evidence with disregard to context, scriptural continuity, etc.

2. The Fallacy of Cherry-Picking Evidence

Cherry-picking refers to the practice of selectively presenting data or evidence to support a particular conclusion while ignoring relevant information that may counter it. This practice is particularly evident when individuals cite passages such as John 3:16 (“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life”) to argue that belief alone is sufficient for salvation.

Such an argument disregards the broader context of Scripture, which includes numerous passages emphasizing the importance of baptism as an integral part of the salvation process. For instance, in Acts 2:38, Peter explicitly connects repentance and baptism: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” The selective use of belief passages creates a misleading narrative that undermines the comprehensive teachings of the New Testament.

3. Logical Fallacy of False Dichotomy

Assuming that passages emphasizing belief imply that belief is the sole requirement for salvation, while disregarding passages that connect baptism, repentance, and confession to salvation, creates a false dichotomy[2]—the notion that there are only two options: belief or nothing else. This binary thinking ignores the complexity and interconnectedness of various components of salvation as presented in Scripture.

 The existence of various scriptural passages that address belief, repentance, confession, and baptism together indicates that these elements are not mutually exclusive but rather interdependent.

 4. The Flawed Premise: Belief as the Sole Essential Component

Assumption of Exclusivity

• At the core of the argument that certain passages advocate for “belief only” is the assumption that any scriptural reference to belief inherently excludes other essential elements of salvation. This interpretation suggests that if a passage mentions only belief, it must imply that belief is the sole requirement.

• This reasoning is inherently flawed, as it reduces complex theological concepts to overly simplistic interpretations. Just because a passage emphasizes belief does not logically follow that it negates the necessity of other components such as repentance, baptism, or confession.

Contextual Neglect

• The assumption fails to take into account the broader context of Scripture. Many biblical passages discuss belief in specific contexts that do not preclude other necessary responses to God’s grace.

• For instance, the Gospel of John frequently emphasizes belief as essential (e.g., John 3:16, John 20:31), yet it also contains verses that highlight the importance of actions accompanying that belief (e.g., John 14:15: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments"). The failure to recognize this interplay suggests a narrow interpretation that overlooks the comprehensive biblical narrative.

Reductionism in Theology

• By asserting that passages discussing belief imply “belief only,” proponents of this view engage in reductionism, stripping away the richness and depth of biblical faith. The New Testament presents faith as a multifaceted response that encompasses belief, repentance, confession, and action—each reinforcing the others.

• For example, in Acts 2:38, Peter calls for repentance and baptism in response to belief: “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” This illustrates that belief does not stand alone but is part of a broader, interconnected framework of faith.

Contextual Misinterpretation

Many belief passages do not inherently negate the necessity of baptism; rather, they affirm the essential role of belief within the broader framework of salvation. For example, Romans 10:9 articulates, “If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” This passage underscores the significance of belief and confession but does not preclude the command of baptism articulated in Matthew 28:19(“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…”).

The practice of isolating belief passages to invalidate baptism creates a false dichotomy, suggesting that one must choose between belief and baptism, rather than recognizing that both are essential and complementary elements of the faith experience.

Inconsistency in Interpretation

To assert that belief passages negate the necessity of baptism introduces a significant inconsistency in the interpretation of Scripture. If belief alone suffices for salvation, it raises the question of the relevance of baptism and other passages that explicitly mention its importance. This inconsistency may lead to the conclusion that the New Testament contradicts itself, which poses substantial theological and doctrinal challenges.

For example, Acts 2:38 not only emphasizes the need for repentance but also mandates baptism as a necessary response to belief. If one accepts that belief alone is sufficient for salvation, it becomes necessary to reinterpret or dismiss passages that speak to the necessity of baptism, which undermines the integrity of the biblical text as a cohesive message.

5. A Holistic View of Salvation

The New Testament presents salvation as a multi-faceted process encompassing belief, repentance, confession, baptism, and a life of faith. The interrelationship of these components suggests that they are not mutually exclusive but rather integral to the believer’s journey. Each element contributes to a comprehensive understanding of salvation, and together they reflect a response to divine grace.

When believers approach Scripture with a mindset that recognizes the harmony among these elements, they can develop a more nuanced understanding of salvation as a transformative experience rather than a fragmented set of isolated beliefs. The practice of cherry-picking verses fails to capture the full narrative of Scripture and can lead to significant misinterpretations.

6. An Example of This Fallacy

A common argument in support of belief-only theology is the citation of Romans 3:21-31, which emphasizes justification by faith apart from the works of the law. Many proponents use this passage as a "proof text," asserting that belief alone is sufficient for salvation. However, this interpretation often overlooks the broader context of Paul’s teachings, particularly his subsequent discussion in Romans 6:1-5 regarding the role of baptism in salvation. This inconsistency not only raises concerns about interpretive integrity but also highlights a logical fallacy in the selective use of Scripture.

The Proof Text: Romans 3:21-31

“21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 227 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.”

 This passage underscores the critical importance of faith in the justification process, leading some to conclude that works, including baptism, are unnecessary for salvation.

