JESUS AS THE HIGH PRIESTLY MESSIAH:

PART 2
JSHJ
Journal for the Study ofthe
Historical Jesus
Crispin H.T. Fletcher-Louis voi. 5.1 pp. 57-79
DOl: 10.1177/1476869006074936
St Mary's Bryanston Square © 2007 SAGE Publications
London, UK London, Thousand Oaks, CA
[email protected] and New Delhi
http://JSHJ.sagepub.com

ABSTRACT

Recent study ofthe priesthood in Second Temple life and thought invites a recon-
sideration of Jesus' self-understanding. The appeal to Psalm 110 and Dan. 7.13
indicates that Jesus thought that, although not of priestly lineage, nevertheless he
would ultimately be the nation's king and priest after the order of Melchizedek.
Mark 1-6 contains a programmatic statement of Jesus' claim to a high priestly
identity as the 'holy one of God' (1.24), with a high priestly contagious holiness
(1.40-45; 5.25-34; 5.35-43), freedom to forgive sins (2.1-12) and the embodiment
of divine presence in a Galilean cornfield (2.23-28). As true high priest he makes
divine presence 'draw near' to God's people (1.15), where before they had to 'draw
near' to the Jerusalem temple. The hypothesis that Jesus thought he was Israel's
long awaited eschatological high priest resolves otherwise intractable problems in
historical Jesus scholarship. This is Part 2 of a two-part essay.

Key words: blasphemy, Chaoskampf contagious purity. Day of Atonement, divine

warrior, Enoch, forgiveness. High priest, John the Baptist, Melchizedek, messian-
ism, political theology. Sabbath, Son of Man, temple

Daniel's Son of Man and Israel's True Eschatological High Priest

Once the essentially temple-centred world of Jewish apocalyptic literature is

appreciated, a new perspective on the problem ofthe identity ofthe 'one like a
son of man' of Dan. 7.13 emerges.' This figure is neither a purely suprahuman
angel nor is he simply a symbol for Israel and her coming vindication. Rather,

1. For this 'new perspective' on Jewish apocalyptic see C.H.T. Fleteher-Louis, 'Apoea-
lypticism', in S.E. Porter and T. Holmen (eds.), The Handbook ofthe Study ofthe Historical
Jesus (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming) and C.H.T. Fletcher-Louis, 'Jesus and Apocalypticism', in
S.E. Porter and T. Holmen (eds.). Handbook to the Study ofthe Historicat Jesus (Leiden: Brill,
forthcoming).
58 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus

this individual is Israel's true eschatological high priest. His coming to God with
the clouds evokes the Day of Atonement when the high priest enters God's
presence surrounded by clouds of incense. The scene in Daniel 7 recalls the age-
old Chaoskampf when God does battle with the forces of watery chaos and
climactically defeats them at his holy mountain. Where it used to be the king, as
the representative of the nation, to whom God then delegated all (cosmic and his-
torical) authority, now it is Israel's high priest who receives, sacramentally so to
speak, that authority on Israel's behalf He does so as the truly human being—the
image of God of Gen. 1.26-27—over against the bestial nations.^ Their being is
grounded in chaos whence they emerge. His being is taken up into the life of
God himself. Indeed, his heavenly, cloud-bome, appearance—that is sometimes
adduced as evidence that he is an angel—^befits his high priesthood since in so
many ways that is a divine office. He comes to God as if he is the divine
warrior. And as near-contemporary texts show, on his return to the people from
the inner sanctuary the high priest is a plenipotentiary of God's own power and

2. There is truth, therefore, to the recent proposal by Joel Mareus ('Son of Man as Son
of Adam', RB 110 [2003], pp. 38-61 and J. Marcus, 'Son of Man as Son of Adam, Part II:
Exegesis', RB 53 [2003], pp. 370-86) that in the gospels 6 uioj TOG av9pcoTTOU means 'the
son of Adam', which in a sense is what the high priest was. However, W. Horbury's argument
that biblical psalmody (esp. Pss. 8 and 80) and Septuagintal interpretative translation (esp. LXX
Num. 24.7, 17) shows that 'a/the man' would earry royal messianic significance at this time
(W. Horbury, 'The Messianic Associations of the "Son of Man'", 77536 [1985], pp. 34-55;
W. Horbury, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ [London: SCM Press, 1998], pp. 29-30,
44-45, 50) is problematic. The only interpretations of Psalm 8 attested before the much later
rabbinic Midrash Tehillim identify the 'man/son of man' in that Psalm (v. 4), not with the king,
but with the high priest: Heb. 2.5-8 in context; Ben Sira 49.16-50.1,11 -13 (on which see J.K.
Aitken, 'The Semantics of "Glory" in Ben Sira—Traces of a Development in Post-Biblical
Hebrew', in T. Muraoka and J.F. Elwolde [eds.], Sirach, Scrolls, and Sages: Proceedings of
the Second International Symposium on the Hebrew ofthe Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and the
Mishnah, held at Leiden University, 15-17 December 1997 [STDi, 33; Leiden: Brill, 1999],
pp. 1-24 [10] and C.H.T. Fletcher-Louis, 'The Temple Cosmology of P and Theological
Anthropology in the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira', in C.A. Evans [eds.]. Of Scribes and Sages:
Early Jewish Interpretation and Transmission ofScripture [Library of Second Temple Studies,
50; SSEJC, 9; London: T&T Clark International, 2004], pp. 69-113 [107]). Mark 12.36 (par.
Mt. 22.44) has probably come under the influence of Ps. 8.7 LXX [9.7] with its \JITOKO(TCO
(under) instead of the uiroSoSiov (footstool) of Ps. 110.1. This shows the psalm could readily
be applied to royalty where it is a priestly royalty. And Horbury's royal messianic reading of
the Septuagint's av6puTTOs (man) at Num. 24.7, 17 is not entirely convincing. It should be
contrasted with Targumim that do have 'king (D'^D)' here (see G.S. Oegema, The Anointed
and His People: Messianic Expectationsfrom the Maccabees to Bar Kochba [JSPSup, 27; Shef-
field: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998], p. 45). Given that the Pentateuch sets up Aaron as the
true Adam, it is possible, if not more likely, that the LXX thinks Num. 24.7, 17 predicts a priest,
or a priest and a king (as was the case in Qumran interpretation).
 Fletcher-Louis Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah 59

Glory: he comes from 'heaven' back to 'earth'. The implicit liturgical scene fits
the text's life-setting: the day that the high priest fully comes to God is Yom
Kippur and this is also the day that provides a cosmic purification of a world
that has been defiled hy pagan impurities.
This high priestly reading of Daniel 7 is natural for Jews who inhabited the
world of temple and liturgy that modem scholarship has been so hesitant to
enter. Most in the first century CE will have looked for the fulfilment of Daniel's
vision in the future. Some however, for example the Sadducees, may well have
thought the vision had already heen fulfilled by their Maccabean heroes and
that, thereafter, it continued to be fulfilled by subsequent holders of the high
priestly office.-'
A core set of New Testament Son of Man sayings confirms that this high
priest reading of Daniel 7 was well-known in the first century and taken for
granted by the earliest followers of Jesus. In Rev. 1.13-16 John sees Jesus as
Son of Man (in the image ofthe Ancient of Days), dressed with the distinctive
foot-length robe and golden girdle that the high priest wears on the Day of Atone-
ment(cf.Lev. 16.4; Josephus, ^«/. 3.153-55,159). The Son of Man ofthe gospels
comes in (divine) Glory and theophanic power (Mk 8.38; 13.26), just as the high
priest (far more than any other character) embodies God's Glory (Exod. 28.2,40;
cf, e.g., Sirach 50.7; 2 Enoch 22.8; 4Q405 23 ii) and represents the divine war-
rior. In Mk 14.62 and Q 12.10 the Son of Man title is closely associated with the
issue of blasphemy. Slandering the high priest was blasphemous and therefore
a capital offence, because he represented God; he was God's image (see e.g.
Josephus, Ant. 13.294). Jesus' claim to be the true high priestly Son of Man at
his trial therefore entailed, from the perspective ofthe Sanhedrin, a blasphemous
(and seditious) challenge to the current, 'God-ordained' high priest—Caiaphas.
In Q 12.10 Jesus plays with the ironies inherent in the expression 'the s/Son of
(the) m/Man' and excuses those who in slandering him do not realize that he is
Israel's long awaited true high priest. Those who think he is just a man, a son of
man, will he forgiven their ignorant disrespect, but none can he excused a failure
to acknowledge the work ofthe Holy Spirit through him (and his followers).
The Son of Man is associated with the lightning and thunder (Q 17.24). So
too the high priest (according to Josephus) appears as the divine warrior sur-
rounded by thunder and lightning that are symbolized by his pomegranates and
golden bells {War 5.231; Ant. 3.184). In several texts the Son of Man is pre-
dicted to suffer at the hands of his generation (Mk 8.31; Lk. 17.25 etc.). The

