The Son of Man

[pinoybaptist]

I heard a good sermon by RC Sproul on the title The Son of Man.
Can anyone else add his input on this title and its significance, and why Jesus oftentimes referred to Himself by this name ?
Or do you know of excellent resources on the titles and names of the Savior ?

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Son of Man in the Old Testament:

Ezek 3:17

17 "Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman to the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from My mouth, warn them from Me.
NASU


Dan 7:13-14
13 "I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
14 "And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him.
NASU

The Ezekiel reference is typical of many many verses in which the merely human prophet is called "Son of Man".

The Daniel reference, is clearly a Messianic prophecy, and the "son of man" is obviously more than a mere mortal there.

The use of the title, therefore, is ambiguous and well served Jesus as He prepared for the nation to be notified Who He was . . . being a claim to being the Messiah and yet not clearly and obviously so, which left his enemies unable to prematurely charge Him with blasphemy.

 

[John of Japan]

The term "son of man" emphasizes the humanity of Jesus Christ, just as the term "Son of God" emphasizes His deity. He is 100% human and 100% God.

 

[Watchman]

Originally posted by John of Japan:
The term "son of man" emphasizes the humanity of Jesus Christ, just as the term "Son of God" emphasizes His deity. He is 100% human and 100% God.

Good point. I feel He used this term to stress that He is, indeed, "Come in the flesh," and not just in spirit. He was, indeed, all man and all God.

 

[Keith M]

Originally posted by Watchman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John of Japan:
The term "son of man" emphasizes the humanity of Jesus Christ, just as the term "Son of God" emphasizes His deity. He is 100% human and 100% God.

Good point. I feel He used this term to stress that He is, indeed, "Come in the flesh," and not just in spirit. He was, indeed, all man and all God. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen!

 

[Dr. Bob]

In Greek philosophical thought, the "perfect" human (possessing all physical, mental, character, etc) is called the "son of man".

No coincidence that Luke, the educated Greek doctor, refers to Jesus by said title and that Jesus, in the extensive dialogues of Matthew calls HIMSELF "son of man" so often.

31 times in Matthew and 28 times in Luke

(BTW, found son of man 92 times in Ezekiel!!)

 

[prophecynut]

Also the name "Son of Man" is absent from the thirteen NT letters attributed to Paul. Furthermore, the son of man designation is virtually synonymous with Messiah, another name absent from Paul's letters. I wonder why?

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by prophecynut:
Also the name "Son of Man" is absent from the thirteen NT letters attributed to Paul. Furthermore, the son of man designation is virtually synonymous with Messiah, another name absent from Paul's letters. I wonder why?

I believe you see something, but have not been able to quite make out what it is. I believe it to be that Jesus the “Son of Man” came for His own to keep His promise to His nation Israel. This message at that time is being handled by the Apostolic church in Jerusalem.

Jesus Christ is not our Messiah, but our Lord. Paul in His thirteen letters is speaking to the Gentiles (and Jews, not of the “kingdom gospel” of the “kingdom is at hand”). Believing the Holy Spirit had Paul write Hebrews, we see Paul does speak specifically to His fellow countrymen about the “son of man”.

We today have not been promised that “kingdom that was at hand”. Paul of Eugene has furnished in His post prophecy concerning the “Son of man”, and what His purpose is. That purpose is to the House of Israel, and none other.

Paul speaks to heaven as the Apostle to the Gentile. We know nothing of the Body of Christ until Christ revealed this to Paul, and Paul informs we saved today are in the Body of Christ as we live, spiritually. Elsewhere on the Board, at this present time, is a subject about the “rapture”. This of course is we that will be raptured (dead or alive) to be with Christ in heaven, not looking for that “kingdom to come”. We are with Christ when that kingdom does come.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Originally posted by ituttut:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by prophecynut:
Also the name "Son of Man" is absent from the thirteen NT letters attributed to Paul. Furthermore, the son of man designation is virtually synonymous with Messiah, another name absent from Paul's letters. I wonder why?

