K
Keverlast
Guest
i know Jesus called himself that but why? Is it because Mary was related to King David ? my only guess…
- Status
Z
zab
Guest
Because his mother is a huMAN being. I’ve never been one to feel not included when we, as women, sometimes use the word man in prayer, for example, in the Creed, we pray “…For us men and for our salvation, He came down from heaven…” Man in these situations refers to human or mankind which includes everyone, male and female.
V
valentino
Guest
Man is human kind.Mary was a human.therefore He’s the Son of Man.
M
Mark_Andreev
Guest
if you read/watch "the case for Christ’ it explaines it pretty well
but here something i like to say “The son of God became the son of man so that we might be saved”
but here something i like to say “The son of God became the son of man so that we might be saved”
S
StOwen
Guest
I take the phrase ‘Son of Man’ to be like the phrase ‘bar of iron’. Jesus is the Son, made (or in the form) of man.
P
PacoG
Guest
When Jesus is refers to Himself as the Son of Man, it is a reference to Daniel 7:13-14:
As the visions during the night continued, I saw One like a son of man coming, on the clouds of heaven; When he reached the Ancient One and was presented before him,
14 He received dominion, glory, and kingship; nations and peoples of every language serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not be taken away, his kingship shall not be destroyed.
As the visions during the night continued, I saw One like a son of man coming, on the clouds of heaven; When he reached the Ancient One and was presented before him,
14 He received dominion, glory, and kingship; nations and peoples of every language serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not be taken away, his kingship shall not be destroyed.
F
Fink
Guest
To extend that:
“The Son of God became the Son of Man so that the sons of men might become sons of God.”
W
wynnejj
Guest
Man in the singular sense? Mary is Jesus’ only blood line.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Yes, in the singular sense.
From Luke 9
56 Filius hominis non venit animas perdere, sed salvare. Et abierunt in aliud castellum.
56 The Son of man came not to destroy souls, but to save. And they went into another town.
T
TimothyH
Guest
PacoG answered the question.
Jesus was a prophet and teacher who, like a good Rabbi, used the Old Testament to teach his disciples and Apostles. Referencing back to the Old Testament, using two seemingly unrelated passages in the same sentance, these were common rabbinical teaching methods.
“Son of Man” is a clear reference to chapter 7 of the Book of Daniel. Jesus was saying something very specific when he referenced himself as “Son of Man.” The Book of Daniel is worth reading for a full picture.
-Tim-
Jesus was a prophet and teacher who, like a good Rabbi, used the Old Testament to teach his disciples and Apostles. Referencing back to the Old Testament, using two seemingly unrelated passages in the same sentance, these were common rabbinical teaching methods.
“Son of Man” is a clear reference to chapter 7 of the Book of Daniel. Jesus was saying something very specific when he referenced himself as “Son of Man.” The Book of Daniel is worth reading for a full picture.
-Tim-
R
ryanoneil
Guest
This describes Jesus’ kingship and about the authority given to him to triumph over evil. The Father would vindicate him, raise him up, seat him on a royal throne, and decree the destruction of his enemies.
E
EricFilmer
Guest
Jesus’ use of the title “Son of Man” is enigmatic. He does not tell us why he uses this title, and neither does anyone else in the New Testament. Moreover, the crowds who hear him use this title do not react in any way that gives us a clue (each and every time people seem to just take it in stride). In light of all this, there may be different yet plausible answers as to what Jesus meant by this term.
Probably the best explanation stems from examining the Old Testament’s usage of the term. In the OT, “son of man” is simply a poetic way of saying, “human being.” It basically means “son of Adam” (and Adam is the Hebrew word for “man”).
For example, this was the initial idea behind Psalm 8:4 -
“What is man that thou art mindful of him,
and the son of man that thou dost care for him?”
Here, when the psalmist uses the term “son of man”, he is referring to human beings in general.
But, as PacoG & TimothyH pointed out earlier in this thread, Daniel had a vision concerning “one like a son of man” who received dominion and kingship from the Ancient One (Daniel 7:13-14). Basically, Daniel was saying that in this vision was God the Father (the Ancient One) and a second person who was human. But this human comes on the clouds of heaven (an image signifying divine judgement) and is glorified by the Father. This human that Daniel saw is presumably the same man he describes in Daniel 10:5-6.