The Overlooked Continuation In the Same Context – Romans 6:1-5

“What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.”

In this passage, Paul explicitly connects baptism with the believer's identification with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. He highlights that baptism is an essential step in the process of entering into the new life offered through faith in Christ.

The Logical Fallacy of Selective Proof Texting

The reliance on Romans 3:21-31 as a proof text for belief-only theology while ignoring Romans 6:1-5 exemplifies cherry-picking.

By asserting that faith alone is sufficient for salvation based solely on Romans 3, proponents inadvertently introduce contradictions within Paul's own letter. If we interpret Romans 3 in isolation, we encounter a situation where one could argue that Paul contradicts himself in the context of the same letter—an untenable position that undermines the coherence of his theological message.

Let’s take this domino effect further. Since the Apostle Peter (another teacher of Baptism’s essentiality) considered Paul’s writings Inspired-Scripture (2 Peter 3:16-17) Then is Peter wrong about Paul, who (Based on this fallacy) contradicts himself? Didn’t Jesus, who also taught baptism (Mark 16:15-16; John 3:5; Matthew 28:18-20) and claimed to be divine, call Peter and Paul to teach what he taught them? You see the domino-effect that compromises the integrity of scripture when using proof-texts as a means to contradict other writings?

The Inconsistency of Internal Contradiction

Dr. William Lane Craig, Theologian and Apologist, had this to say about internal contradictions.

“for an interpretation to be coherent, it must be consistent within the context of the full biblical narrative...an approach that isolates passages or pits them against each other risks distorting the text’s intended meaning” [3]

If we consider the implications of this selective reading, we find that it poses significant problems for the integrity of Paul's teachings. It is one thing for different letters from Paul (or from different authors) to present seemingly conflicting views, which possibly can be reconciled through a broader understanding of context and purpose. However, it is entirely another matter if Paul contradicts himself within the same letter, as it suggests confusion or a lack of clarity in his theological framework.

In their widely respected work on biblical interpretation, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuard, caution against the approach of using isolated texts to draw exclusive conclusions.

"One of the most common errors in interpretation is the tendency to isolate individual texts and read them as complete theological statements rather than seeing them as parts of a larger discourse. Consistent interpretation requires reading in light of the entire narrative, where different aspects of faith work together rather than in isolation” (Fee & Stewart, p. 27) [4]

In light of Romans 6:1-5, it is evident that Paul does not espouse a belief-only theology; rather, he articulates a comprehensive understanding of salvation that incorporates both faith and baptism. The argument for a belief-only position, therefore, fails to acknowledge the harmonious relationship between these two elements as intended by Paul.

7. Conclusion

In conclusion, the practice of using belief passages to negate the necessity of baptism passages constitutes a logical fallacy that oversimplifies and distorts the biblical understanding of salvation. Such reasoning creates a false dichotomy that undermines the integrated nature of belief, repentance, confession, baptism, and a life of faith.

To assert that passages like Ephesians 2:4-8 nullify or override others such as Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21, Galatians 3:26-28, and Romans 6:1-5 reveals a misunderstanding of sound biblical interpretation. Rather than setting these texts in opposition, a holistic approach acknowledges how each contributes to the doctrine of salvation in a unified way. When we overlook or isolate certain verses, we risk diminishing the depth and consistency of Scripture’s message about faith and obedience. Through responsible hermeneutics, we can see that these passages together reveal salvation as both a gift of grace through faith and a call to faithful obedience, encompassing essential acts like baptism within the journey of faith.

When I say, ‘I believe baptism is essential for salvation’ and support this with scripture, I am not cherry-picking; I do not see passages about baptism as conflicting with passages that emphasize belief. To me, both John 3:16 and Acts 2:38 are equally doctrinal, essential, and binding. I do not believe in ‘only baptism saves,’ since baptism without belief, repentance, or confession is meaningless—someone immersed without faith has simply gotten wet. I would never teach ‘only baptism,’ because baptism passages are not in opposition to belief passages.

In contrast, to say ‘baptism is not essential for salvation’ requires explaining why John 3:16 would negate Acts 2:38. Even if one argues, ‘John 3:16 matters more because Jesus said it,’ this ignores that Jesus also commanded baptism in Matthew 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15-16. Using authoritative, inspired New Testament scripture to argue against other authoritative scripture is poor hermeneutics.

Interpreting John 3:16 to confirm that belief is essential for salvation is logically sound. However, interpreting it to say ‘only belief is essential’ stretches beyond what the text explicitly or implicitly states and introduces bias. By contrast, reading 1 Peter 3:21—‘Baptism now saves you’—at face value supports the role of baptism in salvation without bias. Even if I had a bias favoring ‘baptism = salvation,’ this wouldn’t alter Peter’s explicit statement in favor or against. This interpretation may confirm a preconceived idea I already have, but the interpretation isn’t forced by my preconceived idea.

But what interpretive gymnastics are required to claim that ‘Baptism now saves’ (1 Peter 3:21) somehow means that baptism does not save?

