Son of Man

VIEW:16 DATA:01-04-2020

Others are "sons of men" (Job_25:6; Psa_144:3; Psa_146:3; Isa_51:12; Isa_56:2). God addresses Daniel (Dan_8:17) once, Ezekiel so about 80 times, to remind him of his human lowliness and frailty, as "man lower than the angels," though privileged to enjoy visions of the cherubim and of God Himself, "lest he should be exalted through the abundance of the revelations" (2Co_12:7). The divine Son appeared to him "as the appearance of a man above upon the throne" (Eze_1:26). As others are "sons of God," but He "the Son of God," so others are "sons of man" (Eze_2:1; Eze_2:3) but He "the Son of man" (Mat_16:13), being the embodied representative of humanity and the whole human race; as on the other hand He is the bodily representative of "all the fullness of the Godhead" (Col_2:9). Ezekiel, as type of "the Son of man" whose manifestation he records, is appropriately designated "son of man."
The title "the Son of man" implies at once Messiah's lowliness and His exaltation in His manifestations as THE REPRESENTATIVE MAN respectively at His first and second comings; His humiliation on the one hand (Psa_8:4-8; Mat_16:13; Mat_20:18; Mat_20:28) and His exaltation on the other hand, just "because He is the Son of man": Dan_7:13-14, Hebrew not Ben -ish or -Adam, son of a hero or of man generically viewed, but Ben enosh, "Son of man," frail and abject, marking the connection of His humiliation and exaltation as man (Php_2:5-11; Mat_26:64; Joh_5:27). He comes again as man to reinstate man in his original glory, never to be dispossessed of it. He is now set down on the throne of God as the Son of God. That is a throne which His saints cannot share; therefore He shall assume another throne, made "His" in order that they may sit down on it with Him (Rev_3:21).
The kingdom shall be "under the whole heaven," on earth (Dan_7:18; Dan_7:27); He shall reign with them as the Son of man, Head of the new creation, and Restorer of man's lost inheritance. Because as man He established His and the saints' title to the kingdom at the cost of His own blood, as man He shall judge and reign. It is fit that He who as the Son of man was judged by the world should judge the world. Rev_5:9-10; Psa_8:4-8; Heb_2:6-8; 1Co_15:21-22; 1Co_15:28; 1Co_15:45; 1Co_15:47. The title "the Son of man" in the New Testament Jesus alone uses, and of Himself, except Stephen in dying, "I see the Son of man standing on the right hand of God," referring not to His humiliation on earth but to His heavenly exaltation (compare Joh_12:23; Joh_12:34; Joh_6:62; Joh_3:13; Act_7:56); standing to assist, plead for (Psa_109:31), and receive the dying martyr.
Stephen speaking "full of the Holy Spirit" repeats Jesus' prophecy before the council, foretelling His exaltation as the Son of man; only there it is "sitting on the right hand of power," because there majestic repose, here rising to His servant's help, is the thought. Stephen's assertion stirred their rage, that Jesus who had been crucified for claiming to be "the Son of God" stands at God's right hand as being "the Son of man." Another exception is John so calls Him in apocalyptic vision (Rev_1:13; Rev_14:14), corresponding to the Old Testament apocalypse (Dan_7:13). The Son of God in eternity became the Son of man in time, whose manhood shall be glorified with His Godhead to eternity. The two titles together declare the whole truth as to His one Person, "whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am? ... Thou art the Christ, the Son of God. ... Blessed art thou, Bar-Jona" ("son of Jonah"), etc.
As truly as thou art son of Jonah I am at once "the Son of man" and "the Son of God" (Mat_16:28). The two are again combined in Caiaphas' question as to His being the Son of God, and His affirmative answer and further revelation, "nevertheless, besides ... ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power," etc. (Mat_26:63-64; Mat_24:30; Mat_25:31-32; Mar_14:61-62). As the Son of man He was Lord of the Sabbath, "for the Sabbath was made for man" whose Representative Head He is (Mar_2:28). As the Son of man He suffered for sin (Mat_17:12), and as the Son of man He hath power on earth to forgive sins (Mat_9:6). As the Son of man He had not where to lay His head (Mat_8:20); as the Son of man "He hath on His head a golden crown" (Rev_14:14).
Every eye shall see Him (Rev_1:7), but only "the pure in heart shall see God" (Mat_5:8). "The Son of God became the Son of man that you who were sons of men might be made sons of God" (Augustine, Serm. 121). Jesus is one of our race, yet above the whole race, the One Man in whom mankind finds its unity, the turning point of history at the close of the old and the beginning of the new era. His absolute relation to mankind requires an absolute relation to God. He could be the Son of man only because He is the Son of God. He alone fully realizes the ideal of man, as well as that of God, combining too in His manhood all the exquisite graces of woman with the powers of man.
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.

