Dear Friends,

Although I have read and heard the answer before, when asked last night, my mind went blank. So can you refresh my memory, by telling me what Christ meant when he referred to Himself as 'the Son of Man'? Thanks!

In Christ,
Alice

Alice,

"An important messianic title of Christ, who is perfect God and perfect Man. The Gospels reveal that Jesus often applied this title to Himself. In Christ, the second Adam, God assumed and perfected sinful humanity, freeing those who follow Him from the consequences of the rebellion of the first man, Adam".( from the Orthodox Study Bible ).

james

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Alice,
I am not real strong on this point so please forgive me if I take a stab at it.

I don't have the reference at the moment (at work) but if I remember correctly, the Son of Man was an expression used to represent the Glory of God.

Often Angels served to represent God as in the wrestling match with Israel or the three angels visiting Abraham and Sarah.

Sometimes the Glory of God is represented as an image with the form of man. It would help to know more about post-exhilic Judaism.

I think it is an allusion to that type of representation of God that was intended. It doesn't seem to have raised a lot of questions among the hearers of Jesus when He applied the term to Himself.

The image was tied in some peoples minds to the Messianic hope.

That's about all I can think of at the moment

Michael

In Hebrew, the term "son of" in certain syntactical usages denotes the category of being to which the entity in question belongs.

Thus, "son of a prophet" = saying that this person is a Prophet. Or, "sons of Israel" is a way of saying, the "Israelites".

In modern Hebrew, mothers will yell at their children when they are misbehaving, "be a 'ben adam'(son of man)", meaning: "stop behaving like animals, and be humans!"

In the Biblical sense, it probably takes its basic sense from that, but of course it doesn't end there.

The term Son of Man appears first in Apocalytic liturature like Daniel and in a sense Ezekiel.

It probably denotes a certain Representative of All Humanity. In this person is "summed up" in a sense the entire human race. But this figure also has distincly messianic or saviour qualities and functions, esp. in opposing the evil empires of this world/Satan.

And so with Jesus, qua Ben Adam, he ultimately "recapitulates" (as the Fathers say) in Himself, the entire human race, and in that capacities is that End Time figures who is the instrument of God in defeating evil and Satan's empires.

just some further fyi's

Herb

Dear Herb….

What an excellent explanation. I can only supporting details to what you have explained so well. Of course you did it simply so people can understand and I can seldom do that.

The term “son of” means <something generated - from its origin or like>. The arrow is called “son of the bow” in the fact of it coming from the bow. The arrow is generated from the bow.

In it fullest sense it has the meaning of “nature” a nature generates is own kind.

Your explanation of “son of the prophet” is very correct (I need not tell you), and the disciples of any prophet school were “sons of the prophet”.

When ever Jesus referred to himself as The Son of Man he was referring to himself in three ways - but all of them pinned to his human flesh nature. Note (as you will agree) that it was not the Son of God who suffered on the cross - it was the Son of Man (his human nature). So whenever Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man he was referring to his - own human nature - and whenever Jesus referred to himself as the Son of God he was referring to that nature about him which was God-nature. Two natures - in one - that was his startling claim.

At the same time - Son of Man - explicitly means “generated from the nature of man” meaning - born of a woman. Flesh generating flesh.

At the same time (and I only echo your remarks) it was also a title that no one would dare take upon himself - because of the prophecies of Daniel and Ezekiel where they relate meeting one like “the son of man” and being told by him that he was coming. To call oneself the “Son of Man” would be to claim that prophecy as referring to - himself. A daring and blasphemous claim if not true.

And your next comment is also right on the money (which I need not tell you) Son of Adam… ben Adam. This is wide and expansive, as you know, due to the inflections of the word “adam” which can mean universal humanity, a group of humans, or an individual - man… and most properly encompasses all these meanings at once. As you well know we could probably write a full page on the many inflections of what “Ben Adam” means in all its inflections.

A bold claim!!

Son of David (a title given to the one son who is selected as most like the mind of the king - from out of all other sons). David had many sons and Nathan was the first born in time - but Solomon was the “first fruits” in the way of the best - and to take first place. One son out of all other sons is appointed THE Son of David and next to ascend the throne. Matthew's is a trace of the all the Sons of David as that appointment passed down the line to end with the appointment of Jesus as Son of David. So too “Son of Pharaoh” which designated that son “next to ascend the throne” and could only be given to a genetic son or nephew - making Moses (“taken from the waters”) the real and genetic son of the princess daughter of the Pharaoh and the ark and water a ceremonial act.

In my own hard won knowledge of Hebrew traditions and stuff - and in reading the gospels (which may be a transliteration of original Hebrew - or at least they display the very Hebrew mind of its authors and the very Hebrew way of its actors) I find that when Jesus speaks - his words always - include all the inflections of the Hebrew. There is such a depth of meaning and - it all fits. Better than poetry - his use exhausts all inflections in a symmetry. If we understand his words to mean something at first glance - it is only when we examine its depth and inflections within the Hebrew culture - that we can be sure we know what it is he is saying.

Such an example would be this - where we translate the word to “corner stone” when the word means “key stone”. A true ’corner stone’ in our sense of the first stone laid in the foundation - did not really exist at that time. The corner-stone only came to be much later in time. Key-stone - that center stone at the top of an archway upon which all the all the pressure of the structure is focused. It is the last stone of the arch-way (foot-bridge in our minds) to be put into place. Without it all the other stones would not stand. It takes all the pressure. If it cracks and fails - if it falls on you - the whole arch falls on you and you are crushed to death. I do not know how a corner-stone laid in a foundation on the ground - might come to fall on you when it is already on the ground. Knowing the traditions and culture is very revealing.

The Son of Man when used as a title (which Jesus certantly did claim) also indicated, just as I have shown Son of David, Son of Pharaoh, etc... that One on whom the "blessing" past from Adam, Abraham, Jacob, Joesph etc.. (the line) came to rest upon Jesus.

The trace of the line of the title Son of David and the trace of the line of the 'blessing' trough Abraham etc.. had always been seperated between two people... one the Son of David (like Solomon) and one the Son of Adam - it was significant that within the person of Jesus these two lines converged for the first (and last) time. He was rightly - both - as Matthew proves in his trace of the line.

You are obviously familiar with biblical Hebrew and its traditions and culture??


-ray

I wish to share with you my working paper on the Son of Man, a piece of research I started a few years ago. I find this Christological(?) title to be of great interest and hope that my survey and reflections on the Son of Man would result in healthy commentary. Found below is the current state of my paper (without footnotes, bibliography, and proper formatting). I hope to submit it for publication in a Bible studies journal next spring with some additional inquiry and necessary revisions, but I am currently being sidetracked by job-hunting.

- - - - - - -

WORKING PAPER ON THE ‘SON OF MAN’

Copyright: Joseph Edwin Thur, 2003.

“When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” (Mt 16.13)

SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION

Jesus once asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the son of man is?” (Mt 16.13) The “Harper’s Bible Dictionary” concludes that “… there is no unanimity among scholars at present either as to the origin or the exact meaning of the title “Son of man.” This may seem to be the Church’s position too, since we never profess our belief in a ‘Son of Man’ and we never sing any stichera about a ‘Son of Man’ in our liturgies. If ‘lex orandi, lex credendi’ still applies, then the absence of the ‘Son of Man’ from our liturgical life may imply something here. But we still have to grapple with the fact that the scriptures, especially the New Testament, are loaded with ‘Son of Man’ sayings. In the Gospels, the ‘Son of Man’ sayings stand out like an elephant in the middle of a room, which the Church seemed to have totally ignored after the Gospels were written in their final form. How do we account for that? Many may consider the title ‘Son of Man’ a Christology-wannabe, but I believe it already is a Christology in its own way. No matter what one thinks of its Christological significance, it will always make its entry into Christological texts. Somehow, those scholars that Harper’s Bible Dictionary considers as lacking unanimity in determining the origin and meaning of ‘Son of Man,’ do agree on one thing – you can not ignore or leave out of one’s Christological treatise anything on the ‘Son of Man.’ With that in mind, the ‘Son of Man’ sayings are significant and worth studying in the context of doing Christology.

There are several oddities which surround the use of the term ‘Son of Man.’ First, despite all the titles we give Jesus, the one title we rarely use in our confessions or creeds is ‘Son of Man.’ We are accustomed in calling him Lord, Messiah, the Christ and Savior, but rarely if ever ‘Son of Man.’ This is odd, since Jesus preferred to use this title alone in referring to himself and it is the only title which encompasses his total work. Second, the term ‘Son of Man’ is found about eighty times in the Gospels, but a few rare times in the other New Testament works such as: Acts 7.56, Heb. 2.6-8, and in Rev. 1.13 and 14.14. It occurs some sixty-eight times in the Synoptic Gospels (thirteen in Mark, twenty-nine in Matthew, and twenty-six in Luke) and twelve times in the Gospel of John. No one but Jesus used the title, and when compared to the other titles given to Jesus by the Gospel writers, it is a phrase which “intrudes” upon other Christological titles with a sense of Manifest Destiny. Even if other titles are used (such as in Peter’s confession and at Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin), Jesus finishes the discussion about the Son of Man in an apologetic way. Again, how do we account for this?