In light of all this, probably the best explanation of Jesus’ title is that he is not merely a son of man (the generic expression for a human being) but rather the Son of Man, meaning the specific human being that Daniel witnessed in his vision.
Notice the similarities between the descriptions of the “man” in Daniel 10:5-6 and the “son of man” (i.e., Christ) in Revelation 1:13-16:
I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, a man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with gold of Uphaz.
His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like flaming torches,
his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the noise of a multitude. (Dan 10:5-6, RSV)
…and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast;
his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire,
his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters;
in his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth issued a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength. (Rev 1:13-16, RSV)
It seems that in Revelation John is basically telling us that the Christ he encountered in his vision of heaven was the same person that Daniel encountered in his own vision of the same.
Michael Barber goes into greater detail concerning all this in his book, Coming Soon: Unlocking the Book of Revelation.
R
ryanoneil
Guest
Except for this explaination and reaction:
Then the high priest said to him, “I order you to tell us under oath before the living God whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “You have said so. But I tell you: From now on you will see ‘the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power’ and ‘coming on the clouds of heaven.’” Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need have we of witnesses? You have now heard the blasphemy; what is your opinion?” They said in reply, “He deserves to die!” Then they spat in his face and struck him, while some slapped him, saying, “Prophesy for us, Messiah: who is it that struck you?” (Mt 26:63-68)
Peace
E
EricFilmer
Guest
The question is, exactly what was the high priest reacting to? All of Jesus’ statement, or part of it? I don’t think one can say with absolute certainty, but I think it is worth noting that the Pharisees and priests were aware that Jesus called himself “the Son of Man” throughout his earthly ministry but did not accuse him of blasphemy in the past. In light of this, it seems that the high priest’s reaction in Mt 26 is attributed to Jesus’ response to the question of whether or not he was the Son of God: “You say that I am.” Mark’s rendition (Mark 14:62) has Jesus simply saying, “I am.” To the Jewish mindset, claiming to be the Son of God was likewise claiming to be the equal of God. For example, consider what we read in John:Except for this explaination and reaction:
Then the high priest said to him, “I order you to tell us under oath before the living God whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “You have said so. But I tell you: From now on you will see ‘the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power’ and ‘coming on the clouds of heaven.’” Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need have we of witnesses? You have now heard the blasphemy; what is your opinion?” They said in reply, “He deserves to die!” Then they spat in his face and struck him, while some slapped him, saying, “Prophesy for us, Messiah: who is it that struck you?” (Mt 26:63-68)
Peace
But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working still, and I am working."
This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him,
because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father,
making himself equal with God. (John 5:17-18, RSV)
Therefore, I think the reaction of the high priest was more towards the term “Son of God” rather than “Son of Man.” But to be fair, it is also worth noting that in Matthew 26 Jesus cuts out the ambiguity of what he means by the title, “the Son of Man.” In the past one could infer that he was simply speaking about a human being in general (such as was done by the psalmist in Psalm 8:4). But when interrogated by the high priest, Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man “coming on the clouds of heaven” which is a clear reference to the specific human described in Daniel 7:13-14. But whether or not claiming to be the mysterious human Daniel saw in his vision warrants a charge of blasphemy, I cannot say. It certainly can in Matthew 26 for the simple fact that this claim does not stand on its own, but is coupled with the claim of being the Son of God. So, once again, I attribute the high priest’s reaction mostly to Jesus identifying himself as the Son of God.
R
ryanoneil
Guest
My guess is he reacts to all of Jesus’ statement. The mystery behind Jesus’ use of “Son of Man” was being revealed by him for some time.
The scribes did.
When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Child, your sins are forgiven.” Now some of the scribes were sitting there asking themselves, “Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming. Who but God alone can forgive sins?” Jesus immediately knew in his mind what they were thinking to themselves, so he said, “Why are you thinking such things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, pick up your mat and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth” (Mk 2:5-10)
Jesus makes the same divine claim about the Son of Man in (Mk 2:5-10) that leads to his death.
