wendel1808

“Son of Man”

Hopefully my following discourse will settle a few things about this terminology. Here’s exactly what my Bible notes say regarding this (with my comments in brackets):

Son of Man. Jesus’ most common title for himself, used 81 times in the Gospels [Matthew, Mark, Luke, John] and never used by anyone but Jesus. In Daniel 7:13-14 the Son of Man is pictured as a heavenly figure who in the end times is entrusted by God with authority, glory and sovereign power. [This coincides with Revelations 1:7 and Mark 14:62.] That Jesus used “Son of Man” as a Messianic title is evident by his use of it in (v. 31) in juxtaposition [combination] to Peter’s use of “Christ” (v. 29).


Verses:
Daniel 7:13-14 says, “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was lead into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> His dominion in an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is on that will never be destroyed.”

Mark 14:62 says, “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” The “I am” Jesus is referring to is God, the name He gives to Moses in Exodus. This also refers to the verse that Jesus was fully God and fully man.

Rev. 1:7 says, “Look he is coming [Jesus] with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So it shall be! Amen.”

spin

Wendel1808:
-----------
“Son of Man”

Hopefully my following discourse will settle a few things about this terminology.
-----------

Absolutely nothing new here Wendel1808 old son.

Hopefully, you'll understand the problem. Dan7 as you have it says:

there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was lead into his presence.

Note the one like a son of man. He was not a son of man, merely like one.

Note also He approached the Ancient of Days and was lead into his presence. The one like a son of man was going up to heaven on the clouds to where the ancient of days was. Yet as Mark 14:62 would have it:

“I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Note the one like a son of man has simply become the Son of Man. Would you like to imagine this Son of Man sitting by the Mighty One and coming on the clouds? In Dan the journey is up to heaven, whereas in Mark it is down to us.

Wendel1808:
-----------
Son of Man. Jesus’ most common title for himself, used 81 times in the Gospels [Matthew, Mark, Luke, John] and never used by anyone but Jesus.
-----------

And the lovely thing about all this is that the term wasn't known by the church fathers until the time of Justin Martyr or later. None of the early church fathers knew the usage, though a few knew the Hebrew usage of "son of man".

Paul didn't know the special use of the term, as did no other NT writer than the gospel writers (plus one example in Acts I can see). Hebrews knows the Hebrew usage of the term. Revelation is aware of the simile in 1:13 and 14:14. No-one, however, outside the gospels knew the special use of "Son of Man" until well over 100 years after Jesus's reputed time.

Perhaps there is some other reason why there was total silence for these 100 years or more, but, as it is, it would seem that the use of the Son of Man title wasn't part of the original gospel, despite the fact that it is used over 80 times in the gospels or else the gospels weren't written until l-a-t-e. (I go for the former.)

spin

Wendel1808:
-----------
When Jesus was being crucified on the cross, he cried out to God after the 3rd hour aand cried out, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matt. 27:46).
-----------

Just a small but relevant correction. The majority of manuscripts have Matt with "Eli, Eli, lama, sabachthani?", ie the Hebrew version of psalm 22. It is Mark who has the Aramaic.

(The writer of Matt would correct Mark to be the original text. There would be no reason for the writer of Mark to change it to Aramaic.)

Tristan Scott

Wendell said:

In ch. 8 of Daniel the son of man is Daniel himself. Verse 17: So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.

Also what about Ezekiel, a book that predates Daniel and obviously the gospels. Son of man is mentioned almost 100 times in Ezekiel and certainly is a reference to man himself.

IMO Spin is correct in that the Christians misunderstood (intentionally?)the term.

If Jesus used the term as much as the gospels have him using it, I would think he used it in the way Ezekiel used it. He was referring to himself as a man, perhaps as the Messiah that Daniel fortold, but not a god.

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Tristan Scott ]</p>

Bree

So in other words the Messiah was not supposed to be akin to God in any way whatsoever? Was Jesus acknowledging his status as mere mortal when using the term "Son of Man" or am I missing the point?

Tristan Scott

Bree,

I don't know, he was probably referring to himself as son of man in the way Ezekiel meant it. IMO he never referred to himself as God, to the contrary he seems to always subordinate himself to God.

Akin to God? Jesus always refers to God as his father, or as the father. He probably believed that he (or everyone) was akin to god.

wendel1808

Actually, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" from Matt. 27:46 is a mixture of Aramaic AND Hebrew which Matthew translated, which is also the translation in Mark 15:34. I am reading from the New International Version (NIV) which is a translation made by "over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. It had its beginning in 1965 [...]. Its conclusion was endorsed by a large number of leaders from many denominations who met in Chicago in 1966" (From the Preface of my NIV Bible).

I just looked at the New American Bible and it gives the translation you have provided. So really, neither of us is wrong. My notes in the NIV Bible say that "the bystanders mistook the first words of Jesus' cry "Eloi, Eloi" to be a cry for Elijah. It was commonly believed that Elijah would come in the times of critical need to protect the innocent and rescue the righteous."

The Bible notes in the New American Bible say this about Matt. 27:46, "In Mark, the verse is cited entirely in Aramaic, which Matthew partially retains but changes the invocation of God to the Hebrew Eli, possibly because that is more easil related to the statement of the following verse about Jesus' calling for Elijah."

So, whatever... I'm not about to override what over a hundred scholars said. Who am I to say which translation we have here is correct? Possibly they are both correct because the relevancy is what's important. Jesus was called out to God, not Elijah as some of the bystanders thought. <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

CX

NA27 has GMt 27:46 with:

"HLI HLI LEMA SABAXQANI"

It lists major manuscript variants for HLI HLI as HLOI HLOI in Aleph, B, 33 and some mss of the vulgate.