When two passages appear to be in contradiction, several interpretative principles can help clarify their relationship:

1. Contextual Analysis: First, examine each passage within its immediate and broader context. Consider the historical, cultural, and literary contexts to determine how each passage’s setting informs its meaning. Context can often reveal that the apparent contradiction is a misunderstanding due to differing circumstances or audiences.

2. Authorial Intent: Understanding the author's intent can also be enlightening. Each biblical writer often has a specific purpose, emphasis, or audience that influences how a subject is presented. For example, Paul’s emphasis on faith over “works of the law” is specific to addressing Jewish legalism, not to deny the necessity of faith-based obedience.

3. Genre Consideration: Recognize the genre or literary style of the passage. Poetic, prophetic, historical, and didactic texts each communicate truth in unique ways. Some seeming contradictions arise from failing to interpret different genres appropriately.

4. Synthesis with Other Scriptures: We can often resolve apparent contradictions by synthesizing the passages with the whole of Scripture. Instead of isolating verses, interpret them within the larger biblical narrative. For example, considering Ephesians 2:8-9 alongside James 2:14-26 shows that faith and works of obedience are complementary rather than contradictory aspects of a faith-filled life.

5. Primary vs. Secondary Teachings: Identify whether a passage presents a primary doctrine or a secondary application. Primary doctrines are consistently reinforced across Scripture, whereas secondary applications might vary according to the context or audience.

6. Progressive Revelation: Recognize the Bible’s progressive revelation, where later teachings can clarify or expand earlier ones without contradicting them. For instance, New Testament teachings on grace and faith build upon Old Testament law, showing their fulfillment rather than canceling their truth.

To foster a comprehensive understanding of salvation, it is essential to approach Scripture with an openness that recognizes the interconnectedness of these elements, affirming their collective significance in the believer’s response to God’s grace. By embracing this holistic view, we can engage in a more meaningful exploration of the theological implications of salvation as presented in the New Testament.

[1] See: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/

[2] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/false-dichotomy

[3] Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. 3rd ed., Crossway, 2008.

[4] Fee, Gordon D., and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. 4th ed., Zondervan, 2014.

A Study and Application of Matthew 17:1-9 (Part 3)

THEOLOGY AND APPLICATION OF MATTHEW 17:1-9

How does the transfiguration correspond to the rest of the Gospel according to Matthew, the nature of God, and the King and His Kingdom as we see unfold in the rest of the book of Matthew and the New Testament? Since the scene atop the mountain follows the conversation between Jesus and his disciples in Matthew 16, the transfiguration shows further that Jesus is not just a prophet, a lawgiver, or just a divinely endowed being, but that he is the Lord and God, that he is Messiah, that he is King and the entirety of both old and New Testament are about him and his Kingdom. Matthew 17 not only affirms the divine identity of the Messiah, Jesus, but the rest of the book will show what the purpose of the Messiah truly is. In chapter 18 through 20 we see Jesus defeating the false notions the Jews held historically of the Messiah and His Kingdom. If one believes that a Kingdom’s power is found in political revolt and exerted like that of their Roman oppressors or of the glory days under David and Solomon’s reign, one doesn’t understand the nature of the Messiah’s Kingdom. It’s true power and glory will be forged through its King’s suffering, humility, death, burial, and resurrection and the same goes for the kingdom’s citizens. In the Messiah’s Kingdom, true honor was obtained by being a servant (18.1-5). In the Messiah’s Kingdom true triumph is found in forgiveness and mercy; the mercy God has for you and the mercy we have for each other (18.10-35). In The Messiah’s Kingdom true wealth is found apart from materialism and in total submission to God (19.16-30). In the following chapters of Matthew after the transfiguration, we will also see even further opposition to this message as a call for Jesus’ death continues to gain traction amongst the religious elite that would eventually lead to Jesus’ suffering and his crucifixion. The religious leader’s ideas of “Kingdom” and Jesus’ Kingdom will come to a clash. He challenges their authority, as opposed to affirming it, as they thought the Messiah would. He instead gives a final exposition on what really is at the heart of humanity, why they haven’t embraced his Message of the Kingdom (i.e., their hypocrisy), and what their fate really is because of their rejection of his Kingdom. Jesus and His Kingdom will be victorious and will be everlasting, but the status quo, hypocrisy, and desires of the religious leaders will lead to their demise. If they truly were followers of the law and the prophets, they should have immediately embraced Jesus just as the way Moses and Elijah did at the transfiguration, and would listen to him, as the Father from heaven commanded the disciples.