Obvious I don’t disagree about the divine claim. But the title “Son of God” for the king of Israel is not unlike the Son of Man who is divinely given an everlasting kingdom and all people serve him. You may be right but I think there is more to it.
Peace
E
EricFilmer
Guest
The scribes accused him of blasphemy because he told people their sins were forgiven (and therefore acted in the role of God), not because he called himself the Son of Man. Jesus, of course, connects these two aspects but I am simply analyzing the mindset of what the crowd heard and understood. After all, you and I are discussing what can be gleaned by the reactions of the people who heard Jesus call himself “the Son of Man” in an attempt to discern what Jesus meant by it. When exploring what Jesus meant by it, there are two perspectives: that of Jesus and that of the various listeners. I have already given my thoughts concerning what was probably Jesus’ perspective (i.e., that he identified himself with the mysterious human Daniel saw in a vision). But my point is that we don’t get very far in examining the perspective of the various listeners because they never seem to react to the term “Son of Man” (in and of itself) one way or another. I don’t see how your examples of Jesus being called a blasphemer are exceptions. Here’s why…
The term “son of man” is extensively used in the OT as a general expression of humanity (for example, Numbers 23:19; Job 16:21, 25:6, 35:8; Psalm 8:4; Isaiah 51:12; Jeremiah 49:18,33, 50:40, & 51:43). Moreover, Ezekiel is called “son of man” multiple times by God (for example, Ezekiel 2:1,2,6,8). So from the Jesus perspective, there is nothing blasphemous in calling oneself “son of man”, in and of itself.
Moreover, when speaking to the Pharisees, Jesus called himself “the Son of Man” in situations where there were no accusations of blasphemy. For example, he said that the Son of Man was Lord of the sabbath (a very profound statement) and all of the synoptic gospels recorded this event: Matthew 12:1-8, Mark 2:23-28, Luke 6:1-5. But in none of these passages do the Pharisees accuse him of blasphemy.
Likewise, Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man when the Pharisees demanded a sign from him. This event is recorded in each of the synoptic gospels (Matthew 12:38-42, Luke 11:29-32; Mark records a briefer version of it in 8:11-13, leaving out the “Son of Man” reference) but, once again, none of them accuse Jesus of blasphemy.
In addition to these, we can also examine the many times that Jesus called himself “the Son of Man” to various crowds when Pharisees are not described as being present. As I stated before, no one reacts to the such statements one way or another (for example, Matthew 12:38-42; 13:37,41-42; Mark 8:11-13; 10:35-45; Luke 11:29-32).
Therefore, accusations of blasphemy do not arise in connection with the “son of man” reference in and of itself. It is only when Jesus does things like claim to be the Son of God or act in the role of God in forgiving sins that the charge of blasphemy is leveled against him.
Yes, but in and of itself, the term “son of man” did not warrant the charge of blasphemy. It is only when Jesus elaborated upon the term, ascribing divine power to it, that results in certain people calling him a blasphemer. Had Jesus simply called himself “the Son of Man” in this passage without claiming the authority to forgive sins (nor telling the paralytic that his sins were forgiven), we can expect that the scribes would have had no reaction to it (as we see in the other occasions I mentioned above concerning the Pharisees and crowds in general).
I also think there is more to it. A biblical argument can be made for calling the King of Israel the “son of God” (without a divine connotation) but the Pharisees and priests purposely overlooked this in order to go with an interpretation of the title which would allow them to convict Jesus as a blasphemer. And, of course, from the perspective of Christian typology, we see that David and Solomon were biblical “types” of Christ, so the term “Son of God” has both a human meaning and a divine one.
Likewise, the term “Son of Man” involves the biblical concept of recapitulation so it also has a meaning on more than one level. Both Adam and Christ are representatives of the human race, with the obedience of Christ (to the will of the Father) undoing the problems of the disobedience of Adam. Thus, the term “son of man” can mean both a generic human as well as the Messianic Second Adam.