SECTION 2
THE ‘SON OF MAN’

Before investigating the use of the term in any context, a brief analysis of the term is necessary. We are dealing with an Aramaic expression ‘barnasha’ which is a compound word. ‘Bar’ means ‘son,’ which is similar to the Hebrew ‘ben.’ ‘Nasha’ means ‘man.’ Therefore, ‘bar-nasha’ means the ‘son of man.’ In Hebrew, ‘Son of Man’ is a translation of ‘ben adam.’ But what exactly does ‘son of man’ mean? It can be used in a figurative sense. ‘Bar’ (or ‘son of’) means someone who is an individual member of a group or even means humanity or mankind in general. We can see this in contemporary use of “Daughters of the American Revolution” or “man of the cloth” as expressions of people who belong to a certain group or cause. If one is a liar, then one is a ‘son of the lie.’ A ‘Son of Man’ is one who belongs to humanity or is a ‘man.’ In Greek, we see the translation ‘ho huios tou anthropou’ which means ‘the son of the man.’ But the Greek lacked the special usage from the Aramaic term, and this fact will prove critical.

One small note on the use of “clouds.” Clouds are part of the imagery we get about the ‘Son of Man.’ Clouds appear throughout the scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, and can signify two things. First, they can refer to a natural phenomenon. Second, when they don’t refer to a natural phenomenon, it takes on a religious meaning. Clouds in the second sense usually refer to the intervention of God or His apparition. Examples of this religious sense in the Old Testament can be given: (1) The Pillar of Cloud of the march through the desert, (2) the cloud of the revelations of Sinai or of the Tent of Meeting, (3) the cloud of the Temple, (4) the cloud of Ezekiel’s visions, and (5) the cloud of the eschatological visions. These examples show how ‘clouds’ can be used to signify divinity or theophanies of God. This aspect is important since this imagery will be noted later as some of the ‘Son of Man’ sayings will include them; others will not.

SECTION 3
BEFORE THE NEW TESTAMENT

There are several collections of Son of Man sayings in the Old Testament. These sayings can be found in: (1) the Psalms, (2) Ezekiel, (3) Daniel 7, (4) 1 Enoch, and (5) 4 Ezra.

The Psalms

Before proceeding to the main Old Testament usages of ‘son of man,’ the phrase does turn up in the Psalter in three places. Psalm 8.4 is the first example where ‘son of man’ (ben ‘adham) is used:

“Ah, what is man that you should spare a thought for him, the son of man that you should care for him?” (Psalm 8.4)

Such examples may refer to a ‘… representative … granted dominion by God …”. A second use of the ‘son of man’ (ben ‘adham) phrase is in Psalm 80.17-19:

“May your hand protect the man at your right, the son of man who has been authorized by you” (Psalm 80.17).

Psalm 8.4 approaches the ‘son of man’ as a ‘man,’ whereby Psalm 80.17-19, seem to indicate that the ‘son of man’ is Israel according to many biblical scholars. Here, we have a more corporate sense of the term.

A third use of ‘son of man’ in the Psalms is in Psalm 144.3 but as ‘ben ‘enos’:

“Yahweh, what is man, that you should notice him? A human being, that you should think about him?” (Psalm 144.3)

Both the first and third use indicate ‘man’ in general, similar to ‘mankind’ or ‘humanity.’

Ezekiel

Besides the Psalms, the term ‘son of man’ is used in several Old Testament books in both an apocalyptic sense and a non-apocalyptic sense. Apocalyptic books, “… report mysterious revelations that are mediated by angels and disclose a supernatural world. They are characterized by a focus on eschatology, which often entails cosmic transformation and always involves the judgment of the dead.” Non-apocalyptic books don’t.

Ezekiel is one book where the term is used in a non-apocalyptic sense; it simply refers to the prophet Ezekiel. There is no filial meaning attached to it. In addressing the prophet, it only points out his human weakness. The phrase is used by God and is used in His address to Ezekiel. This non-apocalyptic sense is not beneficial in our discernment of Jesus’ use of the term. Here, we have a different context and there is no warrant to take how ‘son of man’ was used in Ezekiel and apply it to how Jesus used it.

Daniel 7

It is probably the imagery from Daniel 7, which gives us the classic understanding of the New Testament use of the ‘son of man’ title. Daniel was written between 168 and 164 BC, and was inspired by the Maccabean revolt. This chapter gives us a ‘son of man’ in an ‘apocalyptic’ sense, one in which designates an eschatological redeemer. Yet, this eschatological figure seems to be more of a corporate rather than an individual nature. Why is this so? In reading Daniel 7, one is introduced to the ‘son of man’ after reading about four beasts, which seem to represent four heathen empires. The fifth and last figure is a human figure “… on whom the universal Kingdom is conferred.”

“… Behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.” (Daniel 7.13f.)

Most scripture scholars now agree that the four beasts represent “… the four successive pagan empires of the Babylonians, the Medes, the Persians, and the Greeks.” They came from below, a region that symbolizes evil, whereas ‘the one like a son of man’ (Daniel 7.14) comes from above on clouds. Using the cloud imagery and keeping in mind the corporate nature of the first four beasts, the passages seems to indicate a corporate entity from God or “the holy ones of the most high” (Daniel 7.18) and not a particular individual. The “saints (or holy ones) of the Most High” have been interpreted in at least three ways: (1) as angels, (2) as the chosen people, and (3) devout men of the messianic kingdom. Some still argue that since the four beasts represent four kings, the one like a son of man must also represent a particular historical figure and not a corporate body. This figure has an appearance (kebar enash) of a man, but is not a man.

Daniel 7 ends up be a blend of an individualistic and a corporate interpretation of ‘son of man.’ This interpretation would continue in later apocalypses, especially Enoch and 4 Ezra. Any conclusion of this debate would agree on at least four points: (1) that the son of man is not a man but a divine being, (2) that this divine being is distinct from God and, therefore, inferior to him, (3) this son of man receives universal and eternal power from God, and (4) this power is shared by the chosen people. Points 1 and 2 will prove to be the two issues, which will involve the Church to change its Christological focus from a more biblical or soteriological approach to one of a more philosophical or ontological approach with the questions raised by Arius.

Enoch

The Ethiopian Enoch carries on the Danielic imagery of the ‘son of man’ in its ‘Similitudes’ (or Parables), which comprise of chapters 37 – 71. The first thirty-six chapters are referred to as the ‘Book of the Watchers.’ In the ‘Similitudes’, God confronts the evil angels through the ‘son of man.’ Whereas Daniel 7 may have been a forerunner of this image as a symbol of the people or the saints of God, the ‘Similitudes’ relates the symbol to a messiah or anointed one. The characteristics of the ‘son of man’ in this book is also one of divinity. There are three qualities which distinguish this ‘son of man,’ and they are: (1) his pre-existence (Enoch 48.3), which nullifies him being an angel, (2) he being presented before the one of great age (Enoch 46.1), and (3) his capital role in the economy of salvation (Enoch 48.7). Though the ‘son of man’ in Enoch, still emphasizes ‘man’ it doesn’t refer to him as a man in general but actually as ‘that’ son of man, a particular individual, who is a hidden heavenly being (Enoch 51.1-5).

This is a controversial book since its authorship is either 1st century BC or 2nd century AD. When it was written would determine its possible origins as being either a Jewish-Christian text or having later Christian interpolations. Though many have attempted to make it into a Christian document, the fact that it deals with Enoch, and not Jesus, as the ‘son of man’ becomes a stumbling block to such an attempt. It has been shown that the traditions in the ‘Similitudes’ were already in existence during the time of Jesus.

4 Ezra

Another collection of writings during the Jewish apocalyptic movement was 4 Ezra, a book composed around the end of the 1st century AD. Instead of coming only on clouds, the ‘son of man’ appears out of the sea first, then he rides on clouds.

“Since you saw a Man coming up from the heart of the sea, it is he whom the Highest One is keeping for many ages (and through whom he will deliver his creation).”

Three interesting things are said of the ‘son of man’: first, that the Most High had kept him back for a long time; and second, that he is associated with the Messiah; third, there is no indication that the ‘son of man’ becomes incarnate in sinful humanity.

The Jewish usage of the ‘son of man’ in the mentioned books gives us two unique forms on the identity of the ‘son of man.’ The first form of the ‘son of man’ concept is eschatological; the second is one who is pre-existent. The eschatological ‘son of man’: (1) comes at the end of time, (2) remains hidden until his arrival, (3) appears on clouds, (4) comes to judge, and (5) establishes a saintly nation. “Eschatology” means “… the end or ‘last’ period of history or existence.” The pre-existent ‘son of man’: (1) is ideal, (2) is heavenly, and (3) is identified with the first man at the beginning of time. This second form contrasts the aforementioned citations in both apocryphal and non-apocryphal traditions, especially item 3. The relationship between the ‘Son of Man’ and the first man has always been unclear though many would like to make a connection there. St. Paul stresses their identities as being separate since ‘first man’ was the source of sin. In Daniel 7, the Book of Enoch, and 4 Ezra, the appearance of the ‘son of man’ has nothing to do with an incarnation. Yet, Jesus used the image of the ‘Son of Man’ many times in his teachings. It is in the Gospels and other New Testament writings we must turn to next to see how these various understandings of the Son of Man fair, especially in the Gospels, where 98% of the time, Jesus is the sole individual to use it.

SECTION 4
THE NEW TESTAMENT: THE GOSPELS

Many biblical scholars categorize the ‘son of man’ sayings found in the Synoptic Gospels into three groups. The first group of sayings refers to the ‘present activity’ of the ‘Son of Man’ in his earthly ministry. The second group of sayings refers to the impending suffering, death and resurrection of the ‘Son of Man’. And finally, third group of sayings refers to the future coming and forensic activity of the ‘Son of Man.’