The Transfiguration also anticipated the Resurrection of Christ. The transfiguration shows that he is the Glorified Lord, that he came from heaven and that he and his father were one, and that he is the one to be obeyed. Although the transfiguration affirms that Jesus is the Messiah and that his conversation about his death and suffering were fact and authoritative, the transfiguration of Christ also shows that his death would not be the end. When the disciples would see their master taken away in the garden, this image should have radiated in the minds of the three witnessing disciples that he would still be victorious. The transfiguration of Jesus was a preview to the Peter, James, and John of the Son of Man’s glorious identity, coming to his kingdom in glory, which could only come through his death, burial, and resurrection. Although this paper is meant to exegete Matthew’s account, Luke’s account also adds texture this. Luke links the scene of transfiguration to the prediction of his death and resurrection, as he records that Moses and Elijah were discussing with Jesus, “his exodus” which would be accomplished in Jerusalem (Luke 9.31). When we get to the resurrection in Matthew, what is described in the scene? We read of a messenger from God whose appearance was like lightening and his clothing white as snow. The response of the guards that were there were the appropriate responses to this glorious event just as the three disciples at the transfiguration: fear and trembling. This same glorified Lord, though suffered and died at the hands of man, rose in glory, and remain glorified permanently. No one was able to lay a hand on him or hammer a nail into his hands and feet unless it was his and his Father’s will. The resurrection vindicates the message of Matthew, and the Transfiguration gives the reader a glimpse of it.

So, what would be the application of this passage? Ultimately, for Matthew’s original readers, the command from heaven to “listen to him” is not just exclusive to the three disciples who witnessed the transfiguration. Matthew’s original readers lived in a time not long after the resurrection, so how much more should the transfiguration and the resurrection provide them comfort and hope to not be distracted by the things around them, be distracted by the things that were nailed to the cross, and “listen to him”? They are left with the choice to not allow for the social, religious, and philosophical barriers stand in the way of their faith in the identity of Jesus and obey his teachings. Even if they didn’t understand fully, or even struggled to agree, trust in Jesus. He evidentially is fully qualified to lead their lives and knows best. Obviously, neither Matthew nor his readers were witnesses to the transfiguration, though Matthew was a witness to the resurrected Savior. However someday all of Jesus’ followers in his Kingdom will witness him in glory (1 Jn 3.2) and likewise be transformed in glory (Rom 8.17). Then, what is the responsibility of every disciple because of this? Go into all the world, joyfully and convicted, and make more followers of Jesus the Messiah and citizens of his Kingdom (Matt 28.18-20).

A Study and Application of Matthew 17:1-9 (Part 2)

The opening of chapter seventeen begins with Jesus leading three of his disciples, Peter, James, and John, up to a mountain (17.1). If one has been following not only the story of Jesus in Matthew but has been connecting it with the Old Testament story as well, there is a significance in God’s revelation of his glory, will, and power as well as a major transition in the biblical story in the setting of a mountain top. The giving of the law took place on a mountain, Mount Sinai, a place where, as mentioned previously, God’s glory dwelled and was on display. While on Sinai, Moses asked God to reveal his glory to him, to which God gave him a limited glimpse of such (Ex 33.18-23). When Moses came down from the mountain, his physical appearance was altered (Ex 34.29-33), reflecting the glory of God, although in a veiled depiction because no could see God and live (Ex 33.20). Another example that ties into what is taking place in Matthew 17 can be found with the prophet Elijah’s confrontation with the prophets of Baal on Mt Carmel (1 Kings 18). God’s glory was revealed over the false gods that were being worshipped by God’s people as fire came down from heaven and consumed the offering. Even after this event, when Elijah flees to Mount Horeb upon the threats of Queen Jezebel, Elijah is strengthened and encouraged by the glory of God once more, as a scene of fire, wind, and earthquake ensues (1 Kings 19.9-18). With this background, Jesus and his inner circle disciples going up on a mountain top is setting the stage. Matthew then tells us in verse 2 that Jesus was “…transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light…”. The word Matthew uses here for “transfigured” is the word “metamorphoo/μεταμορφόω (Strong 3339).[1] Thayer defines this word as changing “…into another form, to transform…”[2]. God himself is described as wrapped in “light as with a garment” (Ps 104.2). With such powerful imagery on display through the OT scriptures in demonstration of God’s glory, what the disciples are witnessing here is Jesus’ glory revealed. However, he’s not just displaying God’s glory, but he embodies it. It demonstrates his eternal nature showing that Jesus was in fact God in human form. It also further confirms not only what Peter had declared just the chapter prior, but to the reader everything Matthew has been putting together from the opening verses of his account. The glory that is shown in the stories of Elijah and Moses weren’t in and of themselves, but rather they were derivative of God’s majesty. Jesus’ glory is essential to himself because he is divine (c.f. Jn 1.14,18; 17.5; Phil 2.6-7; 2 Pet 1.16-18; Rev 1.16). Jesus shines from within himself as he is the light.