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]</p>

sidewinder

From the Immaculate Conception to the Son of Man, eh? Well, I've read that scholars are split on if Jesus called himself the "Son of Man" or if his early followers gave him that title, referring back to the Son of Man in Daniel. Given the primary message of Jesus, which was the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God, I wouldn't be surprised if Jesus used this title for himself. On the other hand, it's just as likely that his early followers looked back to Daniel and gave him the title. It's just as likely because his early followers certainly interpreted his message within the context of their religion.

wendel1808

Original post by Tristan Scott:
My answer to this in a nutshell:
Jesus used the term "Son of Man" in the 4 gospels differently than the "son of man" in Ezekiel. In Ezekiel, this term is "poetic" in nature for ordinary man, but Jesus calls himself the "Son of Man" in reference to him becoming the Messiah.

Here's the evidence for my argument (please read it before you slam me!):
In Daniel, it is my understanding that Daniel had a revelation/dream of the end times... of what is still yet to come. Perhaps the NIV translation will help with understanding Daniel 8:17. First off, Daniel is speaking about his vision described in 8:1-14

(Daniel 8:15-17)
While I, Daniel, was watching the vision and trying to understand it, there before me stood one who looked like a man. And I heard a man's voice from the Ulai calling, "Gabriel, tell this man the meaning of the vision." As he [the angel Gabriel] came near the place where I was standing, I was terrified and fell prostrate. "Son of man," he said to me, "understand that the vision concerns the time of the end."

So, the Bible notes direct me to Ezekiel 2:1. If we look back to Eze 1:28 we can see that he (Ezekiel) is also describing a vision, he writes,

(Eze 1:28, 2:1)
Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds of a rainy day, so was the radiance around him. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. When I saw it, I fell facedown, and I heard the voice of one speaking. He said to me, "Son of man, stand up on your feet and I will speak to you."

The word "Son of man" here (Eze 2:1) and in Daniel 8:15-17 is the same. This term "son of man" is used 93 times in Ezekiel, "emphasizing the prophet's [Ezekiel's] humanity as he was addressed by the transcendent God (see note on Psalm 8:4). So, we go over to Psalm 8:4 which says, "what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?" the notes say the "son of man" used here is equivalent to "son of man" in Eze 2:1 and Daniel 8:17, is "often a poetic synonym for 'man'" (NIV notes).

That said, iDa 7:13 and Da 8:17 are the only other places in the OT where the phrase "son of man" is used as a title (besides in Ezekiel). "Jesus' frequent use of the phrase in referring to himself showed that he was the eschatological figure spoken of in Daniel 7:13" (NIV notes).

Again, the phrase "like a son of man" in Da 7:13 is the "first reference to the Messiah as the Son of Man, a title that Jesus applied to himself. He will be enthroned as ruler over the whole earth and his kingdom "will never be destroyed" (Da 7:14), whether on earth or in heaven” (NIV notes). Again, I am referred to Mark 14:62, which says that this particular "Son of Man" saying brings together Da 7:13 and Ps 110:1.

The notes on 110:1 are horrendous, but for argument’s sake, what the heck…
(Psalm 110:1 written by King David) The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

The NIV notes: “My Lord” means my sovereign, therefore superior to David (see Matt 22:44-45, Mark 12:36-37, Luke 20:42-44, Acts 2:34-35, Heb 1:13). “Sit” means sit enthroned. “right hand” refers to the place of honor beside a king (see Psalm 45:9, 1Kings 2:19); thus he [Jesus] is made second in authority to God himself. NT references to Jesus’ exaltation to this position are many (see Matt 26:24, Mark 14:62, 16:19, Luke 22:69, Acts 2:33, 5:31, 7:55-56, Romans 8:34, Ephesians 1:20, Colossians 3:1, Hebrews 1:3, 8:1, 10:12, 12:2). “footstool for your feet.” See Hebrews 10:12-13. Ancient kings often had themselves portrayed as placing their feet on vanquished enemies (see Joshua 10:24). For a royal footstool as part of the throne see 2Chronicles 10:24. For the thought here see 1Kings 5:3. Paul applies this word to Christ in 1Corinthians 15:25 and Ephesians 1:22."

In response to Tristan Scott’s post at the beginning, Bree wrote:
I hope the notes I’ve provided in this word study are helpful. Jesus is akin to God, yet he was on the planet physically as a man and became like man (a sinner) for a moment in time on the cross by God’s divine intervention (see 2Corinthians 5:17-21). Because Jesus was sinless, after death, if any person has accepted the work Jesus did on the cross, God judges Jesus instead of us (Jesus takes our place), see 1Corinthians 1:30 and John 3:16. Otherwise no one could live in Heaven except God and Jesus… every man or woman to ever live was/is a sinner (Romans 3:23-24). No exceptions. (Romans Chapter 10:6-13 talks a lot about this idea of salvation through Christ.)

Essentially, in order to understand how God is Jesus and Jesus lived on earth as “flesh,” yet was still fully God and how God is the Holy Spirit really requires an in depth study of the Bible regarding the Trinity, but I don’t think it’s something a person can rationalize. There are just some things we will never be able to fully comprehend like eternity. If you read 1 Corinthians 13:14 it says, “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.” My NIV notes say, “The benediction [farewell from Paul in his letter to the church of Corinth] is Trinitarian in form and has ever since been a part of Christian worship tradition. It serves to remind us that the mystery of the Holy Trinity is known to be true not through rational or philosophical explanation, but through Christian experience, whereby the believer knows firsthand the grace, the love, and the fellowship that freely flow to him from the three Persons of the one Lord God.”

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> If this does not explain “son of man” to everyone, please post what it is EXACTLY that's bothering you. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: wendel1808 ]

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: wendel1808 ]</p>