There are other classifications given other than these ‘classic’ three. One such classification divides the ‘Son of Man’ sayings into six groups: (1) those sayings which announce the passion and resurrection of the ‘Son of Man,’ (2) those which refer to the homelessness of the ‘Son of Man,’ (3) those which speak of those who are faithful to the ‘Son of Man,’ (4) those sayings which mention the coming of the ‘Son of Man’ in the Daniel 7 tradition, (5) sayings which tell of the authority of the ‘Son of Man’ to forgive sins on earth and his association with sinners, and (6) those passages which refer to the ‘Son of Man’ being lord of the Sabbath. The next section will address the three usages of the Son of Man phrase as found in the Synoptic Gospels, and then I will conclude with the Gospel of John.

PRESENT USAGE IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Homelessness of the ‘Son of Man’

“Jesus replied, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head”” (Mt 8.20//Lk 9.58).

Jesus’ response in Matthew was to a scribe, but in Luke it was in response to one of three men he met on the road to Jerusalem. The ‘Son of Man’ title is used for the first time in Matthew. It is here that Jesus comments “… on the severe requirements of discipleship.” The reference to ‘foxes having holes’ is Jesus’ way of getting his point across about this dedication: it doesn’t involve trickery; it involves total dedication.

Allegiance of those with the ‘Son of Man’

“Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the Son of Man” (Lk 6.22).

After choosing the Twelve and at his inaugural address to the crowds, Luke makes the point that a follower of Jesus must participate in the Son of Man’s rejection. Both a corporate (Danielic) sense and individualistic sense are found here. The followers of Jesus (the corporate/body) participates or shares in Jesus’ (individual) rejection. Interesting enough, the Christian Church failed to use this version of the Beatitudes in its Liturgy. Instead, the Matthean form is used without the Son of Man in it (“… because of me”). Together, another interesting deduction can be made: Son of Man = me (Jesus).

Authority of the ‘Son of Man’ to forgive sins

“But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins …” He said to the paralytic …” (Mk 2.10//Mt 9.6// Lk 5.24)

This passage is considered a Christian editorial since “you” is considered to refer to the Christian readers and not the scribes. Both the ‘eschatological judge’ (Daniel 7) and the ‘suffering servant’ are merged here when Jesus was being challenged by the scribes when a paralytic had his sins forgiven and was cured. Mark uses the Son of Man within the context of eschatological forgiveness. The claim to dispense such forgiveness makes Jesus something more than a prophet like Ezekiel; Jesus acts as though he is “… one in whom the Kingdom of God … is … dawning.”

“Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Mt 12.32//Lk 12.10)

Refusing to recognize the Son of Man as the Messiah is forgivable since “… faith atones for previous denial of faith” and it is the Holy Spirit who makes us able to attest the present activity of God. Mark also makes mention of speaking against the Holy Spirit (Mk 3.28) but does not mention the Son of Man as Matthew and Luke does.

Association with sinners

“The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and “sinners.” But wisdom is proved right by her actions” (Mt 11.19//Lk 7.34)

This particular verse is interesting because it is in the context of depicting the difference between John the Baptist and Jesus and the lack of satisfaction of the Jews. On one hand, John the Baptist, the prophet, was considered a demoniac because of his lifestyle (a hermit) and message. Jesus, the rabbi, was considered a glutton because of his lifestyle. Neither approach satisfied “… the Jews if it suggested a change in their belief and their life.” Jesus rebukes those who couldn’t accept either. This Son of Man saying ties together both the Messiah title (Mt 11.2) and the Wisdom title (Mt 11.19b), thereby making a 3-title Christology. Those scribes who act as ‘petulant children’ in not accepting baptism from John the Baptist and the acceptance of the Son of Man who comes eating and drinking are preludes to the following story in Luke which deal with the penitent woman who anoints Jesus’ feet in Lk 7.36-50.

‘Son of Man’ as Lord of the Sabbath

“The Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath” (Mk 2.28//Mt 12.8//Lk 6.5)

The issue of the Sabbath comes up after the incident while walking through the cornfields. Jesus is no radical suggesting a trashing of the Mosaic Law, but instead, arbitrarily ignores it when the Kingdom is an issue. Again, the theme of the Kingdom ties in nicely with the idea of eschatology. Though in Mt 2.27, Jesus mentions that the Sabbath was made for man (‘man’ in a general corporate sense), Mt 2.28 speaks of a particular ‘man’ or Son of Man, namely Jesus. There can only be one Lord. So, here we have a reference to an individual having some type of authority. The authority over the Sabbath was considered by Jews and/or Christians in the first century as a ‘type’ of the coming Messianic Kingdom. The Christological significance is that Jesus claims he has the right to do what David did, but goes a bit further by declaring he is greater than the Temple and is Lord of the Sabbath.

Miscellaneous ‘Son of Man’ sayings

“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served …” (Mk 10.45a)

Such a saying heightens the sense of paradox between the authority of the Son of Man and his lowliness. But this paradox makes sense in relation to Isaiah 53; here, service = atoning death. The kingdom of the Gentiles has the king lording over the people, whereas the Kingdom of God is opposite.

Editorial ‘Son of Man’ sayings

“ When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”” (Mt 16.13)

It is here that our Son of Man sayings in the ‘Present Activity’ category ends. Prior to raising this question, Jesus used the title Son of Man several times to refer to his earthly ministry. Now, this question turns our understanding of who the Son of Man is in the present tense to one in the future tense. This future sense includes two major collections of Son of Man sayings in the Synoptics. The first deals with the suffering, death and resurrection of the Son of Man, and the second deals with the future coming of the Son of Man (with Daniel 7 in mind).

But what is the significance of this passage? It is the basic question asked in any Christology: Who is Jesus in relation to this Son of Man?

‘SUFFERING’ USAGE IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

Who is the Son of Man was spelled out by Jesus himself. In the next group of sayings, those dealing with the Son of Man as one who suffers, dies, and resurrects, we learn along with the followers and hearers of Jesus what must happen in the near future. It is here that we have one of two bulks of Son of Man sayings. Most of these sayings that Jesus says about the Son of Man include a variety of the following motifs: (1) Jesus’ request to keep his identity a secret, (2) Jesus ‘ Passion predestined, (3) the betrayal or the handing over of the Son of Man, (4) the rejection and condemnation of the Son of Man, (5) the suffering, crucifixion and death of the Son of Man, (6) the resurrection of the Son of Man, and (7) the apostles’ lack of understanding of what all of this means. These motifs will be discussed in the following analysis of the Synoptic Son of Man sayings with regards to the Suffering Usage.

Before going on, I would like to make several observations. First, all these sayings are contained between two confessions of Peter. Peter’s Profession of Jesus as the Christ (Mk 8.27-30//Mt 16.30-20//Lk9.18-21) and Peter’s Denial of Jesus (Mk 14.66-72//Mt 26.30-35//Lk 22.54-62) are like two bookends containing all of the Son of Man sayings which refer to the “Suffering Usage.” Only Matthew has Jesus mention the Son of Man in the pericope of Peter’s Confession (Mt 16.13), which was itemized as a “Present Editorial Usage” above. Once again, we read:

““When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”” (Mt 16.13)

This is of interest to those wishing to discredit that the Son of Man title is not a proper or full-fledged Christological title. This is the Mother of All Christological passages in the scriptures. It should be of interest to those that the bulk of Jesus’ prophecies and teachings on the Son of Man are contained within the confines of the act of positive confession (Peter’s Confession) and negative confession (Peter’s Denial). Something has to be said here about professing who Christ is (Christology) and how it is intimately tied to the title Jesus used all the time.

Secondly, the suffering sayings are made privately to Jesus’ disciples, whereas the present usage of the Son of Man sayings is made to the public.

Third, it is noticeable that the present usage sayings are concerns of the Palestinian Church and have no relation to the Jewish apocalyptic writings, which present the Son of Man as transcendent and not a person who must suffer. The apostles are privately told the suffering sayings because the public might have not known or understood the real meaning of ‘son of man.’ It was the “Future Usage” sayings, which were based on the Danielic conception of the Son of Man, which would complete the picture.

Lastly, another observation can be made that all the Synoptic ‘Suffering Usage’ sayings cluster around Jesus’ three prophecies of his suffering, death, and resurrection. These three prophecies are contained within the parameters of Peter’s Confession and Denial. Each prophecy of the suffering of the Son of Man gets more detailed about the ‘how’ of that suffering.

The First Prophecy

The first prophecy of the Passion, made immediately after Peter’s Confession in all three Synoptic Gospels, is given as such in Mark:

“Peter spoke up and said to him, “You are the Christ”. And he gave them strict orders NOT TO TELL anyone about him. And he began to teach them that the Son of Man was DESTINED to SUFFER grievously, to be REJECTED by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and to be put to DEATH, and after three days to RISE again; …” (Mk 8.29b-31)

All capitalized words are mine in order to highlight the various motifs. Those themes found in this first passage dealing with Jesus’ First Prophecy contain six of the seven just listed above, except for the apostle’s lack of understanding (No. 7). Mark has the disciples learn the terms of Jesus’ teachings on the Messiah: he must suffer, die and resurrect. This is not the Davidic Messiah that many were familiar with. Jesus’ Messiah, as one who suffers, tends to go around the royal Davidic Messiah who establishes his kingdom and crushes their enemies. Jesus’ Messiah dies before any ‘royal’ kingdom is established – at least the type of kingdom they were hoping for – and then will come again long after all kingdoms perish. This is like a negative of their great expectations.

