"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?

[polonius]

While some try to read something more into this phrase, a "son of man" is just that.

And every man is "a son of man."

[Checkpoint]

While some try to read something more into this phrase, a "son of man" is just that.

And every man is "a son of man."

Jesus did not call himself "a son of man", but "the son of man".

[brianbbs67]

The Greek has "ton" before son of man. To indicate The Son, like ton Theos in John 1:1.

[polonius]

While some try to read something more into this phrase, a "son of man" is just that.

And every man is "a son of man."

Jesus did not call himself "a son of man", but "the son of man".

RESPONSE:

We don't really know how Jesus referred to himself but if singular "the son of God (among many sons of God would be appropriate.

Jesus died in 33 AD the first recording of his life were written between 70 and 95 AD. Who would rmember what hed called himself?

[polonius]

While some try to read something more into this phrase, a "son of man" is just that.

And every man is "a son of man."

Jesus did not call himself "a son of man", but "the son of man".

RESPONSE:

We don't really know how Jesus referred to himself but if singular "the son of God (among many sons of God would be appropriate or the " the son of man" would b appropriate

Jesus died in 33 AD the first recording of his life were written between 70 and 95 AD. by non-witnesses. Who would know what he called himself?

“In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deuteronomy 14:50); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Exodus 4:22 sq.).�

[Checkpoint]

While some try to read something more into this phrase, a "son of man" is just that.

And every man is "a son of man."

Jesus did not call himself "a son of man", but "the son of man".

RESPONSE:

We don't really know how Jesus referred to himself but if singular "the son of God (among many sons of God would be appropriate.

Jesus died in 33 AD the first recording of his life were written between 70 and 95 AD. Who would rmember what hed called himself?

We do not really know many things, including those in your post.

Any eye-witness would remember what he called himself in the third person, including his many disciples.

Luke 1:1-4; 2 Peter 1:12-18.

[Revelations won]

In post #12 Checkpoint brought out a very good point when he illustrated that when Christ referred to himself as "the Son of man".

When Christ made this singular Declaration would it perhaps refer to "Man of Holiness" meaning God the Father?

For he is truly the "only begotten in the flesh" by the Father.

Think about that one.

Kind regards,
RW

[PinSeeker]

There is a distinction to make. Clearly, "son of man" is used in a general sense and refers to all of humanity in many places, but is used quite differently in other places. The main difference is that in one sense (the latter of the previous sentence), "son of man" is part of an apocalyptic context, whereas in another (the former in the previous sentence) it is not. This is the important distinction.

Jesus, in referring to Himself as the Son of Man, is referring to Daniel's prophecy, specifically what we read in chapter 7. The first, decisive judgment occurs at the appearance of the enigmatic “son of man,” to whom the Ancient of Days delivers an everlasting kingdom (vv. 13–14).

Some commentators have identified this figure with the nation of Israel itself, as the “people of the saints of the Most High” are also given an everlasting kingdom in Daniel 7 (v. 27). Commentators with a dispensational view of Scripture largely say the same thing. But this cannot be the case except, perhaps, by way of representation.

So, since the son of man in this passage is a singular entity, he could represent Israel but Israel itself cannot be the son of man. We see this not only in that the son of man is one individual but because the son of man is plainly divine; He rides on the clouds of heaven, and only God uses the clouds as a chariot (Ps. 104:3). "On the clouds" means that He leads the people, protects them and sits in judgment; we see this most clearly in the Exodus, where God leads His people by a pillar of cloud during the day and a pillar of fire (which also signifies leading, protecting, and judging) at night. This son of man in Daniel 7 is the Lord Himself, yet also distinct from the Ancient of Days, and Daniel foresaw that at the time of the fourth kingdom, this son of man would secure a decisive defeat over the enemies of the people of God.

Now, there is an immediate fulfillment; clues in the passage itself indicate that the vision speaks of events that would occur within several generations of Daniel’s lifetime and others that would occur long afterward. But it also foresees the coming of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and divine Son of Man in His ascension and session at the Father’s right hand. In His death, resurrection, and ascension, He has won the decisive battle against evil, and reigns over all things even if His enemies have not yet given up the fight.

We are His people, and we benefit from His reign and His protection in ways that we can see and in ways that we will not know about until we are in glory. And we can't know, of course, because we are not specifically told, but I feel sure this is one of the things Jesus spoke of to the two men Jesus encountered on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24, when, beginning with Moses and all the Prophets -- the whole of what today we refer to as the Old Testament -- He interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Grace and peace to all.