¹ Cf. D. BOCK, Luke II (BECNT; Grand Rapids 1996) 1776; I.H. MARSHALL, The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids 1978) 847-848: "¼the evidence suggests that his [Luke’s] account of the trial is based on a separate tradition which is more primitive than that in Mk"; G. SCHNEIDER, Verleugnung, Verspottung und Verhör Jesu nach Lukas 22,54-71 (München 1969) 105.

² J. FITZMYER, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV (AB 28a; New York 1985) 1458.

³ FITZMYER, Gospel, 1492: "These questions¼echo the double angelic announcement in the infancy narrative¼What was foreshadowed in the infancy narrative¼reaches with crescendo its climax in this scene". This essay looks to explain this affirmation through use of a consciously repeated structure and to draw out some of the implication of Son of God at this climactic point.

⁴ BOCK, Luke, 1798: "‘Son of God’ in this context is ambiguous and, without the additional remarks of Jesus, could have been taken to mean ‘Messiah’"; but the additional remarks of Jesus do not spell out for the Sanhedrin any figure other than the Messiah — it is impossible to claim that Jesus is defining, by his future exalted status, a relationship with God that, on the one hand, explains his unique relationship during his public life with his Father and, on the other hand, says anywhere near as much as does Luke 1,35.

⁵ While I am not in total agreement with all that M. Gourgues says about what the Sanhedrin understands in this Lucan dialogue, his opinion is very worthwhile, M. GOURGUES, A la droite de Dieu (Paris 1978) 147: "‘Fils de Dieu’ connote alors l’idée d’adoption, d’intimité et de protection particulière de la part de Dieu. Dans notre passage, le titre doit être compris à cette lumière. Il y a peut-être un sens équivalent à ‘Messie’, y ajoutant cette idée que celui-ci est objet de faveur et de protection de la part de Dieu. Il faut noter cependant que,dans le judaïsme antérieur à l’epoque chrétienne, aucun texte ne témoigne d’une application nette du titre ‘Fils de Dieu’ au ‘Messie’. Aussi bien est-il préférable d’y reconnaître le sens de ‘roi’".

⁶ The saying of Jesus is generally regarded as being due to redaction, because as MARSHALL, Gospel, 850, notes, from the point of view of historicity, "¼the question of the Son of man [especially as Jesus puts it in Luke] did not play any part in the Lucan tradition of this trial"; on the other hand, MARSHALL, Gospel, 849, notes that "¼it is highly probable that the question of Messiahship came up at the Jewish investigation".

⁷ Significant is Stephen’s exclamation that he saw "the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God" (Acts 7,56). This formulation reflects the identity of Jesus as one other than the Messiah; that the two figures are brought together there is need, in the minds of some (including Jesus), to link compositely the standing "at the right hand of God" with the sitting of Psalm 110 "at the right hand of God".

⁸ Son of Man and The Power signal a Palestinian context for Jesus’ statement; also, The Power appears to be a reverential avoidance of the classical Hebrew title for God (cf. Psalm 54,3; Jer 16,21; Exod 9,16); Cf. G. DALMAN, The Words of Jesus (Edinburgh 1902) 200. This last point gives rise to the suggestion that "for the benefit of gentile readers Lk adds tou= qeou=", M. ZERWICK – M. GROSVENOR, An Analysis of the Greek New Testament I (Rome 1974) 275; cf. MARSHALL, Gospel, 850.

⁹ Cf. C. EVANS, "The Twelve Thrones of Israel", Luke and Scripture (eds. C. EVANS – J.A. SANDERS) (Minneapolis 1993) 156: "The ‘son of man’ of Dan 7:13-14 was apparently understood in a messianic sense prior to Christianity"; 190, n. 75: "There is evidence that this psalm [110] was understood messianically prior to Christian usage (probably beginning with the Hasmonean rulers)". That these two pieces of data could be put together to eventually create the thought that the Psalm was to be understood to promise a Messiah who would be the Son of Man and who would be commanded to sit at God’s right hand — this seems both to be reasonable and to be an exegesis reached not only by others but also by Jesus. That Luke would not be the creator of this exchange of Son of Man and Messiah (contra, e.g., H. TÖDT, Der Menschensohn in der synoptischen Überlieferung [Gütersloh 1959] 96), but the inheritor of a tradition rooted in Jesus’ own understanding of the Tradition, makes it easier to see why, in the same chapter (24), Luke would speak once of the Son of Man and then twice of the Messiah — always in the same context of suffering and glorification.

¹⁰ Another possible answer draws on the use of o( e)klekto/j, at the cross, subsequent to this trial (23,35) and placed on the lips of the "leaders". The similar description, o( e)klelegme/noj, appears as with ui(o/j mou at Luke 9,35. Thus, there seems to be a certain affinity between Son of God (in the Messianic sense) and Messiah through "the Chosen One", and this affinity could account for the interchange of Messiah for son of God at Luke 22,66-71.