Matthew has Jesus refer to himself without mentioning the Son of Man (Mt 16.21), but Luke does include the Son of Man title on Jesus’ lips:

“”The Son of Man” he said, “is DESTINED to SUFFER grievously, to be REJECTED by the elders and chief priests and scribes and to be put to DEATH, and to be RAISED up on the third day”” (Lk 9.22)

Luke only contains five of the seven motifs, except for the Secrecy (No. 1) and the Lack of Understanding (No. 7). Of course, it was only after these events took place did the disciples come to a better understanding of what Jesus meant by these predictions. What is of interest is Jesus’ fusion of the Son of Man, the eschatological judge with the suffering Servant of Yahweh. The reference to ‘suffering’ in Mark is rare since it is usually mentioned only after Jesus’ death and resurrection. To be put to death or be condemned to death is in the religious sense and not the judicial sense even though Jesus went through several hearings before his crucifixion. Jesus is ‘destined’ or, in other translations, ‘must’ suffer according to all three Synoptics. It was quite understood that such events were necessary even though Peter would reject that suffering had a part in it all.

We learn in Mark that Jesus’ identity is revealed privately to three of his disciples, Peter, James and John at the Transfiguration (Mk 9.2-8//Mt 17.1-8//Lk 9.28-36). They are also instructed to listen to him, but even after such an event, the three still don’t quite get it.

Immediately after Jesus’ first prophecy, all three Synoptics cover the same topic of the Question about Elias (Mk 9.9-13//Mt 17.9-13). Though the Transfiguration passages mentioned prior have no Son of Man sayings in them, they do contain Moses and Elias and ‘clouds.’ Mark writes:

“As they came down from the mountain he warned them to tell no one what they had seen, until after the Son of Man had risen from the dead … And they put this question to him, “Why do the scribes say that Elias has to come first?” “True,” he said “Elijah is to come first … yet how is it that the scriptures say about the Son of Man that he is to suffer grievously and be treated with contempt? … Elias has come …”” (Mk 9.9-13).

In Matthew, the disciples understand that Elias was John the Baptist (Mt 9.13). Who the Son of Man was is left unaccounted for. In Mark, it was the appearance of Elias at the Transfiguration and Jesus’ mention of the resurrection, which made the disciples wonder. This coming of Elias harkens back to Malachi 3.2-3, 4.5-6 and Sirach 48.1-3.

The Second Prophecy

The second prophecy of the Passion given by Jesus according to Mark is:

“After leaving that place they made their way through Galilee; and he did not want anyone to know, because he was instructing his disciples; he was telling them, 'The Son of Man will be DELIVERED into the hands of men; they will put him to death; and three days after he has been put to death he will rise again'. But they did not understand what he said and were afraid to ask him.” (Mk 9.30-32)

In Matthew:

“One day when they were together in Galilee, Jesus said to them, 'The Son of Man is going to be HANDED OVER into the power of men; they will put him to death, and on the third day he will be raised to life again'. And a great sadness came over them.” (Mt 17.22-23)

And in Luke:

“At a time when everyone was full of admiration for all he did, he said to his disciples,'For your part, you must have these words constantly in your mind: The Son of Man is going to be HANDED OVER into the power of men', But they did not understand him when he said this; it was hidden from them so that they should not see the meaning of it, and they were afraid to ask him about what he had just said.” (Lk 16.44-45)

Jesus introduces the idea of the ‘betrayer’ who we learn later to be Judas. The idea of the Son of Man being ‘handed over’ or ‘delivered’ into the powers or hands of men is a new entry into the order of predictions and makes how his suffering begins more explicit. It is here that the disciples did not understand, grow sad over his words, and became afraid to ask for an explanation. In the first prophecy, the disciples are just simply told to keep things secret.

The Third Prophecy

The third and final prophecy from the lips of Jesus on the suffering of the Son of Man in Mark goes as such:

“Once more taking the Twelve aside he began to tell them what was going to happen to him: 'Now we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man is about to be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the pagans, who will MOCK him and SPIT at him and SCOURGE him and put him to death; and after three days he will rise again.'” (Mk 10.32-33)

In Matthew, we read:

“Jesus … took the Twelve to one side and said to them, 'Now we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man is about to be handed over to the chief priests and scribes. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the pagans to be MOCKED and SCOURGED and CRUCIFIED; and on the third day he will rise again.'” (Mt 20.17-19)

And in Luke we read:

“Then taking the Twelve aside he said to them, 'Now we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man is to come true. .For he will be handed over to the pagans and will be MOCKED, MALTREATED and SPAT on, and when they have SCOURGED him they will put him to death; and on the third day he will rise again.' But they could make nothing of this; what he said was quite obscure to them, they had no idea what it meant.” (Lk 18.31-34)

In all three Synoptic Gospel passages, the details of the fate of the Son of Man are spelled out. It is no longer a matter of ‘suffering’ and dying; the Son of Man will suffer in such and such a way. Only Matthew mentions a crucifixion, but all of them itemize the process of the Passion. Mark and Matthew’s passages mentions all three of the parties involved in the suffering and death of the Son of Man: (1) the betrayer, implied by the Son of Man being “handed over”, (2) the chief priests and scribes, who will condemn him to death, and (3) the pagans (or Romans) who will do the killing. The fact that a ‘crucifixion’ was mentioned tells us that it was not the Jews who did the actual killing but the ‘pagans’ since the punishment of death by the Jews involved stoning. State criminals were crucified. Luke doesn’t mention which prophets wrote about the Son of Man in such a way.

After his third prophecy, Jesus speaks of Leadership and Service (Mk 10.41-45//Mt 20.24-28). Why does he speak on such a subject? If we look at the first prophecy, we learn of Peter’s rebuke by Jesus (Mk 8.32); after the second prophecy, the disciples are clueless about what Jesus is talking about (Mk 9.32), and after the final and most detailed prophecy, James and John request seats of honor in Jesus’ glory while the rest of the apostles grow jealous (Mk 10.35-44). It is in response to their poor understanding of what type of leadership Jesus speaks about that prompts him to clarify a few things.

It is here that Jesus gives the reasons for delving into the details of the sufferings of the Son of Man: (1) to serve, and (2) “to give his life for a ransom for many”. The “… term ‘ransom’ follows the context of service. The ransom, the price paid, means that Jesus describes himself as reduced to the level of a means by which a purpose is achieved for other.” “Ransom” harkens back to Isaiah 53.10-12, where the sufferings of the Servant of Yahweh is described in the Fourth Song. The fusion of ‘service’ (lowliness) and the ‘Son of Man’ (from on high) produce a paradox, which is not uncommon with Jesus.

After the third prophecy, the Gospels mention the Entry into Jerusalem (Mk 11.1-11//Mt 21.1-11//Lk 19.28-38) and the Expulsion of the Moneychangers from the Temple (Mk 11.15-19//Mt 21.12-17//Lk 19.45-46). These events set the stage for the realization of the sufferings mentioned by Jesus since Peter’s Confession. Jesus finally arrived at his final destination and created quite a scene at the Temple. He got everyone’s attention and will speak once again of the Son of Man in the ‘suffering’ context but only after he foretells the conspiracy, which will set all the following sufferings in motion.

What does the Entry and the Expulsion tell us about the identity of Jesus? One scholar notes, “In terms of Christology, these episodes present Jesus as the beloved Son of God who has authority to act and teach in his Father’s house, the Temple of Jerusalem … Jerusalem’s tenants … will destroy the beloved Son, and his death will bring and end to their Temple.” Mark’s missing Infancy Narrative, with its family lineage don’t mean anything here. Mark’s Christology is different: (1) the Messiah is God’s Son and not David’s, and (2) it is divine sonship and not a Davidic lineage which makes Jesus the Messiah. Or, in other words, “Jesus is son of David because he is God’s messianic Son. He is not God’s Messianic Son on the basis of Davidic lineage.”

The Betrayal Part of the Passion is divided into three episodes. First, Jesus foretells the conspiracy against him (Mk 14.1-2//Mt 26.1-5//Lk 22.1-2). Only in Matthew does Jesus mention the Son of Man when he says, “… “It will be Passover, … in two days’ time, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.”” (Mt 26.1-2) Next, the conspiracy takes place when Judas Iscariot makes a deal with the chief priests to hand over Jesus for money (Mk 14.10-11//Mt 26.14-15//Lk 22.3-6). Following that, Jesus foretells Judas’ treachery for what he did at the Last Supper (Mk 14.17-21//Mt 26.20-25//Lk 22.21-23). Both Mark and Matthew write:

“”Yes, the Son of Man is going to his fate, as the scriptures say he will, but alas for that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! Better for that man if he had never been born”” (Mk 14.21)

Luke also writes the same but leaves out the statement about it being better for that man not to have been born (Lk 22.22). In all three cases, Jesus mentions the Son of Man in the context of Judas’ demise. Lastly, Judas performs the betrayal in the Garden of Gethsemane with a kiss (Mk 14.32-44//Mt 26.46-50//Lk 22.47-48). With the betrayal taken place, the first of the several suffering motifs are take care of. There is more to come. But what exactly do the Son of Man sayings have to do with these events? Actually, these events of the Passion are the realization of the suffering usages of the Son of Man sayings. Next comes Jesus’ Condemnation, suffering, death on the cross, and finally, his resurrection. It was Jesus who was the Son of Man in all of his sayings.

