Son of Man

SON OF MAN

a title of Christ, assumed by himself in his humiliation, Joh 1:51 .It was understood as a designation of the Messiah, according to Old Testament predictions, Psa 80:17 Dan 7:13,14 ; but appears to indicate especially his true humanity or oneness with the human race. It is applies to him more than eighty times in the New Testament.

Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

Son Of Man

The only instance in the NT outside the Gospel records of a direct reference to Jesus as occurs in the speech of Stephen before the Jewish Sanhedrin (Act 7:56). Assuming its genuineness, it is significant that the expression is used by a Hellenistic Jew recently converted to Christianity. Even on the assumption that the speech is largely the composition of the author of Acts, the same significance attaches to its employment here. Not only is it evidence that the gospel tradition was, in the main, correct as to its use by Jesus of Himself, but it shows how early the consciousness of the Church awoke to the claims which the designation involves. The strange hesitation of primitive Christianity in using this title proves the sturdinss of the growth and development of independent thought within the Church of the Apostolic Age. The rage of Stephens audience, on hearing the words of the speaker, is accounted for only on the supposition that the Son of man was recognized as the Jesus whom they had so recently done to death, and who now is described as occupying the transcendent position, and discharging the functions, of Messiah. The great and final synthesis-the Suffering Servant and the Eternal Judge-had received its justification in the alleged exaltation of the Crucified to the right hand of God. Now, no less than in the days of His humiliation, His sympathies were active for the despised and the suffering. It is, perhaps, too much to say that He is revealed to the eyes of His first martyr, that Christians may learn that that which is begun in weakness shall be completed in eternal majesty (B. F. Westcott, The Speakers Commentary, St. John and the Acts, London, 1880, p. 35), but St. Lukes use of the term in this connexion shows how profoundly its implicates had affected the Christology of the primitive Church (note the word ; cf. , Mar 16:19, and , Psa 110:1).

The absence of the phrase from the general body of NT writings cannot, therefore, be explained as entirely due to a reverent or superstitious disinclination to use a title which Jesus had appropriated to Himself. If the details of the martyrdom of James the Just given by Hegesippus and quoted by Eusebius be accepted, we have the designation used of the glorified Jesus Messiah. On being asked concerning Jesus who was crucified, he answered in a loud voice, Why do ye ask me about Jesus the Son of Man? He is now sitting in the heavens, on the right hand of the great Power, and is about to come on the clouds of heaven (Historia Ecclesiastica (Eusebius, etc.) ii. 23). According to Jerome, the Gospel according to the Hebrews stated that Jesus had revealed Himself to James after His resurrection as the Son of man (filius hominis [Vir. Ill. 2]), and we may conjecture that the expression in Hegesippus is a reminiscence of that event. It may be readily accepted that the words of James the Just are of the nature of a quotation. It is not, however, so easy to see why the same should be said of the use of the phrase by the martyr Stephen in the Acts and the martyr James the Just in Eusebius and by the angels in Luke after the Resurrection (E. A. Abbott, The Son of Man, Cambridge, 1910 [3317]; cf. note on [3317a]). The vision of Stephen gives a wider and deeper significance to the Messianic activities of the ascended Jesus. The Son of man stands on the right hand of God ready to express His feelings of love and sympathy with the sons of the race to which He belongs.

There are two passages in the NT where the words are found (Rev 1:13; Rev 14:14) both in descriptive accounts of the Seers visions. Quite obviously the references are to Jesus as the glorified Messiah (see, on the other hand, H. Lietzmann, Der Menschensohn, Tbingen, 1896, p. 56), and evidently are allusions to the apocalyptic language of Daniel (7:13). According to G. Dalman, the origin of the expression is to be discovered not in Dan 7:13 but in 10:5f. (The Words of Jesus, Edinburgh, 1902, p. 251). The peculiar phraseology of the NT apocalyptist shows that, although he may have known and even been thinking of Jesus self-designation, his eschatological doctrine had its roots in the soil of Judaistic transcendentalism, moving in a plane higher than that of grammatical construction (cf. , 1:15, etc.), and that we cannot equate his expression with the of Stephen (see H. B. Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John 2, London, 1907, p. 15). The use of as an adverb in both passages may have been due to the translation he was accustomed to use, but in any case the above conclusion is not affected ( = ).

There seems, indeed, no reason to doubt that this designation was well known to the writers and teachers of the apostolic period in spite of non-usage. We need not stay to inquire into the ultimate origin of the idea underlying the term or whether it is to be traced to the Persian doctrine of the Primal Man (see C. Clemen, Primitive Christianity and its Non-Jewish Sources, Edinburgh, 1912, p. 150 ff.). The expression has become native to Palestinian thought and was a terminus technicus of Jewish eschatological speculation. The use of the 8th Psalm by St. Paul in 1Co 15:27 and his discussion as to the relative appearances in time of the earthy () and the heavenly () man suggest his acquaintance with the term . The same may be said of the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Jesus superiority in rank to the angelic beings, notwithstanding the fact that He is , is insisted on. The author of the Epistle to the Ephesians not only quotes this Psalm ( , Eph 1:22), but does so as if its highest application is discovered in the eternal exaltation of Jesus ( , .) the Lord, and in His session () at the right hand of God in the heavenly regions ( ; see J. Moffatts translation in The Historical New Testament2, Edinburgh, 1901, p. 232; cf. the use of the Danielic visions in 2Es 13:3 ff.).

Widely different reasons are given by scholars to explain the absence of the term the Son of man in the writers of the apostolic period. All the Greek-speaking leaders of Christian thought from Ignatius and Justin Martyr to Chrysostom agree in teaching that the title has a special reference to the human nature of Jesus, the human side in His descent. So also do Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and Ambrose. For them its importance and significance were mainly dogmatic and theological, less suitable for the exigencies of practical instruction and life. For whatever reason, it did not then, and it never has, become a popular designation of Jesus by the Church (see Dict. of Christ and the Gospels ii. 664a).

J. R. Willis.

Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church

Son of Man

This term occurs 82 times in the Gospel and, except on one occasion, is always used by Our Lord. There can be no doubt that the term is genuine, and that by it Our Lord meant to designate Himself. But why did He by preference call Himself the Son of Man? Some critics have thought that in the Aramaic of those days the speaker used to designate himself in this manner (as the Spaniards use usted, or vuestra merced, to designate the person spoken to; but after Dalman’s thoroughgoing research this view is no longer tenable. Rather, Our Lord adopted the title both to reveal and to hide His messiasship. It was regarded by the Jews as messianic, and hence by applying it to Himself Our Lord to all appearances claimed to be the Messias; on the other hand, it did not bear that sinister anti-Roman meaning which the Jews had then given to other messianic titles.

Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary

Son of Man

In the Old Testament “son of man” is always translated in the Septuagint without the article as anthropou. It is employed (1) as a poetical synonym for man, or for the ideal man, e.g. “God is not as a man, that he should lie nor as a son of man, that he should be changed” (Numbers 23:19). “Blessed is the man that doth this and the son of man that shall lay hold on this” (Isaiah 56:2). “Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand: and upon the son of man whom thou hast confirmed for thyself” (Psalm 79:18).

(2) The Prophet Ezechiel is addressed by God as “son of man” more than ninety times, e.g. “Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak to thee” (Ezekiel 2:1). This usage is confined to Ezechiel except one passage in Daniel, where Gabriel said: “Understand, O son of man, for in the time of the end the vision shall be fulfilled” (Daniel 8:17).

(3) In the great vision of Daniel after the appearance of the four beasts, we read:

“I beheld therefore in the vision of the night, and lo, one like a son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and he came even to the Ancient of days: and they presented him before him. And he gave him power, and glory, and a kingdom: and all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall serve him: his power is an everlasting power that shall not be taken away: and his kingdom shall not be destroyed” (7:13 sq.).

The person who appears here as son of man is interpreted by many non-Catholics as representing the Messianic kingdom, but there is no thing to prevent the passage from being taken to represent not only the Messianic kingdom, but par excellence the Messianic king. In the explanation, verse 17, the four beasts are “four kings” R.V., not “four kingdoms” as translated by D.V., though they appear to signify four kingdoms as well for the characteristics of oriental kingdoms were identified with the characters of their kings. So when it is said in verse 18: “But the saints of the most high God shall take the kingdom: and they shall possess the kingdom for ever and ever”, the king is no more excluded here than in the case of the four beasts. The “son of man” here was early interpreted of the Messias, in the Book of Henoch, where the expression is used almost as a Messianic title, though there is a good deal in Drummond’s argument that even here it was not used as a Messianic title notwithstanding the fact that it was understood of the Messias. It has to be added that in the time of Christ it was not very widely, if at all, known as a Messianic title.

