"Son of Man"

[Elijah John]

What does the term "Son of Man" mean?

And also, who is the Son of Man?

Some historical Jesus scholars think Jesus was referring to someone else instead of himself. The agent of the apocalypse alluded to in Daniel perhaps?

What do you think?

[Difflugia]

What does the term "Son of Man" mean?

And also, who is the Son of Man?

Some historical Jesus scholars think Jesus was referring to someone else instead of himself. The agent of the apocalypse alluded to in Daniel perhaps?

What do you think?

It looks like a few conflated concepts.

First, Mark's Jesus unambiguously uses "sons of men" to just mean people at least once:

Truly I tell you, "All sins shall be forgiven of the sons of men including their blasphemies, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness and is guilty of an eternal sin..." (Mk 3:28-29)

The "foxes have holes" saying from Matthew and Luke (Q?) just sounds like a wise saying from somewhere that was attributed to Jesus because it includes the phrase "son of man." It works best if "son of man" just means "a human being:"

And Jesus said to him, "The foxes have holes and the birds of the sky have nests, but the son of man has nowhere to lay his head." (Mt 8:20)

Several of the sayings originating in Mark sound (to me, anyway) like they belong to a religious reformation that would abolish portions of the Jewish law. In context, Mark intends them to refer to Jesus specifically, but my conjecture is that they originally meant "son of man" to mean any normal person. In fact, to me, they sound a bit reminiscent of Paul's sin theology, paraphrased as whatever one does in faith is holy, but anything done without the assurance of faith is sin (Ro 14:22-23).

...so that you may know that the son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins... (Mk 2:10)

And he said to them, "The sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath, so that the son of man is lord even of the sabbath." (Mk 2:27)

Most uses of "Son of Man" mean a single, particular figure, though, and I think you're right that it's the character from Daniel. I think Mark intends that character to be Jesus, but you're also right that most of the sayings about the Son of Man by Jesus are in the third person in a way that they could refer to someone else and if these sayings were original to Jesus, he may himself have been preaching about a coming apocalyptic figure.

My speculation is that "one like a son of man" from Daniel became "the Son of Man" in the apocalypticism of late Second Temple Judaim. Sayings about this "Son of Man" became associated with Jesus, first as sayings by him, then as sayings about him. Finally, a number of aphorisms about foxes, birds, and blasphemy that incidentally contained the phrase "son of man" got stuck to Jesus in a kind of guilt by association.

[tam]

Peace to you,

What does the term "Son of Man" mean?

And also, who is the Son of Man?

Some historical Jesus scholars think Jesus was referring to someone else instead of himself. The agent of the apocalypse alluded to in Daniel perhaps?

What do you think?

Other than the instance (or two) where Christ referred to the 'sons of men' as men (humans - which Christ became human for a little while, see Hebrews 2:14), Son of Man refers to Himself:


Mark 2:10-12 (see also Matt 9:4-8 and Luke 5:24)

“Which is easier: to say to a paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, pick up your mat, and walk’? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...� He said to the paralytic, “I tell you, get up, pick up your mat, and go home.� And immediately the man got up, picked up his mat, and walked out in front of them all."



Mark 8:1

And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.


This is describing all the things that were to happen (and that did happen) to Christ.



Matt 8:20 The verse about the Son of Man having no place to lay His head is a reference to Christ having no place to lay His head. Those who wanted to follow Him should know that (and the same might happen to them: having no home; being put out of their homes; being spoken falsely about; being shunned by family members and friends; etc.)



Daniel 7

As for Daniel and his vision of the Son of Man, which Christ referred to when He said that the priests (and others) would see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven... this is referring to no one other than Christ. I'm not sure why you called this vision apocalyptic (if it is what you were referring to), but Christ is the One who is given all authority in heaven and on earth (except over His Father of course). Christ is the King of God's Kingdom.

“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.
“And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed.


Ancient of Days is referring to God (the Most Holy One), and Christ is the One like a Son of Man, being presented before God and being given the Kingdom (a Kingdom that will never be destroyed).