One last incident closes the suffering usage of the Son of Man sayings; it is Peter’s Denial (Mk 14.66-72//Mt 26.30-35//Lk 22.54-62). Just as Peter’s Confession in Jesus was a turning point from the ‘present usage’ of the Son of Man, so Peter’s Denial becomes the turning point or, better yet, the end of the ‘suffering usage’ of the Son of Man. The Gospels continue addressing the rest of the prophetic events that Jesus spoke about. Jesus suffers scourging, being spat upon, mocked and maltreated. Jesus is then crucified and dies on the cross. Lastly, Jesus resurrects. In conclusion, the Synoptic Gospels show clearly that the Son of Man was Jesus, the Christ.

FUTURE USAGE IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

The majority of the Son of Man sayings of the ‘future usage’ are based on Daniel 7.

“… Behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.” (Daniel 7.13f.)

Several motifs from Daniel 7 can be found in the future sayings Jesus makes about the Son of Man in the future usage: (1) clouds, (2) the phrase “Son of Man”, (3) Ancient of Days, (4) glory and power, and (5) kingdom. These sayings are primarily located after the Third Prophecy in all three Synoptics.

It is the parable of the weeds among the wheat, before the first prophecy, that Jesus gives his first Danielic or future usage Son of Man statement. This is an explanation of the things to come. Whereas the suffering sayings refer to the Passion of the Son of Man, the future sayings refer to the final age when the Son of Man will appear. The future usage refers to the eschatological role of the Son of Man. It is here we find ourselves in a dilemma. The Danielic vision, which is often employed by Jesus in his future Son of Man sayings, is of a collective or corporate nature. Jesus, though, uses it in the context of an individual as understood in IV Ezra and Enoch. This is the first twist in Jesus’ interpretation of the Son of Man; one part Danielic, one part IV Ezra/Enoch.

“The Son of Man will send his angels and they will gather out of his kingdom all things that provoke offences and all who do evil, …” (Mt 13.41)

Jesus decodes this parable to his disciples but not to the people. It reveals Matthew’s Christology. The Son of Man is the one who sows good seed and the devil is the one who sows the weeds. The good seed is the children of the kingdom and the weeds are the children of the evil one.

One can notice that unlike the suffering sayings, Jesus does not refer to himself as the Son of Man in the future sayings. Some would say that this distinction points out a unique relationship between the Son of Man and Jesus: that there is a soteriological (salvation) continuity, but not a christological identity between the two.

“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and, when he does, he will reward each one according to his behaviour” (Mt 16.27)

Jesus does refer to God as his Father (Mt 18.10, 19, 35). The fact that Jesus calls God “Father” and since the Son of Man will come with his Father’s angels, it can be concluded that this Son of Man is Jesus even though Jesus isn’t as explicit with the identity of the Son of Man as in the suffering passages. Unlike the suffering sayings, Jesus is never questioned by his disciples of the identity of the Son of Man. There seems to be no lack of understanding or fear on the part of the disciples.

Being a disciple of Jesus demands commitment and faithfulness. Keeping with the judgment imagery, we learn of the fate of those who reject him will; they will be punished:

“”For if anyone is ashamed of me and of my words, of him the Son of Man will be ashamed when he comes in his own glory and in the glory of the Father and the holy angels” (Lk 9.26)

“I promise you, he will see justice done to them, and done speedily. But when the Son of Man comes, will he find any faith on earth?” (Lk 18.8)

Those who remain faithful will be rewarded:

“Jesus said to them, “I tell you solemnly, when all is made new and the Son of Man sits on his throne of glory, you will yourselves sit on twelve thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel” (Mt 19.28)

It is in the Parable of the Rich, Young Man where Jesus reminds his disciples to be alert at all times in case the Son of Man comes:

“And then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory; …” (Mk 13.26)

“… then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory” (Lk 21.27)

“Stay awake, praying at all times for the strength to survive all that is going to happen, and to stand with confidence before the Son of Man” (Lk 21.36)

The day of the Son of Man gives us the most Danielic of all the previous future usage sayings. It is very cosmic – and includes clouds. Angels play a part in these images.

“… the coming of the Son of Man will be like lightning striking in the east and flashing far into the west” (Mt 24.27//Lk 17.24)

“… the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven; then too all the peoples of the earth will beat their breasts; and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet to gather his chosen from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other” (Mt 24.30)

“As it was in Noah’s day, so will it be when the Son of Man comes” (Mt 24.37//Lk 17.26) and “Therefore, you too must stand ready because the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect” (Mt 24.44//Lk 12.40)

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, escorted by all the angels, then he will take his seat on his throne of glory” (Mt 25.31)

We learn of the main eschatological function of the Son of Man: judgment. But that judgment is not his, but instead, is the Father’s. The Son of Man appears before the Father.

Though the future usage sayings of the Son of Man may leave room for doubt on his identity and relationship with Jesus, it is at Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin where he specifically states who is the Son of Man:

“The high priest put a second question to him, “Are you the Christ,” he said “the Son of the Blessed One?” “I am,” said Jesus “and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.”” (Mk 14.61b-62//Mt 26.64)

Here is another twist in Jesus’ interpretation of the Son of Man. Jesus mixes the imagery of the Son of Man with the Psalmist words about the Lord sitting at the “right hand” of God (Psalm 109.1, 5, LXX). The right hand has always been a symbol of power. We find it in Exodus the song of Moses and the children of Israel the following words:

“Your right hand, O God, has been glorified in strength; your right hand, O God, has broken the enemies. And in the abundance of your glory you have broken the adversaries to pieces; you sent forth your wrath, it devoured them to stubble” (Ex 6-7, LXX).

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

The title ‘Son of Man’ is found thirteen times in twelve passages of the Gospel of John; twice in one verse (Jn 12.34). It has been noted that the Son of Man sayings in John can be classified into four groups of sayings: (1) Coming and Going sayings, (2) Exalted and Glorified/Crucified sayings, (3) Judge sayings, and (4) Salvation-bringer sayings and that they all occur in John’s Book of Signs, except for one, Jn 13.31. Daniel 7.13 can be detected in examples of at least three of the categories, as in Jn 1.51, 3.13, 5.27 and 12.34. I will cover most of the sayings in this paper.

Coming and Going

“And he said to him, “Amen, amen, I say to you, you will see the sky opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”” (Jn 1.51)

One is reminded of Genesis 28.10-17 where Jacob sees a ladder in a dream connecting earth to heaven. On this ladder were angels ascending and descending. But Jesus states that they would be ascending and descending on the Son of Man. Who or what the Son of Man represents has many interpretations. What can be deduced from this is the following: “… the vision means that Jesus as Son of Man has become the locus of divine glory, the point of contact between heaven and earth.”

“No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven, the Son of Man …” (Jn 3.13)

This saying seems to put the Son of Man on the same plane as others who have had visions of heaven, such as Daniel, Enoch, Baruch, or Moses. But visions of heaven and being in heaven are two different things. Only the Son of Man came down from heaven. This implies a pre-existence or that only Jesus has seen God.

“What if you should see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before?” (Jn 6.62)

Where he was before was the Father as mentioned in Jn 17.5, where Jesus states, “Now glorify me, Father, with you, with the glory I had with you before the world began.” The ascending of the Son of Man to this previous place is through the crucifixion and resurrection.

Exalted and Glorified (=Crucified)

But what is this glory all about? The next category of sayings in John are about the exaltation and the glorification of the Son of Man. First, we hear that:

“And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up.” (Jn 3.14)

This is the first of three statements John writes about Jesus being raised up. The other two statements are found in Jn 8.28 and 12.32-34. The verb ‘hypsoun’ means ‘to be lifted up,’ and it is found in Acts 2.33 and 2.31, which refer to Jesus’ ascension. This lifting up is the opposite of the Incarnation, where the Word became flesh (see John’s Prologue, 1.14). The lifting up of Jesus is a process, not a single event. There are three stages to Jesus being lifted up: (1) Jesus being raised up on the cross, (2) Jesus being raised from the dead, and (3) Jesus being raised up to heaven.

“So Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will realize that I AM, and that I do nothing on my own, but I say only what the Father taught me.” (Jn 8.28)

This is the second of three statements about being ‘raised up.’ In the suffering usage sayings of the Son of Man, Jesus only refers to the Passion and Resurrection. He does not give an explanation as to why he or the Son of Man must die. He states that such-and-such has to happen. In the future usage sayings, Jesus delves further into the why of things. The second saying about the Son of Man being ‘lifted up’ answers who sent him, but this is in verse 29. “… only the actual return to the Father will show that God is the one who sent him, that he bears the divine name, and that God is always with him.”

Now we come to the third Son of Man statement on being ‘raised up.’ We read:

“So the crowd answered him, “We have heard from the law that the Messiah remains forever. The how can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is the Son of Man?”” (Jn 12.34)

Here, we stumble on the term ‘Messiah’ even though Jesus never used the title to refer to himself. In the Synoptics, Caiaphas asks him if he was the Messiah, but there too Jesus answers in terms of the Son of Man. Though no Son of Man Christology has made it big on its own in Christianity, it is interesting to note that when someone does try to pin Jesus as the Messiah, another popular ‘Christological title,’ Jesus answers by using the ‘Son of Man’ title instead. This should tell us something about Jesus and about ourselves.

