God's_Servant
New Member
Aren't we all sons of men?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
another ceb question
- Thread starter nodak
- Start date
Son of Man refers to Christ, not you and me.
dwmoeller1
New Member
He doesn't always. No definite article used in John 5:27. Also, there is no definite article found in Rev. 1:13 or Rev. 14:14. Evidently "(definite article) son of man" is not necessary for it to refer to Christ.
Also, the definite article in Dan 7:13 seems in doubt. Only the KJV/NKJV give it as a definite article.
Regarding your points about the lack if definite articles in the Ezekial verses - isn't the grammatical structure such that you wouldn't expect to see a definite article? If so, then its absence tells us little.
dwmoeller1
New Member
What about Heb 2:6?
Is there a difference between "the Son of Man" and "a" son of man?
dwmoeller1
New Member
You didn't initially stipulate that.
But to answer your question...
No, there is not an essential difference. Otherwise John 5:27, Rev. 1:13 and 14:14 could not refer to Christ since they don't specify "the" Son of man. Since they certainly do refer to Christ, "the" is not an essential part of the title "son of man".
dwmoeller1
New Member
In the Greek text I am looking at, there is no definite article present (although someone is saying there is in the TR for John 5:27).
There is a special significance when its clearly referring to Christ - and thats true regardless of the definite article or lack of it (referring again to the verses above). Now, personally, I don't believe the significance is tied back to Dan 7:13 as many do, (another verse w/o the definite article present in the original language) so much as its tied to the references in Ezekiel. But thats largely because I have yet to see good evidence that the Jews considered the title to be Messianic. If I ran across that then my estimation might change. Either way, its not essential since the NT never seems to rely on such a connection.
dwmoeller1
New Member
Yes, hence it wouldn't have been considered a Messianic title as much as a statement that Jesus was a faithful servant of God.
dwmoeller1
New Member
Where is "Son of Man" used to prophesy of the Lord?
Jesus is referred to as the “Son of Man” 88 times in the New Testament. A first meaning of the phrase “Son of Man” is as a reference to the prophecy of Daniel 7:13-14, “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.” The description “Son of Man” was a Messianic title. Jesus is the One who was given dominion and glory and a kingdom. When Jesus used this phrase, He was assigning the Son of Man prophecy to Himself. The Jews of that era would have been intimately familiar with the phrase and to whom it referred. Jesus was proclaiming Himself as the Messiah.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Son-of-Man.html
Sorry upon second look I see I was mistaken (perhaps I glanced at verse 26 for an article?)
and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
John 5:27 (AV 1873)
οτι υιος ανθρωπου εστιν
(because - son - of man – (he) - is)
John 5:27 (TR1550 – Stephen’s)
John 5:27 (Elzevir - 1624)
John 5:27 (TR1894)
John 5:27 (Byzantine – Robinson 2005)
ὅτι υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐστί.
John 5:27 (Scrivener 1881)
John 5:27 (Majority Text - Hodges/Farstad 1984)
Rob
dwmoeller1
New Member
1. So why did they (apparently) not react to His self reference as "Son of man" while any hinting that He was the "Son of God" immediately got them worked up over such blasphemy?
2. Why the insistence on the definite article when using it as a Messianic title, yet there being no definite article when the phrase is used in Dan 7:13?
3. What evidence is there that the Jews actually saw this as a Messianic title?
dwmoeller1
New Member
So if I follow correctly (my Greek is nearly non-existent), you are showing that the definite article appears in the AV, but not in the TR from which it is derived. Is that accurate?
dwmoeller1
New Member
In certain contexts and usages, certainly. But thats a product of grammar, not any necessary connection to the quality of the title. And just as grammar necessitates its inclusion in English, so its exclusion in passages from Eze are what one would expect.
Simply put, its presence or absence is largely (if not solely) a product of grammar structures rather than doctrinal significance.
They didn't consider one saying he is messiah to be blasphemous. They did consider one saying He is equal with God to be blasphemous. Anytime Jesus even hinted at His Diety, they wanted to kill him. When He quoted Isaiah 61 in Luke 4, nobody wanted to kill him. In fact, all bare Him witness and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth. But when He asserted the sovereignty of God to support His refusal to perform miracles on command, then they wanted to kill Him.
As to the evidence the Jews saw this as speaking of Messiah, John Gill, who is very knowledgable of ancient Jewish writings, says the following in his commentary on that text: "but the Messiah, as most Christian interpreters, and even the Jews themselves, both ancient and modern, allow. In the ancient book of Zohar {u} it is said, "in the times of the Messiah, Israel shall be one people, to the Lord, and he shall make them one nation in the earth, and they shall rule above and below; as it is written, "behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven"; this is the King Messiah of whom it is written, "and in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven, set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed," &c. Daniel 2:44." So in the Talmud {w} this prophecy is thus reconciled with another, concerning the Messiah, in Zechariah 9:9, to what R. Alexander said"
dwmoeller1
New Member
Can you give me the source for that quote please.