Of all the titles commonly used of Jesus in the New Testament, ‘Son of man’ was the one most used by Jesus himself and least used by others. It hardly occurs at all outside the Gospels (Act_7:56; Rev_1:13; Rev_14:14), and inside the Gospels is used almost solely by Jesus. By using this unusual title for himself, Jesus made people think carefully about who he was and what his mission involved (Joh_12:34; Joh_13:31-32).
A heavenly figure
The title ‘son of man’ comes from a vision recorded in the Old Testament book of Daniel. In this vision a person like a son of man came into the heavenly presence of God and received from him a universal and everlasting kingdom (Dan_7:13-14). The idea of the son of man was tied up with that of the kingdom of God, and this provided the background to Jesus’ reference to himself as the Son of man.
With the coming of Jesus, the kingdom of God came visibly into the world. The world is under the power of Satan (2Co_4:4; 1Jn_5:19), but Jesus delivered diseased and demonized people, showing that the rule and authority of God’s kingdom can release people from Satan’s power (Mat_4:23-24; Mat_12:28; Luk_10:9; Luk_10:17-18; Luk_17:20-21; see KINGDOM OF GOD). God’s kingdom will reach its fullest expression when Jesus returns at the end of the age to punish evil, remove Satan and reign in righteousness (Dan_7:13-14; Mat_13:41-43; Mat_24:30-31; Mar_8:38).
The vision in Daniel shows, however, that the Son of man shares the kingdom with his people (Dan_7:14; Dan_7:27). Jesus therefore promised those who followed him that they would share with him in the final triumph of his kingdom (Mat_19:28; Mat_25:31-34; cf. 2Ti_2:11-12; Rev_3:12; Rev_3:21; Rev_20:4).
An earthly figure
In addition to this particular usage, the expression ‘son of man’ could be used in ordinary speech to apply to any man. It could be simply a poetic way of saying ‘a person’, and at times Jesus may have used it simply to mean ‘I’ or ‘me’ (Num_23:19; Psa_8:4; Eze_2:1; Eze_2:3; Eze_2:8; Mat_11:19).
The twofold meaning of ‘son of man’ was especially appropriate as a title for Jesus. It pointed to his deity (he was the heavenly Son of God; Joh_3:13; Joh_6:62) and to his humanity (he was a man, a member of the human race; Mat_8:20). The Son of man was the embodiment of God. In his unique person he carried the authority of God into the world (Mar_2:10; Mar_2:28; cf. Joh_5:27; see JESUS CHRIST; SON OF GOD).
Jesus’ use of ‘Son of man’ in relation to the kingdom of God likewise combined heavenly and earthly aspects. The heavenly Son of man was in fact an earthly figure born in the royal line of David and having claim to the messianic throne. Because of the Jews’ selfish nationalistic ideas of the Messiah and his kingdom, Jesus rarely spoke of himself specifically as the Messiah (see MESSIAH). By using the title ‘Son of man’, he was claiming to be the Messiah without actually using the title ‘Messiah’. He knew the title ‘Son of man’ could be puzzling, but he wanted people to think about it. He wanted them to consider the evidence of his life and work, and discover for themselves the true identity of this one who called himself the Son of man (Mat_16:13-16; Joh_9:35-36; Joh_12:34).
When the Jewish leaders finally understood Jesus’ usage of the title (namely, that he claimed to be both the Davidic Messiah and the supernatural heavenly Messiah of Dan_7:13-14), they accused him of blasphemy and had him crucified (Mar_14:61-64). This did not take Jesus by surprise, for he knew that the heavenly Son of man had also to become the suffering servant. He had to suffer and die before he could receive the kingdom (Mar_8:31; Mar_9:12; Mar_10:45; Joh_3:13-14; Joh_8:28; see SERVANT OF THE LORD).
If, however, the crucified Son of man was to receive an eternal kingdom, his death had to be followed by resurrection (Mar_9:31; Mar_10:33-34). Therefore God, in a triumphant declaration of the perfection of all that Jesus had done through his obedient life and sacrificial death, raised him up and gave him glory (1Pe_1:21). The full revelation of that glory will take place when the Son of man returns in the triumph of his kingdom (Mar_8:38; Mar_13:26; Mar_14:62).
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.