The three references to the Son of Man being lifted up have some theological structure to them. First, we notice that the third statement of the Son of Man being lifted up is a combination of the first two. The first reference (3.14) deals with the salvific aspect of being raised. The second reference (8.28) deals with the aspect of judgment. The third reference (12.32-34) combines both into one. Second, they each have a parallel relationship with the three prophecies covered in the suffering usage part. John’s three ‘lifting up’ references neatly tie in with the three Synoptic prophecies. Third, both sets of sayings have the Son of Man in them.

Judge

The following is a classic saying based on Daniel 7.13:

“And he gave them power to exercise judgment, because he is the Son of Man.” (Jn 5.27)

This judgment refers to the ‘final judgment’ spoken more at length in the context of Jn 5.26-30. This section tends to wrap up all that was spoken about in the previous categories of Johannine sayings as well as the Synoptic saying categories: ‘power of life’ (26), ‘power of judgment’ (26), ‘surprised’ reactions by the people (28), the ‘coming hour’ (28), those who ‘listened’ and ‘done right’ (29), and the Son (30). Many of these motifs were spoken about in one context or another previously. Here, we have more theological insight and Christological understanding of the Son, who is also the Son of Man. In a previous passage, John writes:

“This was Jesus’ answer: “I solemnly assure you, the Son cannot do a thing by himself – only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever He does, the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son, and everything that He does, He shows him.”” (Jn 5.19-20a)

This passage, though not having the phrase ‘Son of Man’ in it, gives us the reason why the Son of Man in Jn 5.27 was given the power of judgment.

Salvation-bringer

The last of the four categories of Johannine sayings about the Son of Man were the most difficult for the disciples to accept. The issue is about ‘food’ that does not perish; and that food is the ‘flesh’ of the Son of Man. What does this have to do with all of the other Son of Man sayings? There seems to be absolutely nothing in the Son of Man tradition, especially as found in Ezekiel, Daniel, IV Ezra, or I Enoch, which speak about eating the flesh of the Son of Man. John first mentions it in the following passage:

““Do no work for food that perishes but for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him the Father, God, has set his seal.”” (Jn 6.27)

The issue of perishable food, and food that lasts for eternal life, is a common theme in John. There is both a present gift, now, and an eternal gift. This is a gift of the Son of Man.

The answer by Jesus in the following can respond to two problems the Christians found themselves in centuries later: (1) the charge of the Jews that Christians ate human flesh and (2) the Gnostic Christians who refused to use a chalice because of its connotation with blood, something which they feared.

“Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”” (Jn 6.53)

Again, Jesus speaks about himself in the third person, but this wasn’t the only time he did so. It is understood that faith is a requirement for eating the flesh of the Son of Man. Byzantine Christians profess this everytime they make ready to receive such ‘flesh’ at Communion, “O Lord, I believe and profess that this, which I am about to receive, is truly Your most precious Body and Your life-giving Blood, …”

“When Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, he found him and said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”” (Jn 9.35)

The blind man, who Jesus talks to in this saying, was ejected from the presence of the other Jews. This ejection was a result of the former blind man testifying to Jesus’ healing of his sight. This last saying of Jesus about the Son of Man is a logical conclusion to all the others that went before it. “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” As I conclude the Son of Man sayings – those which came from the lips of Jesus – it is time to reflect on those issues written earlier in this paper: (1) the one title we rarely use in our confessions or creeds is ‘Son of Man’ even though it is the preferred title Jesus uses about himself, (2) the term ‘Son of Man’ is found about eighty times in the Gospels, but a few rare times in the other New Testament works such as: Acts 7.56, Heb. 2.6-8, and in Rev. 1.13 and 14.14, and (3) when compared to the other titles given to Jesus by the Gospel writers, it is a phrase which “intrudes” upon other Christological titles with a sense of Manifest Destiny. Again, I ask, how do we account for this?

SECTION 5
CHRISTOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT

To understand the possible reasons why the Son of Man title disappeared off the radar screen of Christianity, one must understand something about the development of Christology in the New Testament. The development under scrutiny is the time from the Resurrection of Jesus to the writing of all four canonical Gospels. This next section will be a study of those times as they relate to the term Son of Man.

Introduction

Before attempting to give reasons why the phrase ‘Son of Man’ never got far from the lips of Jesus, an account of the early Christian movement has to be made. This account may help give the reasons why such ‘apocalyptic’ thinking – or orientation – gave way to other Christologies, which became more predominant. We are considering the foundations of the christological formulations as found in the Gospels just covered. Considering Christianity’s break-out from its Palestinian and Jewish roots, the “Who” of Jesus found itself in three different environments: (1) Palestinian Judaism – especially the disciples’ belief in the resurrection, (2) Hellenistic Judaism – especially those who grew up on the LXX, and (3) the Graeco-Roman world – especially those who were not from the Jewish Tradition of Judah/Israel or the Diaspora.

These three successive environments did not grow in absolute successive stages, thereby leaving behind the previous environment. Christianity progressed “into” each environment, carrying with it the previous home it left. In fact, all three environments are considered to have developed after the Pentecost event in tandem without the previous christologies becoming lost or extinguished; more like “waves” than episodes in a soap opera or successive chapters in a book. Similar to this wave understanding is futurist Alvin Toffler’s classic “The Third Wave,” which discusses the successive “waves” of change in the human race: (1) the agricultural revolution, (2) the rise of the industrial civilization, and (3) technology and anti-industrialization. Even though industrialization grew in different pockets of the world, it never did take over completely. Someone still had to grow grains and raise cattle and chickens to have something to eat. Yet, despite that agriculture did not become extinguished due to industrialization, the overall tempo or pace-setting economies of those industrialized nations were no longer driven by the agriculturalist elite. The same goes for those Palestinian and Hellenistic Christologies. They never disappeared, but they did seem to get pushed aside. But even though other forms of Christologies never disappear, why did the phrase ‘Son of Man’ seem to die an early death? But first an introduction to the various communities the NT authors found themselves in.

Those who believed in Jesus Christ came from two separate groups of people: Jews and non-Jews. The Jews, or Jewish Christians, were themselves made up of two distinct groups: Hebrews and Hellenists. The Hebrews were Aramaic-speaking and lived in Palestine, whereas the Hellenists were Greek-speaking and were predominantly from the Diaspora. The Hebrews were faithful to the Temple and the Law while living in the shadows of the Temple in Jerusalem, but the Hellenists were critical of the Temple and the Law. The Hellenists, who probably made up almost 90% of Jews at the time of Jesus, lived far away from the Temple and there lives were not centered around it. The non-Jews were Gentile-Christians, who spoke Greek or Latin, and considered themselves free from the Law. As Christology road the waves of Palestinian, Hellenist, and Gentile Christianities, we could see a paradigm shift from the ‘apocalyptic’ form of Christianity to a more ‘Hellenistic’ form of Christianity in the early Church. This paradigm shift would have an impact on our Son of Man Christology as we shall see.

These three successive waves of New Testament Christology are sometimes called ‘strata,’ thus giving us a model of the New Testament as a geological ‘dig’ showing clues to earlier Christologies. If we approached NT Christology in such a way, and found ourselves at the bottom of the dig, we can see several characteristics unique to Palestinian Christology. First, it was centered on the historical events and teachings of Jesus. Second, it was oriented towards his parousia. The ‘Son of Man’ Christology found its home here for obvious reasons. This Christology had a great soteriological significance. From our quick survey of the Son of Man sayings in the NT Gospels, we see the emphasis on the coming of the Son of Man and the final judgment. The Son of Man as a Christology went well with the Palestinian form of Christianity.

The Palestinian Wave

Terms and phrases used in the Palestinian phase cover three areas in the life of Jesus: (1) his earthly life, (2) his death-resurrection, and (3) his parousia. These areas were covered in this paper concerning the Son of Man phrase. These titles were ‘future-oriented’ and were primarily concerned with the one key phrase used in dealing with the future – Son of Man. But one must not imagine that Palestinian Christology was only future-oriented; it always consisted of the other two areas of Jesus’ life. One theologian states:

“Palestinian Christology has from the outset combined Jesus' glorification in resurrection and his eschatological return in the parousia. Never has the eschatological "not yet" of the parousia stood, in the apostolic christological faith, without the "already" of the Resurrection.”

The first ‘epicenter’ of the Christian movement was, of course, Jerusalem. Jesus’ ministry ended there after he began in Galilee and made his way to meet his eventful death – and resurrection. Their beliefs were centered on one main conviction: “God had raised the crucified Jesus from the dead and thus made him both Lord and Messiah.” Church government was presided over by the Twelve and three elders held special honor – Peter, James and John. The key representative of this phase was Simon around 30 BC. His confession and later denial served as bookends to most of the Son of Man sayings as discussed earlier in this paper. Because the Son of Man was to come, things continued as usual: the disciples continued to frequent the Temple and observe Jewish law. Then, around 69 – 70 AD, the Temple was destroyed … and so was Palestinian Christianity in its earlier form.

The Hellenistic Wave

Terms and phrases used in the Hellenistic Jewish phase cover three areas in the life of Jesus also, but the last one is the only different one from the Palestinian phase. Instead of the ‘parousia,’ the Hellenistic Jewish Christians concerned themselves with Jesus’ Exaltation to Parousia. The Aramaic title in the earthly life and death-resurrection are replaced with Greek titles since Christianity moved out of its Palestinian enclave. Since there was no immediate parousia, Jesus’ enthronement already happened – no waiting for a Messiah designate. Titles such as ‘Christ,’ ‘Lord,’ ‘Savior’ are used by the Hellenistic Jewish Christians. The emphasis is on the present. Key representatives of this phase are Paul, Mark, Matthew and Luke. It was Hellenistic Christianity, which made the initial break from Judaism.