Matt 16:13-17

Christ clearly refers to Himself as the Son of Man:

When [Jesus] came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?�

They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.�

“But what about you?� he asked. “Who do you say I am?�

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.�

[Jesus] replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.






Peace again to you!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[WeSee]

What does the term "Son of Man" mean?

And also, who is the Son of Man?

Some historical Jesus scholars think Jesus was referring to someone else instead of himself. The agent of the apocalypse alluded to in Daniel perhaps?

What do you think?

"Son of Man" refers to human beings.

At times Jesus uses the term to refer to human beings. At times Jesus also uses the term to refer to Himself.

Following is an example of where Jesus uses the term to refer to human beings, yet many seem to believe that He is referring only to Himself:

John 3
13“No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. 14“As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;

[Eloi]

"Sons of men/man/Adam" is a way that Scripture refers to humans as a race, because there are inhabitants in the heavens as well but they are not of our type. Sometimes other words are used that can be translated as "mortal men".

In the singular, "Son of man" refers to Jesus, for having been the first to belong to this race once and made a subsequent presentation in heaven. Heavenly creatures now see him like that, somehow, like a representative of humans ... that is peculiar in the heavenly regions. The Bible says Jesus have become the second Adam, as a new kind of man. He even becomes the father of perfected humans after the Millennium and humanity will no longer be considered as "sons of Adam" who inherited imperfection from him.

[Difflugia]

In the singular, "Son of man" refers to Jesus, for having been the first to belong to this race once and made a subsequent presentation in heaven.

This can't be true across the board because Yahweh calls Ezekiel "son of man" starting with Ezekiel 2:1.

[Eloi]

[Replying to Difflugia]
Right ... in the common sense, not as a title.

[Difflugia]

Right ... in the common sense, not as a title.

Ezekiel 2:1:

And He said to me, "Son of man, stand on your feet, and I will speak with you."

How do you distinguish that from a title? For what it's worth, I agree with you that Jesus refers to himself as "Son of Man" in a way that doesn't just mean a person, but there's nothing grammatical (aside from perspective; Yahweh refers to Ezekiel in the second person, Jesus refers to himself in the third) that marks any difference.

[Eloi]

I think this is not too difficult to understand.

"Sons of men/man/Adam" is a way that Scripture refers to humans as a race, because there are inhabitants in the heavens as well but they are not of our type. Sometimes other words are used that can be translated as "mortal men".

In the singular, "Son of man" refers to Jesus, for having been the first to belong to this race once and made a subsequent presentation in heaven. Heavenly creatures now see him like that, somehow, like a representative of humans ... that is peculiar in the heavenly regions. The Bible says Jesus have become the second Adam, as a new kind of man. He even becomes the father of perfected humans after the Millennium and humanity will no longer be considered as "sons of Adam" who inherited imperfection from him.

Actuallly, there are "daughters of men" too

Gen. 6:1 Now when men started to grow in number on the surface of the ground and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of the true God began to notice that the daughters of men (daughters of Adam) were beautiful. So they began taking as wives all whom they chose.

[Difflugia]

I think this is not too difficult to understand.

Then you should be able to explain how to tell the difference between God calling Ezekiel "son of man" and Jesus calling himself "the son of man."

Actuallly, there are "daughters of men" too

Gen. 6:1 Now when men started to grow in number on the surface of the ground and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of the true God began to notice that the daughters of men (daughters of Adam) were beautiful. So they began taking as wives all whom they chose.

Male gods ("sons of the gods") had children with human women ("daughters of men"). The children were mighty heroes.

I hadn't noticed that the NWT translates בְנֵי־הָֽ�ֱלֹהִי�֙ ("sons of the gods") as "sons of the true God." That's interesting.

A translator who liberally paraphrases the Bible according to how he interprets the overall idea could distort the meaning of the text. How so? The translator may erroneously insert his opinion of what the original text means or may omit important details contained in the original text. So while paraphrases of the Bible may be easy to read, their very freeness at times may prevent the reader from getting the true message of the text.