3. There is circumstantial evidence that this is how the Sadducees interpreted the vision
in the way they, in disagreement with the Pharisees, carried out the buming of incense on the
Day of Atonement (see C.H.T. Fletcher-Louis, 'The High Priest as Divine Mediator in the
Hebrew Bible: Dan 7.13 as a Test Case', SBLSP [ 1997], pp. 161 -93 [ 181 -86]).
60 Joumal for the Study ofthe Historical Jesus

clearest Jewish precedent for such suffering—albeit not to the point of death—is
that expected ofthe true high priest (cf. esp. 4QTLevi''with Q 17.24-25).
According to Mk 10.45, the Son of Man came not to he served (cf Dan.
7.14), but to serve and to give (5ouuai) his life as a ransom (AuTpov) for (avxi)
many. This saying has puzzled commentators because, whilst direct linguistic
associations to the suffering servant song of Isaiah 53 are lacking, it is really
hard to know what Jesus means.'* The saying is difficult in large part because the
use ofthe word Auxpov for a human person, rather than for a pecuniary object,
is almost unprecedented. The only parallel to someone giving themselves as this
kind of 'ransom', is the stipulation in Numbers 3 that the tribe of Levi is to be
given (in 3.9 the tribe are Soya 5E5O|J£VO1, 'given for a gift') to serve (3.7-8:
lDiJ'7, LXX has Epycc^EoSai, 'to work') in the sanctuary where they are to act as
ransom monies (Auxpa) in place of (vv. 12,41, 45, avxi) the lives ofthe first-
born ofthe tribes of Israel. That the Son of Man should act as a Auxpov is there-
fore fitting if he is of priestly (or Levitical) pedigree. And a connection between
Dan. 7.13 and Numbers 3 is perhaps also forged through the common use ofthe
verbal root 3"lp 'draw near'. The Levites in Num. 3.6 are 'brought near (DipH)'
to serve as a ransom for Israel'sfirstborn,just as in Dan. 7.13 the one like a son of
man 'came to the Ancient of Days and they brought him near {'7]^1~\p7\) to him'.^
Not all gospel Son of Man sayings require, or overtly carry, priestly connota-
tions.*" However, the overall picture in the gospels of a character who spans the
ontological hierarchy of human, angelic and divine identities, accords best with
the high priestly reading of Dan. 7.13 given the ease with which Israel's true
high priest moves up and down this ladder of being. Two other Son of Man
sayings, the first two of Mark's (and Luke's) narrative (Mk 2.10, 28), are also
only intelligible if the expression can be assumed to refer to one with priestly
credentials. We will discuss these two shortly.

4. The problems posed by C.K.. Barrett ('Mark 10.45: A Ransom for Many', New
Testament Essays [London: SPCK, 1972], pp. 20-26) and Moma D. Hooker {Jesus and the Ser-
vant: The Influence ofthe Servant Concept ofDeutero-Isaiah in the New Testament [London:
SPCK, 1959], pp. 74-79) have never been satisfactorily answered.
5. Thesaerificialuseofthe/!ap/!e/of3np,atforexample Ezra 6.10, 17, indicates that
some might have thought that the 'one like a son of man' was sacrificially 'offered' to the
Ancient of Days (see M. Barker, The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Lit-
urgy (London: T.&T. Clark Intemational, 2003, p. 82, and compare the Greek of Theodotian:
TTpooTixSri (or TrpooriVEx6ri) auTcp). For the high priest sacrificing himself see Philo, Somn.
2.183, 249; cf.ieg. 2.56.
6. In John priestly imagery for the Son of Man is particularly evident in 6.27. For the
Father setting his seal on the Son of Man, compare Exodus 28.11, 21, 36.
 Fletcher-Louis Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah 61

Jesus Priesthood: The Programmatic Picture of Mark 1-6^

Mark 1.14-6.13 can fairly be treated as a literary unit that is programmatic for
the Markan, and the synoptic, profiles of Jesus' ministry. It contains a great deal
that the synoptics have in common with John. It summarizes the key character-
istics of the ministry whilst providing stories that exemplify and provide a
theological foundation for his distinctive behaviour. And much of Mark 1-6 has
figured prominently in the last hundred years of historical Jesus scholarship.
1. Jesus announces the good news of God; 'the time has been fulfilled
and the Kingdom of God has drawn near'. His hearers are to repent
and believe in the good news (Mk 1.14-15). This proclamation ofthe
Kingdom is distinctive of all else that Jesus does and it is widely
acknowledged as a foundational theme for the historical Jesus. About
its meaning there is far less agreement.
2. Jesus calls the twelve (1.16-20; 3.13-19) who symbolize the recon-
stitution of Israel, thereby defining Jesus' ministry as one of national
restoration, which, since the work of E.P. Sanders and for those who
give historical primacy and credibility to the now canonical gospels,
is recognized as central to Jesus' aims and mission.^ These disciples
are to take the message and pattern of ministry that they have learnt
from Jesus to the villages (6.6b-13).
3. Jesus heals the sick. Summary statements of Jesus' healing of many
sick and his casting out of demons that cause illness (1.32-34, 39;
3.10-11) are illustrated through stories of specific, individual heal-
ings. These may be categorized according to several different types:
• Jesus casts out demons or unclean spirits (1.21-28; 5.1-20; cf.
3.20-30), as he will do throughout his ministry in the synoptics.
• Jesus heals by command, by word alone (2.1-12; 3.1-5; cf. 1.21-
28; 5.1-20), as he will do on many other occasions (cf. Mk 10.46-
52; Q 7.1-10; 8.5-13; Lk. 17.11-19; Jn 5.2-9).
• Jesus heals those categories of sick persons and raises the dead
where, ordinarily, physical contact means the contracting of
impurity (a leper: 1.40-45; azaba: 5.24b-34; a corpse: 5.35-43).

7. For other case studies in the influence of priestly categories in the fonnation of Jesus
materials see C.H.T. Fleteher-Louis, 'Revelation ofthe Sacral Son of Man' and 'Jesus Inspects
His Priestly War Party (Luke 14.25-35)', in S. Moyise (ed.), The Old Testament in the New
Testament: Essays in Honour of J.L. North (JSNTSup, 189; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 2000), pp. 126-43.
8. E.P. Sanders, Jestis and Judaism (London: SCM Press, 1985), pp. 95-106.
62 Journal for the Study ofthe Historical Jesus