We can draw a spectrum of NT Christianity, where at one end we have the ultra-Jewish wing consisting of James and at the other end, an ultra-Hellenistic wing consisting of Stephen. In the middle were Peter and Paul; Peter being the moderate head of the Mission to the Jews and Paul being the moderate head of the Mission to the Gentiles. Both extreme forms of Christianity died an early death. James was murdered and Stephen was stoned to death. As an extreme Hellenist, Stephen was still noted for his famed Son of Man speech; the one, which got him stoned. Stephen says immediately before his murder:

“I can see heaven thrown open … and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God” (Acts 8.56)

As this wave brought with it the realization of a postponed Parousia, the ‘delay’ forced new views. Ideas of the Body of Christ, fellowship, forgiveness of sins, the Spirit, and participation in the new life during the wait.

The Gentile Wave

Terms and phrases used in the Gentile Mission cover the incarnation and pre-existence of Jesus. The three areas, which this phase covers, are: (1) Pre-existence, (2) Incarnation, and (3) Exaltation. Here, the Son of Man, who is later called Christ, Lord, and Savior, is the Son of God. The emphasis is on the past. Representatives of this phase are John and the author of the Collossian Hymns.

What does this have to do with the Son of Man being a Christology? Understanding how early Christology developed and the sources and environments it was handed down in may explain why it never made it into anyone’s christological lexicon outside of the NT Gospels. All in all, the christological development was rapid in the first few years. The various waves of christological development include several watershed events: (1) the separation of the Aramaic- and Greek-speaking groups in Jerusalem, (2) Stephen’s murder, (3) the conversion of Paul, and (4) the Gentile Mission of the Hellenists who were driven from Jerusalem. These events and the successive waves of the Christian Movement would quickly reject the use of the Son of Man as their Christology.

There are also ‘milestone’ events in the life of Jesus, which indicated a unique twist in understanding Jesus; times where we learn a deeper meaning of Jesus’ identity. These events are in reverse-chronological order: (1) the Resurrection of Jesus, (2) the Baptism of Jesus by John in the River Jordan, (3) the miraculous Conception of Jesus and his infancy, and (5) his pre-existence. As one biblical scholar states:

“Christology of the New Testament passed through a process of development as the early Christians deepened their faith reflection in Jesus who is the Christ. … between the earliest Christian kerygmatic preaching and the last stage of apostolic writing, … begins with a Christology "from below" and progressively passes over to a Christology "from above." Starting with the glorified state and the "divine condition" of the Risen one, Jesus' personal identity and divine Sonship will be grad- ually deepened through a process of "retro-projection," first through the "mysteries" of his life down to his human birth, and then beyond this to the "preexistence" in the mystery of God.”

These decisive moments of understanding the ‘who’ of Jesus is will also have an effect on using a Son of Man Christology, which is future-oriented and eschatological. But even though the Gospels delve deeper into Jesus’ past, as opposed to the eschatological future as understood in the Son of Man sayings, the Gospel writers kept Jesus’ words. This “retro-projection” seems to move the backwards with regard to Jesus’ career, especially in dealing with how the Gospels were written. We can see that:

“The earlier evidence interpreted christologically scenes at the end of Jesus’ life; the later evidence interpreted christologically scenes at the beginning of his life. This is not illogical: The resurrection seen as God’s intervention brought Jesus’ followers to authentic faith in who he was, and only in the light of that faith did they turn to interpret the earlier aspects of his life.”


SECTION 6
THE POST-NEW TESTAMENT ERA

Christological development continued beyond the confines of the New Testament writings. When one thinks of Christological development, one may usually think of the Christological debates of the first few centuries of the Church. But there was a unique era in time still to be covered before ending this survey, namely the time between the writing of the Gospels and the rise of Arianism. The final coup de grace of the Son of Man title came when the Christian movement confronted the ‘pagan’ Gentile world after going out to make disciples of all nations. Persecutions from the governing administrations and the polemical environment with the Jewish authorities put the early post-NT Christians on the defensive. Quite frankly, when Christianity was confronted with Arius and the Arians, the title Son of Man was not enough ammo to keep orthodoxy. What exactly was the innovation and trouble with Arianism? Why would this prove to be the final seal on any attempt to use the Son of Man in Christian polemics?

By itself, many of the NT statements about Jesus seem to imply a ‘subordinationist’ relationship with his Father. This was not a problem to the early Christians at first. The early post-NT focus was on the scriptural revelation of God the Father and the Son as disclosed in ‘oikonomia.’. Judaeo-Christians also fashioned solutions from the Old Testament and apocalyptic literature and relied on the ‘name’ of someone as giving meaning about the person as opposed to the Greek’s emphasis on ‘being.’. Arius later challenged these former ways and forced the Church to respond in different ways.

What is this ‘oikonomia?’ It means ‘economy’ or “… the actualization in time and history of the eternal plan of redemption, the providential ordering of all thing”. That scriptural revelation of God as disclosed in ‘oikonomia’ concerned itself with: (1) God’s providential plan, dispensation, or ordering of the cosmos, (2) the Incarnation or ‘enanthropesis’, or (3) the distribution or ‘economizing’ of godhead among the divine person.” This distribution or economizing among the divine persons and the historical and temporal context it occurred in implied a natural subordinationism. When contemplating the divine godhead, Arius basically stated that since there was this subordinationist relationship between the Son and his Father in a soteriological sense, one is able to conclude an ontological subordinationism. Therefore, the Son was lesser than the Father. It was here that the early Church had to shift gears from a more semitic approach to Christology, with its emphasis on salvation history, to a more Greek approach to understanding reality, with its emphasis on ontology. In all of this, the Son of Man was never used for obvious reasons.

SECTION 7
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

In this paper, I began by posing the paradox of why the Church rarely, if ever, uses the Son of Man title in its Christological confessions or in its liturgies while this was Jesus’ title of preference. After a brief etymological study of the word, I began a survey of the title’s usage prior to the writing of the New Testament. I attempted to cover every usage of the Son of Man title in the Psalms, Ezekiel, Daniel 7, 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra. The major bulk of my paper was the survey of the Son of Man title as it is found in the Gospels. I covered the three classical uses of the title in the Synoptics – such as the present, suffering, and future usages - and the four special uses in the Gospel of John. Some background in the Christological development was given by defining the three communities of Christians the NT authors were addressing, namely the Palestinian, the Hellenistic, and the Gentile Christians. What the composition of the audience was determined the need for the Son of Man title.

In conclusion, I would like to give nine plausible answers to the paradox first mentioned in this paper, thus hoping to conclude this paper. First, since Acts and the NT epistles lack the Son of Man in their writings (except for a rare one or two instances), and since the NT letters were considered to have been written earlier than the Gospels, it seems that the only reason why the term remained in the Gospels was in order to preserve the original words of Jesus.

Second, considering the progression of Christology through the several groups of early Christians (the Palestinian, the Hellenistic, and the Gentile) and the backwards progression of understanding Jesus (starting with his Resurrection and ending up with his pre-existence), the Son of Man as an expression “… which used to carry, say, mainly apocalyptic overtones and associations, … was, in no way calculated to deal with the paradox of the Incarnation.” Jesus was confessed to have taken on flesh (Matthew 1-2, Luke 1-2, John 1.1-18) and the Son of Man “came eating and drinking” (Mt 11.19), which ran counter to the more apocalyptic and Jewish understanding of the Son of Man as a transcendent figure who would come on “clouds.” The main factor, of course, was the increasing influences of Hellenistic culture and the centrality of the resurrection in Christian belief. This backwards progression in the understanding of Jesus, as mentioned above, first viewed Jesus as coming again, then the belief that Jesus now reigns in heaven, and then again the belief in the pre-existence and incarnation of Jesus. The title Son of Man would eventually be over-ridden by the title Son of God.

Third, the term itself was Aramaic, but in Greek, we see the translation ‘ho huios tou anthropou’ which means ‘the son of the man.’ But the Greek lacked the special usage from the Aramaic term, and this fact will prove critical. This was stated earlier in the paper. Its meaning became unclear in the new Greek-Gentile environment, and especially since it seemed to refer only to Jesus’ humanity. Hellenistic Judaism, in its long history of accommodating itself to Hellenistic culture, already prepared early Christianity for its Greek makeover. The non-Palestinian Jews had already adopted the Greek language and idiom, Greek customs, Greek literature, and other cultural activities. Paul already prepared the early Christians in his body of literature, where he emphasizes not one, but two of Christ’s comings: (1) the eschatological age dawning with the death and resurrection of Jesus and (2) the age of the Spirit being poured out in the believers. Together, they formed the understanding of the Body of Christ, a fellowship of believers.

Fourth, one can notice a move from a ‘functional’ Christology to one that is more ‘ontological.’ “In the New Testament, the question, “Who is Christ?” does not primarily ask, “What is his function in the history of salvation?” The question asked in the Greek world was centered on the ‘nature’ of Christ; hence the interest in the origins of the Son of Man or Jesus. “… Christological statements of the earliest Church thus reach their climax in the Fourth Gospel.”

Fifth, the term, which Jesus preferred to use extensively for himself, might have been considered a taboo. In order to avoid the use of the title Jesus gave himself, as did God with Moses at the Burning Bush, early Christians avoided the word. In the Hellenistic synagogue, the title ‘Kyrios’ (Greek, meaning Lord), was used instead of the tetragrammaton, YHWH.

Sixth, the Son of Man title mentioned the eschatological figure standing before the Ancient of Days, but the Son of God title clearly showed the relationship with the Father. This was so since Jesus spoke of his “Father” many times. The Son of Man title was too obscure as a confirmation of the fact that the Messiah suffered the Passion and is not resurrected and exalted at his right hand.

Seventh, the growth in tension between the Son of Man theology, which is seen as a religion of ‘hope,’ whereas the main thrust of early Christian proclamation was what God ‘has done’ in Jesus. Here, we see that the accomplished, soteriologically-oriented, biblically-based emphasis on the ‘oikonomia’ still retains its place in Christology – event though later Christological debates and councils took for granted these events while pursuing ‘how’ this was all so ontologically speaking.

Eighth, it is an incomplete Christology. In response to the Jews who did not come to believe in Jesus, the early Church stressed the Son of God, primarily in the pre-Gospel days. In response to the Gnostics and the Marcionites, the early Church stressed the Son of Man, primarily during the time of Gospel formation and canonization. But the questions posed by Arius later would turn the attention of the Church to addressing the divinity of Jesus or Jesus being consubstantial with God. By then, the Son of Man as a Christology, almost misunderstood by Christians during that time, did not use it.

Lastly, as mentioned in the section on the post-NT era, the Son of Man was not a helpful tool in combating Arius or his disciples. Relying on the name of someone or what part the person played in salvation history was not good enough when Christological debate moved to the philosophical ring.

Dear Brethren in Christ,

I read all your posts, and I thank all of you very much!

In Christ,
Alice

Ray,

You state: "Note (as you will agree) that it was not the Son of God who suffered on the cross - it was the Son of Man (his human nature)."

You must be more careful, this statement is Nestorian. One must be careful when making statements about Christ. Christ is one person, the Son of God. That is who he is. Son of Man is one of the titles of the Son of God. One cannot seperate Christ's two natures because the are united in the One Divine Person of the Son of God, who did suffer on the Cross. While his divine nature retained its impassibility, one cannot say the Son of God did not suffer on the Cross without becoming at least Semi-Nestorian if not fully Nestorian.

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

Joe,

While don't have any stichera the Hierarchical Divine Liturgy opens with the fourfold blessing with the trikeri/dikeri:

"O Lord, O Lord, look down from heaven and see, visit this vineyard, and perfect what your right hand has planted. O Lord, may your hand be upon the son of man whom you yourself made strong" (Psalm 80:15; 17-18) Metropolia of Pittsburgh translation for the Hierarchical Divine Liturgy

From the New American Bible:

"15 Turn again, LORD of hosts; look down from heaven and see; Attend to this vine,
16 the shoot your right hand has planted.
18 May your help be with the man at your right hand, with the one whom you once made strong.(5)"

3 [9] A vine: a frequent metaphor for Israel. Cf Isaiah 5:1-7; 27:2-5; Jeremiah 2:21; Hosea 10:1; Matthew 21:33.

5 [18] The man at your right hand . . . the one: the Davidic king who will lead the army in battle.

Interesting that the shift of the prayer goes from Israel to the Son of David from a Jewish perspective and from the Church to Christ from a Christian perspective because the Son of Man, the Davidic King, can be no other than Christ. Unless we consider that becasue we are the Body of Christ we are the son of man and also assume the Davidic kingship. I think the direct Christological interpretation is more sound. Your thoughts?

In Christ,
Subdeacon Lance

dear Ray:

thanks for your fascinating exposition on "Son of Man" esp. re the Key Stone.

The CornerStone [and I stand to be corrected by any bricklayers out there] is the stone on which the entire structure of the house/building is aligned. So what one needs is basically a perfect cube or at least something with perfectly 90 degree corners. Because from the cornerstone, one runs the guiding lines to build the walls - both vertically and the 2 walls horizontally.

If the cornerstone is not perfectly 90 degrees, then one could end up with crooked walls or some sort of weird and imbalanced parallelogram or rombus or even weirder uneven polygon shape of a house. Such a house would perhaps not be very stable, the walls being crooked, the corners being too wide or whatever, hence the structural support being unsound, could easily collapse - esp. given the more fragile building materials and bricks of the time.

Herb

ps: interesting website re Providence and the Ennead of Moses, must read it thoroughly!

Subdeacon Lance,

//… the Hierarchical Divine Liturgy opens with the fourfold blessing with the trikeri/dikeri:
"O Lord, O Lord, look down from heaven and see, visit this vineyard, and perfect what your right hand has planted.//

Yes. Your observation about the fourfold blessing reminds me of an earlier thread of mine on Isaiah 5:1-7. See:

http://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000015

//O Lord, may your hand be upon the son of man whom you yourself made strong" (Psalm 80:15; 17-18) Metropolia of Pittsburgh translation for the Hierarchical Divine Liturgy//

Psalm 80 is definitely a psalm written for times of trouble. This psalm is particularly concerned with the King of Judah for whom the “right” hand was originally written in reference to. Of course, we know that the New Testament is the best interpretation of the Old Testament, and so, therefore, Jesus is the one to restore a failed Israel. In Christianity and in the Church, Christ is pre-eminent. Whereas, one from the Davidic line is looked upon for restoration in the past, we now know that all things have been restored in Jesus Christ. What surprises me in the Metropolia’s translation is that the word “right” is missing in conjunction with the Lord God’s hand. A lot of rich tradition is found in the notion of one’s right hand. God’s right hand denoted power. The Beloved Disciple sat at our Lord’s right at the Last Supper, and this denoted deep love. For man, his right hand is symbolic of a deep love and relationship. Notice how in the Byzantine tradition the wedding ban is on a spouse’s right hand and not the left as in the West; blessings by presbyters are given by the right hand; we bless ourselves with out right hand, and we cross our right hands on the Gospel book when the priest blesses our marriage.

The author of Hebrews writes clearly who it is who is at the “right hand” of God:

“The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven … To which of the angels did God ever say, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet"?” (Heb 1:1,3,13)

//Interesting that the shift of the prayer goes from Israel to the Son of David from a Jewish perspective and from the Church to Christ from a Christian perspective because the Son of Man, the Davidic King, can be no other than Christ.//

This is so. As the NAB notes state, a vineyard has been used to refer to Israel many times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Stories about vineyards (Isaiah’s story of the vineyard and the parable of the vineyard in Matt 21:22-44) have played several roles in both Jewish and Christian traditions. A vineyard was also used to refer to the early church. Carved vines weave throughout many iconostases. There is another interpretation here about the Eucharist too. Such an interpretation would lend support to the fourfold blessing at the hierarchical Divine Liturgy.

//Unless we consider that becasue we are the Body of Christ we are the son of man and also assume the Davidic kingship. I think the direct Christological interpretation is more sound. Your thoughts?//

I would say that the whole New Testament is a Christological interpretation and I would probably stick with that. There are many Christo-centric understandings of who the ‘we’ are in Christian tradition. Just as many understandings as the word “rock.” But that is another topic …

As for previous "waves" of Christology giving way to newer ones (i.e., the paradigm shift from Jewish soteriology to Greek concerns about ontology), remnants of older traditions do tend to stay around. The Son of Man is still referred to day in our fourfold blessing, albeit a liturgical use of Scripture in conjunction with ritual and its meaning. Not necessarily a full-blown Christology, but an appropriate reference nonetheless. Older forms of thinking never die. They are like the non-canonical Scriptures that, once being officially banned from the canon, find a home in our iconography, hymnography, and rituals. Good theology never dies, it just blends into its surroundings.

Joe Thur

For point of discussion...

I live in New England and there are plenty of Colonial homes left that were mortared together from just any size and shape rocks that were laying around in the cow field at the time. They are very nice homes.

In the old days a perfect 90 degrees on all angles of the cornerstone was not often had - and it is not needed because it is mortored in place and the mortor compensates. Have you never seen (at least in a movie) the brick layer with his sight string pulled tight and level as he places the brick - lay his level on - and perhaps taps it down just a bit more or take it out and throws in bit more mortar - then puts it back and perhaps taps it to seat nicely in line with the sight string?

Architectural plans, initial site survey, sight string, level with the bubble in it, straight edge, measuring tape, quality of materials, etc… the tradesman’s skill with these make for the soundness of the structure

Before any stones are laid the survey first sights were the walls will lay, then he marks the line, then stakes are driven into the ground and measurements taken including squaring, stakes are adjusted accordingly, string is pulled tight between the stakes - and the walls are built according to the straight line of the tightly pulled string makes. This has been the essential method forever. The surveyor who follows the plans is the one by whom the building will take shape.

The corner stone can be the last stone put in place on that tier - it matters not. It has only a ceremonial purpose (a name and date carved into it). The walls are not laid out by the a cornerstone at all. It is a stone just like any other in the structure. There is absolutely nothing special about it or its position or its function other than having a name and date carved into it. The first stone laid can be any stone at all and it can be laid anywhere.

Dear J Thur...

I finally got a few moments to begin reading your paper posted here. After just a taste - I look forward to an evening within which I can read it all with my attention.

Thank you so much for posting the entire item.

-ray

Ray,

You're welcome.

Joe

I appreciate your view… I am not too worried about people misinterpreting me. There is not much I can do about that and it often happened due to the nature and limits of a discussion board.

People will drive you crazy (all with good intentions) - if you let them.

My posts have been about the way in which Jesus himself separated (in concept) his human nature and his divine nature. In other parts of the gospel he makes it clear that both natures are really two sides of the same coin. Further than that - I need not go.

-ray