¹¹ My literal translation of Psalm 109,3 from A. RAHLFS, Septuaginta II (Stuttgart 1935) 124: "With you is dominion in the day of your power in the splendor of the holy people; from the womb, before bearer of light, I have begotten you".

¹² In line with what we know of Rabbinic rules of exegesis of the time (in our case: gezerah shevah), one would legitimately interpret Psalm 2,7 with the help of Psalm 110,3 by the shared phrasing: e)cege/nnhka/ se (Psalm 110,3) and gege/nnhka/ se (Psalm 2,7).

¹³ Luke’s is not the only writing which suggests a reading of Psalm 110 to clarify the significance of Jesus. The Letter to the Hebrews represents a tradition which has woven together the descriptions of the One seated at God’s right hand, the Son of God, and the High Priest — all appellatives to be found in the verses of Psalm 110.

¹⁴ E. LOHSE, "ui(o/j", TDNT VIII, 360: "[Israel] employed ‘son of God’ only when quoting the Messianic promises and elsewhere avoided this term for Messiah".

¹⁵ FITZMYER, Gospel, 1467: "Jesus’ declaration asserts the exaltation of himself as the Son of Man and of his investiture with power". While Jesus’ session at the right hand of the Lord can be imagined as an "investiture with power", one must, given the Lucan framework, distinguish this moment from the moment of the investiture of that power experienced in the public life of Jesus since the time of his baptism. Indeed, essentially that power during his lifetime included forgiveness of sins, raising the dead to life, expulsion of demons; how is one to distinguish this power from that with which Jesus is invested at his session at God’s right hand?

¹⁶ Contrary, J. NEYREY, The Passion According to Luke (New York 1985) 71: "[Luke 22,66-71] serves Luke’s purpose to describe a solemn, valid and formal trial of Jesus by Israel"; yet he will admit that there is "no capital sentence" (75).

¹⁷ Apparently it is Luke who has adjusted the Marcan report about the continuous shout about Jesus’ being "the blessed one who is to come": Luke prefers the shout to be: "Blessed is the one coming, the King, in the name of the Lord" (Luke 19,38 drawing upon Psalm 118,26; such texts as Zech 9,9 and Zeph 3,15-17 seem to have had their influence in this matter of the "King", too).

¹⁸ Cf. FITZMYER, Gospel, 1467: "The conj. oun does not merely repeat the former question, but draws a conclusion from Jesus’ answer to the first question".

¹⁹ J. NOLLAND, Luke (WBC 35b; Dallas 1993) 1112: "Son of God" is an exalted status and relationship to God experienced by the messiah, but for the interrogators there is only a heightened repetition of their probe about messiahship in v. 67".

²⁰ Cf. MARSHALL, Gospel, 851: "It is unlikely that divine Sonship is regarded simply as a metaphorical attribute of the Messiah"; FITZMYER, Gospel, 1463, is still clearer: "The title huios tou Theou is not to be understood as a mere equivalent of christos; more is implied"; cf. also H. TÖDT, Menschensohn, 96-97: "Dabei erhalten die verwendeten Würdenamen der Christus, Menschensohn, Sohn Gottes so verschiedene Bedeutungsnuancen, dass von einer sachlichen Identität nicht zu sprechen ist".

²¹ SCHNEIDER, Verleugnung, 184-185, prefers to interpret Son of God in terms of Jesus’ obedience to his Father, "Jesu Verbundenheit mit dem Vater, ‘Christus Gottes’, ¼der [Titel] den Gesalbten auf seinen heilsgeschichtlichen Weg leitet und begleitet". Certainly, a facet of Sonship is obedience to the Father, as the answers of Jesus to temptation show; but, for Luke in the final analysis, it is the holiness of Jesus that accounts for his obedience, the holiness (like Jesus’ Sonship) which is spoken of in the angel’s revelation to Mary at Luke 1,35. "In Stage I [which represents the time of Jesus] of the gospel tradition the question [v.67] would have been asked in the political sense. But in Stage III [the time of Luke’s writing] Luke obviously intends the question to carry a deeper christological nuance as well", FITZMYER, Gospel, 1466-1467.

²² One might make the same observation when confronted with an earlier combination of these same titles at Luke 4,41, a text wherein one recognizes once again a Lucan redaction of Marcan material: it is Luke who again brings these two titles into a proximity which can only make one aware again that he has carefully distinguished them in the Annunciation scene. A glance at Luke’s Acts of the Apostles reveals the same phenomenon: Paul proclaimed that Jesus was Son of God (9,20) and ‘proved’ that Jesus was the Messiah; the differentiation of verbs here is crucial to begin to point up that for Luke Messiah and Son of God are quite different in meaning. (Cf. the apposite remarks of J. FITZMYER, The Acts of the Apostles [New York 1998] 435).