I think you and I are in agreement about all this. What I am simply pointing out is that the reaction of the listeners does not give us clues as to what Jesus meant by the term “Son of Man” in and of itself. When Jesus puts the term into the context of divine power we certainly see a reaction, but it stems from this broader context which goes beyond the term itself. When Jesus does not ascribe divine power to himself under the title of “Son of Man” we don’t get any clues from the reaction of the listeners. But I think we both agree what Jesus himself meant by the term, and what he was gradually teaching about it (subtlety at first, and then more directly at his trial). Or, as you put it at the beginning of your last post:
T
TimothyH
Guest
I disagree, and here is why.
The Jews in Jesus’ time were highly literate with regard to scripture. There was almost a 100% literacy rate and children all went to school at the Synagogue to be taught by rabbis and scribes. The first book they learned was Leviticus - the law of the priests and temple worship. Weekly synagogue attendance included hours of instruction on the law and the prophets - study of Torah law from the first firve books of the Bible and study of the writings of the prophets including Jerimiah and Daniel.
Everyone around Jesus would have been knowledgeable about the book of Daniel. Those who heard him refer to himself as the “Son of Man” knew exactly where that reference came from and what he was saying. The Pharisees no less so.
Daniel’s vision about the Son of Man in Chapter 7 was followed in Chapter 9 by the prophecy of the 490 year exile. Jerimiah had prophesied that the Babylonian exile would last 70 years. God revealed to Daniel however that while the physical exile would last 7 times 70 years. Israel’s spiritual exile would actually last 490 years, during which time their hearts would be far from God. Daniel goes into great detail explaining what would happen as those 490 years progressed and drew to a close. He prophesies that the messiah will come at the conclusion of the 490 year exile.
The years leading up to Jesus ministry were ones of great expecation in Israel. Most people don’t realize this. It was a very chaotic time. The messiah was expected to come soon, at the end of Daniel’s prophecy! Everyone was going out to be baptized by John the Baptist “From Judea and all of Israel.” Simeon was “Looking for the consolation of Israel.” Even Mary (representative of the perfection of humanity) says to the boy Jesus (the Second Person of the Trinity) in the temple, “Your father and I have been looking for you with great anxiety!” (Luke 2:48). I don’t think it possible to overestimate how expectant the people were for the messiah, how they were looking for him, and how it threw the land into turmoil.
The fact that Jesus chose “Son of Man” from Chapter 7 of Daniel is no accident. He is using a rabinnical teaching technique of bringing to light the meaning of scripture by highlighting just a few words and using them in ordinary sentances - but like a surgical instrument. His quick reference to “Son of Man” in ordinary speech was like a quick jab with a knife. This was a common rabinnical teaching technique and remember, Jesus was a Rabbi. His reference to “Son of Man” would have been clear to the Jews present, and would have brought to their memory all the lessons they learned about the Book of Daniel including the Son of Man recieving kingship, and most importantly, the end of the 490 year exile and arrival of the messiah.
No, I think the Pharisees understood exactly what Jesus was saying, as did most everyone present. Lack of a description about reaction in the Bible does not mean that it was not present.
-Tim-
E
EricFilmer
Guest
Having read your entire post, I am unclear exactly what you are disagreeing with. I said that during the trial of Jesus the high priest’s accusation was more of a reaction to Jesus claiming to be the Son of God rather than the Son of man. You quoted me stating this and then you said, “I disagree.” But then you proceeded to explain why Jesus used the title of “Son of man” to connect himself to Daniel 7. But this does not contradict anything I’ve said in this thread. Keep in mind that I stated that because Jesus (during his trial) used the term “Son of man” along with “coming on the clouds”, he was making a direct reference to Daniel 7. So this is why I say I am not sure what you are disagreeing with. Are you suggesting that a person who claims to be the “Son of man” referenced in Daniel 7 can be denounced for blasphemy? Please clarify.
Yes, the Jews in the time of Jesus were living in an era of high expectation for the coming of the Messiah. Nevertheless, based on the OT there was still a range of perfectly plausible interpretations as to what the term “son of man” is meant to convey. “Son of man” in Hebrew meant “Son of Adam” and in each case in the OT it meant “human being.” There were different nuances, however, such as:
- Son of man means a human being in general. For example, Numbers 23:19; Psalm 8:4.
