How does one explain "Son of Man"?

[PioYapJr]

I am not a theologian, so this is just my ten-cents worth:
By calling Himself the Son of Man Jesus is calling attention to the fact that he is the **quintessential **human being. As such therefore He is the best representative of the human race which qualifies Him to atone or pay for the sins of the humanity. Of course this atonement has infinite merit because aside from being Son of Man, He is also Son of God.
My point is that justice demands that the Sin of humanity be paid by a human being and not be simply forgiven by God. The Incarnation is the divine solution to the problem of forgiveness without sacrificing justice.

 

[Lisa44]

This is a good question.
I like to turn to Jewish sources because it is afterall, their language and culture.
jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=965&letter=S

Personally, I would have to bet it meant something very common in Aramaic to denote the self. I say this because it is used often and that makes me think that it is a way of speaking that they used in those times.

"In the Gospels the title occurs eighty-one times. Most of the recent writers (among them being II. Lietzmann) have come to the conclusion that Jesus, speaking Aramaic, could never have designated himself as the “son of man” in a Messianic, mystic sense, because the Aramaic term never implied this meaning. Greek translators coined the phrase, which then led, under the influence of Dan. vii. 13 and the Logos gospel, to the theological construction of the title which is basic to the Christology of the Church. To this construction reference is made in Abbahu’s controversial saying in Ta’an. 65b. Indeed, examination of many of thepassages shows that in the mouth of Jesus the term was an equivalent for the personal pronoun “I.”

 

[Lisa44]

amazon.com/Solution-Problem-Library-Testament-Studies/dp/0567030709/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1316272810&sr=8-1

This would be a good place to start.

 

[Benadam]

It seems reasonable that the term was originally attached to anyone of Adam’s generation.

Prophetic literature elevated it’s meaning by pointing it back to it’s origin in Adam thus giving it a messianic significance.

Jesus’ use of the term takes it to it’s ultimate end in Him as a second Adam son of God.

 

[TimothyH]

I see what you are saying, but I also think there are other ways to interpret “Son of Man”.
For example, in last Sunday’s reading, God calls Ezekiel son of man.
Thus says the LORD:
You, son of man, I have appointed watchman for the house of Israel;
when you hear me say anything, you shall warn them for me.

So I think this might not have been crystal clear, if people thought Jesus was just claiming to be a prophet like Ezekiel, right? Not necessarily the one who is “like a son of man” in Daniel’s prophecies. Could be either one in this case I’m thinking. What do you think?

On the other hand, is it true that Solomon was considered a Son of God? This kind of throws off our notion of who Jesus was…THE son of God. Does that mean he is only A son of God? This seems strange to me. How to we tell them apart?

Interesting, and I should have noticed this, since I was lector for the first reading that day. I’ll have to rethink…

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

I see what you are saying, but I also think there are other ways to interpret “Son of Man”.
For example, in last Sunday’s reading, God calls Ezekiel son of man.
Thus says the LORD:
You, son of man, I have appointed watchman for the house of Israel;
when you hear me say anything, you shall warn them for me.

So I think this might not have been crystal clear, if people thought Jesus was just claiming to be a prophet like Ezekiel, right? Not necessarily the one who is “like a son of man” in Daniel’s prophecies. Could be either one in this case I’m thinking. What do you think?

On the other hand, is it true that Solomon was considered a Son of God? This kind of throws off our notion of who Jesus was…THE son of God. Does that mean he is only A son of God? This seems strange to me. How to we tell them apart?

Not trying to challenge your post, just trying to run with it. Thanks for the pointing out Ezekiel again.

The author of Revelation seems to have (clearly to me) used some of the imagery from Daniel as well as the phrase “Son of man” as early as the first chapter.