²³ Cf. J.J. KILGALLEN, "The Conception of Jesus (Luke 1,35)", Bib 78 (1997) 225-246.

²⁴ MARSHALL, Gospel, 851, would rather find another key to explaining the Sonship of Jesus: "For Luke, sitting on the right hand of God is tantamount to divine Sonship"; cf. TÖDT, Menschensohn, 96: "Diese unmittelbare Folgerung [Messiah, Son of Man at the right hand of God] setzt voraus, daß die sessio ad dexteram dei ein Charakteristikum der Gottessohnstellung ist". I would prefer to think that, for Luke, the session of Jesus at God’s right hand is an indicator of Sonship, but that the explanation can only be found in the Annunciation scene. The resurrection-ascension of Jesus, according to Peter’s Pentecost speech, produced justification for the titles Messiah and Lord; there was no mention there of Son of God. Later, in Paul’s speech at Antioch, Psalm 2,7 is used, by which a connection is drawn between being "my son" and "begetting today". This "begetting today" refers to the resurrection, but, given the sequence of statements in the Psalm, sonship seems to be the reason for the "begetting" or resurrection, rather than vice-versa.

²⁵ Cf. LOHSE, "ui(o/j", TDNT VIII, 360: "¼sonship was not construed as physical descent in these OT sayings, but rather as expressing the ruler’s validation by God"; but E. SCHWEIZER, "ui(o/j", TDNT VIII, 382 does apparently not see any distinction between this OT view and Luke’s view: "Since Luke was not interested in the biological question¼". Certain elements of biology are not in the Annunciation story, but that the birth caused by God is biological is the Lucan claim.

²⁶ D. CATCHPOLE, The Trial of Jesus (Leiden 1971) 197: "[H. TÖDT, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Traditions (London 1965) 101-103] argues that Luke has a different conception of the christological titles mentioned in Mk 14.61f. But this is not so, for Luke’s own view emerges from the redactional activity at Lk 4.41, as well as from Acts 9.20-22, and it is exactly that of Mk 14.61f. In Luke 4.41, Luke is redacting Mk 1.34¼This shows irrefutably the equivalence of the titles in Luke’s own mind". That Luke rewrites Mark 1,34 with the combination of titles, Son of God and Messiah, does not mean that Luke thinks the titles are equivalent. Rather, one can say, as I am arguing analogously in this essay about the use of the titles in Luke 22, that the demons, like the Sanhedrin, used the titles interchangeably. The demons here see that the powers of Jesus, the powers of the Messiah, are also the powers of the Son of God; but that demonic perception, based on such mighty powers, in no way means to exclude or even include what Luke and his reader know about Jesus from Luke 1,35. (That the demons speak of "the" [ho] Son of God is curious and interesting.) One might also note the view of NOLAN, Luke, 1109, given many years after that of Catchpole, "Luke is not known for creating parallelisms, so the parallelism here [Luke 22,66-71] is likely to be from a source". This would mean, pace Catchpole, that Luke is not strictly speaking "redacting" Mark, but turning to another source (cf. NOLAN, Luke, 1109). This in turn means that Luke, at 4,41, implies that he wants a source with a double reference to Jesus and not Mark’s phrasing. And why does he want to change Mark? Simply to convey twice, through different titles, the identical meaning for Jesus?

²⁷ One might take exception to this statement by citing the story of Jesus’ being found in the Temple, specifically by citing Jesus’ question, "Must I not be in the work of my Father (in my Father’s house)?" (2,49). Certainly, this question does not repeat verbatim what is in Luke 1,35, but its assertion of Sonship is based totally and only on that text; moreover, the activity of Jesus in the Temple is the point of proleptic affirmation of at least a major part of what it will mean to be Son of God (1,35) in Jesus’ public life: teacher to Israel from God.

²⁸ Cf. J.-N. ALETTI, Il Racconto come Teologia (Roma 1996) 20: "In tutti questi racconti [included in this group is Luke 1,26-38, p.17] gli interventi divini fanno parte del tessuto narrativo e la loro importanza non dev’essere minimizzata, perché hanno una funzione programmatica¼". J.-N. Aletti is usually here referring to divine interventions which result in action, but it is clear from the Annunciation scene that the ruler of the house of Jacob is not only announced, but identified and defined: the Messiah from the house of David, known to be the adopted son of God, is in reality, to be known by the reader as mysteriously the result of the Power and Spirit of God within the womb of a woman.