More like this
Son of Man
SON OF MAN. (Heb. ben ’ādhām, Gr. ho huios tou anthrōpou). An expression found in the OT and used as a self-description of Jesus in the NT. In Hebrew, “son of man” means an individual man, a man from the genus man (
Daniel used this phrase to describe a personage whom he saw in a night vision. He saw one “like a son of man” (that is, a member of the genus man) coming with the clouds of heaven and approaching God (the “
Why Jesus decided to call himself “Son of Man” (eighty-two times in the Gospels; see also
See also Adam.
Bibliography: E. J. Young, Daniel’s Vision of the Son of Man, 1958; O. Cullmann, The Christology of the, 1963; M. D. Hooker, in Mark, 1967; F. Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology, 1967; J. G. Baldwin, Daniel (TOTC), 1978.——CEH and PT
The commonest title used by Jesus to refer to Himself. In the OT it is often found in Ezekiel as the name by which God calls the prophet. It is sometimes found as a parallel to “man” (e.g., Pss. 8:4; 80:17), and in Daniel 7 it has an apocalyptic significance. This last idea is expanded in the Similitudes of Enoch, where there is particular emphasis on his role in judgment. The term is found frequently in the gospels as a self-designation of Jesus. Outside the gospels it is found only in the NT, in Acts 7:56; Revelation 1:13; 14:14. This makes it clear that it was not a term in general use after the Resurrection, when clearer messianic and divine titles could be used. There can therefore be little doubt, despite the objection of some modern scholars, that it was a term used of Himself by Jesus during His ministry which has been faithfully retained by the Evangelists.
Recently there has been a good deal of discussion about the source and meaning of the term as it is used in the gospels. It is possible that the varied OT usage and that of Enoch had some influence. The meaning of the term seems to fall into three main categories. First, there are passages where the term is a periphrasis meaning simply “I” (Matt. 8:20; 11:19) or may possibly mean “man” (Mark 2:10,28). Secondly, there are those sayings which refer to the suffering and death of thefollowed by the resurrection (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33f., etc.). This has been closely linked with the idea of Jesus as the suffering , and has sometimes been held to have something of a corporate significance, including the disciples with Jesus. Thirdly, there are references to the Son of Man as the exalted Lord who will come again in glory as judge of the world (Mark 8:38; 13:26; 14:62, etc.). In John the emphasis is on the Son of Man's being the ladder between heaven and earth (John 1:51), and His descending and ascending again (John 3:13f.; 6:62f.; 8:28). Paul's doctrine of the (Rom. 5:12ff.; 1Cor. 15) may be linked with the idea of the Son of Man.
A.J.B. Higgins, Jesus and the Son of Man (1964); F.H. Borsch,in Myth and History (ET 1967); M.D. Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark (1967).
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915)
(ho huios tou anthropou) :
1. Use in the: Self-Designation of Jesus
2. Questions as to Meaning
I. SOURCE OF THE TITLE
1. The Phrase in the--Psalms, Ezekiel, Daniel
2. "" in Daniel 7--New Testament Allusions
3. Expressive of Messianic Idea
4. Post-canonical Literature:
II. WHY JESUS MADE USE OF THE TITLE
1. Consciousness of Being the Messiah
2. Half Concealed, Yet Half Revealed His Secret
3. Expressive of Identification with Men in Sympathy, Fortunes and Destiny
4. Speculations (Lietzmann, Wellhausen, etc.) on Aramaic Meaning: These Rejected (Dalman, etc.)
1. Use in New Testament: Self-Designation of Jesus:
This is the favorite self-designation of Jesus in the Gospels. In Matthew it occurs over 30 times, in Mark 15 times, in Luke 25 times, and in John a dozen times. It is always in the mouth of Jesus Himself that it occurs, except once, when the bystanders ask what He means by the title (
2. Questions as to Meaning:
At first sight it appears so apt a term for the human element in our Lord’s person, the divine element being similarly denoted by "the
The more scientific investigation of the phrase began, however, when it was inquired, first, what the source was from which Jesus derived this title, and, secondly, why He made use of it.
I. Source of the Title.
1. The Phrase in the Old Testament--Psalms, Ezekiel, Daniel:
That the phrase was not one of Jesus’ own invention is manifest, because it occurs often in the Old Testament.
"What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
And the son of man, that thou visitest him ?"
This passage has sometimes been regarded as the source whence Jesus borrowed the title; and for this a good deal might be said, the psalm being an incomparable exposition both of the lowliness and the loftiness of human nature. But there is another passage in the Psalms from which it is far from incredible that it may have been derived: in
"Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand,
Upon the son of man whom thou maddest strong for thyself."
This is an appeal, in an age of national decline, for the raising up of a hero to redeem Israel; and it might well have kindled the spark of Messianic consciousness in the heart of the youthful Jesus.