Then I turned to see whose voice it was that spoke to me, and when I turned, I saw seven gold lampstands and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, wearing an ankle-length robe, with a gold sash around his chest. The hair of his head was as white as white wool or as snow, and his eyes were like a fiery flame. His feet were like polished brass refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing water. In his right hand he held seven stars. A sharp two-edged sword came out of his mouth, and his face shone like the sun at its brightest. When I caught sight of him, I fell down at his feet as though dead. He touched me with his right hand and said, “Do not be afraid. I am the first and the last, the one who lives. Once I was dead, but now I am alive forever and ever. I hold the keys to death and the netherworld.” (Revelation 12:18)

In fact, the author ascribes some of the attributes of the “Ancient of days” in Daniel 7 to the Son of Man here in his vision including white hair as of wool and burning fire.

Recalling that Daniel’s prophecy that the messiah would come after the 490 year spiritual exile and that the 490 years were coming to a conclusion, and how all of Israel was looking for, expecting the messiah, I think it is a strong bet that those present would have made the connection.

But I see now that “Son of man” was a more common phrase than I had thought. It does leave me wondering a bit, and thankful that we have a Church to help us with this stuff.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

This is a good question.
I like to turn to Jewish sources because it is afterall, their language and culture.
jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=965&letter=S

Personally, I would have to bet it meant something very common in Aramaic to denote the self. I say this because it is used often and that makes me think that it is a way of speaking that they used in those times.

"In the Gospels the title occurs eighty-one times. Most of the recent writers (among them being II. Lietzmann) have come to the conclusion that Jesus, speaking Aramaic, could never have designated himself as the “son of man” in a Messianic, mystic sense, because the Aramaic term never implied this meaning. Greek translators coined the phrase, which then led, under the influence of Dan. vii. 13 and the Logos gospel, to the theological construction of the title which is basic to the Christology of the Church. To this construction reference is made in Abbahu’s controversial saying in Ta’an. 65b. Indeed, examination of many of thepassages shows that in the mouth of Jesus the term was an equivalent for the personal pronoun “I.”

I’m very skeptical of that article.

Much modern Jewish scholarship tends toward attempts at denial of Jesus as the messiah, rather than explanation of the excellence of Judaism in and of itself.

The aricle perfectly ignores the “Son of Man” standing among the seven lampstands in the Book of Revelation 1 except to claim that “most of the recent writers” say Jesus could not have meant it as a reference to his diety. Who these “recent writers” are, the article does not say, with the exception of dropping the name of Hans Lietzmann, a Lutheran theologian from the early 20th century. No footnotes to Hans Lietzmann’s works are given.

Similarly, one would think that the section under the heading “In Ezekiel, Daniel, and Enoch” would actually contain something about the book of Daniel but it does not. In fact, if you search for the word “Daniel”, it appears only twice, both in section headings but like the book of Revelation, is perfectly ignored.

The whole article claims that Greek translators made it up. Again, I am very skeptical of the intent of that article. It seems like an anti-Christian apologietic at best.

-Tim-

 

[Benadam]

The whole article claims that Greek translators made it up. Again, I am very skeptical of the intent of that article. It seems like an anti-Christian apologietic at best.

-Tim-

The bias occured to me as well, I am glad you mentioned it. If the author’s conclusion were correct the meaning Jesus attached to the term would be redundant or at best meant something His hearers were left to speculate about. Neither of these conditions are characteristic of Jesus as a teacher.

As a term limited to a meaning that can be applied to any decendant of Adam it lacks religious significance. Especially since Jesus implicitely taught that He was not of Adam’s generation, it seems obvious to me that Jesus attached religious significance to the term.

 

[seraphic000]

In order to understand Jesus’s role as the Son of God, I think it is also useful to understand the Church’s biblical defense of the Trinity.

One verse traditionally used in defense of the Trinity is Matthew 28:19

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

That is, in the NAME of, not the NAMES of. That sort of signifies that these three are meant to be taken as a single group, and that God indeed has a Son with a capital “s” (not sons and daughters, as we would refer to ourselves as children of God). Later in Acts, we also see people baptized using the name of Jesus (I don’t have the verse on-hand right now). Thus the apostles were following Jesus’ command to baptize in His name.

Everyone above raised great points. I just think this is another useful angle to take.