I believe you see something, but have not been able to quite make out what it is. I believe it to be that Jesus the “Son of Man” came for His own to keep His promise to His nation Israel. This message at that time is being handled by the Apostolic church in Jerusalem.

Jesus Christ is not our Messiah, but our Lord. Paul in His thirteen letters is speaking to the Gentiles (and Jews, not of the “kingdom gospel” of the “kingdom is at hand”). Believing the Holy Spirit had Paul write Hebrews, we see Paul does speak specifically to His fellow countrymen about the “son of man”.

We today have not been promised that “kingdom that was at hand”. Paul of Eugene has furnished in His post prophecy concerning the “Son of man”, and what His purpose is. That purpose is to the House of Israel, and none other.

Paul speaks to heaven as the Apostle to the Gentile. We know nothing of the Body of Christ until Christ revealed this to Paul, and Paul informs we saved today are in the Body of Christ as we live, spiritually. Elsewhere on the Board, at this present time, is a subject about the “rapture”. This of course is we that will be raptured (dead or alive) to be with Christ in heaven, not looking for that “kingdom to come”. We are with Christ when that kingdom does come. </font>[/QUOTE]You got my head spinning and my eyes crossed with all these things you say, yo.
If Jesus is not our Messiah as well but simply our Lord, then He is not the Jews' Lord but simply their Messiah, I believe the rule applies both ways, right ?
If we today are saved by belonging to the body of Christ, then the Jews are saved by being born Jews ?

 

[prophecynut]

ituttut
Jesus Christ is not our Messiah, but our Lord.

That purpose is to the House of Israel, and none other.

This makes alot of sense, Paul does not instruct the Church on the coming of the son of man, only in a Jewish context are instructions given. Jesus is Messiah and Lord to Israel and Savior and Lord to the Church.

A popular misconception has the Church looking for its redemption at the end of Tribulation (Lk. 21:38), instead this passage refers to Israel's redemption (Luke 2:38). The Church is waiting for the redemption of their bodies (Rm. 8:23), Jews are looking for Israel's restoration on earth. The promises given to those in the body of Christ are spiritual and heavenly, those given to Israel are physical and earthly.

Jesus the “Son of Man” came for His own to keep His promise to His nation Israel.

We today have not been promised that “kingdom that was at hand”.

Jesus did not come the first time offering the physical kingdom; the above should be: "Son of Man" will come to keep His promise to His nation Israel." The kingdom first offered to Israel is the same kingdom the Church has inherited (Mt. 21:43) which is the spiritual kingdom of God that lives in the believer (Mt. 6:23; Lk. 11:35; 17:21).

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by pinoybaptist:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ituttut:

Originally posted by prophecynut:
[qb

You got my head spinning and my eyes crossed with all these things you say, yo.
If Jesus is not our Messiah as well but simply our Lord, then He is not the Jews' Lord but simply their Messiah, I believe the rule applies both ways, right ?
If we today are saved by belonging to the body of Christ, then the Jews are saved by being born Jews ? </font>

Good questions.

He is the Jew’s (when God recognized them as such) Messiah King. The house of Israel refused their King. The message before Damascus Road in Acts 9, and Cornelius in Acts 10 was that of John the Baptist of “the kingdom is at hand”. That kingdom will have a King.

That is not the message of The Cross, of believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, which today the Gentile, as well as the Jew are to believe. Israel will accept Messiah, but we in the Body of Christ will be with Him in heaven when this occurs.
Christian faith, ituttut

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by prophecynut:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> ituttut
Jesus Christ is not our Messiah, but our Lord.

That purpose is to the House of Israel, and none other.

This makes alot of sense, Paul does not instruct the Church on the coming of the son of man, only in a Jewish context are instructions given. Jesus is Messiah and Lord to Israel and Savior and Lord to the Church.

A popular misconception has the Church looking for its redemption at the end of Tribulation (Lk. 21:38), instead this passage refers to Israel's redemption (Luke 2:38). The Church is waiting for the redemption of their bodies (Rm. 8:23), Jews are looking for Israel's restoration on earth. The promises given to those in the body of Christ are spiritual and heavenly, those given to Israel are physical and earthly.