- Son of man is a title that God sometimes used when addressing a human being. For example, God often called Ezekiel “Son of man” (see Ezekiel 2:1,2,6,8 just to name a few of these occurrences).
- In Daniel 7, Daniel describes a vision of “one like a son of man” appearing before the Ancient One and being given dominion. Therefore, Daniel refers to a specific person who will play a very important role in human history, and many considered this a reference to the Messiah. Of course, the Jews had different notions as to exactly what sort of person the Messiah would be.
And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head.”
A Jew hearing this when Jesus spoke it could have concluded that “Son of man” means all humans (i.e., humans are to remember that life is a spiritual journey towards a heavenly home), or it means that Jesus is a prophet (and is called “Son of man” like Ezekiel was), or that Jesus is the person foretold by Daniel. Unlike Jesus’ statement at his trial, this usage of the term “Son of man” does not automatically lead the listener into concluding that Jesus is making a Daniel 7 reference, and therefore completely ruling out the other possible interpretations.
Moreover, remember the following discourse between Jesus and his disciples:
“Who do men say that the Son of man is?”
And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli’jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” (Matthew 16:13-14, RSV)
If we presume that the disciples were giving Jesus the general consensus of public opinion, then it seems that most people were interpreting his “Son of man” references more in light of example #2 (i.e., he was a prophet whom God calls “Son of man”).
(Continued in my next post)
E
EricFilmer
Guest
(Continued…)
So in light of all this, I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say, “Lack of a description about reaction in the Bible does not mean that it was not present.” I am confident that many members of Jesus’ audience came to the same Daniel 7 conclusion that you and I did. I am merely pointing out that the Bible does not specifically tell us what their reactions were in response to Jesus’ use of “Son of man” (in and of itself) so we have to analyze it along other lines.
I agree. He was the one whom Daniel had a vision of and this is ultimately what he wanted people to understand.
It would call to mind Daniel 7 to his listeners, but would not rule out the possibility of other interpretations based on the nuances I outlined above. There was an element of ambiguity that presented Jesus’ “Son of man” identity as something to be pondered, motivating people to examine his teachings and actions in greater detail to see if he was, indeed, the Messiah. But, as I said before, this ambiguity is no longer present at Jesus’ trial because he refers to the “Son of man coming on the clouds” which is a clear reference to Daniel 7.
There was still the possibility of interpreting “Son of man” within the range of nuances I described (at least prior to his trial).
To be fair, Timothy, exactly where did I say otherwise? You seem to misunderstand the whole gist of my material in this thread. In terms of a scriptural examination of what Jesus means by a certain statement, we can look at a number of things:
- What Jesus actually said.
- An elaboration from Jesus as to what he meant (such as when he explained parables to the Apostles).
- The reaction of the listeners (such as in John 6 where the crowd clearly interpreted Jesus’ words concerning his Body and Blood as being literal).
- Scriptural parallels.
- The context of the event being described.
So in light of all this, I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say, “Lack of a description about reaction in the Bible does not mean that it was not present.” I am confident that many members of Jesus’ audience came to the same Daniel 7 conclusion that you and I did. I am merely pointing out that the Bible does not specifically tell us what their reactions were in response to Jesus’ use of “Son of man” (in and of itself) so we have to analyze it along other lines.
B
Benadam
Guest
The first son of man was Cain. Then Abel too was a son of man Their humanity is a product of humanity as a whole. There doesn’t exist a missing part somewhere else.
This is brought to the forefront when Seth is born
A son in the image of the original human. The original man’s humanity is generated.
The word man in the title ‘son of man’ imo can be substituted with the word ‘humanity’.
Seth is singled out because he is a generation of man that is described as being in the image of his father Adam. The proper order of generation re-established.
The proper order is re-established in relation to the generative power but it is a sinfull state of humanity nevertheless. Seth’s humanity is a product of the whole of humanity but adulterated with sin
The patriarchs that decended from Seth and ended in Noah were sons of man. They continued the image of humanity as it was passed down from Adam and Eve.
Jesus’ humanity is a product of a sinless state of humanity.
The offspring of humanity as a whole is a son of man.:twocents:
- Status