Again, Jesus' healing ministry will, time and again, bring him into
contact with contagious impurity (cf Q 7.22; Lk. 7.11-17; Jn
11.38-44; cf.Lk. 15.1-2).
4. Jesus is able to forgive sins (2.1-12), as he is at other times too (cf
Lk. 7.36-50; 15.11-32; 23.40-43).
5. Jesus acts on the Sabbath in such a way that he causes offence and is
perceived to be in breach of Torah (2.23-28; 3.1-6). The theme is
reiterated elsewhere (cf. Lk. 13.10-17; 14.1-6; Jn 5.1-18; 9.1-34).
6. Jesus teaches. He proclaims the fact that the time of eschatological
fulfilment has, in some sense, already arrived (Mk 2.18-22; cf. 1.15)
and he teaches in parables (4.1-34).' Both these themes are taken up
extensively in the rest ofthe gospels and it was this material in Mark
which gave CH. Dodd the impetus for his claim that Jesus had a real-
ized eschatology, a thesis which informs all current discussion of
Jesus' eschatology.'° Much hangs on the disputed meaning of Mk
1.15.
7. Jesus meets with opposition (6.1-6a) from those willing to take his
life (3.6; cf. 5.14-29).
Mark has carefully chosen material in the opening chapters of his life of
Jesus so as to encapsulate themes that dominate the Jesus tradition and that he
regards as definitive of his historical life. The way this block is taken up by
Matthew and Luke indicates its programmatic character was clear to its earliest
readers. As a principal primary witness to how Jesus was remembered, these
chapters are of an inestimable significance as a potentially reliable witness to his
historical life.
One obvious reason why Mark has created this literary block is because he
wants the pattern of Jesus' ministry to be the model for that ofthe disciples who
are sent out in 6.6b-13 to do what he does; to heal the sick, to cast out demons,
'to proclaim (the gospel ofthe drawing near ofthe Kingdom) that people might
repent' (6.12; cf. 1.15). An inclusio frames the section. The gospel begins with
the ministry of John the Baptist, before Jesus sets out to proclaim the Kingdom
and call four disciples. The section ends with the disciples setting out to pro-
claim the Kingdom. On their retum the reader is informed of John the Baptist's
grizzly death.

9. The programmatic form ofthe parable ehapter is elear in the way that the Parable of
the Sower is a parable about Jesus' teaching in parables.
10. C.H. Dodd, The Parables ofthe Kingdom (London: Nisbet, 1935).
 Fletcher-Louis Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah 63

A Ministry ofthe Baptist (1.1-11)

B Ministry of Jesus—proclaiming the Kingdom (1.14-15)
C Calling of disciples (1.16-20)

C Disciples sent out (6.7-13)

B' Ministry of disciples—proclaiming and inaugurating the Kingdom (6.12-13)
A' Death of the Baptist (6.14-29)

At a number of points Jesus' behaviour in the material within this inclusio

creates open confiict (forgiving sins, working on the Sabbath and casting out
demons). In each of these cases Mark has Jesus engaged in a dialogue that gives
theological and scriptural justification for his behaviour. His apology for his
deliverance ministry (3.22-30), which then covers all other such incidences,
need not concem us any further. However, Jesus' apology for his pronouncing
the forgiveness of sins (2.1-12) and for his disciples' apparent transgression of
the Sabbath (2.23-28) are bold claims to a high priestly consciousness. And his
healing through touching those with contagious impurity is a matter of interpre-
tative difficulty that, again, is best read through an appreciation of Jesus' belief
that he bears a priestly ontology.

Jesus 'the Holy One of God'

Jesus' first act of healing is the deliverance of a man with an unclean spirit. On
seeing Jesus, the spirit cries out, 'I know who you are Jesus...the holy one of
God (6 ayios TOU 6EOU)' (1.24). The acclamation does not suit a king or a
prophet. God is Israel's Holy One. And angels are often called holy ones. But
the only precedent for a singular Uhe Holy One of God' is Aaron (Ps. 106.16;
Num. 16.7 'the holy one (ofthe LORD)'), who dramatically wins the right to the
title in the battle with Korah and his rebellious company in Numbers 16."
So, does the unclean spirit think Jesus is Israel's tme high priest—the one
appointed to banish all demonic uncleanness?'^ That partly depends whether

11. In 2 Kgs 4.9 Elisha is 'a holy man of God' and in Judg. 16.17 Samson is a holy one of
God (ayios 6EOG). In the Dead Sea Scrolls this use of 'holy one' for the priesthood is inten-
sified. Aaronic priests are 'the holiest ofthe holy ones' (4QMMT B 75-82; cf. 4Q511 35 2-5;
4Q418 81 4) and the laity are the 'holy ones' (4Q511 2 i 6; 4Q511 35 2; 4Q418 81 1, 12). This
usage is probably idiosyncratic to Qumran literature and, from the 4QMMT passage, evidently
polemical towards (mainstream) non-sectarian Jewish parlance. Even if behind Mark's Greek
there is a play between Jesus of Nazareth (mUJ) and Jesus the Nazirite ("l'T3, translated ayiov
OEOG at LXX B Judg. 13.7) a priestly association remains given the connections between the
Nazirite and the priesthood (cf. Lev. 21 and Num. 6).
12. W. Grundmann, Das Evangelium nach Markus (THKNT, 2; Berlin: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 1968), pp. 42-43 (who compares T Dan 5.1 Of; T Levi 18.12); J. Marcus, Mark
1—8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible, 27; New
64 Journal for the Study ofthe Historical Jesus

anything else in the context supports a priestly sense ofthe epithet. Even if this
is what the demon means, does Jesus agree he is worthy of an Aaronic title? Or
does his command that the demon be silent (1.25) entail a rejection of priestly
pretensions? First impressions would suggest the latter. A couple of passages
later, Jesus expressly commands the leper whom he has cleansed to go through
the normal channels of priestly inspection for cured leprosy (1.44-45; cf Lev. 14).
If he thought he was himself a priest he surely would have offered to give the man
a clean bill of health himself On the other hand, perhaps Jesus does, at this point,
believe himself to be a priest but he is not yet happy that that be publicly known.
In any case, the leper needs full reintegration into Jewish society; a process for
which a priest of uncontested credentials is called upon to declare the man clean.

Jesus' Contagious (Priestly) Holiness

Three of Mark's healing stories are noteworthy because the conditions they
claim Jesus healed correspond in content and order to conditions of impurity
which Num. 5.1-4 says require removal from the Israelite camp:
' The LORD spoke to Moses, saying: ^ Command the Israelites to put out ofthe camp
everyone who is leprous (or 'who suffers scale-disease'), or has a discharge, and
everyone who is unclean through contact with a corpse; ^ you shall put out both male
and female, putting them outside the camp; they must not defile their camp, where 1
dwell among them. ""The Israelites did so, putting them outside the camp; as the LORD
had spoken to Moses, so the Israelites did.
In Mk 1.40-45 Jesus cleanses a leper. In 5.25-34 a woman with an abnormal
discharge—a 12-year-long flow of menstrual blood—is healed by touching
Jesus. Immediately after that Jesus comes into contact with corpse impurity,
raising Jairus' daughter from the dead (5.35-43). So, these three stories are
evidently exemplary, notjust because they testify to Jesus' power to heal, but
because in each case Jesus removes contagious impurity.'-'
According to the Torah all who have contact with these three categories of
person are contaminated by their impurity. In each case a period of decontami-
nation, of purification through separation and washings is prescribed. (Being
under the same roof as a leper is enough to contract uncleanness which is
removed, provided one washes, at nightfall;''' anyone who touches a woman

York: Doubleday, 1999), p. 188. The exorcistic setting isfitting:as true high priest Jesus has
responsibility for dealing with all uncleanness, including its demonic form, and for the priestly
and cultic character of authority over the demons see my 'Revelation ofthe Sacral Son of
Man', pp. 278-84.
13. For the three stories' relationship to Num. 5 see Marcus, Mark 1-8, pp. 367-68.
14. J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16 (Anchor Bible Commentary, 3; New York: Doubleday,
1991), p. 876 on Lev. 14.46.
 Fletcher-Louis Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah 65

with an abnormal discharge [a zaba} shall be unclean, and shall wash their
clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening [Lev. 15.27]; eon-
tact with a corpse requires a week-long period of purification and multiple wash-
ings with the waters ofthe red heifer [Num. 19]). Mark is clear that, although on
occasion Jesus could heal by word alone, in these three instances he either goes
out of his way to touch the sufferer (1.41 'stretching out his hand he touched
[fjvlvaTo] him', 5.41 'taking the child's hand he said to her...') or he specifically
heals through physical contact (5.27 'coming from behind she touched [rjvpaTo]
his garment'). In each case contact with contagious impurity is unavoidable.'^
So, does Jesus' touching of these people deemed impure mean that he dis-
regards Old Testament law? Does the emphasis on Jesus' deliberate physical
contact mean that Mark thinks Jesus thought the purity laws to he redundant?
This is the view many have taken. But such a conclusion is not the only one pos-
sible. As Paula Fredricksen argues, we should perhaps assume that the historical
Jesus (and, by the same token, the implied reader ofthe gospels) simply took for
granted the completion of those prescribed periods of purification.'* No one
thinks that the disciples who retrieved and buried John's headless corpse (Mk
5.29) ignored the necessary steps to deal with their corpse impurity, so why
assume that Jesus did so after touching Jairus' daughter?
On the other hand, there is now an emerging consensus championed by
B. Chilton (and taken up by M. Bockmuehl, Craig Evans and Joel Marcus among
others) that a third way through these two alternatives best explains Jesus' behav-
iour.'^ The way Jesus heals means that, instead of the contagion of impurity
flowing from impure to pure, it flows from pure to impure. Or, in the words of
the narrator at Mk 5.30, after Jesus is touched by the haemorrhaging woman,
'.. .aware that power had gone out from him, Jesus tumed in the crowd and said
"who touched me?'". Because Jesus purifies through his power to heal it is not