Your understanding is great.

Jesus the “Son of Man” came for His own to keep His promise to His nation Israel.

We today have not been promised that “kingdom that was at hand”.

Jesus did not come the first time offering the physical kingdom; the above should be: "Son of Man" will come to keep His promise to His nation Israel." The kingdom first offered to Israel is the same kingdom the Church has inherited (Mt. 21:43) which is the spiritual kingdom of God that lives in the believer (Mt. 6:23; Lk. 11:35; 17:21). </font>[/QUOTE]Have to disagree here as we divide His Word. Your references do not include what God had hidden from the beginning (I Corinthians 2:7; Romans 15:25). Jesus tells us He came the first time for His own which did not include the heathen. I see in the “great commission” that His Apostles are to first take this gospel of Matthew, Mark, and Luke to Israel, and then to the world. The “great commission” of the kingdom and its King is offered, but is not accepted by God’s nation Israel for whom He came for. This offer ended with the stoning of Steven, for Israel committing the “unpardonable sin” of refusing the Holy Ghost.

Jesus says God the Father gave to him a kingdom. Jesus then also tells us He gives to His earthly Apostles a kingdom of their own. I myself cannot justify my being in that kingdom of inheriting the earth for I am of the “grace commission”, and not the “great commission” of having to “repent and be water baptized for the remission of my sins". I read Paul that we are in the kingdom, being in the Body of Christ of whom we will worship, adore and serve forever, but not in the kingdom that is reserved for the Jew.

Could I be wrong? Not if I believe what He has shown me. Could you be wrong? Not if you believe what He has shown you. We both without a doubt are in His Body, and will be with Him in His kingdom as those of the kingdoms of the earth come to worship Him. Christian faith, ituttut

 

[Ransom]

ituttut said:

Jesus Christ is not our Messiah, but our Lord.

So why do you call him "Christ," the Greek equivalent of "Messiah"?

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by Ransom:
ituttut said:

Jesus Christ is not our Messiah, but our Lord.

So why do you call him "Christ," the Greek equivalent of "Messiah"?

I find that the Messiah is Christ as you say. But until the birth of Jesus this name of Jesus the Christ was not known. Until the name of this man, the savior of the world has come and is known by His name, no one can be saved. A King cannot save, but the name of Jesus can. If as you say Messiah equates to Christ, can Messiah save you? His name will be called Jesus according to Luke 1:31; 2:21, and Jesus is the Christ.

I must contend that the gospel today is Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and we will be saved, not to believe on Messiah with no proper name to identify the Word of God that became flesh.

 

[BWSmith]

Any time Mark's gospel refers to Jesus as the "Son of Man", it means that the reader needs to think about the book of Daniel (especially Dan 6 & 7) and think about the implications for what Jesus is doing at that point in the gospel.

The first century readers of the book of Daniel observed that the famous story of Daniel and the Lions' Den and the not-so-famous vision of the Son of Man are effectively the same story. In the first story, Daniel is Israel, the courtiers are the gentile nations, and Darius represents the divine judge who vindicates Daniel, raises him up from his "tomb" and throws the enemies in instead. In the second, the "one like a son of man" is Israel, the beasts out of the sea are his tormenters, and the Ancient of Days is God, who destroys the beasts and ascends the one like a son of man to share His divine throne.

Therein is the shock and scandal of the title "son of man". Jesus is the new "Daniel" and the new "son of man", who is representing the true Israel, and is thrown into the tomb by the "beasts", which ironically are the Pharisees, Sadducees, and scribes. In the end, God raises Jesus from the dead and ascends Him to share the throne of God, while Jerusalem is destroyed in 70 AD.

Hence, all references to the "son of man" in Mark are implicitly a reference to Jesus' suffering and death, sleeping on the sabbath, being raised, and the eventual destruction of Jerusalem.

Comments?