There is a book of the Old Testament in which the phrase "the son of man" occurs no fewer than 90 times. This is the
2. "Son of Man" in Daniel 7--New Testament Allusions:
There is, however, in the same
3. Expressive of Messianic Idea:
The use of this self-designation by Jesus is especially frequent and striking in passages referring to His future coming to judgment, in which there is necessarily a certain resemblance to the apocalyptic scene in Daniel. In such utterances the Messianic consciousness of Jesus is most emphatically expressed; and the passage in Daniel is also obviously Messianic. In another considerable series of passages in which this phrase is used by Jesus, the references are to His sufferings and death; but the assumption which explains these also most easily is that they are Messianic too; Jesus is speaking of the fortunes to which He must submit on account of His vocation. Even the more dignified passages, expressive of ideality, are best explained in the same way. In short, every passage where the phrase occurs is best understood from this point of view, whereas, from any other point of view, not a few appear awkward and out of place. How little, for example, does the idea that the phrase is expressive of lowliness or of brotherhood with suffering humanity accord with the opening of the judgment-scene in
4. Post-canonical Literature: Book of Enoch:
The son of man, or rather "one like unto a son of man" mentioned in Daniel, is primarily the Hebrew people, as is expressly noted in the prophecy itself; but Jesus must have looked upon Himself as the representative of the people of God, in the same way as, in the Old Testament generally, the reigning sovereign was regarded as the representative of the nation. But the question has been raised whether this transference of the title from a collective body to an individual may have been mediated for Him through postcanonical religious literature or the prevalence among the people of ideas generated through this literature. In the Book of Enoch there occur numerous references to the son of man, which bear a remarkable resemblance to some of the sayings of Jesus. The date usually assigned to this production is some 200 years BC; and, if these passages in it actually existed as early as this, the book would almost require to be included in the canonical Scriptures, though for other reasons it is far from worthy of any such honor. The whole structure of the Book of Enoch is so loose and confused that it must always have invited interpolation; and interpolations in it are recognized as numerous. The probability, therefore, is that the passages referring to the son of man are of later date and of Christian origin.
II. Why Jesus Made Use of the Title.
The conclusion that this title expresses, not the personal qualities of Jesus as a man, but His functions as Messiah, may be disappointing; but there is a way of recovering what seems to have been lost; because we must now inquire for what reasons He made use of this term.
1. Consciousness of Being the Messiah:
The first reason, of course, is, that in Daniel it expressed Messiahship, and that Jesus was conscions of being the Messiah. In the Old Testament He was wont all His days to read His own history. He ranged over all the sacred books and found in them references to His own person and work. With divinatory glance He pierced into the secrets of Scripture and brought forth from the least as well as the best-known portions of the ancient oracles meanings which are now palpable to all readers of the Bible, but which He was the first to discover. From the passage in Daniel, or from some other passage of the Old Testament in which the phrase "the son of man" occurs, a hint flashed out upon Him, as He read or heard; and the suggestion grew in His brooding mind, until it rounded itself into the fit and satisfying expression for one side of His self-consciousness.
2. Half Concealed, Yet Half Revealed His Secret:
Another reason why He fixed upon this as His favorite self-designation may have been that it half concealed as well as half revealed His secret. Of the direct names for the Messiah He was usually shy, no doubt chiefly because His contemporaries were not prepared for an open declaration of Himself in this character; but at all stages of His ministry He called Himself the Son of man without hesitation. The inference seems to be, that, while the phrase expressed much to Himself, and must have meant more and more for those immediately associated with Him, it did not convey a Messianic claim to the public ear. With this accords well the perplexity once manifested by those listening to Him, when they asked, "Who is this Son of man?" (
3. Expressive of Identification with Men in Sympathy, Fortunes and Destiny:
But when we try to realize for what reasons Jesus may have picked this name out from all which presented themselves to Him in His intimate and loving survey of the Old Testament, it is difficult to resist the belief that a third and the principal reason was because it gave expression to His sense of connection with all men in sympathy, fortunes and destiny. He felt Himself to be identified with all as their brother, their fellow-sufferer, their representative and champion; and, in some respects, the deepest word He ever spake was, "For the Son of man also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" (
4. Speculations (Lietzmann, Wellhausen, etc.) on Aramaic Meaning: These Rejected (Dalman, etc.):
In 1896,, a young German scholar, startled the learned World with a speculation on the "Son of man." Making the assumption that Aramaic was the language spoken by Jesus, he contended that Jesus could not have applied to Himself the Messianic title, because there is nothing corresponding with it in Aramaic. The only term approximating to it is barnash, which means something very vague, like "anyone" or "everyman" (in the sense of the old morality play thus entitled). Many supposed Lietzmann to be arguing that Jesus had called Himself Anyone or Everyman; but this was not his intention. He tried to prove that the Messianic title had been applied to Jesus in Asia Minor in the first half of the 2nd century and that the Gospels had been revised with the effect of substituting it for the first personal pronoun. But he failed to show how the manuscripts could have been so universally altered as to leave no traces of this operation, or how, if the text of the New Testament was then in so fluid a state as to admit of such a substitution, the phrase should not have overflowed into other books besides the Gospels. Although the hypothesis has secured wide attention through being partially adopted by Wellhausen, whose view is to be found in Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, VI, and at p. 66 of his Commentary on Mark, it may be reckoned among the ghosts which appear for an hour on the stage of learning, attracting attention and admiration, but have no permanent connection with the world of reality. Dalman, the leading authority on Aramaic, denies the foundation on which the views of both Lietzmann and Wellhausen rest, and holds that, had the Messianic title existed, the Aramaic language would have been quite capable of expressing it. And in 1911 Wellhausen himself explicitly admitted this (Einleitung in die drei eraten Evangelien(2), 130).
See the books onby Weiss, Beyschlag, Holtzmann, Feine, Schlatter, Weinel, Stevens, Sheldon; and on the by Wentit, Bruce, Dalman; Abbott, , 1910; very full bibliography in Stalker, The Teaching of Jesus concerning Himself.