15. There is some distance between the first and the second stories; however, they evi-
dently form a conceptual succession based on the categories of person in Num. 5. Although
there were perhaps many other stories in which Jesus healed by touch available to Mark (cf.
e.g. Mk 7.31 -37; 8.22-26; Mt. 9.27-31; Lk. 13.10-17; 14.1 -6), since these others are healings of
those not suffering the same contagious impurity, it isfittingthat they were not incorporated
between Mark 1.41 and 5.43. Because Mark 2.1-3.6 and 4.1 -34 were perhaps once separate oral
or literary blocks, the possibility that 1.41-45; 5.24-34; 5.34-43 stood much closer in a pre-
Markan tradition should also be borne in mind.
16. P. Fredriksen, Jesus ofNazareth, King ofthe Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence
of Christianity (London: Macmillan, 2000), pp. 200, 203.
17. B. Chilton, Jesus' Baptism and Jesus' Healing: His Personal Practice ofSpirituality
(Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press Intemational, 1998), pp. 58-71; M. Bockmuehl, Jew/5/7 Lmvw
Gentite Churches: Hatakhah and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics (Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 2000), p. 11; C.A. Evans,' "Who Touched Me?" Jesus and the Ritually Impure', in B.D.
Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Je^M.? in Context: Temple. Purity, and Restoration (AGJU, 39;
Leiden: Brill, 1997), pp. 353-76 (368-69); Marcus, Mark 1-8, pp. 206, 209.
66 Journal for the Study ofthe Historical Jesus

he who contracts impurity; rather, it is the woman who contracts purity.'^ This
means that Mark's Jesus c/Zc?respect the distinction between impure and pure but,
because he is so supercharged with purity, he is not contaminated hy impurity
and does not need to go through the requisite rites of purification. The historical
Jesus may well have undertaken those rites. But the fact that he expressly tells
the purified leper to present himself to the priest in accordance with Torah, whilst
nothing is said of Jesus' own submission to purification rites, expresses the early
Christian view that Jesus thought them unnecessary in his own case.
This interpretation raises yet another question. Treating this material in Mark
as historically trustworthy, is there any precedent for this way of understanding
human interaction, or is this Jesus' original contribution to Jewish purity con-
sciousness, as Bruce Chilton thinks?' ^ And is there any Jewish precedent for the
contagious power to heal and purify flowing from Jesus' garment (that is touched
by the haemorrhaging woman)? No biblical precedent for the distinctive pattern
of Jesus' contagious purity has heen put forward by the commentators.'^" Was
there any? And ifthere is no precedent for this way of thinking in Jewish tradi-
tion, might not this now fashionable notion of contagious holiness be imagina-
tive, but nevertheless fanciful and ultimately implausible within the constraints
of Jewish practice and belief? Might it reflect, therefore, not the behaviour of
Jesus the Jew, but his later 'Christian' followers?

The High Priest's Contagious Holiness

In biblical texts that describe the priesthood and their garments it is clearly stated
that the garments, which define the priestly office, have a contagious holiness.
According to two passages in Ezekiel (42.14; 44.19) the priests must undress
and leave behind their sacred vestments when they leave the temple precincts to
rejoin the people:
Ezek. 44.19 When they go out into the outer court to the people, they shall remove the
vestments in which they have been ministering, and lay them in the holy chambers;
and they shall put on other garments, so that they do not communicate holiness to the
peopte with their vestments.

18. This interpretation goes back to John Chrysostom {Homily on Matthew 25.2).
19. B. Chilton, Jesus' Baptism, p. 63.
20. Gundry {Mark: A Commentary on His Apologyfor the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1993), p. 280) draws a parallel to the numinous, revivifying power of Elisha's corpse in 2 Kgs
13.20-21. But this is not a parallel to the power of a living healer to overcome impurity and there
is no interest in Elisha's garments. Bockmuehl {Jewish Law in Gentile Churches: Halakhah
and the Beginning ofChristian Public Ethics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000), p. 273) compares
lQapGen 20.28-29 and Exod. 29.37. But in the latter text it is the altar not a person that
communicates cleanness and in the former Pharoah's illness, that Abraham heals through the
laying on of hands, is not a case of impurity, but is caused by an 'evil spirit' (cf Gen. 12.17).
 Fletcher-Louis Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah 67

In the Torah it is also stated that ordinarily a high priest must not leave the
sanctuary, nor must he go near a dead body:
Lev. 21.10-12 The priest.. .on whose head the anointing oil has been poured and who
has been consecrated to wear the vestments, ..." shall not go where there is a dead
body; he shall not defile himself even for his father or mother. '^ He shall not go out-
side the sanctuary and thus profane the sanctuary of his God; for the consecration of
the anointing oil of his God is upon him: 1 am the LORD.
The rationale given in Ezekiel—that the vestments communicate holiness to
whatever touches them—is perhaps implicit here. Earlier in the law given at
Sinai, Moses is told that everything that is anointed with the oil of consecra-
tion—and that includes the priestly garments—is supercharged with holiness, so
that 'whatever touches (irois 6 OITTTOIJEVOS) them will become holy' (Exod.
30.29).^'
Ideally, we need to understand what in their original Israelite context these
texts mean. Why would it he a bad thing ifthe high priestly garments came into
contact with the people so that they became holier than they were already? What
in practical terms would this entail? It is, at least clear, however, that this
material might shed some light on Jesus' interaction with impurity, insofar as
the basic understanding of a human agent's interaction with others is the same—
the superholy communicates holiness/purity to the not-so-holy.
For our purposes the more pressing issue is how this material was under-
stood in the first century ofthe Christian era. In Jesus' day was there an active
interest in the ability ofthe priest's garments to communicate holiness? Did
anyone think that the anointed and vested priest had the ability thereby to heal
the sick or overcome the power of death? There is one text near in time to the
New Testament that addresses these questions.
In Wisdom of Solomon 18 there is a story in which Aaron deliberately wears
his garments outside the sanctuary. In Num. 16.41-50, after the rebellion of
Korah, Dathan and Abiram, the Israelites complain against Moses and Aaron. In
defence of his chosen representatives, God's wrath breaks out against the Israel-
ites and they begin to die in large numbers in the camp. Aaron collects some
incense from the sanctuary altar and rushes into the midst ofthe congregation
where he makes atonement for the people and stops the mortal plague. 17,400
Israelites are killed but Aaron's intercession stops the annihilation of the
assembly.
In the biblical story we are not told explicitly whether or not Aaron remem-
bers to take off his garments. Wisdom of Solomon retells the story and is in no
doubt that he kept them on:

21. For reasons that there is not space here to lay out, I disagree with J. Milgrom who
thinks that according to P, unlike Ezekiel, the priestly garments do not communicate holiness
{Leviticus 1-16, pp. 447-49).
 68 Journal for the Study ofthe Historical Jesus

18.20 The experience of death touched aiso the righteous, and a piague came upon the
multitude in the desert, but the wrath did not long continue. ^' For a blameless man
rushed to be their champion; he brought forward the armour of his ministry, prayer
and propitiation by incense; he withstood the anger and put an end to the disaster,
showing that he was your servant, ^^ He conquered the wrath not by strength of body,
nor by force of arms, but by word (or, perhaps, 'by Logos') he subdued the avenger,
appealing to the oaths and covenants given to our fathers. ^^ For when the dead had
already fallen on one another in heaps, standing between he drove back the wrath, and
cut off its way to the living. ^'' For on his foot-length robe the whole world was
depicted, and the glories ofthe fathers were engraved on the four rows of stones, and
your majesty was on the diadem upon his head." To these the destroyer yielded. And
these he feared; for merely to test the wrath was enough.