The employment of the expression in the Gospels is very remarkable. It is used to designate Jesus Christ no fewer than eighty-one times — thirty times in St. Matthew, fourteen times in St. Mark, twenty-five times in St. Luke, and twelve times in St. John. Contrary to what obtains in the Septuagint, it appears everywhere with the article, as ho huios tou anthropou. Greek scholars are agreed that the correct translation of this is “the son of man”, not “the son of the man”. The possible ambiguity may be one of the reasons why it is seldom or never found in the early Greek Fathers as a title for Christ. But the most remarkable thing connected with “the Son of Man” is that it is found only in the mouth of Christ. It is never employed by the disciples or Evangelists, nor by the early Christian writers. It is found once only in Acts, where St. Stephen exclaims: “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God” (7:55). The whole incident proves that it was a well-known expression of Christ’s. Though the saying was so frequently employed by Christ, the disciples preferred some more honorific title and we do not find it at all in St. Paul nor in the other Epistles. St. Paul perhaps uses something like an equivalent when he calls Christ the second or last Adam. The writers of the Epistles, moreover, probably wished to avoid the Greek ambiguity just alluded to.

The expression is Christ’s, in spite of the futile attempts of some German Rationalists and others to show that He could not have used it. It was not invented by the writers of the Gospels to whom it did not appear to be a favourite title, as they never use it of Christ themselves. lt was not derived by them from what is asserted was a false interpretation of Daniel, because it appears in the early portions of the public ministry where there is no reference to Daniel. The objection that Christ could not have used it in Aramaic because the only similar expression was bar-nasha, which then meant only “man” — bar having by that time lost its meaning of “son” — is not of much weight. Only little is known of the Aramaic spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ and as Drummond points out special meaning could be given to the word by the emphasis with which it was pronounced, even if bar-nasha had lost its primary meaning in Palestine, which is not at all proved. As the same writer shows, there were other expressions in Aramaic which Christ could have employed for the purpose, and Sanday suggests that He may have occasionally spoken in Greek.

The early Fathers were of the opinion that the expression was used out of humility and to show Christ’s human nature, and this is very probable considering the early rise of Docetism. This is also the opinion of Cornelius a Lapide. Others, such as Knabenbauer, think that He adopted a title which would not give umbrage to His enemies, and which, as time went on, was capable of being applied so as to cover His Messianic claims — to include everything that had been foretold of the representative man, the second Adam, the suffering servant of Jehovah, the Messianic king.

———————————–

Jésus Messie et Fils de Dieu (Paris, 1906); ROSE, Studies on the Gospels (London, 1903), DRUMMOND, The Jour. of Theol. Studies, Il (1901), 350, 539; HARTL, Anfang und Ende des Titels “Menchensohn” in Bibl. Zeitschrift (Freiburg, 1909), 342.

C. AHERNE Transcribed by Scott Anthony Hibbs

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIVCopyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Son of Man

This designation, which, like the Son of God, is now chiefly associated with Christ, has also an Old as well as a New Test. usage; it had a general before it received a specific application. In a great variety of passages it is employed as a kind of circumlocution for man, with special reference to his frail nature and humble condition; as, when speaking of God, it is said, He is not the son of man that he should repent (Num 23:19); and What is man that thou art mindful of him, or the son of man that thou visitest him? (Psa 8:4). For some reason not certainly known, but probably from its being either a mere adoption of Chaldaean usage, or its possessing a sort of poetical and measured form, the designation son of man is the style of address commonly employed in Ezekiel’s writings when he was called to hear the word of God (Eze 2:1; Eze 3:1, etc.). That Chaldaean usage had, at least, something to do with it may be inferred from its similar employment by Daniel; as, when speaking of a heavenly messenger appearing to him in the visions of God, he describes the appearance as being of one, not simply like a man, but like the similitude of the sons of men (Eze 10:16), while in other parts of the description this is interchanged with the simple designation or appearance of a man (Ezekiel 5:18).

Nor have we any reason to think that, as regards the expression itself, anything else is indicated by son of man in the vision of Daniel which most directly points to New. Test. times and relations. In that vision, after beholding successively four different monstrous and savage forms imaging so many earthly monarchies, the prophet saw like a son of man came with the clouds, of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days; and there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him (Eze 7:13-14). The expression here, like a son of man, is evidently equivalent to one having a human aspect, and as such differing essentially from those beastly and rapacious natures that had already passed in vision before him. The kingdoms represented by such natures, though presided over by human beings, were to be characterized by the caprice, selfishness, and cruelty which were instinctively suggested by those ideal heads; while in the higher kingdom that should come after them, and which was really to attain to the universality and perpetuity that they vainly aspired after, there were to be the possession and display of qualities distinctively human those, namely, which are the image and reflex of the divine. This, however, it could only be by the head of the kingdom himself occupying a higher platform than that of fallen humanity, and being able to pervade this lower sphere with the might and the grace of Godhead. Hence in the vision, not only is ideal humanity made to image the character of the kingdom, but the bearer of it appears coming in the clouds of heaven, the proper chariot of Deity as himself being from above rather than from beneath emphatically, indeed, the Lord from heaven. It may be regarded as certain that in so frequently choosing for himself the, designation of the Son of man (in all fully fifty times), our Lord had respect to the representation in Daniel.

It was the title under which, with a few rare exceptions, he uniformly spoke of himself; and it is remarkable how, when acquiescing in his right to be acknowledged by others in the most peculiar sense the Son of God, he sometimes immediately after substituted for this the wonted designation of the Son of man (Joh 1:49-51; Mat 26:63-64), as if to show that what belonged to the Son of God might equally be affirmed (when the terms were rightly understood) of the Son of man. This comes out with peculiar force in the latter of the two passages referred to; for no sooner had our Lord confessed to the adjuration of the high priest as to his being the Son of God than he added, Hereafter ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven, appropriating the very language in Daniel’s vision, and asserting of himself as Son of man what belonged to him as the fellow of Godhead. Along with and behind the attribution of humanity, which he loved to place in the foreground, there lay the heavenly majesty. Hence, while the epithet in question may well enough be understood to imply that Jesus was the ideal man (which is all that rationalistic interpreters would find in it), it includes much more than that it makes him known as the new man, who had come from heaven, and in whom, because in him the Word was made flesh, manhood had attained to the condition in which it could fulfil the high destiny of exercising lordship for God over the world to come (Heb 2:5).

By this title, then, to use the words of Luthardt, Jesus, on the one side, includes himself among other men he is one of our race; while, on the other, he thereby exalts himself above the whole race besides, as in a truly exclusive sense the Son of mankind, its genuine Offspring the one Man towards whom the whole history of the human race was tending, in whom it found its unity, and in whom history finds its turning point as the close of the old and the commencement of the new era. But this, coupled with the authority and power of judgment which he asserts for himself over all flesh as the Son of man, bespeaks his possession of the divine as well as of the human nature. No rationalistic ideal of virtue can avail us here. To call Jesus the mere prototype, and prefigurement of mankind, will not suffice to justify such language; we are constrained to quit the limits of humanity, and to look for the root of his being, the home of his nature and life, in God himself to explain, the possibility of such declarations. The absolute relation to the world which he attributes to himself demands an absolute relation to God. The latter is the necessary postulate of, the former, which cannot be properly understood but from this point of view. Only because Jesus is to God what he is can he be to us what he says. He is the Son of man, the Lord of the world, its judge, only because he is the Son of God (Fundamental Truths of Christianity, p. 289, 290). For literature, see Hase, Leben Jesu. p. 127.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Son of man

(1.) Denotes mankind generally, with special reference to their weakness and frailty (Job 25:6; Ps. 8:4; 144:3; 146:3; Isa. 51:12, etc.).

(2.) It is a title frequently given to the prophet Ezekiel, probably to remind him of his human weakness.

(3.) In the New Testament it is used forty-three times as a distinctive title of the Saviour. In the Old Testament it is used only in Ps. 80:17 and Dan. 7:13 with this application. It denotes the true humanity of our Lord. He had a true body (Heb. 2:14; Luke 24:39) and a rational soul. He was perfect man.

Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary

Son of Man

Others are “sons of men” (Job 25:6; Psa 144:3; Psa 146:3; Isa 51:12; Isa 56:2). God addresses Daniel (Dan 8:17) once, Ezekiel so about 80 times, to remind him of his human lowliness and frailty, as “man lower than the angels,” though privileged to enjoy visions of the cherubim and of God Himself, “lest he should be exalted through the abundance of the revelations” (2Co 12:7). The divine Son appeared to him “as the appearance of a man above upon the throne” (Eze 1:26). As others are “sons of God,” but He “the Son of God,” so others are “sons of man” (Eze 2:1; Eze 2:3) but He “the Son of man” (Mat 16:13), being the embodied representative of humanity and the whole human race; as on the other hand He is the bodily representative of “all the fullness of the Godhead” (Col 2:9). Ezekiel, as type of “the Son of man” whose manifestation he records, is appropriately designated “son of man.”

The title “the Son of man” implies at once Messiah’s lowliness and His exaltation in His manifestations as THE REPRESENTATIVE MAN respectively at His first and second comings; His humiliation on the one hand (Psa 8:4-8; Mat 16:13; Mat 20:18; Mat 20:28) and His exaltation on the other hand, just “because He is the Son of man”: Dan 7:13-14, Hebrew not Ben -ish or -Adam, son of a hero or of man generically viewed, but Ben enosh, “Son of man,” frail and abject, marking the connection of His humiliation and exaltation as man (Phi 2:5-11; Mat 26:64; Joh 5:27). He comes again as man to reinstate man in his original glory, never to be dispossessed of it. He is now set down on the throne of God as the Son of God. That is a throne which His saints cannot share; therefore He shall assume another throne, made “His” in order that they may sit down on it with Him (Rev 3:21).

The kingdom shall be “under the whole heaven,” on earth (Dan 7:18; Dan 7:27); He shall reign with them as the Son of man, Head of the new creation, and Restorer of man’s lost inheritance. Because as man He established His and the saints’ title to the kingdom at the cost of His own blood, as man He shall judge and reign. It is fit that He who as the Son of man was judged by the world should judge the world. Rev 5:9-10; Psa 8:4-8; Heb 2:6-8; 1Co 15:21-22; 1Co 15:28; 1Co 15:45; 1Co 15:47. The title “the Son of man” in the New Testament Jesus alone uses, and of Himself, except Stephen in dying, “I see the Son of man standing on the right hand of God,” referring not to His humiliation on earth but to His heavenly exaltation (compare Joh 12:23; Joh 12:34; Joh 6:62; Joh 3:13; Act 7:56); standing to assist, plead for (Psa 109:31), and receive the dying martyr.

Stephen speaking “full of the Holy Spirit” repeats Jesus’ prophecy before the council, foretelling His exaltation as the Son of man; only there it is “sitting on the right hand of power,” because there majestic repose, here rising to His servant’s help, is the thought. Stephen’s assertion stirred their rage, that Jesus who had been crucified for claiming to be “the Son of God” stands at God’s right hand as being “the Son of man.” Another exception is John so calls Him in apocalyptic vision (Rev 1:13; Rev 14:14), corresponding to the Old Testament apocalypse (Dan 7:13). The Son of God in eternity became the Son of man in time, whose manhood shall be glorified with His Godhead to eternity. The two titles together declare the whole truth as to His one Person, “whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am? … Thou art the Christ, the Son of God. … Blessed art thou, Bar-Jona” (“son of Jonah”), etc.

As truly as thou art son of Jonah I am at once “the Son of man” and “the Son of God” (Mat 16:28). The two are again combined in Caiaphas’ question as to His being the Son of God, and His affirmative answer and further revelation, “nevertheless, besides … ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power,” etc. (Mat 26:63-64; Mat 24:30; Mat 25:31-32; Mar 14:61-62). As the Son of man He was Lord of the Sabbath, “for the Sabbath was made for man” whose Representative Head He is (Mar 2:28). As the Son of man He suffered for sin (Mat 17:12), and as the Son of man He hath power on earth to forgive sins (Mat 9:6). As the Son of man He had not where to lay His head (Mat 8:20); as the Son of man “He hath on His head a golden crown” (Rev 14:14).

Every eye shall see Him (Rev 1:7), but only “the pure in heart shall see God” (Mat 5:8). “The Son of God became the Son of man that you who were sons of men might be made sons of God” (Augustine, Serm. 121). Jesus is one of our race, yet above the whole race, the One Man in whom mankind finds its unity, the turning point of history at the close of the old and the beginning of the new era. His absolute relation to mankind requires an absolute relation to God. He could be the Son of man only because He is the Son of God. He alone fully realizes the ideal of man, as well as that of God, combining too in His manhood all the exquisite graces of woman with the powers of man.

Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary

SON OF MAN

Of all the titles commonly used of Jesus in the New Testament, Son of man was the one most used by Jesus himself and least used by others. It hardly occurs at all outside the Gospels (Act 7:56; Rev 1:13; Rev 14:14), and inside the Gospels is used almost solely by Jesus. By using this unusual title for himself, Jesus made people think carefully about who he was and what his mission involved (Joh 12:34; Joh 13:31-32).

A heavenly figure

The title son of man comes from a vision recorded in the Old Testament book of Daniel. In this vision a person like a son of man came into the heavenly presence of God and received from him a universal and everlasting kingdom (Dan 7:13-14). The idea of the son of man was tied up with that of the kingdom of God, and this provided the background to Jesus reference to himself as the Son of man.

With the coming of Jesus, the kingdom of God came visibly into the world. The world is under the power of Satan (2Co 4:4; 1Jn 5:19), but Jesus delivered diseased and demonized people, showing that the rule and authority of Gods kingdom can release people from Satans power (Mat 4:23-24; Mat 12:28; Luk 10:9; Luk 10:17-18; Luk 17:20-21; see KINGDOM OF GOD). Gods kingdom will reach its fullest expression when Jesus returns at the end of the age to punish evil, remove Satan and reign in righteousness (Dan 7:13-14; Mat 13:41-43; Mat 24:30-31; Mar 8:38).

The vision in Daniel shows, however, that the Son of man shares the kingdom with his people (Dan 7:14; Dan 7:27). Jesus therefore promised those who followed him that they would share with him in the final triumph of his kingdom (Mat 19:28; Mat 25:31-34; cf. 2Ti 2:11-12; Rev 3:12; Rev 3:21; Rev 20:4).

An earthly figure

In addition to this particular usage, the expression son of man could be used in ordinary speech to apply to any man. It could be simply a poetic way of saying a person, and at times Jesus may have used it simply to mean I or me (Num 23:19; Psa 8:4; Eze 2:1; Eze 2:3; Eze 2:8; Mat 11:19).

The twofold meaning of son of man was especially appropriate as a title for Jesus. It pointed to his deity (he was the heavenly Son of God; Joh 3:13; Joh 6:62) and to his humanity (he was a man, a member of the human race; Mat 8:20). The Son of man was the embodiment of God. In his unique person he carried the authority of God into the world (Mar 2:10; Mar 2:28; cf. Joh 5:27; see JESUS CHRIST; SON OF GOD).

Jesus use of Son of man in relation to the kingdom of God likewise combined heavenly and earthly aspects. The heavenly Son of man was in fact an earthly figure born in the royal line of David and having claim to the messianic throne. Because of the Jews selfish nationalistic ideas of the Messiah and his kingdom, Jesus rarely spoke of himself specifically as the Messiah (see MESSIAH). By using the title Son of man, he was claiming to be the Messiah without actually using the title Messiah. He knew the title Son of man could be puzzling, but he wanted people to think about it. He wanted them to consider the evidence of his life and work, and discover for themselves the true identity of this one who called himself the Son of man (Mat 16:13-16; Joh 9:35-36; Joh 12:34).

When the Jewish leaders finally understood Jesus usage of the title (namely, that he claimed to be both the Davidic Messiah and the supernatural heavenly Messiah of Dan 7:13-14), they accused him of blasphemy and had him crucified (Mar 14:61-64). This did not take Jesus by surprise, for he knew that the heavenly Son of man had also to become the suffering servant. He had to suffer and die before he could receive the kingdom (Mar 8:31; Mar 9:12; Mar 10:45; Joh 3:13-14; Joh 8:28; see SERVANT OF THE LORD).

If, however, the crucified Son of man was to receive an eternal kingdom, his death had to be followed by resurrection (Mar 9:31; Mar 10:33-34). Therefore God, in a triumphant declaration of the perfection of all that Jesus had done through his obedient life and sacrificial death, raised him up and gave him glory (1Pe 1:21). The full revelation of that glory will take place when the Son of man returns in the triumph of his kingdom (Mar 8:38; Mar 13:26; Mar 14:62).

Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary

Son of Man

SON OF MAN

1. Occurrences of the expression in the NT

(a) In the Gospels it is found in the following passageseighty-one in all: Mat 8:20; Mat 9:6; Mat 10:23; Mat 11:19; Mat 12:8; Mat 12:32; Mat 12:40; Mat 13:37; Mat 13:41; Mat 16:13; Mat 16:27-28; Mat 17:9; Mat 17:12; Mat 17:22; Mat 19:28; Mat 20:18; Mat 20:28; Mat 24:27; Mat 24:30, bis Mat 24:37; Mat 24:39; Mat 24:44; Mat 25:31; Mat 26:2; Mat 26:24, bis. Mat 24:45; ,Mat 26:64[30 times]; Mar 2:10; Mar 2:28; Mar 8:31; Mar 8:38; Mar 9:9; Mar 9:12; Mar 9:31; Mar 10:33; Mar 10:45; Mar 13:26; Mar 14:21, bis. Mar 14:41; Mar 14:62[14 times]; Luk 5:24; Luk 6:5; Luk 6:22; Luk 7:34; Luk 9:22; Luk 9:26; Luk 9:44; Luk 9:58; Luk 11:30; Luk 12:8; Luk 12:10; Luk 12:40; Luk 17:22; Luk 17:24; Luk 17:26; Luk 17:30; Luk 18:8; Luk 18:31; Luk 19:10; Luk 21:27; Luk 21:36; Luk 22:22; Luk 22:48; Luk 22:69; Luk 24:7[25 times]; Joh 1:51; Joh 3:13-14; Joh 6:27; Joh 6:53; Joh 6:62; Joh 8:28; Joh 9:35 (Revised Version margin) 12:23, 34 bis 13:31[12 times]. It is obvious to remark that these eighty-one passages do not by any means represent as many different occasions on which the phrase is reported to have been used. Thus of the thirty passages cited from Mt. it will be found on examination that nine have direct parallels in both Mk. and Lk.; that four have parallels in Mk. only, and eight in Luke only; while the remaining nine are peculiar to Matthew (see the tables provided by Driver in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible iv. 579, Schmidt, EBi [Note: Bi Encyclopaedia Biblica.] iv. 4713, and by J. A. Robinson in The Study of the Gospels, p. 58 f.). To the parallel passages in the Synoptics, which exhibit diversity in regard to this particular expression, attention will be directed later.

(b) Apart from the Gospels the Son of Man is found only in Act 7:56 (cf. Luk 22:69). in Rev 1:13; Rev 14:14 the expression used, though akin, is not the same: it is one [sitting] like unto a son of man, which is a precise reproduction of the phrase in Dan 7:13.

With but one exception the name as found in the Gospels is used only by our Lord Himself. The exception is Joh 12:34, and even there it is presupposed that Jesus had spoken of Himself as the Son of Man. The multitude therefore answered him, We have heard out of the law that the Christ abideth for ever; and how sayest thou, The Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man? The multitude are familiar with the title the Son of Man; to them it is a designation of the Messiah; their difficulty is to reconcile Messiahship with exaltation through death. The impression derived from this passage, that the title under discussion was by no means new upon the lips of our Lord,however great the access of content it received from His employment of it,is confirmed by the significant fact that throughout the Gospel narratives there is not a trace that disciples, or the wider public, were in any wise perplexed by the designation. This fact, it may be remarked in passing, has not been allowed its due weight by those who, like Westcott (Gospel of St. John, p. 33 ff., It was essentially a new title), regard the designation as originating with our Lord; or who, like B. Weiss (NT Theol. i. 73), explain the employment of it by Jesus on the supposition that, if not new, it was not one of the current Messianic titles. If new, or unfamiliar, the frequent use of such a self-designation must have occasioned remark, and called for explanation, which would surely have found record in one or other of the Evangelic narratives. If then the Gospels, both by what they say and by what they leave unsaid, favour the view that Son of Man was already known, prior to the ministry of Jesus, as a Messianic title, it becomes needful to trace, in so far as we may, its history. Next, we must try to ascertain at what period in His ministry this title was assumed by our Lord, and why He used it with such marked preference; and, finally, we must seek an explanation of the absence of the name in NT writings other than the Gospels.

2. Source of the title.Baldensperger, writing in 1900 (Theol. Rundschau, p. 201 ff.), regards it as one of the fixed points gained in the course of recent discussion, that the origin of the NT phrase, and in large part its explanation, are to be sought in the OT, and especially in Dan 7:13. Previous discussion had been limited too exclusively to the Gr. expression ; and, owing to such limitation, results were obtained (such as that our Lord reiterated His mere humanity, or that He was the ideal man, or that nothing human was alien to Him) which stood in no obvious relation to passages in which the title is predominantly usedpassages bearing on our Lords Passion and Parousia. The appropriateness of the use of the title in sayings of the latter class was at once apparent when it was viewed in the light of Dan 7:13. Not that the title itself is to be found there. The writer of Daniel describes a vision in which four great beasts come up from the seaa lion, a bear, a leopard, a beast with ten horns. They are judged by the Ancient of Days, and their dominion is taken from them. Thereupon the prophet proceeds:

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given to him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

It will be noted that in this more accurate rendering (that of the Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ) the phrase which is of most moment in the subject now under discussion is quite indefinite: one like unto a son of man,i.e. one with human attributes in contrast to the ferocity of the beasts. The question at once arises, Whom are we to understand by the one like unto a son of man? The answer most commonly given has beenthe Messiah; and there is much to be said for that answer yet, in spite of the dissent of a large number of more recent exegetes. They point to the fact that when Daniel receives the interpretation of his vision (Dan 7:17-27), not a word is said about the one like unto a son of man, but with threefold iteration (Dan 7:18; Dan 7:22; Dan 7:27) it is asserted that after judgment upon the beasts, dominion will be given to the saints of the Most High. Hence it is said that on the testimony of the text of Daniel itself, the one like unto a son of man does not denote a person, but the glorified and ideal people of Israel (see, e.g., Driver, Com. on Daniel, p. 102; Drummond, Jewish Messiah, p. 229). So strongly indeed has this view impressed itself upon the minds of some, that they apply the impersonal interpretation of the phrase in Dan 7:13 as a test to the passages in which our Lord is represented by the Evangelists as using the words the Son of Man. Thus J. Estlin Carpenter (The Synoptic Gospels, pp. 372, 388), regarding the phrase in Daniel as emblematic and collective, and maintaining that Jesus used it in its original meaning, arrives at the conclusion that wherever the term is individualized and used Messianically, we have evidence of the later influence of the Church. Jesus never used it to designate Himself. It is obvious that the application of such a canon would have far-reaching results. But is the interpretation upon which it is based quite sure? The writer of Daniel does not regard the saints of the Most High as coming down from heaven. They are already upon the earth, suffering the oppression of the tyrant symbolized by the little horn, and awaiting deliverance and reversal of condition, which come when the Most High sits for judgment. It would surely be somewhat incongruous to symbolize the saints passing from the depths of misery to exaltation by one who descends from heaven to earth. On the other hand, it accords entirely with the conception which dominates Daniel 7 of a complete change of conditions, if by one like a son of man we understand a Divinely empowered Ruler sent from on high to reign where the four kings, the great beasts, whose origin had been of the earth (Dan 5:17), had borne sway.

If it be urged that had the writer of Daniel 7 intended the Messiah in Dan 5:13, he could not have omitted mention of Him when he goes on to interpret the vision, and could not have spoken so unreservedly of the bestowal of kingdom and dominion upon the saints of the Most High, it may be replied that it is quite in harmony with what may be discerned in other prophetic writings, if the thought of the author of Daniel is found to dwell more on the glories of the Kingdom of the latter days and the felicity of those who have part in it, than upon the Messianic King. Large sections of prophecy, so far as they seek to portray the better future, omit all direct reference to the Messiah. There is no warrant, therefore, as Driver (who, however, holds that the title does not in Daniel directly denote the Messiah, op. cit. p. 104) points out, for saying that the Kingdom is not to be thought of without its King. And there is also no sufficient warrant to assume that if in the recital of a vision there is mention of the Messianic King, He, rather than His subjects, must have mention when the vision is interpreted. It is through failure to make allowance for this that N. Schmidt (EBi [Note: Bi Encyclopaedia Biblica.] iv. 4710) complains that the Messianic interpretation of Dan 7:13 fails to explain how the Messiah, once introduced, can have dropped so completely out of the authors thought, not only in the explanation of the vision, where He is unceremoniously ignored, but also in the future deliverance, with which Michael has much to do but the Messiah nothing. Hence Schmidt suggests that the one like unto a son of man is no other than Michael himself, the guardian angel of Israel (Michael your prince, Dan 10:21)a belated expedient, affording no real assistance. The absence of any mention of the guardian angel in the interpretation of the vision is not more easy of explanation than the absence therefrom of the mention of the Messiah. Indeed, of the two conceptions, that of the gift of everlasting dominion over all peoples to the guardian angel Michael, being the more unfamiliar, would urgently demand some explicit word of explanation.