In verse two, amidst this already powerful scene, Moses and Elijah appear and hold court with Jesus. There is a cultural significance these two individuals hold in Jewish history. Moses, the lawgiver, reflected the divine glory of God. Elijah, the prophet, had revealed divine glory, but Jesus perfectly radiated divine glory. Their conversation with Jesus and attention to him shows he is the climax to their role in God’s plan for humanity (cf. Luke 9.31; Mal 4.4-6). Moses, 1500 years before had asked God to show him his glory (Ex 33.18), and at this moment even he got an even better glimpse than he did in the cleft of the rock because he was witnessing Jesus. Their appearance there and engagement with Jesus shows that the law and the prophets were testimony of Jesus as the Messiah. Verse four then shows us Peter’s response to this situation. Peter speaks on behalf of the other present disciples and says, “Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah…” (Matt 17.4). What does Peter’s response suggest about his perception of the scene, especially considering what he declared Jesus to be in Matthew 16:16 and his misconception of what that meant in 16:22. Peter believed Jesus to be the Messiah, but from the previous chapter it seems that he didn’t really understand what the Messiah’s purpose was (i.e., to suffer, die, resurrect). Earlier, Peter stood in opposition to Jesus’ mentioning his death (16.22ff) and in his response to the transfiguration, it seems he didn’t really understand what the nature of the Messiah was. It appears that he understood the Messiah as being equal with Moses and Elijah and deserving of the same adoration as these two major Old Testament figures. To Peter’s credit, putting them on equal footing, if the Messiah was just another Jew, was a major honor. Also, Peter’s response shows sincerity in his desire to not just be a spectator, but to actively engage with what he saw before him. However, Jesus isn’t just anyone. What Peter needs to know is the same thing that Matthew wants his readers to know; Jesus is the culmination of the entire Old Testament story. He’s not some figure that dwells in the parenthesis of Judaism like other Old Testament heroes…Judaism was all about Jesus. Its existence, its worship, its laws, its priesthood, its distinctiveness was all pointing forward to Jesus.

Next, there’s an interruption to Peter’s comment when, “…a bright cloud overshadowed them and a voice from the cloud said, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him…’” (Matt 17.5). There is an obvious connection and significance with this scene and the baptismal scene in Matthew 3 as it serves as a transitional moment in the Messiah’s life and ministry. The baptism marked the beginning of his ministry as Son of God, as Messiah. The transfiguration serves as a transition from his ministry to the cross, his death, burial, and resurrection. It was the will of the Father that the Messiah would begin his ministry, and in chapter 17 it is the will of the Father that the Messiah dies. The cloud in both situations would also give an image to a student of the Old Testament (i.e., Matthew’s Jewish readers) a connection to previous events of God’s glory on display. As was discussed earlier, in the OT, the presence of God in a wilderness setting is usually in the form of a cloud. It also connects what Isaiah wrote about the Branch of the Lord bringing restoration, as the cloud of glory shelters Zion (Isaiah 4.1-6). In the intertestamental period and noncanonical writings, it was believed by the Jews that at the time when the Messiah would gather his people, the cloud of glory would appear (2 Macc 2.7-8). Jesus’ identity as the Son of God as first declared from heaven in 3:17. Reinforces the idea of what Jesus the Messiah’s true purpose must be in the context of what is going to take place in the rest of the book of Matthew; the Messiah must die and suffer. Michael J. Wilkins wrote in his commentary on Matthew, “…combining elements prophesied in Psalm 2:7 (‘This is my Son’) and Isaiah 42:1 (‘With whom I am well pleased’) indicating that Jesus is both Son and Suffering Servant…” (Wilkins 872).[3] This pronouncement has an application for the disciples. Amid all the mixed messages from the different audiences, accusations from the scribes, pharisees, their own preconceived ideas of the Messiah, the Father silences them all and places emphasis on Jesus and commands the disciples to “listen to him”. This also echoes back to what Moses prophesied about Jesus in Deuteronomy 18:15, “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen—”. This passage in the days of Jesus and the writing of Matthew would have been widely understood to refer to the Messiah (Young 209-11).[4] Matthew is showing his readers that Jesus is that prophet. And not another prophet like Moses and Elijah, that he is God’s Son, the exact imprint of Divinity, Holiness, and worthy of all praise. The disciples reaction immediately following this is the appropriate response to the awesome presence of God, Matthew tells us, “…they fell on their faces and were terrified…” (Matt 17.6).

When Israel witnessed God’s glory on Mount Sinai and Moses’ transformation, they too fell in fear and trembling (Ex 19.16; 34.29-32). When the people witnessed the fear come down from heaven and consume the offering on Mount Carmel, they also fell on their faces and glorified God (1 Kgs 18.39). Later, Elijah on Mount Horeb witnesses a God’s majesty in wind, fire, and an earthquake and he concealed his face upon hearing the Lord’s voice (1 Kgs 19.13). What the disciples of Jesus are witnessing in Matthew 17 is also an experience of God’s awesome presence. Jesus comforts them in this moment saying, “Rise, and have no fear…” (Matt 17.7), a demonstration of his relational proximity; He is Lord, sovereign, and Almighty God in the flesh, but he is also their comforter, their savior, a servant, their friend. Peter, James, and John are blessed with an opportunity to see Jesus in this authoritative, majestic manner before his death, burial, and resurrection. In verse 8, Moses and Elijah disappear, shifting the attention solely on Jesus, which was always the purpose of their ministries in the OT. This wasn’t some apparition, but an actual divine, revelation, to see Jesus the way God sees him. Jesus would then command them to “Tell no one the vision, until the Son of man is raised from the dead…” (Matt 17.9). This further strengthens Jesus foretelling his death and resurrection earlier in 16:21-23, 28. Any misconceptions that the three disciples had, especially Peter, should further diminish with Jesus, the glorified, sole new lawgiver declared by the Father. But why does Jesus tell them to keep what they witnessed a secret until his resurrection? This is echoes back to his command back in 16:20 to tell no one that he was the Messiah. The true purpose of the Messiah is to go to the cross, resurrect from the dead to usher in his kingdom, and offer salvation to all who will follow him. what people did not need was to be distracted and confuse these events as a confirmation of their presuppositions and turn their focus away from the mission of the cross. After his resurrection, people couldn’t confuse his mission with political aspirations, and the apostles would be there to give the account of everything to affirm what the Messiah was all about.