In this retelling ofthe biblical story (that has several intriguing additions to
the biblical text) two points are clear. (1) Wisdom has Aaron do what Leviticus
(21.10-12) and Ezekiel (chs. 42; 44) say he should not do, that is, he wears his
garments outside the sanctuary. (2) Secondly, where, in Numbers, it is just the
offering of incense that effects atonement, now it is also the high priest's gar-
ments. To these the destroyer, the angelic manifestation of divine wrath, yields
(v. 25). This probably has something to do with the fact that the high priest wears
a diadem on which God's name is engraved—what Wisdom calls God's 'maj-
esty'. The majesty and name of God are already associated in Deut. 32 (v. 3),
and in contemporary texts they are both expressions of creative power over the
forces of chaos (that include death).-^^ As the representative of Israel's god, of
Yahweh, Aaron is able to plead mercy in the face of divine justice. Wisdom
highlights the cosmic significance ofthe garb and this too probahly contributes
to Aaron's ability to withstand the power of death. As an embodiment ofthe
perfect order and beauty ofthe cosmos, Aaron withstands the forces of death,
which would undo that order in the lives ofthe Israelites. Aaron's clothing gives
him a sacramental power over death.
Wisdom does not say that Aaron touches all those whose lives are spared.
(This would be impractical.)^^ But the apocryphon is surely refiecting on the
kind of statements regarding the power ofthe gannents to sanctify, which we
have seen are so important to the biblical priestly tradition. The high priest's gar-
ments emanate a cosmic power that overcomes the physical presence of disease
and death.

22. MAJESTY: T. Levi 3.9 'So, when the Lord looks upon us we all tremble. Even the hea-
vens and the earth and the abysses tremble before the presence of his majesty'. WORD: Heb. 1.3
'.. .and he sustains all things by his powerful word'.
23. The need for physical contact in this context might also be thought unnecessary because
just as the miasmic force of death can be communicated without touch, but merely by overhang
(Num. 19.14-15), so can its opposite.
 Fletcher-Louis Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah 69

So, to an extent, the way Jesus behaves in his interaction with the impurities
of disease and death are less original than Chilton and others have supposed. As
an argument against thinking that Jesus was influenced by priestly notions of
identity, J. Becker asserts that 'no Jew who had a close relationship to the priest-
hood or more generally to the temple could treat the purity laws as Jesus obvi-
ously did'.^"* On the contrary, it now seems that, ifthe Wisdom of Solomon can
be taken as representative of first-century ideas,^^ then Jesus' interaction with
impurity is best understood as analogous to high priestly contagious purity. We
can now be confident that the way of reading the text proposed by Chilton and
others is plausible within the parameters of Jewish thought. But how exactly is
Jesus related to the high priest on this reading ofthe evidence? Does Mark think
that Jesus fulfils and therefore replaces the role of the high priest, or that he
usurps it?
There are significant points of difference between the material in Mark and
Wisdom. First, Jesus praac//Ve/y touches the unclean. Aaron in Wisdom's version
of Numbers 16 does not touch anyone.^* Secondly, Jesus is not a priest in the
usual sense, nor is he dressed as the high priest and, at least in two of our three
passages, his touch is direct, with the hand, and not mediated through clothing
(the leper and Jairus' daughter are taken by the hand). Jesus' contagious holiness,
we might say, is not the product of the apparatus of office, but rather a mani-
festation o'i\\\?, person. However, the fact that in one ofthe three stories it is
Jesus' garments which channel the power that goes out from him invites further
reflection, especially because later on in Mk 6.56 the narrator says that 'wherever
he went, into villages or cities or farms, the sick...begged him that they might
touch even the fringe of his cloak; and all who touched it were healed'. For
Mark, though Jesus did not think it a necessary means of healing, the crowds
focused their attention on his garments' quasi-magical power.
In fact the whole situation is complicated fiirther by the significance ofthe
fringes of his cloak that the sick clamour to touch. These are almost certainly the
tassels {tsitsit) that Israelites are commanded to wear on the comers of their
cloaks in Numbers 15 (vv. 37-41). Those tsitsit are the ordinary Israelites' equi-
valent ofthe tsits; the rosette that bears the name of God on the high priest's

24. J. Becker, Jesus of Nazareth (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1998), p. 215.

25. For another witness to the view that the Aaronic priesthood is to follow the model of
Num. 16.41 -50 in turning back wrath from God's people see the discussion of 4Q418 10 in
C.H.T. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory ofAdam: Liturgical Anthropotogy in the Dead Sea Scrolls
(STDJ, 42; Leiden: Brill, 2002), pp. 180-82.
26. Though this might simply be because the understanding of the miasmic power of
death renders touch unnecessary. In Lev. 21.11 the high priest is told not to go 'over {bvy any
dead body, yet in Num. 17.10-11 (Hebrew) he is expressly to 'atone over {bv "ISD)' the
Israelites. The principle of contagion through overhang is probably operative here (cf Num.
19.14-15).
70 Journal for the Study ofthe Historical Jesus

forehead. In both cases a distinctive 'purple cord (P'^^n ':''ns)' is used, to fasten
the rosette to the turban (Exod. 28.36-37) and within the tassels ofthe cloak
(Num. 15.38). And, like the high priest's garments (Exod. 28.5-6; Josephus,/I/?/.
3.102-103; w. Kil. 9.\;b. Yoma 69a), the ordinary Israelite's tsitsit are a mixture
of wool and linen.-^^ In wearing these tassels the whole nation is 'a kingdom of
priests' (Exod. 19.6). So, although Jesus does not wear the high priest's full
regalia he does wear garments by which the laity are identified with the high
priest. This means that the relationship between Jesus' and the high priest's
contagious holiness is ambiguous.
Is Jesus acting as high priest with the implication that he hereby assumes the
right to hold Caiaphas' office with the dawn ofthe Kingdom? That is one way
of construing his behaviour. On the other hand, perhaps in mediating contagious
holiness through that which symbolized the whole nation's priesthood—the
tsitsit—he was not so much interested in his own, singular, high priesthood as the
fulfilment ofthe call that the whole of Israel be a 'kingdom of priests', sharing
the contagious, restorative ontology ofthe high priest. Jacob Milgrom sees the
tsitsit as 'the epitome ofthe democratic thrust within Judaism, which equalizes
not by levelling but by elevating. All of Israel is enjoined to become a nation of
priests' with the character of royalty symbolized by the precious purple hue.^^
Perhaps this, too, was the way Jesus' power to heal, his contagious holiness,
would have been viewed by his earliest Jewish followers, since they also are
given authority over unclean spirits, to heal the sick (6.7,13).^^ In this case Jesus
is a proto-Protestant undermining the mediatorial role of the clergy through a
priesthood of all believers of which he, as a layman, is the founder and cham-
pion.^'' Jesus is recorded as having taken Isa. 61.1 -2—' The Spirit ofthe LORD is
upon me...'—as thematic for his own messianic consciousness (Lk. 4.18-19; 0
7.22). Perhaps he read on to verse 6 of that chapter of Isaiah and thought its
words were to be fulfilled in all his followers: 'you shall be called priests ofthe
LORD, you shall be named ministers of our God' (cf. Isa. 66.18-21).
Does other material in these early chapters of Mark confirm this priestly
understanding of Jesus' contagious holiness? And is there other material that
clarifies the purpose of Jesus' priestly behaviour for his vision ofthe nation's
eschatological constitution?