This designation, which, like the Son of God, is now chiefly associated with Christ, has also an Old as well as a New Test. usage; it had a general before it received a specific application. In a great variety of passages it is employed as a kind of circumlocution for man, with special reference to his frail nature and humble condition; as, when speaking of God, it is said, “He is not the son of man that he should repent” (Num_23:19); and “What is man that thou art mindful of him, or the son of man that thou visitest him?” (Psa_8:4). For some reason not certainly known, but probably from its being either a mere adoption of Chaldaean usage, or its possessing a sort of poetical and measured form, the designation “son of man” is the style of address commonly employed in Ezekiel's writings when he was called to hear the word of God (Eze_2:1; Eze_3:1, etc.). That Chaldaean usage had, at least, something to do with it may be inferred from its similar employment by Daniel; as, when speaking of a heavenly messenger appearing to him in the visions of God, he describes the appearance as being of one, not simply like a man, but “like the similitude of the sons of men” (Eze_10:16), while in other parts of the description this is interchanged with the simple designation or appearance of a man (Ezekiel 5:18).
Nor have we any reason to think that, as regards the expression itself, anything else is indicated by “son of man” in the vision of Daniel which most directly points to New. Test. times and relations. In that vision, after beholding successively four different monstrous and savage forms imaging so many earthly monarchies, the prophet saw “like a son of man came with the clouds, of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days; and there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him” (Eze_7:13-14). The expression here, “like a son of man,” is evidently equivalent to one having a human aspect, and as such differing essentially from those beastly and rapacious natures that had already passed in vision before him. The kingdoms represented by such natures, though presided over by human beings, were to be characterized by the caprice, selfishness, and cruelty — which were instinctively suggested by those ideal heads; while in the higher kingdom that should come after them, and which was really to attain to the universality and perpetuity that they vainly aspired after, there were to be the possession and display of qualities distinctively human — those, namely, which are the image and reflex of the divine. This, however, it could only be by the head of the kingdom himself occupying a higher platform than that of fallen humanity, and being able to pervade this lower sphere with the might and the grace of Godhead. Hence in the vision, not only is ideal humanity made to image the character of the kingdom, but the bearer of it appears coming in the clouds of heaven, the proper chariot of Deity — as himself being from above rather than from beneath — emphatically, indeed, the Lord from heaven. It may be regarded as certain that in so frequently choosing for himself the, designation of “the Son of man” (in all fully fifty times), our Lord had respect to the representation in Daniel.
It was the title under which, with a few rare exceptions, he uniformly spoke of himself; and it is remarkable how, when acquiescing in his right to be acknowledged by others in the most peculiar sense “the Son of God,” he sometimes immediately after substituted for this the wonted designation of “the Son of man” (Joh_1:49-51; Mat_26:63-64), as if to show that what belonged to the Son of God might equally be affirmed (when the terms were rightly understood) of the Son of man. This comes out with peculiar force in the latter of the two passages referred to; for no sooner had our Lord confessed to the adjuration of the high priest as to his being the Son of God than he added, “Hereafter ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven,” appropriating the very language in Daniel's vision, and asserting of himself as Son of man what belonged to him as the fellow of Godhead. Along with and behind the attribution of humanity, which he loved to place in the foreground, there lay the heavenly majesty. Hence, while the epithet in question may well enough be understood to imply that Jesus was “the ideal man” (which is all that rationalistic interpreters would find in it), it includes much more than that it makes him known as the new man, who had come from heaven, and in whom, because in him the Word was made flesh, manhood had attained to the condition in which it could fulfil the high destiny of exercising lordship for God over “the world to come” (Heb_2:5).
By this title, then, to use the words of Luthardt, “Jesus, on the one side, includes himself among other men — he is one of our race; while, on the other, he thereby exalts himself above the whole race besides, as in a truly exclusive sense the Son of mankind, its genuine Offspring — the one Man towards whom the whole history of the human race was tending, in whom it found its unity, and in whom history finds its turning point as the close of the old and the commencement of the new era.” But this, coupled with the authority and power of judgment which he asserts for himself over all flesh as the Son of man, bespeaks his possession of the divine as well as of the human nature. “No rationalistic ideal of virtue can avail us here. To call Jesus the mere prototype, and prefigurement of mankind, will not suffice to justify such language; we are constrained to quit the limits of humanity, and to look for the root of his being, the home of his nature and life, in God himself to explain, the possibility of such declarations. The absolute relation to the world which he attributes to himself demands an absolute relation to God. The latter is the necessary postulate of, the former, which cannot be properly understood but from this point of view. Only because Jesus is to God what he is can he be to us what he says. He is the Son of man, the Lord of the world, its judge, only because he is the Son of God” (Fundamental Truths of Christianity, p. 289, 290). For literature, see Hase, Leben Jesu. p. 127.



CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores