darrell@sdcsvax.UUCP (Darrell Long) (07/08/85)
Throughout the Gospels Christ calls himself "The Son of Man". Why? None have yet given me a satisfactory answer. -- Darrell Long Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science University of California, San Diego USENET: sdcsvax!darrell ARPA: darrell@sdcsvax
elwell@osu-eddie.UUCP (Clayton M. Elwell) (07/11/85)
The term ``Son of Man'' is the translation of a Hebrew term meaning simply ``pilgrim'' or ``holy man.'' It was in fairly common use at the time, and was certainly not an exclusive title for Jesus. I will dig up references if anyone is interested. -- Clayton Elwell
jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (AMBAR) (07/12/85)
> The term ``Son of Man'' is the translation of a Hebrew term meaning > simply ``pilgrim'' or ``holy man.'' It was in fairly common use at > the time, and was certainly not an exclusive title for Jesus. I will > dig up references if anyone is interested. > > -- Clayton Elwell How can it be the translation of a Hebrew term when the NT was written in Greek? (or are you saying that it went from Hebrew to Greek to English...that I can believe.) -- AMBAR {the known universe}!ihnp4!ihlpg!jeand "To those who love it is given to hear Music too high for the human ear." --Bruce Cockburn
hgr@inuxi.UUCP (Harold Roberts) (07/23/85)
> Throughout the Gospels Christ calls himself "The Son of Man". > Why? None have yet given me a satisfactory answer. > -- > Darrell Long > Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science > University of California, San Diego > > USENET: sdcsvax!darrell > ARPA: darrell@sdcsvax I have read two explanations for this term that I like. The first is from the explanatory text of the Jerusalem Bible. "With the exception of Acts 7:56; Rv 1:13; 14:14, this title appears only in the Gospels. There is no doubt that Jesus used it of himself, and indeed preferred it to others. At times He uses it to express His lowly state, Mt 8:20; 11:19; 20:28, especially the humiliation of the Passion, 17:22 etc. At other times it is used to proclaim the definitive triumph of His resurrection, Mt 17:9, of His return to glory, 24:30, of His coming in judgement, 25:31. That this title, Aramic in flavor, could bring together these seemingly opposed qualities is clear from the following considerations. The phrase originally meant 'man', Ezk 2:1+, and by reason of its unusual and indirect form it underlined the lowliness of man's state. But the title suggested glory too. It was used in Dt 7:13+, and later in the Jewish apocalyptic Book of Enoch, to indicate the transcendent figure, heavenly in origin, who was to receive from God's hand the eschatological kingdom (the kingdom 'at the end of times'). In this way therefore the title both veiled and hinted at (cf. Mk 1:34+; Mt 13:13+) the sort of Messiah Jesus was. Moreover, the explicit avowal in the presence of the Sanhedrin, Mt 26:64+, should have removed all ambiguity." The second explanation is from a commentary by Barclay. Barclay repeats the above explanation and then goes further to ask the reader to look at the "humanistic" side as well. Jesus had to be very careful not to publicly declare that He was the Son of God or else the Sanhedrin would (prematurely) have Him killed for blasphemy; before Jesus could complete His mission. Therefore Jesus, being a shrewd strategist and philosopher, reused an old term that both referred to the Messiah and to the relationship of man to God (created in His image). The poor Scribes and Pharisees couldn't do a thing. Note that Jesus does not call Himself the "Son of God" until the trial before the Sanhedrin. He even chastises Peter, at the profession of faith and allegiance at Caesarea Philippi, to not repeat the title (and relationship!) made known to Peter by the Holy Spirit ("You are the Christ,... the Son of the living God"). I hope this explanation helps you Harold Roberts