27. See J. Milgrom, Numbers (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), p. 413.
28. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p. 414.
29. In the Acts of the apostles healing is communicated through garments (Acts 19.12)
and by the principle of overhang (Acts 5.15).
30. Cf the Levitical priesthood of all Jesus' followers in Lk. 14.25-34 (Fletcher-Louis,
'Priestly War Party').
 Fletcher-Louis Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah 11

The Son of Man in Mark 1-6

Within his programmatic outline of Jesus' ministry Mark includes two Son of
Man sayings that have frustrated and teased modem interpreters. The Son of Man
has authority to forgive sins (2.10) and he is Lord ofthe Sabbath (2.28). These
belong together in so far as they are part of a distinct literary block (2.1-3.6) with
its own loose chiastic structure and thematic development.^' Space prohibits a
comprehensive exegesis of these two sayings in their respective passages. Our
main aim is to show that they confirm the high priestly Son of Man hypothesis
and that each makes a vital contribution to the golden thread of priestly Christol-
ogy running through Mark 1-6. Our first task is to make sense ofthe material in
its current gospel form, before we distil its implications for our understanding of
the historical Jesus.

Jesus' Priestly Mediation of Forgiveness (Mark 2.1-12)

In Mk 2.1-5 Jesus is confronted with a paralytic in a crowded house. He tells

him his sins are forgiven. The scribes present think this is blasphemy since God
alone can forgive sins. What Jesus has said need not amount to the claim that he
himself has forgiven the man's sins. Jesus could be declaring that God has for-
given his sin, perhaps as a result of some prior act of penance and petition.
Assuming the man is not otherwise known to Jesus, this would only amount to
the claim to know, by revelation, what Jesus could not ordinarily know.
But Jesus does not explain away his words so as to avoid altogether the truth
to the scribes' accusation that he believes he himself has power to forgive sins.
But then neither does he claim directly to be able to forgive sins himself. Instead
he speaks ofthe mysterious Son of Man who 'has authority to forgive sins on
earth'. To prove that this Son of Man does have this authority he tells the man to
get up and walk. He is instantly healed. Who is this 'Son of Man' and what is he
doing here? For the gospel writers the title obviously refers to the figure of Dan.
7.13. But any confidence that the historical Jesus used the expression in this (or
a similar context) has been lacking whilst modem commentators have struggled
to find any evidence that Jesus or his hearers would have seen in Daniel 7 any
hint ofthe power ofthe human figure of v. 13 to forgive sins. In Dan. 7.14 the
'one like a son of man' is given 'authority (e^ouoia), glory and kingship', but if
he is an angel, a royal messiah or, merely, a literary symbol for righteous Israel,
then it is not at all clear why anyone would think he has authority to forgive

31. See J. Dewey, 'The Literary Structure of the Controversy Stories in Mark 2.1-3.6',
JflZ. 92 (1973), pp. 394-401.
 72 Journal for the Study ofthe Historical Jesus

sins. So, the appeal by Mark's Jesus to the 'Son of Man' sounds more like tbe
theology ofthe early church than it does the apologetics of a plausible historical
Jesus.
Recent discussion of this story and its historicity has highlighted the fact that
the scribes' initial concern must be understood with reference to the Jerusalem
Temple establishment. There is only one God who forgives sins and he resides
in the nation's temple where he has instituted appropriate mechanisms of atone-
ment. So, E.P. Sanders, J.D.G. Dunn and N.T. Wright all deny that the issue at the
historical heart of this story is christological.^^ That is, the story does not cele-
brate Jesus' unique claim as a human being to do only what God can do. Rather,
Jesus' offence was his challenge to the Temple establishment."
This might mean that what Jesus does is what only priests do in the Temple.
But Sanders, Dunn and Wright all bracket out the Son of Man title from the his-
torical event that has given rise to our story. And, whilst it is generally recognized
that priests have a necessary role in the process by which God communicates his
forgiveness to the people, they provide no precedent for a priest ever saying to a
penitent 'your sins are forgiven' or a priest claiming to have the authority to
forgive sins.^" So the hard historical question remains for both the Markan telling
and any historical event that lies behind it. What possible grounds could Jesus
have for thinking that he has the right to mediate the forgiveness of sins in the
way he does?
These difficulties are eased considerably by the priestly-cultic reading of
Dan. 7.13. If Jesus thinks he is the 'one like a son of man' prophesied in Daniel
then, even though he is not in the Jerusalem Temple, he would have authority—
that stands in continuity with the Mosaic institutions and scriptural prediction—
to mediate forgiveness as priests do in the Temple. Although we do not know
that priests ever told worshippers that their sins were forgiven, what is said ofthe
Son of Man in 2.10 can be derived straightforwardly from biblical statements

32. E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London: SCiVI Press, 1985), pp. 272-74; J.D.G.
Dunn, The Partings ofthe Ways between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for
the Character of Christianity (Philadelphia: Trinity Press Intemational, 1991), pp. 45-46 and
N.T. V^right, Jesus and the Victory of God {London: SPCK, 1996), p. 434.
33. In his more recent work {Jewish Lawfrom Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies [London:
SCM Press, 1990], pp. 60-62), E.P. Sanders has shifted his position. He now thinks forgive-
ness had always been available outside the Temple and without the direct mediation of the
priesthood. Jesus' original offence was the offer of forgiveness without expecting confession
and repentance.
34. In Lev. 4-5 individual sins require sin offerings that are handed over to the priest. The
priest makes the sacrifice and the sinner is promised 'thus shall the priest make atonement on
your/his behalf, and you/he shall be forgiven' (4.26, 31, 35; 5.5, 10, 13, 16). But in none of
these texts does the priest tell the sinner 'your sins are forgiven'. And in these chapters it is not
said that the priest making atonement on the sinners' behalf amounts to him forgiving them.
 Fletcher-Louis Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah 73

about the high priest.-'^ In Exod. 28.36-38, at the end ofthe account of Aaron's
gamients, God commands Moses:
•"• You shall make a rosette (pii) of pure gold and you shall engrave on it the
engravings of a seal 'holy to Yahweh' (or, 'and you shall engrave on it the engravings
of a holy seal: " m n " " ) , " You shall put it on a blue eord that it may be on the turban,
on the front ofthe turban. •"* It shall be on Aaron's forehead and Aaron shall bear/
remove/forgive (i^ti?3, e^apel) the guilt of the holy things that the sons of Israel
sanetify for all their holy donations; it shall always be on his forehead,...

Later in Leviticus Moses becomes angry with his sons Eleazar and Ithamar
because they did not eat ofthe sin offering, but burnt it whole:
Lev. 10.17 'Why did you not eat the sin offering in the sacred area? For it is most holy,
and God has given it to you in order that you may remove/forgive (nt^iij'^, c«))eXriT6)
the guilt ofthe congregation, to make atonement on their behalf before the LORD.

The precise meaning of these two passages in their original historical and
literary contexts is uncertain. For our purposes they offer clear precedent for
Jesus' words in Mk 2.10. Although the LXX does not translate either instance of
the Hebrew verb S!i}] with a(|)ir||Ji—the verb used in Mark—where ^ti}] is used
with sin as its direct object the meaning is usually 'forgive' and c((t)ir||ji is a nor-
mal translation.^^ And in each ofthe Torah passages it is natural to understand
the priests' action as a fonn of forgiveness. In the first it is because Aaron bears
God's name that he is—ritually speaking—Yahweh, and that what he does
entails a removal, a forgiving, ofthe peoples' sins.
We know that some Jews took these passages to mean that the high priest's
job was to take away—to forgive—sin because in 2 Enoch 64 his contempora-
ries come to Enoch at the site of Israel's future temple,^^ they fall in reverential
prostration before him, kiss him and say:
2 Enoch 64.5 You will be glorified in front of the faee of the LORD of all eternity,
because you are the one whom the LORD chose in preference to all the people upon the
earth; and he appointed you...to be the one who earried away the sin of mankind (J
recension; A recension has 'who carries away our sins') and the helper of your own
household.

Enoch has already been installed as high priest in chapter 22 (vv. 8-10) and
here he does what Exod. 28.38 and Lev. 10.17 say he should do: he takes away
the sin ofthe people.