[1] Strong, James. “μεταμορφόω” Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, Hendrickson Publishers, 2007. 

[2] Thayer, Joseph Henry, and James Strong. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Hendrickson Publishers, 1997. 

[3] Wilkins, Michael. Niv Application Commentary: Matthew. Zondervan, 2003. 

[4] Young, Brad H., et al. Jesus the Jewish Theologian. Baker Academic, 2011. 

A Study and Application of Matthew 17:1-9 (Part 1)

INTRODUCTION

Matthew’s account of Jesus’ transfiguration in Matthew 17 is the inspired disciple’s masterful way of connecting that the message of the law and the prophets was always about the anticipation and glory of Jesus, the King, the Son of God, and his Kingdom and would be realized at his resurrection from the dead. Everything Jesus does and teaches in Matthew’s account to be seen through this lens and to see the Messiah through another lens is in opposition to God’s purpose and plan. The purpose of this series is to demonstrate this and apply the intended lens Matthew expects of his readers to wear. This series is transcribed from an exegesis paper I wrote during my graduate studies and will be broken up into three parts. Part One will cover and deal with the Contextual Analysis Leading to Matthew 17:1-9. In this, we will discuss several key aspects surrounding our main text that will help us better understand the power in those short, nine verses in Matthew 17. In Part Two, we will give a thorough exegesis, a.k.a, A Detailed Analysis of Matthew 17:1-9. In Part Three, we will conclude with the Theology and Application of Matthew 17:1-9, and show how this section fits in the rest of the gospel account of Matthew and the New Testament, as well as how it applies to its initial readers and for us today.

CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS LEADING TO MATTHEW 17:1-9

The book of Matthew is believed to have been written by Matthew (also called Levi) the son of Alpheus, and one of the twelve disciples of Jesus, sometime before the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. The book consists of 28 chapters telling the story of Jesus Christ but with Old Testament references, typology/ illusions, genealogy, and subject matter that appears to target a primarily Jewish initial audience. It is widely accepted that Matthew’s goal is to convince his Jewish readers that Jesus is in fact the Messiah and that he is the continuation and fulfillment of God’s work with Israel in the Old Testament. Matthew is written much like an ancient biography. It is not an exhaustive moment by moment of Jesus’ life but is designed to connect the Tanakh (The Old Testament) and the story of Jesus and his Kingdom as one. At the time of his writing, the world around Matthew and his readers was growing increasingly hostile not only to the Jewish people, but also Christianity. Matthew wants to show all Jewish people that hope rests not in civil uprising or restoring Israel as a physical kingdom like that of the era of David and Solomon, but it is in The Messiah’s Kingdom, the Church, where the true people of God, no matter their background or ethnicity, dwell.

How Matthew Shows Jesus to Be the Messiah

But if Jesus is in fact the Messiah, the son of God, what proof does Matthew use? The book is structured to show that Jesus is the Messiah, the giver of a New Law/Covenant, and that he is God amongst his people. He does this by first showing a genealogy that connects Jesus as both son of David and son of Abraham (Matthew 1). The fact that his account starts with this Jewish genealogy of 41 generations reveals Matthew’s intended audience. Jesus shares the Jewish reader’s heritage, but he is also the purpose and culmination of their heritage. For Jesus to be the Messiah, his lineage matters. By connecting Jesus to David, Matthew shows that Jesus is the prophetic fulfillment of the promise made to David back in 2 Samuel 7:11-16 and is rightfully heir to the throne. By calling Jesus the son of Abraham, he also bridges the promised Messiah to David with the promised seed to Abraham, through whom “all nations will be blessed” (Genesis 12:1-3). However, the genealogy has another powerful message that would stand out to Jewish readers. There is the appearance of four women in the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew’s account: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. For a male-oriented society, this was unconventional to be used in a genealogy, and especially since each of these women are associated with several taboos in Jewish society: sexual scandal and gentile roots. God has been using all people to move his plan forward to bring all people back to him through the Messiah.