In order to discover how Jewish readers of the Book of Daniel in the time shortly preceding and shortly following our Lords ministry interpreted that figure, which was presented so suddenly, to be so speedily withdrawn, we turn to the evidence of the Similitudes of the Book of Enoch and of 2 Esdras. Both books are quite certainly of Jewish origin, and both afford unmistakable testimony as to the deep impression made by the apocalyptic teaching of Daniel, which would carry with it familiarity with the concept of one like a son of man. The date of the Book of Esdras is undisputed; it belongs to the closing decades of the first century of our era, approximately to a.d. 81. The date of the Similitudesa later portion of the Book of Enochis more open to doubt. R. H. Charles (Book of Enoch, p. 29) holds them to have been written between b.c. 9479, or b.c. 7064. Schrer (HJP [Note: JP History of the Jewish People.] II. iii. 68) places them somewhat later: at the very soonest, in the time of Herod, i.e. between b.c. 374. Thus, according to both these authorities, the Similitudes are pre-Christian. Whether they have been subjected to interpolations at Christian hands has been much debated. The plea that such interpolations, had they taken place, must have gone further, appears conclusive. Schrer (l.c.) claims, with reason, that this much at least ought to be admitted, that the view of the Messiah presented in the part of the book at present under consideration [the Similitudes] is perfectly explicable on Jewish grounds, and that to account for such view it is not necessary to assume that it was due to Christian influences. Nothing of a specifically Christian character is to be met with in any of this section. We are concerned here with the Messianic teaching of the Similitudes only so far as they adopt and develop the concept derived from Daniel of a heavenly Son of Man. The following extracts (cited from Charles translation ) may suffice:

In ch. 46, Enoch is represented as saying, when relating his vision of the Judgment: And there I saw One who had a Head of Days, and His head was white like wool, and with Him was another being whose countenance had the appearance like one of the holy angels. And I asked the angel who went with me and showed me all the hidden things, concerning that Son of Man, who he was, and whence he was, and why he went with the Head of Days? And he answered and said unto me, This is the Son of Man who hath righteousness, with whom dwelleth righteousness, and who reveals all the treasures of that which is hidden, because the Lord of Spirits hath chosen him, and his lot before the Lord of Spirits hath surpassed everything in uprightness for ever. And this Son of Man whom thou hast seen will arouse the kings and the mighty ones from their couches, and the strong from their thrones, and will loosen the reins of the strong and grind to powder the teeth of the sinners. And he will put down the kings from their thrones and kingdoms, because they do not extol and praise him, nor thankfully acknowledge whence the kingdom was bestowed upon them. In ch. 62 we read: And thus the Lord commanded the kings and the mighty and the exalted, and those who dwell on the earth, and said, Open your eyes and lift up your horns if ye are able to recognize the Elect One. And the Lord of Spirits seated him (i.e. the Messiah) on the throne of His glory, and the spirit of righteousness was poured out upon him, and the word of his mouth slew all the sinners, and all the unrighteous were destroyed before his face. And there will stand up in that day all the kings, and the exalted, and those who hold the earth, and they will see and recognize him how he sits on the throne of his glory, and righteousness is judged before him, and no lying word is spoken before him. And one portion of them will look on the other, and they will be terrified and their countenance will fall, and pain will seize them when they see that Son of Man sitting on the throne of his glory. And the kings will glorify and bless and extol him who rules over all, who was hidden. For the Son of Man was hidden before Him, and the Most High preserved him in the presence of His might, and revealed him to the elect. See also 69:27 And he sat on the throne of his glory, and the sum of judgment was committed unto him, the Son of Man, and he caused the sinners and those who have led the world astray to pass away and be destroyed from off the face of the earth. These passages leave no room to question how the author of the Similitudes interpreted Daniels one like unto a son of man. To him the phrase characterized no symbolic figure, but a celestial person, Divinely endowed with world-wide dominion, and appointed to be the judge of all men. The descriptive expression is in process of becoming a title; passing through demonstrative stagesthis Son of Man, that Son of Man,it emerges as the Son of Man.

In 2 Esdras 13 there is no such development of the phrase, one like unto a son of man, as we find in the Similitudes, but the dependence upon Daniel and the Messianic interpretation of Dan 7:13 is not less clear. Esdras is represented as recounting a dream, in which he saw coming up from the midst of the sea as it were the likeness of a man; and I beheld [he proceeds], and, lo, that man flew with the clouds of heaven: and when he turned his countenance to look, all things trembled that were seen under him. And after this, I beheld, and, lo, there was gathered together a multitude of men, out of number, from the four winds of heaven, to make war against the man that had come out of the sea. This multitude he destroys by the mere breath of his mouth, and then he is seen to call unto him another multitude which was peaceable. When Esdras seeks the interpretation of the dream, he is told: Whereas thou sawest a man coming up from the midst of the sea, the same is he whom the Most High hath kept a great season, which by his own self shall deliver his creatures: and he shall order them that are left behind. Behold, the days come when the Most High will begin to deliver them that are upon the earth. and it shall be when these things shall come to pass, and the signs shall happen that I showed thee before, then shall my Son be revealed, whom thou sawest as a man ascending. And this my Son shall rebuke the nations which are come for their wickedness. And he shall destroy them without labour by the law, which is likened unto fire. The peaceable multitude is further explained to be Israel, of whom this son of the Most High is not the symbol, but the Saviour.

The writings of Enoch and Esdras are, it is reasonable to assume, only the survivors of other Apocalypses of the same period, which in like manner founded themselves on the vision of Daniel, and sought to supply in their own way what the prophet had left untold concerning one like unto a son of man. If so, that phrase would also inevitably turn in the popular mind into a definite Messianic title, calling for no question when it was heard from the lips of Jesus, unless it were as to His right to appropriate it. It is suggestive to find that later on a more subordinate expression in Dan 7:13 was adopted in similar fashion, and that = son of cloud, or cloud-man, became a Rabbinic title for the Messiah (see Levy, NHWB [Note: HWB Neuhebrisehes Wrterbuch.] , s. v. ).

At this point it is needful to pause to consider how our Lords use of the expression the Son of Man is affected by the fact that He spoke Aramaic. If is turned into Aramaic, does it give an expression which could be employed as a title? Or, to put it otherwise, is perhaps . a mistranslation of the words actually uttered by Jesus, or an expression of later growth imported into His sayings by Greek-speaking Christians? Within the last decade, more especially, these questions have been keenly discussed. Wellhausen gave stimulus to the debate by a footnote in his IJG [Note: JG Israelitische und Jdische Geschichte.] 2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] (1895, p. 346), in which he said: Since Jesus spoke Aramaic He did not call Himself , but barnascha; that, however, means the Man, and nothing else, the Aramaeans having no other expression for the notion. The earliest Christians did not understand that Jesus called Himself simply the Man. They held Him to be the Messiah, made accordingly a designation of the Messiah out of barnascha, and translated it not by , as they should, but quite erroneously by . Wellhausen further lays stress on the fact that St. Paul makes no use of the expression Son of Man, and refuses to admit any evidence which might be cited from Enoch, on the arbitrary plea that the Son of man in the Book of Enoch must be left out of account, so long as it is not established that the relative portion of the book was known, or could be known, to Jesus.

In 1896, H. Lietzmann published a brochureDer Menschensohnin which, after a review of previous opinions, he enters into a discussion of Son of Man in Aramaic, with the result that he declares the expression to have been in Galilaean Aramaic, the most colourless and indeterminate designation of a human individualone that might be used as an indefinite pronoun (p. 38). The use of in the compound phrase is described as a genuine Semitic pleonasm, and it is maintained that no intelligible distinction existed between and . To say with Wellhausen that where the Gospels have . . the translation should have been will not do, according to Lietzmann, since that could be no distinctive designation, and the Evangelists do most certainly intend the phrase they use as a definite title; but Jesus has never used the title Son of Man of Himself, since in Aramaic it does not exist, and for linguistic reasons cannot exist (op. cit. p. 85). The formula is to be regarded as a terminus technicus of Hellenistic theology, which, originating in Christian Apocalypses, was applied first to passages relating to our Lords Return, then to His Passion, and finally to other sections of the narratives.