35. For what follows compare M. Barker, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh: T.
& T. Clark, 2000), p. 46; idem. Great High Priest, pp. 48-49.
36. ForSt;: meaning 'forgive' see Num. 14.18; Gen. 18.26; Josh. 24.19; 1 Sam. 15.25;
Ps. 25.18; Gen. 50.17. For ^Ui translated with a^'\x\\i\ see Gen. 18.26; 50; 17; Isa. 33.24; Pss.
25 [LXX 24]. 18; 32 [LXX 31].I, 5.
37. The scene takes place at Akhuzan (64.3), a place name which alludes to the use of
in Ezek. 48.20-21 for Jerusalem as the special property of God (ef. 68.57).
74 Journal for the Study ofthe Historical Jesus

In Mk 2.1-12 Jesus appeals to the high priestly Son of Man's authority to

'forgive'—to remove—sins as the justification for his declaring ofthe paralytic's
sins forgiven. To a degree this is entirely reasonable and should not cause theo-
logical difficulty for his scribal detractors. However, the precise intent of Jesus'
appeal to the Son of Man is ambiguous. Jesus' words can be taken in one of two
ways.
On the one hand, the reader of Mark will discover (if [s]he does not yet
already know it) that Jesus thinks he himself is the Son of Man. This means that
Jesus' claim to be the eschatological high priest entails a serious breach of Mosaic
protocol in two respects. First, forgiveness can only be dispensed through the
priesthood that serves in the temple. Jesus is offering forgiveness in a Galilean
village. And secondly, Jesus' claim to be the Son of Man entails an implicit
challenge to the serving high priest (Caiaphas) who would regard such a threat
as blasphemous.
On the other hand, Jesus does not say 'I am the Son of Man and as such I
have the right to forgive sins'. For his ability to do what he does—command the
paralytic to get up and walk—Jesus refers his audience to the authority of
another: the Son of Man. This could therefore be heard to say no more than that
Jesus believes his healing power is derived from the sacramental authority of a
legitimate high priestly Son of Man. In this case, Jesus could perhaps have in
mind a Son of Man who is already waiting in heaven to be revealed (cf. the Simi-
litudes of Enoch), and who now through his servant Jesus can forgive sins 'on
earth'. Since some probably believed that the post-Hasmonean, Sadducean priest-
hood already ftilfilled the vision of Daniel's 'one like a son of man', Jesus could
even be heard to say that his healing power is possible because Caiaphas serves
as the nation's high priest and has, thereby, taken away the paralytic's sins.
With the high priestly reading of Dan. 7.13 the historical Jesus' appeal to
that verse in the way Mark describes is entirely fitting and need not reflect a
later church perspective.-'^ Although for Mark himself there is no ambiguity in
Jesus' claim to forgive as the Son of Man, for the immediate audience Jesus'
point is veiled. This too is historically understandable. As we have seen it would
make sense for Jesus to speak only elliptically of himself as the Son of Man
early in his ministry. As the fateful end to his ministry proved—after the events
of passion week and at his interrogation before the ruling council—an open
declaration that he believed himself to be the priest-king of Dan. 7.13 (and Ps.
110) meant a direct challenge to the serving high priesthood; an act of blas-
phemy worthy of death. That said, a few episodes later Jesus is more open and
explicit in his claim to act as the true eschatological high priest.

38. Jesus need not have used ^^ for his reference to Exod. 28.38 and Lev. 10.17 to be
heard. Whilst t^tiJJ does occur in Aramaic, other verbs translate the Hebrew in the Targums to
Exodus and Leviticus.
 Fletcher-Louis Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah IS

Jesus' Priestly Prerogatives over the Sabbath (Mark 2.23-28)

In Mk 2.23-28 Jesus' disciples pluck grain whilst walking through the cornfields
on the Sabbath. Some Pharisees complain that this breaks the Sabbath. Jesus
apologizes for his disciples' actions, first by appeal to the actions of David and
his men in eating the bread ofthe presence in 1 Samuel 21, then by a cryptic
statement about the Sabbath being made for man and not vice versa and, lastly,
with the assertion that 'The Son of Man is Lord even ofthe Sabbath'. Again
problems of interpretation in this passage abound and there is not space to
address them all. The high priestly understanding ofthe Son of Man title solves
the text's principal difficulties.-''
In brief*" Jesus agrees that, in principle, what his disciples do infringes the
Sabbath.'*' And the David story does not at first blush offer them a loophole. In
several, but not all, respects the story in I Samuel 21 is analogous to the situ-
ation for Jesus' disciples. David and his disciples eat the bread ofthe presence
on the Sabbath. This must be the case because the bread is only removed from
the sanctuary on the Sabbath to be replaced by new bread for the week ahead
(Lev. 24.5-9; cf. 1 Sam. 21.6). And Jesus is of Davidic lineage. So he and his
disciples wander around the Galilean countryside like David and his band of
merry men. But otherwise 1 Samuel is an imperfect parallel to the Jesus situation.
What the priests do on the Sabbath in the temple, including their preparation
and eating ofthe bread ofthe presence, is a work."*^ This is perfectly legitimate
because the temple is a time and space with an ontology that transcends that of
the world outside. Work in the temple is allowed on the Sabbath, because, at
least according to some, it is God's own work in an Eden free of the curse
imposed on labour.''-' The behaviour of David and his men would provide a
precedent therefore for Jesus and his disciples acting as priests ifthe latter were

39. Given the priestly material throughout this section, it is not a coincidence that
between the first (2.1-12) and the second Son of Man (2.23-28) passages in Mark, Jesus is
recorded calling a tax-collector called Levi (2.13-17). Jesus' restoration ofthe nation entails a
reconstitution, a purification, of her Levitical leadership.
40. What follows develops the insights of B. Chilton and J. ^txisntv, Judaism in the New
Testament: Practices and Beliefs (London: Routledge, 1995), p. 142.
41. With Sanders {Jewish Law, pp. 12-13, 19-21), against P.M. Casey ('Culture and
Historicity: The Plucking ofthe Grain (Mark 2.23-8)', ATS 34 (1988), pp. 1-23 (5-6).
42. According to 1 Sam. 21.6 the bread ofthe presence is hot on the Sabbath. It is
therefore cooked on that day. This passage may well have presented a difficulty for some
Pharisees since later rabbinic tradition says that the bread ofthe presence is not cooked on the
Sabbath (Chilton and Neusner, Judaism in the New Testament, p. 142).
43. See esp. Fletcher-Louis, 'The Temple Cosmology of P', pp. 107-1 12, on Sirach
50.14-21.
76 Journal for the Study ofthe Historical Jesus

in the temple in Jerusalem. But they are in a Galilean cornfield. The David story
only provides a precedent if the Galilean cornfield has the legal status of the
Temple (or Tabernacle).
Other details of Jesus' apologetic show that this is precisely what he claims.
He is the Son of Man, the true eschatological high priest. According to Exodus,
it is the high priest, properly dressed, ordained (with oil, blood and through the
eating ofthe bread ofthe presence, Exod. 29), and performing the daily temple
office, who brings about the presence of God in the sanctuary. He is the physi-
cal, human embodiment ofthe divine Glory (Exod. 28.2,40), the image-idol of
Israel's god, whose ordination (Lev. 8-9, esp. 9.23) and subsequent offering of
the Tamid sacrifice (Exod. 29.42-45) sanctifies the tent of meeting guaranteeing
the continual presence ofthe LORD. Holiness of place is dependent on the sancti-
fying presence of holy humanity, perfectly embodied in the (high) priesthood. If
Jesus is the true eschatological high priest, then it stands to reason that whereever
he may be there rests the sacred space ofthe true temple. And if David's men can
eat the bread ofthe presence at a sanctuary at Nob (1 Sam. 21.1), why cannot
Jesus set up a new sanctuary for his disciples in the Galilean countryside?
Several points confirm that this is the logic of Jesus' argument. In 1 Samuel
21 David, and even more so his men, are passive participants in the story. They
simply eat the bread that is given to them by the priest (21.6 'So the priest gave
him the holy bread...'). They have kept themselves holy by abstaining from
sexual intercourse over the previous days, but neither they nor David act as
priests beyond eating the bread that, according to Mosaic law, is reserved for the
priests. However, the way Jesus tells the Old Testament story, Dav/c/plays the
role ofthe priest who enters the sanctuary on the Sabbath to collect the old bread
and distribute it to his fellow priests: David 'entered the house of God.. .ate the
bread ofthe presence... and gave it to those with him' (Mk 2.26).'*''
Jesus' use ofthe high priestly Son of Man title not only follows logically
from his claim to act as priest(-king), it also resonates in other ways. Jesus says
the Son of Man is Lord ofthe Sabbath. This accords well with the fact that Dan.
7.13 envisages the fiiture arrival of a high priest on the Day of Atonement, that is,
the 'Sabbath of Sabbaths' (Lev. 16.31; 23.32). Yom Kippuris the day of cosmic
purgation when creation recovers its rest; a rest that Jesus now gives to his
weary disciples. Mark 2.27 relates the Son of Man figure to the Adam for whose
benefit the Sabbath came about according to Genesis 1. The conceptual transi-
tion between verses 27 and 28 is natural within the cultic worldview, where the
God-intended humanity of Genesis 1 is recapitulated, and sacramentally recon-
stituted, in Israel's priesthood, in the temple-as-microcosm. As true high priest b