Then as the narrative begins, Matthew utilizes a promise-fulfillment theme to develop further his case for Jesus. Several times throughout the narrative of Matthew, the writer uses the phrases, “This was to fulfill” “It is written by the prophet” or “This took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet”. We see this in the Messiah’s virgin birth (Matthew 1:22-23; c.f. Isaiah 7:14) Bethlehem being the birthplace of the Messiah (Matthew 2:5-6; c.f. Isaiah 7:14) The Messiah’s exodus to Egypt and then his return to his people ( Matthew 2:15; c.f. Hosea 11:1) the slaughter of infants in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16-18; cf. Jeremiah 31:5) John preparing the way for the Messiah (Matthew 3:1-3; cf. Isaiah 40:3) The Messiah’s ministry being based out of Galilee (Matthew 4:13-16; cf. Isaiah 9:1-2)  The Messiah being the hope of all nations as a servant (Matthew 12:17-21; Isaiah 42:1-4) and The Messiah teaching parables (Matthew 13:34-35; Psalm 78:2). This is more than just evidence, Matthew wants his readers to see that it was always God’s will that Jesus is the climax of not just Jewish history, but all human history. The other device that Matthew uses to help the reader better see the Jesus/Messiah connection is through typology, an ancient Jewish method showing the correspondence between heavenly pattern and its earthly counterpart.[1] By using typology, Matthew presents Jesus in his gospel account as a new and better Moses. As Moses brought Israel God’s law/covenant to Israel from Mount Sinai establishing them as God’s people, Jesus from a “mount” gives a sermon showcasing the nature of his Kingdom and its inhabitants under the new covenant (Matthew 5-7). Jesus ushers in a new era that is the fulfillment of Moses’ ministry and the Old Testament (Matthew 5:17). Jesus is also seen in Matthew as a new, better Israel, retelling the story of the nation, but through Jesus. From the very beginning his origins are like that of Israel; He is a son of both Abraham and David (Matthew 1.1-2); he too went down into Egypt and would be called out of Egypt (Matt 2.15; Hos 11.1). Israel was transformed from slave to free upon their crossing of the red sea (a sort of ‘baptism’; see Paul’s comment in 1 Cor 10.1-2) to move forward in their purpose as God’s son. Jesus was baptized in Matthew 3 as a major moment of transition in his life to his ministry as God’s beloved Son (Matt 3.17). Following Israel’s “baptism” (i.e., crossing the Red Sea) they are tested for 40 years in the wilderness, of which they fail time and time again. After Jesus’ baptism, he is tested in the wilderness for 40 days, and unlike Israel, this Son remains faithful and obedient to His Father (Matt 4.1-11). The first Israel’s story ends in faithlessness and God’s glory leaving the people. The second “Israel”, Jesus, demonstrated faithfulness to his Father, radiating God’s glory perfectly, as will be further addressed in this article.

A Brief Study on the Glory of God

To better understand the scene in Matthew 17, it helps to understand a recurring theme that runs from the Old Testament through the New Testament, The glory of God. The glory of God is his majesty, his splendor and his beauty as demonstrated to humanity (Neh 9.5; Eph 1.17; Ps 19.1; 24). It is also his holiness, his attributes, his ethics, etc. (to sin is to “fall short of the glory of God”; Rom 3.23). The presence of his glory throughout the narrative and history of Israel is important to also discuss considering the book of Matthew. In the Old Testament, the glory of God is frequently shown in the form of theophany, “the visible manifestation of deity”.[2] Images of light, cloud, smoke, and fire are heavily associated with God’s glory.  For example, we see this as Moses approaches the burning bush (Ex 3.2) and the presence of God in the pillar of cloud and fire that guided Israel in the wilderness (Ex 13.21-22). When Israel encamps at the base of Mount Sinai, God’s glory consumes the top of the mountain “like a devouring fire” and a cloud (Ex 24.15-18). Moses also receives a brief glimpse of the glory of God, and when he comes down from the mountain his own face is radiant with light (i.e., glory) that he must be veiled because of the people’s fear (Ex 33.18-23; 34.29-35). Upon the building of the tabernacle, God’s glory filled it (Ex 40:34-38) demonstrating that he was with them and that he lead them (Num 10.11-12). We also see in the scriptures that Israel could lose God’s glory from their midst due to their unfaithfulness. Further in their history and on the tail of the brutal period of the Judges, in 1 Samuel 4, the ark of the covenant is lost in battle against the Philistines. A child is named Ichabod during this period, because “the glory has departed from Israel (1 Sam 4.21-22). The glory of God makes no appearance as a cloud before Israel until the ark is recovered. Years later, then the cloud of Glory fills the temple built by Solomon and fire devours the offerings (2 Chronicles 5.13-6.1; 7.1-3). The psalmists celebrate Jerusalem and the temple as the place where his glory dwells (Ps 26.8; 63.2; 85.9) rejoicing that God was in their midst. But then, the further in Israel’s history, after the split of the kingdom, Israel’s relationship with God is fractured because of sin. Ezekiel 8 spends a great deal of time showcasing the atrocities of Israel. When we get to Ezekiel 10 and 11, we see a people that didn’t worship God alone anymore and were guilty of celebrating their idolatry. The people of that generation were so far from God that Ezekiel 10:18 records, “The glory of the LORD departed from the threshold of the temple…”. From that moment forward, for nearly 600 years, there’s no cloud or fire of glory, no tabernacle, no temple. God’s glory left Israel. But once we get to Matthew, we see God’s glory return as a child named Immanuel was born (Matt 1.22-23). We see God’s kingdom coming in glory and power as its message, nature, and foundation is realized in the work of the Messiah, Jesus. The event of Matthew 17, the transfiguration of Jesus, is another powerful reminder of this.