In 1899, Wellhausen returned to this subject (Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, Sechstes Heft), and in the main declared his adoption of Lietzmanns conclusion that Jesus, speaking Aramaic, could not make the difference which is made in Greek between and . .:that so far as this difference is made in the Gospels it is not authentic, but is derived from interpreters and editors. Wellhausen withdraws from the position he had formerly advocated, that Jesus did adopt the Man as a title, meaning thereby that He fulfilled the ideal of humanity. He now declares that to impute such a meaning to our Lord is not warrantable, and that in the absence of that meaning the supposed title would be wholly meaningless, and therefore it was not employed. The use of . . in the Gospels is explained as due to the fact that the expressions of Dan 7:13 are put into the mouth of Jesus in Mar 13:26, that there after it became the custom in all passages which refer to the Return of Jesus to avoid the pronoun, and to place instead the Son of Man. Then followed the same usage in other than eschatological passages (op. cit. p. 210). Wellhausen again adduces in confirmation of the position that this self-designation of Jesus is not authentic, the argumentum ex silentiothe entire absence of the expression in other NT writings than the Gospels.

On the other hand, Dalman (Die Worte Jesu, 1898 [English translation 1902]) and Schmiedel (Protestant. Monatshefte, 1898, Hefte 7 and 8) called in question the linguistic premises of Lietzmann and Wellhausen, and contested their conclusions. They both maintain that Jesus did certainly call Himself the Son of Man, using the title in a Messianic sense, and with direct reference to Dan 7:13, though both hold the primary sense of a son of man, in that verse, to be collective, and not personal. Dalman adduces evidence to show that the Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the earlier period possessed the term for a human being, while to indicate a number of human beings it employed occasionally . The singular number was not in use; its appearance being due to imitation of the Hebrew text, where [apart from Ezekiel] is confined to poetry, and, moreover, uncommon in it. The case in Dan 7:13, where the person coming from heaven is described as , one like unto a son of man, is just as uncongenial to the style of prose as the designation of God in the same verse as the advanced in days (op. cit. p. 237). Moreover, just as in Hebrew is never made definite, so is the definite expression quite unheard of in the older Jewish Aramaic literature. The common use of = man in Jewish Galilaean and Christian Palestinian literature is to be regarded as a later innovation. That this later usage was not already In vogue in the dialect spoken by our Lord (of which no written specimen from His time is in evidence) is demonstrated by His words as reported in the Gospels. Man, both in the singular and in the plural, is frequently enough the subject of remark. How is it that never occurs for man, and only in Mar 3:28? Can the Hellenistic reportersapart from the self-appellation of Jesushave designedly avoided it, although Jesus had on all occasions said nothing but son of man for man? That cannot be considered likely. Hence, against Lietzmann and Wellhausen, Dalman holds both that Son of man was a possible expression in the Aramaic of our Lords day, and that by its singularity it was adapted for use as a title. To the Jews it would be purely a Biblical word. To the same effect Schmiedel, who sums up his view of the linguistic part of the controversy thus: the Aramaic Lexicon must not say barnascha means man, and nothing more, but it must run thus: barnascha, (1) man, (2) abbreviated designation of the form like a son of man (i.e. like a man) in Dan 7:13, which, although, according to Dan 7:18; Dan 7:22; Dan 7:27, signifying the saints of the Most High, was held to be the Messiah. We, on our part, declare that second meaning to be extant, and to have been so already before the time of Jesus (l.c. 264). Reference is made below ( 5) to the replies of Dalman and Schmiedel to the argument ex silentio, by which, as already stated, it has been sought to lend support to the theory that the Son of Man in the Gospels is no genuine utterance of Jesus.

In 1901, P. Fiebig published the result of a fresh and very thorough examination of the linguistic evidence on the matter at issue. The main contribution in his dissertation (Der Menschensohn) is a demonstration that and were, in spite of their formal indefiniteness and definiteness, completely interchangeable; and that similarly the compound expressions and were alike employed to express either of the three meanings(1) the man, (2) a man, (3) some one. Hence, either expression might be rendered by . ., or by ., orsince, according to Fiebig, the use of the compound expression as the precise equivalent of without was no relatively late introduction from the Syriacby (p. 56). That in the Gospels a distinction is maintained by using . ., and not alone, is due to the desire to bring out that the fuller phrase is used with direct reference to in Dan 7:13. But whether in all cases the distinction has been accurately made by the translators is matter for investigation, having regard to the ambiguity of the Aramaic expression. Further, Fiebig holds, on the evidence of Enoch and Esdras, and of the Synoptics themselves, that the Son of Man, or rather the Man, was in our Lords day a current title for the Messiah.

The above linguistic discussion has demonstrated considerable diversity of opinion, as could hardly fail to be the case in the absence of any contemporary example of the dialect spoken in Galilee at the time of our Lords earthly ministry. In their estimate of probabilities afforded by cognate dialects, or by later usage, scholars are sure to differ somewhat. Nevertheless, the whole investigation has been fruitful in suggestion to the NT critic. But the attempt made in connexion with it to account for the presence in the Gospels of the Son of Man on some other grounds than that it represents a self-designation employed by our Lord, can only be characterized as an elaborate failure. Wellhausens invocation of hypothetical Apocalypses to explain the presence in the records of Jesus, and in those records not in the apocalyptic passages alone, of a title which (ex hypoth.) He did not use, removes no difficulty, but only calls aloud itself for explanation how such a thing could be. The belief that the title is the genuine utterance of Jesus is left unshaken.

3. When did our Lord adopt the title Son of Man?There can be but one answer, if we are justified in assuming that the Son of Man was already a Messianic title before our Lord employed it. He can have adopted it only subsequently to St. Peters confession of His Messiahship at Caesarea Philippi. But do the Gospels lend colour to any such limitation? Turning to the earliest of the Synoptics,and we may confine our attention just now to the Synoptics,we are met by the significant fact that St. Mark has the phrase only twice (Mar 2:10; Mar 2:28) prior to the Caesarean incident; St. Luke has it four times (Luk 5:24; Luk 6:5; Luk 6:22; Luk 7:34), and St. Matthew nine times (Mat 8:20; Mat 9:6; Mat 10:23; Mat 11:19; Mat 12:8; Mat 12:32; Mat 12:40; Mat 13:37; Mat 13:41). Thus, in by far the greatest number of cases the title occurs subsequent to Peters confession. What, then, is to be said as to its occurrence in such cases as are prior to that confession? No one answer will suffice. Certainly it will not do to resort to the expedient of saying that the title was but little known, and that its Messianic application might be missed until our Lord Himself, late in His ministry, brought it into direct relation to Daniels prophecy; or to adopt the alternative offered by Holtzmann (NT Theol. vol. i. p. 264) of saying that the son of man or man was used by Jesus at first in its ordinary significance, and then, by reason of the stress He laid on it, came to be to the disciples an enigmatic word, which brought them to see that their Master was a man not as others, but with a unique calling, and at length to find in Him the Messiah. Either supposition would leave unexplained how the adoption of the title, whether unfamiliar or familiar, could have passed unchallenged, and not have called forth questions as to the sense in which Jesus was using the words. As little is help to be found in Fiebigs suggestion that one reason why our Lord chose this title (the Man, according to Fiebig), was that men would find in it a meaning, though they might fail to apprehend the meaning with which Jesus employed it (op. cit. p. 120). Here, again, allowance is not made for the extreme difficulty of supposing that a speaker could apply a title to himself unless it were with an obvious purpose, which his hearers would certainly discern. There is not the least ground for supposing that it was a more usual thing in Aramaic than it is in our own language for any one to speak of himself in the third person. Such a form of speech might lend itself to more definite self-revelation, but clearly it was in no wise calculated to secure self-concealment. Wrede, in a note in ZNTW [Note: NTW Zeitschrift fr die Neutest. Wissen. schaft.] (1904, Heft 4), urges that in recent discussions about the Son of Man too little attention has been given to the really astonishing fact that Jesus is represented in the Gospels as quite habitually speaking of Himself as of a third person, and yet, so far as the Gospels show, no one thought it strange. Wrede is justified in saying that only our early familiarity with the language of the Gospels makes us insensible to the difficulty created by the frequency of the recurrence of the title; but he surely greatly exaggerates the difficulty when he finds in it a most convincing argument to deny that Jesus used this self-designation at all. Certainly it was an unusual and striking form of speech to adopt. But that constitutes no sufficient reason for assuming that our Lord did not adopt it, even because it was more calculated to arrest attention when He desired to lay stress on His Messianic claims, and on special aspects of them. The real difficulty lies in the supposition that an unwonted form of speech, most calculated to provoke inquiry concerning the speaker, was adopted by Jesus at a time when, according to the testimony of the Synoptics, He studiously avoided making His identity known, when He had not even affirmed His Messiahship to the inner circle of the Twelve. It is needful, therefore, to look in detail at the passages cited above, in which the title is found prior to the declaration of our Lords Messiahship. For that declaration, see Mat 16:16, Mar 8:29, Luk 9:20.

