The eschatological Son of Man.
Luke 12:8 (/Matt 10:32). Here Jesus is warning his disciples—and also the crowd (12:1, 13)—about the dangers of denying him before others. If this happens, Jesus says, the Son of Man will deny them before the angels of God, a clear reference to the eschatological judgment, also referenced by Mark in 8:38 and 13:24–27. There is no textual indication in Luke, nor for that matter in Mark, that this Son of Man is equated with the historical Jesus. That connection is made by the Gospel narrative at large, but not necessarily by the Q tradition. That is why it is necessary for Matthew to clarify this point. The Matthean parallel reads: “Whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven” (Matt 10:33). Matthew does something similar in 5:11, where he changes the Q tradition to read “on account of me” rather than “on account of the Son of Man,” as Luke 6:22 has it.
Luke 12:10 (/Matt 12:32). This is the Q version of the Markan tradition about blaspheming the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:28–30). In Mark, this blasphemy is perpetuated when people, in this case the scribes, affirm that Jesus’ power to heal comes from the devil. For Mark, questioning Jesus’ source of power amounts to sinning against the Holy Spirit. Not so for Luke, who seems to make a distinction between speaking against the Son of Man, which is forgivable, and blaspheming the Holy Spirit, which is not. In this way, Luke seems to differentiate between the Son of Man and the historical Jesus.
Luke 12:40 (/Matt 24:44). The text speaks about the sudden and unexpected coming of the Son of Man to usher in the kingdom which, although promised to the disciples, has yet to be materialized in their lives (cf. 12:32). Readiness, alertness, and diligent work are required from them if they expect to be welcomed into the kingdom. Otherwise, their fate will be with the unfaithful (12:46). For Q, it is the Son of Man, an eschatological figure, who is the agent of God’s kingdom. But this figure is never clearly identified with the historical Jesus, an accomplishment of the overall theological work of the evangelists for whom Jesus is the Son of Man.
Luke 17:22, 24, 26, 30 (/Matt 24:27, 37, 39). Here, Luke uses the Q tradition that talks about the “days of the Son of Man.” This is a tradition unique to Q, not appearing in any of the other gospels or in the rest of the NT. Luke uses it to theologically qualify the apocalyptic tradition of the end times, which is used by Mark and other NT writers. Interestingly enough, Matthew has replaced the expression τῶν ἡμερῶν τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου with the word παρουσία, betraying knowledge of the Pauline tradition on the same subject (cf. 1 Thess 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 1 Cor 15:23). An analysis of the section provides us with a good sense of how Luke supplements the tradition with his own editorial work. The passage in question is Luke 17:22–37:
Verse 22: Lukan redaction. We think this verse represents a Lukan introduction to the Q motif of the days of the Son of Man meant to address the issue of the delay of the end times. The fact that Matthew omits it shows that the verse is not in Q or, if it is, that he still expects the eschaton to occur soon and, therefore, does not include it.
Verse 23: Q’s version of the tradition behind Mark 13:21. We assume here that Luke is quoting Q, rather than Mark, because Matthew also uses it—although he adds “do not believe it,” which seems to betray knowledge of Mark 13:21. Matthew, unlike Luke, will use it again in 24:23, but this time quoting straight from Mark.
Verse 24: Q. The theme of the days of the Son of Man is restated.
Verse 25: Lukan redaction. He takes the reference to suffering and rejection from the Markan tradition about Jesus’ prediction of his death (see above).
Verses 26–27: Q. The theme of the Son of Man in his day is compared with the days of Noah. The catastrophic end of the pre-flood world is made into a model, or a type, of what is going to happen in the day of the Son of Man.
Verses 28–29: Lukan redaction. The theme of the fate of Sodom as a warning and reminder of what is going to happen at the final judgment is from Q (Luke 10:12/Matt 10:15), but Luke is not quoting directly from that document. This is seen by the fact that Matthew omits it. It looks more like his own midrash on Genesis 19:24–26.
Verse 30: Q. Once again, we have the theme of the Son of Man in his day. The threefold repetition of the theme is already found in Q. Therefore, Matthew includes it in his gospel also (cf. Matt 24:26–28).
Verse 31: Mark. Here, Luke seems to be using his Markan source independently from Q, since Matthew omits it.
Verse 32: Lukan redaction. This is part of the midrash we mentioned above.
Verse 33: Q. This seems to be Q’s version of the tradition behind Mark 8:35.
Verses 34–35: Q. Notice how Matthew uses the image of two in the field rather than two in one bed, thus moving the action from the house, the domain of females, into the outside world, the domain of males.
Verse 36: Some MSS omit this verse. It reads: “Two will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left.” We assume it is from Q, because Matthew uses it (24:40) and it is missing in Mark. The fact that Luke has replaced it with the image of two sleeping in the same bed is very interesting, since the gender of those mentioned is masculine! (ὁ ἑις and ὁ ἕτερος).
Verse 37: Q. This saying is obviously from Q, for Matthew uses it also.
Following Q, Luke affirms that the day of the Son of Man, who through his redactional work he equates with the historical Jesus, will be a day of judgment comparable to the days of Noah and Lot, when God’s wrath poured relentlessly over the whole of humanity and over the city of Sodom. But this day will be also a day of vindication for the faithful, the chosen ones, who “cry to him day and night.” This is made clear by the Lukan material that follows immediately in 18:1–8 and which seems to deal with anxiety on the part of the believers due to the delay of the end times. In this way, the section represented by 17:22—18:8 comes to a close as a self-contained piece. It also closes Luke’s famous “Large insertion,” 9:1—18:14.
It is clear then that for Q, and for Luke and Matthew, the Son of Man is more of an individual figure similar to the one described in 4 Ezra and 1 Enoch who will inaugurate God’s judgment on his day, an event akin to that described in the Hebrew Scriptures (cf. Joel 1:15; 2:1–2; Amos 5:18–20; Isa 2:11–22, 13:6–19; Ezek 30:1–4; Zeph 1:2—2:13). The Markan understanding of this figure is more corporate than individualistic, as we demonstrate in chapter 4, and it is pretty much missing from Q and also from Luke and Matthew, except when they use Mark. But even when they do that, they make sure to highlight the individual aspect of the Son of Man. I suggest that the reason for this is that the community behind Q had experienced so much rejection by their contemporaries and so much disappointment because of the delay of the end times that they were not invested in becoming conduits of salvation for the world. They were waiting anxiously to be rescued from their present situation, vindicated, and welcomed into the kingdom. Something similar may be said about the Lukan and Matthean communities. They were aware of being part of the Greco Roman world and of having a mission in it. Matthew ends his gospel with the Great Commission (Matt 28:16–20), and Luke writes a second volume in which he describes this mission as exemplified ideally by the early church. But he still maintains an eschatological expectation made clear by the ascension narrative (Luke 24:50–53; Acts 1:6–11), which promises the coming of the risen Christ from heaven at a certain point in the now extended future.
Nothing like this is to be found in Mark, as I explore in depth in chapter 4. The experience of the Markan community was different. They were invested in participating in the redemption of the world via self sacrifice for the gospel, and they envisioned a time when the Son of Man, the risen Christ, was going to reissue the mission from Galilee, only that this time the community was going to be empowered to carry it on, thus acting as agents