The Immediate Context Before Matthew 17:1-9

So, where does Matthew 17 pick up in this sweeping epic of the Messiah? Before attention is given to Matthew 17:1-9, highlighting what Matthew has been showcasing up to this point is imperative. With the book of Matthew, one can’t drop in the middle of the context and hope to understand the theological flow. As discussed earlier, In Matthew 1 through 10, Matthew spends time showing the obvious reasons why Jesus is the Messiah through genealogy, prophecy, typology, etc.  In Matthew 11-13 we see the various responses to Jesus as the Messiah. Some would embrace him as Messiah, some like John the Baptizer (11.1-3) and Jesus’ family would question and struggle with an understanding of him being the Messiah (11.46-49), and others, like the religious leaders would absolutely reject him as Messiah, going as far as saying that he is a worker of the Devil (12.24). Jesus, perfectly understanding the hearts of men, explains the responses to his message in the parable of the Soils in Matthew 13. In Chapters 14 through 16, we see Jesus feed 5,000 people, healing the sick, walking on water, and performing many other miracles. For some of Israel as well as gentiles (the Canaanite woman in 15.21-28), the oppressed and afflicted, they respond in praise (15.29-31). The religious leaders, however, continue to increase in their opposition to Jesus, accusing of him of disobedience to Jewish law and traditions (15.1) demanding signs (16.1-12) and bore a misconception of the Messiah as a physical ruler who would overthrow their pagan oppressors, of which Jesus did not meet. Jesus withdraws with his disciples into the district of Caesarea Philippi and begins to question them on the misconceptions of who the Messiah (i.e., the Son of Man) really is.  The events of Matthew 17 follow immediately after Peter’s declaration of who Jesus really is (Matt 16.13-20).  Peter says that he is the Christ (Messiah), a term, which by the 1st century was a title associated with the deliverer whom God would use to deliver his people. Peter also declares him to be the Son of the Living God, a title heavily associated with the coming Messiah (2 Sam 7.14; Ps 2.7). It also follows where Jesus gives the first prediction in Matthew of his death and resurrection (16.21-23) and that suffering was imminent for him and his followers, though being completely worth it. Everyone had a different perspective on who the Messiah really was and what his purpose would be. Peter, though declares Jesus to be the Messiah, will show in this section and the primary text of study that even he struggled with what the Messiah was to accomplish. Jesus, declared to be the Messiah, “…must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised…’ (16.21). His death is necessary because his resurrection is necessary. Without such, he is not the Messiah. This completely goes against the popular sentiment that Peter and many in his day held of the Messiah being a victorious physical warrior in the like manner of David, not willingly die at the hand of his enemies. Jesus rebukes him showing him that his misconception is rooted in mankind and that Jesus’ suffering and resurrection are the “things of God…” (16.23) The conclusion of the chapter in verses 27 and 28 is crucial as we come to the Transfiguration in chapter 17. Jesus says, “For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” Through that suffering, pain, humiliation, the Glory of the Son of man is made possible. The disciples also get a timestamp of when the glory of God would be fully displayed in the Messiah as he comes into his Kingdom. The phrase, Son of Man, is a messianic title and is a clear echo back to Daniel 7:14, in which the prophet writes, “…and to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom…”. Son of Man is frequently employed by Jesus himself as opposed to just Messiah, though they both are synonymous in their true meaning. It not only denoted his humanity, but that he was appointed by God to be the one who would truly live what God always intended for man to be from the time in the Garden of Eden, be the redeemer, and thus bring in a new humanity (i.e. creation), the church. As the gospel account of Matthew ends and following Jesus’ death, burial, and glorious resurrection, he declares his dominion and authority as king as something that has been given to his possession (Matthew 28.18). In Matthew 17, with the scene of transfiguration, we see three of the disciples get a temporary glimpse of the glory that would permanently be Jesus’ upon his resurrection, thus linking Jesus’ declaration in 16.28 and the resurrection with what takes place in Matthew 17. R.T. France in his commentary, The Gospel of Matthew, wrote, “Matthew…saw in this vision at least a proleptic [anticipating, foreshadowing] fulfillment of Jesus’ solemn words in [16.28] even though the truth of Jesus kingship was to be more concretely embodied in later events following his resurrection…”[3]

In Part Two we will begin breaking down the text itself in light of the context we just discussed and the intended meaning of the author, Matthew, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

CITATIONS

[1] Treier, Daniel J., and Walter A. Elwell. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Baker Academic, a Division of Baker Publishing Group, 2017. 

[2] “Theophany Definition & Meaning.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theophany. 

[3] France, R. T. The Gospel According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary. Inter-Varsity Press, 2008.