Taking first the passages in St. Mark, with their parallels in the other Synoptics, and turning to Mar 2:10 (cf. Luk 5:24, Mat 9:6), we are confronted at once with the representation that quite early in His ministry, when in the presence of hostile scribes, Jesus definitely identifies Himself with the Son of Man. that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins I say unto thee, Arise. It is, of course, possible that the incident is not here in its due chronological positionthat it properly belongs to a much later time in the Evangelical narrative. But there is no reason, unless it be the presence of the phrase now in question, to think so. More likely is it that in this case the ambiguity of the Aramaic is accountable for the presence of the title in the Greek rendering. The scribes were charging Jesus with blasphemy because He assumed to pronounce the forgiveness of sins, that being, as they held, in the power of God only, and not in that of any man. Jesus responds by undertaking to afford a convincing sign that even a man [meaning Himself] hath authority, etc. Such a reconstruction of the passage finds support in Mat 9:8, where we read that the multitudes who stood by glorified God, which had given such authority unto menthe multitudes understanding our Lord to have employed no title, and taking the expression He used in its collective sense.

In Mar 2:28 (cf Luk 6:5, Mat 12:8) our Lords argument in regard to the observance of the Sabbath seems to demand that man should be substituted where we now read the Son of Man. He is vindicating the action of His disciples, and asserting for all others the same freedom in regard to the use of the Sabbath as they had exercised. Jesus is not concerned to assert His own personal rights, but those of His followers, and of all who suffered from restrictions which threatened to turn that which was given for mans benefit into a bondage. The Sabbath was made for man so that man is lord [or rather owner answering here to a familiar sense of the Hebrew Swete, Com. on St. Mark] even of the Sabbath.

Taking next the two remaining pre-Caesarean occurrences of the Son of Man in St. Luke, the earlier of the two, Luk 6:22, presents little difficulty. It is an obvious case of an editorial insertion of the title. Where St. Luke has for the Son of Mans sake, Mat 5:11 has, for my sakethe latter being clearly the earlier form of the saying. Luk 7:34 (cf. Mat 11:19) is quite conceivably another case of the reverent substitution by tradition of the title in place of a pronoun. Our Lord is contrasting His action with that of the Baptist. What more likely than that He should say, John the Baptist is come I am come? The title can be deemed here in no wise essential.

It remains to glance at six passages in the First Gospel besides those already mentioned, in which the Son of Man is found prior to Peters confession. Taking these cases in order of their occurrence in the Gospel, it is sufficient as to the first, Mat 8:20, to note that its parallel is Luk 9:58i.e. according to St. Luke the incident of the scribe who volunteered to follow Jesus was subsequent to Peters confession. There is no reason to suspect here any misconception of our Lords words on the part of His translators. He cannot have said that in contrast to beasts and birds man hath not where to lay his head. The contrast drawn is between such creatures and Himself, the Messianic Son of Man. If even He had no resting-place, His followers might know thereby what hardship they must be prepared to undergo. Mat 10:23 is quite clearly not in its true chronological order; it belongs to a later time than the first mission of the Twelve, and to a connexion in which a larger work was contemplated than that with which they were then entrusted. But the Evangelist, following his preference for topical arrangement, has linked these later words to the instructions given to the Twelve when they were about to set out on their earliest missionary expedition.

Mat 12:32, when compared with Luk 12:10 and with Mar 3:28, is found to be a combination of two different reports of our Lords saying as to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Mar 3:28 has no mention of the Son of Man, but it has the expression, quite unique in the Gospels, the sons of men. It runs thus: All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and their blasphemies but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. In the parallel in St. Luke, the unwonted phrase the sons of men disappears, and its place is taken by the familiar expression the Son of Man, and the entire saying is modified in accordance therewith. That St. Mark has the utterance in its genuine form is unquestionable. Whether it properly belongs to the period before the incident at Caesarea, or, as St. Luke suggests, was later than it, it did not contain the title the Son of Man.

Mat 12:40 (cf. Luk 11:30). It is sufficient to point out that St. Luke places this saying in order of time considerably later than does St. Matthew, and as before, preference must be given to St. Luke in a matter of chronological order.

Finally, the parable of the Tares, in the explanation of which the title appears twice (Mat 13:37; Mat 13:41), may, with good reason, be said to belong to a late period in our Lords ministry. It owes its present position to St. Matthews desire to bring it into the collection of parables comprised in his 13th chapter.

Thus, of the instances in which our Lords self-designation appears in the Synoptic Gospels prior to their recital of Peters confession at Caesarea Philippi, there is not one which can, on examination, be held to afford proof that this Messianic title was used by Him before His follower had declared Him to be the Messiah, or to invalidate the assumption that the use of the title by our Lord began at the time of that declaration, not earlier.

In St. Matthews account of the incident at Caesarea there are remarkable additions, both to our Lords question and to Peters answer. In Mat 16:13 we read: Who do men say that the Son of Man is? The answer is given: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. In Mar 8:27 the question is: Who do men say that I am? The answer is simply: Thou art the Christ. St. Luke (Mar 9:18; Mar 9:20) agrees, with but slight variations, with St. Mark. He has: Who do the multitudes say that I am? The Christ of God. We have here another casethe most notable of all such casesin which the title has been substituted for the pronoun which our Lord employed. It is possible that in this case the additional clause was first appended to Peters answer, and that the substitution in our Lords question was occasioned by ita substitution which represents the desired answer as already provided in the statement of the question. Holtzmann may be right in suggesting that doctrinal interests are answerable for such a result. He says (op. cit. vol. i. p. 258) that the First Evangelist appears as the theologian, who sees in the Son of Man the obverse of the Son of God, and so prepares the way for the doctrine of the two natures. Whether the clauses in question are to be ascribed to St. Matthew himself, or whether they may be due to the theological tendency of a later hand, may be regarded as an open question.

For other instances than those already cited of this variationthe title appearing in one Gospel, but not in the parallel passage in another, or in the other twosee Luk 12:8 as compared with Mat 10:32; Mat 16:28, cf. Mar 9:1, and Luk 9:27; Mar 10:45, and Mat 20:28, cf. Luk 22:27; Mar 8:31, and Luk 9:22, cf. Mat 16:21.

As to the occurrence of the Son of Man in the earlier chapters of the Fourth Gospel, it need here only be pointed out that such occurrence is in entire accord with the representation of St. John, that from their earliest association with Him our Lords followers knew that He was the Divine Christ. The declaration of Messiahship and the use of the title are concurrent in the Fourth Gospel as in the Synoptics. This agreement is to be emphasized here: the reconciliation of the view, which represents our Lords Messiahship as declared from the outset of His ministry, with the threefold testimony that such declaration followed only when disciples had received prolonged training in the course of that ministry, does not come within the scope of our present purpose. The first occurrence of the self-designation in St. Johns Gospel affords a striking parallel to our Lords use of it in response to Peters confession (Mar 8:29; Mar 8:31). Nathanael declares Jesus to be the Son of God king of Israel, and to that confession Jesus responds With the promise: Ye shall see the heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man (Joh 1:51). Similarly in Joh 3:13, it is when Jesus has declared to Nicodemus that He has Himself descended from heaven and can therefore tell of heavenly things, that He goes on to designate Himself the Son of Man, and to foretell His suffering on behalf of man. Here it may be noted that in the Fourth Gospel, precisely as in the Synoptics, not a hint is given that the title was unfamiliar and one that called for explanation. Nicodemus was not indisposed to ask questions; but St. John leaves us to infer that as to this designation he found no difficulty. Three times in ch. 6 (Joh 6:27; Joh 6:53; Joh 6:62), in connexion with the discourse in which Jesus speaks of Himself as the bread which came down out of heaven, the title occurs, accompanying and used to emphasize an open declaration of our Lords claims as to His Person and Work.

The later occurrences of the title in the Fourth Gospel all, with the exception of Joh 9:35 (if be the right reading there), are foundas is the case with most of its later occurrences in the Synopticsin passages relating to our Lords Passion, or to the glory which would follow thereon. This fact suggests, at least in part, the answer to a further inquiry which must now be made.