44. Compare the fragmentary account of the changing of the bread of the presence in
2Q24 frag. 4 and 11Q18 frag. 20. There the sequence is: entry into the hekhal, taking and distri-
bution ofthe bread to be shared amongst the priests outside.
 Fletcher-Louis Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah 11

ToG au9pcoTTOU is both 'Son of Man' and 'Son of Adam';"*^ the one who
extends the Sabbath rest for the good of his fellows.
Jesus justifies his disciples' breach ofthe Sabbath because he claims to be a
sacral king and high priestly Son of Man. Where he is, in that place there is the
transcendent liturgical space and time ofthe true temple in which his disciples
can legitimately act as priests for whom the Sabbath prohibition against work
does not apply. The logic of Jesus' argument is dense and the christological
claims more veiled than they will be when Jesus stands in the Sanhedrin and
claims to be both Daniel's 'one like a son of man' and the priest-king of Psalm
110. Jesus' identification with David is only inferential and it is possible that in
his original Aramaic Jesus' reference to the Son of Man as the definite figure of
Dan. 7.13 was not immediately picked up by all. The audience's recognition of
the high priestly Son of Man title might have been drowned out by the sound of
the more recognizable claim to Davidic privilege. On the other hand, to the atten-
tive reader/hearer Jesus' argument is straightforward, and it is entirely under-
standable that only a little later the Pharisees and Herodians band together to
conspire to destroy him (3.6). Their cabal nicely anticipates the open conflict
between Jesus and the Sanhedrin when the secret of Jesus' twofold messiahship
is no longer hedged about by scriptural typology and cryptic soundbites.

Conclusion

Mark 1-6 is a programmatic statement of Jesus' ministry; its character and his
identity, as he was remembered. Jesus is hailed as a (probably) royal Son of
God by the demons (3.11; 5.12), but is also recognized to be i\\&priestly 'holy
one of God' (1.24). In several key respects his ministry extends, or takes over,
that of the temple priesthood. He has a contagious holiness, mediates the for-
giveness of sins and brings the reality ofthe temple to those around him, such
that Sabbath laws for life in the land are replaced by those for the sanctuary. For
one of any number of reasons, Jesus respects the God-ordained role ofthe priest
in inspecting and declaring cleansed a healed leper (1.44). (Perhaps [at this stage
in his developing self-consciousness?] he did not think his own priesthood need
entail any conflict with that ofthe Aaronic line. Or perhaps he believed it did
necessarily entail such conflict, but that the time was not yet right to openly and
publicly ignore the Mosaic dispensation [which in fact he believed now to be
relativized]. And, of course, if 1.44 is historical its historicity cannot be assessed
apart from the Markan secrecy theme).
Only in one of these passages does Jesus openly state his priestly conscious-
ness (2.23-28) and even there, some in his audience may have missed it. When

45. See J. Marcus, 'Son of Man Part 11', RB 53 (2003), pp. 370-86 (374-76).
78 Journal for the Study ofthe Historical Jesus

the man with the unclean spirit declares him the priestly holy one of God, Jesus
is anxious that the matter not be broadcast (1.25; cf. 3.11) and his relationship to
the Son of Man who forgives sins is opaque. But with the passages that follow
the implied reader of the whole is bound to tie together the threads and see
emerge a consistent picture of Jesus as the nation's true eschatological Son of
Man. After passion week and his trial, Jesus' claim to be both messianic king
and priest can be seen to have grown straightforwardly from the character of his
first acts of ministry. But even there his high priestly consciousness is
inextricable from a concem to extend priestly privileges to his followers.
One final exegetical suggestion clarifies the point ofthe material in Mark 1-
6 we have examined. In Mk 1.15 Jesus proclaims 'the time is fijlfilled and the
Kingdom of God has drawn near (riyyiKSv)'. Much exegetical ink has been spilt
over the choice ofthe verb eyyi^co, and the precise meaning ofthe perfect tense
in this context. I suggest that for Mark the point is that the reality of God's
presence that has hitherto been present primarily in the temple and her priest-
hood is now available not (just) in Jerusalem but also in the towns and villages
of Galilee. Those who go to the temple to worship 'draw near (Vzilp Heb. and
Aram.)' (to God) (Exod. 16.9; Lev. 9.5; Deut. 4.11; Ps. 65.5 [4]; cf. Exod. 12.48;
4Q400 1 i 6). And those who are ordained are similarly drawn near (Priests:
Exod. 40.12,14; Lev. 7.35; 8.6,13,24; Levities: Num. 3.6; 8.9,10). So, in a nar-
row sense, only those ordained can draw near to God (Num. 16.5, 9, 10; 17.5;
Lev. 21.17). Now, according to Mark's Jesus, with the eschatological arrival of
the Kingdom of God, the potent reality of God's presence has proactively drawn
near to his people.'*'' They no longer need to go to him in Jemsalem to encounter
the Kingdom because its reality (forgiveness of sins, the temple's experience of
Sabbath rest and contagious healing holiness) are coming to them. By the same
token, the Kaipos (time) that is now fulfilled is not just eschatological: it is
quasi-liturgical (cf. the semantic range ofthe Hebrew '^lS^'D, 'appointed time,
festival, season').
This last unit of Markan text, along with the others we have examined, plays
a central role in contemporary historical Jesus scholarship. And in each of these
passages recognition ofthe high priestly Christology produces a clearer inter-
pretation and a more historically plausible record of events and ofthe ipsissima
verbajesu. Together these passages confirm our reading ofthe synoptic evidence
for the end of Jesus' life and ministry as an historically coherent account of his
final conflict with the authorities. Jesus' appeal to Psalm 110 in Mk 12.35-37
indicates he cherished a definite political theology—mle by a priest-king after

46. For the strongly eultie sense ofthe Kingdom of God see The Songs ofthe Sabbath
Sacrifice (4Q400-407; 11Q17 and Mas 1 k); Wis 10.10; 2 £n. 1.3 and G. Theissen and A. Merz,
The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (London: SCM Press, 1998), pp. 246-52;
Fletcher-Louis, 'Apocalypticism' and Fletcher-Louis, 'Jesus and Apocalypticism'.
 Fletcher-Louis Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah 79

the order of Melchizedek—and his self-referential citation of Psalm 110 in

combination with Daniel 7 at his trial explains his death for his own version of
that theology. There is now substantial evidence that in saying what he did at his
last, Jesus simply spoke openly ofthe self-consciousness that he had had since
the start of his ministry: he had always believed he was both tme king and priest
and he had acted accordingly. To be sure, his priesthood does not conform to
much that seems required by Torah. But Mark thinks Jesus was able to account
for those differences with reference to the over-arching prophetic authority of
the biblical metanarrative. Could not Jesus have thought the same?
A fuller reflection on those differences and an investigation of this material
in relation to all else that can be known about the historical Jesus is a longer
study. At the very least, there is now a need to reopen the hitherto rather thin
scholarly file on the relationship between Jesus' self-consciousness and that of
the priesthood.