4. Why did our Lord adopt this in preference to any other Messianic title?Nowhere does He tell us in precise terms; but His usage leaves no room to doubt that its attraction lay in its freedom from the limitations which beset other Messianic names.

(a) First and foremost, it permitted the blending of the conception of the Suffering Servant with that of the Messianic King. That was the great enlargement which Jesus gave, in His use of it, to the title He adopted. True, there was nothing in Daniels delineation of one like unto a son of man to suggest such a blending, but there was also nothing to preclude it. Whether the coming of the heavenly Son of Man in glory, and for universal dominion, was to be preceded by a coming in humiliation and a reascension through suffering, the writer of Daniel did not tell. But what the prophet failed to disclose, Jesus revealed. He was indeed the son of man, whom Daniel beheld, but passing through a phase of existence anterior to that of which the seer had a glimpse, and a phase which none were anticipating. Jesus was indeed the Messiah; but the expectations which gathered about that name made no allowance for that which was foremost in the purpose for which He came to earth. Hence, no sooner did His disciple exclaim Thou art the Christ, than he began to teach them [the disciples] that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. Put even so,as a fresh disclosure concerning the Son of Man,the teaching was not easy of reception, as Peters remonstrance showed; but to have said at that juncture that the Son of David, or the Christ, must suffer and be killed, had been to make the teaching yet harder of reception.

As Dalman says (op. cit. p. 265): The name Messiah denoted the Lord of the Messianic age in His capacity as Ruler; in reality it was applicable only when His enthronement had taken place, not before it. Suffering and death for the actual possessor of the Messianic dignity are, in fact, unimaginable according to the testimony of the prophets. When Jesus attached to the Messianic confession of Peter the first intimation of His violent death He did so in order to make it clear that the entrance upon His sovereignty was still far distant. But the one like unto a son of man of Dan 7:13 has still to receive the sovereignty. It was possible that he should also be one who had undergone suffering and death.

Hence, in reiterated statements to the disciples concerning the death toward which He moved, the invariable self-designation on the lips of our Lord is the Son of Man. See Mar 9:9; Mar 9:12; Mar 9:31; Mar 10:33; Mar 14:21; Mar 14:41, and the parallels in St. Matthew and St. Luke. Only when the Crucifixion and the Resurrection were accomplished facts, in the light of which His disciples might discern how false and misleading had been their narrow conception of what Messiahship could be, does Jesus speak to them of Himself in other terms: Behoved it not the Christ to suffer these things? and again: Thus it is written that the Christ should suffer (Luk 24:26; Luk 24:46).

(b) If the Son of Man was a title capable of being associated with suffering and death, it was a title already associated with the glorious coming of One who should have everlasting rule over a world in which the powers of evil should no more have sway. That was the form of expectation present to the mind of Jesus as He passed on His way to the baptism of suffering, and that was the form of Messianic hope which He sought to strengthen in His followers as He spoke to them, with growing frequency, of the coming of the Son of Man. The utterances concerning the return of the Son of Man in glory, and the predictions that the Son of Man must suffer and die, are in strict correlation (see Bousset, Jesus, p. 92 ff.). It is this coming from heaven, this realization of the Kingdom of heaven upon earth, to which Jesus looks forward. Wholly unlike the anticipations entertained by men around Him concerning the Davidic Messiah, the vision of Daniel is that which Jesus again and again calls to mind. He will come in the glory of the Father with the holy angels (Mar 8:38); They shall see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory (Mar 13:26; see also Mar 14:62); When the Son of Man shall come in his glory and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered all the nations: and he shall separate them one from another (Mat 25:31 ff.). This function of separation, of judgment, is not in the Danielic sketch of the son of man; it is a feature added by our Lord. In Daniel the judgment is effected by the Most High. It is significant of much, that Jesus, while adopting and citing that prophecy, does not hesitate to modify it in this important particular, and to declare that it is He who will come to be our Judge (cf. Joh 5:27).

(c) If the Son of Man, telling of descent from heaven, spoke of a closer association with God than did any other current Messianic title, so did it speak also of closer association with manwith the race. All narrow particularism falls away. He who bears this title is no mere Son of David, or King of Israel. Especially when regard is had to the idiomatic use of in Aramaic, as of in Hebrew, such a title expresses in the strongest possible way that He who is called by it has the nature and the qualities of [mankind, and that He who calls Himself by it claims thereby relationship with man everywhere.

It is in such reasons as these that we may find the true clue to our Lords adoption of this namenot in its supposed unfamiliarity, nor in an ambiguity enabling the speaker to use it in one sense, while He could confidently anticipate that it would be understood in another by His hearers.

5. Why did our Lords followers, with the exception of Stephen, not apply this title to Him?The fact that a designation which meets us so frequently in the Gospels is, with the single exception of Act 7:56, wholly absent from the rest of the NT, is remarkable and significant. But of what? Wellhausen and Lietzmann answer, of this: that it was unknown to St. Paul and the other writers of the Epistles and to the author of the Apocalypse that such a title was employed by Jesus, and that the presumption is that only after their day was it introduced into the Gospels. But how this could be done, and how such an important modification of the most cherished records of the Church could be carried out with such enduring success, there is nothing to show. Certainly it is not safe to conclude that St. Paul and other NT writers did not know that this was our Lords self-designation because they make no direct reference to it. Schmiedel (l.c. p. 260 f.) points to Heb 2:6 ff. as affording evidence that the name was not unknown to the writer of that Epistle. Similarly, he holds that St. Paul in 1Co 15:27 makes his reference to Psalms 8 because of the presence in that psalm of the terms which he associated with his Lordthe Son of Man. Schmiedel is on firmer ground when he goes on to rebut the contention, that had St. Paul known of the title he must have cited it in such a verse as 1Co 15:47. He urges that it should be borne in mind that St. Paul wrote for Greeks, who would not, like the Jews, understand by the son of man simply man, but would take son quite literally. To this may be added that, apart from the suggestion of a purely human parentage, which Gentiles might receive from the title, its use would for them lay an undue, and therefore a misleading, stress on our Lords humanity. To the Jew the Son of Man suggested the Lord from heaven; not so to the Gentile. Where the association of the name with heavenly origin and majesty could not be assumed, there the Apostles and early exponents of Christianity adopted other terms as they spoke or wrote of their risen and ascended Lord, and proclaimed Him as the Christ, the Son of God (Joh 20:31). To use the words of Dalman (op. cit. p. 266), the Church was quite justified in refusing, on its part, to give currency to the title; for in the meantime the Son of Man had been set upon the throne of God, and was, in fact, no longer merely a man, but a Ruler over heaven and earth, the Lord, as St. Paul in the Epistles to the Thessalonians, and the Teaching of the Apostles in its apocalyptic statement, rightly designate Him who comes with the clouds of heaven.

In short, the absence of the title the Son of Man from other early Christian records than the Gospels, is significant of the widening range of the Churchs appeal beyond the confines of Judaism; its retention in the Gospels is no less significant of the fidelity with which the words of Jesus were preserved by His followers.

Literature.For a summary of various interpretations of the Son of Man, see articles by Driver in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible ; N. Schmidt in EBi [Note: Bi Encyclopaedia Biblica.] ; and Baldensperger in Theol. Rundschau, 1900, Hefte 6 and 7. Many of the more important modern contributions have already been indicated. Of those not directly cited may be mentioned: Appel, Die Selbstbezeichnung Jesu; Bruce, Kingdom, of God; Sanday, Expositor, Jan. 1891; Bartlet, ib. Dec. 1892; Stanton, The Jewish and the Christian Messiah; Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus; Keim, Jesus of Nazara; Weiss, Life of Christ.

George P. Gould.

Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels

Son of Man

Son of Man. Mat 8:20. This title is given to our Saviour 80 times in the New Testament. See also Dan 7:13. The Jews perfectly understood it to denote the Messiah. He calls himself not a son of man (among other children of men), but the Son of man (above all others)the ideal, the universal, the perfect Man. So, on the other hand, he calls himself not a, but the Son of Godthe only-begotten and eternal Son of the Father. Comp. such passages as Joh 1:51; Joh 3:13; Joh 6:53; Mat 9:6; Mat 12:8; Mar 2:10; Mar 2:28. See Jesus Christ. The term son of man is applied to Ezekiel and Daniel, meaning merely “man,” as it does in Num 23:19; Job 25:6; Psa 8:4, etc.

Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible